Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Roses on October 26, 2019, 02:15:13 PM
-
I am thinking of a couple of forums on which I used to post, when I say I have been sickened by sick bigots who use the Bible to defend their nastiness. Extremist Christians often condemn homosexuality and want it made illegal. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and as I have pointed out often enough it is possible Jesus was gay as he is said to have had a specific disciple whom he loved, who was presumably a male.
I came across an evil white supremist 'Christian' claiming that Jesus was white, and not of middle eastern appearance as he would have been. His racist comments were disgusting and then some. >:(
Then there are those Christians who condemn women who are pregnant without a wedding ring on their finger, dismissing the fact Mary was supposed to have been pregnant with Jesus before they were wed. They bang on about how terrible sex before marriage is supposed to be, totally forgetting that quite a number of male Biblical characters were having it off with women other than their wives, like that guy Abraham, and Solomon supposedly had loads of concubines.
Many of the Biblical characters behaved badly, including the god featured there, but some people look upon them as heroes, WHY?
-
No idea. I suppose one could come across a very charismatic speaker and 'feel' profoundly changed. I'm not making excuses LR, just pondering like yourself.
I largely agree with the content of your post.
-
No idea. I suppose one could come across a very charismatic speaker and 'feel' profoundly changed. I'm not making excuses LR, just pondering like yourself.
I largely agree with the content of your post.
So many people fail to question what they are being told by preachers. I thank my lucky stars that I had the sense to question the garbage, which was spouted in the pulpit of the pentecostal church we attended when I was a kid. The sermons would often last nearly a couple of hours! :o
-
Yes we have to question everything, also try to see different points of view. We'll never have all the answers but it's a great 'journey' (I know,dreadful word).
-
Yes we have to question everything, also try to see different points of view. We'll never have all the answers but it's a great 'journey' (I know,dreadful word).
As I have mentioned many times our three daughters are Christians, but moderate in their views, thank goodness. Our Anglican Priest daughter, doesn't preach she shares her views with the congregation. Her talks are very memorable in a good way, and often talked about by the church members for a very long time. :D
-
That does sound fine.
-
Er....presumasbly your daughter conducts worship and stands in the pulpit expounding her interpretation of Scriptures? That's preaching. You seem to equate the term with some form of hellfire and damnation tub thumping. While that, too, is preaching, there are as many forms of preaching as there are preachers. When I expound the Scriptures, I hope I get my points over with humour, and with a sense of hope - but with a firm conviction based on the faith I try to share.
-
Er....presumasbly your daughter conducts worship and stands in the pulpit expounding her interpretation of Scriptures? That's preaching. You seem to equate the term with some form of hellfire and damnation tub thumping. While that, too, is preaching, there are as many forms of preaching as there are preachers. When I expound the Scriptures, I hope I get my points over with humour, and with a sense of hope - but with a firm conviction based on the faith I try to share.
She doesn't preach in the way fundies do, her sermons are fun and very memorable. People are still talking about the time one Easter some years ago, she broke a raw egg over a man's head (with his permission) to get her point across.
-
She doesn't preach in the way fundies do, her sermons are fun and very memorable. People are still talking about the time one Easter some years ago, she broke a raw egg over a man's head (with his permission) to get her point across.
Again, you use the term 'fundies'.
I'd prefer 'extremists'; most Christians I know accept the fundamentals of the faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed and expanded in the Nicean.
-
Again, you use the term 'fundies'.
I'd prefer 'extremists'; most Christians I know accept the fundamentals of the faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed and expanded in the Nicean.
Fundamentalists tend to believe the Bible to be literally true, which is pretty extreme in my opinion.
-
Fundamentalists tend to believe the Bible to be literally true, which is pretty extreme in my opinion.
No, not all of us - not even most of us.
You might be surprised to learn that All Christians accept Scripture as 'God-breathed' and most recognise that not all of it is meant as history.
-
No, not all of us - not even most of us.
You might be surprised to learn that All Christians accept Scripture as 'God-breathed' and most recognise that not all of it is meant as history.
If god was responsible for the nastiness in that book, it doesn't say anything good about the god character.
-
If god was responsible for the nastiness in that book, it doesn't say anything good about the god character.
Would you prefer us a race of automata?
Man has used religion as an excuse for wars which are not, essentially, religious, but an attempt at land or power grab.
Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His.
-
Would you prefer us a race of automata?
Man has used religion as an excuse for wars which are not, essentially, religious, but an attempt at land or power grab.
Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His.
Jesus was far from perfect, no sort of god, imo. His was killed because he got up the noses of the Jewish hierarchy, not to save humanity, if it needed saving from anything.
-
Jesus was far from perfect, no sort of god, imo. His was killed because he got up the noses of the Jewish hierarchy, not to save humanity, if it needed saving from anything.
Define 'perfect'.
By what standard do you measure perfection?
-
Define 'perfect'.
By what standard do you measure perfection?
Perfection is someone without faults, although a person like that would be a pain in the neck, imo ;D. Jesus had plenty of imperfections just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his sayings and actions.
-
Perfection is someone without faults, although a person like that would be a pain in the neck, imo ;D. Jesus had plenty of imperfections just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his sayings and actions.
By what standard do you measure Jesus' 'imperfections'?
-
By what standard do you measure Jesus' 'imperfections'?
By my own.
-
Perfection is someone without faults, although a person like that would be a pain in the neck, imo
No they wouldn't. Being a pain in the neck is a fault. If Jesus was without faults, you'd think he was great, in spite of also being perfect.
wow. Fairground Attraction, anyone?
Jesus had plenty of imperfections just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his sayings and actions.
That's true. Unless fig trees deserve to be zapped.
-
By what standard do you measure Jesus' 'imperfections'?
Hi,
Do you think Christians do think of Jesus as being perfect* in some way? Or is that a straw man? If it's not a straw man, what is you're definition of perfection?
*dammit, go away Fairground Attraction.
-
Hi,
Do you think Christians do think of Jesus as being perfect* in some way? Or is that a straw man? If it's not a straw man, what is you're definition of perfection?
*dammit, go away Fairground Attraction.
I was trying to check the standards LR used to measure perfection....she stated 'my own'.
The standard Christian response is that Christ was without sin, obedient to His father.
-
I was trying to check the standards LR used to measure perfection
I understand that. I wasn't asking about LR's standards, I was asking about yours.
The standard Christian response is that Christ was without sin, obedient to His father.
OK fine. Is that your definition of perfection, or are you saying "Christ wasn't perfect but he was without sin, obedient to His father"?
The reason I ask is because, Christian theology says that Christ is God and sin (this is my interpretation of the word) is doing things God doesn't want you to do, so saying Christ is without sin is essentially meaningless.
-
No, not all of us - not even most of us.
You might be surprised to learn that All Christians accept Scripture as 'God-breathed' and most recognise that not all of it is meant as history.
How do you distinguish which parts are not to be taken literally, and do all Christians agree?
If not why
-
How do you distinguish which parts are not to be taken literally, and do all Christians agree?
If not why
How do I descern?
Well, I'd use prayer, asking for the Spirit ti lead me....
....and use the God-given evidence of history and archaeology as a guide to the Old Testament, judging which is, and which is not, history.
As to whether all Christians agree?
All mainstreajm Christians - Orthodox through Evangelical - accept Scripture.
We don't all interpret it in the same way.
-
I was trying to check the standards LR used to measure perfection....she stated 'my own'.
The standard Christian response is that Christ was without sin, obedient to His father.
If god was the father of Jesus, being obedient to that evil entity would be a very grave fault. :o
-
If god was the father of Jesus, being obedient to that evil entity would be a very grave fault. :o
Then I'm trying to have a very great fauklt.
Alternatively, I'm trying to follow the God who is Love personified in Christ.
-
Then I'm trying to have a very great fauklt.
Alternatively, I'm trying to follow the God who is Love personified in Christ.
What is loving about the god character? Jesus wasn't that loving, imo.
-
What is loving about the god character? Jesus wasn't that loving, imo.
Define 'love'.
-
Define 'love'.
My definition of love is liking someone very much and trying to help them out, that certainly doesn't apply to the evil Biblical god character.
-
My definition of love is liking someone very much and trying to help them out, that certainly doesn't apply to the evil Biblical god character.
That's a narrow definition.
Is discipline love?
Forgiveness?
Merscy?
Correction?
Christians believe God is more than some kind of holy do gooder.
-
That's a narrow definition.
Is discipline love?
Forgiveness?
Merscy?
Correction?
Christians believe God is more than some kind of holy do gooder.
The problems start when you try to decide where the 'god character' starts to behave in accordance with your above criteria. I'd agree that God is not always depicted in the Bible quite as black as LR wants to paint him. Nonetheless, there are scenarios where God's response to what he does not like in humans is to utterly destroy them, not discipline them. There are scenarios where he is seen to approve of cheap deception (Jacob and Esau), or fulfilling a curse from Elisha by having children torn to pieces by bears, or approving the blood sacrifice of a man's daughter (Jephtha).
The New Testament is sometimes worse, and it requires the most lenient methods of explaining away Hades and Gehenna to make it say otherwise, let alone such texts as "the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever" (Revelation). Not to mention the sadistic rant of St Paul in the first chapter of Romans.
However, I'll admit that these have to balanced against the texts alluding to God's mercy in e.g. Micah and in many places of the gospels.
How do you discriminate to tell exactly what God is really like?
-
That's a narrow definition.
Is discipline love?
Forgiveness?
Merscy?
Correction?
Christians believe God is more than some kind of holy do gooder.
If God is perfectly just then he cannot be merciful.
-
Romans 5:8.
The supreme demonstration of God's love.
Any response is our affair.
-
Romans 5:8.
The supreme demonstration of God's love.
Any response is our affair.
He advocates slavery which is not very loving.
-
Romans 5:8.
The supreme demonstration of God's love.
Any response is our affair.
Even if that verse had any credibility, what is loving about getting its 'son' killed in order to save humans from god's screw up when it supposedly created human nature?
-
He advocates slavery which is not very loving.
That's questionable. On a couple of occasions he told the Israelites make slaves of their enemies but this is merciful compared to the wholesale slaughter he usually advocated. He also regulated slave ownership so that you couldn't - for example - beat your slave to the point that he or she died within the week.
He also told people to execute homosexuals and adulterers and people who go shopping on a Saturday. How loving do you want God to be?
-
Romans 5:8.
The supreme demonstration of God's love.
Any response is our affair.
Accepting this requires taking on the full mystification of the Atonement doctrine, which is made even more confusing within the context of Trinitarian theology.
Romans 5:9 gives the full context, though, and it doesn't make for pleasant reading:
Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
It seems that even this 'love' comes with a threat: "Do this, or else..."
Which is also couched in nonsensical theology: God sends his Son, who in some sense is also God, to take the burden of our 'sin', which 'sacrifice' we must accept, or the same 'God' will give us what-for. Why not just forgive people straight off, if they sincerely repent? God's peculiar antics of breaking up the Trinity, ('kenosis') and coming down to earth seem a very strange performance to be getting involved in. Perhaps all this meant something to St Paul, when he thought it up, but it amazes me that anyone should find some deep truth in it, except of a metaphorical kind.
However, all such matters have been done to death here before, and no doubt no one is interested in receiving attempted explanations. The complexities of the Atonement doctrine seem as various as the number of people who try to explain it.
"God is not a God of confusion". hmmm...
-
If God is perfectly just then he cannot be merciful.
God is not perfectly just. The central event of Christianity is a setting-aside of justice in the interest of mercy.
-
God is not perfectly just. The central event of Christianity is a setting-aside of justice in the interest of mercy.
The Biblical god character and mercy are an oxymoron.
-
The Biblical god character and mercy are an oxymoron.
Give it a break! You are seriously boring.
-
Give it a break! You are seriously boring.
If you haven't any constructive comment, which most of the time you haven't, don't bother to respond to a post.
-
Give it a break! You are seriously boring.
but true ! 😡
-
What is merciful about the Biblical god character, I have not been given a sensible answer?
-
What is merciful about the Biblical god character, I have not been given a sensible answer?
You still keep referring to the 'god character' as if the words in the Bible were consistent, and indeed written by people who were being used as puppets by an evil deity, like some fundamentalist in reverse.
Now, I'm the first to agree with you that a lot of the images of God's actions in the Bible appear quite diabolical. But others do not. All these differing ideas were written by very different people over a very long period of time. To suggest they were all painting the same picture is no way to approach any set of written texts - whatever their provenance. I consider these writings to be merely works of literature, and I presume that that is really what you consider them to be (unless you actually do believe they were inspired by an evil deity).
Now, I suppose that most believers (even quite liberal ones) would think that my approach falls way short of the mark, but in the interest of fairness and simple objectivity, I feel obliged to state it (for the Nth time - which doesn't quite match your reiterated complaints about 'god' which surely number N to the power N).
Bernard Shaw gave a witty and informative account of how the ideas of God change in the Bible "The Adventures of the Black Girl in her search for God". Judging from your posts, you haven't read it. It might clarify a few things if you did so.
However - let's let a text from the Bible have the last word. It's from the first chapter of Isaiah:
[15] When you spread forth your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
[16] Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
[17] learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow.
[18] "Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
Now tell me - what do find so horrible about all that?
-
You still keep referring to the 'god character' as if the words in the Bible were consistent, and indeed written by people who were being used as puppets by an evil deity, like some fundamentalist in reverse.
Now, I'm the first to agree with you that a lot of the images of God's actions in the Bible appear quite diabolical. But others do not. All these differing ideas were written by very different people over a very long period of time. To suggest they were all painting the same picture is no way to approach any set of written texts - whatever their provenance. I consider these writings to be merely works of literature, and I presume that that is really what you consider them to be (unless you actually do believe they were inspired by an evil deity).
Now, I suppose that most believers (even quite liberal ones) would think that my approach falls way short of the mark, but in the interest of fairness and simple objectivity, I feel obliged to state it (for the Nth time - which doesn't quite match your reiterated complaints about 'god' which surely number N to the power N).
Bernard Shaw gave a witty and informative account of how the ideas of God change in the Bible "The Adventures of the Black Girl in her search for God". Judging from your posts, you haven't read it. It might clarify a few things if you did so.
However - let's let a text from the Bible have the last word. It's from the first chapter of Isaiah:
Now tell me - what do find so horrible about all that?
If the god character exists, it has no right to preach, as it is entirely evil.
-
Now, I'm the first to agree with you that a lot of the images of God's actions in the Bible appear quite diabolical. But others do not.
Can you give some examples from the Bible of God doing things that were not bad excluding any stuff that Jesus did and any stuff that God did to mitigate bad things he had previously done?
This is a serious challenge. In general, I agree with your point that there is no "God character": the Bible was written by many people, all with different ideas of the character of God, but I can't think of any unimpeachably good things that any of these God characters did.
-
If the god character exists, it has no right to preach, as it is entirely evil.
For someone who doesn't believe in God, you spend a hell of a lot of time condemning God. You really need to get over yourself.
-
Can you give some examples from the Bible of God doing things that were not bad excluding any stuff that Jesus did and any stuff that God did to mitigate bad things he had previously done?
This is a serious challenge. In general, I agree with your point that there is no "God character": the Bible was written by many people, all with different ideas of the character of God, but I can't think of any unimpeachably good things that any of these God characters did.
1 Kings 9:3-9
When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he (Elijah) left his servant there, 4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.
7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God. 9 There he went into a cave and spent the night.
.......
God made sure Elijah ate, drank and rested so he could move on with confidence. That was very helpful.
-
For someone who doesn't believe in God, you spend a hell of a lot of time condemning God. You really need to get over yourself.
You obviously find my posts interesting as it is rare for you not to reply to them. ;D
-
1 Kings 9:3-9
When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he (Elijah) left his servant there, 4 while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” 5 Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep.
All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” 6 He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again.
7 The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” 8 So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God. 9 There he went into a cave and spent the night.
.......
God made sure Elijah ate, drank and rested so he could move on with confidence. That was very helpful.
Why was he on the journey at all?
-
I have joined an American 'Christian' forum more out of horrific fascination than anything else. :o Many of the posters are the most extreme fundies I have ever come across. Some were advocating that heretics should be burned at the stake, they reckoned god would be up for that. :o Some see nothing wrong in being white supremacist. >:(
I doubt it will be long before I am banned as I am likely to lose my rag completely.
-
If you find it so upsetting, don't be involved. We know enough from reading, the media and television documentaries to make us feel incensed, there's no point piling it on.
I'd look at threads on a forum such as you described, occasionally, but wouldn't post. Whatever floats your boat.
Jeremy - difficulties (putting it mildly) with Jezebel. It's mentioned briefly here:-
https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/jezebel##targetText=Jezebel%20was%20a%20Phoenician%20princess%20in%20the%209th%20century%20who,prophet%20Elijah%20despised%20such%20actions.
(Fascinating - I would read a novel based on Jezebel and see anything about her on TV.)
-
Can you give some examples from the Bible of God doing things that were not bad excluding any stuff that Jesus did and any stuff that God did to mitigate bad things he had previously done?
This is a serious challenge. In general, I agree with your point that there is no "God character": the Bible was written by many people, all with different ideas of the character of God, but I can't think of any unimpeachably good things that any of these God characters did.
This is a difficult one, especially for a non-believer to attempt. It's made all the more difficult because we need to sift the stuff which is obviously myth from the accounts which we know have some historical accuracy, and even the events which have some historical evidence have a fair deal of bias in favour of the righteousness of the Jews compared with other peoples.
I'd have to agree that the writers of the earlier part of the Bible seemed to think that they could depict God acting in all kinds of revolting ways if it seemed to further the prospering of his 'chosen people' (Numbers 31 and the whole of Joshua come to mind).
I suppose you could make out a case that the Egyptians got what was coming to them when they refused to allow the Jewish people to go free after they had been enslaved for so long.
But all that belongs to the realm of myth, and almost certainly none of it has any historical truth. Two passages which appear to be based on fact come to mind, however. The first is referred to in the Book of Isaiah, and deals with the liberation of the Jews from the Babylonian exile, where God inspires King Cyrus (whom Isaiah refers to as God's Messiah) to bring about the liberation of the Jews from exile. That would certainly have been a good thing for the Jews which God was supposed to have done, and it didn't involve bloodshed (presumably they were exiled in the first place because they didn't 'keep God's commandments' - that was the usual explanation for the Jews' misfortunes, an explanation which rings just a bit hollow).
The second one refers to the Siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in the reign of Jewish king Hezekiah - the story is also told on an Assyrian monolyth. The siege was certainly lifted before all the Jews starved to death. The Bible says this was due to the intervention of an angel whom God sent; the Assyrian account says Hezekiah payed off a huge tribute in gold and jewels. Naturally enough this was followed by wholesale slaughter of the Assyrians, which may or may not have happened, but being starved to death is not likely to make a large population particularly compassionate towards their enemies.
There is one example from biblical myth which indicates God's concern for people beyond his Jewish 'chosen', and that is in the Book of Jonah. God is very concerned that he might not be able to contain his anger if Jonah doesn't go and preach to the people of Nineveh and tell them how they should be behaving. No doubt this was because God was very vexed about a lot of buggery and general sexual promiscuity going on, but may be also because the Ninevites were still performing child sacrifice which we would certainly think was a quite a reasonable phenomenon to get steamed up about (the Jews had at least been more or less weaned away from this vile practice, unlike many middle-eastern peoples). The story also illustrates the idea which becomes more evident in some parts of the Old Testament that God is concerned with all the nations of the world, and that the Jews have a special part to play in the unfolding of this master-plan.
Given the huge role Jews have played (despite their historical sufferings) in the amelioration of human life in so many different ways, it seems to me that viewing their God in a completely negative sense can't be telling the whole story.
-
If you find it so upsetting, don't be involved. We know enough from reading, the media and television documentaries to make us feel incensed, there's no point piling it on.
I'd look at threads on a forum such as you described, occasionally, but wouldn't post. Whatever floats your boat.
Jeremy - difficulties (putting it mildly) with Jezebel. It's mentioned briefly here:-
https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/jezebel##targetText=Jezebel%20was%20a%20Phoenician%20princess%20in%20the%209th%20century%20who,prophet%20Elijah%20despised%20such%20actions.
(Fascinating - I would read a novel based on Jezebel and see anything about her on TV.)
I didn't say I found it upsetting, 'horrific fascination' was the term I used.
Of all the very many forums I have posted on over the years I can honestly say R&E is the very best. :)
-
That's good.
(I'm going to find myself an American extreme Christian forum to have a sly gander.)
-
##52 The actual history here is complex, and, frankly, hard to interpret. Certainly Israel/Judah got off lightly from old Cyrus's machinations. We'd put that down to God's work, of course - but frankly, I don't know why that area was spared in the conquest of the near east. That some residual Jewish population remained whilst the leaders and high ranking classes were carried off by the Assyrians intro Babylon is obvious; for starters, the re-unified Egyptian state recruited Jewish mercenaries to patrol their southern borders. These soldiers (and presumably, their families) settled around the Nile and built a temple - a Jewish Temple to the Lord, with sacrificial alters - on the island of Abu (Elephantine). When the AssyrioBabylonian dynasty collapsed and the Persians became the superpower, the reason for promoting Israel and prospering it is unknown; certainly evidence of construction projects all over the land from this period are easily found, and there seems to have been a 'velvet glove' approach from the first few Persian kings. Their treatment of Egypt was entirely different; the land was divided into five districts controlled by Persian officials, the Egyptian military disbanded, and temple incomes siphoned off to Persepolis. The Persian kings - who never actually set foot in Egypt - formed the twenty seventh dynasty, had themselves depicted as Pharaohs, with full Egyptian Pharonic titles, and governed as absentee landlords. Cmbyses DID lose an army - probably a resurgence of native resistance, but, on the whole, the Persians marked the end of the last truly Egyptian state. There were a few efforts to revive it until Alexander put it out of its misery in 333 BC.
-
I have joined an American 'Christian' forum more out of horrific fascination than anything else. :o Many of the posters are the most extreme fundies I have ever come across. Some were advocating that heretics should be burned at the stake, they reckoned god would be up for that. :o Some see nothing wrong in being white supremacist. >:(
I doubt it will be long before I am banned as I am likely to lose my rag completely.
Silly girl. Mind you, I've done the same - joined ultra-fundie, hair-raisingly right-wing forums and got banned in short order. Have fun!
-
Silly girl. Mind you, I've done the same - joined ultra-fundie, hair-raisingly right-wing forums and got banned in short order. Have fun!
I agree I am silly. thank you for calling me a girl, it makes a change from 'senile old bat' my Baby Sister's favourite name for her eldest sister. ;D
-
##52 The actual history here is complex, and, frankly, hard to interpret. Certainly Israel/Judah got off lightly from old Cyrus's machinations. We'd put that down to God's work, of course - but frankly, I don't know why that area was spared in the conquest of the near east. That some residual Jewish population remained whilst the leaders and high ranking classes were carried off by the Assyrians intro Babylon is obvious; for starters, the re-unified Egyptian state recruited Jewish mercenaries to patrol their southern borders. These soldiers (and presumably, their families) settled around the Nile and built a temple - a Jewish Temple to the Lord, with sacrificial alters - on the island of Abu (Elephantine). When the AssyrioBabylonian dynasty collapsed and the Persians became the superpower, the reason for promoting Israel and prospering it is unknown; certainly evidence of construction projects all over the land from this period are easily found, and there seems to have been a 'velvet glove' approach from the first few Persian kings. Their treatment of Egypt was entirely different; the land was divided into five districts controlled by Persian officials, the Egyptian military disbanded, and temple incomes siphoned off to Persepolis. The Persian kings - who never actually set foot in Egypt - formed the twenty seventh dynasty, had themselves depicted as Pharaohs, with full Egyptian Pharonic titles, and governed as absentee landlords. Cmbyses DID lose an army - probably a resurgence of native resistance, but, on the whole, the Persians marked the end of the last truly Egyptian state. There were a few efforts to revive it until Alexander put it out of its misery in 333 BC.
Thanks for that, Anchorman. Knew I could rely on you for a bit of proper scholarship. Read somewhere that Cyrus might have adopted a velvet glove approach to the Jews because he was a Zoroastrian, and might have recognised some resemblances between the Jewish god and his own. Others say he worshiped Marduk, who qualities I'm unacquainted with.*
*I've subsequently found this about Marduk as referred to in ancient Mesopotamian literature:
""The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer" [This] literary composition, which consists of four tablets of 120 lines each, begins with a 40-line hymnic praise of Marduk, in which his dual nature is described in complex poetic wording: Marduk is powerful, both good and evil, just as he can help humanity, he can also destroy people."
Well, that sounds just like Yahweh, as described in Isaiah 45.
-
Silly girl. Mind you, I've done the same - joined ultra-fundie, hair-raisingly right-wing forums and got banned in short order. Have fun!
Please point me in the direction of one of those forums steve, I won't post but will voyeur.
Anchor, thanks, interesting information.
-
May I point out that some closed-minded atheists also use the bible as an excuse for bigotry - one, for example, who write stuff like "the god character in the bible, if it exists, is an evil psycho imo".
-
May I point out that some closed-minded atheists also use the bible as an excuse for bigotry - one, for example, who write stuff like "the god character in the bible, if it exists, is an evil psycho imo".
You obviously haven't read that book, if you can't see how unpleasant it is. One has a right to be bigoted towards an entity, which is more evil than the worst of all humans, if it exists.
-
May I point out that some closed-minded atheists also use the bible as an excuse for bigotry - one, for example, who write stuff like "the god character in the bible, if it exists, is an evil psycho imo".
That's not bigotry. Stating the facts is not bigotry. The god of the Bible once wiped out almost all life on Earth just because the humans were being naughty. He also killed the first male offspring of every human or other animal in Egypt just because the Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told. That's bad enough, but the reason Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told was because God had deliberately "hardened his heart" so he (God) had an excuse to punish the Egyptians severely.
There are hundreds of stories in the Bible that show God is a psycho.
-
May I point out that some closed-minded atheists also use the bible as an excuse for bigotry - one, for example, who write stuff like "the god character in the bible, if it exists, is an evil psycho imo".
In what way is that bigotry?
-
That's not bigotry. Stating the facts is not bigotry. The god of the Bible once wiped out almost all life on Earth just because the humans were being naughty. He also killed the first male offspring of every human or other animal in Egypt just because the Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told. That's bad enough, but the reason Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told was because God had deliberately "hardened his heart" so he (God) had an excuse to punish the Egyptians severely.
There are hundreds of stories in the Bible that show God is a psycho.
Good post. :)
-
May I point out that some closed-minded atheists also use the bible as an excuse for bigotry - one, for example, who write stuff like "the god character in the bible, if it exists, is an evil psycho imo".
Steve H
Personally the only excuse I have for my bigotry is it amuses me 👍😱👽
-
You don't say, Walter. Who'd have guessed?
-
You don't say, Walter. Who'd have guessed?
robbie
I have no idea what you mean !
-
A poster on the forum I mentioned in my OP is boasting about how he is raking in the cash by preaching about the sermon on the mount,YE GODS. :o
-
A poster on the forum I mentioned in my OP is boasting about how he is raking in the cash by preaching about the sermon on the mount,YE GODS. :o
Blessed are the gullible
-
Blessed are the gullible
For they shall inherit huge debts! >:(
Another thing that shocked me was someone claiming a father insisted on accompanying his teenage daughter to the gynaecologist on a regular basis and be able to watch the procedure as they examined her to check her hymen was still intact and therefore she hadn't been wicked enough to have had sex. Admittedly many other posters were shocked too at the father's sexually abusive attitude. However, some praised him for being a good father and in charge of his daughter as he should be. I reckon the guy would in the deep proverbial if he lived in the UK, so would the gynaecologist for allowing him to be present.
-
For they shall inherit huge debts! >:(
Another thing that shocked me was someone claiming a father insisted on accompanying his teenage daughter to the gynaecologist on a regular basis and be able to watch the procedure as they examined her to check her hymen was still intact and therefore she hadn't been wicked enough to have had sex. Admittedly many other posters were shocked too at the father's sexually abusive attitude. However, some praised him for being a good father and in charge of his daughter as he should be. I reckon the guy would in the deep proverbial if he lived in the UK, so would the gynaecologist for allowing him to be present.
Presumably the discussion has been raised because of T.I.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ti-deyjah-harris-hymen-virginity-test-social-media-unfollow-a9199471.html
-
I read about that a couple of days ago. I didn't believe it, felt sure TI made it up to be controversial. He raps about sex all the time. Not nice for his daughter though, Idon't blame her for unfollowing him. I imagine she'll have a few choice words for him when she sees him next.
-
That's not bigotry. Stating the facts is not bigotry. The god of the Bible once wiped out almost all life on Earth just because the humans were being naughty. He also killed the first male offspring of every human or other animal in Egypt just because the Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told. That's bad enough, but the reason Pharaoh wouldn't do as he was told was because God had deliberately "hardened his heart" so he (God) had an excuse to punish the Egyptians severely.
There are hundreds of stories in the Bible that show God is a psycho.
The gods of most of the ancient world were psychos, and not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter. The only reason we know about them is because scribes and prophets had certain ideas in their heads about what these gods were supposed to be like, and wrote about them on papyrus, parchment and stone. I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better). The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.
I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories (there are of course two authors of that episode) wrote, or what the authors of Exodus wrote. God in the Bible does seem to get rather more civilised on occasion - I don't know whether this applies to the other deities of the ancient world (though doubtless their characteristics vary a bit too, depending on who is writing about them, and at which period in history).
What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here :) ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.
-
The gods of most of the ancient world were psychos, and not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter. The only reason we know about them is because scribes and prophets had certain ideas in their heads about what these gods were supposed to be like, and wrote about them on papyrus, parchment and stone. I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better). The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.
I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories (there are of course two authors of that episode) wrote, or what the authors of Exodus wrote. God in the Bible does seem to get rather more civilised on occasion - I don't know whether this applies to the other deities of the ancient world (though doubtless their characteristics vary a bit too, depending on who is writing about them, and at which period in history).
What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here :) ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.
Brilliant! Just bunged this on "Forum best bits".
-
The gods of most of the ancient world were psychos, and not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter. The only reason we know about them is because scribes and prophets had certain ideas in their heads about what these gods were supposed to be like, and wrote about them on papyrus, parchment and stone. I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better). The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.
I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories (there are of course two authors of that episode) wrote, or what the authors of Exodus wrote. God in the Bible does seem to get rather more civilised on occasion - I don't know whether this applies to the other deities of the ancient world (though doubtless their characteristics vary a bit too, depending on who is writing about them, and at which period in history).
What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here :) ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.
People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.
-
People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.
Complete non sequitur to the post you replied to which makes it look as if you didn't read it.
-
Complete non sequitur to the post you replied to which makes it look as if you didn't read it.
I did read it and that is my reply.
-
I did read it and that is my reply.
Them it's just irrelevant, and shows no understanding of what DU posted.
-
People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.
Oh ffs, say something original for once - I'm sick to bloody death of your predictable, ignorant one-liners.
-
Oh ffs, say something original for once - I'm sick to bloody death of your predictable, ignorant one-liners.
Well if you don't like what I am saying don't bother to respond, SIMPLES! ::) Look out or I might start posting on that other forum again, now that would really please you, NOT. ;D ;D ;D
-
Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)
-
Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)
You have your views on the Bible I have mine. I have read that book from cover to cover many times. In both the OT and NT I don't see god as anything other than a highly unpleasant character if it exists and what is attributed to it is factual . Getting a girl who was engaged to be married pregnant, so that she could give birth to a son who would die a horrible death doesn't speak well of it at all. The Christian faith has often been a force for a lot of evil in the hands of extremists. If god was omnipotent it would have known the result of its actions.
-
SteveH,
Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)
Well yes, lots of myths have changed over time. In the original 19th century German version of Goldilocks for example (which was called “The Story of the Three Bears”) the Goldilocks character was a sweary hag called “Silver Hair” and the bears were three males rather than a mother/father/son family.
The point though is that various people who think there to be a Christian god will still claim the version that appeals most – in my experience the unpleasant and intolerant will pick the unpleasant and intolerant aspects of the god of the OT, the generous and inclusive will pick the generous and inclusive aspects of the god for the NT etc. And that problem with that is that is that if you think any of it is actually true because “faith” is an epistemically valid way to justify a truth claim then you will tend to feel validated in your behaviour by whichever god you think to be portrayed most accurately.
-
Dicky, as long as these people are caught and appropriate action is taken, why get steamed up?
-
Dicky, as long as these people are caught and appropriate action is taken, why get steamed up?
One gets steamed up, as you put it, when the Bible is used in an abusive way, or one which brings in the cash. So many TV Evangelists are con merchants who take in the gullible and relieve them of their dosh. As I have mentioned before, years ago my elderly Great Aunt was taken for a ride by that horrible man Oral Roberts. She gave him several thousand pounds before the family realised what was going on and put a stop to it.
BTW does the UK have any TV Evangelists or are they exclusively an American product?
-
BTW does the UK have any TV Evangelists or are they exclusively an American product?
Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.
-
Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.
I must admit I have never heard of that guy before.
-
I must admit I have never heard of that guy before.
Lucky you - utter snake-oil merchant.
-
Lucky you - utter snake-oil merchant.
I have forgotten the guy's name, but not that long ago one of these US scam merchants got his gullible followers to fork out for a very high class jet so he could 'do god's work'. >:(
-
not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter.
No, because, in Europe and North America, at least, these gods have no relevance to anybody's daily lives.
I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better).
The followers of the god of the Bible keep trying to interfere with the lives of ordinary people based on what the believe the Bible says. For example, they don't want me to be able to go shopping on a Sunday. They want to censor the kinds of things I see on telly or at the theatre. They want to place restrictions on the kinds of people I can marry. Some of them want crazy myths from the Bible taught as facts. Others threaten to kill people just because they draw pictures of their prophet or throw gay people off tall buildings for the sin of being gay.
Don't try to pretend that the god of the Bible is in the same class as Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter.
The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.
I know that. You know that. A lot of Christians don't seem to know that.
I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories
Why should I?
What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here :) ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.
Which is ironic considering that they justify their bigotry by reference to a text which does not present a coherent picture of God but frequently represents him (why would God be a "he") as a homicidal maniac.
-
Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.
About the only ones I can think of are Jeff Lucas and J.John.
Neither are anything like the typical Amwerican Televangelists (Thank God!), and both use a lot of humour in their work.
Lucas has written several books with Adrian Plass (some might have heard of his brilliant "Sacred Diaries' serie, as well as more 'serious work) called "Seriously Funny'.
J.John is a CofE minister with a gift of communication; niether is a YEC.
-
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)
The god of the New Testament forced a pregnancy on an unmarried woman in an age where that carried a real threat of death. He caused the slaughter of a number of toddlers and babies in Bethlehem. He also arranged to have his own son strung up on a cross when he could have just forgiven everybody.
The New Testament's god's hands are not clean.
-
SteveH,
Well yes, lots of myths have changed over time. In the original 19th century German version of Goldilocks for example (which was called “The Story of the Three Bears”) the Goldilocks character was a sweary hag called “Silver Hair” and the bears were three males rather than a mother/father/son family.
The point though is that various people who think there to be a Christian god will still claim the version that appeals most – in my experience the unpleasant and intolerant will pick the unpleasant and intolerant aspects of the god of the OT, the generous and inclusive will pick the generous and inclusive aspects of the god for the NT etc. And that problem with that is that is that if you think any of it is actually true because “faith” is an epistemically valid way to justify a truth claim then you will tend to feel validated in your behaviour by whichever god you think to be portrayed most accurately.
God is holy, that's the main thing to remember. Thus, if people become like how they are described in Genesis 6 then God is free to wipe them all out. You might not believe that is what happened, but in the story it is a just punishment. Likewise for the punishment Jesus endured on our behalf: sin came through one man, therefore one sinless man's death was sufficient to atone for the sin of all men, if they repent. Again, you may think this to be a myth, but the God in the story is consistent.
Understood rightly, an honest response to the Bible is to recognise our own sin and deal with it before judging someone else for theirs.
-
God is holy, that's the main thing to remember. Thus, if people become like how they are described in Genesis 6 then God is free to wipe them all out. You might not believe that is what happened, but in the story it is a just punishment. Likewise for the punishment Jesus endured on our behalf: sin came through one man, therefore one sinless man's death was sufficient to atone for the sin of all men, if they repent. Again, you may think this to be a myth, but the God in the story is consistent.
Understood rightly, an honest response to the Bible is to recognise our own sin and deal with it before judging someone else for theirs.
Beg and stole and borrowed the question
-
Beg and stole and borrowed the question
Beg and ... Etc your pardon?
-
Beg and stole and borrowed the question
If I understand you correctly, if you believe on the basis of evidence then it isn't begging the question to say that God is both just and merciful consistently throughout the Bible.
-
Beg and ... Etc your pardon?
Begging the question is a fallacy you used. That it was so overwhelmingly obvious, I empahasised it by linking it too The New Seekers Eurovision Song Contest entry Beg; Steal or Borrow. Just keep up, you lot!
-
If I understand you correctly, if you believe on the basis of evidence then it isn't begging the question to say that God is both just and merciful consistently throughout the Bible.
You cannot assert the conclusion as the conclusion as you did. You haven't presented any evidence and the presentation that you have done here is just another begging the question.
-
About the only ones I can think of are Jeff Lucas and J.John.
Neither are anything like the typical Amwerican Televangelists (Thank God!), and both use a lot of humour in their work.
Lucas has written several books with Adrian Plass (some might have heard of his brilliant "Sacred Diaries' serie, as well as more 'serious work) called "Seriously Funny'.
J.John is a CofE minister with a gift of communication; niether is a YEC.
Lucas and John are mild-mannered, reasonable people, nothing like televangelists.
-
Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)
I'm guessing the snake oil salesman came-a-knocking at your door Steve H !
-
God is holy, that's the main thing to remember. Thus, if people become like how they are described in Genesis 6 then God is free to wipe them all out. You might not believe that is what happened, but in the story it is a just punishment. Likewise for the punishment Jesus endured on our behalf: sin came through one man, therefore one sinless man's death was sufficient to atone for the sin of all men, if they repent. Again, you may think this to be a myth, but the God in the story is consistent.
Understood rightly, an honest response to the Bible is to recognise our own sin and deal with it before judging someone else for theirs.
God is holy evil! >:( It should be looking to expunge its own sins as the deeds attributed to it are worse than those of even the worst of humans.
-
it isn't begging the question to say that God is both just and merciful consistently throughout the Bible.
You're right, it's not begging the question, it's just wrong.
What was just and merciful about indiscriminately killing every first born son in Egypt?
-
You're right, it's not begging the question, it's just wrong.
What was just and merciful about indiscriminately killing every first born son in Egypt?
A good question.
-
I'm guessing the snake oil salesman came-a-knocking at your door Steve H !
No - it's simply that Steve H has the critical acumen and insight necessary to approach a number of varying ancient texts - something you never have had, and by the look of it never will have. You read the Bible with all the literalism of the most boneheaded fundamentalists of the American Bible Belt - except that where they read 'good', you read 'evil'. Now this leads you into a number of moral difficulties, since there are passages in the Bible which express sentiments which you wouldn't for the life of you disagree with in the ordinary course of your life* - typified by your responding to such sentiments with words like "The god of the bible has no business preaching as It is wholly evil". Since we know nothing of 'god' apart from what very different prophets thought about 'It', your mental confusion here is quite bewildering. In fact, I don't think I've come across an instance of such mind-numbing cognitive dissonance outside the mindset of barking fundamentalists.
You don't really believe in "the god of the bible" - but if there's the remotest possibility that 'It' does exist, then 'It' must be exactly as It is depicted at its worst? Why? I don't believe any god exists, so I take all these descriptions as parts of a large library, simply consisting of words on paper - some appalling, some uplifting. What I can say, though, is that the Bible in itself cannot hurt you. But you write as though you think it still can. Maybe it did once, in the hands of evil people - but I think you're safe now.
*Or maybe not: being merciful doesn't seem to be high on your list of priorities, according to some of the things you have written about people, on the basis of "no smoke without fire".
-
God is holy evil! >:( It should be looking to expunge its own sins as the deeds attributed to it are worse than those of even the worst of humans.
Is that an expression of actual belief in its existence now? Please tell us just why you are so worried about the stories of ancient myths which have no historical reality at all. Read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and start getting worked up about the non-existent gods there for a change (it deals with the story of a great flood, by the way).
-
No - it's simply that Steve H has the critical acumen and insight necessary to approach a number of varying ancient texts - something you never have had, and by the look of it never will have. You read the Bible with all the literalism of the most boneheaded fundamentalists of the American Bible Belt - except that where they read 'good', you read 'evil'. Now this leads you into a number of moral difficulties, since there are passages in the Bible which express sentiments which you wouldn't for the life of you disagree with in the ordinary course of your life* - typified by your responding to such sentiments with words like "The god of the bible has no business preaching as It is wholly evil". Since we know nothing of 'god' apart from what very different prophets thought about 'It', your mental confusion here is quite bewildering. In fact, I don't think I've come across an instance of such mind-numbing cognitive dissonance outside the mindset of barking fundamentalists.
You don't really believe in "the god of the bible" - but if there's the remotest possibility that 'It' does exist, then 'It' must be exactly as It is depicted at its worst? Why? I don't believe any god exists, so I take all these descriptions as parts of a large library, simply consisting of words on paper - some appalling, some uplifting. What I can say, though, is that the Bible in itself cannot hurt you. But you write as though you think it still can. Maybe it did once, in the hands of evil people - but I think you're safe now.
*Or maybe not: being merciful doesn't seem to be high on your list of priorities, according to some of the things you have written about people, on the basis of "no smoke without fire".
Dicky ,
You've used up a lot of words there pal , now get back in your box !
-
Is that an expression of actual belief in its existence now? Please tell us just why you are so worried about the stories of ancient myths which have no historical reality at all. Read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and start getting worked up about the non-existent gods there for a change (it deals with the story of a great flood, by the way).
No I don't believe the Biblical god is anymore than a human creation. However, it is still used as a means of coercing people into conversion with threats of hell-fire if they don't.
-
Is that an expression of actual belief in its existence now? Please tell us just why you are so worried about the stories of ancient myths which have no historical reality at all. Read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and start getting worked up about the non-existent gods there for a change (it deals with the story of a great flood, by the way).
Please stop talking bollocks. The assertion "the God of the Bible is evil and should mend its ways" is no more admitting its existence than the assertion " Voldemort is evil and should mend his ways" is admitting the existence of Lord Voldemort. You can discuss a literary character without having to concede it exists.
-
When did anyone last do that to you? You've mentioned incidents from childhood, fair nuf but doubt there's been anything recent. I can categorically say no one has ever threatened me with hellfire and doubt they would. For one thing nobody is allowed to proselytise at work (which I think is absolutely right) nor at most schools.Faith schools are an exception but even they have to watch their language and how they go about it, they must be inclusive.
Apart from the odd JW door knocker who will go away if you say you're not interested, maybe LDS young people on a mission who I've not seen for years, it doesn't happen. There'll be carol singing and the like in shopping centres soon but lots like hearing carols even if they don't believe.
There's hardly ever anything vaguely religious on television, Songs of Praise still happens but there's nothing fundamentalist about that from what I've read and who is forced to watch? I don't have cable where there's probably more. One channel on Freeview - TBN.
The only way I can see that any of us would be targeted in such an awful way is if we sought it out from curiosity or whatever reason. I have an old (& older, long retired) friend who I see occasionally who spent years attending different churches, especially evangelical, asking questions and arguing :-). She was definitely quite wounded at times (& parted with money which she could ill afford) but she looked for it. It was almost a career but now she's into a Hindu guru & politics so the emphasis has changed.
For some people religion is a magnet even if they dislike it. I've always found it interesting but other things interest me like art, literature, botany. I've read about different cults and experiences of ex members, never felt inclined to dip my toe in the water. My faith is quiet, private & I prefer to live it rather than bang on.
It's different over the pond but we don't live there. Britain is not a 'religious country' (despite the CofE); there are small strong religious communities amongst Jews & Muslims. The USA is generally more religious especially in some areas.
No one is gonna target you now L'Roses. You're free of that.
-
When did anyone last do that to you? You've mentioned incidents from childhood, fair nuf but doubt there's been anything recent. I can categorically say no one has ever threatened me with hellfire and doubt they would. For one thing nobody is allowed to proselytise at work (which I think is absolutely right) nor at most schools.Faith schools are an exception but even they have to watch their language and how they go about it, they must be inclusive.
Apart from the odd JW door knocker who will go away if you say you're not interested, maybe LDS young people on a mission who I've not seen for years, it doesn't happen. There'll be carol singing and the like in shopping centres soon but lots like hearing carols even if they don't believe.
There's hardly ever anything vaguely religious on television, Songs of Praise still happens but there's nothing fundamentalist about that from what I've read and who is forced to watch? I don't have cable where there's probably more. One channel on Freeview - TBN.
The only way I can see that any of us would be targeted in such an awful way is if we sought it out from curiosity or whatever reason. I have an old (& older, long retired) friend who I see occasionally who spent years attending different churches, especially evangelical, asking questions and arguing :-). She was definitely quite wounded at times (& parted with money which she could ill afford) but she looked for it. It was almost a career but now she's into a Hindu guru & politics so the emphasis has changed.
For some people religion is a magnet even if they dislike it. I've always found it interesting but other things interest me like art, literature, botany. I've read about different cults and experiences of ex members, never felt inclined to dip my toe in the water. My faith is quiet, private & I prefer to live it rather than bang on.
It's different over the pond but we don't live there. Britain is not a 'religious country' (despite the CofE); there are small strong religious communities amongst Jews & Muslims. The USA is generally more religious especially in some areas.
No one is gonna target you now L'Roses. You're free of that.
Robbie, the dogma of hell-fire is very much alive and well as it has ever been. >:( I have been threatened many times with hell fire on UK as well as US forum like the one of which I am currently posting. There are many extreme Christians here in the UK, especially in Pentecostal churches, who believe that if they don't get saved they will burn in hell forever and ever.
-
You're right, it's not begging the question, it's just wrong.
What was just and merciful about indiscriminately killing every first born son in Egypt?
It doesn't say it explicitly, but divine retribution for the Egyptians killing the Hebrew baby boys, a generation earlier?
-
It doesn't say it explicitly, but divine retribution for the Egyptians killing the Hebrew baby boys, a generation earlier?
What is just and merciful in murdering innocent children? You worship a thug.
-
Spud,
It doesn't say it explicitly, but divine retribution for the Egyptians killing the Hebrew baby boys, a generation earlier?
Does that mean if you were king for a day you'd introduce a law making the punishment for child murder the killing of the first born of the murderer?
-
It doesn't say it explicitly, but divine retribution for the Egyptians killing the Hebrew baby boys, a generation earlier?
Two wrongs don't make a right, if your god exists it is sick in the head. >:(
-
Robbie, the dogma of hell-fire is very much alive and well as it has ever been. >:( I have been threatened many times with hell fire on UK as well as US forum like the one of which I am currently posting. There are many extreme Christians here in the UK, especially in Pentecostal churches, who believe that if they don't get saved they will burn in hell forever and ever.
How to over-generalise in o9ne easy lesson.
Given my experience with various Pentecostal churches, both denominational and independent fellowships, I'd say your oversimplifaction verges on the ridiculous.
I can give examples of churches which DO practice the hellfire and eternal toast fork, equally, churches which do not claim an eteranal microwave, or even a hell at all.
I can give examples of full blown YEC Pentecostals, equally, Pentecostal churches wherre microbiologists, geologists and archaeologists can worship happily.
-
If you are discussing the Bible as a fictional work, then the development of the God character from sneaky, violent trickster to "just" and "merciful" (debatable, I know) is relevant. If you think the Bible is a true reflection of a real God, however, you're stuck with the psychopathy. The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus died for our sins, remember? A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.
If the Bible has anything to do with an omnipotent and benevolent being, why not make it wholly good and relevant regardless of time or culture? Why, it's as if it was written by humans struggling to understand existence. Bizarre.
(What The Buddha Taught is far more universally relevant and far less likely to lead to genocide, I think. It's a bit of a turgid read, but I expect that's good for me.)
-
How to over-generalise in o9ne easy lesson.
Given my experience with various Pentecostal churches, both denominational and independent fellowships, I'd say your oversimplifaction verges on the ridiculous.
I can give examples of churches which DO practice the hellfire and eternal toast fork, equally, churches which do not claim an eteranal microwave, or even a hell at all.
I can give examples of full blown YEC Pentecostals, equally, Pentecostal churches wherre microbiologists, geologists and archaeologists can worship happily.
It isn't ridiculous at all, Pentecostalists believe in the crazy dogma of being 'saved' or you will burn in hell. Flipping heck, I heard enough of that during my childhood at the Elim Church I attended, and I know for a fact nothing there has changed. Just because people who are supposed to be intelligent attend such places, doesn't mean that they haven't put logic on hold where their faith is concerned. Our AB is an intelligent guy with a doctorate, but logic and his faith are an oxymoron.
-
It isn't ridiculous at all, Pentecostalists believe in the crazy dogma of being 'saved' or you will burn in hell. Flipping heck, I heard enough of that during my childhood at the Elim Church I attended, and I know for a fact nothing there has changed. Just because people who are supposed to be intelligent attend such places, doesn't mean that they haven't put logic on hold where their faith is concerned. Our AB is an intelligent guy with a doctorate, but logic and his faith are an oxymoron.
Sorry;
You cannot lump all pentecostalists into one; nor, for that matter, all Elim congregations.
Your statement starts "Pentecostalists believe...."
No, sorry; there is no uniformity of belief within Pentecostalism.
-
Sorry;
You cannot lump all pentecostalists into one; nor, for that matter, all Elim congregations.
Your statement starts "Pentecostalists believe...."
No, sorry; there is no uniformity of belief within Pentecostalism.
Have you ever attended a pentecostalist church? Their core message is the unpleasant, 'you must be 'saved' or else', dogma.
-
Have you ever attended a pentecostalist church? Their core message is the unpleasant, 'you must be 'saved' or else', dogma.
Yep.
Attended quite a few, of various denominations. I've also served on committees with Pentecostals of several denominations at the same time; that's why I posted as I did.
-
Please stop talking bollocks. The assertion "the God of the Bible is evil and should mend its ways" is no more admitting its existence than the assertion " Voldemort is evil and should mend his ways" is admitting the existence of Lord Voldemort. You can discuss a literary character without having to concede it exists.
"Discuss" is the operative word here. I don't concede that repeating ad nauseam the mantram "The god of the bible is an evil psycho" constitutes discussion*. I will concede your final comment - up to a point. But since I was specifically referring to the way LR writes about these matters, this might merit a little psychological investigation (any takers?). You only have to note what she wrote about a rather fine text from Isaiah above, commenting something like "The god of the bible shouldn't be preaching, since it is wholly evil". I challenge anyone to make sense of the mental gymnastics involved here: the non-existent god of the bible, who has sometimes been written about performing decidedly evil deeds by different people over hundreds of years, is now written about by a different prophet (one of the 3 or more Isaiahs), and is now (still non-existent) exorting its followers to behave in morally unimpeachable ways. In effect, this is accusing a non-existent entity of hypocrisy . What the fuck is that all about?
And this is why your analogy with Voldemort doesn't really work: a writer such as J.K. Rowling may create a single character who is evil and hypocritical, and a good writer will always create characters full of moral ambiguities. But these characteristics are presented as the writer's own personal view of their own personal creation. In that sense, you can discuss the merits or defects of a non-existent character.
However, God as referred to by the various prophets is not like this at all, whether IT exists or doesn't exist. In fact, it doesn't require an in-depth examination of the way the prophets each refer to God to realise that many of them were deliberately reacting to and correcting the views of other prophets, so different these images of God can be seen to be. In a significant instance, it may well be that a lot of them were not aware of the Adam and Eve story at all, since they never refer to it. If they were aware of it, they obviously didn't consider it of any significance. (Richard Elliot Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible" gives a very persuasive argument of how some prophets deliberately reacted to accounts of God's requirements and actions written by other prophets)
*If you want some real discussion from an atheist talking about the Old Testament, you can't do better than Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, where he speaks admiringly of some of the OT prophets. He has far more insight in this regard than Christopher Hitchens.
-
It doesn't say it explicitly, but divine retribution for the Egyptians killing the Hebrew baby boys, a generation earlier?
That would make sense in the context of the story, although it's still problematic because it is punishing one generation for the previous generation's crimes. Well, it's arbitrarily punishing some members of one generation for crimes done by some members of a previous generation. It's still not a good look for God.
The other problem is that God more or less explicitly declares his motive: it's to show the Egyptians, and Pharaoh in particular, who is the boss.
-
That would make sense in the context of the story, although it's still problematic because it is punishing one generation for the previous generation's crimes. Well, it's arbitrarily punishing some members of one generation for crimes done by some members of a previous generation. It's still not a good look for God.
The other problem is that God more or less explicitly declares his motive: it's to show the Egyptians, and Pharaoh in particular, who is the boss.
And of course he makes sure that Pharoah doesn't let the Hebrews go
-
*If you want some real discussion from an atheist talking about the Old Testament, you can't do better than Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, where he speaks admiringly of some of the OT prophets. He has far more insight in this regard than Christopher Hitchens.
I know it's verging on heresy in the baby-eating circles, but I just don't find Hitchens to be up to much. His arguments are so logically unfounded it's a wonder he's put in the same category as some of the other atheist thinkers. Even Professor Dawkins who is not the best debater in the world actually makes his points from a first principle, admits the limitations of his own field... Hitchens, it seems to me, just makes an appeal to consequence and seems to get by on a reported charisma that I've failed to notice.
O.
-
If you are discussing the Bible as a fictional work, then the development of the God character from sneaky, violent trickster to "just" and "merciful" (debatable, I know) is relevant.
There's a third option. You might think the Bible is an imperfect reflection of a misunderstood (by people at the time).
If you think the Bible is a true reflection of a real God, however, you're stuck with the psychopathy. The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus died for our sins, remember? A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.
If you want to end a debate with Christians about accepting the gift of eternal life, I find a good answer is to point out that I didn't ask Jesus to die for me and that I find the idea of somebody else taking the rap for my wrongdoing to be morally abhorrent and no thanks but I'll accept the consequences of my mistakes.
If the Bible has anything to do with an omnipotent and benevolent being, why not make it wholly good and relevant regardless of time or culture? Why, it's as if it was written by humans struggling to understand existence. Bizarre.
Even when I was a Christian that used to confuse me. The world around me was proof that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My God had limitations and I didn't understand why other Christians felt the need to assert the omnis.
-
Even when I was a Christian that used to confuse me. The world around me was proof that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My God had limitations and I didn't understand why other Christians felt the need to assert the omnis.
What sort of limitations did your god have in your view at the time?
-
And this is why your analogy with Voldemort doesn't really work: a writer such as J.K. Rowling may create a single character who is evil and hypocritical, and a good writer will always create characters full of moral ambiguities. But these characteristics are presented as the writer's own personal view of their own personal creation. In that sense, you can discuss the merits or defects of a non-existent character.
However, God as referred to by the various prophets is not like this at all, whether IT exists or doesn't exist. In fact, it doesn't require an in-depth examination of the way the prophets each refer to God to realise that many of them were deliberately reacting to and correcting the views of other prophets, so different these images of God can be seen to be. In a significant instance, it may well be that a lot of them were not aware of the Adam and Eve story at all, since they never refer to it. If they were aware of it, they obviously didn't consider it of any significance. (Richard Elliot Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible" gives a very persuasive argument of how some prophets deliberately reacted to accounts of God's requirements and actions written by other prophets)
I don't accept your assertion that a fictional character has to be the invention of a single author in order to discuss its merits and defects without conceding that it is real.
Yes, LR's posts are more pronouncements than discussion points and they may be over simplistic, but she doesn't need to believe God is real to make them.
-
I know it's verging on heresy in the baby-eating circles, but I just don't find Hitchens to be up to much. His arguments are so logically unfounded it's a wonder he's put in the same category as some of the other atheist thinkers. Even Professor Dawkins who is not the best debater in the world actually makes his points from a first principle, admits the limitations of his own field... Hitchens, it seems to me, just makes an appeal to consequence and seems to get by on a reported charisma that I've failed to notice.
O.
The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.
Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.
-
The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.
Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.
Maybe that was it, I primarily read rather than watching or listening...
O.
-
If you want to end a debate with Christians about accepting the gift of eternal life, I find a good answer is to point out that I didn't ask Jesus to die for me and that I find the idea of somebody else taking the rap for my wrongdoing to be morally abhorrent and no thanks but I'll accept the consequences of my mistakes.
If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?
-
What sort of limitations did your god have in your view at the time?
Having created the World, he clearly couldn't intervene except in certain limited ways. God wasn't omnipotent, just extremely powerful. He also wasn't infallible.
-
If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?
As I said, I accept the consequences of my actions. I will not have Jesus' blood on my hands.
Besides, I have no fear of being dead. An eternity in which I don't exist isn't a problem for me.
-
If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?
Yes because I don't worship Mafia bosses
-
Having created the World, he clearly couldn't intervene except in certain limited ways. God wasn't omnipotent, just extremely powerful. He also wasn't infallible.
Was your god all loving?
-
The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.
Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.
Yes, it always amazed that Alien late of this parish used to set such store by the debates of Craig. It's all about technique and familiarity with the style. Craig is effectively a professional debater so wins that way. I don't think Hitchens ever really debated - it's more public speaking, which while related is in many ways a different style.
The Hitchens/Fry debate against Widdecombe/Bishop of Somewhere or Other was a mismatch and it's not surprising that most people thought H & F won. That said W and Bish were fairly lamentable in the arguments as well but it's just not something that really helps determine truth.
-
If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?
Not an improvement on Micah, I'm afraid. Just "Walk humbly with thy God" - and stop making threats.
-
If you are discussing the Bible as a fictional work, then the development of the God character from sneaky, violent trickster to "just" and "merciful" (debatable, I know) is relevant.
No it isn't, because God was merciful from day 1, allowing Adam and Eve to live rather than die that day. He also allowed his Son to be killed violently in AD 30, and punished a nation violently in AD70. So his mercy and violence is constant.
If you think the Bible is a true reflection of a real God, however, you're stuck with the psychopathy. The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus died for our sins, remember? A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.
It's because God loves us that he allowed Jesus to be our substitute.
If you steal an i-pad from your boss and get found out, but the boss doesn't press charges against you, so you don't get a criminal record, but makes it clear that he will if you are caught again. That i-pad was used to facetime his son in outer Mongolia. So his son is cut off from him.
If the Bible has anything to do with an omnipotent and benevolent being, why not make it wholly good and relevant regardless of time or culture? Why, it's as if it was written by humans struggling to understand existence. Bizarre.
(What The Buddha Taught is far more universally relevant and far less likely to lead to genocide, I think. It's a bit of a turgid read, but I expect that's good for me.)
Yes because I don't worship Mafia bosses
He isn't the Mafia boss, he's the king.
As I said, I accept the consequences of my actions. I will not have Jesus' blood on my hands.
Remember, Jesus is given back his life. Still don't take his offer?
Besides, I have no fear of being dead. An eternity in which I don't exist isn't a problem for me.
Aren't you making a dangerous assumption there?
-
Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.
Have to agree with you there. Besides, he based his views almost entirely on the picture of "God" as given in the early part of the Bible (with no doubt a few nods to minor psychos :) such as Zephaniah), but didn't address the obvious matter (to me) that "God" develops, and you could say, improves.
-
The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity. Jesus died for our sins, remember? A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.
And a concept which Isaiah the 1st and Micah tried to do away with.
-
What is just and merciful in murdering innocent children? You worship a thug.
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
-
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
But not merciful. And certainly not forgiving up to 70 times 7.
-
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
And this is your 'perfectly good' source of all morality, is it?
O.
-
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
Good old Mafia Boss god killing innocent children as a lesson.
-
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
Do you really believe a god who could do a terrible thing like that to innocent children is good?
-
Have you ever attended a pentecostalist church? Their core message is the unpleasant, 'you must be 'saved' or else', dogma.
Have you attended every Pentecostal church? If not, how do you know they're all like that?
-
Have you attended every Pentecostal church? If not, how do you know they're all like that?
Have you ever attended one?
-
Was your god all loving?
Yes.
-
This:
No it isn't, because God was merciful from day 1, allowing Adam and Eve to live rather than die that day. He also allowed his Son to be killed violently in AD 30, and punished a nation violently in AD70.
is the exact opposite of this:
So his mercy and violence is constant.
Remember, Jesus is given back his life. Still don't take his offer?
He was still crucified. Would you let somebody go to prison in your place even though you know they are going to live through the experience?
Aren't you making a dangerous assumption there?
Everybody dies. I don't think it's dangerous to assume that.
-
It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.
But that's rather unfortunate for those first borns who had to die to give their parents a taste of what he had experienced. Not only that, but the killing was pretty indiscriminate. It wasn't just the Egyptian first borns that died but those of everybody in Egypt and the animals too.
-
Good old Mafia Boss god killing innocent children as a lesson.
Didn't the RAF use the same tactic (bombing the opponents' civilians) in the war?
-
Didn't the RAF use the same tactic (bombing the opponents' civilians) in the war?
And? Are you suggesting your god is a bomb?
-
Didn't the RAF use the same tactic (bombing the opponents' civilians) in the war?
They did that precisely because they were not God. They couldn't bomb during the day because the bombers kept getting shot down and they couldn't see military targets at night so they had to bomb things they could see, like cities.
-
Killing civilians wasn't an explicit policy.
-
Killing civilians wasn't an explicit policy.
I think there is plenty of evidence that it was.
-
Ex 12:12 says "For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD"
Here is a reason for the tenth plague: judgment on the Egyptian gods - demonstrating that they were powerless to protect the people.
-
Have you ever attended one?
No. How about answering the question?
-
"In smiting the firstborn of all living beings, man and beast, God struck down the objects of Egyptian worship"
-Barnes' Notes on the Bible
-
Ex 12:12 says "For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD"
Here is a reason for the tenth plague: judgment on the Egyptian gods - demonstrating that they were powerless to protect the people.
So the killing of an entire nation's eldest children is fine if you've got a point to prove? This is morality in action, is it?
O.
-
"In smiting the firstborn of all living beings, man and beast, God struck down the objects of Egyptian worship"
-Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And you approve of that action?
-
Ex 12:12 says "For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD"
Here is a reason for the tenth plague: judgment on the Egyptian gods - demonstrating that they were powerless to protect the people.
You kniow (he said, putting his Egyptian geek hat on), This passage clearly demonstrates that Exodudus was, at best, heavikly re-wriien in the sixth or fifth centuries, invalidating its' use as anything resembling histort.
You see, at that time - the 'Lape Period' - ordinary folk tried to acdcess their Egyptian gods through industrialised petitions sent via millions of mummified animals. This was because the authority of kings in spiritual matters had changed radically over the centuries.
Five centuries earlier - when central authority was stronger - petitions were sent to the gods via the king. He was the mediator, theoretically.
At that time, apart from annual festivals which were kneese-up for the ordinary person, the only gods which weere ubiquitous in ordanary lives were Osiris - for when you snuffed it -Bes, Tawaret and maybe Amun at a push.
The idea of demonstrating the impotence of the Egyptian gods was farcical - since the king alone was the channel of the su
pposed power.
Since the plagues = if they existed at all in the way Exodus describes - did not depose the king or detabilise the state, then they failed.
-
'Vengeance is mine, I will repay', seems to be one of the favourite verses of the extreme 'born again' Christians on the American forum I am inhabiting. Their god can do no wrong, and has a right to slaughter anyone if it wishes to do so, even innocent children. >:(
-
So the killing of an entire nation's eldest children is fine if you've got a point to prove? This is morality in action, is it?
O.
I'm asking the same question.
The firstborn represents the 'firstfruit of all their strength' (Ps 105:36).
When the water in Egypt turned to blood (literal or non-literal, eg red algae) it represented the blood of the Hebrew boys (thrown into the Nile) which called for vengeance as in Genesis 4:10 ("And He saith, ‘What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood is crying unto Me from the ground;").
I don't understand why exactly God waited 80 years and took vengeance on the next generation.
Writing about the cities of refuge for someone accused of manslaughter in Israel, J.B.Jordan says in his book "Law of the Covenant",
Notice that when God destroyed Egypt, He acted as Avenger of blood, by turning the Nile to blood, thus defiling all Egypt. This was a symbolic manifestation of the previous bloodying of the Nile which occurred when Israelite babies were thrown into it (Ex. 1:22). The bloodied land cried out for God to destroy each family in it, by destroying the firstborm of each household. Each household which was under the blood of the Passover, under the blood of the death of the high priest Jesus Christ (symbolized by the blood of the lamb), was a miniature city of refuge. The death of this high priest enabled them to leave these sanctuaries in the morning of the exodus. The inhabitants of these cities of refuge were the firstborn sons, spared by the Angel of Death. Later, when the firstborn were replaced by the Levites (Numbers 3), they become the inhabitants of the cities of refuge, which were all Levitical cities (Num. 35:6).
I've underlined the bit that seems to go some way towards explaining why the firstborn in particular were killed.
-
I'm asking the same question.
The firstborn represents the 'firstfruit of all their strength' (Ps 105:36).
When the water in Egypt turned to blood (literal or non-literal, eg red algae) it represented the blood of the Hebrew boys (thrown into the Nile) which called for vengeance as in Genesis 4:10 ("And He saith, ‘What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood is crying unto Me from the ground;").
I don't understand why exactly God waited 80 years and took vengeance on the next generation.
Writing about the cities of refuge for someone accused of manslaughter in Israel, J.B.Jordan says in his book "Law of the Covenant",
I've underlined the bit that seems to go some way towards explaining why the firstborn in particular were killed.
If it isn't fictional story and god was responsible, there is absolutely no excuse for its action.
-
If it isn't fictional story and god was responsible, there is absolutely no excuse for its action.
From Wikipedia
Talk: The Exodus/Archive 8
Well, when even the reality of such event cannot get beyond hypothesis stage, it is unhistorical by default. One does not need to disprove the historicity of the Exodus, it is unhistorical until proven historical, which you have conceded that it cannot get beyond hypothesis stage. The mistake was to assume that there would be a symmetry between historical and unhistorical, i.e. that if there is no evidence, neither could be asserted. History works by asserting unhistorical character by default, it is historicity which demands proof. If historicity is proven, the event ceases to be unhistorical. So the burden of proof is upon those who assert that the Exodus would be historical, in lack of such proof the other side wins by default. It's a matter of elementary logic, no need to see it as a personal attack. I just discussed what you have asserted, not your person. Remember that we are speaking of science, i.e. of facts, evidence, falsifiability, scientific consensus and so on. Theology requires none of these, it is able to construct true belief out of thin air. Theology does not establish facts, it establishes what a certain church should believe.
Anchorman has given us the benefit of his intense scholarly research as well. There is not the slightest reason to believe that these fairy tales happened. The onus is on poor old Spud (he apparently being the last fundie left around here) to convince us that they did, if anyone is really bothered.
I gave up believing in bogeymen a very long time ago.
-
I'm asking the same question.
The firstborn represents the 'firstfruit of all their strength' (Ps 105:36).
When the water in Egypt turned to blood (literal or non-literal, eg red algae) it represented the blood of the Hebrew boys (thrown into the Nile) which called for vengeance as in Genesis 4:10 ("And He saith, ‘What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood is crying unto Me from the ground;").
I don't understand why exactly God waited 80 years and took vengeance on the next generation.
Writing about the cities of refuge for someone accused of manslaughter in Israel, J.B.Jordan says in his book "Law of the Covenant",
I've underlined the bit that seems to go some way towards explaining why the firstborn in particular were killed.
I'm coming at it from the other end, so to speak; I'm trying to ask, 'Is there any situation in which killing innocent children to punish a group is justified?', and I just can't come up with one. I get that, in cases of war and the like, it is accepted that there will be civilian casualties, and you judge military conduct, in part, by much effort is taken to avoid those civilian deaths; this is supposed to be an omnipotent being, there shouldn't even be collatoral damage, but that's not what this is. This is terrorism; it's the application of violence to a vulnerable, civilian portion of the populace in order to effect political changes.
If it were real, it would fundamentally undermine any claim the Christian deity could make to morality.
O.
-
If it were real, it would fundamentally undermine any claim the Christian deity could make to morality.
O.
Because of the irreconcilable contradictions in the way God is represented in the Bible, liberal Christians have long seen these old tales as representing the way the early Hebrews thought God might be like, and the Bible is in this sense a series of thought experiments. It is quite clear that there is an evolution of thought here. I don't envy such Christians in having to make their selection of which Biblical accounts they think are truer to the nature of the divine, but most of them have the sense to realise that the old stories have only the slightest link with historical reality - or none whatsoever.
Not worth worrying about, unless you're beset by fundies and Orthodox* Jews (the latter probably the more pleasant prospect).
For those that know, insert appropriate fundamentalist Jews here. I originally wrote 'Hasidic'
-
Ex 12:12 says "For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD"
Here is a reason for the tenth plague: judgment on the Egyptian gods - demonstrating that they were powerless to protect the people.
But it's horrific. Couldn't God have found a way to judge the Egyptian gods without murdering loads of innocent people?
-
If it isn't fictional story and god was responsible, there is absolutely no excuse for its action.
It is fictional, fortunately.
-
You kniow (he said, putting his Egyptian geek hat on), This passage clearly demonstrates that Exodudus was, at best, heavikly re-wriien in the sixth or fifth centuries, invalidating its' use as anything resembling histort.
You see, at that time - the 'Lape Period' - ordinary folk tried to acdcess their Egyptian gods through industrialised petitions sent via millions of mummified animals. This was because the authority of kings in spiritual matters had changed radically over the centuries.
Five centuries earlier - when central authority was stronger - petitions were sent to the gods via the king. He was the mediator, theoretically.
At that time, apart from annual festivals which were kneese-up for the ordinary person, the only gods which weere ubiquitous in ordanary lives were Osiris - for when you snuffed it -Bes, Tawaret and maybe Amun at a push.
The idea of demonstrating the impotence of the Egyptian gods was farcical - since the king alone was the channel of the su
pposed power.
Since the plagues = if they existed at all in the way Exodus describes - did not depose the king or detabilise the state, then they failed.
I recall reading that the plagues are arranged in sets of three, and that the timing would have been impossible if interpreted literally. So possibly they were edited later. For example, the plague of hail killed all the livestock that had been left outside, but two plagues previously, all the livestock had already died.
That doesn't mean the plagues didn't happen.
Even if the pharaoh survived, he was humiliated and the state devastated, thus their gods, accessed through the pharaoh, were shown to be either non-existent or not very good at their job.
-
But it's horrific. Couldn't God have found a way to judge the Egyptian gods without murdering loads of innocent people?
Sometimes the innocent suffer as a result of other peoples' actions or lack of action.
God seems to have been wanting to show the Egyptians that there was no god like him in the whole earth, Exodus 9:10. The plagues certainly would have achieved that, by the time they were finished.
-
Sometimes the innocent suffer as a result of other peoples' actions or lack of action.
God seems to have been wanting to show the Egyptians that there was no god like him in the whole earth, Exodus 9:10. The plagues certainly would have achieved that, by the time they were finished.
If that statement of yours had any credibility, it says more about the evil nature of the Biblical god than anything else. ::)
-
Sometimes the innocent suffer as a result of other peoples' actions or lack of action.
That's true and usually we condemn the people whose action or inaction causes innocent people to suffer. Why do you give God a free pass?
-
I recall reading that the plagues are arranged in sets of three, and that the timing would have been impossible if interpreted literally. So possibly they were edited later. For example, the plague of hail killed all the livestock that had been left outside, but two plagues previously, all the livestock had already died.
That doesn't mean the plagues didn't happen.
Even if the pharaoh survived, he was humiliated and the state devastated, thus their gods, accessed through the pharaoh, were shown to be either non-existent or not very good at their job.
.....even if the
pharaoh survived.....
Spud, we have almost the full set!
From the very beginning of Egypt's New Kingdom, toill the ninth century BC, we have all the mummies of ther kings...the only exceptions being an ephemeral female ruler who ruled around 1332 BC, Amenmesse of dyn XX (Though some have claimed to identify his mummy as well, but he was defeated, not by a Hebrew insurgance, but an internal family coup), and the virtually puppet RamessesXI. who, at his death, was far too old to have led an army.
We can identify age at death, in most cases cause of death - from cancer, through disease, to murder.
None - not one - shows any indication of having died in battle - though there are suspuicions that Tutankhamun may have died in Syria, fighting the Mittani).
You need to look at the history God has provided, as well as Scripture, before separating fact from allegory, theology or heavily edited oral memory.
-
Whether the stories are true or fiction isn't my main issue. Obviously it would have been better for people thousands of years ago if they're fiction, but from today's perspective it's not relevant. This collection of stories is used by Christians, from Creationists to Lovely Liberal Anglicans, to teach lessons to children. One key lesson appears to me to be that it's a godly thing to punish the innocent for other people's behaviour. Old Testament and New.
To compare a supposedly all-powerful and good god to the RAF is ludicrous.
-
Whether the stories are true or fiction isn't my main issue. Obviously it would have been better for people thousands of years ago if they're fiction, but from today's perspective it's not relevant. This collection of stories is used by Christians, from Creationists to Lovely Liberal Anglicans, to teach lessons to children. One key lesson appears to me to be that it's a godly thing to punish the innocent for other people's behaviour. Old Testament and New.
To compare a supposedly all-powerful and good god to the RAF is ludicrous.
In the NT, we learn that one, and one only, took the punishment...and He was, and is, God.
-
In the NT, we learn that one, and one only, took the punishment...and He was, and is, God.
Not in my opinion, he was a far from perfect human just like the rest of us, no sort of god. He was punished for putting the noses of the Jewish religious hierarchy out of joint.
-
Whether the stories are true or fiction isn't my main issue. Obviously it would have been better for people thousands of years ago if they're fiction, but from today's perspective it's not relevant. This collection of stories is used by Christians, from Creationists to Lovely Liberal Anglicans, to teach lessons to children. One key lesson appears to me to be that it's a godly thing to punish the innocent for other people's behaviour. Old Testament and New.
I'd rather lovely liberal Anglicans didn't use such stories for moral education, but they're quite good stories. Children (as the master story-teller Roald Dahl has pointed out) rather enjoy the gruesome and violent in their stories, from shoving witches into ovens to the Ugly Sisters cutting their own toes off trying to get into Cinderella's glass slipper in the original Grimm's tale.
That being said, my main objection to the god of a lot of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Kings and Chronicles is that he's an irascible, tedious po-faced bore. And about as moral as a lobotomised cockroach.
-
You need to look at the history God has provided, as well as Scripture, before separating fact from allegory, theology or heavily edited oral memory.
To be engraved on immovable granite monoliths in letters ten feet high outside every fundamentalist Christian church in the world.
-
I'd rather lovely liberal Anglicans didn't use such stories for moral education, but they're quite good stories. Children (as the master story-teller Roald Dahl has pointed out) rather enjoy the gruesome and violent in their stories, from shoving witches into ovens to the Ugly Sisters cutting their own toes off trying to get into Cinderella's glass slipper in the original Grimm's tale.
That being said, my main objection to the god of a lot of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Kings and Chronicles is that he's an irascible, tedious po-faced bore. And about as moral as a lobotomised cockroach.
Hello Dicky, I'm sorry I can't correspond promptly. I really enjoy reading your knowledgeable and informative posts.
Lovely Liberal Anglicans (I'm sticking with the capitalisation :) ) do use the most gruesome stories (e.g. Noah and the crucifixion) as moral instruction. I remember it from my own education. I went through 70s comprehensive schools but they were ex-Anglican-church and not short of pious ex-church-school teachers, who littered the walls with drawings of Bible stories and taught us their fantasy like it was true. I was lucky that my parents were de-facto atheists, even if we never discussed it at the time, because I imagine if I'd had the messages reinforced at home I could have ended up... indoctrinated.
We used to sing a very jolly song about how every living thing on earth apart from an arkful was killed by drowning. "The animals went in two-by-two hurrah, hurrah..."
Nobody is told that believing Hansel and Gretel actually existed and "living by" Grimm's tales is a prerequisite for avoiding eternal torture, I don't think.
-
In the NT, we learn that one, and one only, took the punishment...and He was, and is, God.
He was the one that vouched for the authenticity of the original though, right, where he slaughtered everyone on Earth except Noah's family, and then the first-born of everyone in Egypt, sent a bear to rip apart some rude children, gave war-widows as sex-slaves to his followers amongst other atrocities... or am I reading that wrongly?
O.
-
The Hebrew firstborn would have died as well, if a lamb had not been sacrificed in place of each of them.
This suggests that there's more to it than just the death of the firstborn Egyptians.
-
The Hebrew firstborn would have died as well, if a lamb had not been sacrificed in place of each of them.
This suggests that there's more to it than just the death of the firstborn Egyptians.
So the all-knowing deity couldn't identify his own special chosen people... You realise you're making it worse, right? The fact that he put his 'chosen few' at risk of the same ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIABLY ATROCIOUS VICARIOUS PUNISHMENT doesn't somehow make this any better.
O.
-
The Hebrew firstborn would have died as well, if a lamb had not been sacrificed in place of each of them.
This suggests that there's more to it than just the death of the firstborn Egyptians.
Even as a child that bit confused me. If God is all powerful, how come he needed to provide some elaborate ritual to protect the Hebrews? Couldn't he have just killed only Egyptians?
-
If it was just a matter of identifying Israelite and Egyptian houses, red paint would have done the job. Of course God knew who was who without needing any sign; the point is, a lamb had to die to ensure that an Israelite firstborn was unharmed. Why did God require this instead of a simple splash of paint?
-
If it was just a matter of identifying Israelite and Egyptian houses, red paint would have done the job. Of course God knew who was who without needing any sign
So, in fact not even a splash of red paint was needed.
the point is, a lamb had to die to ensure that an Israelite firstborn was unharmed.
Yes but why?
-
If it was just a matter of identifying Israelite and Egyptian houses, red paint would have done the job. Of course God knew who was who without needing any sign; the point is, a lamb had to die to ensure that an Israelite firstborn was unharmed. Why did God require this instead of a simple splash of paint?
Why should a lamb have to die?
-
To provide dinner with mint sauce. Something I always liked before becoming veggie.
-
If it was just a matter of identifying Israelite and Egyptian houses, red paint would have done the job. Of course God knew who was who without needing any sign; the point is, a lamb had to die to ensure that an Israelite firstborn was unharmed. Why did God require this instead of a simple splash of paint?
It's not history. It's myth, allegory and symbolism.
-
To provide dinner with mint sauce. Something I always liked before becoming veggie.
I like mint sauce but not lamb, I have never liked the taste of it, even though we had it for each Sunday lunch of my childhood.
-
If it was just a matter of identifying Israelite and Egyptian houses, red paint would have done the job. Of course God knew who was who without needing any sign; the point is, a lamb had to die to ensure that an Israelite firstborn was unharmed. Why did God require this instead of a simple splash of paint?
'Cos 'a simple splash of paint' -red ochre - was a common practice in Egypt....especially ay the celebratio
ns of Hathor/Sekhmet.
-
So, in fact not even a splash of red paint was needed.
Yes but why?
All children have the sin of Adam, and deserve to die (as do all adults), as illustrated by the need for a substitute for the Israelite firstborn. God withdrew his mercy from those in Egypt without a substitute. Possibly also, he was punishing Egypt according to pagan principles. In the Babylonian 'Code of Hammurabi' it says,
"229. If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.
230. If it cause the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder."
Also, God announced beforehand what he would do. This meant that the Egyptians would know that he is God. In this sense he defeated the gods of Egypt.
-
All children have the sin of Adam, and deserve to die (as do all adults), as illustrated by the need for a substitute for the Israelite firstborn. God withdrew his mercy from those in Egypt without a substitute. Possibly also, he was punishing Egypt according to pagan principles. In the Babylonian 'Code of Hammurabi' it says,
"229. If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.
230. If it cause the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder."
Also, God announced beforehand what he would do. This meant that the Egyptians would know that he is God. In this sense he defeated the gods of Egypt.
So you are saying god should be exterminated as it is supposedly the creator.
-
All children have the sin of Adam, and deserve to die (as do all adults), as illustrated by the need for a substitute for the Israelite firstborn. God withdrew his mercy from those in Egypt without a substitute. Possibly also, he was punishing Egypt according to pagan principles. In the Babylonian 'Code of Hammurabi' it says, "229. If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death. 230. If it cause the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder." Also, God announced beforehand what he would do. This meant that the Egyptians would know that he is God. In this sense he defeated the gods of Egypt.
'Pagan principles'? Talk about sweeping statement. C'mon, Spud; you can do far better than that. The Hammurabi law code wopuld have been unknown in Egypt...though it WOULD have been known in the sixth century BC, when many scholars believe the Pentateuch was 'edited'. The theocratic and philosophical outlook of the two civilisations was entirely differnt, and no law code in that form existed in Egypt - since because of the thinking in New Kingdom Egypt, the king was the law. Not only the law, but the spokesman and intermediary with the gods.
-
All children have the sin of Adam, and deserve to die (as do all adults)
No they don't.
as illustrated by the need for a substitute for the Israelite firstborn
That doesn't make sense. If I commit a crime, I can't substituted a sheep to do my time. Everybody would laugh at me.
God withdrew his mercy from those in Egypt without a substitute.
Why is a substitute needed? If God makes the rules, he can say "no substitute needed for my chosen people".
Possibly also, he was punishing Egypt according to pagan principles. In the Babylonian 'Code of Hammurabi' it says,
What was he punishing Egypt for?
"229. If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.
230. If it cause the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder."
That's pretty revolting stuff. The son of the builder is innocent.
Also, God announced beforehand what he would do. This meant that the Egyptians would know that he is God. In this sense he defeated the gods of Egypt.
Couldn't he find a way of beating the gods of Egypt without committing mass murder? A game of chess perhaps?
-
Dick said:- "Children (as the master story-teller Roald Dahl has pointed out) rather enjoy the gruesome and violent in their stories, from shoving witches into ovens to the Ugly Sisters cutting their own toes off trying to get into Cinderella's glass slipper in the original Grimm's tale."
Some children maybe, I read them and couldn't sleep! Horrible stuff. For a long time I'd put my hands over my ears at the very mention. 'Grimm' is an appropriate name.
-
What was he punishing Egypt for?
This sums up the ignorance in this thread, which I will get my coat now!
-
This sums up the ignorance in this thread, which I will get my coat now!
And then go and worship your thug god.
-
Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms
-
Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms
Put the bong down
-
Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms
Never had you figured for a Python fan Spudulike.
-
Tiny brained wipeurs of other peoples' bottoms
Whilst you wipe the bottom of the evil god. >:(
-
When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.
Whilst you wipe the bottom of the evil god. >:(
Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)
So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?
If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."
One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.
-
When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.
Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)
So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?
If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."
One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.
I don't believe any of that to be literally true. However, if it is we should be looking for a way of exterminating such an evil god, who commits such terrible atrocities. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Shouldn't the existence of god or gods be established first before going on to discussions like these, this thought always comes to my mind, I suppose it all boils down to the Russel's celestial teapot.
Religions all of them look so man made to me.
ippy.
-
When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.
Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)
So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?
If God had killed the Pharaoh and the slave drivers only, and predicted it beforehand so Egyptians knew it was an act of God, they still would have tried to hold on to the Israelites and keep them as slaves, since they depended on them. What was needed was for the Israelites to be driven out. Taking out the firstborn definitely achieved that. Exodus 11:1 says, "1Now the Lord had said to Moses, “I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely."
One Jewish commentator says that since the Egyptian culture elevated the firstborn over the other siblings, the other siblings needed slaves in order to feel superior to someone. By removing the firstborn, the slaves would no longer be needed and so were taken out of the equation as well, leading to them being driven out.
If you think this contrived nonsense justifies mass murder, your religion has done something terrible to your moral compass.
The Day the Earth Stood Still and Star Trek both included a great way for a powerful entity to demonstrate its power. All weapons were made unusable. I can't remember about TDTESS, but in Star Trek even hand-to-hand combat was made impossible. Humans came up with that idea.
-
Shouldn't the existence of god or gods be established first before going on to discussions like these.
ippy.
No, not if anyone wants to discuss the theme of the thread, since it is perfectly obvious that people do use the Bible (and other religious texts) as an excuse for bigotry. If people have various obsessions (such as homophobia, the inferiority of women, xenophobia and extreme nationalism) it always helps if they can find some 'holy text' to justify their narrow views - and they don't actually have to believe in such texts to use them for whatever purposes they like. Thereafter, you will always find some particularly vile political leaders who make use of such people to sustain them in political power - Trump and Putin come to mind, the latter seeming to find a use for the more bigoted attitudes of the Orthodox Church as grist to his mill.
However, one would certainly have to establish the existence of "the evil god of the bible", if one wished to take measures to 'exterminate it', as LR has suggested above. I can't imagine how one might approach this, since such a god would be the source of all life, whether evil or good. Perhaps a simpler approach might be attempted, which many here subscribe to, including you - simply stop believing. :)
-
When I said yesterday, "children deserve to die" that was misleading - they don't deserve instant death as occurred in Egypt.
Deuteronomy says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut 24:16)
So how do we reconcile this with Exodus 4:23, God threatening to kill Pharaoh's firstborn?
The answer is - you can't reconcile it. These were words from a different prophet, with different views from the one who wrote Exodus 4:23. The former was a bit more enlightened than the latter. And you can find other prophets in the Old Testament who were more enlightened than him. If you consider the murderous claptrap of Exodus etc as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe, then that is entirely your problem. Regarding the whole Bible as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe is an even bigger problem, but you might just find a few texts therein which concur with the developed morality of civilised people. At present, as Christine says, your moral compass is decidedly wonky.
-
The answer is - you can't reconcile it. These were words from a different prophet, with different views from the one who wrote Exodus 4:23. The former was a bit more enlightened than the latter. And you can find other prophets in the Old Testament who were more enlightened than him. If you consider the murderous claptrap of Exodus etc as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe, then that is entirely your problem. Regarding the whole Bible as the inerrant truth of the god of the universe is an even bigger problem, but you might just find a few texts therein which concur with the developed morality of civilised people. At present, as Christine says, your moral compass is decidedly wonky.
Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.
-
Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.
If it exists and any of that is true, what does that say about the Biblical god?
-
Spud,
Dicky and Christine, if physical death is the end, you are right. However, the biblical God says that there is a second death, which only he has the power to sentence someone to. This has implications for his right to bring punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. I won't try and elaborate just now, lest I tie myself in knots.
Too late.
This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.
-
Spud,
Too late.
This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.
If god is as bad as the Bible describes it as being, no decent person would want to spend eternity in its presence.
-
This sums up the ignorance in this thread, which I will get my coat now!
You cherry pick one small part of a longish post and claim that it means we are ignorant.
-
Spud,
Too late.
This morally bankrupt casuistry is similar to the odious William Lane Craig's defence when his god slaughters a few innocent babies along the way - "yeah, but just think - that way god was actually bringing their souls to him sooner than they'd have made it by other means, so he was being morally good". You can justify any evil this way if you try hard enough.
God should just kill everybody. If the alternatives are to bring our souls to him sooner or let us grow into adults who are guaranteed to sin against him, he should just murder all babies as soon as they are born (or before, depending on when he injects the soul).
-
BHS,
No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.
-
Spud,
No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16.
Doesn't work. If you think that there's a god and that god acts justly when he kills people who have done nothing wrong, why is it not just for people to do the same thing?
So there is no excuse for bigotry.
The Bible (the OT especially) is pretty much a compendium of excuses for bigotry - don't like gay people? Not a problem - just find a reference in the "holy" book and your bigotry will be validated. To be fair though, other "holy" texts with bigotries of their own are available too.
-
BHS,
No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.
Why does God have that right? The innocent person suffers just as much if God does it as if a human does it.
-
BHS,
No, humans cannot justify evil that way. Let's be clear, no human has the right to cause or allow an innocent person to suffer. Only God has that right. Deuteronomy 24:16. So there is no excuse for bigotry.
Why should god have that right? >:(
-
No, not if anyone wants to discuss the theme of the thread, since it is perfectly obvious that people do use the Bible (and other religious texts) as an excuse for bigotry. If people have various obsessions (such as homophobia, the inferiority of women, xenophobia and extreme nationalism) it always helps if they can find some 'holy text' to justify their narrow views - and they don't actually have to believe in such texts to use them for whatever purposes they like. Thereafter, you will always find some particularly vile political leaders who make use of such people to sustain them in political power - Trump and Putin come to mind, the latter seeming to find a use for the more bigoted attitudes of the Orthodox Church as grist to his mill.
However, one would certainly have to establish the existence of "the evil god of the bible", if one wished to take measures to 'exterminate it', as LR has suggested above. I can't imagine how one might approach this, since such a god would be the source of all life, whether evil or good. Perhaps a simpler approach might be attempted, which many here subscribe to, including you - simply stop believing. :)
I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.
Regards, ippy.
-
You cherry pick one small part of a longish post and claim that it means we are ignorant.
Sorry about that, Jeremy. It was a good post, and I only had my phone on me at the time so it would have been quite tedious to reply to each point without a proper keyboard. So I selected the bit that I knew I could attempt to answer using just the phone, about Egypt as a nation being guilty of enslaving Israel and preventing them from worshipping God. As I mentioned yesterday, to kill only the guilty Egyptians would not (as far as I can see) have convinced the rest to let Israel go. This I think answers your question about finding a nicer way to 'defeat the gods of Egypt'- there wasn't one.
Regarding the lambs. They were partly for strengthening the people to walk out, and partly to provide blood so that the angel of death passed over their houses. Each lamb was killed in faith that God would save a child. They knew that the lamb itself could not save it, as it was only an animal. But the action of obedience proved the faith of the family. Each lamb itself pointed towards the death of Christ who would in the future be a sacrifice for us.
-
God should just kill everybody. If the alternatives are to bring our souls to him sooner or let us grow into adults who are guaranteed to sin against him, he should just murder all babies as soon as they are born (or before, depending on when he injects the soul).
But then there would be no humans left.
-
But then there would be no humans left.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.
Regards, ippy.
What - you mean you don't believe that people use religious texts to sustain bigoted views, which then have political repercussions? You don't have to prove the existence of 'gods' to see that such phenomena are a reality of everyday life. These things happen, regardless of whether there's any supernatural reality behind them or not.
-
But then there would be no humans left.
Why is that a bad thing? Nobody would be sinning anymore. Nobody would be suffering. The ecosystem would no longer be under assault from human activities. I can't see a down side.
-
As I mentioned yesterday, to kill only the guilty Egyptians would not (as far as I can see) have convinced the rest to let Israel go.
But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.
This I think answers your question about finding a nicer way to 'defeat the gods of Egypt'- there wasn't one.
Were these gods of Egypt real?
Regarding the lambs. They were partly for strengthening the people to walk out, and partly to provide blood so that the angel of death passed over their houses. Each lamb was killed in faith that God would save a child. They knew that the lamb itself could not save it, as it was only an animal. But the action of obedience proved the faith of the family. Each lamb itself pointed towards the death of Christ who would in the future be a sacrifice for us.
So, if Hebrew didn't kill a lamb, would their first born son have died? What if an Egyptian had found out about the ritual and also performed it? Would his first born son have been saved?
-
But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.
Were these gods of Egypt real?
I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.
I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".
-
I suppose this is just another place where our views part their way.
Regards, ippy.
Furthermore, you might like to consider why so many evangelical Christians in the USA belong to the gun-owning lobby:
Does Jesus Want Gun-Toting Christians? - The Daily Beast
https://www.thedailybeast.com › does-jesus-want-gun-toting-christians
-
I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.
I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".
I agree with your analysis, but I would be interested to know what Spud thinks.
-
I think the writer of that part of Exodus probably thought they were. No doubt the Hebrews thought that their tribal Yahweh was top dog (henotheism), and the gods of other nations needed to be shown who was boss.
I believe it's not until we get to Isaiah that there's the idea that "Yahweh is the Lord and there is no one else".
This is true. The earliest parts of the Bible express monolatry (worship of only one God, without necessarily denying the existance of others). Monotheism (belief in only one God) comes later.
-
Spud,
Doesn't work. If you think that there's a god and that god acts justly when he kills people who have done nothing wrong, why is it not just for people to do the same thing?
Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")
The Bible (the OT especially) is pretty much a compendium of excuses for bigotry - don't like gay people? Not a problem - just find a reference in the "holy" book and your bigotry will be validated. To be fair though, other "holy" texts with bigotries of their own are available too.
It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.
Why does God have that right? The innocent person suffers just as much if God does it as if a human does it.
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
Why is that a bad thing? Nobody would be sinning anymore. Nobody would be suffering. The ecosystem would no longer be under assault from human activities. I can't see a down side.
In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.
But it would have been justice. And the Pharaoh was already on the point of letting the Hebrews go - until God hardened his heart.
Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.
<<What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.>>
Were these gods of Egypt real?
The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.
So, if Hebrew didn't kill a lamb, would their first born son have died?
Yes.
What if an Egyptian had found out about the ritual and also performed it? Would his first born son have been saved?
Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41
-
Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")
It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.
Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.
The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.Yes.Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41
Your post hasn't done the Biblical god any favours at all, it just emphasises what a very unpleasant entity it is, if it exists.
-
Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")
Maybe he should try to live up to his own standards.
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
How could he possibly do that in a way that is not morally bankrupt.
In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit? Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent. Eve seems to have done, Genesis 4:1.
So, in summary, we only exist because God wanted some sycophants to praise him and inflate his ego the whole time. What's his surname? Trump?
You really need to take a step back and try to read what you are writing from a non believer's perspective. You are turning your god into more of a monster than we previously thought.
-
Because He says people shouldn't ("Do not kill")
I'm far from a scholar of ancient languages, but I was under the impression that the particular usage in the Aramaic (I think?) was perhaps better interpreted as 'Thou shalt not murder'?
It also says to take the plank out of my own eye first.
From a deity that self-confessedly reports 'I am a jealous God' and then commences the world's most widespread controlling relationship, that's a bit rich!
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved.
Repent of what? How can I repent for something someone else has done? Why am I in line for an ETERNAL punishment for even my temporal transgressions, let alone someone else's? Why are half of these things even sins? Eating shellfish? Getting a dodgy haircut? Having last year's beard style? But rape and slavery aren't sins?
He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
Just look at that sentence for a moment. You are, deep-down, a well-meaning, decent person - we might differ on some specifics, but I'm prepared to accept that you have the best interests (from your point of view) of people at heart - in what reality is it ever anything more than a balance of evils to cause the suffering of innocents to achieve a greater good? We castigate politicians for exposing children or civilians to danger in warzones, but we don't hold an infinitely powerful being to the same standard? He doesn't hold himself to a higher standard? He can perform miracles when he chooses - he can choose who to save and who to condemn at death, but can't differentiate between guilty politicians and innocent children in Egypt?
In other words, why didn't God kill Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit?
Given that, before they ate the forbidden fruit, they had no concept of right and wrong, how can they be blamed for anything? If not eating the apple is important, why did they have access to the apple?
Because he created them to glorify him, so he wanted them to repent.
Narcissist much? Buy a mirror, don't create a slave race to do your bidding in a vainglorious attempt to make up for the fact that you don't have any friends.
Romans 9:14-18, talking about the Jews' rejection of Jesus, deals with this.
<<What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.>>
The Egyptians thought they were, but they weren't.Yes.Only if he had been circumcised, apparently, Ex 12:41
Why is someone else mutilating your genitals a requirement for being saved at any point? Why is my likelihood of being spared punishment for someone else's actions dependent on a different someone else's actions before I was capable of making decisions? We don't hold children criminally responsible for actions because they don't understand, and we think it's immoral to punish someone for things they have no comprehension of. We don't exclude categories of people from the justice system based on physical characteristics, but the Jewish God does, then arbitrarily drops some of the requirements?
O.
-
Spud,
God's priority is for people to repent and be saved. He always uses the suffering of innocent people to that end.
So just to be clear, you think it's a moral good to cause suffering to "innocent" people in order that the guilty people should be encouraged to "repent"?
Is that really where you want to be - espousing the punishment of the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?
Really though?
-
What - you mean you don't believe that people use religious texts to sustain bigoted views, which then have political repercussions? You don't have to prove the existence of 'gods' to see that such phenomena are a reality of everyday life. These things happen, regardless of whether there's any supernatural reality behind them or not.
There seems to be something moderately successful going on in most of Europe where the various religions are far less likely to be asked to the party when various ethical and moral questions are being taken care of or resolved like here now in the UK 53% of us are non-religious people and counting, every little bit helps.
Perhaps this could be considered the passive or a more subtractive way having the effect of leaving our old magic and superstition based beliefs back in the past where they should belong.
As things are happening in the present day perhaps it could be looked on as taking this rather tiresome god anachronism of an idea out of the way quietly over the long term, which hopefully in the end will remove the god element from any serious consideration.
In short gradually removing god by the subtractive method, mind you that could easily be thought of as looking on the bright side.
Yes it is difficult to remove these zero evidence based god heads from the picture.
ippy
-
There seems to be something moderately successful going on in most of Europe where the various religions are far less likely to be asked to the party when various ethical and moral questions are being taken care of or resolved like here now in the UK 53% of us are non-religious people and counting, every little bit helps.
This is certainly true. However, the votes of the 'moral majority' and the scripture-bashing drongos of the Bible Belt in the American south are going to be a cause for concern for a long while yet, and every American president ignores their voting significance at his/her electoral peril.
-
I'm far from a scholar of ancient languages, but I was under the impression that the particular usage in the Aramaic (I think?) was perhaps better interpreted as 'Thou shalt not murder'?
"Thou shalt not murder" is somewhat problematic in the sense that it is tautological. Murder is basically killing somebody when you are not allowed to kill them. "Thou shalt not murder" is "you are not allowed to kill people when killing them is not allowed".
-
Your post hasn't done the Biblical god any favours at all, it just emphasises what a very unpleasant entity it is, if it exists.
Perhaps the problem is due to us not being able to perceive how God is using a situation for good when that appears impossible. But the point remains that he is concerned with peoples' eternal destiny just as much as their brief time in the flesh.
-
Perhaps the problem is due to us not being able to perceive how God is using a situation for good when that appears impossible. But the point remains that he is concerned with peoples' eternal destiny just as much as their brief time in the flesh.
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING! ::)
-
'Pagan principles'? Talk about sweeping statement. C'mon, Spud; you can do far better than that. The Hammurabi law code wopuld have been unknown in Egypt...though it WOULD have been known in the sixth century BC, when many scholars believe the Pentateuch was 'edited'. The theocratic and philosophical outlook of the two civilisations was entirely differnt, and no law code in that form existed in Egypt - since because of the thinking in New Kingdom Egypt, the king was the law. Not only the law, but the spokesman and intermediary with the gods.
Jim, a point regarding Exodus 4:22-23, which says,
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son'.
In Genesis 42:37, Reuben says to his father, "You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back." Thus, Reuben had been influenced by this pagan concept of justice while in Canaan. Maybe it was known in Egypt at the time of Moses, and hence God's threat in Exodus 22-23?
-
Jim, a point regarding Exodus 4:22-23, which says,
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son'.
In Genesis 42:37, Reuben says to his father, "You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you. Entrust him to my care, and I will bring him back." Thus, Reuben had been influenced by this pagan concept of justice while in Canaan. Maybe it was known in Egypt at the time of Moses, and hence God's threat in Exodus 22-23?
What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?
-
What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?
If I was Pharaoh, I would make a note that he had just destroyed practically everything, then I would pretty quickly let the Israelites go.
-
What do you think of a god, which makes those sort of terrible threats?
L R Spud reminds me of one of those street preachers preaching their nonsense, we all have suffered from time to time, standing on their little boxes in all sorts of crowded places over the country while the world passes them by with occasional meetings of skyward glancing eyes, as much as to say another one, we all understand each other by the look.
Look, 'Another Spud'!
Regards, ippy.
-
Would you prefer us a race of automata?
Man has used religion as an excuse for wars which are not, essentially, religious, but an attempt at land or power grab.
Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His.
You say Anchor, 'Christ gave me only two commands; none involved killing, and the only blood shed is His', how can you possibly know this for certain?
It's this sort of statement that puts me off of the religionists, I'm already off of all of the religions due to the rather minor zero evidence problem religionists have for any of the magical, mystical and superstition based parts thereof.
Regards, ippy
-
If I was Pharaoh, I would make a note that he had just destroyed practically everything, then I would pretty quickly let the Israelites go.
You are not Pharaoh, you are a believer who apparently approves of the terrible deeds attributed to the Biblical god.
-
"Thou shalt not murder" is somewhat problematic in the sense that it is tautological. Murder is basically killing somebody when you are not allowed to kill them. "Thou shalt not murder" is "you are not allowed to kill people when killing them is not allowed".
Let's be fair, use of a tautology is the least of the issues in that work :)
O.
-
Maybe he should try to live up to his own standards.
Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.
-
Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.
Spud ,grow up !
-
Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.
That's getting on for Boris Johnson 'new Nurses' levels of mutilating the language. If I'm given something, it's mine - whomever gave it to me doesn't have the right to take it back, that's not giving it's lending. I don't recall the bit where God loaned the breath of life to people...
O.
-
whomever
Whoever.
-
Whoever.
Good to see you getting to the heart of the matter... ::)
O.
-
Good to see you getting to the heart of the matter... ::)
O.
;D ;D
-
That's getting on for Boris Johnson 'new Nurses' levels of mutilating the language. If I'm given something, it's mine - whomever gave it to me doesn't have the right to take it back, that's not giving it's lending. I don't recall the bit where God loaned the breath of life to people...
O.
Adam was given warning that he would die if he ate the fruit. So God would not be just if he let us live forever. He does have the right to take life away.
You asked why God gave them access to the fruit. This was a test to see if he would obey his creator or the creature, represented by the snake. (Romans 1 says man worshiped the creature rather than the creator.)
-
Adam was given warning that he would die if he ate the fruit. So God would not be just if he let us live forever. He does have the right to take life away.
You asked why God gave them access to the fruit. This was a test to see if he would obey his creator or the creature, represented by the snake. (Romans 1 says man worshiped the creature rather than the creator.)
If that story is true instead of being the myth I believe it to be, god set A&E up. Having created human nature it knew they would eat the fruit, so god is to blame for human faults and failings.
-
Adam was given warning that he would die if he ate the fruit.
Right. I work in health and safety, telling people they are at risk is well understood as an ineffective way to ensure their safety, people are incredibly poor at assessing safety risks, and even worse at assessing health risks, which doesn't actually address the point - why is the tree there? If there is a risk, and there is no apparent need for it (it's not as though it's there for anyone or anything else, so far as we can see).
So God would not be just if he let us live forever.
Why not? If you put something enticing in front of a child and tell them not to touch it, you can be reasonably sure they're going to ignore that instruction, that sort of curiosity is intrinsic to humans and understanding of risk is something that comes from experience, not instinct.
He does have the right to take life away.
Does he? Once he's given it to Adam it's Adam's life, not his - why does he have the right to take it back? Why isn't life 'sacred' if it's God that wants to take it?
You asked why God gave them access to the fruit. This was a test to see if he would obey his creator or the creature, represented by the snake.
He's all-knowing, why does he need to test? If his creation fails the test, why is that the creation's fault - he's the designer, after all. If the brakes on your car fail because the attachment points are too weak you don't get sued in court, the manufacturer does...
O.
-
Repent of what?
Everyone has sinned (Eccl. 7:20).
How can I repent for something someone else has done?
Repent for our own sins is what I meant.
Why am I in line for an ETERNAL punishment for even my temporal transgressions,
Because if we don't repent, our rebellion is ongoing.
let alone someone else's?
Nobody is in line for eternal punishment for someone else's transgressions.
Why are half of these things even sins? Eating shellfish? Getting a dodgy haircut? Having last year's beard style?
They were not sins, they made an Israelite ceremonially unclean. They were outward signs of a change of heart, until the Messiah came.
But rape and slavery aren't sins?
Forcibly enslaving someone is stealing a person and is forbidden somewhere in the pentateuch, as is rape.
-
Everyone has sinned (Eccl. 7:20).
Then (assuming a creator and your notion of sin) it isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.
-
Everyone has sinned (Eccl. 7:20).
If Ecclesiastes can say that everyone will sin, generations before I'm born then either a) there really is no free will or b) the bar for 'sin' is set ridiculously low which makes the whole thing a con.
Repent for our own sins is what I meant.
Just a soon as someone explains why they are sins.
Because if we don't repent, our rebellion is ongoing.
Having a different opinion is also a sin - religion is ultimate authoritarian state, where difference of thought is criminal.
Nobody is in line for eternal punishment for someone else's transgressions.
If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit, as it was explained above, none of us would die and be subject to judgement, right?
They were not sins, they made you ceremonially unclean. They were outward signs of a change of heart, until the Messiah came.
'Ceremonially unclean'? God's baseless preferences enforced on society to create opportunities for judgement...
Forcibly enslaving someone is stealing a person and is forbidden somewhere in the pentateuch, as is rape.
The Old Testament does not once raise any issue with slavery as a concept, it has some issues with certain types of treatment of slaves. Rape is not a concept that was known to the Hebrews- at worst it was seen as theft of a man's sexual property, which is disturbing in itself. Imagine how much better a world we'd be in if the Old Testament had made rape a sin, or suggested that committing rape made you 'ritually unclean'; imagine how much better a world we'd be in if even one passage in the 39/46 books had expressed mild disappointment that people might want to think about owning other people... and then tell me that this is 'the good book'. Your God, apparently had the foresight to ban shellfish in an age before refrigeration, but not the foresight to envision refrigeration, whilst at the same time not being able to ensure that his instructions included even a hint of disapproval for sexual violence or slavery? Maybe this isn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral being after all.
O.
-
god set A&E up.
We could do with him in Hemel Hempstead: our A&E closed down years ago, and we have to go to Watford for anything serious.
-
Everyone has sinned (Eccl. 7:20).
Repent for our own sins is what I meant.
Because if we don't repent, our rebellion is ongoing.
Nobody is in line for eternal punishment for someone else's transgressions.
They were not sins, they made an Israelite ceremonially unclean. They were outward signs of a change of heart, until the Messiah came.
Forcibly enslaving someone is stealing a person and is forbidden somewhere in the pentateuch, as is rape.
We should try to make amends for our wrong doings and apologise to any human we have hurt. If god exists it should be repenting of its wrong doings and apologising to humanity for its evil deeds.
-
Adam was given warning that he would die if he ate the fruit. So God would not be just if he let us live forever. He does have the right to take life away.
You asked why God gave them access to the fruit. This was a test to see if he would obey his creator or the creature, represented by the snake. (Romans 1 says man worshipped the creature rather than the creator.)
Oh dear!
By the way Spud How can you possibly know for certain any of the assertions you've made about Adam or the other assertive statements you've made in your post 252, on this thread, actually did happen?
If you can't substantiate these assertions so typical of your usual approach to this forum what's the point making them?
ippy.
-
Murder is taking someone's life without a justifiable reason.
What justifiable reason was there for murdering lots of innocent people in Egypt? Some of the first born children would have been babies.
Since God gave the gift of life, then perhaps he is justified in taking it away. He will take all of us' lives after all.
God murders everybody? Wow. You really aren't helping your case.
-
Adam was given warning that he would die if he ate the fruit. So God would not be just if he let us live forever. He does have the right to take life away.
Leaving aside the fact that God failed to carry out his threat, the only people to eat that fruit were Adam and Eve. Why does that make it acceptable for God to murder everybody else?
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
So it created evil people and then kills them because they are evil. Your god is a dick.
-
So it created evil people and then kills them because they are evil. Your god is a dick.
Thanks for that insightful comment.
-
Thanks for that insightful comment.
Truth is often insightful. You worship a thug.
-
God does not murder people.
The unborn children in the womb of every pregnant woman in Noah's flood? The newborn infants of Egypt at Passover?
"Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"
Then why let them be born? If every inclination of the human heart is evil, why continue with the project? Why make people suffer if that's already known?
That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us.
Nothing justifies an infinitely wise entity with the capacity to teach choosing instead to kill because he failed to implement suitable error-catching in the code.
Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
Substitutionary sacrifice is a fundamentally immoral concept in the first place - killing someone or something else to pay for our transgressions is immoral, a deity accepting such a sacrifice is complicit in that immorality. This is nonsense.
O.
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
I agree that substitutionary sacrifice is fundamentally immoral. But on a less fundamental note, you must not know any nice people. Even I am inclined to, for example, provide help to homeless people. Is that evil? When I take the time and bother to catch a fly that's got into my home and put it outside rather than let it die on my window sill, is that evil? Wanting to help people I've never met by donating to MSF, is that evil?
You could argue that every action humans take may have "evil" consequences, but that is not the same as the inclination to do the action being evil. If I could see the biggest picture it might be that giving money to MSF causes more damage to the world and beings in it than not giving would, but my motivation for doing it is to help alleviate the suffering of strangers.
I'm not even a good person, but I know people who are and I'd stand by them and their "evil" inclinations rather than your capricious, vicious, irrational god any day. (If it was real, which I see no evidence for.) No wonder sympathy for the devil is evident in Paradise Lost. Anyone who thinks rationally about Christian theology, even if they think it might be true, would find themselves in the same boat as Milton.
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
This just tells us how utterly evil your god is. As Christopher Hitchens said, it creates us sick and commands us to be well - and then punishes us for being sick. The amount of doublethink in this type of Christianity is breathtaking.
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
And you think a god like that is good?
-
If Ecclesiastes can say that everyone will sin, generations before I'm born then either a) there really is no free will or b) the bar for 'sin' is set ridiculously low which makes the whole thing a con.
A topic worth raising with Alan Burns, in his assertions about free-will (I'll get round to it myself eventually :) )
Of course, St Paul reiterates the concept in the New Testament (I quote from memory):
"The good that I would I do not, and the evil I would not, that I do. Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?"
Well, guess who? Why Jaysus of course.
So do we only have free will if we give our selves up to Jesus? But isn't that surrendering of oneself allowing the entry of the Holy Spirit, which like the wind "Bloweth wheresoever it listeth"?
I realise I'm addressing these questions to the wrong person, Outrider: but they do epitomise the whole contradictory nonsense of the Christian 'human free will argument".
-
God does not murder people. "Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death, therefore he does not murder us. Isaac needed a substitute, the ram. The Israelite firstborn needed one, we need one, everyone is born with the sinful nature.
But that substitute was God the Son, the second person of the Trinity - in short God himself (There are not 3 Gods, but one God).
Perhaps God might have cut out the middle man.
-
But that substitute was God the Son, the second person of the Trinity - in short God himself (There are not 3 Gods, but one God).
Perhaps God might have cut out the middle man.
That wouldn't have been so much fun for a moral thug
-
I agree that substitutionary sacrifice is fundamentally immoral. But on a less fundamental note, you must not know any nice people. Even I am inclined to, for example, provide help to homeless people. Is that evil? When I take the time and bother to catch a fly that's got into my home and put it outside rather than let it die on my window sill, is that evil? Wanting to help people I've never met by donating to MSF, is that evil?
You could argue that every action humans take may have "evil" consequences, but that is not the same as the inclination to do the action being evil. If I could see the biggest picture it might be that giving money to MSF causes more damage to the world and beings in it than not giving would, but my motivation for doing it is to help alleviate the suffering of strangers.
I'm not even a good person, but I know people who are and I'd stand by them and their "evil" inclinations rather than your capricious, vicious, irrational god any day. (If it was real, which I see no evidence for.) No wonder sympathy for the devil is evident in Paradise Lost. Anyone who thinks rationally about Christian theology, even if they think it might be true, would find themselves in the same boat as Milton.
What about coveting? Keeping up with the Joneses? Losing our temper? Doesn't everyone have the ability to do good and evil?
-
Substitutionary sacrifice is a fundamentally immoral concept in the first place - killing someone or something else to pay for our transgressions is immoral, a deity accepting such a sacrifice is complicit in that immorality. This is nonsense.
O.
What about if it enables the guilty person to become a better person?
The only sacrifice that actually 'paid' for any transgressions was Jesus' one. All the others were symbolic.
-
And bear in mind that Jesus, although dead, could not stay dead, because he had not sinned.
-
And bear in mind that Jesus, although dead, could not stay dead, because he had not sinned.
There is no evidence to support the claim that guy resurrected. He was a mere human with faults just like the rest of us, that is clear from the gospel accounts.
-
What about coveting? Keeping up with the Joneses? Losing our temper? Doesn't everyone have the ability to do good and evil?
Yes Spud, that's right. You were the one making the gross generalisation, not me, using the Bible as your authority. So the Bible was wrong when it said "every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"? What else do you think it might have got wrong?
-
Yes Spud, that's right. You were the one making the gross generalisation, not me, using the Bible as your authority. So the Bible was wrong when it said "every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"? What else do you think it might have got wrong?
Romans 7 talks about this. Paul eventually says, "So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." which seems to explain what Genesis means?
-
There is no evidence to support the claim that guy resurrected. He was a mere human with faults just like the rest of us, that is clear from the gospel accounts.
Which guy? Lazarus?
-
God does not murder people.
The Bible says he does.
"Every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" Genesis 8:21. That justifies our death
It might justify not creating us i the first place if it were true. But it just sounds like God justifying the bloodbath.
Isaac needed a substitute, the ram.
Why? God didn't have to tell Abraham to kill him. The ram was only needed thanks to a situation God created.
The Israelite firstborn needed one
Or God could have decided not to kill everyone.
everyone is born with the sinful nature.
Speak for yourself.
-
And bear in mind that Jesus, although dead, could not stay dead, because he had not sinned.
So it wasn't a sacrifice - except maybe for a weekend. Perhaps he has plans to go to the beach.
-
Which guy? Lazarus?
You know I am referring to that bloke, Jesus.
-
Romans 7 talks about this. Paul eventually says, "So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." which seems to explain what Genesis means?
So you actually think that the organ that pumps blood around your body has "inclinations" which are separate from what's going on in your mind?
-
What about if it enables the guilty person to become a better person?
Sacrificing person A for person B's benefit is immoral, regardless of what the benefit to person B, notwithstanding it's difficult to imagine a scenario where subject B's moral improvement would require person A's sacrifice.
The only sacrifice that actually 'paid' for any transgressions was Jesus' one. All the others were symbolic.
All the others were symbollically dead? How does symbolic death work, do those Egyptian parents get their children back two days later, or is that just God?
O.
-
And bear in mind that Jesus, although dead, could not stay dead, because he had not sinned.
And that counts as a sacrifice how, then?
O.
-
It's difficult if not impossible to expect logic or reason from such as 'Spud', when they're on one of their, usually due to indoctrination when young, god and the bible proves the bible spots.
ippy
-
Sacrificing person A for person B's benefit is immoral, regardless of what the benefit to person B, notwithstanding it's difficult to imagine a scenario where subject B's moral improvement would require person A's sacrifice.
Jesus was God incarnate, according to Christianity, so it isn't a case of God sacrificing someone else for our sins, but Of God sacrificing himself.
-
Jesus was God incarnate, according to Christianity, so it isn't a case of God sacrificing someone else for our sins, but Of God sacrificing himself.
for a short weekend to himself. It's all mad.
-
Jesus was God incarnate, according to Christianity, so it isn't a case of God sacrificing someone else for our sins, but Of God sacrificing himself.
yeah Steve H , sounds fucking crazy doesn't it ?
You couldn't make it up !
Oh wait .....
-
Jesus was God incarnate, according to Christianity, so it isn't a case of God sacrificing someone else for our sins, but Of God sacrificing himself.
That really doesn't do anything to make the story make any more sense, it's still bizarre, twisted, and unjust.
-
That really doesn't do anything to make the story make any more sense, it's still bizarre, twisted, and unjust.
I agree, Jesus was no sort of god, imo.
-
Jesus was God incarnate, according to Christianity, so it isn't a case of God sacrificing someone else for our sins, but Of God sacrificing himself.
But it wasn't a sacrifice. He was only one third dead for a couple of days.
-
This just tells us how utterly evil your god is. As Christopher Hitchens said, it creates us sick and commands us to be well - and then punishes us for being sick. The amount of doublethink in this type of Christianity is breathtaking.
God created us "good". He set things up so that he is in authority over us, as we were in authority over the animals. If your employer leaves £5 on his desk, it isn't hard to not steal it, he already pays you enough. In Eden the situation arose where we rejected his authority (see below), so he cut us off from Eden and the tree of life. Eventually our body dies, at which point we are permanently cut off from God, no longer able to speak to him and separated from him for ever. While we live we can still turn back to him, and submit to his authority, but we still have the tendency to rebel and need to keep turning back.
Sacrificing person A for person B's benefit is immoral, regardless of what the benefit to person B, notwithstanding it's difficult to imagine a scenario where subject B's moral improvement would require person A's sacrifice.
If person A steps forward and allows it to happen?
All the others were symbollically dead? How does symbolic death work, do those Egyptian parents get their children back two days later, or is that just God?
O.
How does the sacrifice work, is the first question. After Adam and Eve sinned, God promised that Eve's offspring would crush the head of the serpent who had deceived them. The way this works is that first God loves us so much that he sent his son, the second person of the trinity, to be born as the offspring of Eve, in order to crush the head of the serpent. With the devil gone, paradise (communion with God) will one day be restored, and God promises that by faith we can inherit this promise. However, in the process of the serpent being crushed, the Adam's offspring's heel would be struck by the serpent, picturing the death of the Son as he defeated the devil. Jesus faced the devil and overcame temptation, but in the process was struck by the devil, through the people who killed him. This is the sense in which Jesus was a sacrifice.
The animal sacrifices go back to the garden of Eden, where God had to kill animals to cover A&E and deal with their shame. I'm still not completely sure why God instructed Israel to make sacrifices, but they seem to have been an outward sign of repentance and a way in which they could be assured of God's forgiveness. They were worthless without obedience to God (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22, Matthew 9:13, Mark 12:33). They signified faith in God's promise to restore mankind to fellowship with him; this was the part they played in defeating the devil - they enabled the people of God to continue to worship him while the nations around worshiped false gods, thus eventually the Messiah would be born to complete the work of defeating Satan so that mankind could, at his return, be restored to 'paradise'.
God knew all this would happen. He did it to demonstrate the fullness of his nature and glory.
-
God created us "good". He set things up so that he is in authority over us, as we were in authority over the animals. If your employer leaves £5 on his desk, it isn't hard to not steal it, he already pays you enough. In Eden the situation arose where we rejected his authority (see below), so he cut us off from Eden and the tree of life. Eventually our body dies, at which point we are permanently cut off from God, no longer able to speak to him and separated from him for ever. While we live we can still turn back to him, and submit to his authority, but we still have the tendency to rebel and need to keep turning back.
It's truly astounding that Christians can tell people this without seeing the evil perversity of their god.
Firstly, people born after Eden didn't make the choice to reject god's authority and yet, as you said, we are born with a "sinful" nature - that's being created ill ("sinful") and being commanded to be well (free from "sin"). Your twisted god is punishing us for being the descendants of Adam and Eve by making us "sinful" and then threatening us with punishing us again for being the way it made us. It's perverse, unfair, and evil.
Secondly, the forbidden fruit was of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so presumably poor old Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil before, so couldn't have known that disobeying god was bad. More perversity.
How does the sacrifice work, is the first question. After Adam and Eve sinned, God promised that Eve's offspring would crush the head of the serpent who had deceived them. The way this works is that first God loves us so much that he sent his son...
If your god loved us, it wouldn't have made things so utterly unfair and cruel in the first place.
God knew all this would happen. He did it to demonstrate the fullness of his nature and glory.
It rather demonstrates he's a sadistic bastard.
-
I'm guessing spud thinks Eastenders is a documentary !
-
God created us "good". He set things up so that he is in authority over us, as we were in authority over the animals. If your employer leaves £5 on his desk, it isn't hard to not steal it, he already pays you enough. In Eden the situation arose where we rejected his authority (see below), so he cut us off from Eden and the tree of life. Eventually our body dies, at which point we are permanently cut off from God, no longer able to speak to him and separated from him for ever. While we live we can still turn back to him, and submit to his authority, but we still have the tendency to rebel and need to keep turning back.
If person A steps forward and allows it to happen?
How does the sacrifice work, is the first question. After Adam and Eve sinned, God promised that Eve's offspring would crush the head of the serpent who had deceived them. The way this works is that first God loves us so much that he sent his son, the second person of the trinity, to be born as the offspring of Eve, in order to crush the head of the serpent. With the devil gone, paradise (communion with God) will one day be restored, and God promises that by faith we can inherit this promise. However, in the process of the serpent being crushed, the Adam's offspring's heel would be struck by the serpent, picturing the death of the Son as he defeated the devil. Jesus faced the devil and overcame temptation, but in the process was struck by the devil, through the people who killed him. This is the sense in which Jesus was a sacrifice.
The animal sacrifices go back to the garden of Eden, where God had to kill animals to cover A&E and deal with their shame. I'm still not completely sure why God instructed Israel to make sacrifices, but they seem to have been an outward sign of repentance and a way in which they could be assured of God's forgiveness. They were worthless without obedience to God (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22, Matthew 9:13, Mark 12:33). They signified faith in God's promise to restore mankind to fellowship with him; this was the part they played in defeating the devil - they enabled the people of God to continue to worship him while the nations around worshiped false gods, thus eventually the Messiah would be born to complete the work of defeating Satan so that mankind could, at his return, be restored to 'paradise'.
God knew all this would happen. He did it to demonstrate the fullness of his nature and glory.
Your portrayal of the god character just underlines its evil nature.
-
It's not just conservative Christians who use the bible as an excuse for bigotry; so do some atheists, in a negative way - picking out all the nasty bits, qhoting them out of context, and ignoring all the good bits. Thank heavens no-one on here would dream of doing that! ::)
-
It's not just conservative Christians who use the bible as an excuse for bigotry; so do some atheists, in a negative way - picking out all the nasty bits, qhoting them out of context, and ignoring all the good bits. Thank heavens no-one on here would dream of doing that! ::)
Give an example of the good bits.
-
Give an example of the good bits.
The sermon on the mount, much of Isaiah, quite a lot of the other prophets, and much more.
-
The sermon on the mount, much of Isaiah, quite a lot of the other prophets, and much more.
You haven't stated what is good about these things.
-
It's not just conservative Christians who use the bible as an excuse for bigotry; so do some atheists, in a negative way - picking out all the nasty bits, qhoting them out of context, and ignoring all the good bits. Thank heavens no-one on here would dream of doing that! ::)
I thought that in the larger proportion of fiction like the bible you get the good and bad most of the time and I'm even sure workshop manuals do something similar too?
ippy.
-
There are some good bits in the Bible, amongst the truly awful bits. That book is a very human creation with no input from any god, imo.
-
God created us "good".
Then why did the knowledge of good and evil lead us astray? I appreciate that much of Christian history has been punctuated by episodes of suppressing knowledge, but I figured that was purely temporal power-mongering, not a moral imperative?
He set things up so that he is in authority over us, as we were in authority over the animals.
So we're glorified pets? Or cattle? That's not a healthy relationship.
If your employer leaves £5 on his desk, it isn't hard to not steal it, he already pays you enough.
More money is always better than less money - we don't avoid stealing because we have enough, we avoid stealing because we have moral integrity (especially if you're one of the many, many people who aren't payed enough for what they do).
In Eden the situation arose where we rejected his authority (see below), so he cut us off from Eden and the tree of life.
But how can he punish people who, literally, had no concept of right and wrong? A knowledge of good and evil was only present after they'd eaten the fruit - you don't punish children for not knowing right and wrong, you teach them. You certainly don't punish their descendants.
Eventually our body dies, at which point we are permanently cut off from God, no longer able to speak to him and separated from him for ever.
Everybody has to get out of an abusive relationship at some point.
While we live we can still turn back to him, and submit to his authority, but we still have the tendency to rebel and need to keep turning back.
Whilst we live there is hope we can realise we don't need that sort of 'authority' figure punishing us for his failings - we need refuges from God, not on his behalf.
If person A steps forward and allows it to happen?
Then Person A is making the sacrifice, not God.
How does the sacrifice work, is the first question.
No the first question is 'Why do we have anything that we need to make up for', then it's 'Does sacrifice actually work'... given that those are both 'no' then anything after that is academic anyway.
After Adam and Eve sinned,
What's 'sin'? What of God's sin of failing to adequately care for his creation, failure to adequately control access to the dangerous tree, failure to adequately train people in his care?
God promised that Eve's offspring would crush the head of the serpent who had deceived them.
Excellent, keep the cycle of violence going, in honour of that whole 'thou shalt not kill' motif, right?
The way this works is that first God loves us so much that he sent his son, the second person of the trinity, to be born as the offspring of Eve, in order to crush the head of the serpent.
Why? Why can't the all-powerful god crush the serpent? Why does he need to physically reincarnate to perform a spiritual act, or is there a literal snake somewhere?
With the devil gone, paradise (communion with God) will one day be restored, and God promises that by faith we can inherit this promise.
Talking to an abusive parent-figure is not 'paradise' it's spiritual terrorism.
However, in the process of the serpent being crushed, the Adam's offspring's heel would be struck by the serpent, picturing the death of the Son as he defeated the devil.
Sounds like a desperate rehash of the Achilles legend to me - it's almost like someone wrote it trying to hijack the popular culture of the day.
Jesus faced the devil and overcame temptation, but in the process was struck by the devil, through the people who killed him.
Why should be we impressed that Jesus (who is, after all, God) overcame temptation - he knows he has absolute power, what can the Devil tempt him with? As for people killing him, surely if he'd come as a sacrifice that already had to be the end result, he knew it was coming, it's the point. You can't suggest that it was the Devil's doing if it's purposefully what God incarnated an avatar in order to achieve - at best that's entrapment.
This is the sense in which Jesus was a sacrifice.
That's the mechanism by which the sacrifice was done, it doesn't explain in any way why an all-loving deity couldn't just exercise forgiveness off his own back.
The animal sacrifices go back to the garden of Eden, where God had to kill animals to cover A&E and deal with their shame.
Why did God make them feel shame? Why were animal sacrifices necessary given that we can cover up with plant material?
I'm still not completely sure why God instructed Israel to make sacrifices, but they seem to have been an outward sign of repentance and a way in which they could be assured of God's forgiveness.
Sating a bloodthirsty deity given that it seems originally Yahweh had been a war-deity of a larger pantheon?
They were worthless without obedience to God (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22, Matthew 9:13, Mark 12:33).
Nobody is worthless. That your deity operates on that understanding fundamentally undermines anything that comes after that, even without the individual failings of each step. Abusive, controlling spouses tell their partners they're worthless; sex traffickers and pimps tell people they're worthless; authoritarian regimes tell people that foreigners are worthless; slave owners tell slaves they are worthless. Dehumanising people is evil.
They signified faith in God's promise to restore mankind to fellowship with him; this was the part they played in defeating the devil - they enabled the people of God to continue to worship him while the nations around worshiped false gods, thus eventually the Messiah would be born to complete the work of defeating Satan so that mankind could, at his return, be restored to 'paradise'.
So in fear they enabled an abuser to keep on abusing...
God knew all this would happen. He did it to demonstrate the fullness of his nature and glory.
Self-important prick, is essentially what you're saying. The all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful deity operates an ongoing fear-mongering relationship with humanity on the threat of trivialising someone's death in order to show everyone what a big man he is? I know that guy, he's a dick, he's not God. He's the twat that's jabbing his finger in someone's face at the end of the works Christmas do telling everyone how much money he brought in this year as though that justifies his shitty attitude... if that's your God, there is no God.
O.
-
Firstly, people born after Eden didn't make the choice to reject god's authority
Of course they did. Cain was told, "sin is at your door and desires to have you. You must master it".
and yet, as you said, we are born with a "sinful" nature - that's being created ill ("sinful") and being commanded to be well (free from "sin"). Your twisted god is punishing us for being the descendants of Adam and Eve by making us "sinful" and then threatening us with punishing us again for being the way it made us. It's perverse, unfair, and evil.
Secondly, the forbidden fruit was of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so presumably poor old Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil before, so couldn't have known that disobeying god was bad. More perversity.
If they were told that they would die when they ate it, I think they would have made the following connection: "Good and evil? What are they? Well, if I'm going to die if I eat it, then eating it must be evil. Therefore not eating it must be good.
"Knowing" good and evil meant experiencing it. They would have understood what good and evil were without having to eat it, just from what God told them.
-
Of course they did. Cain was told, "sin is at your door and desires to have you. You must master it".
If they were told that they would die when they ate it, I think they would have made the following connection: "Good and evil? What are they? Well, if I'm going to die if I eat it, then eating it must be evil. Therefore not eating it must be good.
"Knowing" good and evil meant experiencing it. They would have understood what good and evil were without having to eat it, just from what God told them.
Obeying the Biblical god is like obeying Hitler.
-
It's not just conservative Christians who use the bible as an excuse for bigotry; so do some atheists, in a negative way - picking out all the nasty bits, qhoting them out of context, and ignoring all the good bits.
Picking out the nasty bits of what is supposed to be a moral guideline inspired/written by a perfect being is not 'bigotry', it's pointing out the inherent flaws in what's supposed to be the greatest work of morality in existence.
Quoting out of context? What's the context where 'take the women of your fallen enemies for your own' is acceptable? What's the context where any treatise on how to treat a slave that doesn't include 'don't keep slaves' is acceptable?
As to ignoring 'the good bits', the whole thing is an attempt for to justify the jealous bloodthirstiness of a bronze age myth in order to justify maintaining a pretense of relevance in the modern world - what are the 'good bits'? Are they the bits that everyone in pretty much every decent moral philosophy has emphasised, both before these pieces got written or aggregated? The 'golden rule' of 'don't be a dick'?
O.
-
Of course they did.
Nonsense - there is no good reason I have seen to think that there even is a god whose authority I can either accept or reject. If your god exists, it's playing an evil game of hide-and-seek and blaming us for not finding it.
Cain was told, "sin is at your door and desires to have you. You must master it".
The point here is that if nobody masters it, then it can't be a genuine choice. If everybody fails a test, the test is inappropriate. If god was going to set that test, it should have made people who are able to pass it. The idea of "original sin", where we inherit a sinful nature because of what Adam and Eve did, is manifestly unfair and unjust - but whatever the reason is, setting a test that nobody can pass is unjust and unfair - doubly so if it's not even clear that there is a god or a test.
-
Of course they did. Cain was told, "sin is at your door and desires to have you. You must master it".
If they were told that they would die when they ate it, I think they would have made the following connection: "Good and evil? What are they? Well, if I'm going to die if I eat it, then eating it must be evil. Therefore not eating it must be good.
"Knowing" good and evil meant experiencing it. They would have understood what good and evil were without having to eat it, just from what God told them.
You're living in a very strange world Spud.
ippy.
-
If they were told that they would die when they ate it, I think they would have made the following connection: "Good and evil? What are they? Well, if I'm going to die if I eat it, then eating it must be evil. Therefore not eating it must be good.
In an earlier post you said God created them good. How then did they choose the evil option?
-
Of course they did. Cain was told, "sin is at your door and desires to have you. You must master it".
Aren't we all born sinful?
If they were told that they would die when they ate it, I think they would have made the following connection: "Good and evil? What are they? Well, if I'm going to die if I eat it, then eating it must be evil. Therefore not eating it must be good.
Wouldn't that require the knowledge of good and evil that they didn't get until after they'd eaten it?
"Knowing" good and evil meant experiencing it. They would have understood what good and evil were without having to eat it, just from what God told them.
Then what was the mystic power of the fruit that they suddenly realised their nudity having eaten it? Did the fruit suddenly remove their clothes?
O.
-
Picking out the nasty bits of what is supposed to be a moral guideline inspired/written by a perfect being is not 'bigotry', it's pointing out the inherent flaws in what's supposed to be the greatest work of morality in existence.
I'm an atheist, but I'm going to take the part of the liberal Christians here (I often do).
I'd say it was only the Judaeo/Christian fundamentalists who need to have them pointed out. These are also the only ones who think the Bible is 'greatest work of morality in existence'. It is odd that you can't see an evolution of morality between, say, Numbers 31 and the 1st and 2nd chapters of Isaiah.
Quoting out of context? What's the context where 'take the women of your fallen enemies for your own' is acceptable? What's the context where any treatise on how to treat a slave that doesn't include 'don't keep slaves' is acceptable?
Numbers 31 was much worse than that: it was an injunction to take young girl virgins and rape them (meanwhile killing off all men women and boys). As I say, the morality changes and evolves from prophet to prophet. Stop looking at the Bible as a single book (fundamentalist trait) and realise it's a library.
As to ignoring 'the good bits', the whole thing is an attempt for to justify the jealous bloodthirstiness of a bronze age myth in order to justify maintaining a pretense of relevance in the modern world - what are the 'good bits'? Are they the bits that everyone in pretty much every decent moral philosophy has emphasised, both before these pieces got written or aggregated? The 'golden rule' of 'don't be a dick'?
Again, it's the fundamentalists who try to justify 'the bronze age myth' (such a trite phrase by now), and poor old Spud is the perhaps the only representative here of that benighted breed (though Ad orientem shows some fundi traits in his Orthodox makeup). According to Karl Jaspers, the 'axial age' brought in a number of contemporary thinkers and prophets from diverse backgrounds, who shared a similar moral outlook, whether they were Greek, Jewish or whatever - including the Golden Rule. The Greeks prior to Plato were a bloodthirsty lot (most ancient peoples were) if we trust any of the myths of Homer as containing as much historical truth as the OT myths. And Plato approved of slavery too.
I'm an atheist: here's what the arch-atheist Nietzsche said about the Old Testament compared with the New:
In the Jewish "Old Testament," the book of divine justice, there are men, things, and speeches of such impressive style that the world of Greek and Indian literature has nothing to place beside them. We stand with fear and reverence before these tremendous remnants of what human beings once were and will in the process suffer melancholy thoughts about old Asia and its protruding peninsula of Europe, which, in marked contrast to Asia, would like to represent the "progress of man." Naturally, whoever is, in himself, only a weak, tame domestic animal and who knows only the needs of domestic animals (like our educated people nowadays, including the Christians of "educated" Christianity), among these ruins such a man finds nothing astonishing or even anything to be sad about - a taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone with respect to "great" and "small": - perhaps he finds the New Testament, that book of grace, still preferable to his heart (in it there is a good deal of the really tender, stifling smell of over-pious and small-souled people). To have glued together this New Testament, a sort of rococo of taste in all respects, with the Old Testament into a single book, as the "Bible," and "the essential book," that is perhaps the greatest act of daring and "sin against the spirit" which literary Europe has on its conscience.
(Beyond Good and Evil, section 52)
You see, Nietzsche, subject to his own confirmation bias, was able to look at things in context. It's a pity some here aren't able to do the same.
-
You haven't stated what is good about these things.
You claim to have read them - you should know.
-
There are some good bits in the Bible, amongst the truly awful bits. That book is a very human creation with no input from any god, imo.
It is indeed a very human creation, written or transcribed from oral memory by very different human beings at different times and in different circumstances.
-
I'm an atheist, but I'm going to take the part of the liberal Christians here (I often do).
Playing Devil's Advocate, so to speak...
I'd say it was only the Judaeo/Christian fundamentalists who need to have them pointed out. These are also the only ones who think the Bible is 'greatest work of morality in existence'. It is odd that you can't see an evolution of morality between, say, Numbers 31 and the 1st and 2nd chapters of Isaiah.
Do we know what order they were allegedly written in? Do we know why these works were included and others weren't? At best they are evidence of the capricious inconsistency of the character, at worst they are attempts to rewrite earlier passages for better/worse effect - fundamentally, though, even if one of them is 'less' immoral than the other, neither of them represents an acceptable behaviour.
Numbers 31 was much worse than that: it was an injunction to take young girl virgins and rape them (meanwhile killing off all men women and boys). As I say, the morality changes and evolves from prophet to prophet. Stop looking at the Bible as a single book (fundamentalist trait) and realise it's a library.
It may have emerged as a library of writings, but it's become a book - 'The' book, in fact. Whilst the more conflicted believers might try to pitch it as symbolic, that's not how it was presented during the early life of the Church, that's not how it's used to suppress homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa, that's not how it's used to prop up Prosperity Gospel nonsense in the US. Even if it is 'symbolic', it's still suggesting that the best God can teach people is a slightly less vile way of living - that's not in keeping with the concept of an all-knowing, all-loving God. If such a being existed this work would not be representative of its behaviour, or it would have inspired something that put it right.
Again, it's the fundamentalists who try to justify 'the bronze age myth' (such a trite phrase by now), and poor old Spud is the perhaps the only representative here of that benighted breed (though Ad orientem shows some fundi traits in his Orthodox makeup).
And, to be fair, it was Spud that I was addressing. It is, though, a bronze age myth - whilst others have died away, this one has been kept alive, reshuffled, reimagined, had sequels published (although there are all sorts of arguments as to which ones, if any, are canon), but it's a bronze age myth through and through. Trying to put a modern interpretation on it, trying to find underlying morals and concepts is fine, but it's a benightedly primitive conceptualisation.
According to Karl Jaspers, the 'axial age' brought in a number of contemporary thinkers and prophets from diverse backgrounds, who shared a similar moral outlook, whether they were Greek, Jewish or whatever - including the Golden Rule. The Greeks prior to Plato were a bloodthirsty lot (most ancient peoples were) if we trust any of the myths of Homer as containing as much historical truth as the OT myths. And Plato approved of slavery too.
And? That other early cultures also approved of slavery doesn't mean that the Old Testament is allowed a pass for tolerating it.
I'm an atheist: here's what the arch-atheist Nietzsche said about the Old Testament compared with the New:
Nietzche's Eurocentrism aside, I fail to see what that adds?
You see, Nietzsche, subject to his own confirmation bias, was able to look at things in context. It's a pity some here aren't able to do the same.
I'm capable - I pitch my discussion at the people I'm responding to. If I get someone who doesn't rely on scripture, I discuss from the point of view they're expressing, but if someone cites scripture then I discuss the scripture.
If the scripture isn't to be read literally fine, but it has been and still is - a divinity should have seen that coming. If it was inspired by a God and intended to be read as parables, then that inspiration manifestly failed, and it's not obvious why it should be read so, and at least some of the parables it conveys are still undeniably barbaric. If it wasn't inspired by a god at all, then it stands on its own lack of merits.
O.
-
It is, though, a bronze age myth
Can we just dispel this... myth?
The earliest parts of the Bible were probably not written before the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. It's unlikely that any of it was written before the start of the Iron Age in the Middle East. Some of the stories may have their origins in earlier times, but as written in the Bible, they are definitely iron age myths.
The writers weren't ignorant goat herders either.
-
jeremy,
The writers weren't ignorant goat herders either.
To the extent that they were necessarily ignorant of the reasoning and evidence that came after them that made redundant their folkloric explanations for the world, yes they were. That's not to say that (some of them at least) didn't have remarkable knowledge of maths and cosmology and so on, but it is to say that spooks and ghosts and ghoulies and "miracles" as explanations had a much more receptive audience then than they have now. That there are still Spuds about who think there literally was a garden of Eden, that there really was an Adam & Eve etc is just evidence for the persistence of myth even now in exceptional cases.
-
jeremy,
To the extent that they were necessarily ignorant of the reasoning and evidence that came after them that made redundant their folkloric explanations for the world, yes they were. That's not to say that (some of them at least) didn't have remarkable knowledge of maths and cosmology and so on, but it is to say that spooks and ghosts and ghoulies and "miracles" as explanations had a much more receptive audience then than they have now. That there are still Spuds about who think there literally was a garden of Eden, that there really was an Adam & Eve etc is just evidence for the persistence of myth even now in exceptional cases.
This just shows an ignorance of the writings. Read Ecclesiates and tell me how ignorant it is, and how it fits in with your caricature.
-
jeremy,
To the extent that they were necessarily ignorant of the reasoning and evidence that came after them that made redundant their folkloric explanations for the world, yes they were. That's not to say that (some of them at least) didn't have remarkable knowledge of maths and cosmology and so on, but it is to say that spooks and ghosts and ghoulies and "miracles" as explanations had a much more receptive audience then than they have now. That there are still Spuds about who think there literally was a garden of Eden, that there really was an Adam & Eve etc is just evidence for the persistence of myth even now in exceptional cases.
You know I'm talking about the people who wrote the myths, not the people who read - or more likely heard - them? They were not ignorant by the standards of the day, nor were they goat herders.
-
NS,
This just shows an ignorance of the writings. Read Ecclesiates and tell me how ignorant it is, and how it fits in with your caricature.
I have - or at least I read the bits I was given to read by a zealous teacher way back when. You've missed the point though - Thor made sense enough as an explanation for thunder when you were ignorant of negative and positive charging, the expansion and collapsing air channels etc. Miracle stories abounded and had a ready audience when the bible stories were written. Perhaps you're conflating "ignorant" (which they were) with "stupid" (which they weren't)?
-
Can we just dispel this... myth?
The earliest parts of the Bible were probably not written before the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. It's unlikely that any of it was written before the start of the Iron Age in the Middle East. Some of the stories may have their origins in earlier times, but as written in the Bible, they are definitely iron age myths.
The writers weren't ignorant goat herders either.
I'm not saying the people who wrote it were ignorant goat herders, to be literate in that era was to be in the upper echelons of the intellectuals of the society.
That it was being written in the iron age, though, doesn't reflect the fact that the stories were already established at that point - they were written in the iron age, but they likely originate from the bronze age.
O.
-
I'm not saying the people who wrote it were ignorant goat herders, to be literate in that era was to be in the upper echelons of the intellectuals of the society.
That it was being written in the iron age, though, doesn't reflect the fact that the stories were already established at that point - they were written in the iron age, but they likely originate from the bronze age.
O.
I don't think the story of The Fall is a Bronze Age myth. There is some evidence that it has its roots in earlier Bronze Age myths but these myths tended to be substantially different in their message. For example, there is one myth in which the equivalent of the Serpent is the good guy who rescues Adam and Eve from eternal servitude to the bad guy (God). The story makes much more sense with that spin.
The concept of original sin isn't even pre-Christian.
-
NS,
I have - or at least I read the bits I was given to read by a zealous teacher way back when. You've missed the point though - Thor made sense enough as an explanation for thunder when you were ignorant of negative and positive charging, the expansion and collapsing air channels etc. Miracle stories abounded and had a ready audience when the bible stories were written. Perhaps you're conflating "ignorant" (which they were) with "stupid" (which they weren't)?
Hi Blue
NS was specifically referring to Ecclesiastes, which is one of the more unusual texts in a body of writings which are in themselves incredibly diverse. 'God' is referred to a few times, but not exactly with fervent belief - in fact 'he' is a rather nebulous presence there - this is why the original compilers of the Old Testament canon had a bit of a problem whether to include it (they had an even bigger problem with The Book of Esther, which doesn't mention 'God' at all). Miracles in Ecclesiastes are certainly at a premium. The text is redolent with the most extreme pessimism, which bears comparison with Theravada Buddhism. The writer seems to try to console himself that gaining wisdom is the best that can be done to ward of the slings and arrows of fate, but even here he doesn't sound as though he's convinced himself. Try a few quotes:
For of the wise man as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise man dies just like the fool!
2:16
In my vain life I have seen everything; there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evil-doing.
7:15
Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance* happen to them all.
9:11
There is no 'Vengeful God of the Bible' here. The writer seems to bring up the idea of 'God' as a possible way of making the non-sensical pattern of existence meaningful, rather as Nirvana is posited in Buddhism as the escape route from an existence of meaningless suffering. But, as I said, he doesn't sound very convinced of the matter.
(I should say that the text is, like its counterpart Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha, rather misogynistic in places. Perhaps the writers of each had similar temperaments - or maybe they were just both unhappily married).
*Alluded to in the title of Jim Callaghan's autobiography, if there are any old Labour supporters out there.
-
there is one myth in which the equivalent of the Serpent is the good guy who rescues Adam and Eve from eternal servitude to the bad guy (God). The story makes much more sense with that spin.
I don't know when this myth was originally propounded, but it was certainly a favourite with the Gnostics, particularly the Ophite Gnostics (Ophis: Greek, serpent). As you say, the story makes much more sense interpreted like this: you certainly don't have to twist the text to make it fit.
The concept of original sin isn't even pre-Christian.
Insofar as the story of Adam and Eve's 'sin' is never again referred to in the Old Testament, it does seem extraordinary that the Christians made so much of it. I say 'Christians' - of course, it was really all down to St Paul, who first adumbrated the idea - which then filtered into the later Christian scriptures. And old St Augustine went the whole hog and made the doctrine central to his version of Christianity, with the particular emphasis that this was all about SEX!
-
In an earlier post you said God created them good. How then did they choose the evil option?
I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.
-
I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.
Spud we have no idea if what the gospels claim about Jesus is truth or fiction. Much of it is fiction, imo.
-
Picking out the nasty bits of what is supposed to be a moral guideline inspired/written by a perfect being is not 'bigotry', it's pointing out the inherent flaws in what's supposed to be the greatest work of morality in existence.
Quoting out of context? What's the context where 'take the women of your fallen enemies for your own' is acceptable? What's the context where any treatise on how to treat a slave that doesn't include 'don't keep slaves' is acceptable?
As to ignoring 'the good bits', the whole thing is an attempt for to justify the jealous bloodthirstiness of a bronze age myth in order to justify maintaining a pretense of relevance in the modern world - what are the 'good bits'? Are they the bits that everyone in pretty much every decent moral philosophy has emphasised, both before these pieces got written or aggregated? The 'golden rule' of 'don't be a dick'?
O.
Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).
The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.
-
Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).
The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.
You keep making excuses for the behaviour of the evil god character and its acolytes.
-
Insofar as the story of Adam and Eve's 'sin' is never again referred to in the Old Testament, it does seem extraordinary that the Christians made so much of it. I say 'Christians' - of course, it was really all down to St Paul, who first adumbrated the idea - which then filtered into the later Christian scriptures.
Paul said, "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people." Romans 5:18
That's why Adam's 'fall' is brought into focus by Paul after centuries of it not being mentioned.
-
It is odd that you can't see an evolution of morality between, say, Numbers 31 and the 1st and 2nd chapters of Isaiah.
Numbers 31 was much worse than that: it was an injunction to take young girl virgins and rape them (meanwhile killing off all men women and boys). As I say, the morality changes and evolves from prophet to prophet. Stop looking at the Bible as a single book (fundamentalist trait) and realise it's a library.
Can you explain what you see is the difference between Numbers 31 (defeat of Midianites because they enticed Israel into idolatry) and Isaiah 1 and 2 (given Isaiah 3 in which God will bring defeat upon Judah as punishment for idolatry and corruption).
-
I think it is possible to answer this, because Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are.
Go on then: answer it.
-
Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them. Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).
The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites. The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.
You know the KJV is just one translation and not a particularly good one. We are definitely talking about slaves as far as the foreigners are concerned.
Also, you need to consider why the women had no husbands.
-
You know the KJV is just one translation and not a particularly good one. We are definitely talking about slaves as far as the foreigners are concerned.
Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.
There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.
The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)
It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?
Also, you need to consider why the women had no husbands.
Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.
-
Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.
There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.
The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)
It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?
Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.
Why do you keep making excuses for the disgusting behaviour described in the not so good book?
-
Let's look at the Hebrew and the context, then.
There is only one Hebrew word for someone who is serving someone else (ebed). It's contrasted with hired worker in Lev. 25:40. This suggests that if there was one word that would fit all instances it would be servant, rather than slave. One form of this word, 'abed', occurs 6 times. Two of these are in Genesis 44 where Joseph tells his brothers that the one who is found to have Joseph's cup will become his servant. So the context here is that Benjamin would be put to work because he had done something wrong. Most people would agree that this sort of forced service in itself is not morally wrong, but right. Compare with forcing a criminal to do community service.
In 1 Kings 9:22, 'abed' is again used when Solomon imposes forced service onto the remaining Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites who were still living in Israel. In this instance again, the word is used of people descended from the corrupt peoples of Canaan.
In Proverbs 29:19 it is used for a servant who won't be corrected by words alone. Someone might say this is morally wrong, but four verses previously it mentions disciplining a child by physical means, implying that it is sometimes appropriate to discipline someone physically if they are doing something wrong.
The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners). Note that it's about purchasing a servant. It's not kidnapping a person in order to force them to work or sell them, which was a capital offence (Ex 21:16). It is assumed, since this is written for legal purposes, that because the buyer is investing his wealth, for that reason he will treat the servant well. (This is the implied meaning of Exodus 21:21 "for he is his money"; likewise a girl who is raped in the countryside is assumed to have cried for help, see Dt 22:27 "For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her".)
It's worth noting also that in Lev 25:42 Israelite servants are referred to as Yahweh's servants, implying that foreign ones are not. Could this mean that for a foreigner to become the servant of an Israelite would indirectly make him Yahweh's servant?
Again, this was a case of punishment for wrongdoing (by the Midianites), and cannot be dismissed as rape or whatever.
This is just Spud giving out another load of that cross between theobabble and theobollocks in an effort to kid or in some way fool himself into thinking he's being realistic.
ippy.
-
The context in Leviticus 25:39-46 is that it's contrasting people who are bought temporarily (fellow Israelites) with people who are bought as permanent property (only foreigners).
"people who are bought as permanent property". You mean slaves.
-
"people who are bought as permanent property". You mean slaves.
Exactly - the definition of a slave.
And in fact being bought if someone is bought as property, even if temporary, that is still slavery.
-
Exactly - the definition of a slave.
Not a comprehensive one, though: there are forms of slavery in which the slave is not, legally speaking, the property of their master, such as debt-bondage.
-
Exactly - the definition of a slave.
And in fact being bought if someone is bought as property, even if temporary, that is still slavery.
Hebrew only has one word that encompasses both servants and slaves, and according to Galatians 3:28 it means the opposite of free.
Bear in mind that no-one living in Israel was required to work on the Sabbath, and during the Sabbath year there was no heavy labour because the fields were left desolate (although Solomon conscripted foreign labourers as builders). So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.
-
Hebrew only has one word that encompasses both servants and slaves, and according to Galatians 3:28 it means the opposite of free.
Bear in mind that no-one living in Israel was required to work on the Sabbath, and during the Sabbath year there was no heavy labour because the fields were left desolate (although Solomon conscripted foreign labourers as builders). So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.
Your responses would be almost amusing if they weren't so very silly.
-
Your responses would be almost amusing if they weren't so very silly.
Why is it silly?
-
Why is it silly?
I don't know why Littleroses thinks it's silly, but I think it's silly because the poor chap is tying himself in knots trying to justify the entirely unjustifiable. It surely couldn't be beyond a "God" to just have replaced all the strictures about how to properly treat slaves with something along the lines of "All humans are equal in my eyes. Treat other people with respect. And no mealy-mouthed excuses, thank you".
Or it could just have not created empathy-free-psycho-haters in the first place?
-
Christine,
I'm not trying to justify slavery, or at least I am trying to avoid giving that impression. The verses that mention slaves do effectively say what you suggest. They are not promoting it, but permitting it given that it is an outworking of sin in the first place, going right back to Genesis 3. It doesn't say slavery is good, likewise polygamy... More here:
https://youtu.be/cC5_LX53aOw
-
So God's concept of slavery is different from our post-slave trade concept, because we associate it with ill-treatment and overwork.
The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.
-
The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.
Wee geeky point here, before we get into the concept of slavery.
The references to slavery in the Pentateuch show, again, that the Pentateuch was heavily editred, during the Exile - when slavery in the Babylonian and later Persian model in the seventh -fifth centuries BC would have been known to the writers.
Slavery in the time at which the Pentateuch is set (presumably between the eighteenth and twelfth centuries BC) in Egypt was a very different cincept, and only ever seen as a result of military expeditions into either the Levant or Sudan, when prisoners were taken and used as slaves...but the idea of a slave population is anathema. Children of slaves were free - though usually Egyptianised and programmed to spread Egyptian ideas in their former lands. Exceptions were made only in cases of more intelligent or educated former slaves, who would rise in the administration with no taint of slavery.
-
The point about slavery isn't that people may be ill treated or overworked, it is that people are owned as property. That's what defines slavery. A person that is owned as property is a slave regardless of how well or badly treated they are. Someone who isn't owned as property isn't a slave even if they are overworked and ill treated.
As I said easrlier, some forms of slavery do not involve the slave being the legal property of someone else. Debt-bondasge is an example.
-
Christine,
I'm not trying to justify slavery, or at least I am trying to avoid giving that impression. The verses that mention slaves do effectively say what you suggest. They are not promoting it, but permitting it given that it is an outworking of sin in the first place, going right back to Genesis 3. It doesn't say slavery is good, likewise polygamy... More here:
https://youtu.be/cC5_LX53aOw
However, You Are commentting on a system of slavery which simply did not exist when the events in the Pentateuch were supposed to have occurred.
-
As I said easrlier, some forms of slavery do not involve the slave being the legal property of someone else. Debt-bondasge is an example.
The definition of slavery is that a person is owned as property. There is no other definition - if you aren't owned as property then it isn't slavery, if you are then it is.
-
The definition of slavery is that a person is owned as property. There is no other definition - if you aren't owned as property then it isn't slavery, if you are then it is.
That is not the definition of slavery. From the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary: A person who is the property of another and is bound to absolute obedience; a huma chattel; a servant, worker or subject completely without freedom and rights.....a person completely under the domination of or subject to a specified influence.
-
Being in debt is not the same as real slavery imo, as many people have got themselves into debt unnecessarily by spending unwisely.
Debt-bondage, not merely debt. Look it up on Wikipedia. In general, finding out some facts about a subject by doing a bit of googling before jumping in with an ill-informed opinion is always a good idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/bonded-labour/
-
It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.
-
It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.
In practice other than banning the book how would that work?
-
In practice other than banning the book how would that work?
Don't be silly - LR doesn't think things through, she just comes out with imo's, most of which involve either banning something or making it compulsory.
-
In practice other than banning the book how would that work?
I am not sure how it could be put into practise, but religious abuse is rife in this world, and something needs to be done about it
-
I am not sure how it could be put into practise, but religious abuse is rife in this world, and something needs to be done about it
I can't see anyway of carrying out this sort of restriction of expression that doesn't amount to a much worse version of this type of abuse. You sound very 1984.
-
I can't see anyway of carrying out this sort of restriction of expression that doesn't amount to a much worse version of this type of abuse. You sound very 1984.
Unless you have been on the receiving end of religious abuse, you wouldn't understand how I feel about it.
-
Unless you have been on the receiving end of religious abuse, you wouldn't understand how I feel about it.
How you feel about it isn't relevant given you can't articulate any feasible way for your proposal to be implemented, never mind that the restriction on individual freedom that seems to be required is a much worse version of what you object to.
-
How you feel about it isn't relevant given you can't articulate any feasible way for your proposal to be implemented, never mind that the restriction on individual freedom that seems to be required is a much worse version of what you object to.
Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.
-
Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.
If you feel like having a go at religion or religionists L R join us secularists they really don't enjoy our continual nibbling away at their privileges and there's plenty of them to keep nibbling away at.
Regards, ippy.
-
Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.
But in restricting that freedom you then abuse many others in exactly the way you want to stop. So you institutionalise the abuse in your image.
-
But in restricting that freedom you then abuse many others in exactly the way you want to stop. So you institutionalise the abuse in your image.
So are you saying we shouldn't restrict the freedom of ISIS and their abusive regime because it is based on their religious belief.
-
So are you saying we shouldn't restrict the freedom of ISIS and their abusive regime because it is based on their religious belief.
ISIS are restricted because of their criminal acts. If you want a regime that restricts thought because you don't like it, then you are just thinking in the same way as ISIS.
-
ISIS are restricted because of their criminal acts. If you want a regime that restricts thought because you don't like it, then you are just thinking in the same way as ISIS.
Christianity is not without extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.
-
Christianity is not with extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.
Is that supposed to mean something?
-
Is that supposed to mean something?
"not without"?
-
"not without"?
That just makes it a non sequitur. What relevance is it to you wanting to restrict freedom in the same way as ISIS or Christian extremists?
-
Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.
Worth bearing in mind item 6 from Bertrand Russell's 'A Liberal Decalogue': ''Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.''
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
-
Worth bearing in mind item 6 from Bertrand Russell's 'A Liberal Decalogue': ''Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.''
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
Longer take from Robert Bolt
A Man for All Seasons (1960)
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake
-
Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them.
People are not items to be traded. 'Buying' people is the moral evil, here, considering other human beings as property is the fundamentally unjustifiable element of slavery - the potential ill-treatment after the fact is not the issue if there are no slaves. You can suggest that there is some good in a treatise that advises slaves should be treated well, but it still fails as an explanation of morality if it doesn't call out the concept of slavery as wrong.
Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).
Which particular word is used doesn't change the fact that at least some of these were slaves and the book doesn't take issue with that.
The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites.
How nice for them... how about a work that suggests women be given rights and autonomy? Say?
The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.
The whole forcible marriage bit isn't worth mentioning, so long as they are forced to observe someone else's 'holy day'... except, of course, that women don't really get that Sabbath off what with the household chores, the child-care etc.
But good to see God has his priorities in order - take foreign wives regardless of their feelings on the matter, but make sure they aren't doing anything outside the home on Saturdays because that's a big no-no...
O.
-
Hi Spud,
I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery. I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable. Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book. (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)
It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you. For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones.
It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear. Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much. Or at all.
And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.
-
Hi Spud,
I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery. I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable. Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book. (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)
It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you. For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones.
It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear. Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much. Or at all.
And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.
A good post, which sums up Spud's rather muddled responses very well.
-
Christianity is not with extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.
The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)? The Ku Klux Klan? The Crusades? The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics? The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism? Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins? And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.
Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?
I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity. The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.
O.
-
The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)? The Ku Klux Klan? The Crusades? The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics? The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism? Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins? And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.
Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?
I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity. The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.
O.
No, it was a typo. Doesn't make it any more relevant to wanting to suppress freedom.
-
The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)? The Ku Klux Klan? The Crusades? The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics? The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism? Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins? And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.
Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?
I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity. The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.
O.
Pardon my typo, which I have just corrected. I despise the RCC.
-
Pardon my typo, which I have just corrected. I despise the RCC.
But are willing to suppress freedom in the name of you own idolatry of your views.
-
But are willing to suppress freedom in the name of you own idolatry of your views.
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
You think that your views should be enforced. You are just the same as those religious people who want the same.
-
You think that your views should be enforced. You are just the same as those religious people who want the same.
Surely religious extremism is a danger to everyone?
-
Surely religious extremism is a danger to everyone?
I think extremism is dangerous. I think trying to restrict people's beliefs as you seem to is extremism.
-
NS,
I think extremism is dangerous. I think trying to restrict people's beliefs as you seem to is extremism.
I think extremism is dangerous too, but I think you’re misrepresenting LR here. What she actually said in Reply 351 was:
It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.
In Reply 352 you responded:
In practice other than banning the book how would that work?
That’s a big jump from not “using the Bible to control others” to “banning the book”, let alone to restricting people’s beliefs. You can achieve what LR hopes for in the same way we do with, say the Communist Manifesto. Schools teach that the CM exist and what it contains. They do not though insist that pupils must accept its claims as inerrantly correct, let alone that they’ll be subject to grisly punishments in an afterlife if they don’t.
LR seems to me to be arguing only for the equivalent, secular treatment of the Bible (and, presumably, of other “holy” books) that we have in non-faith schools: ie that they’re significant cultural artefacts worthy of study as such, but that’s all. If people want to believe their contents to be true they’re still free to do so, but they’re not told that they must because that’s the faith of the teacher. That’s not “restricting people’s beliefs” at all I’d have thought.
-
NS,
I think extremism is dangerous too, but I think you’re misrepresenting LR here. What she actually said in Reply 351 was:
In Reply 352 you responded:
That’s a big jump from not “using the Bible to control others” to “banning the book”, let alone to restricting people’s beliefs. You can achieve what LR hopes for in the same way we do with, say the Communist Manifesto. Schools teach that the CM exist and what it contains. They do not though insist that pupils must accept its claims as inerrantly correct, let alone that they’ll be subject to grisly punishments in an afterlife if they don’t.
LR seems to me to be arguing only for the equivalent, secular treatment of the Bible (and, presumably, of other “holy” books) that we have in non-faith schools: ie that they’re significant cultural artefacts worthy of study as such, but that’s all. If people want to believe their contents to be true they’re still free to do so, but they’re not told that they must because that’s the faith of the teacher. That’s not “restricting people’s beliefs” at all I’d have thought.
Where did LR mention faith schools? Why did you miss that the question mark in my statement which then means that I am not actually stating LR wants to ban the bible? Why are you so hypocritical about applying standards?
-
Just to make my position clear. I am of the opinion it should be against the law if people use their faith as an excuse for abusing other people, physically or mentally. For instance, there are extremist Christians, particularly in the US, who would have homosexuality made illegal, I have heard some would even like the death sentence for gays. Threatening children and vulnerable with the tortures of hell if they don't convert is abusive and very damaging as I know for a fact. My late grandmother literally beat religion into her children!
As I have said many times, I have no problem at all with people who are moderates where their faith is concerned, like my own children. I don't see it their way, but I certainly don't object to them having a faith.
-
Just to make my position clear. I am of the opinion it should be against the law if people use their faith as an excuse for abusing other people, physically or mentally. For instance, there are extremist Christians, particularly in the US, who would have homosexuality made illegal, I have heard some would even like the death sentence for gays. Threatening children and vulnerable with the tortures of hell if they don't convert is abusive and very damaging as I know for a fact. My late grandmother literally beat religion into her children!
As I have said many times, I have no problem at all with people who are moderates where their faith is concerned, like my own children. I don't see it their way, but I certainly don't object to them having a faith.
Apart from none of that having any connection to your post about people using the bible to control anyone, what about moderates who argue that racism is wrong because of the bible and use it to get people to think racism is wrong?
-
People are not items to be traded. 'Buying' people is the moral evil, here, considering other human beings as property is the fundamentally unjustifiable element of slavery - the potential ill-treatment after the fact is not the issue if there are no slaves. You can suggest that there is some good in a treatise that advises slaves should be treated well, but it still fails as an explanation of morality if it doesn't call out the concept of slavery as wrong.
Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.
The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.
People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.
-
Hi Spud,
I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery. I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable. Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book. (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)
It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you. For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones.
It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear. Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much. Or at all.
And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.
Sorry - It's up to people to read the context if I quote a verse. I can't explain everything - I'm kinda outnumbered about 10 to 1 here.
-
Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan is a story that shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.
The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.
People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.
The way you see it doesn't make any sense at all, imo.
-
Sorry - It's up to people to read the context if I quote a verse. I can't explain everything - I'm kinda outnumbered about 10 to 1 here.
No, your claim, up to.you to justify.
-
Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.
The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.
People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.
You worship a thug god that says it is ok to beat a slave if the slave doesn't die within a couple of days. The god you worship is a prick.
-
You worship a thug god that says it is ok to hear a slave if the slave doesn't die within a couple of days.
It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.
The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"
20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property
-
Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.
The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.
People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.
Ordinarily I consider replying to this, Spud: however, if you aren't wumming, and I think you might be, then you are so far beyond any reasoned and intelligent exchange that it isn't worth making the effort to deal with the obvious problems in what you say.
-
It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.
The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"
20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property
Spud, that is your worst post yet, you should be ashamed of yourself.
-
It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.
The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"
20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property
Your god and you are vicious thugs. You worship beating people.
-
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535
In the past some US Christians used the Bible as an excuse for their ownership of slaves. Spud appears to think as they did!
-
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535
In the past some US Christians used the Bible as an excuse for their ownership of slaves. Spud appears to think as they did!
And some Christians used the Bible to argue for the abolition of slavery.
-
It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.
The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"
20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property
Have you tried actually thinking critically about the implications of what you're saying here, Spud?
-
Gordon,
On the subject of the extermination of the Canaanites and its representing the final judgment, which you probably found offensive: that was the general meaning which a respectable curate at church gave over a decade ago.
Clearly you also find my comments on slaves offensive. The implications to me are that it was the cultural norm at the time to get slaves to do the menial work. God doesn't have a problem with this, it's a bit like the UK needing people from abroad to pick our fruit for us, as one poster mentioned in the context of Brexit. He does care about how they are treated. A verse I forgot to mention explicitly says not to oppress a foreigner (or an orphan or widow). That's the UK's 'hostile environment' blown out of the water. It also says that an escaped slave shouldn't be returned to his master. That implies that any 'vigour' used over slaves cannot in any way harm him, since to prevent him escaping you would need to use excessive force. The way to keep a slave loyal was to look after him.
Hope that helps.
-
Gordon,
On the subject of the extermination of the Canaanites and its representing the final judgment, which you probably found offensive: that was the general meaning which a respectable curate at church gave over a decade ago.
Clearly you also find my comments on slaves offensive. The implications to me are that it was the cultural norm at the time to get slaves to do the menial work. God doesn't have a problem with this, it's a bit like the UK needing people from abroad to pick our fruit for us, as one poster mentioned in the context of Brexit. He does care about how they are treated. A verse I forgot to mention explicitly says not to oppress a foreigner (or an orphan or widow). That's the UK's 'hostile environment' blown out of the water. It also says that an escaped slave shouldn't be returned to his master. That implies that any 'vigour' used over slaves cannot in any way harm him, since to prevent him escaping you would need to use excessive force. The way to keep a slave loyal was to look after him.
Hope that helps.
It doesn't help at all, Spud: that slavery was a cultural norm in times past is one thing, but taking these ancient OT prescriptions about slavery as being a continued justification of slavery is another thing entirely.
As I said, I think you need to apply a touch of critical thinking to the contents of the Christian Bible, as some of your fellow Christians seem able to do, and stop regarding it as being authoritative or especially relevant in the present culture we both live in.
-
And some Christians used the Bible to argue for the abolition of slavery.
Agreed.
-
Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing.
No. Absolutely, fundamentally, at the basis of the concept of human rights is the concept that we are something other than a commodity, that we have intrinsic worth, not transitive worth.
For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life.
Prisoners are not 'owned' - they have their freedoms curtailed for a mixture of punishment and public protection, and the degree to which those freedoms are curtailed are something that we need to be mindful of, but at no point do they stop being people and start being trade goods.
A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed.
And that's about a state forcing people to do something (ostensibly in service of the community) - in the modern world, increasingly, by a state that's elected the people making the decision. Again, though, that's about the state putting limitations on people's freedom, not fundamentally changing their status - it's a limited incursion on freedom, not the complete eradication of that freedom.
The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.
Because your God is a warmongering god with strange concepts of moral right and wrong - regardless, you can imprison 'sinners', you can educate or exile, but to take slaves is a moral evil far, far beyond that of adultery.
The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour.
The point of 'holy land' is to lay claim to property for a given 'in-group', any spiritual nonsense after the fact is hogwash. To paraphrase Captain Kirk, of all philosophers, what does a god need with a desert?
It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.
Because he loves us all unconditionally, right?
People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.
Only through the delusion of religion can otherwise decent people countenance horrors such as slavery.
O.
-
Just to make my position clear. I am of the opinion it should be against the law if people use their faith as an excuse for abusing other people, physically or mentally. For instance, there are extremist Christians, particularly in the US, who would have homosexuality made illegal, I have heard some would even like the death sentence for gays. Threatening children and vulnerable with the tortures of hell if they don't convert is abusive and very damaging as I know for a fact. My late grandmother literally beat religion into her children!
As I have said many times, I have no problem at all with people who are moderates where their faith is concerned, like my own children. I don't see it their way, but I certainly don't object to them having a faith.
Such laws already exist.
-
Sorry - It's up to people to read the context if I quote a verse. I can't explain everything - I'm kinda outnumbered about 10 to 1 here.
Your apologetics are unconvincing. If you don't care about that, fair enough; it's pretty foolish of me to expect more from random message board posters than CS Lewis.
If you are serious about the things you are writing, you need to have a good long think about right and wrong. One day you might hear a voice in your head suggesting you do something bad and think it's right to do it because the voice is God's.
-
Your apologetics are unconvincing. If you don't care about that, fair enough; it's pretty foolish of me to expect more from random message board posters than CS Lewis.
If you are serious about the things you are writing, you need to have a good long think about right and wrong. One day you might hear a voice in your head suggesting you do something bad and think it's right to do it because the voice is God's.
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
-
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
I've seen them. I've seen the expanded list. Nothing in there about slavery being bad.
Four variants of 'hey, look at me, pay me attention'.
One blatant call to extend authoritarianism to parents regardless of their merits.
One overly simplistic absolutism (can I kill in self defence?).
Three reasonable, of themselves, declaration (no stealing, no adultery, no false witness) although lacking in flexibility perhaps (are white lies acceptable? Is flattery lying? Is theft acceptable if I'm stealing food or medicine for the starving or ill?)
Then the implicit misogyny of not coveting your neighbour's wife, ox, ass, field, servants or house...
Nothing in there about rape being a problem. Nothing in there about slavery being a problem.
Elsewhere in the same work - shellfish are bad, haircuts are bad, eating pork is bad, knowledge is bad, slavery is fine, the punishment for being raped is to be married to the rapist...
O.
-
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
The Biblical god character doesn't appear to understand the meaning of right and wrong, if the deeds attributed to it have any veracity.
-
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
And the evidence for this, 'god tells us etc', of yours Spud?
Regards, ippy.
-
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
They form a set of rules but don't come with a discussion of ethics.
-
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
Here you seem to be suggesting that “God” wrote the Bible? Or possibly dictated it to human scribes? Could you tell me whether I’ve interpreted that sentence correctly, in context, please?
Suggesting that the ten commandments are the last word in ethics is childish, as demonstrated by Outrider.
Implicit in your one-liner is that thinking for yourself is unnecessary. See my previous post.
As for being outnumbered, perhaps you could ask your “God” to direct more of his followers here to help you out? There used to be other religious apologists posting here, but they seem to have given up, despite the great commission from Jesus they’re supposed to have to save us non-believers.
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes. Jesus' words on them are the last word. We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes. Jesus' words on them are the last word. We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
How many pins does that involve?
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes. Jesus' words on them are the last word. We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
Do you keep slaves as you must agree with your God that slavery is fine?
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes. Jesus' words on them are the last word. We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
First we had:
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
And the evidence for this, 'god tells us etc', of yours Spud?
And now it's 'god wrote the commandments', when will you be supplying any form of conformation or if you like viable evidence in support of this assertion Spud?
I must try telling my bank about the several million pounds I put into my account last week, I wonder what's the first thing they'll ask when I try to draw out one of the first of the millions I put there?
Regards, ippy.
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes. Jesus' words on them are the last word. We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
You only believe god wrote the commandments, that is not a fact. There is no evidence god exists, let alone contributed to the documents which make up the Bible.
-
God wrote the ten commandments, yes.
Do they not strike you as somewhat simplistic for a set of rules to define morality for all time? Even if we accept the first four, the other six regarding human interaction lack any sort of nuance or contextual variation - it might be that you presume they are guidance rather than hard and fast absolutes, but certainly not all believers see it that way, and that's eminently foreseeable.
Jesus' words on them are the last word.
That depends on who you ask, I think - there's a few people who think Mohammed some input, and a few more that hold to Joseph Smith and others... :P
We should seek to give, rather than simply seeking not to steal. We should seek to love, not simply avoid breaking each of them.
Nice sentiments we could all do well to hold to.
I'm quite happy to be outnumbered - I have about six bibles here, and several thousand angels. :)
Well, I hope the worst that happens to you for your beliefs is that you're outnumbered here!
O.
-
Do they not strike you as somewhat simplistic for a set of rules to define morality for all time? Even if we accept the first four, the other six regarding human interaction lack any sort of nuance or contextual variation - it might be that you presume they are guidance rather than hard and fast absolutes, but certainly not all believers see it that way, and that's eminently foreseeable.
That depends on who you ask, I think - there's a few people who think Mohammed some input, and a few more that hold to Joseph Smith and others... :P
Nice sentiments we could all do well to hold to.
Well, I hope the worst that happens to you for your beliefs is that you're outnumbered here!
O.
I'll go with this post especially the last two lines.
ippy.
-
Do you keep slaves as you must agree with your God that slavery is fine?
I had a hamster which escaped three times, but he died last year and now I have an orchid which has flowered so many times I think it's trying to escape from the pot.
-
I had a hamster which escaped three times, but he died last year and now I have an orchid which has flowered so many times I think it's trying to escape from the pot.
What does your hamster and orchid have to do with this topic?
-
First we had:
God tells us what is right and wrong, see the ten commandments.
And the evidence for this, 'god tells us etc', of yours Spud?
And now it's 'god wrote the commandments', when will you be supplying any form of conformation or if you like viable evidence in support of this assertion Spud?
I must try telling my bank about the several million pounds I put into my account last week, I wonder what's the first thing they'll ask when I try to draw out one of the first of the millions I put there?
Regards, ippy.
I should think, "do you require more privacy while we talk about this?"
Exodus 31:18, 32:19 are the verses you want. The evidence you want is at the foot of mount Sinai but - a heads up - it's broken.
-
I should think, "do you require more privacy while we talk about this?"
Exodus 31:18, 32:19 are the verses you want. The evidence you want is at the foot of mount Sinai but - a heads up - it's broken.
The Bible is no sort of evidence whatsoever.
-
What does your hamster and orchid have to do with this topic?
I can think of several answers: nothing, I've given up; I believe people kept as slaves can be equated to rodents and plants; I've now decided the words I type mean exactly what I want them to mean in my head and if you don't understand them, tough, burn in hell, sinner, bwhahaha. Could there be another answer? We may never know.
Exodus 31:18, 32:19 are the verses you want. The evidence you want is at the foot of mount Sinai but - a heads up - it's broken.
Verses in the Bible are evidence of what's in the Bible and not much else. Why so coy about what the evidence at the foot of Mount Sinai is, Spud? You've got time to tell us about your hamster but not the actual evidence that your beliefs are probably true? I'm starting to think you don't care about saving me.
-
Verses in the Bible are evidence of what's in the Bible and not much else.
Indeed
Why so coy about what the evidence at the foot of Mount Sinai is, Spud?
Why indeed. And even were there to be a pristine tablet with the 10 commandments written on it, that could be objectively confirmed to be from the correct date, that provides exactly zero evidence that the god wrote those commandments (even if god exists). All it tells us is that someone wrote something on a tablet of stone - big deal.
-
I should think, "do you require more privacy while we talk about this?"
Exodus 31:18, 32:19 are the verses you want. The evidence you want is at the foot of mount Sinai but - a heads up - it's broken.
Why would anyone take measure from an unreliable source of information that's full of magic, the mystic and superstition Spud?
The evidence if it points to anything it points to a book written by man, primitive man at that.
It really beats me why otherwise intelligent people such as yourself Spud, bother your head with the nonsense of it, I can understand to a limited amount the social side as some sort of theme based regular get together but to actually really believe in it and take it seriously?
Regards, ippy.
-
... even were there to be a pristine tablet with the 10 commandments written on it, that could be objectively confirmed to be from the correct date, that provides exactly zero evidence that the god wrote those commandments (even if god exists). All it tells us is that someone wrote something on a tablet of stone - big deal.
I read a book by Will Self some time ago called The Book of Dave. It wasn't easy reading, unsurprisingly, but worth it, I felt. One of the themes was the stupidity of relying on an 'authority' rather than thinking things through for yourself. The first and most heinous 'sin' in the Adam and Eve myth is disobedience of an authority. That authority is plainly shown to be dishonest and to not have the best interests of his playthings at heart - in the myth! - but humans should still be punished for disobeying it.
Stephen Fry is currently reading me his Mythos and I have to say, the Greeks came up with a mythology that accounts for the conditions humans find themselves in much better than Christianity does. It's a great pity, but not that much of a shock, that a Roman emperor championed an authoritarian religion which values unquestioning obedience. It's a shame, in my opinion, that he wasn't keener on Dionysus.
-
I read a book by Will Self some time ago called The Book of Dave. It wasn't easy reading, unsurprisingly, but worth it, I felt. One of the themes was the stupidity of relying on an 'authority' rather than thinking things through for yourself. The first and most heinous 'sin' in the Adam and Eve myth is disobedience of an authority. That authority is plainly shown to be dishonest and to not have the best interests of his playthings at heart - in the myth! - but humans should still be punished for disobeying it.
Stephen Fry is currently reading me his Mythos and I have to say, the Greeks came up with a mythology that accounts for the conditions humans find themselves in much better than Christianity does. It's a great pity, but not that much of a shock, that a Roman emperor championed an authoritarian religion which values unquestioning obedience. It's a shame, in my opinion, that he wasn't keener on Dionysus.
Roman emperors managed to be authoritarian long before Christianity was adopted, and Christianity is much more complex than 'an authoritarian religion'. Indeed it's arguable that it was the use of the religion by the Roman state that creates the authoritarian strain of it that you are referring to.
-
Roman emperors managed to be authoritarian long before Christianity was adopted, and Christianity is much more complex than 'an authoritarian religion'. Indeed it's arguable that it was the use of the religion by the Roman state that creates the authoritarian strain of it that you are referring to.
The reason I didn’t think it shocking that a Roman emperor chose an authoritarian religion is because Roman emperors were notoriously authoritarian.
I agree that it would have been possible to focus the developing religion on its relatively benign aspects, love and charity and all that, but that’s not what happened, is it? I’m having a conversation with someone who thinks “God” actually wrote the 10 commandments, not someone who’s contemplated the history of some ancient myths and drawn their own conclusions about how and why they were eventually adopted by the superpower of the time.
I don’t think I’m wrong about the main message of the A&E story, unless my understanding of what it says has been compromised by dodgy translations. Obey, do not question, do not test, do not listen to any input other than God’s* and avoid, as far as possible, drawing logical conclusions from evidence.
A religious text that can be used by people such as the Westboro Baptists to promote hatred, can’t be redeemed by having some nice bits in it. Nice people will use the nice bits. If there were no nasty bits, the nasty people wouldn’t have a hook to hang their deranged hatred on.
I know that some people (e.g. people who call themselves Buddhists and then burn other people out of their homes) will do bad things regardless, but why would a good and powerful being provide them with excuses?
*Of course, if he’s not manifesting himself these days, you can take it as read he’s talking directly into priests’ and/or believers’ brains (or should that be hearts?)
-
Verses in the Bible are evidence of what's in the Bible and not much else.
This is not completely true. The Bible is certainly evidence for what its authors thought about the World and parts of it are evidence for various historical events and personages. The difficulty is in winnowing out the real history from the make believe. For example the historical narratives of the time between the end of the Davidic empire and the Exile are almost certainly based on truth, although other sources tell us they are heavily spun.
-
Do you keep slaves as you must agree with your God that slavery is fine?
The Bible allows the keeping of slaves, but gives slaves certain rights. It doesn't command the keeping of slaves.
-
All types of slavery is wrong, it should have been one of the 'Thou Shalt Nots'.
-
The Bible allows the keeping of slaves, but gives slaves certain rights. It doesn't command the keeping of slaves.
Just found this regarding divorce law in Dt 24:1-5, and wonder if it applies to Leviticus 25:44-6, since keeping slaves may too have been a social and cultural reality?
This is case law. Case laws begin with social and cultural realities (a man marries a woman and masters her) and function to correct practices {43} or spell out restraints or limit excesses (if. . . . then he may not remarry her. . . .); they are not expressions of the ideal.
https://directionjournal.org/24/1/interpreting-silences-deut-24-1-4.html
-
Just found this regarding divorce law in Dt 24:1-5, and wonder if it applies to Leviticus 25:44-6, since keeping slaves may too have been a social and cultural reality?https://directionjournal.org/24/1/interpreting-silences-deut-24-1-4.html
Yes, that occurred to me. Slavery was pretty much universal in the ancient world, in every society. At least the ancient Hebrews gave slaves rights, and slave-owners duties, which was an advance.
-
Not exactly on topic but thought you might find this interesting Oli. My mother who was a Quaker and very knowledgeable on Quaker history, told me about Benjamin Lay when I was young & wanted to know all about the Friends, warts and all.
http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/61
-
Not exactly on topic but thought you might find this interesting Oli. My mother who was a Quaker and very knowledgeable on Quaker history, told me about Benjamin Lay when I was young & wanted to know all about the Friends, warts and all.
http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/61
Interesting. I've heard of him before. I must say that I prefer the quieter campaigning of John Woolman. I've got a copy of Woolman's Journal, published in 1896. It is bibliographically interesting, being a paperback - it must be one of the earliest.
-
I have the Journal of John Woolman which I thought was published not long after he died. It is very interesting to read aboutQuakers and what they achieved.
-
I have the Journal of John Woolman which I thought was published not long after he died.
It probably was, originally.
-
Yes, that occurred to me. Slavery was pretty much universal in the ancient world, in every society. At least the ancient Hebrews gave slaves rights, and slave-owners duties, which was an advance.
What rights did the Hebrews give slaves that weren’t given by other cultures?
-
What rights did the Hebrews give slaves that weren’t given by other cultures?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
And how does that link answer my question?
-
Some specific legal rights of Hebrew slaves:
Working conditions
The Ethical Decalogue makes clear that honouring the Shabbat was expected of slaves, not just their masters.[65] The later[27][28][29] Deuteronomic code, having repeated the Shabbat requirement, also instructs that slaves should be allowed to celebrate the Sukkot festival.[66]
Although the Holiness Code instructs that during the Sabbatical Year, slaves and their masters should eat food which the land yields, without being farmed, it does not explicitly forbid the slaves from the farming itself, despite restricting their masters from doing so, and neither does it grant slaves any other additional rest from work during these years.[67]
Indeed, unlike the other law codes, the Holiness Code does not mention explicit occasions of respite from toil, instead simply giving the vague instruction that Israelite slaves should not to be compelled to work with rigour;[68][69] Maimonides argues that this was to be interpreted as forbidding open-ended work (such as keep doing that until I come back), and that disciplinary action was not to include instructing the slave to perform otherwise pointless work.[27][70]
A special case is that of the debtor who sells himself as a slave to his creditor; the Holiness Code instructs that in this situation, the debtor must not be made to do the work of slaves, but must instead be treated the same as a hired servant.[71] In Jewish tradition, this was taken to mean that the debtor should not be instructed to do humiliating work - which only slaves would do - and that the debtor should be asked to perform the craft(s) which they usually did before they had been enslaved, if it is realistic to do so.[27][70]
Injury and compensation
The earlier[27][28][29] Covenant Code provides a potentially more valuable and direct form of relief, namely a degree of protection for the slave's person (their body and its health) itself. This codification extends the basic lex talionis (....eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...),[72] to compel that when slaves are significantly injured by their masters, manumission is to be the compensation given; the canonical examples mentioned are the knocking out of an eye or a tooth.[73] This resembles the earlier Code of Hammurabi, which instructs that when an injury is done to a social inferior, monetary compensation should be made, instead of carrying out the basic lex talionis; Josephus indicates that by his time it was acceptable for a fine to be paid to the slave, instead of manumitting them, if the slave agreed.[74] Nachmanides argued that it was a biblically commanded duty to liberate a slave who had been harmed in this way[27]
The Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi both insist that if a slave is harmed by a third party, the third party must financially compensate the owner.[75] In the Covenant Code, if an ox gores a slave, the ox owner must pay the servant's master a 30 shekel fine.[76]
The murder of slaves by owners was prohibited in the Law covenant. The Covenant Code clearly institutes the death penalty for beating a free man to death;[77] in contrast, beating a slave to death was to be avenged only if the slave does not survive for one or two days after the beating.[78] Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, a 12th-century Provençal scholar, Targum, and Maimonides argue that avenged implies the death penalty,[27][70] but more recent scholars view it as probably describing a lesser punishment.[79] A number of modern Protestant Bible versions (such as the New Living Translation, New International Version and New Century Version) translate the survival for one or two days as referring to a full and speedy recovery, rather than to a lingering death, as favoured by other recent versions (such as the New Revised Standard Version, and New American Bible).
Fugitive slaves
The Deuteronomic Code forbids the people of Israel from handing over fugitive slaves to their masters or oppressing them, and instructs that these fugitives should be allowed to reside where they wish.[80] Although a literal reading would indicate that this applies to slaves of all nationalities and locations, the Mishnah and many commentators consider the rule to have the much narrower application, to just those slaves who flee from outside Israelite territory into it
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
-
This is not completely true. The Bible is certainly evidence for what its authors thought about the World and parts of it are evidence for various historical events and personages. The difficulty is in winnowing out the real history from the make believe. For example the historical narratives of the time between the end of the Davidic empire and the Exile are almost certainly based on truth, although other sources tell us they are heavily spun.
Real places, people and events appear in all kinds of fiction, it doesn't make it any less fictional. I don't know how accurate anything in the Bible is. Do reputable historians use it as evidence of anything other than the development of some religious myths?
I think I'm on safe ground saying that there is no evidence that God wrote the 10 commandments, from the Bible or anywhere else. I stand by to be proved wrong when Spud expands on his claim of physical evidence.
-
Are we supposed to be impressed by rules for a slave-owning society that may or may not have been less brutal than other slave-owning societies? Imagine, if that all-powerful and good deity had just said no slaves, and treat everybody (including women, foreigners and people who have different beliefs from you) with kindness and respect and no mealy-mouthed excuses. Imagine!
Is there any moral (I mean actually moral, not along the lines of "don't beat your slave to death") guidance in the Bible that can't be found better framed and expressed somewhere else?
By the way, the quotation provided by Oliphant Chuckerbutty shows instructions in the Bible are open to different interpretations - another faux pas by the Almighty there. Clear instructions comprehensible to every human shouldn't be too hard to arrange for the being that created the Universe.
-
Are we supposed to be impressed by rules for a slave-owning society that may or may not have been less brutal than other slave-owning societies? Imagine, if that all-powerful and good deity had just said no slaves, and treat everybody (including women, foreigners and people who have different beliefs from you) with kindness and respect and no mealy-mouthed excuses. Imagine!
Is there any moral (I mean actually moral, not along the lines of "don't beat your slave to death") guidance in the Bible that can't be found better framed and expressed somewhere else?
By the way, the quotation provided by Oliphant Chuckerbutty shows instructions in the Bible are open to different interpretations - another faux pas by the Almighty there. Clear instructions comprehensible to every human shouldn't be too hard to arrange for the being that created the Universe.
Leviticus 19:34
You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
-
The slave Onesimus and his Christian master Philemon became brothers when Onesimus became a believer. Since foreign slaves in Israel were able to worship God with the Israelites, the relationship between masters and slaves who converted was the same as described in Philemon v.16:
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.
-
Real places, people and events appear in all kinds of fiction, it doesn't make it any less fictional. I don't know how accurate anything in the Bible is. Do reputable historians use it as evidence of anything other than the development of some religious myths?
Reputable historians do use it as evidence when there is other evidence from contemporary hostile sources (i.e. engraved stelae, prisms, and tablets) when the events related in both sources appear to concur on certain key points. One of the most significant archaelogical items in this regard is the prism of Sennacherib, which tells of the Siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians in the reign of King Hezekiah. The story is also told in the Bible e.g. 2Chronicles 32. The accounts are naturally biased in favour of the nations writing their own stories - but both accounts agree that a) there was a siege of Jerusalem, and b) the siege was lifted, and the Jews and Jerusalem survived. Jeremy's comments about the reliability of the Bible accounts are pretty much accepted by objective historians (but of course not by believing fundamentalists). We can be pretty certain that we can trust nothing in the earlier part of the Bible as having any historical truth, up to perhaps the 1st Book of Kings, which might contain a few trustworthy grains. Our learned believer here Anchorman is the chap to approach for all the corroborative archaelogical evidence about supposed events in the Bible.
-
Reputable historians do use it as evidence when there is other evidence from contemporary hostile sources (i.e. engraved stelae, prisms, and tablets) when the events related in both sources appear to concur on certain key points. One of the most significant archaelogical items in this regard is the prism of Sennacherib, which tells of the Siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians in the reign of King Hezekiah. The story is also told in the Bible e.g. 2Chronicles 32. The accounts are naturally biased in favour of the nations writing their own stories - but both accounts agree that a) there was a siege of Jerusalem, and b) the siege was lifted, and the Jews and Jerusalem survived. Jeremy's comments about the reliability of the Bible accounts are pretty much accepted by objective historians (but of course not by believing fundamentalists). We can be pretty certain that we can trust nothing in the earlier part of the Bible as having any historical truth, up to perhaps the 1st Book of Kings, which might contain a few trustworthy grains. Our learned believer here Anchorman is the chap to approach for all the corroborative archaelogical evidence about supposed events in the Bible.
Dunno about 'learned', but there ARE anchor points (no pun intended) which ground the OT in history.
Those points become increasingly frequent as time goes on toward the conquest of the area under the Greeks.
On another thread, I argue that the Pentateuch was edited around the sixth-fifth centuries, and cannot be relied on for either accurate history or culture before c1000 BC.
The first 'anchor' which definitely ties the Bible into the recorded events of the first millennium BC is the invasion of Judea and Israel by a resurgent Egypt under Hedjkheperre Setepenre Sheshonq around 930 BC.
The Bible records this as having taken place during the reign of Rehoboham son of Solomon, during his fifth year as king.
(See 1 Kings chapters 11-14)
Sheshonq I - Biblical 'Shishak' - recorded his invasion in typical Egyptian bombastic style on the walls of the temples of Karnak and Luxor.
For example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastite_Portal?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6zdz1r4HnAhWaFcAKHe-mAlgQ0gIwAHoECAMQAw#Description
In many ways, Sheshonq , though of Lybian stock, is counted as the last 'great' Egyptian king.
-
Reputable historians do use it as evidence when there is other evidence from contemporary hostile sources (i.e. engraved stelae, prisms, and tablets) when the events related in both sources appear to concur on certain key points. One of the most significant archaelogical items in this regard is the prism of Sennacherib, which tells of the Siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians in the reign of King Hezekiah. The story is also told in the Bible e.g. 2Chronicles 32. The accounts are naturally biased in favour of the nations writing their own stories - but both accounts agree that a) there was a siege of Jerusalem, and b) the siege was lifted, and the Jews and Jerusalem survived. Jeremy's comments about the reliability of the Bible accounts are pretty much accepted by objective historians (but of course not by believing fundamentalists). We can be pretty certain that we can trust nothing in the earlier part of the Bible as having any historical truth, up to perhaps the 1st Book of Kings, which might contain a few trustworthy grains. Our learned believer here Anchorman is the chap to approach for all the corroborative archaelogical evidence about supposed events in the Bible.
Thank you for the information, I appreciate it. I'll try to use more precise wording in future.
-
Leviticus 19:34
You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:19
So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Well done God! Shame about the qualification though. Does that mean people who've never been abroad are OK to be horrible to foreigners? Shall I quote some verses about smashing babies' heads against rocks? Raping women? Killing children using bears? Burning witches?
Can you not conceive of a better method of communicating moral imperatives than the obscure, repetitive and contradictory Bible? Read The Age of Reason and explain to me where Thomas Paine's analysis goes wrong. It's a short book and easy reading, unlike yours.
The slave Onesimus and his Christian master Philemon became brothers when Onesimus became a believer. Since foreign slaves in Israel were able to worship God with the Israelites, the relationship between masters and slaves who converted was the same as described in Philemon v.16:
Believe (or pretend to) in my irrational and cruel deity and I'll release you from bondage, meanwhile, your friends and relatives will continue slaving for me. You'll be able to boss them about too!
I think you need to think about what "good" means.
-
Leviticus 19:34 You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 10:19 So you also must love the foreigner, since you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
Isn't this rather undermined by the evidence that the years of Jewish slavery in Egypt are a myth - or, rather, by the continued lack of any evidence supporting the claim despite more than a century of looking.
O.
-
Isn't this rather undermined by the evidence that the years of Jewish slavery in Egypt are a myth - or, rather, by the continued lack of any evidence supporting the claim despite more than a century of looking.
O.
I DID try......
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13261.msg773640#msg773640
-
The first 'anchor' which definitely ties the Bible into the recorded events of the first millennium BC is the invasion of Judea and Israel by a resurgent Egypt under Hedjkheperre Setepenre Sheshonq around 930 BC.
The Bible records this as having taken place during the reign of Rehoboham son of Solomon, during his fifth year as king.
(See 1 Kings chapters 11-14)
Sheshonq I - Biblical 'Shishak' - recorded his invasion in typical Egyptian bombastic style on the walls of the temples of Karnak and Luxor.
For example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastite_Portal?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6zdz1r4HnAhWaFcAKHe-mAlgQ0gIwAHoECAMQAw#Description
In many ways, Sheshonq , though of Lybian stock, is counted as the last 'great' Egyptian king.
I've just read 1 Kings 11-14, and there's no mention of Shishak attacking anywhere but Jerusalem. All it says is that there was continual war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (14:30). If Shishak had attacked the north as well, surely Jeroboam would have been a bit busy defending against the Egyptians to be fighting Rehoboam? Yet Shoshenq invaded Judah and Israel. Does the wrong Shishak need to sit down?
-
I've just read 1 Kings 11-14, and there's no mention of Shishak attacking anywhere but Jerusalem. All it says is that there was continual war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (14:30). If Shishak had attacked the north as well, surely Jeroboam would have been a bit busy defending against the Egyptians to be fighting Rehoboam? Yet Shoshenq invaded Judah and Israel. Does the wrong Shishak need to sit down?
How do you think he managed to get an army to Jerusalem?
The 'Bubastis gate' records several areas in which he tried to reimpose Egyptian authority.
Remember that the whole region had been virtual Egyptian property since around 1800 BC, and stelets had only recently made a grab for freedom when the Egyptian state threw an internal wobbly around 1000 BC.
In effect, Sheshonq was simply emphasising Egyptian control.
Archaeology from what is now Syria, Palestine and Israel gives ample evidence of his presence from seals, inscriptions, dtelae fragments, scarabs and a particularly fine statuette of the king as the Memphite war deity Ptah, found outside Jerusalem in 1976, now in Tel Aviv university museum.
The inscription reads
"...Hedjkheperrure Setepenre, victorious, given life in the mansion of Ptah before the miserable taken places, finding that which is his in eternity..."
Typical Egyptian bombast saying "Hey, I'm the boss, standing here, taking back what's mine already...."
-
Real places, people and events appear in all kinds of fiction, it doesn't make it any less fictional.
Part of the Old Testament is a historical narrative of the Two Kingdom period between roughly 1000BCE and 500BCE. It describes real events, although in a heavily spun way. The books of Kings and Chronicles are attempts at real history.
I don't know how accurate anything in the Bible is. Do reputable historians use it as evidence of anything other than the development of some religious myths?
Yes, sometimes in unexpected ways. For example, in the In Our Time episode about the Maccabean revolt, one historian cited the book of Daniel as a historical source. The reason for that is that the author of the prophecies was describing events he had witnessed and pretending they had been written centuries before.
I think I'm on safe ground saying that there is no evidence that God wrote the 10 commandments, from the Bible or anywhere else. I stand by to be proved wrong when Spud expands on his claim of physical evidence.
Yep. There's no external evidence that anything in the Pentateuch is historical.
-
The slave Onesimus and his Christian master Philemon became brothers when Onesimus became a believer. Since foreign slaves in Israel were able to worship God with the Israelites, the relationship between masters and slaves who converted was the same as described in Philemon v.16:
What a load of rubbish. By the time of Philemon, the slave culture was that of the Romans which was quite a lot more liberal than the Hebrew slave culture.
-
What a load of rubbish. By the time of Philemon, the slave culture was that of the Romans which was quite a lot more liberal than the Hebrew slave culture.
Yep.
The topic of slavery in the ancient world has as many examples of types and conditions as there are nation-states in the area, and types and usage of slaves varied at various times and places dependant on the culture.
-
I am thinking of a couple of forums on which I used to post, when I say I have been sickened by sick bigots who use the Bible to defend their nastiness. Extremist Christians often condemn homosexuality and want it made illegal. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and as I have pointed out often enough it is possible Jesus was gay as he is said to have had a specific disciple whom he loved, who was presumably a male.
I came across an evil white supremist 'Christian' claiming that Jesus was white, and not of middle eastern appearance as he would have been. His racist comments were disgusting and then some. >:(
sick bigots do you believe that condemning others is any different to those who condemn? If the bible says homosexuality is wrong then why is that nasty? Are you saying simply by someone believing it to be correct and that it is wrong makes them bad people? Many people might believe something wrong to themselves but that belief which is not followed with hate or abuse is not wrong just diffrerent. condemn homosexuality Someone might not condone it, but that does not mean they condemn anyone who his homosexual. Some have family and friends who are homosexual but they treat them the same as anyone else. made illegal at one time it was illegal you could be arrested, charged and put in prison. What purpose would it serve to a believer of any religion to make homosexuality illegal? Stealing is illegal and robbing and rape, but does it stop it happening. Something being illegal or even considered wrong does not make those who believe it, evil or bigots. It is only evil actions against anyone else that make the person wrong. As Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost what colour of skin and eyes would he have? Why try to offend believers by suggesting something which would be impossible considering the Jewish faith and the times he was born You set out to agitate and offend believers. Nothing different from what you accuse others of doing to groups outside both faiths. You do not appear to grasp the concept of love thy neighbour as you love yourself. The bible has never been used as an excuse for bigotry and whilst people like yourself who can single out groups for tongue lashing and insult then how do you expect anything to change?
Then there are those Christians who condemn women who are pregnant without a wedding ring on their finger, dismissing the fact Mary was supposed to have been pregnant with Jesus before they were wed. They bang on about how terrible sex before marriage is supposed to be, totally forgetting that quite a number of male Biblical characters were having it off with women other than their wives, like that guy Abraham, and Solomon supposedly had loads of concubines.
Until the law came no one could be condemned of sin. Hence you talk about a time when there was no law and so no condemnation of sin.
Many of the Biblical characters behaved badly, including the god featured there, but some people look upon them as heroes, WHY?
Till you give examples how are people suppose to answer that question. Give the example and explanation of the character and their bad behaviour and keep in mind it must be after the law of Moses given.
-
If the bible says homosexuality is wrong then why is that nasty?
Because it classifies a group of people as immoral because of their underlying nature despite the fact that there is no reason to think that nature, or its expression, does anything to harm anyone. It's akin to saying that being black is wrong, or being a ginger is wrong, or being short is wrong, or being a woman is wrong...
Are you saying simply by someone believing it to be correct and that it is wrong makes them bad people?
As a single thing that you know about them it's probably not enough, but I'd suggest that it's not a good sign.
Many people might believe something wrong to themselves but that belief which is not followed with hate or abuse is not wrong just diffrerent.
I'd agree that how it's expressed is a more important signal than what's believed - there are any number of absolute tools out there who are perfectly accepting of gay people but they're still not people you'd want to associate with.
condemn homosexuality Someone might not condone it, but that does not mean they condemn anyone who his homosexual. Some have family and friends who are homosexual but they treat them the same as anyone else.
I appreciate that it's a little more nuanced, and that people are doing the best they can, and I don't think that it's helpful in these instances to accuse people of hypocrisy, but to be the recipient of this is to hear 'What you are is fundamentally broken, but I'm prepared to put in the effort to reach out to you' - at best it's horrendously patronising, and at worst it's an accusation under thinly veiled pretense of acceptance.
made illegal at one time it was illegal you could be arrested, charged and put in prison. What purpose would it serve to a believer of any religion to make homosexuality illegal? Stealing is illegal and robbing and rape, but does it stop it happening.
See, now that's one of the issues - you've just equated being gay with theft and rape, and those are not even remotely alike. There are moral reasons to punish theft and rape, after which realisation you decide if prison is the most effective form of punishment. There is no moral case to be made for punishing homosexuality, either in nature or in practice.
Something being illegal or even considered wrong does not make those who believe it, evil or bigots. It is only evil actions against anyone else that make the person wrong.
On which basis why is homosexuality considered to be wrong by much of the Abrahamic faith?
As Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost what colour of skin and eyes would he have?
What? Suspiciously close to Joseph's, I'd guess.... ::)
Why try to offend believers by suggesting something which would be impossible considering the Jewish faith and the times he was born
Why try to offend gay people, and their friends and family, by implying that gayness was in some way morally wrong, or comparable to theft and rape?
You set out to agitate and offend believers.
I can't speak for everyone, but personally I seek to understand, inform and in the most extreme instances ameliorate - sometimes that results in agitation and offence, but no-one has an intrinsic right not to be offended. If you're going to offend people - and although offence is taken not given, you can go into it knowing that it's going to be taken (actively hunted down, in some cases!) - then you need to feel that what you're doing has an underlying value that justifies it.
Nothing different from what you accuse others of doing to groups outside both faiths. You do not appear to grasp the concept of love thy neighbour as you love yourself.
Really? People coming on and trying to help you understand that it's the 21st Century, not the 1st Century - they aren't being paid to do this, they aren't obliged to do this, they're trying to help you and to improve our society in general.
The bible has never been used as an excuse for bigotry and whilst people like yourself who can single out groups for tongue lashing and insult then how do you expect anything to change?
Look up the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Catholic instutionalising of misogyny, the Eastern European far-right political movements 'encouragement' of women back into a subservient role of mother and homemaker, the anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda, the rhetoric around the miscegenation regulations across the world and come back and say that the Bible has never been used to excuse bigotry.
Until the law came no one could be condemned of sin.
You can talk about sin, but that doesn't make sin real.
Hence you talk about a time when there was no law and so no condemnation of sin. Till you give examples how are people suppose to answer that question. Give the example and explanation of the character and their bad behaviour and keep in mind it must be after the law of Moses given.
No, we don't. We can look back at history with modern sensibilities and say, that was then, but we're better than that now - it's time we started acting like it.
O.
-
Because it classifies a group of people as immoral because of their underlying nature despite the fact that there is no reason to think that nature, or its expression, does anything to harm anyone. It's akin to saying that being black is wrong, or being a ginger is wrong, or being short is wrong, or being a woman is wrong...
The bible is saying that God created us for heterosexual relationships only. That isn't nasty, it's stating a fact, like saying he created us for monogamous relationships.
-
How do you think he managed to get an army to Jerusalem?
The 'Bubastis gate' records several areas in which he tried to reimpose Egyptian authority.
Remember that the whole region had been virtual Egyptian property since around 1800 BC, and stelets had only recently made a grab for freedom when the Egyptian state threw an internal wobbly around 1000 BC.
In effect, Sheshonq was simply emphasising Egyptian control.
Archaeology from what is now Syria, Palestine and Israel gives ample evidence of his presence from seals, inscriptions, dtelae fragments, scarabs and a particularly fine statuette of the king as the Memphite war deity Ptah, found outside Jerusalem in 1976, now in Tel Aviv university museum.
The inscription reads
"...Hedjkheperrure Setepenre, victorious, given life in the mansion of Ptah before the miserable taken places, finding that which is his in eternity..."
Typical Egyptian bombast saying "Hey, I'm the boss, standing here, taking back what's mine already...."
If Shishak was Shoshenq 1, why does Kings or Chronicles not mention Shishak attacking Israel? It gets it right with regard to Judah, but omits any mention of Israel.
-
The bible is saying that God created us for heterosexual relationships only. That isn't nasty, it's stating a fact, like saying he created us for monogamous relationships.
It may be a fact that the bible says this, as you say, but even if so the bible is just expressing an opinion - other opinions are available.
-
The bible is saying that God created us for heterosexual relationships only.
So what - just because it is written in the bible doesn't mean it is necessarily true or a fact. It is merely an opinion and moreover and opinion based on zero evidence.
That isn't nasty, it's stating a fact, like saying he created us for monogamous relationships.
It isn't stating a fact, it is stating an opinion and one that many people do consider to be 'nasty'. Don't forget that the bible was used as a key justification for racism over the centuries too.
And given that there is no evidence for the existence of god and therefore a belief that god exists is also merely an opinion a claim that 'god created' anything is an opinion (that god created a thing) based on another opinion (that god exists).
-
The bible is saying that God created us for heterosexual relationships only. That isn't nasty, it's stating a fact, like saying he created us for monogamous relationships.
It doesn't just say that, though, does it?
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
God created all the creatures of the Earth, and hundreds of them (including humans) exhibit examples of homosexual behaviour. Stating as fact that this has been a design choice isn't the same saying as condemning those where the design hasn't taken correctly to an eternity of punishment for the nature they were born with.
O.
-
The bible is saying that God created us for heterosexual relationships only.
Why are there any homosexuals at all then? If God created us for heterosexual relationships but some of us prefer homosexual relationships, doesn't that make God a shit designer? If some Dysons blew instead of sucked, we'd say that Dyson makes a shit vacuum cleaner. Why are you giving this god of yours a free pass?
That isn't nasty, it's stating a fact
It's not a fact. Here are the ways it is not a fan t:
1. This god of yours almost certainly doesn't exist
2. We were not created, we evolved.
3. We did not evolve to have heterosexual relationships only. This is obvious since some of us are not heterosexual.
like saying he created us for monogamous relationships.
This is equally false.
-
If Shishak was Shoshenq 1, why does Kings or Chronicles not mention Shishak attacking Israel? It gets it right with regard to Judah, but omits any mention of Israel.
You need to get your head around the fact that the Bible contains errors of fact.
-
You need to get your head around the fact that the Bible contains errors of fact.
It is also accurate about some facts, so the possibility remains that Shishak really didn't attack Jereboam's northern tribes, only Judah - thus wasn't Shoshenq.
-
It is also accurate about some facts, so the possibility remains that Shishak really didn't attack Jereboam's northern tribes, only Judah - thus wasn't Shoshenq.
It is even possible that there were never two kingdoms (it has been argued, in order to discredit the Documentary Hypothesis). The best way to establish what is factual in the Bible is to find corroborative evidence from hostile sources. A degree of logical deduction can then be involved. You seem dubious in part because of the difference in spelling between the two names cited.
Let me remind you that the Bible is hardly consistent on this. Was the mountain of the Ten Commandments Sinai or Horeb? Was the tribe subjected to practical genocide in Numbers (over the heresy at Peor) the Midianites or the Moabites? The account appears to be very confused over this. Was the writing on the wall at Belshazzers Feast "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin" of " M M Tekel Parsin". The list is endless.
-
It is also accurate about some facts, so the possibility remains that Shishak really didn't attack Jereboam's northern tribes, only Judah - thus wasn't Shoshenq.
Since Sheshonq I penetrated into southern Syria, why would he leave the Northern Kingdom alone?
No subsequent dyn XXII or XXIII king was remotely powerful enough to hold onto Sheshonq's gains; fifty years after his death Egypt fragmenyed and lost all her norther territories, followed by Sudan. Even by the time of the Saite dyn XXVI, the kings such as Neco and Hophra, mentioned in Scripture, were not even a shadow of the New Kingdom rulers or even of Sheshonq, depending on Greek and Hebree mercenaries to keep at bay first the Babylonians, then the Persians.
-
It is also accurate about some facts, so the possibility remains that Shishak really didn't attack Jereboam's northern tribes, only Judah - thus wasn't Shoshenq.
Where are the Egyptian records that support your hypothesis?
-
Believe (or pretend to) in my irrational and cruel deity and I'll release you from bondage, meanwhile, your friends and relatives will continue slaving for me. You'll be able to boss them about too!
Ironically, no. Believe in God and you become his servant (Leviticus 25:42) Don't believe in him and you will be ruled over 'with rigor'.
-
Where are the Egyptian records that support your hypothesis?
I'd be interested to know as well, as I wrote a thesis, partly ion Sheshonq I, for my degree.
-
Ironically, no. Believe in God and you become his servant (Leviticus 25:42) Don't believe in him and you will be ruled over 'with rigor'.
Are you going to tell me what that means or wait until I've made some assumptions based on the plain meaning of the words, then tell me I'm wrong?
Anyway, I don't care about your threats, because a committed Anglican told me on Saturday night that I am not going to Hell. She said it doesn't matter whether I believe in God, because I'm a good person and God loves me and God is good. She does tend towards redefining the meaning of words to suit herself, just like you do, but she invariably comes up with the most generous and loving slant available. Don't you find it odd that two people claiming to believe the same book written/inspired by the same deity, have such divergent views on the nature of the god and the book's teaching?
Tut. God really should have been clear about how we avoid 'rigorous rule' for eternity, shouldn't he?
-
Are you going to tell me what that means or wait until I've made some assumptions based on the plain meaning of the words, then tell me I'm wrong? Anyway, I don't care about your threats, because a committed Anglican told me on Saturday night that I am not going to Hell. She said it doesn't matter whether I believe in God, because I'm a good person and God loves me and God is good. She does tend towards redefining the meaning of words to suit herself, just like you do, but she invariably comes up with the most generous and loving slant available. Don't you find it odd that two people claiming to believe the same book written/inspired by the same deity, have such divergent views on the nature of the god and the book's teaching? Tut. God really should have been clear about how we avoid 'rigorous rule' for eternity, shouldn't he?
Not a threat, but a point. Your ASnglican friend, regardless of how committed, is wrong, even by the stated doctrine of her own denomination. Being good is not enough. You can't stack up brownie points with God by being good, because the Church - of which the CofE is, I assume, part, accepts that no-one can ever be perfect. That oft-quoted John 3:16 says all you need - but a quick look at 3:17 tells you that we're not supposed to be judge, because that's not why Christ came.
-
Tut. God really should have been clear about how we avoid 'rigorous rule' for eternity, shouldn't he?
Spud may think that 'rigorous rule' applies for eternity, but when Leviticus was written, the Hebrews certainly didn't. There's no talk about a conscious afterlife at all in the Old Testament until a few vague references in the Book of Daniel, a very late book. A small point, but something the fundies and evangelicals ought to take on board when they're in 'threatening mode' (which seems to be most of the time).
Anchorman's point about central Christian doctrine being about salvation by faith and not works is fair enough - that's what the consensus of Christian doctrine has become. But here your words about "God being clear" are entirely to the point. You won't find very much about 'salvation by faith' in much of Matthew's gospel (certainly not in chapter 25, which is all about 'being good').
-
Thanks Anchorman and Dicky Underpants.
Perhaps my friend doesn't believe in Hell at all? She does believe her god is good, I know that, and thinking of me being poked with pitchforks for eternity entirely due to the apologetics of Christians being so poor would be likely to induce some cognitive dissonance.
To be fair, Spud didn't specify eternity, but from what I can gather, you don't get a second chance once his God's proved beyond all doubt that he exists and created Hell for non-believers. Which is good of him (that's sarcasm).
-
Not a threat, but a point. Your ASnglican friend, regardless of how committed, is wrong, even by the stated doctrine of her own denomination. Being good is not enough. You can't stack up brownie points with God by being good, because the Church - of which the CofE is, I assume, part, accepts that no-one can ever be perfect. That oft-quoted John 3:16 says all you need - but a quick look at 3:17 tells you that we're not supposed to be judge, because that's not why Christ came.
I find that somewhat concerning - or I would if I believed in God. If the ticket for entry into heaven is unswerving loyalty to God, no thank you. It sounds more like North Korea than Paradise.
-
I find that somewhat concerning - or I would if I believed in God. If the ticket for entry into heaven is unswerving loyalty to God, no thank you. It sounds more like North Korea than Paradise.
Isn't that because you believe God is not Good? What about if he is good?
-
Isn't that because you believe God is not Good? What about if he is good?
I don't think that Jeremy believes that god exists, so therefore discussion about whether a non existent thing is good is moot.
-
Are you going to tell me what that means or wait until I've made some assumptions based on the plain meaning of the words, then tell me I'm wrong?
Sure, sorry - I wasn't expecting you to think I was referring to eternity, and I should have quoted the verse that was in my mind at the time. It was Leviticus 25:42: "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
I was also thinking of Leviticus 18. If people do the things described there, it says in verse 28 that they are destined to be vomited out of their land. That results in them becoming slaves to other nations. This country is more or less in line with the laws given in this chapter, but is in breach of some of them. This would be why we have a huge national debt, thus are effectively owned by overseas banks.
-
I don't think that Jeremy believes that god exists, so therefore discussion about whether a non existent thing is good is moot.
You are absolutely correct, but, if (hypothetically) God exists and is as Spud describes, getting rewarded by God depends not on whether you are good but on how much you suck up to him, you have to admit these are more the characteristics of a megalomanic dictator than an enlightened leader.
-
This sounds like Euthyphro dilemma territory.
-
Because it classifies a group of people as immoral because of their underlying nature despite the fact that there is no reason to think that nature, or its expression, does anything to harm anyone. It's akin to saying that being black is wrong, or being a ginger is wrong, or being short is wrong, or being a woman is wrong...
As a single thing that you know about them it's probably not enough, but I'd suggest that it's not a good sign.
I'd agree that how it's expressed is a more important signal than what's believed - there are any number of absolute tools out there who are perfectly accepting of gay people but they're still not people you'd want to associate with.
I appreciate that it's a little more nuanced, and that people are doing the best they can, and I don't think that it's helpful in these instances to accuse people of hypocrisy, but to be the recipient of this is to hear 'What you are is fundamentally broken, but I'm prepared to put in the effort to reach out to you' - at best it's horrendously patronising, and at worst it's an accusation under thinly veiled pretense of acceptance.
See, now that's one of the issues - you've just equated being gay with theft and rape, and those are not even remotely alike. There are moral reasons to punish theft and rape, after which realisation you decide if prison is the most effective form of punishment. There is no moral case to be made for punishing homosexuality, either in nature or in practice.
On which basis why is homosexuality considered to be wrong by much of the Abrahamic faith?
What? Suspiciously close to Joseph's, I'd guess.... ::)
Why try to offend gay people, and their friends and family, by implying that gayness was in some way morally wrong, or comparable to theft and rape?
I can't speak for everyone, but personally I seek to understand, inform and in the most extreme instances ameliorate - sometimes that results in agitation and offence, but no-one has an intrinsic right not to be offended. If you're going to offend people - and although offence is taken not given, you can go into it knowing that it's going to be taken (actively hunted down, in some cases!) - then you need to feel that what you're doing has an underlying value that justifies it.
Really? People coming on and trying to help you understand that it's the 21st Century, not the 1st Century - they aren't being paid to do this, they aren't obliged to do this, they're trying to help you and to improve our society in general.
Look up the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Catholic instutionalising of misogyny, the Eastern European far-right political movements 'encouragement' of women back into a subservient role of mother and homemaker, the anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda, the rhetoric around the miscegenation regulations across the world and come back and say that the Bible has never been used to excuse bigotry.
You can talk about sin, but that doesn't make sin real.
No, we don't. We can look back at history with modern sensibilities and say, that was then, but we're better than that now - it's time we started acting like it.
O.
Just a thought Outlander, how many of these bigots would turn down a gay, for example, ambulance driver about to apply their skills to save the life of one of their nearest and dearest that had been unlucky enough to be involved in a life threatening accident, or refuse treatment from a gay doctor or nurse in A & E.
Or even worse, being treated by someone that's unmarried and living as a couple that have had children out of wedlock as well.
Hope you're OK with that lot Outlander, only I wasn't trying to shock you. :) :)
ippy.
-
Sure, sorry - I wasn't expecting you to think I was referring to eternity, and I should have quoted the verse that was in my mind at the time. It was Exodus 25:42: "Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."
I was also thinking of Leviticus 18. If people do the things described there, it says in verse 28 that they are destined to be vomited out of their land. That results in them becoming slaves to other nations. This country is more or less in line with the laws given in this chapter, but is in breach of some of them. This would be why we have a huge national debt, thus are effectively owned by overseas banks.
Am I right in thinking that the implication of the first verse you quote is that it's OK to sell humans who aren't Israelites as slaves? And that those people can be ruled over ruthlessly with your god's approval?
And Leviticus 18 seems to only apply to men, but anyway, who has been vomited off their land in the UK? You're changing the meaning of words to suit yourself again, aren't you?
Thanks for your ...um... clarification. You might be surprised to hear that I'm no nearer being convinced of the inherent morality of Christianity (your version or anybody else's), or perhaps not. I no longer think Christian apologists really want to "save souls". The main goal seems to be to make threats to people who are understandably unconvinced while being smug and inappropriately patronising.
-
Am I right in thinking that the implication of the first verse you quote is that it's OK to sell humans who aren't Israelites as slaves? And that those people can be ruled over ruthlessly with your god's approval?
From the context I think it could be the difference between a family member and a non-family member working for you. There is no licence for slavery implied in these verses; plus there is no word for slave in Hebrew, and every person, servants and foreigners included, was supposed to have a day off 'to be refreshed' which is the opposite of slavery.
And Leviticus 18 seems to only apply to men, but anyway, who has been vomited off their land in the UK?
As I said, the UK is not in breach of the laws of Leviticus 18 in the way that the Canaanites were. However, abortion, homosexuality and adultery are permitted. I don't know who is in what situation, but there is such a thing as repossession of homes, homelessness etc (not saying that every case of those is because of the above).
You're changing the meaning of words to suit yourself again, aren't you?
Thanks for your ...um... clarification. You might be surprised to hear that I'm no nearer being convinced of the inherent morality of Christianity (your version or anybody else's), or perhaps not. I no longer think Christian apologists really want to "save souls". The main goal seems to be to make threats to people who are understandably unconvinced while being smug and inappropriately patronising.
For me it's about answering the questions everybody asks, including me. You seem to come from one of those forums where where people are brutally nasty; I hope the respect people have for each other here will rub off on you at some point.
-
From the context I think it could be the difference between a family member and a non-family member working for you. There is no licence for slavery implied in these verses; plus there is no word for slave in Hebrew, and every person, servants and foreigners included, was supposed to have a day off 'to be refreshed' which is the opposite of slavery.
No, it isn't. Slavery isn't solely about the treatment you receive from your work-controller, it's about whether you are an equal citizen in the eyes of the culture in which you are living or whether you are owned property. If you are a well-treated slave you are still a slave deprived of your freedom. You can be a free-born employee and be appallingly treated by an employer, that doesn't make it slavery.
O.
-
No, it isn't. Slavery isn't solely about the treatment you receive from your work-controller, it's about whether you are an equal citizen in the eyes of the culture in which you are living or whether you are owned property. If you are a well-treated slave you are still a slave deprived of your freedom. You can be a free-born employee and be appallingly treated by an employer, that doesn't make it slavery.
O.
Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.
-
Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.
A master was allowed to beat his slaves unless they died within a week? That kind of equality?
You should give it up, Spud. Accept that the Bible was written in a different time and morality has evolved since then.
-
What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.
-
What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.
Because if morality doesn't evolve over time, the Bible would unequivocally say "slavery is wrong" and God would ban his people from keeping them.
-
Because if morality doesn't evolve over time, the Bible would unequivocally say "slavery is wrong" and God would ban his people from keeping them.
Quite - although "evolve" is perhaps not the right word, since morality is undoubtedly getting better, whereas biological evolution is just change and adaptation, with no improvement implied.
-
You seem to come from one of those forums where where people are brutally nasty; I hope the respect people have for each other here will rub off on you at some point.
I'm not from any other forum Spud. I've been lurking here since BBC days and decided to join because I thought it was increasingly rude to know so much about people without introducing myself.
You're suddenly very sensitive for someone trying to depict owning and beating slaves as moral behaviour. I would say "brutally nasty" would better describe some of the passages in your favourite book of myths than my mild sarcasm.
As Thomas Paine (presumably being tortured in hell right now) said:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
By Bible he means old testament.
-
What one can say - and the best that one can say - about the bible's attitude to slavery is that it set strict limits on it, which is a sort of tacit admission that it is not an ideal institution, and points forward to its eventual abolition. However, I agree with Jeremy that morality evolves - we get better over time. The general spirit of the bible, especially the NT, is what we should be guided by, not the specifics.
The general spirit of the NT? Like punishing the innocent for other people's wrongdoing?
It's great there are Christians who cherry pick the nice bits out of the books and claim that's what it's all about. Unfortunately, as I think has been pointed out innumerable times by others here, by doing that you kind of lose the right to criticise those who cherry pick the brutally nasty bits, like the Westboro Baptists and the Inquisition.
Morality definitely does change over time and I've been lucky enough to had had reason and secular thinking in the ascendency where I've lived. Theocracies, and other ways of organising ourselves based on unquestioning adherence to an ideology, seem to do much less well at developing fair, happy and secure societies, historically and today.
-
Equality between masters and servants in Israel is evident from the sabbath commandment.
In all circumstances, or when the slave was of the chosen tribes? Regardless, even if it's temporary, even if there is a legal institution requiring some moderation of treatment, the simple fact of ownership of people is abhorrent.
O.
-
Quite - although "evolve" is perhaps not the right word, since morality is undoubtedly getting better, whereas biological evolution is just change and adaptation, with no improvement implied.
I deliberately used the word "evolve" because there are people who would disagree with the assertion that morality is getting better. I think it is, and you clearly think it is, but others think not.
-
A few thoughts, for what they're worth. The practice of selling oneself as a servant is described in Leviticus 25. What if a foreigner became poor and decided to sell himself, and an Israelite decided he needed a servant and bought him?
Here then is a practice that benefits both the purchaser and the servant.
If it was an Israelite servant, he'd be freed after 6 years. Or, if he liked his master, he could choose to remain the man's servant for life. Again, this was for the benefit of both.
For some reason a foreign servant was to be bought for life (v 44-46).
-
I'm not from any other forum Spud. I've been lurking here since BBC days and decided to join because I thought it was increasingly rude to know so much about people without introducing myself.
Wow, were you a BBC forum member then? Good to have you here, look forward to discussing all this with you. ;D
You're suddenly very sensitive for someone trying to depict owning and beating slaves as moral behaviour. I would say "brutally nasty" would better describe some of the passages in your favourite book of myths than my mild sarcasm.
Favorite book of true stories, get it right!
You were right that the paragraph in Leviticus 25:44-46 looks as though it is promoting slavery. At first glance it could be interpreted as prohibiting harsh treatment of Hebrew servants but allowing it for foreign ones. But see my previous post.
As Thomas Paine (presumably being tortured in hell right now) said:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
By Bible he means old testament.
This will keep for another post.
-
In all circumstances, or when the slave was of the chosen tribes? Regardless, even if it's temporary, even if there is a legal institution requiring some moderation of treatment, the simple fact of ownership of people is abhorrent.
O.
It applies to servants and foreigners, and even animals.
-
A master was allowed to beat his slaves unless they died within a week? That kind of equality?
You should give it up, Spud. Accept that the Bible was written in a different time and morality has evolved since then.
Doesn't it say "if the servant gets up after a day or two"? I think you misquoted.
It prohibits injuring him.
A friend once advised me that when reading the Bible, it's important to work out what it's not saying, as well as what it is saying.
-
Spud,
Sorry if your replied an I missed it but I asked you a while back whether, if your think an inerrant and good god wrote down the proper rules for our behaviour then you'd have no problem with those same rules being the norm now. Thus for example would you say that the buying as selling of people would be fine and dandy now for example?
-
A few thoughts, for what they're worth. The practice of selling oneself as a servant is described in Leviticus 25. What if a foreigner became poor and decided to sell himself, and an Israelite decided he needed a servant and bought him?
Here then is a practice that benefits both the purchaser and the servant.
If it was an Israelite servant, he'd be freed after 6 years. Or, if he liked his master, he could choose to remain the man's servant for life. Again, this was for the benefit of both.
For some reason a foreign servant was to be bought for life (v 44-46). Interestingly, Calvin says, "...it appears that a restraint was imposed upon them lest they should imperiously rule the children of Abraham...".
The context is quite hard to understand: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/leviticus/25.htm
But it makes some sense of the statute in verses 44-46. If I've understood Calvin correctly here, the 'rigor' referred to was permitted in order that foreign servants couldn't "imperiously rule' Israelites.
Why did your God make it hard to understand?
Don’t you find it a waste of time searching a rambling and contradictory collection of stories for ways to excuse your God’s reported bad behaviour? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say slavery is immoral. It was wrong then, whether the slaves were treated badly or not, and whether the slave-owners thought so or not, and it’s still wrong now. Instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable by picking out the bits you think show your God in a less bad light, why not think about right and wrong for yourself? Read some stuff that’s critical of your beliefs and your book and see if you can answer the arguments made against your faith position. Obviously I’d suggest The Age Of Reason by Paine, because I’m a big fan of Thomas Paine, but also you might try On Religion by John Stuart Mill. I think it’s probably a good thing to consider views different from your own and see whether they stand up to scrutiny. It’s what I do every time I read a post by you or Alan Burns.
-
Wow, were you a BBC forum member then? Good to have you here, look forward to discussing all this with you. ;D
Favorite book of true stories, get it right!
I only posted once on the BBC board and got a nice reply from Wigginhall. I always felt others were expressing what I would like to anyway, but were more knowledgeable than I am. I acted on feeling guilty about lurking when a thread appeared regretting the lack of activity here, suggesting the forum was dying. I didn’t want that, so I joined.
So, you think this is a true story and that your God is good, both at the same time? 2 Kings 2:23-24
“… as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him “Go up, you baldhead; go up you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up 42 lads of their number.”
I’d also refer you to Numbers 31, the revolting tale of God telling Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites. After his army has slaughtered all the men, Moses gets angry because they’ve spared the women and children. Moses says “kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.”
If I hadn’t been told before I read any Bible at all that God was good and Satan was bad, I certainly wouldn’t have come to that conclusion from reading the stories.
-
It applies to servants and foreigners, and even animals.
And has a different threshold to what we might consider justifiable in the modern age, but many things do - that doesn't undermine that fundamental issue with the nature of the institution of slavery and its inherenty dehumanising premise that some people can be owned by other people.
O.
-
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say slavery is immoral. It was wrong then, whether the slaves were treated badly or not, and whether the slave-owners thought so or not, and it’s still wrong now.
I'll join you on the limb and say that the Old Testament never uses the word 'slave'. You could buy or sell a servant, but you had the same master as him/her which was God. So, according to the NT, just as wives are told to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives and give themselves for them, servants are to obey their masters and masters are not to threaten their servants, Ephesians 6:5,9. However, both these ideals have been abused over millennia, and so today the first is taboo and the second is illegal, in order to prevent abuse. Drugs are illegal because they are abused, but can be good if used in the right way, eg antidepressants for someone who can't produce the chemicals in their brain. I can't see a problem with someone who has nothing becoming a servant to someone who can give him food and a roof over his head. That person has saved his life, so in a sense he owes him his life, but that doesn't make him a slave!
So I'll go further out on the limb and say that the word 'slave' by default implies mistreatment, as well as being owned.
-
I'll join you on the limb and say that the Old Testament never uses the word 'slave'.
If you buy and sell people, they are slaves. You can call them 'servants', you can call them 'chattel', you can call them chinchillas if it makes you happy, but they're slaves.
You could buy or sell a servant, but you had the same master as him/her which was God.
Which just suggests that one of the reasons God doesn't speak out about the abhorrence of the practice is that he partakes of it.
So, according to the NT, just as wives are told to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives and give themselves for them, servants are to obey their masters and masters are not to threaten their servants, Ephesians 6:5,9. However, both these ideals have been abused over millennia, and so today the first is taboo and the second is illegal, in order to prevent abuse.
The idea of women having to submit to their male relatives is not 'an ideal'. The only way to enforce slavery is through the threat of violence - even God maintains his slaves with the threat of an eternity of torment.
Drugs are illegal because they are abused, but can be good if used in the right way, eg antidepressants for someone who can't produce the chemicals in their brain.
Some drugs are illegal (i.e. heroin). Some are tightly controlled (i.e. most medications). Some are loosely controlled (i.e. aspirin) . Some are freely available (i.e. coffee). Within those categories are some that are illegal, ostensibly because they are horrendously harmful, but without any strong evidence to support that claim (i.e. marijuana), whilst others are loosely controlled but demonstrably cause great harm to society and the people within it (i.e. alcohol, tobacco). Drugs are not illegal because they are abused, necessarily, drugs are ostensibly controlled because they are potentially harmful, and to an extent dependent upon the ease and extent of that harm.
I can't see a problem with someone who has nothing becoming a servant to someone who can give him food and a roof over his head. That person has saved his life, so in a sense he owes him his life, but that doesn't make him a slave!
But him being a commodity that can be sold does. Working for your keep is not, intrinsically, a moral problem, even if you barely get a subsistence living - it might not be in keeping with the concepts of Christian charity or our more modern sensibilities around a living wage and a suitable work-lift balance, but it's not a categoric evil. Owning people is.
So I'll go further out on the limb and say that the word 'slave' by default implies mistreatment, as well as being owned.
Nope, just the ownership bit. A well treated slave is still a slave, because you can still decide that you've had enough of them and that you're going to sell them to Bob down the road and they don't have a say in that because they're property and your rights over them supersede theirs.
O.
-
I'll join you on the limb and say that the Old Testament never uses the word 'slave'. You could buy or sell a servant, but you had the same master as him/her which was God. So, according to the NT, just as wives are told to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives and give themselves for them, servants are to obey their masters and masters are not to threaten their servants, Ephesians 6:5,9. However, both these ideals have been abused over millennia, and so today the first is taboo and the second is illegal, in order to prevent abuse. Drugs are illegal because they are abused, but can be good if used in the right way, eg antidepressants for someone who can't produce the chemicals in their brain. I can't see a problem with someone who has nothing becoming a servant to someone who can give him food and a roof over his head. That person has saved his life, so in a sense he owes him his life, but that doesn't make him a slave!
So I'll go further out on the limb and say that the word 'slave' by default implies mistreatment, as well as being owned.
I agree with Outrider.
Also, you quoted a Bible passage that used the word "slave".
Men used to be able to treat their wives very badly indeed and the women had no recourse to justice or, realistically, usually, possibility of escape. That you think arbitrary control of one person over another is an "ideal" comes as no surprise given your attitude towards slavery. I think that people kept as slaves thousands of years ago were just as human as I am and probably felt things in much the same way I do. I think many women subjected to men's control have suffered terribly throughout history and I'm very glad I'm not one of them. Being able to imagine myself in less favourable situations lets me empathise with the downtrodden and abused.
Your book has been used to justify the most appalling torture of human beings for millennia. That's torture by people who believe in it. Christians. Of other Christians. You can quibble about slaves being called slaves all you like, you've given me no reason to think Thomas Paine was wrong.
Blimey, never mind Good Omens or The Good Place, Bill and Ted had a better moral code than your God.
-
I'll join you on the limb and say that the Old Testament never uses the word 'slave'.
I hear that limb cracking.
There are 375 uses of the word slave in the NRSV (considered a fairly accurate translation) - 204 in the Old Testament.
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=447929519
-
If you buy and sell people, they are slaves. You can call them 'servants', you can call them 'chattel', you can call them chinchillas if it makes you happy, but they're slaves.
According to who? What's the origin of the word? I think it comes from the word for serve, according to etymology online.
-
I hear that limb cracking.
There are 375 uses of the word slave in the NRSV (considered a fairly accurate translation) - 204 in the Old Testament.
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=447929519
Zero in the Hebrew, which comes from the root meaning 'to serve'.
-
According to who? What's the origin of the word? I think it comes from the word for serve, according to etymology online.
You support owning and beating people. Your god is a thug and you worship its violence and support for slavery and beating
-
Zero in the Hebrew, which comes from the root meaning 'to serve'.
or the hebrew for god likes people to be owned and beaten and tells you the rules on beating. And you worship that thug god.
-
According to who? What's the origin of the word? I think it comes from the word for serve, according to etymology online.
The etymology isn't really of anything other than academic interest, but according to Wiktionary it's nothing to do with 'serve', it's derived from the ethnic term Slav.
slave (plural slaves)
A person who is the property of another person and whose labor (and sometimes also whose life) is subject to the owner's volition.
A person who is legally obliged by prior contract (oral or written) to work for another, with contractually limited rights to bargain; an indentured servant.
(figuratively) A drudge; one who labours like a slave.
(figuratively) One who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders to something.
a slave to passion, to strong drink, or to ambition
(figuratively) An abject person; a wretch.
Art thou the slave that with thy breath hast kill'd/ Mine innocent child? Shakespeare. Much Ado About Nothing.
A submissive partner in a BDSM relationship who (consensually) submits to (sexually and/or personally) serving one or more masters or mistresses.
A person who is forced against their will to perform, for another person or group, sexual acts or services on a regular or continuing basis.
(engineering) A device that is controlled by another device.
According to the OED online, the first entry:
slave
/sleɪv/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
"they kidnapped entire towns and turned them into slaves"
Or if you prefer Cambridge:
slave
noun [ C ]
UK /sleɪv/ US /sleɪv/
B2
a person who is legally owned by someone else and has to work for that person:
Black slaves used to work on the cotton plantations of the southern United States.
I'm tired of being treated like a slave!
More examples
a galley slave
a slave and his master
Slaves were treated with sickening cruelty.
The slaves were kept in bondage until their death.
Get your own drink - I'm not your slave!
So, are we collectively happy that the term slave means someone that is owned?
O.
-
Spud,
Again - if you think that the rules of an inerrant god are correctly written down, would you be ok with those rules being the law of the land now so, as an example, the buying and selling of people should be legalised? It's a simple enough question I'd have thought?
-
'Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry'.
Apologies if someone has already said something like this, it's a rather an obvious fact that bible inspired bigotry's done wonders for Northern Island in the past and hopefully it'll stay in the past forever.
ippy.
-
The etymology isn't really of anything other than academic interest, but according to Wiktionary it's nothing to do with 'serve', it's derived from the ethnic term Slav.
You're right. And therefore it's associated with kidnapping for the purpose of selling on, which is apparently what happened to the Slavic people. This a capital offence in the OT, so how can it be said that God allows slavery?
According to the OED online, the first entry:
Or if you prefer Cambridge:
So, are we collectively happy that the term slave means someone that is owned?
O.
Going further back than the word Slav, the general and most common Latin word for a person who is chattel, is Mancipium. So the term for someone who is owned is, in Latin, completely different.
So the Old Testament word commonly translated slave in modern Bibles should not be translated in that way, because it is associated with oppression, which the OT itself forbids (see Deuteronomy 23:15-16). It should still be translated, servant. This is also consistent with contexts in which it is used where one person says to another, something like "I am your servant".
-
You're right. And therefore it's associated with kidnapping for the purpose of selling on, which is apparently what happened to the Slavic people. This a capital offence in the OT, so how can it be said that God allows slavery?
Going further back than the word Slav, the general and most common Latin word for a person who is chattel, is Mancipium. So the term for someone who is owned is, in Latin, completely different.
So the Old Testament word commonly translated slave in modern Bibles should not be translated in that way, because it is associated with oppression, which the OT itself forbids (see Deuteronomy 23:15-16). It should still be translated, servant. This is also consistent with contexts in which it is used where one person says to another, something like "I am your servant".
Leviticus 17-26: "10 Neither an unauthorized person nor a priest’s tenant or laborer may eat of any sacred offering. 11 But a slave[an] whom a priest acquires by purchase or who is born in his house may eat of his food."
Seems to me they're perfectly capable of differentiating between slaves and servants of various kinds, they classify slaves as possessions (acquires by purchase) and they set rules about what they can and can't do regarding permission. It's there in black and white that there are rules for what slave can and can't do, and those slaves are owned - it was common practice in the day, but it's something that modernity recognises as abhorrent. It doesn't make the Israelites of the time any worse people than anyone else of the time, but it does suggest that if this work was divinely inspired that the divinity behind it recognises a different - and I'd argue questionable - moral code.
O.
-
Outrider,
I don't think you've understood my post. Slavery is not defined only by ownership. It is also someone being forced to work against their will. Otherwise, you are implying that the word 'Slav' was adopted for no other reason than to depict an owned person. Surely it was also because those particular owned people suffered hugely?
The servant in your quote was not held against his will, given that he could run away to anywhere he wanted, see the verses in my previous post.
-
Outrider,
I don't think you've understood my post. Slavery is not defined only by ownership. It is also someone being forced to work against their will. Otherwise, you are implying that the word 'Slav' was adopted for no other reason than to depict an owned person. Surely it was also because those particular owned people suffered hugely?
I don't think I've been clear then - whilst the word slavery, since the abolition of the ownership of people, has been co-opted into other uses to depict despicable or distasteful practices which are already illegal, there is something more fundamentally immoral about a legislative system that permits the ownership of people.
Regardless of well or badly someone is treated, the very concept of owning people is itself abhorrent. People deserve to have as much control of their own destiny as we can give them, and the institution of slavery, the idea of buying someone's very existence for your benefit is fundamentally immoral before you even start to consider whether there should then be laws or rules about their treatment by their owners.
That slaves suffered all sorts of additional abuses of treatment on top of that is not to be ignored, but the concept of owning people is wrong in and of itself.
The servant in your quote was not held against his will, given that he could run away to anywhere he wanted, see the verses in my previous post.
The one that his owner 'acquires by purchasing' was just permitted to leave? The slave born into the household was free to change their mind? That seems, at best, unlikely.
O.
-
I don't think I've been clear then - whilst the word slavery, since the abolition of the ownership of people, has been co-opted into other uses to depict despicable or distasteful practices which are already illegal, there is something more fundamentally immoral about a legislative system that permits the ownership of people.
Regardless of well or badly someone is treated, the very concept of owning people is itself abhorrent. People deserve to have as much control of their own destiny as we can give them, and the institution of slavery, the idea of buying someone's very existence for your benefit is fundamentally immoral before you even start to consider whether there should then be laws or rules about their treatment by their owners.
That slaves suffered all sorts of additional abuses of treatment on top of that is not to be ignored, but the concept of owning people is wrong in and of itself.
The one that his owner 'acquires by purchasing' was just permitted to leave? The slave born into the household was free to change their mind? That seems, at best, unlikely.
O.
The problem is poverty. Not through their own fault, people in some regions of the world can barely scratch a living. They become so desperate that they move to a more habitable place in search of a more comfortable life. That may mean attaching themselves to a willing citizen in the new country, and working in exchange for their food and lodging.
Similarly, concubinage might be practised to facilitate a woman's survival. Neither of these situations are how God intended people to live, but since they were necessary for survival they were permitted in Israel.
An example of the first is where the people of Egypt sold all their land to Pharaoh in order to pay for food during the famine. Once their property was gone, they sold themselves to Pharaoh as his servants, and would give him a percentage of the harvest every year after the famine.
Whilst I agree that the concept of people being owned is abhorrent, it is unfortunately the only way some people could survive. There may be modern equivalents, loopholes used by big companies to entice poor foreigners to work for them, but those people are desperate and so they do so in order to have a better life than the one they had before.
-
Any thoughts yet Spud on why, if you think the biblical rules were written by an inerrant and good god, those rules shouldn't ideally therefore be the law of the land now so, for example, people could be bought and sold as commercial transactions?
-
The problem is poverty. Not through their own fault, people in some regions of the world can barely scratch a living. They become so desperate that they move to a more habitable place in search of a more comfortable life. That may mean attaching themselves to a willing citizen in the new country, and working in exchange for their food and lodging.
That's not slavery, that's economics without the safety net of a welfare programme.
Similarly, concubinage might be practised to facilitate a woman's survival. Neither of these situations are how God intended people to live, but since they were necessary for survival they were permitted in Israel.
That's a similar, if slightly creepier example.
An example of the first is where the people of Egypt sold all their land to Pharaoh in order to pay for food during the famine. Once their property was gone, they sold themselves to Pharaoh as his servants, and would give him a percentage of the harvest every year after the famine.
Notwithstanding the fact that there's no evidence of any considerable population of Jews in Egypt through these times, that's slavery...
Whilst I agree that the concept of people being owned is abhorrent, it is unfortunately the only way some people could survive.
But rather than, say, put an expectation for a Welfare Safety Net in work that he divinely inspired, your God instead instituted rules for how slaves were to be treated, not only failing to point out the moral problems of slavery but actively normalising them in a way that directly resulted in the Christian nations of Europe going on to enslave vast swathes of the African population for hundreds of years.
There may be modern equivalents, loopholes used by big companies to entice poor foreigners to work for them, but those people are desperate and so they do so in order to have a better life than the one they had before.
They do so in the hope of a better life, and they don't get one. One of the reasons they don't get one is that they are functionally property according the laws that actually affect their lives - those of their owners/captors, even if the nominal laws of the land they are in prohibit slavery.
O.
-
That's not slavery, that's economics without the safety net of a welfare programme.
That's a similar, if slightly creepier example.
Notwithstanding the fact that there's no evidence of any considerable population of Jews in Egypt through these times, that's slavery...
It isn't anything to do with the Hebrews, it's the part of the story where the Egyptians themselves sell themselves to Pharaoh during the famine.
But rather than, say, put an expectation for a Welfare Safety Net in work that he divinely inspired, your God instead instituted rules for how slaves were to be treated,
You've used that word again. Let's take the definition of a slave as "the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion" (Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons).
Now compare it with this use of the Hebrew word, ebed:
Joseph to Jacob: "When Pharaoh summons you and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ 34you are to say, ‘Your servants have raised livestock ever since our youth— both we and our fathers.’ Then you will be allowed to settle in the land of Goshen..." (Gen. 46)
Now see how your word is punished in Exodus 21:16,
"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."
This includes pretty much all of the contemporary slaves in the world today. All the people that sell them should be put to death, according to Moses.
not only failing to point out the moral problems of slavery but actively normalising them in a way that directly resulted in the Christian nations of Europe going on to enslave vast swathes of the African population for hundreds of years.
They do so in the hope of a better life, and they don't get one. One of the reasons they don't get one is that they are functionally property according the laws that actually affect their lives - those of their owners/captors, even if the nominal laws of the land they are in prohibit slavery.
O.
-
According to who? What's the origin of the word? I think it comes from the word for serve, according to etymology online.
This is the etymological fallacy. The origin of a word need not have anything to do with its current meaning. If you own a person, that person is a slave. Not having a word for "slave" doesn't stop slaves from existing.
-
Zero in the Hebrew, which comes from the root meaning 'to serve'.
I suggest you read the context of many of those quotes. They are obviously talking about slaves.
-
You've used that word again. Let's take the definition of a slave as "the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion" (Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons).
Why would we do that? That's a modern definition based on the fact that we now regard slavery as illegal.
Now compare it with this use of the Hebrew word, ebed:
Why not compare to what the Hebrews actually did? They bought and sold people. That means they did slavery. None of your attempted bullshit word tricks can alter that fact.
I've said it before, but you'd be better off just accepting that Leviticus etc were written in an different time when slavery was an accepted fact of life. That doesn't make it right.
-
It isn't anything to do with the Hebrews, it's the part of the story where the Egyptians themselves sell themselves to Pharaoh during the famine.
Fair enough, my mistake there.
You've used that word again. Let's take the definition of a slave as "the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion" (Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons).
That's a definition of modern slavery, not 'classic' (for want of a better expression). I posted three standard dictionary definitions of slavery, and all of them had the first element as essentially, people that are owned. We've expanded the word in Western society because we've largely eliminated the 'classic' form of slavery, and now we're going after various forms of indentured servitude, people trafficking and oppressive behaviour. People legally can't 'own' other people in this day and age, so we're now going after the people that are acting functionally as though they think they do.
Now compare it with this use of the Hebrew word, ebed:
Joseph to Jacob: "When Pharaoh summons you and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ 34you are to say, ‘Your servants have raised livestock ever since our youth— both we and our fathers.’ Then you will be allowed to settle in the land of Goshen..." (Gen. 46)
Now see how your word is punished in Exodus 21:16,
"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession."
This includes pretty much all of the contemporary slaves in the world today. All the people that sell them should be put to death, according to Moses.
Right. And, again, what about those people that the 'Priests acquired by purchasing'?
O.
-
Right. And, again, what about those people that the 'Priests acquired by purchasing'?
O.
The full paragraph:
No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. 11But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if slaves are born in his household, they may eat his food. 12If a priest’s daughter marries anyone other than a priest, she may not eat any of the sacred contributions. 13But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children, and she returns to live in her father’s household as in her youth, she may eat her father’s food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat it.
Leviticus 22:10-13
IIRCC the priest's food came to him through the offerings brought to the temple. So the servants in his household, being allowed to eat the same food, were equal in that respect to the rest of the family.
But it also mentions the situation where his daughter might return home having been married and is now divorced. Obviously if God created marriage to be for life, here is a provision necessary because of mankind's fallen condition, for when things go wrong in marriage. Perhaps this is the case for bondservants. All the examples of slavery in the Bible result from sin: Canaan's descendants became slaves as a result of his father's (Ham's) sin after the flood. Joseph was sold as a slave as a result of his brothers' sin. Moses' approach was to give just punishments for sin, and mitigate its effects. Rather than not allow people to divorce/own servants, he was concerned to make sure the people involved were not oppressed.
-
'But if a priest buys a slave with money'
Doesn't that de facto make it clear that slavery is justified. And the argument that slave and servant have the same word doesn't wash as you wouldn't buy a servant, you'd pay them.
-
Doesn't that de facto make it clear that slavery is justified.
No, because the word 'if' is ambiguous as regards rightness or wrongness.
If it did justify it, then Dt 21:15 which similarly says 'if a man has two wives...' indicates that having two wives is justified.
-
So Spud, any thoughts yet on whether you'd advocate the rules of this inerrant and all good god of yours replacing the laws we currently have, thereby legalising the buying and selling of people, the correct amount of physical pain that should be inflicted on miscreants etc?
-
No, because the word 'if' is ambiguous as regards rightness or wrongness.
Nope the 'if' refers to alternative views on the appropriateness of certain groups eating sacred offering, not on the appropriateness of owning a slave.
So it is the equivalent of saying to supporters driving to a football match:
'Drivers arriving from the M1 south should access the A41 route. But if you are driving from the north you should use the A38.'
That doesn't that there is any argument over the appropriateness of arriving from the north, but a view on the appropriate route near to the stadium.
There is no ambiguity here - priest can buy a slave with money, and if so those slaves are able to eat the sacred offering.
-
No, because the word 'if' is ambiguous as regards rightness or wrongness.
If it did justify it, then Dt 21:15 which similarly says 'if a man has two wives...' indicates that having two wives is justified.
This is ridiculous. If slavery wasn't condoned, if priests were not allowed to buy people, that sentence would not be there at all because the possibility that a priest would have slaves to eat his sacred food would not even arise.
-
Sorry for the delayed response blue.
The question in hand is, was bondservice justified in the promised land?
The context is that Abraham's descendants were promised this land, and they would worship the true God there. They were to be separated from the influences of the nations around them and not worship their false gods.
Consequently, if you were a bondservant in Israel you were blessed, because you were free to worship God.
-
Sorry for the delayed response blue.
The question in hand is, was bondservice justified in the promised land?
No it isn't. The question is "does the Bible condone slavery?"
The context is that Abraham's descendants were promised this land, and they would worship the true God there. They were to be separated from the influences of the nations around them and not worship their false gods.
And they acquired that land (at least, according the the Bible) by genociding the existing inhabitants or taking them into slavery. God helped them in that endeavour.
Consequently, if you were a bondservant in Israel you were blessed, because you were free to worship God.
You're ignoring the foreigners who were enslaved and presumably made to worship what they thought of as a false god. Look at it this way. Suppose you were somehow captured by ISIS and they took you into slavery (or bonded service if you prefer) would you feel blessed if they allowed you to worship the god of Islam?
-
Isis thought God wanted them to make a caliphate. They seem to have sort of copied the Israelites. But God never told them to do this.
Canaan, Noah's grandson, was cursed for his father's sin. God had already blessed Ham after they came out of the ark, so Ham could not be cursed (just as God could not curse Adam as he had already blessed him, so had to curse the ground).
Canaan would become a servant to his brothers. This has I think been misinterpreted to mean that all Ham's descendents were under this curse. Hence the Europeans enslaving Africans.
God gave the Canaanites 400 years and then drove them out of their land, which he gave to Israel. This is why the Canaanites became slaves.
When Israel turned to idols the same happened to them, they were enslaved by the Babylonians.
-
Spud,
Sorry for the delayed response blue.
No problem.
The question in hand is, was bondservice justified in the promised land?
The context is that Abraham's descendants were promised this land, and they would worship the true God there. They were to be separated from the influences of the nations around them and not worship their false gods.
Consequently, if you were a bondservant in Israel you were blessed, because you were free to worship God.
You're quite the casuist, and that's not the question in hand at all. The question in hand is: if you think there's a god, that this good is all good and inerrant, and that this god's rules are accurately written in some books then would you advocate the replacement of our legislation with those rules, including the buying and selling of people. No matter how you might want to label or justify these rules, would you prefer them to the laws we have in which people cannot be bought and sold as commercial transactions?
-
I'm just wondering whether the reason why foreign bondservants became permanent possessions in contrast with Hebrew servants who were eventually freed, is to do with the rights of inheritance.
No.
It's because they were slaves.
-
Isis thought God wanted them to make a caliphate.
That wasn't the point. The point was to try to make you think how you would feel if you were put in the position of one of the foreigners that the Hebrews enslaved and then "allowed" to worship a god they believed to be false.
They seem to have sort of copied the Israelites. But God never told them to do this.
And there's no reason to believe that God told the Israelites to do what the Bible says they did.
Canaan, Noah's grandson, was cursed for his father's sin.
Doesn't that strike you as lacking in justice?
-
No.
It's because they were slaves.
And spud's god is a racist slavery supporter
-
I note the absence of anything even resembling a reply from Spud to the last few posts?
ippy
-
Nope the 'if' refers to alternative views on the appropriateness of certain groups eating sacred offering, not on the appropriateness of owning a slave.
So it is the equivalent of saying to supporters driving to a football match:
'Drivers arriving from the M1 south should access the A41 route. But if you are driving from the north you should use the A38.'
That doesn't that there is any argument over the appropriateness of arriving from the north, but a view on the appropriate route near to the stadium.
There is no ambiguity here - priest can buy a slave with money, and if so those slaves are able to eat the sacred offering.
Even so, divorce, polygamy, slavery are not part of God's intended plan for us and so the examples where they are mentioned serve to mitigate the problems they cause.
-
Even so, divorce, polygamy, slavery are not part of God's intended plan for us and so the examples where they are mentioned serve to mitigate the problems they cause.
How can you or anyone else possibly know whatever it is you chose to refer to as 'gods intended plan'?
Why don't you come back to this thread Spud, when you can find something/anything to back up these
kinds of assertion this latest assertion of yours for an example?
Handing out this kind of theobabble only encourages well deserved derision.
ippy
-
I note the absence of anything even resembling a reply from Spud to the last few posts?
ippy
I'll give him credit for at least trying to answer his opponents, unlike some forum members I won't mention but whose name is an anagram of pipy
-
Even so, divorce, polygamy, slavery are not part of God's intended plan for us and so the examples where they are mentioned serve to mitigate the problems they cause.
I'll give you divorce, (although I would argue that divorce is better than a marriage in which the parties hate each other), but polygamy and slavery are condoned at various parts of the Bible. Why didn't God drop a hint to Abraham that he was only allowed one wife? And no slave girls?
-
I'll give him credit for at least trying to answer his opponents, unlike some forum members I won't mention but whose name is an anagram of pipy
But there's no reason or logic in his last post, regardless of whatever.
ippy
-
I'll give you divorce, (although I would argue that divorce is better than a marriage in which the parties hate each other), but polygamy and slavery are condoned at various parts of the Bible. Why didn't God drop a hint to Abraham that he was only allowed one wife? And no slave girls?
Polygamy is condoned, in the sense that it is forgiven. Yet the narrative makes it clear that it is not good. For a start, Genesis 2 says 'wife' singular. The first person to have two wives was Lamech (Gen 4), a murderer. Abraham gets into a tight place with Hagar. Jacob ends up with 2 wives after he is tricked by his uncle, but he seems to deserve that having tricking his father to get his father's blessing. Rachel and Leah argue a lot and give Jacob grief.
People were created free (but under God's authority): it is not until Genesis 9 that we find an explicit reference to servitude. Noah prophecies that Canaan's descendants will end up in bondage. This seems to have been fulfilled in the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). Thus servitude is not part of God's good creation. But like polygamy and divorce, it's a fact of life in the OT, and sometimes beneficial in that it helped people survive.
-
Polygamy is condoned, in the sense that it is forgiven. Yet the narrative makes it clear that it is not good. For a start, Genesis 2 says 'wife' singular. The first person to have two wives was Cain, after he murdered Abel. Abraham gets into a tight place with Hagar. Jacob ends up with 2 wives after he is tricked by his uncle, but he seems to deserve that having tricking his father to get his father's blessing. Rachel and Leah argue a lot and give Jacob grief.
People were created free (but under God's authority): it is not until Genesis 9 that we find an explicit reference to servitude. Noah prophecies that Canaan's descendants will end up in bondage. This seems to have been fulfilled in the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). Thus servitude is not part of God's good creation. But like polygamy and divorce, it's a fact of life in the OT, and sometimes beneficial in that it helped people survive.
God's authority? Cum on Spud!
-
Cum on Spud!
**** (https://www.verywellfit.com/thmb/y68t9twakyOdUw8X5ApGh9nTQDg=/4100x2918/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/jacket-potato-with-tuna--mayonnaise-and-salad--close-up-121831743-571f5e475f9b58857df17dc0.jpg)
-
The full paragraph:Leviticus 22:10-13
IIRCC the priest's food came to him through the offerings brought to the temple. So the servants in his household, being allowed to eat the same food, were equal in that respect to the rest of the family.
But it also mentions the situation where his daughter might return home having been married and is now divorced. Obviously if God created marriage to be for life, here is a provision necessary because of mankind's fallen condition, for when things go wrong in marriage. Perhaps this is the case for bondservants. All the examples of slavery in the Bible result from sin: Canaan's descendants became slaves as a result of his father's (Ham's) sin after the flood. Joseph was sold as a slave as a result of his brothers' sin. Moses' approach was to give just punishments for sin, and mitigate its effects. Rather than not allow people to divorce/own servants, he was concerned to make sure the people involved were not oppressed.
Which still speaks out against divorce explicitly, but doesn't speak out about the INHERENTLY IMMORAL PRACTICE OF SLAVERY. It doesn't matter that they might have been encouraged to treat their slaves better than some other people might have been doing at the same time, it matters that your god apparently wasn't worried enough about slavery to mention that it was a bad thing in and of itself, but inspired entire verses about haircuts, bacon and shellfish.
O.
-
**** (https://www.verywellfit.com/thmb/y68t9twakyOdUw8X5ApGh9nTQDg=/4100x2918/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/jacket-potato-with-tuna--mayonnaise-and-salad--close-up-121831743-571f5e475f9b58857df17dc0.jpg)
Look up the slang use.
-
Which still speaks out against divorce explicitly, but doesn't speak out about the INHERENTLY IMMORAL PRACTICE OF SLAVERY. It doesn't matter that they might have been encouraged to treat their slaves better than some other people might have been doing at the same time, it matters that your god apparently wasn't worried enough about slavery to mention that it was a bad thing in and of itself, but inspired entire verses about haircuts, bacon and shellfish.
O.
Again, we need to be careful when we accuse God of condoning slavery. If you read Genesis carefully, you'll see that during the famine, Jacob and sons, along with the Egyptian population, gave and sold (respectively) themselves to Pharaoh as his lifelong servants. When Jacob's descendants later became prosperous, the Egyptians became jealous and the Pharaoh made them slaves by forcing them to work themselves to death. Thus later in the OT, Egypt is remembered as the 'house of bondage', where they were oppressed servants, or slaves as we call them.
Note that (1) it was this slavery that God rescued Israel from, and (2) that there is a difference between lifelong service caused in that instance by famine, and slavery.
The NT speaks out against divorce,yes. What about the old testament?
There seem to be two ways of looking at lifelong servants: one is that it's a bit like polygamy: it was practiced and not prohibited, but context shows it not to be the ideal. The other is that it is permitted as a good thing, a way of mitigating the effect of sin which led to these situations, which is what the two passages Lev 25:44-46 and Deut 20:10-11 do seem to suggest. Only those two, mind: all other passages are either ambiguous or promote the wellbeing of the lifelong servant.
And I want to emphasize that I do not believe slavery is condoned a single time in the Bible, and I totally agree that the practice is immoral. The KJV is the most accurate paper version of the Bible I have and it doesn't use the word slave in the OT, but 'bondservant'. But I think even this is inaccurate, because bondage is what happened to Israel in Egypt, where they were oppressed. Oppression is banned for Israel.
The word 'slave' originated from the practice of kidnapping and selling people, which is a capital offence in the Bible. Like polygamy, where laws were in place to make sure that an unloved wife was not oppressed (Deut 21:10-17), a lifelong servant was treated equally, as your passage with the Levite priest's servant being allowed to share his food shows. Similarly, a city that surrenders being made to pay tribute to their conqueror but allowed to continue living where they were, as the KJV of Dt 20:10-11 implies, is not slavery (oppression) but the natural outcome of war.
The only reason the buying of servants was permitted for Israel was that they had the correct laws in place to make sure the servant was not oppressed and turned into a slave. Thus it follows that for the rest of the world, buying servants cannot be allowed.
Since, though, those two verses do permit the exchange of silver for servants, it is clear that at that time and place only, it was justifiable to do so.
-
Again, we need to be careful when we accuse God of condoning slavery.
Not really. He apparently went out of his way to explain exactly how objectionable he found practices such as getting the corners of the beard shaved off, eating pork, planting mixed crops, wearing multiple cloths, coveting asses, stealing, murdering (sometimes)... and yet not once is there a clear condemnation of the institution of slavery which was rife. There are no verses I'm aware of which say 'If you're going to eat pork, despite it being bad, here's how you should cook it...', so the we can't even presume that the bits where he brushes over the purchasing of people is just a pragmatic caveat to the economic realities.
Slavery, surely, if you're going to be talking about moral and immoral practices, should come higher on the list of priorities than whether or not a woman is a virgin when she gets married?
If you read Genesis carefully, you'll see that during the famine, Jacob and sons, along with the Egyptian population, gave and sold (respectively) themselves to Pharaoh as his lifelong servants. When Jacob's descendants later became prosperous, the Egyptians became jealous and the Pharaoh made them slaves by forcing them to work themselves to death. Thus later in the OT, Egypt is remembered as the 'house of bondage', where they were oppressed servants, or slaves as we call them.
But in the tale the problematic element is where they were worked to death - the fact that they were in a situation where it was possible for them to be 'bought' wasn't flagged as at all an issue.
Note that (1) it was this slavery that God rescued Israel from, and (2) that there is a difference between lifelong service caused in that instance by famine, and slavery.
Note (1) - allegedly!
Note (2) - there are differences of degree, but not of quality. They are still 'owned' people, and that's wrong.
The NT speaks out against divorce,yes. What about the old testament?
I'm aware that there are some interpretations of the Biblical institution of marriage that suggest that a woman was effectively being sold to her husband by her father, but that seems to be a separate argument and a (barely) more nuanced discussion.
There seem to be two ways of looking at lifelong servants: one is that it's a bit like polygamy: it was practiced and not prohibited, but context shows it not to be the ideal. The other is that it is permitted as a good thing, a way of mitigating the effect of sin which led to these situations, which is what the two passages Lev 25:44-46 and Deut 20:10-11 do seem to suggest. Only those two, mind: all other passages are either ambiguous or promote the wellbeing of the lifelong servant.
So, as I said, nothing that actually points out that this is a fundamentally evil practice - yet so much weight is given to, say, homosexuality.
And I want to emphasize that I do not believe slavery is condoned a single time in the Bible, and I totally agree that the practice is immoral.
The two situations you cited in the previous paragraph are condoning the practice, and not just by the lack of any explicit statement that slavery isn't acceptable, but the idea that it's permissible as a way of mitigating other sins. What sin is worse than taking slaves?
The KJV is the most accurate paper version of the Bible I have and it doesn't use the word slave in the OT, but 'bondservant'.
A rose by any other name...
But I think even this is inaccurate, because bondage is what happened to Israel in Egypt, where they were oppressed. Oppression is banned for Israel.
But it's fine for everyone else? To continue the Shakespearian bent 'If you prick us do we not bleed?'
The word 'slave' originated from the practice of kidnapping and selling people, which is a capital offence in the Bible.
Except if they're taken during a victorious military conquest, because then it's fine.
Like polygamy, where laws were in place to make sure that an unloved wife was not oppressed (Deut 21:10-17), a lifelong servant was treated equally, as your passage with the Levite priest's servant being allowed to share his food shows. Similarly, a city that surrenders being made to pay tribute to their conqueror but allowed to continue living where they were, as the KJV of Dt 20:10-11 implies, is not slavery (oppression) but the natural outcome of war.
You keep making this parallel with polygamy, and I think - do correct me if I'm wrong, this is somewhat an inference - you seem to put them on a par. Slavery is intrinsically problematic; polygamy isn't. There are practical issues with polygamy in many (possibly even most) societies with a noticable difference in social status between the sexes, but that's a practical and situational issue, it's not intrinsic to polygamy.
The only reason the buying of servants was permitted for Israel was that they had the correct laws in place to make sure the servant was not oppressed and turned into a slave.
If you buy people, they're slaves. If you buy them and call them servants, that's slavery with spin. The 'correct law' is 'You're not allowed to buy people, people aren't commodities'.
Thus it follows that for the rest of the world, buying servants cannot be allowed.
So why so expressly point out that eating shellfish was an abomination, but skirt around slavery?
Since, though, those two verses do permit the exchange of silver for servants, it is clear that at that time and place only, it was justifiable to do so.
Which, presumably, has to constitute at least a situational condoning of slavery?
O.
-
Look up the slang use.
I'm aware of the slang use, as the linked photo makes clear, I'd've thought.
-
Isis thought God wanted them to make a caliphate. They seem to have sort of copied the Israelites. But God never told them to do this.
Canaan, Noah's grandson, was cursed for his father's sin. God had already blessed Ham after they came out of the ark, so Ham could not be cursed (just as God could not curse Adam as he had already blessed him, so had to curse the ground).
Canaan would become a servant to his brothers. This has I think been misinterpreted to mean that all Ham's descendents were under this curse. Hence the Europeans enslaving Africans.
God gave the Canaanites 400 years and then drove them out of their land, which he gave to Israel. This is why the Canaanites became slaves.
When Israel turned to idols the same happened to them, they were enslaved by the Babylonians.
How do you know your God never told ISIS to do what they did? Perhaps he sent some revelatory clarification to them recently, directly into their thoughts, you know, like how he tells Christians where their car keys are?
And as for Canaan, you refer to his father Ham's "sin" that caused Noah to issue the curse but you don't say what it was. Wasn't it because the poor chap had the misfortune to see his father naked, drunk and passed out in his tent? Can you explain how this was a "sin" and how it justified cursing people who didn't even DO it?
And as for things not being part of your God's plan, if that's the case, why did they happen? Why are they still happening? One bite of an apple and your God is powerless to stop some humans behaving badly towards other humans? All he had to say was "treat each other with respect and kindness and no mealy mouthed excuses" wasn't it? Perhaps pop down to walk among us (again) and remind us how omnipotent and benevolent he is once in a while?
-
Canaan would become a servant to his brothers. This has I think been misinterpreted to mean that all Ham's descendents were under this curse. Hence the Europeans enslaving Africans.
Yes, this has been interpreted by Evangelical Christians and Mormons alike as a curse on all black-skinned people of African origin (and, alas, I think such an interpretation can be found in the Talmud). But, as Christine has pointed out, the curse wasn't even on the right bloke,Ham - who in any case only inadvertently saw his drunk dad naked. (I would have thought that was curse enough for any chap.)
-
Not really. He apparently went out of his way to explain exactly how objectionable he found practices such as getting the corners of the beard shaved off, eating pork, planting mixed crops, wearing multiple cloths, coveting asses, stealing, murdering (sometimes)... and yet not once is there a clear condemnation of the institution of slavery which was rife. There are no verses I'm aware of which say 'If you're going to eat pork, despite it being bad, here's how you should cook it...', so the we can't even presume that the bits where he brushes over the purchasing of people is just a pragmatic caveat to the economic realities.
Slavery, surely, if you're going to be talking about moral and immoral practices, should come higher on the list of priorities than whether or not a woman is a virgin when she gets married?
What I was getting at is that God doesn't condone it in the modern sense of the word. Apparently though, he does condone it in the biblical sense, which needs another word. Eg, "And thy man-servant and thy handmaid whom thou hast are of the nations who are round about you; of them ye buy man-servant and handmaid," YLT
-
What I was getting at is that God doesn't condone it in the modern sense of the word.
I'd say that's exactly what he does From wiktionary - Verb
condone (third-person singular simple present condones, present participle condoning, simple past and past participle condoned)
(transitive) To forgive, excuse or overlook (something that is considered morally wrong, offensive, or generally disliked).
(transitive) To allow, accept or permit (something that is considered morally wrong, offensive, or generally disliked).
(transitive, law) To forgive (marital infidelity or other marital offense).
Certainly any moral qualms are at least overlooked. Given that this is supposed to be a perfect being, if the work is divinely inspired that has to be considered deliberate, which is functionally an implicit approval, given how particular other sections are about trivial transgressions.
O.
-
The KJV is the most accurate paper version of the Bible I have and it doesn't use the word slave in the OT, but 'bondservant'.
You need to get a better Bible. The KJV is really not a good translation.
Also, it's better to use an online Bible for these kinds of searches or you might miss (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jer/2/14/s_747014) some (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/18/13/s_1185013) instances.
And if we are doing word lawyering, let's look at the definition of bondservant.
(https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bondservant)noun:
1 a person who serves in bondage; slave.
2 a person bound to service without wages.
-
You need to get a better Bible. The KJV is really not a good translation.
It is far better than the NIV and other modern versions. Check this out: "Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?" Exodus 2.
Also, it's better to use an online Bible for these kinds of searches or you might miss (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jer/2/14/s_747014) some (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rev/18/13/s_1185013) instances.
The Revelation 18:13 instance of 'slave' is NT. What I meant was that there is no instance of 'slave' in the KJV of the OT. Re: Jeremiah 2:14, yes, that's the only instance in the KJV OT, but notice it's in italics, indicating that in the Hebrew, there is no word present. KJV added it to complete the sentence.
And if we are doing word lawyering, let's look at the definition of bondservant. (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bondservant)
Young's literal translation renders 'ebed' "manservant" in Lev 25:44. I just feel the word slave is inappropriate for 'ebed' because most instances of ebed mean servant. 'Slave' originated a millennium or two later from Slav (apparently).
-
I'd say that's exactly what he does From wiktionary - Verb
I meant "What I was getting at is that God doesn't condone slavery in the modern sense of the word slavery.
-
It is far better than the NIV and other modern versions. Check this out: "Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?" Exodus 2.
What's that supposed to prove? The KJV is a poor translation because its writers had limited texts as source material. A modern translation like the NRSV (Why do you strike your fellow Hebrew?) is more likely to be an accurate translation as well as using more modern and more easily understood language.
The Revelation 18:13 instance of 'slave' is NT. What I meant was that there is no instance of 'slave' in the KJV of the OT.
But this is just a language thing. As you said the KJV does use bondman in a few places. But that is pretty much a synonym for slave and, for all you know the 17th century meaning might be exactly slave.
I just feel the word slave is inappropriate for 'ebed' because most instances of ebed mean servant. 'Slave' originated a millennium or two later from Slav (apparently).
If you are buying and selling people like cattle, they are slaves. All your whining about what an archaic translation of a Hebrew document says is just bullshit. The condition of slavery didn't suddenly spring into existence when the word "slave" entered into the English language. We just called it by a different name before then.
Look at this verse:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
(Leviticus 25:6)
If that's not saying "yes you can have slaves but only from non Hebrews" what is it saying? Remember "bondman" is an archaic term for "slave".
In the modern NRSV, it is translated thus:
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.
-
I meant "What I was getting at is that God doesn't condone slavery in the modern sense of the word slavery.
Except that as I've shown, it does - slavery still means the owning of people. It's cobbled together into neologisms like 'modern slavery' and 'wage slave', but it retains that original meaning at its core, and explicitly and repeatedly the Biblical god condones it, both by it's absence from the lists of prohibited or allegedly immoral activities, or by imposing restrictions on the conduct of the practice as though they were sufficient controls.
O.
-
Except that as I've shown, it does - slavery still means the owning of people.
So, for consistency, are you and Jeremy happy to translate as follows (using Young's Literal Translation, I've replaced 'servant' with 'slave' for every instance of 'ebed'):
15Then the Israelite overseers went and appealed to Pharaoh: “Why have you treated your servants slaves this way? 16Your servants slaves are given no straw, yet we are told, ‘Make bricks!’ Your servants slaves are being beaten, but the fault is with your own people.” - Exodus 5
"For they [are] My servants slaves, whom I have brought out from the land of Egypt" - Leviticus 25:42
-
What's that supposed to prove? The KJV is a poor translation because its writers had limited texts as source material.
I just thought it was cool.
-
So, for consistency, are you and Jeremy happy to translate as follows (using Young's Literal Translation, I've replaced 'servant' with 'slave' for every instance of 'ebed'):
15Then the Israelite overseers went and appealed to Pharaoh: “Why have you treated your servants slaves this way? 16Your servants slaves are given no straw, yet we are told, ‘Make bricks!’ Your servants slaves are being beaten, but the fault is with your own people.” - Exodus 5
"For they [are] My servants slaves, whom I have brought out from the land of Egypt" - Leviticus 25:42
I don't know, I don't know if that example was supposed to depict slavery or not - it's possible. What comes next?
O.
-
I don't know, I don't know if that example was supposed to depict slavery or not - it's possible. What comes next?
O.
Here are some instances of ebed where slavery is probably not intended:
https://biblehub.net/search.php?q=your+servant
-
I meant "What I was getting at is that God doesn't condone slavery in the modern sense of the word slavery.
So if this god idea/person/entity or whatever, you're referring to doesn't condone slavery in the modern sense of the word, what is it he she or it been telling you lately?
It'd also be interesting if you were to let us know what method he she or it uses, an email, an interruption of a radio programme, perhaps over a radio that's not switched on, just for instance or perhaps some other means of communication.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere on the forum that you've some sort of educational degree or something similar Spud, if I'm right and you have been able to reach this sort of educational standard, how come you still keep on coming out with so much of this unsupported, unsupportable, meaningless,
theobabble?
ippy.
-
Here are some instances of ebed where slavery is probably not intended:
https://biblehub.net/search.php?q=your+servant
If the context is buying people, it's slavery. The fact is that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. If your God had condemned the buying and selling of people clearly and unequivocally, they wouldn't have been able to do that. You mention "misinterpretation" of the words in the Bible - how do you know you're interpreting them right?
As Paine said (and you said you'd address at some point) "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
Any news on why Canaan got the curse rather than Ham?
ETA - sorry, you already "explained" that Ham couldn't be cursed because he'd previously been blessed, so Noah cursed an innocent party instead. My mistake. Perhaps you could explain how this is good, though?
-
If the context is buying people, it's slavery. The fact is that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. If your God had condemned the buying and selling of people clearly and unequivocally, they wouldn't have been able to do that.
I'm reading a thesis called Slavery in Biblical Perspective, which says that Africans kidnapped Africans and sold them to non-Christian traders who transported them to America. Conditions on the ships were so bad that on arrival, those who survived, begged to be bought. Christians then bought them, presumably to save them.
That aside, your comment gives me an idea. When Canaanites attacked Israel during the period of the Judges, Israel was forced to defend itself (they did not carry out wars of aggression, except on I think seven Canaanite regions at God's command, because those regions were the worst). If the aggressors surrendered, they would become Israel's servants.
If God had condemned buying and selling of people, as you suggest, Israel would not have had this option when faced with aggressor armies, and would have had to kill them.
You mention "misinterpretation" of the words in the Bible - how do you know you're interpreting them right?
As Paine said (and you said you'd address at some point) "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
Any news on why Canaan got the curse rather than Ham?
ETA - sorry, you already "explained" that Ham couldn't be cursed because he'd previously been blessed, so Noah cursed an innocent party instead. My mistake. Perhaps you could explain how this is good, though?
Will get back to you on those questions.
-
It'd also be interesting if you were to let us know what method he she or it uses, an email, an interruption of a radio programme, perhaps over a radio that's not switched on, just for instance or perhaps some other means of communication.
This may help:
At Barak's advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword
So the LORD struck down the Cushites before Asa and Judah, and the Cushites fled.
-
I don't know, I don't know if that example was supposed to depict slavery or not - it's possible. What comes next?
O.
The servants in this context are the Hebrews in Egypt at the time Moses first started trying to get them out. Were they slaves? Tradition says yes.
-
I'm reading a thesis called Slavery in Biblical Perspective, which says that Africans kidnapped Africans and sold them to non-Christian traders who transported them to America.
Most of the slave traders who shipped slaves to the Americas were Europeans - a lot of them British. It's a fair bet, given the times, that quite a few of them would have been Christian.
Conditions on the ships were so bad that on arrival, those who survived, begged to be bought. Christians then bought them, presumably to save them.
Yeah, right. These slaves the Christians bought to "save them": did they set them free? Or did they put them to work on their plantations?
That aside, your comment gives me an idea. When Canaanites attacked Israel during the period of the Judges, Israel was forced to defend itself (they did not carry out wars of aggression, except on I think seven Canaanite regions at God's command, because those regions were the worst). If the aggressors surrendered, they would become Israel's servants.
According to the Bible, the Israelites took the whole promised land in a war of aggression.
If God had condemned buying and selling of people, as you suggest, Israel would not have had this option when faced with aggressor armies, and would have had to kill them.
They could have sent the losers home. When we won the Falklands War, did we enslave the vanquished enemies? Or did we send them back to Argentina?
-
Here are some instances of ebed where slavery is probably not intended:
https://biblehub.net/search.php?q=your+servant
OK, so let's presume that is talking about slavery, yes...
O.
-
If the context is buying people, it's slavery. The fact is that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. If your God had condemned the buying and selling of people clearly and unequivocally, they wouldn't have been able to do that. You mention "misinterpretation" of the words in the Bible - how do you know you're interpreting them right?
As Paine said (and you said you'd address at some point) "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
"If the context is buying people, it's slavery."
From the reading I have been doing, it is becoming more clear that the Bible does allow foreign servants to be treated more harshly by Hebrews than Hebrew ones. So I will probably do a U-Turn here and go from denying "the bible condones slavery" to affirming it.
"It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
It occurs to me that life is brutal, in that most of us eat animals. We easily forget that they were once alive, whereas back in the OT times, families presumably killed their own animals when needed, so they were less squeamish. Possibly this is a reason why we read so much about killing and the death penalty in the OT.
-
The servants in this context are the Hebrews in Egypt at the time Moses first started trying to get them out. Were they slaves? Tradition says yes.
Indeed - Exodus 1:13-14 says yes. but is the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians the same as the treatment allowed of foreign slaves in the Law? Possibly, minus the killing of the male children and making them work without supplying straw for bricks.
-
I'm reading a thesis called Slavery in Biblical Perspective, which says that Africans kidnapped Africans and sold them to non-Christian traders who transported them to America. Conditions on the ships were so bad that on arrival, those who survived, begged to be bought. Christians then bought them, presumably to save them.
Come the fuck off it! Are we supposed to take that seriously?
-
According to the Bible, the Israelites took the whole promised land in a war of aggression.
They were given a territory, part of which had been inhabited by the 7-ish Canaanite nations that had to be driven out or destroyed. The rest of the people from the territory were conquered and either enslaved (if they surrendered), driven out or destroyed.
James Jordan writes that the kingdom of God at that time was tied to the social order in Israel, and that the nations had to come to Jerusalem to receive the Law. Enslavement was part of the method of evangelization. Now however, the gospel is going out to the nations, having started in Jerusalem.
-
Yeah, right. These slaves the Christians bought to "save them": did they set them free? Or did they put them to work on their plantations?
How would they have been able to free them? Returning them to Africa wouldn't have been possible unless the government had made it happen. Apparently Christians attempted to get the government to close the ports to slavers, but didn't have the numbers to get the legislation through.
-
They could have sent the losers home. When we won the Falklands War, did we enslave the vanquished enemies? Or did we send them back to Argentina?
Enslavement (and evangelization) in that sense would not be the right way post-resurrection.
The thing to do would have been to send missionaries to Argentina, on the agreement that they would have legal protection. Thus that country would have been taught to obey everything that Christ commanded (Mt. 28).
-
I'm not going to quote you again Spud. You admit the Bible condones slavery, you talk about driving people out of their homes and destroying them like it was a game or something. Have you no imagination? No empathy?
I think your posts are a dire warning of the dangers of blind commitment to ideology. Instead of combing pseudo-academic Christian apologetics trying to find excuses for your brutally nasty imaginary friend and the brutally nasty stories about him and his followers, try reading something that challenges your current dogma, like JS Mill or Thomas Paine.
Or are you hiding from enlightenment, frightened of the truth?
-
How would they have been able to free them? Returning them to Africa wouldn't have been possible unless the government had made it happen. Apparently Christians attempted to get the government to close the ports to slavers, but didn't have the numbers to get the legislation through.
It was always possible for a slave-owner to free a slave by the legal process of manumission. The former slave would then have had papers to prove that s/he was free.
-
They were given a territory, part of which had been inhabited by the 7-ish Canaanite nations that had to be driven out or destroyed. The rest of the people from the territory were conquered and either enslaved (if they surrendered), driven out or destroyed.
Is this you agreeing with me or trying to tell me it wasn't a war of aggression? Because it sure looks like one.
James Jordan writes that the kingdom of God at that time was tied to the social order in Israel, and that the nations had to come to Jerusalem to receive the Law. Enslavement was part of the method of evangelization. Now however, the gospel is going out to the nations, having started in Jerusalem.
I'm not sure what that means. Are you claiming that the Israelites spread their religion by enslaving people? That's not a rhetorical question.
-
How would they have been able to free them?
By letting them go. Giving them work as free citizens and paying them.
-
Enslavement (and evangelization) in that sense would not be the right way post-resurrection.
The thing to do would have been to send missionaries to Argentina, on the agreement that they would have legal protection. Thus that country would have been taught to obey everything that Christ commanded (Mt. 28).
Argentina is already a Christian country. It was "evangelised" once before by the Spanish.
But I digress. The point was not "how should we have dealt with Argentina", but how should the Israelites have dealt with the people they beat. By brining up the Falklands war (or any other modern war engaged in by Great Britain), I'm pointing out that there are alternatives to killing everybody or enslaving everybody.
-
This may help:
At Barak's advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword
So the LORD struck down the Cushites before Asa and Judah, and the Cushites fled.
And the solid supporting evidence for this alleged event can easily be found; where?
If there is to be a response to this post I hope it's not another one of those potty, the bible proves the bible, that's the sort of thing good old Sparky liked to keep on coming out with.
ippy.
-
Argentina is already a Christian country. It was "evangelised" once before by the Spanish.
But I digress. The point was not "how should we have dealt with Argentina", but how should the Israelites have dealt with the people they beat. By brining up the Falklands war (or any other modern war engaged in by Great Britain), I'm pointing out that there are alternatives to killing everybody or enslaving everybody.
I think Canaan was a unique case. And there were examples of people who were spared because they helped the Israelites, like Rahab, or who offered to be slaves if they were spared, like the Gibeonites.
The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.
Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence. Actually they are to hate sin, and lead good lives so that other people will see and glorify God.
-
Hi Spud,
Your posts provide worrying confirmation of Paine's view that "[w]henever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the [Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind..."
You talk about appalling cruelty and slaughter as if it's just a story designed to scare children, like Hansel and Gretel, but you think it's true, unless I've misunderstood. So do you think it's moral for humans to brutally slaughter other humans, including children and babies, as long as the instructions to do so come from God?
-
So do you think it's moral for humans to brutally slaughter other humans, including children and babies, as long as the instructions to do so come from God?
It's all ok.
He's only following orders.
-
I think Canaan was a unique case.
Yes, but it actually wasn't unique. Peoples have been subject to invasion by other peoples with different religions countless times in history. The only reason you think Canaan is unique is because it is in the book of your religion.
The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged
Says who? Were they all wicked? Even the children?
Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence.
As exemplified in your Bible.
-
You talk about appalling cruelty and slaughter as if it's just a story designed to scare children,
The reality is that much of what we have been talking about is fiction. The Israelites were most likely indigenous to the region, not invaders from Egypt. The empire of David and Solomon is a myth, but the laws expounded in the Pentateuch that regulate slavery, rather than banning it are real, although I don't know how well observed they were.
-
I think Canaan was a unique case.
Was it, though, a case where the wholesales enslavement of a conquered people was justified? Is there such a conceivable case?
And there were examples of people who were spared because they helped the Israelites, like Rahab, or who offered to be slaves if they were spared, like the Gibeonites.
If you are 'offering' something as an alternative to being slaughtered, is it not extortion to accept the offer? And if the choice is slavery or death, that in no way justifies instituting the slavery.
The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin.
And its absolute divorce from any conception of morality, presumably?
The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.
But not to slavers, necessarily...
Some extremists think that because God has chosen them, they are to hate other people; this leads to violence.
These were Gods chosen people committing violence, and then compounding the physical violence with the social and psychological violence of slavery - these were extremists!
Actually they are to hate sin, and lead good lives so that other people will see and glorify God.
Which is it? Sinlessness or good, because the two are not interchangable - sinlessness is, apparently, fine with slavery but against homosexuality without recourse to a moral argument at all. God has spaffed forth with 'Thou shalts' and 'Thou shalt nots' and obedience is the requirement, morality be damned.
O.
-
The whole thing happened to teach us about the seriousness of sin. The Canaanites were so wicked that they had to be judged, and this is a picture of what God will do at the final judgment.
The main problem seems to be that they refused to offer allegiance to the old tribal Yahweh, one of whose attributes seems to have been that he was "very jealous".
See how this attitude later changed by considering the "Mountain of the Lord" passage in Micah's version (Micah 4)
- which also sounds a different note at the end of the book:
" He will again have compassion upon us,
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
Thou wilt cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea."
Here, unfortunately, is a problem for evangelical believers, since the prophets don't seem very sure of what a "sin" is, and indeed contradict each other on the matter, or give very different ideas as to the importance of individual 'sins'.
-
The main problem seems to be that they refused to offer allegiance to the old tribal Yahweh, one of whose attributes seems to have been that he was "very jealous".
See how this attitude later changed by considering the "Mountain of the Lord" passage in Micah's version (Micah 4)
- which also sounds a different note at the end of the book:
" He will again have compassion upon us,
he will tread our iniquities under foot.
Thou wilt cast all our sins
into the depths of the sea."
Here, unfortunately, is a problem for evangelical believers, since the prophets don't seem very sure of what a "sin" is, and indeed contradict each other on the matter, or give very different ideas as to the importance of individual 'sins'.
The Canaanites and 6 other nations went as far as sacrificing their children to their gods. Note that when the Israelites started to do this (one king did it, I can't recall which) God sent them into exile, a lot of them being killed in the process.
-
Says who? Were they all wicked? Even the children?
I suspect the problem was that their children were on the road to being as wicked as their parents, and causing Israel to commit idolatry. Compare with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which God couldn't find 10 righteous people when Abraham asked him to spare them for the sake of 10. Alternatively, it may be compared to shooting down a hijacked airliner and killing the innocent passengers along with the terrorists in order to prevent it being used as a bomb.
-
Hi Spud,
You seem determined to believe that whatever your God commands is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, regardless of the vileness of what he is reported as telling people to do.
Do you think a person who had skewered a baby on a sword, or dashed a baby's head against a rock until it was dead, or hacked a terrified, screaming 5 year old to death might be traumatised by their action? Do you think people who commit gross acts of violence are improved by their actions?
Could your God have given all the bad people he created fatal coronaries and told the Israelites to make friends with the ones he didn’t kill?
-
These were Gods chosen people committing violence, and then compounding the physical violence with the social and psychological violence of slavery - these were extremists!
Would you say that the Western forces attacking Islamic State were extremists? It seems reasonable to suggest that God was using the West to judge IS, although our forces haven't gone so far as to exterminate all captured fighters and their families. But, one can see how, having not done so, the children will grow up hating the West perhaps even more than their parents, and the problem will continue. Putting them to work, however, would give them the opportunity to change their outlook and see the folly of Islamic State's ideas. This is the same principle as ancient Israel's enslavement of the idolatrous Canaanites. Biblical enslavement - make them learn honesty through hard work.
If we are to take the story in its context (whether we believe it or not), God knew how bad things had got in Canaan, and physically told the Israelites to go and destroy them. They actually saw him: he scared the crap out of them at Mount Sinai, and went around in a pillar of fire. Islamic State didn't see God, and hence we can conclude that he didn't tell them to build a Caliphate and kill all non-Muslims. Most other terrorists didn't see God on a cloud either.
That's the difference.
-
Hi Spud,
You seem determined to believe that whatever your God commands is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds, regardless of the vileness of what he is reported as telling people to do.
Do you think a person who had skewered a baby on a sword, or dashed a baby's head against a rock until it was dead, or hacked a terrified, screaming 5 year old to death might be traumatised by their action? Do you think people who commit gross acts of violence are improved by their actions?
Could your God have given all the bad people he created fatal coronaries and told the Israelites to make friends with the ones he didn’t kill?
Hi Christine,
As I said above to Outrider, when you read the OT you have to read it from God's perspective. These people had gone past the point of no return in terms of rejecting God. He waited 400 years before sending Israel to judge them. God knew there was no chance they would repent, so it was either: leave them there and wait until the final judgment to punish them, or, take them out now so that they could not influence other people.
I know this sounds incredibly arrogant to someone who doesn't believe in God, coming from a fellow human being. But God also says that he didn't choose Israel as a 'kingdom of priests' because they were special in some way. It's there in Deuteronomy 6-8, if you need a reference. Likewise with Christians. That is why I call myself Spud.
-
The first part of your (last but one) post is so disgusting I currently have no idea how to respond to it. I hope another poster will have a coherent response, I'm just aghast. If you're a Poe I'll be relieved, but sadly I don't think you are.
As for the second paragraph, how do YOU know Islamic State members didn't see God?
Which terrorists did see God on a cloud? The Westbro Baptists? Ones shooting bullets at women's doctors?
-
Spud,
Re your last post, could your omnipotent, omni-benevolent God have perhaps spared the Israelites the horror of slaughtering babies and children, even if there was absolutely no alternative to hacking them to death? Perhaps God could have made the swords work on their own?
Or you know, he could have not created the bad people in the first place, or softened their hearts towards him, or stopped them via some magic, sorry, miracle, from sacrificing their babies to non-existent gods, or just made them disappear? If he had to consign them to eternal torture, why not just magic, sorry, miracle them to Hell without the intervening horror?
I've cited The Day The Earth Stood Still and Star Trek as having better solutions to bad behaviour than your God, but you didn't engage with that. Presumably because whatever your God supposedly does, or commands, is right and moral simply because of what you believe to be the source. What a very dangerous way to think. I hope you never believe your God is telling YOU to do something horrible to another person.
-
Spud is making excuses for the way his version of god has screwed up.
-
Does it really matter what Spud thinks about the generality of this idea of his the idea he keeps on referring to as god and whatever it is Spud thinks this he she or it god thing is supposed to have done or have in its overall plan?
It'd make a lot more sense to discuss the inns and outs of at the moment a fictional/delusional god idea of Spud's, once and if he could find some evidence to support this so called god idea of his in the first place which in turn would, with supporting evidence, be worth spending the time on this discussion, unless of course these discussions were taken in a similar manner to the way the 'The Sherlock Holmes Society', spend time discussing the various aspects of Sir Arthur's books, that up to now are fictional as well.
ippy.
-
Would you say that the Western forces attacking Islamic State were extremists?
In some instances, yes - certainly there's a wave of Christian fundamentalism running through the US establishment.
It seems reasonable to suggest that God was using the West to judge IS, although our forces haven't gone so far as to exterminate all captured fighters and their families.
It might seem reasonable to you, it's not an interpretation I'd subscribe to given how many non-religious nations have joined in the efforts. IS would equally suggest that actually they are doing God's work,
But, one can see how, having not done so, the children will grow up hating the West perhaps even more than their parents, and the problem will continue.
That's largely because military intervention on a grand scale isn't the sensible response to an insurgent movement - armies are to occupy territory, and this isn't a battle for territory it's a battle for ideas. The answer isn't more significant militarism on behalf of God, it's more explanation about why thinking believing in God gives you a remit to tell people how to live is a bad idea.
Putting them to work, however, would give them the opportunity to change their outlook and see the folly of Islamic State's ideas. This is the same principle as ancient Israel's enslavement of the idolatrous Canaanites. Biblical enslavement - make them learn honesty through hard work.
Giving them work, if done the right way, possibly. Claiming ownership of them and compelling them to work, I'd say, would not head of future resentment.
If we are to take the story in its context (whether we believe it or not), God knew how bad things had got in Canaan, and physically told the Israelites to go and destroy them. They actually saw him: he scared the crap out of them at Mount Sinai, and went around in a pillar of fire.
What does a moral deity see that makes him think an entire nation's children are beyond redemption? A perfect being can't explain morality to people in a way they'll understand? God chose to appear to the Israelites in his glory to scare them into committing genocide, but didn't think to appear to the Canaanites in all his glory to scare them into behaving? If we take it as it's written, we have to ask why God seems intent on violence - if diminishing violence and increasing peace and good behaviour was the goal this was the wrong way to go about it. As with IS, militaristic intervention is about territorial control, and that wasn't (allegedly) the issue here. Of course, if you're a cynic, you look at this and see the moral opprobrium as a convenient excuse for the Israelites to justify military expansion.
Islamic State didn't see God, and hence we can conclude that he didn't tell them to build a Caliphate and kill all non-Muslims.
Can we? Why are you so ready to believe that the Israelites saw God, but nobody from IS did?
Most other terrorists didn't see God on a cloud either.
I think you've nearly grasped something significant there...
That's the difference.
Allegedly.
O.
-
Extremism of any sort is bad, be it Islamic or Christian.
-
Extremism of any sort is bad, be it Islamic or Christian.
Extremism, though, is in the eye of the beholder. To 'Christian Voice' here in the UK, supporting a woman's right to choose is an extremist position; in the US, the evangelical Christians see attempts to maintain the separation of Church and state as Atheist extremism; in some parts of the Islamic world, freedom to choose to leave a religion is an example of extremism.
The problem with an accusation of 'extremism' is that it's a relative term - nothing is in intrinsically 'extreme', it's only extreme in relation to where you stand, so if you stand at one end of a spectrum everything from the centre onwards is extremist.
O.
-
The reality is that much of what we have been talking about is fiction. The Israelites were most likely indigenous to the region, not invaders from Egypt. The empire of David and Solomon is a myth, but the laws expounded in the Pentateuch that regulate slavery, rather than banning it are real, although I don't know how well observed they were.
I'm talking to someone who thinks it's fact, yet talks glibly about the most appalling horrors as if they were fiction. That I find the fiction horrifying, but Spud thinks the fact of it is moral, is what's worrying. If he isn't a Poe, and he'd have to be pretty dedicated to his art if he was, he's a real person who at any time might think his God is delivering instructions directly into his thoughts.
I think Spud can see very well that what's described in the Bible is beyond disgusting and he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals about how the situations he describes could have been addressed with less barbarity. Obviously I don't agree with his dogma about sin and wickedness etc but even if the solution described was justified (which it obviously wasn't) the route to it couldn't possibly be justified, which in my opinion is why Spud isn't answering the questions.
Christians do this a lot. They know exactly what God thinks and wants until they don't like where the questions or answers are leading them, then it's conveniently "beyond human understanding".
-
Hi all,
Sorry if my recent posts offended you. Clearly I'm not going to be able to explain it in words that don't offend, so I will link you to a sermon on Deuteronomy 7 which I listened to the other day, on this subject. The latter half answers your questions about the Canaanites.
https://www.stnicholas-sevenoaks.org/resources/sermon-recordings/src/book/deuteronomy/
It's the one by Andy Martin on 30th Oct 2011.
-
N M/Sparky would have been proud of you Spud.
ippy.
-
N M/Sparky would have been proud of you Spud.
ippy.
I'm sure he would. :D
-
The first part of your (last but one) post is so disgusting I currently have no idea how to respond to it. I hope another poster will have a coherent response, I'm just aghast. If you're a Poe I'll be relieved, but sadly I don't think you are.
Hi again. Sorry for the way I wrote those two posts, which was quite flippant.
At the risk of doing so again, I can tell you I have asked a friend from church for his view. He said that the main reason for what happened was that the Israelites would inevitably have intermarried with the people in Canaan and been led into worshiping their gods. Thus the action they took was the only way to prevent that.
Perhaps one problem with not doing what was done would be that they could not tell who, if any, might have believed in Israel's God. In the same way that it has proved impossible to tell whether someone who has planned terrorist attacks, who has served his sentence, has genuinely turned around or not. We might say that the only way to ensure he does not re-offend is to keep him locked up for good, and even then he may do something while locked up. So in that case there would only be one solution, which (and I am not advocating this now) is that used in the past as punishment for treason.
-
I'm sure he would. :D
Dynamically!! ;D ;D
Reggs, ippy.
-
At the risk of doing so again, I can tell you I have asked a friend from church for his view. He said that the main reason for what happened was that the Israelites would inevitably have intermarried with the people in Canaan and been led into worshiping their gods. Thus the action they took was the only way to prevent that.
Surely, though, God (who at the time wasn't above making personal appearances) had a better way than wholesale slaughter? Was there not an opportunity - given that he's the one true God - to expand his flock and bring the Canaanites on board?
Perhaps one problem with not doing what was done would be that they could not tell who, if any, might have believed in Israel's God.
But he's God, he knows (because he's all-knowing) the arguments that will convince anyone.
In the same way that it has proved impossible to tell whether someone who has planned terrorist attacks, who has served his sentence, has genuinely turned around or not.
We aren't God, though - maybe they're the ones with the 'truth'? Maybe God's back into a drown them in blood phasse?
We might say that the only way to ensure he does not re-offend is to keep him locked up for good, and even then he may do something while locked up. So in that case there would only be one solution, which (and I am not advocating this now) is that used in the past as punishment for treason.
So your God is in favour not just of capital punishment, but of Genocide for errors of faith in a people he refuses to reveal the truth to... and you're OK with this? This makes sense to you as the coherent plan of an all-knowing, all-loving deity? It just doesn't add up.
O.
-
Dynamically!! ;D ;D
Reggs, ippy.
And accurately...
-
And accurately...
Yeh right! :D
-
And accurately...
And accurately, presumably acquired with viable evidence in support!
ippy.
-
Spud,
Yes, it is hard to justify slaughter and genocide with inoffensive words, because it's not the words that are offensive, it's the sentiment.
I can't listen to your preacher and even if I could I wouldn't. If you could summarise his explanation of how it's moral for an all powerful being to command people to hack children and babies to death, I'll read that.
Are you now claiming that nobody (including God) could know whether some of the people might become "bad" in the future so best to kill them all? And are you advocating the death penalty for people who have been convicted of planning terrorist acts?
-
Surely, though, God (who at the time wasn't above making personal appearances) had a better way than wholesale slaughter? Was there not an opportunity - given that he's the one true God - to expand his flock and bring the Canaanites on board?
But he's God, he knows (because he's all-knowing) the arguments that will convince anyone.
We aren't God, though - maybe they're the ones with the 'truth'? Maybe God's back into a drown them in blood phasse?
So your God is in favour not just of capital punishment, but of Genocide for errors of faith in a people he refuses to reveal the truth to... and you're OK with this? This makes sense to you as the coherent plan of an all-knowing, all-loving deity? It just doesn't add up.
O.
No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1. Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks). I don't know about the capital punishment laws of the past, but that's my reasoning. Nowadays we would rather put ourselves at risk and let them go after half a sentence, but that's a different debate. God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom. In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context) I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
-
I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
What I do know is that God doesn't choose people because they are in any way more better than anyone else. Thus, "no-one can boast". (Er, 1 Peter, I think)
-
What I do know is that God doesn't choose people because they are in any way more better than anyone else. Thus, "no-one can boast". (Er, 1 Peter, I think)
See also Dt 7:7 "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8But because the LORD loved you,"
-
Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment,
Again, I have not studied this, but have heard that in the US, the Christian stance on Capital Punishment is that a murderer, for example, is a danger to society and so has to forfeit his life; he then faces the heavenly court, where he either will be pardoned or not, depending on whether his heart was repentant. This perspective is foreign to most of us, as we have become an atheistic nation.
-
No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1. Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks). I don't know about the capital punishment laws of the past, but that's my reasoning. Nowadays we would rather put ourselves at risk and let them go after half a sentence, but that's a different debate. God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom. In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context) I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
Your depiction of god doesn't do it any favours whatsoever, it is a pity you can't see that for yourself.
-
Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks).
There is no logic in that statement at all and it could be applied to all sort of other crimes where rehabilitation is uncertain.
It presupposes that rehabilitation will not work in all cases (that surely is not the case) and the notion that if we 'cannot be sure to have rehabilitated' we should kill someone is horrific in the extreme.
But also if the issue is public safety then a life sentence (a genuine one with not chance of release) is just a successful as killing them.
I'd actually argue that capital punishment increases, rather than decreases, terrorism and treason as it creates the martyr syndrome where the martyred person's death needs to be avenged.
-
I suspect the problem was that their children were on the road to being as wicked as their parents
So much for free will.
and causing Israel to commit idolatry. Compare with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which God couldn't find 10 righteous people when Abraham asked him to spare them for the sake of 10.
Wasn't that where Lot offered his own daughter for a gangbang with an angry mob. That doesn't sound particularly righteous.
-
No, God revealed himself to everyone, but they chose to worship their own gods, Romans 1.
Really? I confess, I've not memorised the Old Testament, but all the examples I'm aware of are God appearing to the Israelites - sending cryptic plagues and the like to, say, the Egyptians, but relying on the Israelites to convey the message.
Logically, treason and terrorism necessitate capital punishment, because that is the only way to ensure the safety of the population, since it is a state of mind which we cannot be sure to have rehabilitated (as evident from recent terror attacks).
Except that capital punishment runs the risk of encouraging retribution from family and associates. Logically there is nothing that inextricably leads to a concept of punishment at all - I feel, personally, that there could be a place for capital punishment, but not until we understand an awful lot more about how the human mind works in order to know if someone's capable of being rehabilitated or not.
God was concerned that there would be no sin in his kingdom.
Why? Given that the things constituting 'sins' range from the trivial - homosexuality, haircuts, food choices - to the grave - murder - but that God apparently is given a free pass on the worst of these - drowning every living thing except Noah and his menagerie - what's the justification for mandating earthly punishment for spiritual transgressions of apparently arbitrary rules? How does this mesh with the idea of a coherent source of moral laws?
In the story, God knew, being all-knowing, that the Canaanite children would "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Detueronomy 7:4, check out the context)
The all-powerful God can't convince any of these people to follow the true faith? None of them? But wants someone else to do the dirty work of genocide, despite explicitly telling those same people that killing is a fundamental no-no?
I don't know why God only 'calls' some people, that is the debate in Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
At which point, it's not about whether or not the Canaanites would accept God or not - after all, he didn't set anyone upon the entirety of China, Japan, North and South America and Northern Europe for not following him, he no longer sends 'his people' out on missions of genocide. This is about God, for reasons of his own, deciding an entire populace should die because he wills it... that's not something to worship.
O.
-
I'm talking to someone who thinks it's fact, yet talks glibly about the most appalling horrors as if they were fiction. That I find the fiction horrifying, but Spud thinks the fact of it is moral, is what's worrying. If he isn't a Poe, and he'd have to be pretty dedicated to his art if he was, he's a real person who at any time might think his God is delivering instructions directly into his thoughts.
I think Spud can see very well that what's described in the Bible is beyond disgusting and he doesn't want to answer hypotheticals about how the situations he describes could have been addressed with less barbarity. Obviously I don't agree with his dogma about sin and wickedness etc but even if the solution described was justified (which it obviously wasn't) the route to it couldn't possibly be justified, which in my opinion is why Spud isn't answering the questions.
Christians do this a lot. They know exactly what God thinks and wants until they don't like where the questions or answers are leading them, then it's conveniently "beyond human understanding".
Me think the lady doth protest falsely,...
If you were wise to your own understanding then surely you would have discerned if you remove the belief of God from the things you are rattling on about then all that is left to blame is MANKIND. You are part of modern day mankind... aren't you? So you should hide your face in shame that you think you can blame those who practice love thy neighbour for the events of the past.
Truth is today Christians are showing love for God and their neighbour. We all disagree on a lot of things. But you don't get to blame God or religion if you don't believe in them or them that do believe in them. Because logically and honestly in your own opinion you can only believe it was man who was responsible not modern day believers or God.
-
But you don't get to blame God or religion if you don't believe in them or them that do believe in them. Because logically and honestly in your own opinion you can only believe it was man who was responsible not modern day believers or God.
I wouldn't blame God.
Religion however, a different matter.
-
The all-powerful God can't convince any of these people to follow the true faith? None of them? But wants someone else to do the dirty work of genocide, despite explicitly telling those same people that killing is a fundamental no-no?
Rahab and all her family were spared, as were the Gibeonite inhabitants of four cities. If you read about them, their attitude is amazing. Rahab deceived her countrymen in order to save herself and her family. The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them, pretending they were from a city outside the doomed catchment area and offering to become slaves for them. All these people ended up following the true faith. The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.
But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading. It must serve as a warning that everyone deserves death, because of our sinful nature, and in so doing some people will, like Rahab and the Gibeonites, humble themselves and be saved at the last judgment.
Sorry if this like my other posts seems lacking in sentiment, but you did ask and there isn't any other way to explain it. Although Andy Martin explains it with great sensitivity in the talk I linked, so I'd recommend that. :)
-
The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them,
What a terrible crime: deceiving somebody into not massacring you.
All these people ended up following the true faith.
Judaism is the True Faith. OK. Why aren't you following the True Faith considering the evidence is that God does terrible things to those who don't follow it.
The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.
That's not really surprising is it, since the other choices seemed to be death or become slaves.
But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading.
Are you saying it didn't really happen? (I'd agree with you , if you are.) If not, what do you mean by symbolic? Does it seem reasonable to you to slaughter entire cities just to put a point across?
-
Rahab and all her family were spared, as were the Gibeonite inhabitants of four cities. If you read about them, their attitude is amazing. Rahab deceived her countrymen in order to save herself and her family. The Gibeonites deceived Joshua and his men into swearing they would spare them, pretending they were from a city outside the doomed catchment area and offering to become slaves for them.
So treason is fine, slavery is acceptable, genocide's permissible if you have a note from your mum, so long as you follow the fount of all moral purpose?
All these people ended up following the true faith. The rest formed coalitions and fought against the Israelites.
The rest defended their homeland from an invasion... who'd have thought?
But the killing of all the cities' inhabitants, including the animals, can only be a symbolic action when viewed from a straightforward reading.
Unfortunately, as you know, there are nutters out there who read this stuff literally; that should have been eminently foreseeable, surely? Even then, you can't accomodate those particular interpretations, there isn't even a figurative push-back against the institution of slavery, it's considered a perfectly acceptable system even within this example.
It must serve as a warning that everyone deserves death, because of our sinful nature, and in so doing some people will, like Rahab and the Gibeonites, humble themselves and be saved at the last judgment.
Notwithstanding what we've already said about the particulars of what's considered 'sinful', and other discussions elsewhere about how it's a bit rich to punish humans for being exactly as human as they were apparently designed to be, and about how the stories quite clearly show that the Israelites were exactly as sinfully human as anyone else... how is killing them going to make them better?
Sorry if this like my other posts seems lacking in sentiment, but you did ask and there isn't any other way to explain it.
That's fine, we're discussing centuries old claims of a mixture of real and imagined events, poetically translated and selectively edited after the fact... a measure of emotional distance is probably warranted.
Although Andy Martin explains it with great sensitivity in the talk I linked, so I'd recommend that. :)
Unfortunately I post most of my work here from a work computer, which combined with my hearing problems makes videos difficult - do you know if there's a transcript anywhere on-line? Or a written version that covers the same ground?
O.
-
Unfortunately I post most of my work here from a work computer, which combined with my hearing problems makes videos difficult - do you know if there's a transcript anywhere on-line? Or a written version that covers the same ground?
O.
There isn't a transcript, unfortunately. He makes the point that what happened is a picture of what will happen at the final judgment. He doesn't elaborate but i guess it is like the Flood, where the old creation was destroyed to make way for a new creation (thus the Canaanites' animals were destroyed as well). Hence after the last judgment there will be a new heavens and earth.
-
There isn't a transcript, unfortunately. He makes the point that what happened is a picture of what will happen at the final judgment. He doesn't elaborate but i guess it is like the Flood, where the old creation was destroyed to make way for a new creation (thus the Canaanites' animals were destroyed as well). Hence after the last judgment there will be a new heavens and earth.
So, again, more killing rather than attempts at correction?
O.
-
But you don't get to blame God or religion if you don't believe in them or them that do believe in them.
I don't blame god for the simple reason that I don't believe he/she/it exists. I think what people here are doing it asking a hypothetical question, namely 'if god did exist and was as described in the bible would we consider that god to be nice or nasty?'.
However religion certainly does exist and it is perfectly acceptable to blame religion for acts performed in its name or justified by its teaching.
-
So, again, more killing rather than attempts at correction?
O.
Why does it always have to be... destruction of all mankind?
Do I disappoint you in just being human? And not one of the elements that you can light your cigar on?
(Thanks Rufus Wainwright)
I'm not quoting either Spud or Sassy, as both seem to have deranged and dangerous views of morality I don't think need amplifying. I'm assuming it's OK to say that, as I've been accused of 'brutal nastiness' by Spud, the slavery and genocide apologist, and of lying by Sassy in what I believe is her first reply to me. Lovely.
-
Why does it always have to be... destruction of all mankind?
Do I disappoint you in just being human? And not one of the elements that you can light your cigar on?
(Thanks Rufus Wainwright)
I'm not quoting either Spud or Sassy, as both seem to have deranged and dangerous views of morality I don't think need amplifying. I'm assuming it's OK to say that, as I've been accused of 'brutal nastiness' by Spud, the slavery and genocide apologist, and of lying by Sassy in what I believe is her first reply to me. Lovely.
Don't go losing any sleep Christine, take it as a compliment when that sort of message comes from our dear old Sassy she's a gem.
Regards, ippy.
-
There isn't a transcript, unfortunately. He makes the point that what happened is a picture of what will happen at the final judgment. He doesn't elaborate but i guess it is like the Flood, where the old creation was destroyed to make way for a new creation (thus the Canaanites' animals were destroyed as well). Hence after the last judgment there will be a new heavens and earth.
Oh no - it will be the whole earth this time, which will disappear "with a hissing noise" - according to 'Peter' in the spurious letter attributed to him.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
On the other hand, the OT tells us "the earth abides forever".
-
So, again, more killing rather than attempts at correction?
O.
My guess is it's a warning, and that it wasn't repeated since that time. There are the same problems, in that there are bad influences around, but instead of doing what they did in Joshua the recommended policy is to avoid them - don't go out on drunken sprees when invited, get to bed before 11 etc.
-
I've been accused of 'brutal nastiness' by Spud, the slavery and genocide apologist, and of lying by Sassy in what I believe is her first reply to me. Lovely.
Sassy tends to spend a lot of time in the sin bin for that exact reason. She's a committed Christian and she doesn't mince words. Just remember that her threats are all empty.
-
Sassy tends to spend a lot of time in the sin bin for that exact reason. She's a committed Christian and she doesn't mince words. Just remember that her threats are all empty.
You are wrong.
Every time she posts she minces words, then she mangles them and then she crushes them on the ground beneath her stiletto heels.
-
You are wrong.
Every time she posts she minces words, then she mangles them and then she crushes them on the ground beneath her stiletto heels.
That is her speciality!
-
Spud,
Correct me if I'm wrong but you think the Bible is literally true, all of it, even the contradictory bits, and you also think the various depictions of "God" therein describe a consistent and moral being?
And you also think that this supreme moral being instructed his followers to carry out genocide (actual genocide, with primitive weapons) as an appropriate warning to future generations not to stay up after 11pm?
I don't think further argument on this is necessary really. Carry on getting your strange beliefs thoroughly debunked on the 'eye witnesses' thread, I'm learning from the other posters and I expect there are lurkers out there similarly benefiting.
(Same goes for Searching for God - you and Alan Burns are excellent warnings of the dangers of religious indoctrination, at any time of the day.)
-
Spud,
as an appropriate warning to future generations not to stay up after 11pm?
That was a joke, Christine.
-
People like Spud and AB are so entrenched in their versions of the faith, they don't appear to be able to see the wood for the trees.
-
That was a joke, Christine.
So hard to tell, Spud.
-
I've just come from a lovely, funny, warm-hearted, inclusive all-age service at church, to the carping, sarcasm and mean-spirited bitterness on show, as always, on this forum. I really ought to give R&E up and leave you to it, but I'm addicted.
-
I've just come from a lovely, funny, warm-hearted, inclusive all-age service at church, to the carping, sarcasm and mean-spirited bitterness on show, as always, on this forum. I really ought to give R&E up and leave you to it, but I'm addicted.
Try giving it up for Lent. ;D ;D ;D
-
Try giving it up for Lent. ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Like.
Regards, ippy.
-
I've just come from a lovely, funny, warm-hearted, inclusive all-age service at church, to the carping, sarcasm and mean-spirited bitterness on show, as always, on this forum. I really ought to give R&E up and leave you to it, but I'm addicted.
I suppose I enjoy some very similar friendly warm hearted inclusive company with people of most ages too.
I suppose where we differ is that I think that anyone can be social just as you describe except why do you seem to need the delusional bit to go along with your happy time?
ippy.
-
I suppose I enjoy some very similar friendly warm hearted inclusive company with people of most ages too.
I suppose where we differ is that I think that anyone can be social just as you describe except why do you seem to need the delusional bit to go along with your happy time?
ippy.
It is sad that he finds it hard to refrain from having a go at people who don't see it his way. ::)
-
It is sad that he finds it hard to refrain from having a go at people who don't see it his way. ::)
Perhaps for Lent we should all give that up.
-
It is sad that he finds it hard to refrain from having a go at people who don't see it his way. ::)
I wasn't aware that there was some sort of special forum requirement that deems it necessary to like and have some form of special respect for religions, any of them.
ippy.
-
I wasn't aware that there was some sort of special forum requirement that deems it necessary to like and have some form of special respect for religions, any of them.
ippy.
I have respect for people who deserve it, religious or otherwise.
-
I have respect for people who deserve it, religious or otherwise.
I wasn't aware that there was some sort of special forum requirement that deems it necessary to like and have some form of special respect for religions, any of them.
I was careful to state the underlined above and I can't see any special reason why should I have respect for religions?
I have one close member of my family that seems to be religious he's not on a blog where these things are up for discussion but if he were to present his religion to me in some way whilst I have a lot of respect for him, a good uncle to my two boys, sod his religious beliefs if he were to put them to me I don't see why I should be holding back.
You don't seem to have any particular liking for religions in general either L R.
Regards, ippy.
-
I wasn't aware that there was some sort of special forum requirement that deems it necessary to like and have some form of special respect for religions, any of them.
I was careful to state the underlined above and I can't see any special reason why should I have respect for religions?
I have one close member of my family that seems to be religious he's not on a blog where these things are up for discussion but if he were to present his religion to me in some way whilst I have a lot of respect for him, a good uncle to my two boys, sod his religious beliefs if he were to put them to me I don't see why I should be holding back.
You don't seem to have any particular liking for religions in general either L R.
Regards, ippy.
I don't think religions have done the world many favours, especially Christianity and Islam. But having said that there are of course good, decent people who are religious, but they would probably be so whether they had a faith or not.
-
The sentiments at the heart of christianity, the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Sermon on the Mount, are admirable and very worthwhile. Unfortunately, over time, different approaches to the achievement of objectives related to these sentiments have developed, and these approaches have been infused with the desire to have control over the thoughts and behaviour of adherents. A consequence is the vilification (and worse) of people who subscribe to other approaches than the one held by any particular individual.
These sentiments are such that to adopt them as a guide for one's own life does not require the adoption, at the same time, of bizarre and fanciful beliefs that have become bundled with them.
-
The sentiments at the heart of christianity, the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Sermon on the Mount, are admirable and very worthwhile.
Are they at the heart of Christianity, or are they rather the focus of one particular strand of Christianity, a strand that jibes to an extent with modern Western values? Prosperity gospel in the States largely relegates these concepts to, at best, of secondary importance, Christianity in Africa has a distinctly liberal interpretation of these parts, historically Christianity has been unconcerned with them for an extended period.
Unfortunately, over time, different approaches to the achievement of objectives related to these sentiments have developed, and these approaches have been infused with the desire to have control over the thoughts and behaviour of adherents. A consequence is the vilification (and worse) of people who subscribe to other approaches than the one held by any particular individual.
I prefer people who adhere to that particular version of Christianity, but I don't see very much that makes it inherently 'the right' way of being Christian. The Old and New Testaments offer enough support for pretty much any tribal outlook you'd like to adopt.
O.
-
I thought the most fundamental aspect of Christianity was the idea that somebody else can atone for a person's wrongdoing? Is the crucifixion not at the heart of Christianity?
Anyway, if this alleged deity had wanted to provide guidance less prone to excusing bigotry than the Bible, it could have taken a leaf out of The Satanic Temple's book (being timeless it would know about them, just as it would know all about how the Bible would be used to justify bigotry, not to mention torture and murder):
7 tenets of TST:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple#Tenets
Interesting documentary on Netflix called Hail Satan.
-
I thought the most fundamental aspect of Christianity was the idea that somebody else can atone for a person's wrongdoing? Is the crucifixion not at the heart of Christianity?
Atoning....make amends or reparation.
"a human sacrifice to atone for the sin"
To understand atonement Gods way you need to understand sin.
There were many sacrifices made every year for sins of the people by the high priests, So what was different between Christs sacrifice of himself which meant it was no longer required for the other sacrifices?
Anyway, if this alleged deity had wanted to provide guidance less prone to excusing bigotry than the Bible, it could have taken a leaf out of The Satanic Temple's book (being timeless it would know about them, just as it would know all about how the Bible would be used to justify bigotry, not to mention torture and murder):
7 tenets of TST:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple#Tenets
Interesting documentary on Netflix called Hail Satan.
What exactly will following the above do? Is Satan saying in his book that science and no power of his own actually is the basis for his book The satanic temple?
Because there in lies the problem. God claims he created the world and everything in it. Are you saying Satan is saying science did it nothing to do with him? I see no relevance in what you have written regarding the bible. After all the bible is a book by many prophets of God collective. Who wrote the 7 tenets and why for the temple of Satan
-
To understand atonement Gods way you need to understand sin.
Seeing as you apparently have the inside track on this, Sass, could you explain why eating shellfish, having the wrong haircut and having gay sex are sinful, but keeping slaves and raping people aren't?
There were many sacrifices made every year for sins of the people by the high priests, So what was different between Christs sacrifice of himself which meant it was no longer required for the other sacrifices?
If God required sacrifices of people, does that mean that 'sin' and 'immorality' are separate concepts? After all, killing something/someone else to alleviate your own sins would seem pretty immoral to me.
What exactly will following the above do? Is Satan saying in his book that science and no power of his own actually is the basis for his book The satanic temple?
Satan has a book out! Cool, do you have a link?
Because there in lies the problem. God claims he created the world and everything in it. Are you saying Satan is saying science did it nothing to do with him?
So many questions... if Christianity is a monotheism, who the is Satan, and why doesn't God just overrule him? If we don't believe in God, what makes you think we're going to believe in Satan? If God kills and threatens so many more people than Satan, why is Satan the bad guy?
I see no relevance in what you have written regarding the bible.
That's OK, many of us see little relevance in the Bible, so...
Who wrote the 7 tenets and why for the temple of Satan.
I believe it was a collective effort by a number of the early members of the organisation. As to why, primarily I think to show how easy it was to do something better than the rather limited 'ten commandments' that are regularly espoused by the less critical of the Christian apologists as the pinnacle of moral teaching.
O.
-
Atoning....make amends or reparation.
"a human sacrifice to atone for the sin"
To understand atonement Gods way you need to understand sin.
There were many sacrifices made every year for sins of the people by the high priests, So what was different between Christs sacrifice of himself which meant it was no longer required for the other sacrifices? What exactly will following the above do? Is Satan saying in his book that science and no power of his own actually is the basis for his book The satanic temple?
Because there in lies the problem. God claims he created the world and everything in it. Are you saying Satan is saying science did it nothing to do with him? I see no relevance in what you have written regarding the bible. After all the bible is a book by many prophets of God collective. Who wrote the 7 tenets and why for the temple of Satan
There is no evidence the Bible, and everything attributed to the characters therein including god and Satan, is anymore than a product of the human imagination.
-
Atoning....make amends or reparation.
"a human sacrifice to atone for the sin"
To understand atonement Gods way you need to understand sin.
There were many sacrifices made every year for sins of the people by the high priests, So what was different between Christs sacrifice of himself which meant it was no longer required for the other sacrifices? What exactly will following the above do? Is Satan saying in his book that science and no power of his own actually is the basis for his book The satanic temple?
Because there in lies the problem. God claims he created the world and everything in it. Are you saying Satan is saying science did it nothing to do with him? I see no relevance in what you have written regarding the bible. After all the bible is a book by many prophets of God collective. Who wrote the 7 tenets and why for the temple of Satan
I'm sure it doesn't state anywhere in the bible that satan had anything to do leprechauns either Sassy.
Don't you just love your dream world Sass.
-
Replying to various comments above, the Christian God is, supposedly, all powerful and nothing exists or happens without his OK. That being the case it means that Satan is allowed to exist and interact with humans by God's will.
For what reason does God allow Satan to exist, why does he allow Satan to operate?
Why does he allow, and I paraphrase Stephen Fry, childhood cancer?
A God of love? - If a God that allows children to be born with cancer is the God of Love then give me a God who is a right bastard anytime, at least we can then expectthe bastardry.
-
Replying to various comments above, the Christian God is, supposedly, all powerful and nothing exists or happens without his OK. That being the case it means that Satan is allowed to exist and interact with humans by God's will.
For what reason does God allow Satan to exist, why does he allow Satan to operate?
Why does he allow, and I paraphrase Stephen Fry, childhood cancer?
A God of love? - If a God that allows children to be born with cancer is the God of Love then give me a God who is a right bastard anytime, at least we can then expectthe bastardry.
I agree and nice to see you back posting.
-
I thought the most fundamental aspect of Christianity was the idea that somebody else can atone for a person's wrongdoing? Is the crucifixion not at the heart of Christianity?
Anyway, if this alleged deity had wanted to provide guidance less prone to excusing bigotry than the Bible, it could have taken a leaf out of The Satanic Temple's book (being timeless it would know about them, just as it would know all about how the Bible would be used to justify bigotry, not to mention torture and murder):
7 tenets of TST:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple#Tenets
Interesting documentary on Netflix called Hail Satan.
You've got it mixed up. Satan is the angel who rebelled against God and who misleads people into using God's word to justify bigotry. All the stuff you quote from this link comes from God's word, not Satan.
Regarding your first point: using the analogy that only someone who has no debt of his own can pay the debt of another: all humans are in 'debt' through their sin, so only a person who has no sin of their own can atone for another person's wrongdoing.
-
Replying to various comments above, the Christian God is, supposedly, all powerful and nothing exists or happens without his OK. That being the case it means that Satan is allowed to exist and interact with humans by God's will.
For what reason does God allow Satan to exist, why does he allow Satan to operate?
Why does he allow, and I paraphrase Stephen Fry, childhood cancer?
A God of love? - If a God that allows children to be born with cancer is the God of Love then give me a God who is a right bastard anytime, at least we can then expectthe bastardry.
Ultimately, God used Satan to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
-
Ultimately, God used Satan to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
You are having a 'larf'! ::)
-
Ultimately, God used Satan to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
Ultimately, God used coronavirus, childhood cancer, tsunamis to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
Because you god that you worship is an evil thug who bathes in blood and suffering.
-
You've got it mixed up. Satan is the angel who rebelled against God and who misleads people into using God's word to justify bigotry.
How does he do that?
-
Quote from Spud
You've got it mixed up. Satan is the angel who rebelled against God and who misleads people into using God's word to justify bigotry.
Quote from Sebastian Toe
How does he do that?
In my experience by reading what is in the Bible and going by what it actually says and not as it is interpreted by Christians.
I know that I left the Christian faith behind me a long time ago, but I remember that I left for what I saw as a rock solid reason - A Padre preaching to a church full of soldiers - preaching what? the Ten Commandments - he got to Six and my faith in the Christian Church shot out of the window!
I regret to say that all the prayers said by and for the soldiers in that church that day and every Sunday following (Church attendance was compulsory) did no bloody good at all! Of the 120 blokes in my intake just 14 are still alive today! An awful lot of those dead are so thanks to the followers of Allah! So much for the prayers said every Sunday for the Christian God to keep them safe "in his Holy and Loving Hands" (capitals as in tne prayer sheets!).
-
Ultimately, God used coronavirus, childhood cancer, tsunamis to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
Because you god that you worship is an evil thug who bathes in blood and suffering.
No, God is not evil, he takes everyone's life because we are all sinners. Satan is evil, and God the Son came to defeat him. But it cost Jesus his life, hence showing us his love for us.
-
. Satan is evil, and God the Son came to defeat him.
Was he successful?
-
No, God is not evil, he takes everyone's life because we are all sinners.
According to your silly stories, who made us? If everybody fails a test, it isn't a fair test, it's a design flaw.
Satan is evil, and God the Son came to defeat him.
Again, according to your fantasy, who made Satan? If "God the Son" came to defeat him, then why is he not defeated?
But it cost Jesus his life, hence showing us his love for us.
But it didn't cost him his life, did it? According to your myths, Jesus is alive.
This is all truly jaw-dropping idiocy. It's incredible that such an utterly absurd and totally illogical story can become so embedded in some people's minds that they seem to be literally bind to the fact that it's all obviously absurd.
-
Was he successful?
It's in extra time
-
You've got it mixed up. Satan is the angel who rebelled against God and who misleads people into using God's word to justify bigotry. All the stuff you quote from this link comes from God's word, not Satan.
Regarding your first point: using the analogy that only someone who has no debt of his own can pay the debt of another: all humans are in 'debt' through their sin, so only a person who has no sin of their own can atone for another person's wrongdoing.
Huh? I have a mortgage. Even so, if my brother came to me asking for help in paying off his payday loan, I can still do it.
On the other hand, I can’t do his prison sentence for him. Punishments for crimes do not work like debts.
-
No, God is not evil, he takes everyone's life because we are all sinners. Satan is evil, and God the Son came to defeat him. But it cost Jesus his life, hence showing us his love for us.
God kills us all because we all do things that he told some people 2,000 years ago are wrong. I fail to see how Satan could be more evil than that.
-
No, God is not evil, he takes everyone's life because we are all sinners. Satan is evil, and God the Son came to defeat him. But it cost Jesus his life, hence showing us his love for us.
My four day old neice that died was a sinner so your god killed her? You worship a thug god. You love a psychopath god. Your god lives pain and that makes you spunk your jizz.
-
Seeing as you apparently have the inside track on this, Sass, could you explain why eating shellfish, having the wrong haircut and having gay sex are sinful, but keeping slaves and raping people aren't?
Do you really believe that eating shellfish is high temperatures is healthy? As for haircuts why did Samson live at a time when he was not allowed to cut his hair or where did his strength come from if it went when hair cut? Keeping slaves was something man did and raping has never been allowed.
If God required sacrifices of people, does that mean that 'sin' and 'immorality' are separate concepts? After all, killing something/someone else to alleviate your own sins would seem pretty immoral to me.
What is sin? God hated human sacrifices they sacrificed their children. Do you not see how people were at that time. Immorality or immoral = not conforming to accepted standards of morality. So given that is comes from not conforming to accepted standards of Morality then humans had already decided what the standards were. Do you conform to the 10 commandments and were they for everyone when given? So we are accepting that the concept of sin and morality can only be observed and accepted by the standards you adopt.
Satan has a book out! Cool, do you have a link?
I was replying to what was written by another person. You and I, are fully aware of what was referred to and answered.
So many questions... if Christianity is a monotheism, who the is Satan, and why doesn't God just overrule him? If we don't believe in God, what makes you think we're going to believe in Satan? If God kills and threatens so many more people than Satan, why is Satan the bad guy?
We have to ask do you get what you write from what you read or by studying the bible. Because it cannot be both ways.
That's OK, many of us see little relevance in the Bible, so...
I believe it was a collective effort by a number of the early members of the organisation. As to why, primarily I think to show how easy it was to do something better than the rather limited 'ten commandments' that are regularly espoused by the less critical of the Christian apologists as the pinnacle of moral teaching.
O.
Do you believe any of the 10 commandments to be acceptable and if so, which? If there are some you do not find acceptable then post and explain why.
-
The god featured in that not so good book doesn't know the meaning of the word 'good'. >:(
-
Do you really believe that eating shellfish is high temperatures is healthy?
Now we've invented refrigeration, any reasonable god would relax that rule. Yet, nothing.
As for haircuts why did Samson live at a time when he was not allowed to cut his hair or where did his strength come from if it went when hair cut?
You know that story is fictional, right?
Keeping slaves was something man did
Including Christians.
and raping has never been allowed.
Unless the victim fails to cry out, in which case she is stoned to death along with the rapist. Deuteronomy 22:23-29
God hated human sacrifices they sacrificed their children.
God sacrificed his own child. Hypocritical or what?
-
My four day old neice...
Want me to answer? Just click modify message and delete offensive content.
-
Want me to answer? Just click modify message and delete offensive content.
Truth hurts, doesn't it.
-
Want me to answer? Just click modify message and delete offensive content.
It is your posts that are offensive when your describe the Biblical god as good! >:(
-
You are having a 'larf'! ::)
Trouble is L R, these people actually do really believe this completely unsupportable load of old bronze age nonsense?
Regards, ippy.
-
Trouble is L R, these people actually do really believe this completely unsupportable load of old bronze age nonsense?
Regards, ippy.
Sadly that is very true. :o
-
It is your posts that are offensive when your describe the Biblical god as good! >:(
Let's be clear. I don't get satisfaction from the idea of God punishing sin with death. Secondly, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God enjoys or likes people suffering. Thirdly, are you saying that God is not good even though he created the plants from which you get food, the sun that keeps you warm and all the flowers and birds in your garden?
-
Let's be clear. I don't get satisfaction from the idea of God punishing sin with death. Secondly, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God enjoys or likes people suffering. Thirdly, are you saying that God is not good even though he created the plants from which you get food, the sun that keeps you warm and all the flowers and birds in your garden?
c'mon all together now
all things bright and beautiful.......
grow up Spud ::)
-
Ultimately, God used Satan to demonstrate fully his character and the extent of his love for us.
And how, precisely and in detail, does this justify God giving cancer to unborn children?
To punish the parents for their sins?
If this is the case your God is an unmitigated, sadistic, bastard making a child suffer for the sins of the parents!
-
Let's be clear. I don't get satisfaction from the idea of God punishing sin with death. Secondly, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God enjoys or likes people suffering. Thirdly, are you saying that God is not good even though he created the plants from which you get food, the sun that keeps you warm and all the flowers and birds in your garden?
You "don't get satisfaction" from it but you condone it with every word you say/write/type in support of the sadistic old bastard!
If he didn't and doesn't enjoy doing it, why is he still doing it 2,000+ years down the line?
That's it, the entire Christian ethic, praise Him for the good things and ignore and deny the bad!
What a load of bullshit! Bullshit swallowed by the majority of Christians without a word of complaint!
You are pathetic!
-
Let's be clear. I don't get satisfaction from the idea of God punishing sin with death. Secondly, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God enjoys or likes people suffering. Thirdly, are you saying that God is not good even though he created the plants from which you get food, the sun that keeps you warm and all the flowers and birds in your garden?
There is no evidence god exists, let alone did any of those things. But if it was responsible for all creation it created human nature, which has a bad side as well as a good, therefore god is responsible for all the evil in the world. >:(
-
Let's be clear. I don't get satisfaction from the idea of God punishing sin with death. Secondly, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God enjoys or likes people suffering. Thirdly, are you saying that God is not good even though he created the plants from which you get food, the sun that keeps you warm and all the flowers and birds in your garden?
With apologies to Monty python:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
-
With apologies to Monty python:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
That would appear to be the case if the Biblical god exists.
-
And how, precisely and in detail, does this justify God giving cancer to unborn children?
To punish the parents for their sins?
If this is the case your God is an unmitigated, sadistic, bastard making a child suffer for the sins of the parents!
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death. We also make choices that have the potential to cause suffering: a woman who smokes during pregnancy, for example.
-
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death. We also make choices that have the potential to cause suffering: a woman who smokes during pregnancy, for example.
There is not one shred of evidence Adam and Eve actually existed.
-
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death.
Which all by itself shows that your god, if it existed, would be an unjust and unfair monster.
-
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death. We also make choices that have the potential to cause suffering: a woman who smokes during pregnancy, for example.
Thank goodness I have never felt the need to worship such a gruesome deity. You're welcome to it!
-
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death. We also make choices that have the potential to cause suffering: a woman who smokes during pregnancy, for example.
You are truly pathetic!
-
People in the world are dying and you can only insult others beliefs... The bigots it appears are right here on this thread. Those who insult the Christian God do make themselves as bad as any other bigot. I bet you all feel proud of yourselves. Tell me how does it feel to know you are as bad as any other bigot. Even they believe their beliefs given them right to insult others. Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics.
-
People in the world are dying and you can only insult others beliefs... The bigots it appears are right here on this thread. Those who insult the Christian God do make themselves as bad as any other bigot. I bet you all feel proud of yourselves. Tell me how does it feel to know you are as bad as any other bigot. Even they believe their beliefs given them right to insult others. Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics.
You say the silliest things. ::)
Of course one can blame god if it supposedly created everything including human nature!
-
Do you really believe that eating shellfish is high temperatures is healthy?
It wasn't given as health advice, it was reported as a moral failing.
As for haircuts why did Samson live at a time when he was not allowed to cut his hair or where did his strength come from if it went when hair cut?
Samson was allowed to cut his hair, but he took an oath as a Nazirite which included a restriction on cutting his hair, but that's not really relevant to what I was asking.
Keeping slaves was something man did and raping has never been allowed.
Eating shellfish, mixing crops and being gay were things men did, but the God saw fit to explicitly speak out against those. Rape wasn't just allowed it was actively sanctioned in the form of taking the unmarried women from defeated lands and forcing them into marriages.
What is sin?
It's a made up parallel immorality score to justify religious interference in individual freedom.
God hated human sacrifices they sacrificed their children.
God hated human sacrifice, which is why we have Jesus? God hated human sacrifice which is why he drowned the entire world except on drunkard and his close family?
Do you not see how people were at that time.
Fundamentally, like us but with more supersitions.
Immorality or immoral = not conforming to accepted standards of morality. So given that is comes from not conforming to accepted standards of Morality then humans had already decided what the standards were.
Yes, but the point is that there isn't very much that's of a moral foundation in the precepts handed over by, particularly the Old Testament depiction of, God.
Do you conform to the 10 commandments and were they for everyone when given?
Some of them, but not because of them, and no they weren't given for everyone, they were given explicitly for the Jews.
So we are accepting that the concept of sin and morality can only be observed and accepted by the standards you adopt.
You're falsely equating sin and morality here - morality is a system based upon one of a number of rational or sentimental systems; sin is the breach of a number of apparently arbitrary rules with no evident moral basis whatsoever.
We have to ask do you get what you write from what you read or by studying the bible.
Amongst other sources, yes.
Do you believe any of the 10 commandments to be acceptable and if so, which? If there are some you do not find acceptable then post and explain why.
"I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me" - I don't believe in any gods, but it does seem strange that a monotheistic deity would be worried about other gods?
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain" - I'm an advocate for freedom of speech, but I can understand the basis of this, at least.
"Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day" - well, the very concept of 'holy' is fundamentally troublesome for me, but I do think that purely from a personal wellbeing point of view we all need at least one day of the week which we can use to rest and recharge.
"Honour thy father and mother." - as a general precept not too bad, presuming that it's understood there are implicit qualifiers (some parents don't merit honouring) but it lacks the counterpoint that parents should equally honour their children who are also individuals worthy of respect for their individuality and selves.
"Thou shalt not kill" - in the original this is, I've heard, better interpreted as 'thou shalt not murder' which is easier to accept. I think killing should, in the main, be avoided, but I think it's sometimes necessary.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" - depends on the interpreration; if adultery is any sex outside of a wedded couple (as I have seen it interpreted) then that just robs individuals of their freedom to choose their own lives, but if the principle is to not compromise on promises you make to the special people in your life then I'm fine with that.
"Thou shalt not steal" - seems reasonable.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" - again, depends on interpretation; some people see this as an absolute prohibition on lying, which is not just unrealistic but fails to appreciate that some of those little white lies are necessary, but again the general principle of an expectation of good faith is fine.
"Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife" - this is just not possible to comply with. Who we find attractive isn't something that we can control; what we do about it is, of course, but this is trying to make instinctive feelings into something somehow criminal.
"Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's goods" - as above, whether we want things or not isn't something that we can control, we can only control what we do about it.
Of course, this neatly bypasses the more problematic 'commandments' that aren't part of the traditional ten, but which are still there. Modern Christianity's ongoing issues with homosexuality aren't any sort of issue in light of the Ten Commandments, slavery isn't a problem according to the Ten Commandments (although you mustn't be jealous of your neighbour having more slaves than you, that's sinful...)
O.
-
People in the world are dying and you can only insult others beliefs... The bigots it appears are right here on this thread. Those who insult the Christian God do make themselves as bad as any other bigot. I bet you all feel proud of yourselves. Tell me how does it feel to know you are as bad as any other bigot. Even they believe their beliefs given them right to insult others. Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics.
If there’s one thing a person dying of coronavirus needs, it’s thoughts and prayers. /sarcasm.
-
[Not eating shellfish] wasn't given as health advice, it was reported as a moral failing.
The reason given is that shellfish don't have fins or scales, so they are more likely to pick up some disease and transmit it to a person - like a vulture, which is also in the list. That's how I understand it anyway. Because of this, God said, 'they shall be unclean for you'. This wording points to the understanding that their prohibition was for symbolic reasons. Like how a male old lamb had to be unblemished to be acceptable for sacrifice.
-
Which all by itself shows that your god, if it existed, would be an unjust and unfair monster.
Do you mean that he is unjust and unfair because he doesn't let us eat from the tree of life? Seems a reasonable consequence to me.
-
Do you mean that he is unjust and unfair because he doesn't let us eat from the tree of life? Seems a reasonable consequence to me.
Because it doesn't like knowledge and then when it is gained by some visits vengeance and pain on their children? Yep he's an unjust unfair prick. You think it's reasonable that women suffer extreme pain in childbirth because of a planned event by your god? You worship a god of death, blood and evil.
-
Do you mean that he is unjust and unfair because he doesn't let us eat from the tree of life? Seems a reasonable consequence to me.
I mean that, if the silly Adam and Eve story was true, and your god made all their decedents pay for what they did, that is unjust and unfair. You and me didn't choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus disobeying the god character, did we? Mind you, how A&E were supposed to know that disobeying was wrong before they had knowledge of good and evil is yet another bizarre twist in the idiotic myth.
Your god, if it existed, would be punishing us for being the beings it made us. If we are all sinners in your story, that's because your omnipotent and omniscient god made us sinners. If it were a fair test, some of us wouldn't be sinners and wouldn't need "saving".
-
Because it doesn't like knowledge and then when it is gained by some visits vengeance and pain on their children? Yep he's an unjust unfair prick. You think it's reasonable that women suffer extreme pain in childbirth because of a planned event by your god? You worship a god of death, blood and evil.
Pain in general is useful, as it tells us something is wrong. The pain of childbirth is a reminder, like the pain of thorns and thistles.
https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html
Saying we are not responsible for doing wrong is like a child who is punished telling his parents if they knew he would be naughty they shouldn't have had him.
-
Pain in general is useful, as it tells us something is wrong. The pain of childbirth is a reminder, like the pain of thorns and thistles.
https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html
Saying we are not responsible for doing wrong is like a child who is punished telling his parents if they knew he would be naughty they shouldn't have had him.
You worship torture and pain.
-
Pain in general is useful, as it tells us something is wrong. The pain of childbirth is a reminder, like the pain of thorns and thistles.
https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html
Saying we are not responsible for doing wrong is like a child who is punished telling his parents if they knew he would be naughty they shouldn't have had him.
You're still making excuses for the inexcusable. Your god is morally repugnant. The whole Adam and Eve story exemplifies this because (at least in many versions of Christianity) we all become sinners because of their actions, rather than our own, and then face punishment for being the way this god made us. Regardless, as I said before, if nobody manages to live up to god's standard, then that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw. Created sick and commanded to be well (Christopher Hitchens?).
-
A couple of points:
1 After killing his brother, Cain went with his wife to the Land of Nod. Where the hell did his wife come from?
2 Sassy claims to be a christian and lauds the Ten Commandments. Didn't the founder of her religion say that there are only two commandments?
Love the Lord thy God; and thy neighbour as thyself?
-
The reason given is that shellfish don't have fins or scales, so they are more likely to pick up some disease and transmit it to a person - like a vulture, which is also in the list. That's how I understand it anyway. Because of this, God said, 'they shall be unclean for you'. This wording points to the understanding that their prohibition was for symbolic reasons. Like how a male old lamb had to be unblemished to be acceptable for sacrifice.
The specific claims are that various things are 'detestable' or 'ceremonially unclean' - in the absence of a germ theory of disease it's possible that this is attempting to avoid food that was difficult to sanitise at the time, but given that the passage is one in line of things that are 'ceremonially unclean', such as particular haircuts, sexual practices and farming techniques it's a little difficult to claim that it's about avoiding food poisoning. It's about establishing ritual rules to readily identify an in-group and to therefore justify 'othering' the out-group making them fair game for pretty much anything - after all, they're 'ceremonially unclean'...
O.
-
Do you mean that he is unjust and unfair because he doesn't let us eat from the tree of life? Seems a reasonable consequence to me.
I think it was the injustice of punishing someone for disobedience when they had no knowledge of good and evil (i.e. that disobedience might, under some circumstances, be morally wrong) until after they'd perpetrated the act.
The act of punishing someone else for you failing to implement adequate safeguards.
O.
-
People in the world are dying and you can only insult others beliefs... The bigots it appears are right here on this thread. Those who insult the Christian God do make themselves as bad as any other bigot. I bet you all feel proud of yourselves. Tell me how does it feel to know you are as bad as any other bigot. Even they believe their beliefs given them right to insult others. Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics.
Your God has no significance for me, hence I cannot blame Him for anything because of the simple fact that I have no belief in His existence. However, I see people like you and Spud, who do have a belief in this God, blaming human beings for the pain and suffering in this world and selecting only the good things to show that this is a just and benevolent God. The fact is that according to your beliefs God created human beings and gave them free will, yet, it seems, He does not take ultimate responsibility for their actions. Instead, because of some mythological story(Adam and Eve) He curses both them and their offspring and we are then all labelled sinners from then on.
I have a very dear friend, who in her youth had an illegitimate baby at a time when society was much more Christian orientated and condemned such occurrences. Although I put this on the Message board some years ago, let me tell you her story in her own words:
At the age of eighteen I was unmarried and pregnant. This was in the early sixties. It was considered by society, at that time, that to be pregnant and unmarried was unacceptable. So my only option was a mother and baby home resulting in adoption. The home that was chosen for me was run by a group of catholic nuns.
The home consisted of two large Victorian houses, one to house girls until six weeks pre birth. The last six weeks of pregnancy, birth and time spent waiting for the adoption to be arranged, was spent in the adjoining house.
We had to pay our board and lodgings. Except that each week our personal finances were reviewed by the nuns and if they considered we had too much money, they took it. I hid mine to avoid this!
Food was often inadequate, yet if questioned the amounts changed temporarily.
We were allowed little in respect of personal items.
We were not allowed post, we had to use the local Post office.
Friendships were discouraged and girls were split up when these became obvious.
We had little freedom, times allowed out were rigid with one late pass per month til 10pm.
No telephone, no family visitors allowed.
Little pre or post natal care.
No discussion or advice whatsoever about having a baby.
No understanding shown about the situation we were in.
Little or no conversation with nuns.
We worked constantly doing household tasks.
No entertainment, no tv, radio, music.
We had to attend the 'in house church' every day, being repeatedly told about the error of our ways. Constantly riminded that we had no one to blame but ourselves. We had to pray to God for forgiveness or we would go to hell.
No information about the actual adoption, the nuns were doing us a favour in removing the baby, giving it a chance for a decent life!
Any girl wanting to keep their baby was put under huge pressure to change their mind. Most did.
We felt that this pressure indicated that the babies were being sold, but I know of no evidence for this!
The whole experience was one of being in a prison with hard cold people who cared nothing for us or the babies.
Girls were not allowed to help each other when a birth was imminent.We were locked out of the delivery room.
I have no memory of the birth, except a dark room and a strange smell. I cannot remember having a baby.
The nuns were cold. They did not appear to care about us at all. Their regime had to be followed at all costs and it was an arduous one.
We were not allowed to care for our babies, the nursery being locked after feeds so that a mother could not attend to a crying baby. Consequently the house was always full of the sound of screaming babies.
I was lucky in some respects. My baby had a low birth weight, so I had to do an extra feed at 2am. I would spend most of the night nursing my baby going to bed about half an hour before 6am. (Time to get up and feed)
When the time came to give up the baby we were told the night before and given no information whatsoever about this process.
I had to find my own way with all my luggage and a baby, to a central building in the city, where the head nun just said "hello", took the baby and told me to leave.
We were not allowed any information about the adoptees and had to sign a form giving up all rights to the baby.
The ethos was coldness and punishment with the constant reminder that we were sinners and had to pray daily for Gods forgiveness.
According to my moral sense, I find this attitude of condemnation repugnant, irresponsible and damaging. It basically stems from the idea that people are sinful and they must seek salvation. Such a God does not portray benevolence in my eyes and is not deserving of any type of worship. As I find my attitude to be a completely rational attitude to take, I refute your accusation of bigotry and will continue to challenge such hateful ideas(such as those produced by Spud on this thread) either on this message board or elsewhere as often as I see fit.
-
It takes two to make a baby, yet it was always the female who suffered the condemnation in the bad old days! >:(
-
well said ,enki . I'm right with you .
-
Your God has no significance for me, hence I cannot blame Him for anything because of the simple fact that I have no belief in His existence. However, I see people like you and Spud, who do have a belief in this God, blaming human beings for the pain and suffering in this world and selecting only the good things to show that this is a just and benevolent God. The fact is that according to your beliefs God created human beings and gave them free will, yet, it seems, He does not take ultimate responsibility for their actions. Instead, because of some mythological story(Adam and Eve) He curses both them and their offspring and we are then all labelled sinners from then on.
I have a very dear friend, who in her youth had an illegitimate baby at a time when society was much more Christian orientated and condemned such occurrences. Although I put this on the Message board some years ago, let me tell you her story in her own words:
According to my moral sense, I find this attitude of condemnation repugnant, irresponsible and damaging. It basically stems from the idea that people are sinful and they must seek salvation. Such a God does not portray benevolence in my eyes and is not deserving of any type of worship. As I find my attitude to be a completely rational attitude to take, I refute your accusation of bigotry and will continue to challenge such hateful ideas(such as those produced by Spud on this thread) either on this message board or elsewhere as often as I see fit.
Right on! Now watch as the Christains deny your whole argument on the ground that you are a human being and therefore your argument is fallaible which their beknighted God is not!
-
Right on! Now watch as the Christains deny your whole argument on the ground that you are a human being and therefore your argument is fallaible which their beknighted God is not!
That'll only be a problem when God comes to make his own argument. Until then we only have fallible humans making fallible arguments...
O.
-
That'll only be a problem when God comes to make his own argument. Until then we only have fallible humans making fallible arguments...
O.
. . . we only have fallible humans making fallible arguments!
aaaaagggghhhhh!!!!! HERESY!! Said no-one who is not Christian!
-
Just for laughs;
https://youtu.be/-ZuowNcuGsc
-
The reason given is that shellfish don't have fins or scales, so they are more likely to pick up some disease and transmit it to a person - like a vulture, which is also in the list. That's how I understand it anyway. Because of this, God said, 'they shall be unclean for you'. This wording points to the understanding that their prohibition was for symbolic reasons. Like how a male old lamb had to be unblemished to be acceptable for sacrifice.
'God said'? God?
-
Pain in general is useful, as it tells us something is wrong. The pain of childbirth is a reminder, like the pain of thorns and thistles.
https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html
Saying we are not responsible for doing wrong is like a child who is punished telling his parents if they knew he would be naughty they shouldn't have had him.
Nobody has said we are not responsible fo doing wrong. What they have said is we are not responsible for Adam and Eve doing wrong.
-
Nobody has said we are not responsible for doing wrong. What they have said is we are not responsible for Adam and Eve doing wrong.
The Christian God is a loving God who loves all Christians. Supposedly he loves the entire population of the world.
Yet every woman for the last 2,000+++++ years has had to suffer the pains of chilbirth because ONE woman, who, in all probability never existed, fancied an apple from the garden in which she and her husband, who also, in all probability, never existed, lived.
Loving God, my a**e!
In the above example a vicious, sadistic tyrant more like.
-
Spud, this applies to you in the way gloves apply to hands: “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too”? (Douglas Addams), oh yes there's another one of his that would also apply: 'I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.'
I really wonder why the average religioso is so blinded by their religo stuff that they can't see the rather obvious signs of 'man made' bronze age nonsense, from the days when they didn't even know it was the Earth orbiting the Sun not the other way around.
Talking snakes, coming back from the dead, one way vaginas, another one riding a horse up to who knows where when he died, walking on water, a few fish feeding five thousand people? come on and that's only a few of the superstitional magical mythological stories we're supposed to take in as wrote.
It's about time we should be addressing these believers in a professional way, with something like: 'Oh yes, don't worry Mr or Mrs Whoever come in, have a lie down, we'll have a chat about it, now what were you saying'?
But no, it's now the 21st century and they're still here?
ippy.
-
I have a very dear friend, who in her youth had an illegitimate baby at a time when society was much more Christian orientated and condemned such occurrences. Although I put this on the Message board some years ago, let me tell you her story in her own words:
"...When the time came to give up the baby we were told the night before and given no information whatsoever about this process.
I had to find my own way with all my luggage and a baby, to a central building in the city, where the head nun just said "hello", took the baby and told me to leave...."
Enki, I had a browse through a list of scripture that might apply to the issue of children outside marriage, and found this: "The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt." Job 24:9.
-
Enki, I had a browse through a list of scripture that might apply to the issue of children outside marriage, and found this: "The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt." Job 24:9.
Lovely!!!! >:( That doesn't say anything good about your version of god
-
Enki, I had a browse through a list of scripture that might apply to the issue of children outside marriage, and found this: "The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt." Job 24:9.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Why aren't I surprised at that? Your attitude is summed up completely in your own words.
No, God is not evil, he takes everyone's life because we are all sinners.
And what those nuns did, in their callous way, was illustrating what you believe. A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities. As I see it, the fact that such a God was created by human beings and has been worshipped and lauded by more human beings is a testament to the dangers inherent in a belief system where our natural feelings can be so manipulated and distorted.
-
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Why aren't I surprised at that? Your attitude is summed up completely in your own words.
And what those nuns did, in their callous way, was illustrating what you believe. A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities. As I see it, the fact that such a God was created by human beings and has been worshipped and lauded by more human beings is a testament to the dangers inherent in a belief system where our natural feelings can be so manipulated and distorted.
Bit of a long winded way of saying, all religions quiet obviously are man made nonsense.
I agree with you Enki.
Regards, ippy.
-
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Why aren't I surprised at that? Your attitude is summed up completely in your own words.
And what those nuns did, in their callous way, was illustrating what you believe. A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities. As I see it, the fact that such a God was created by human beings and has been worshipped and lauded by more human beings is a testament to the dangers inherent in a belief system where our natural feelings can be so manipulated and distorted.
No, I was showing that in the case of the Nuns' bigotry against single mothers, you cannot use the Bible to support that because it clearly condemns it, as shown by the verse I quoted from Job. No-one has any right to separate children from their mothers as they did.
As to missing the point you want addressed, "A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities."
The answer may be there in Genesis 3, in that Adam blamed God for putting Eve there with him, and Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her. Likewise, you blame God for not making sure we wouldn't disobey him.
Having originally blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it", God then made this two-fold role painful for them (difficult childbirth and gardening). Also, they would return to the dust from which they had been made. Yet he promised that despite this, the serpent would one day be crushed through their offspring. There is more to say, but it hasn't come to me yet.
-
Having originally blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it", God then made this two-fold role painful for them (difficult childbirth and gardening). Also, they would return to the dust from which they had been made. Yet he promised that despite this, the serpent would one day be crushed through their offspring. There is more to say, but it hasn't come to me yet.
Two thousand years plus since He supposedly said this, and dozens of other things that were to come to pass, and it still hasn't come to pass! Just what is your omnipotent God waiting for before he fulfils all his promises and predictions?
Someone to step up and do it for Him. possibly?
Stand up Mr Trump!
Or maybe YOU could do it for him Spud!
-
No, I was showing that in the case of the Nuns' bigotry against single mothers, you cannot use the Bible to support that because it clearly condemns it, as shown by the verse I quoted from Job. No-one has any right to separate children from their mothers as they did.
As to missing the point you want addressed, "A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities."
The answer may be there in Genesis 3, in that Adam blamed God for putting Eve there with him, and Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her. Likewise, you blame God for not making sure we wouldn't disobey him.
Having originally blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it", God then made this two-fold role painful for them (difficult childbirth and gardening). Also, they would return to the dust from which they had been made. Yet he promised that despite this, the serpent would one day be crushed through their offspring. There is more to say, but it hasn't come to me yet.
Ah Job. That's the book in which God allows an innocent and pious man to be subjected to various psychological and physical torture and allows his children to be slaughtered essentially just to prove Satan wrong about his piety.
Your god is a monster.
-
No, I was showing that in the case of the Nuns' bigotry against single mothers, you cannot use the Bible to support that because it clearly condemns it, as shown by the verse I quoted from Job. No-one has any right to separate children from their mothers as they did.
As to missing the point you want addressed, "A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities."
The answer may be there in Genesis 3, in that Adam blamed God for putting Eve there with him, and Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her. Likewise, you blame God for not making sure we wouldn't disobey him.
Having originally blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it", God then made this two-fold role painful for them (difficult childbirth and gardening). Also, they would return to the dust from which they had been made. Yet he promised that despite this, the serpent would one day be crushed through their offspring. There is more to say, but it hasn't come to me yet.
How can anyone love or respect a god as evil as the one in the Bible? If any god exists I hope it's character is good and decent.
-
Spud,
No, I was showing that in the case of the Nuns' bigotry against single mothers, you cannot use the Bible to support that because it clearly condemns it, as shown by the verse I quoted from Job. No-one has any right to separate children from their mothers as they did.
The trouble is, Spud, that this was the prevailing position of whole swathes of Christians in the fifties and sixties. Indeed, most churches(including evangelical) and the Salvation Army set up such homes with varying degrees of humanity/inhumanity to their clients. They didn't seem to bother about your particular quote, did they? The unmarried mother was the one who had sinned and had brought shame to their household. And the churches were happy to collude with the governments of the day in producing 'baby farms' to address the awkward 'immoral' situation of unmarried mothers and illegitimacy.
The answer may be there in Genesis 3, in that Adam blamed God for putting Eve there with him, and Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her. Likewise, you blame God for not making sure we wouldn't disobey him.
Again, you seem to miss the point entirely. I don't blame your God because I have no belief in any God. I really don't care who blamed who. What I am concerned about is the negative influence such ridiculous stories have had and still have upon real people.
Having originally blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it", God then made this two-fold role painful for them (difficult childbirth and gardening). Also, they would return to the dust from which they had been made. Yet he promised that despite this, the serpent would one day be crushed through their offspring. There is more to say, but it hasn't come to me yet.
What on earth is this a justification of? All it suggests is that this God of yours was some sort of tyrannical dictator doling out punishment and benevolence according to His own whims. It has no bearing on the idea that a just God would take ultimate responsibility for his machinations instead of the ancestral punishing of human beings.
-
As to missing the point you want addressed, "A God who gave two humans the potential to be sinful and furthermore decided that all the descendents should be punished because they exercised that potential, deserves condemnation because He is shirking His ultimate responsibilities."
God made them and put them there. God failed to adequately protect them from the dangers - if you don't want people who have no understanding of right and wrong (akin to, say, children) from eating your fruit, you put fences around the fruit you don't say 'it's wrong to eat the fruit'. You don't leave bare wires exposed in a house and tell the kids 'don't touch' because you get electrocuted children - that's not their fault, that's yours. In this instance, God has failed in his duty of care - that's presuming, of course, that it's somehow necessary to punish Adam and Eve for having knowledge, which is questionable in the first instance.
The answer may be there in Genesis 3, in that Adam blamed God for putting Eve there with him, and Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her. Likewise, you blame God for not making sure we wouldn't disobey him.
Yep. God's fault, all the way - he's the system designer, he's the architect, he failed to design safety into his garden.
O.
-
God made them and put them there. God failed to adequately protect them from the dangers - if you don't want people who have no understanding of right and wrong (akin to, say, children) from eating your fruit, you put fences around the fruit you don't say 'it's wrong to eat the fruit'. You don't leave bare wires exposed in a house and tell the kids 'don't touch' because you get electrocuted children - that's not their fault, that's yours. In this instance, God has failed in his duty of care - that's presuming, of course, that it's somehow necessary to punish Adam and Eve for having knowledge, which is questionable in the first instance.
Yep. God's fault, all the way - he's the system designer, he's the architect, he failed to design safety into his garden.
O.
It's an allegory, (Moderator: content removed)! It's typical of aggressive atheists, especially on here, to take the most literalistic, stupidest version of Christianity, and pretend that it is mainstream Christian belief.
-
It's an allegory, (Moderator: quoted content removed)! It's typical of aggressive atheists, especially on here, to take the most literalistic, stupidest version of Christianity, and pretend that it is mainstream Christian belief.
Except Outrider was replying to Spud who does appear to take it literally and not as allegory so your little bit of foot stamping is specious.
-
It's an allegory, (Moderator: quoted content removed)! It's typical of aggressive atheists, especially on here, to take the most literalistic, stupidest version of Christianity, and pretend that it is mainstream Christian belief.
For some it's an allegory - it's still a bad allegory - but for some it's literal truth. Regardless, it's still not a good message - fundamentally the lessons here are:
Those who acquire knowledge must be punished;
Those who are descendants of those who must be punished must also be punished for the transgressions of others;
God has no responsibility for the failures of his design.
Unless the concept of 'sin' is also 'allegorical', in which case the whole thing is just a second-rate Roald Dahl story waiting for it's third rate film adaptation.
As it is, I believe Spud (to whom I was replying) DOES think this is the literal case - I'll apologise if I'm misremembering that, but I was under the impression that was the case.
O.
-
No, Outy, you're not wrong. This is what Spud said in post 685:
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and we all, including unborn children, share in the consequence of their choice. They were denied access to the tree of life, and so they and we experience suffering which results in death. We also make choices that have the potential to cause suffering: a woman who smokes during pregnancy, for example.
-
These days most Christians aren't Biblical literalists, but there are still many who are, Spud being one of them.
-
Ah Job. That's the book in which God allows an innocent and pious man to be subjected to various psychological and physical torture and allows his children to be slaughtered essentially just to prove Satan wrong about his piety.
Your god is a monster.
The key thing in the Bible is that spiritual separation from God is worse than physical/psychological suffering. Job's trials were apparently a necessary part of the overall humiliation and defeat of Satan. They show how Adam should have acted when tested in the garden: Satan accused God of prohibiting the fruit in order to prevent Adam gaining wisdom. Adam should have refused, as Job refused to curse God (what Satan wanted him to do) when tempted by his wife to do so.
-
God made them and put them there. God failed to adequately protect them from the dangers - if you don't want people who have no understanding of right and wrong (akin to, say, children) from eating your fruit, you put fences around the fruit you don't say 'it's wrong to eat the fruit'. You don't leave bare wires exposed in a house and tell the kids 'don't touch' because you get electrocuted children - that's not their fault, that's yours. In this instance, God has failed in his duty of care - that's presuming, of course, that it's somehow necessary to punish Adam and Eve for having knowledge, which is questionable in the first instance.
Yep. God's fault, all the way - he's the system designer, he's the architect, he failed to design safety into his garden.
O.
Noted. At this stage I'm just pointing out that Adam and Eve responded in the same way by laying the responsibility for their actions on someone else.
-
Spud,
The trouble is, Spud, that this was the prevailing position of whole swathes of Christians in the fifties and sixties. Indeed, most churches(including evangelical) and the Salvation Army set up such homes with varying degrees of humanity/inhumanity to their clients. They didn't seem to bother about your particular quote, did they? The unmarried mother was the one who had sinned and had brought shame to their household. And the churches were happy to collude with the governments of the day in producing 'baby farms' to address the awkward 'immoral' situation of unmarried mothers and illegitimacy.
If their aim was to help single mothers, then there was no problem with housing them or in worst cases, adopting their babies. The problem with the Nuns you mentioned was that they seem to have been doing it for their own profit. The wrongness of single motherhood does not excuse baby snatching, as Job says.
-
Two thousand years plus since He supposedly said this, and dozens of other things that were to come to pass, and it still hasn't come to pass! Just what is your omnipotent God waiting for before he fulfils all his promises and predictions?
Two thousand years ago is when Jesus defeated death, in fulfillment of Genesis 3.
-
These days most Christians aren't Biblical literalists, but there are still many who are, Spud being one of them.
Sanity from an unexpected source! ;D
-
Sanity from an unexpected source! ;D
Thanks so much. :P ;D
-
Job's trials were apparently a necessary part of the overall humiliation and defeat of Satan.
Satan essentially had a bet with God and God allowed him to do pretty much what he liked to Job in order to win the bet. Why God needs to allow Satan to torture humans in order to beat him is anybody's guess.
They show how Adam should have acted when tested in the garden: Satan accused God of prohibiting the fruit in order to prevent Adam gaining wisdom.
And Satan was correct. That's exactly why God prohibited Adam from eating the fruit.
Adam should have refused, as Job refused to curse God (what Satan wanted him to do) when tempted by his wife to do so.
And by eating the fruit Adam and Eve escaped slavery in God's garden.
-
Just for laughs;
https://youtu.be/-ZuowNcuGsc
Sorry Walter, I missed this somehow and have only just watched it - the level of English Usage in the messages he receives gives a brilliant demonstration of the fact that it does not require any but the most basic level of intelligence to be Christian!
-
With apologies to Monty python:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
I really do not think any apology is necessary as this version is far more accurate and inclusive than the Christian version!
-
People in the world are dying and you can only insult others beliefs...
According to your beliefs yuor God is inflicting these deaths as part of his punishment of the human race, starting from Adam and Eve, for its disobedience of His laws.
The bigots it appears are right here on this thread. Those who insult the Christian God do make themselves as bad as any other bigot. I bet you all feel proud of yourselves. Tell me how does it feel to know you are as bad as any other bigot. Even they believe their beliefs given them right to insult others. Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics.
I think that this paragraph shows all too clearly who the bigot in this conversation is and it is not the Non-Christians!
Look in a mirror, Sassy, and you will see one of the biggest bigots on this Forum.
-
It's typical of aggressive atheists, especially on here, to take the most literalistic, stupidest version of Christianity, and pretend that it is mainstream Christian belief.
Maybe, just maybe, this may be because the most literalistic, stupidest version of Christianity is the version peddled from the Bible that is used to teach young children what Christianity is all about!
-
Noted. At this stage I'm just pointing out that Adam and Eve responded in the same way by laying the responsibility for their actions on someone else.
They were half-right - it wasn't their fault, it was God's.
O.
-
If their aim was to help single mothers, then there was no problem with housing them or in worst cases, adopting their babies. The problem with the Nuns you mentioned was that they seem to have been doing it for their own profit. The wrongness of single motherhood does not excuse baby snatching, as Job says.
True to form, Spud, yet again you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The 'home' that my friend went to was characterized by the cold and judgmental nature of the nuns who looked after them. They showed no understanding of the mothers' needs nor those of their babies. They emphasised the 'sinfulness' of the mother and were strict to the point of harshness in their treatment of them. Whether they sold the babies or had them adopted through the legitimate channels of the day is simply conjecture in this case. The story that my friend told is very little different to others who have told their story of similar treatment. The God you seem to worship, Spud,is one that encourages that type of behaviour in my opinion. Indeed, you seem totally preoccupied by the conjecture that the nuns might have sold the babies for profit without seeing fit to criticise and condemn their callous behaviour. Indeed, all you have got to say on this count, is "If their aim was to help single mothers, then there was no problem with housing them or in worst cases, adopting their babies." I think that says it all.
-
True to form, Spud, yet again you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The 'home' that my friend went to was characterized by the cold and judgmental nature of the nuns who looked after them. They showed no understanding of the mothers' needs nor those of their babies. They emphasised the 'sinfulness' of the mother and were strict to the point of harshness in their treatment of them. Whether they sold the babies or had them adopted through the legitimate channels of the day is simply conjecture in this case. The story that my friend told is very little different to others who have told their story of similar treatment. The God you seem to worship, Spud,is one that encourages that type of behaviour in my opinion. Indeed, you seem totally preoccupied by the conjecture that the nuns might have sold the babies for profit without seeing fit to criticise and condemn their callous behaviour. Indeed, all you have got to say on this count, is "If their aim was to help single mothers, then there was no problem with housing them or in worst cases, adopting their babies." I think that says it all.
I think you've got to be a bit odd in the first place to want to be a nun, a shame but but there it is, or it should be a free world and if that's what people wish to do, fair enough.
Regards, ippy.
-
True to form, Spud, yet again you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The 'home' that my friend went to was characterized by the cold and judgmental nature of the nuns who looked after them. They showed no understanding of the mothers' needs nor those of their babies. They emphasised the 'sinfulness' of the mother and were strict to the point of harshness in their treatment of them.
So, Exodus 22:16 has this to say,
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife. 17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, the man still must pay an amount comparable to the bridal price of a virgin.…"
So the nuns may have been right that sex should be for marriage, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests women should have babies taken away. Their actions should have reflected God's mercy but did not.
The whole point of having a written law for what to do in that situation was to make people think twice before getting into it in the first place. One cannot blame the Bible for the nuns' actions.
-
So, Exodus 22:16 has this to say,
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife. 17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, the man still must pay an amount comparable to the bridal price of a virgin.…"
So the nuns may have been right that sex should be for marriage, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests women should have babies taken away. Their actions should have reflected God's mercy but did not.
The whole point of having a written law for what to do in that situation was to make people think twice before getting into it in the first place. One cannot blame the Bible for the nuns' actions.
Mercy and the Biblical god is an oxymoron.
-
For some it's an allegory - it's still a bad allegory - but for some it's literal truth. Regardless, it's still not a good message - fundamentally the lessons here are:
Those who acquire knowledge must be punished;
Those who are descendants of those who must be punished must also be punished for the transgressions of others;
God has no responsibility for the failures of his design.
Unless the concept of 'sin' is also 'allegorical', in which case the whole thing is just a second-rate Roald Dahl story waiting for it's third rate film adaptation.
As it is, I believe Spud (to whom I was replying) DOES think this is the literal case - I'll apologise if I'm misremembering that, but I was under the impression that was the case.
O.
You totally miss the point.
The Adam and Eve story illustrates two fundamental realities:
1. The existence and power of human free will.
2. The nature and source of temptation which exploits this free will.
-
The Adam and Eve story illustrates two fundamental realities:
1. The existence and power of human free will.
2. The nature and source of temptation which exploits this free will.
So it's a fairy story about a facet of human consciousness which probably doesn't exist, supported by the second deity in this monotheistic display? It doesn't demonstrate any 'fundamental realities' it just throws more unsubstantiable nonsense into an already irreconcilable pile of pseudo-mythic incompatibilities that still clearly puts any blame on the god figure within the narrative.
If 'free will' is bad enough to merit punishment, why are Adam and Even (made with curiosity but not imparted with the capacity to tell right fro wrong) put in a position to access the tree? If Adam and Eve didn't have this free will, which is apparent intrinsic to humans, in what way were they human? Why is everyone in history subject to punishment because of what they did?
It's just palpable nonsense even at an allegoric level.
O.
-
So, Exodus 22:16 has this to say,
"... man still must pay an amount comparable to the bridal price of a virgin.…"
You should ponder on the implication of that sentence.
-
You should ponder on the implication of that sentence.
Yes he should. >:(
-
So it's a fairy story about a facet of human consciousness which probably doesn't exist, supported by the second deity in this monotheistic display? It doesn't demonstrate any 'fundamental realities' it just throws more unsubstantiable nonsense into an already irreconcilable pile of pseudo-mythic incompatibilities that still clearly puts any blame on the god figure within the narrative.
If 'free will' is bad enough to merit punishment, why are Adam and Even (made with curiosity but not imparted with the capacity to tell right fro wrong) put in a position to access the tree? If Adam and Eve didn't have this free will, which is apparent intrinsic to humans, in what way were they human? Why is everyone in history subject to punishment because of what they did?
It's just palpable nonsense even at an allegoric level.
O.
Spot on Outrider but you'll never get through to the real Alan, he's been indoctrinated beyond reach, the poor bloke, not working at any kind of sensible reasoning level.
Regards, ippy.
-
So, Exodus 22:16 has this to say,
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife. 17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, the man still must pay an amount comparable to the bridal price of a virgin.…"
So the nuns may have been right that sex should be for marriage, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests women should have babies taken away. Their actions should have reflected God's mercy but did not.
The whole point of having a written law for what to do in that situation was to make people think twice before getting into it in the first place. One cannot blame the Bible for the nuns' actions.
Your God is:
a god who decides that anyone gathering sticks on the sabbath should be put to death
a god who decides that drinking alocohol before goiny to church is punishable by death
a god who suggests that a stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death
a god who suggests that the punishment for being an adulterer or a prostitute or for cursing your mother or father should be(yes, you've guessed it) put to death
a god who suggests that for eating fat your soul should be cut off from others
a god who describes children as prey
a god who suggests that beating children with rods is showing them love, but not beating them is showing them hate
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who didn't want people with physical blemishes to serve him bread, blemishes such as mutilated faces, broken limbs, defective sight, dwarves, hunchbacks, those with an itching disease, scabs or crushed testicles!!
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who who wouldn't allow bastards or their offspring for ten generations to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's crotch whilst the vow is made
a god who encouraged the stoning to death of an entire family for the mistakes of the father
a god who killed 50070 men for looking in his box(the Ark of the Covenant)
And you think that I should take notice of what the Bible, specifically the OT, has to say? And then I should take note of this God's moral wisdom? And then I should listen to you talking about your 'God's mercy'? You're bullshitting me!
The OT presents an error strewn, petulant, dictatorial, sadistic, incompetent, silly and unworthy god. it is an apology for a god.
The Bible has been and still is a major influence upon Christianity. It is their 'Holy Book' and it has played its part, especially in the OT, in excusing and guiding the bad behaviour promulgated by Christians. My original reply was to Sassy when she said " Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics."
I don't blame God at all. I don't believe in her or your God. However 'man's own ugly characteristics' are there in all their glory in the OT, as part and parcel of the god that humans have created, and the one that you seem to wish to emulate.
-
Mercy and the Biblical god is an oxymoron.
The book of Jonah shows the Biblical God is merciful.
You should ponder on the implication of that sentence.
What are you saying? Is this not comparable to modern men buying their fiancee an engagement ring.
-
The book of Jonah shows the Biblical God is merciful.
That is a joke! >:(
-
The book of Jonah shows the Biblical God is merciful.
The book of Noddy shows that he lives in Toyland.
What are you saying? Is this not comparable to modern men buying their fiancee an engagement ring.
No.
-
The book of Noddy shows that he lives in Toyland.
No.
I particularly like this post Gordon, even though it's not quiet as parchment like as most, ;D ;D.
Regards, ippy.
-
Was this thread briefly a sticky recently, or did I imagine or dream it?
-
Was this thread briefly a sticky recently, or did I imagine or dream it?
The board works in mysterious ways
-
What are you saying? Is this not comparable to modern men buying their fiancee an engagement ring.
How can you be so confident you understand what the Bible says when you so egregiously misunderstand what that sentence was saying.
Hint: it was talking about the price you pay a father for his daughter.
-
Your God is:
a god who decides that anyone gathering sticks on the sabbath should be put to death
a god who decides that drinking alocohol before goiny to church is punishable by death
a god who suggests that a stubborn and rebellious son should be... [continues]
Sealioning, or perhaps a Gish gallop.
-
The book of Jonah shows the Biblical God is merciful.
Because he took mercy on someone he'd been torturing in order to decide a bet he'd made in a bar with his dark alter-ego? That's not 'mercy' that's 'an abusive, controlling relationship'.
O.
-
Sealioning, or perhaps a Gish gallop.
Neither, just honest reactions to verses from the OT which have been quoted at me.
A gish gallop is continually presenting new arguments without answering the ones already directed at you. This isn't a gish gallop because all these are examples of the same argument, that the God presented in the OT has unsavoury characteristics. You probably were not aware but funnily enough, some years ago, on this very message board, Spud had an involved argument with a person called Richard Forrest, a scientist, on the subject of evolution. In this exchange, Spud would not answer the questions put to him, but continually posed new ones and was rightly accused by Richard as using the gish gallop technique. Some of the older members of this Message Board might remember it.
As for the idea of sealioning, I leave it to others, not you, to decide whether I am a troll. However, as I am not asking any questions, I can't be sealioning.
-
Sealioning, or perhaps a Gish gallop.
Neither of which would actually invalidate the point that you're still not coming up with a cogent argument to, even if either were true.
O.
-
How can you be so confident you understand what the Bible says when you so egregiously misunderstand what that sentence was saying.
Hint: it was talking about the price you pay a father for his daughter.
Which wasn't supposed to be a profit-making custom. I would guess it was a way in which the groom would demonstrate his commitment, such that if he ever left her she could live off the money he'd given. I recently quoted a passage in which it specifically referred to a divorced woman going back to live with her parents.
-
Because he took mercy on someone he'd been torturing in order to decide a bet he'd made in a bar with his dark alter-ego? That's not 'mercy' that's 'an abusive, controlling relationship'.
O.
Eh? I meant the 120,000+ people of Nineveh who he spared.
-
Neither, just honest reactions to verses from the OT which have been quoted at me.
A gish gallop is continually presenting new arguments without answering the ones already directed at you. This isn't a gish gallop because all these are examples of the same argument, that the God presented in the OT has unsavoury characteristics. You probably were not aware but funnily enough, some years ago, on this very message board, Spud had an involved argument with a person called Richard Forrest, a scientist, on the subject of evolution. In this exchange, Spud would not answer the questions put to him, but continually posed new ones and was rightly accused by Richard as using the gish gallop technique. Some of the older members of this Message Board might remember it.
As for the idea of sealioning, I leave it to others, not you, to decide whether I am a troll. However, as I am not asking any questions, I can't be sealioning.
From where I sat, it seemed like Richard demanded answers to a million and one questions, then wouldn't let Spud discuss further until he'd answered every single one of them. And you weren't allowed to disagree with him either. Totally unprofessional.
-
Your God is:
a god who decides that anyone gathering sticks on the sabbath should be put to death
a god who decides that drinking alocohol before goiny to church is punishable by death
a god who suggests that a stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death
a god who suggests that the punishment for being an adulterer or a prostitute or for cursing your mother or father should be(yes, you've guessed it) put to death
a god who suggests that for eating fat your soul should be cut off from others
a god who describes children as prey
a god who suggests that beating children with rods is showing them love, but not beating them is showing them hate
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who didn't want people with physical blemishes to serve him bread, blemishes such as mutilated faces, broken limbs, defective sight, dwarves, hunchbacks, those with an itching disease, scabs or crushed testicles!!
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who who wouldn't allow bastards or their offspring for ten generations to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's crotch whilst the vow is made
a god who encouraged the stoning to death of an entire family for the mistakes of the father
a god who killed 50070 men for looking in his box(the Ark of the Covenant)
And you think that I should take notice of what the Bible, specifically the OT, has to say? And then I should take note of this God's moral wisdom? And then I should listen to you talking about your 'God's mercy'? You're bullshitting me!
The OT presents an error strewn, petulant, dictatorial, sadistic, incompetent, silly and unworthy god. it is an apology for a god.
The Bible has been and still is a major influence upon Christianity. It is their 'Holy Book' and it has played its part, especially in the OT, in excusing and guiding the bad behaviour promulgated by Christians. My original reply was to Sassy when she said " Nah you cannot blame God for mans own ugly characteristics."
I don't blame God at all. I don't believe in her or your God. However 'man's own ugly characteristics' are there in all their glory in the OT, as part and parcel of the god that humans have created, and the one that you seem to wish to emulate.
Your examples need to be viewed in the light of what I said earlier: that from God's perspective, spiritual death is worse than physical death. When people rebel against Him persistently they show that they are spiritually dead. This was the reason for the judgment on the Canaanites. It also explains why punishments you described were so harsh. It teaches us not to harden our hearts (Psalm something)
-
Eh? I meant the 120,000+ people of Nineveh who he spared.
Not that this disqualifies the nature of that 'mercy', but not perpetrating genocide isn't 'mercy'! if that's where you're setting the bar for perfect moral behaviour, then I'm a god too, I've not committed genocide yet...
O.
-
Because he took mercy on someone he'd been torturing in order to decide a bet he'd made in a bar with his dark alter-ego? That's not 'mercy' that's 'an abusive, controlling relationship'.
O.
I think you're confusing Job and Jonah. Jonah was the one that God had eaten by a fish to force him to do his bidding.
-
Which wasn't supposed to be a profit-making custom. I would guess it was a way in which the groom would demonstrate his commitment, such that if he ever left her she could live off the money he'd given. I recently quoted a passage in which it specifically referred to a divorced woman going back to live with her parents.
It's putting a price on a human being. It reduces a woman to the level of a possession.
Also, the fact that it talks about a virgin bride tells us that women who were not virgins were considered to be damaged goods. I bet the dowry didn't increase if the prospective husband was not a virgin.
-
It's putting a price on a human being. It reduces a woman to the level of a possession.
Also, the fact that it talks about a virgin bride tells us that women who were not virgins were considered to be damaged goods. I bet the dowry didn't increase if the prospective husband was not a virgin.
Good post.
-
a god who killed 50070 men for looking in his box(the Ark of the Covenant)
I'd be pretty peed off if 50070 men looked in my box.
-
Your examples need to be viewed in the light of what I said earlier: that from God's perspective, spiritual death is worse than physical death. When people rebel against Him persistently they show that they are spiritually dead.
It would depend upon what 'spiritual death' actually meant. There are plenty of people who would claim to be spiritually imbued without recourse to believing in the God of the OT. It seems that what you are suggesting is that this God decided that anyone who didn't follow Him would be described as being spiritually dead, especially if they had the temerity to rebel against Him. How convenient!
This was the reason for the judgment on the Canaanites. It also explains why punishments you described were so harsh.
Well it's certainly an excuse, although a pretty lame one, for some of the unjustified and reprehensible punishments that I referred to. As I have already said, this God fails to take ultimate responsibility for His creations, and, if He actually existed, should be castigated for his ugly and unpleasant behaviour.
It teaches us not to harden our hearts (Psalm something)
In which case He should have taken heed of his own advice and not been instrumental in hardening hearts himself, or, if he failed to do so, then He should have punished Himself or He would have laid Himself open to be called a hypocrite.
Unfortunately, you seem to show the same penchant in attempting to justify the unjustifiable as plenty of Christians have shown over the years, attitudes which have sadly led to heartache and suffering in numerous cases.
-
I'd be pretty peed off if 50070 men looked in my box.
I'm sure you would, Vlad. ;) But would you feel peed off enough to kill them?
-
Enki, They were hard times in those days. It was a brutal world, after all, amongst other things the OT is the story of national survival and that always requires extraordinary disciplinary measures and laws. Also there are mythic and legendary aspects about the stories. And remember we hide metal tubes at the bottom of the sea with devices that can incinerate millions, not just smite 50070.
Christians look upon the OT through the lens of the New Testament.
-
Enki, They were hard times in those days. It was a brutal world, after all, amongst other things the OT is the story of national survival and that always requires extraordinary disciplinary measures and laws. Also there are mythic and legendary aspects about the stories. And remember we hide metal tubes at the bottom of the sea with devices that can incinerate millions, not just smite 50070.
Christians look upon the OT through the lens of the New Testament.
EXCUSES, EXCUSES! >:(
-
EXCUSES, EXCUSES! >:(
Remember, your taxes go to weapons of mass destruction.
-
Your God is:
a god who decides that anyone gathering sticks on the sabbath should be put to death
a god who decides that drinking alocohol before goiny to church is punishable by death
a god who suggests that a stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death
a god who suggests that the punishment for being an adulterer or a prostitute or for cursing your mother or father should be(yes, you've guessed it) put to death
a god who suggests that for eating fat your soul should be cut off from others
a god who describes children as prey
a god who suggests that beating children with rods is showing them love, but not beating them is showing them hate
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who didn't want people with physical blemishes to serve him bread, blemishes such as mutilated faces, broken limbs, defective sight, dwarves, hunchbacks, those with an itching disease, scabs or crushed testicles!!
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who who wouldn't allow bastards or their offspring for ten generations to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's crotch whilst the vow is made
a god who encouraged the stoning to death of an entire family for the mistakes of the father
a god who killed 50070 men for looking in his box(the Ark of the Covenant)
You quote much from the old testament which is offers many examples of God's revelations being misinterpreted for various reasons. Which is why we needed Jesus to come into our world to set us right. But people continue to misinterpret the message of the New Testament to satisfy their own selfish needs. If you read the Bible in a prayerful, sincere way you will come to realise the fundamental message of God's love and eternal salvation which all too often often falls on deaf ears.
-
You quote much from the old testament which is offers many examples of God's revelations being misinterpreted for various reasons. Which is why we needed Jesus to come into our world to set us right. But people continue to misinterpret the message of the New Testament to satisfy their own selfish needs. If you read the Bible in a prayerful, sincere way you will come to realise the fundamental message of God's love and eternal salvation which all too often often falls on deaf ears.
If you read the Bible after being indoctrinated, you will see it in the way you have been instructed to see it! ::)
-
Enki, They were hard times in those days. It was a brutal world, after all, amongst other things the OT is the story of national survival and that always requires extraordinary disciplinary measures and laws. Also there are mythic and legendary aspects about the stories. And remember we hide metal tubes at the bottom of the sea with devices that can incinerate millions, not just smite 50070.
Christians look upon the OT through the lens of the New Testament.
It's not much good telling me all this, Vlad. I know all this already and basically I agree with you. Tell Spud, it's he who keeps quoting at me from the OT and seems to take his selected verses literally. My point is consistent; that such stories, whether they be allegories/myths/pseudo-historical narratives/historical narratives have had the deletorious affect on Christianity that I referred to earlier in my exchanges with Spud.
I haven't a clue what you might be referring to with your metal tubes, unless it's associated with the nuclear radiation which was/is a threat after the tsunami at Fukushima. However, whatever it is it you meant, I fail to see that it has any bearing on the point that this God is supposed to have deliberately murdered 50070 people for a minor infraction of his so called rules.
-
You quote much from the old testament which is offers many examples of God's revelations being misinterpreted for various reasons. Which is why we needed Jesus to come into our world to set us right. But people continue to misinterpret the message of the New Testament to satisfy their own selfish needs. If you read the Bible in a prayerful, sincere way you will come to realise the fundamental message of God's love and eternal salvation which all too often often falls on deaf ears.
Firstly I didn't quote from the OT, I referred to certain verses in the OT.(I can give you the book, chapter and verse numbers if you like). Whether they are misinterpreted or not isn't up to you, anyway.
The rest of your condemnatory, ill thought out and proselytising post has simply no real significance or meaning for me.
Incidentally I find it interesting that you respond to a post which was directed to another person(I have no problem with that), but when I have asked you awkward questions directly , answer comes there none. :)
-
It's not much good telling me all this, Vlad. I know all this already and basically I agree with you. Tell Spud, it's he who keeps quoting at me from the OT and seems to take his selected verses literally. My point is consistent; that such stories, whether they be allegories/myths/pseudo-historical narratives/historical narratives have had the deletorious affect on Christianity that I referred to earlier in my exchanges with Spud.
I haven't a clue what you might be referring to with your metal tubes, unless it's associated with the nuclear radiation which was/is a threat after the tsunami at Fukushima. However, whatever it is it you meant, I fail to see that it has any bearing on the point that this God is supposed to have deliberately murdered 50070 people for a minor infraction of his so called rules.
They don't have a deleterious effect on my Christianity because I know the lengths WE would go to today to ensure national or even cultural survival involving weapons of mass destruction in submarines. Life was relatively comfortable for us for the last three quarters of a century although I think things are about to get harsher so we may get some flavour of treading close to national downfall.
Regarding a minor infraction. That's rather up to who was in charge.
-
They don't have a deleterious effect on my Christianity because I know the lengths WE would go to today to ensure national or even cultural survival involving weapons of mass destruction in submarines. Life was relatively comfortable for us for the last three quarters of a century although I think things are about to get harsher so we may get some flavour of treading close to national downfall.
Regarding a minor infraction. That's rather up to who was in charge.
Irrelevant drivel
-
Irrelevant drivel
Repitition of the same word is attempted hypnosis or meme placement.
Mind you if I had been banging on about methodological naturalism of other methodologies with some success and then was reminded that methodologies do not help the philosophy, I'd be looking for strange and wonderful ways of keeping myself in notice.
-
Repitition of the same word is attempted hypnosis or meme placement.
Mind you if I had been banging on about methodological naturalism of other methodologies with some success and then was reminded that methodologies do not help the philosophy, I'd be looking for strange and wonderful ways of keeping myself in notice.
lying drivel
-
These discussions between Christians and rational thinkers doesn't matter that much insomuch that who said what or did something to someone else is of no consequence let the Christians get on with it, it's their nonsense let them discuss it between themselves.
I really can't see a need or any point trying to reason with Christians as much now their numbers are depleted and depleting daily on an exponential scale in the west, we should be focusing on stopping them indoctrinating our young and vulnerable children with their nonsense, rid our schools of religions and then sieve through all of the manifold privileges, large and small, they've acquired over the years and withdraw these unjustified and unjustifiable privileges completely
A good start would be to throw out the religious element, of both sides, out of all of the schools in Northern Island.
I don't see the point discussing beliefs where it's so blindingly obvious they're man made, bronze age, ridiculous, nonsense all of them they now need to be relegated to a more suitable place somewhere in the past where they belong and we should start concentrating on the more logical, the rational and general humanities, and then let the religious believers go their own way, I can't see that we need them.
ippy.
-
These discussions between Christians and rational thinkers doesn't matter that much insomuch that who said what or did something to someone else is of no consequence let the Christians get on with it, it's their nonsense let them discuss it between themselves.
I really can't see a need or any point trying to reason with Christians as much now their numbers are depleted and depleting daily on an exponential scale in the west, we should be focusing on stopping them indoctrinating our young and vulnerable children with their nonsense, rid our schools of religions and then sieve through all of the manifold privileges, large and small, they've acquired over the years and withdraw these unjustified and unjustifiable privileges completely
A good start would be to throw out the religious element, of both sides, out of all of the schools in Northern Island.
I don't see the point discussing beliefs where it's so blindingly obvious they're man made, bronze age, ridiculous, nonsense all of them they now need to be relegated to a more suitable place somewhere in the past where they belong and we should start concentrating on the more logical, the rational and general humanities, and then let the religious believers go their own way, I can't see that we need them.
ippy.
More intolerant antitheistic intellectual totalitarianism.
-
More intolerant antitheistic intellectual totalitarianism.
Not entirely drivel
-
They don't have a deleterious effect on my Christianity because I know the lengths WE would go to today to ensure national or even cultural survival involving weapons of mass destruction in submarines. Life was relatively comfortable for us for the last three quarters of a century although I think things are about to get harsher so we may get some flavour of treading close to national downfall.
Regarding a minor infraction. That's rather up to who was in charge.
Are you seriously comparing what we might or might not do in the event of ensuring 'national or even cultural survival' with the supposed murder of thousands of people by the OT God for daring to look into His holy box? And this, remember, is supposed to be the God that created us. All I can say is that the God, as shown in the OT, seems to be of a murderous and petty disposition who doesn't take ultimate responsibility for His creations.
As regards this 'minor infraction', no, it shouldn't be up to who was in charge. You think the Bosnian genocide, for instance, was o.k. because those in charge thought it was? I think that there is generally a consensus of opinion that a crime had been committed despite the fact that those in charge thought that killing 8000 people was the right thing to do. Just because the supposed entity in charge is called a God doesn't let Him off the hook.
-
Are you seriously comparing what we might or might not do in the event of ensuring 'national or even cultural survival' with the supposed murder of thousands of people by the OT God for daring to look into His holy box? And this, remember, is supposed to be the God that created us. All I can say is that the God, as shown in the OT, seems to be of a murderous and petty disposition who doesn't take ultimate responsibility for His creations.
As regards this 'minor infraction', no, it shouldn't be up to who was in charge. You think the Bosnian genocide, for instance, was o.k. because those in charge thought it was? I think that there is generally a consensus of opinion that a crime had been committed despite the fact that those in charge thought that killing 8000 people was the right thing to do. Just because the supposed entity in charge is called a God doesn't let Him off the hook.
It's not up to God it's up to Enki. With God death is not the end.
-
More intolerant antitheistic intellectual totalitarianism.
I think tolerance of religion is an important matter, as is depriving religions of all of their so numerous privileges an important matter, but there as you hinted by the tone of this post of yours most religionists wrongly see anyone that tries to deprive them of their privileges to achieve a level playing field as just another form persecution and boy don't we all know those religionists love rallying the troops when they think they're being persecuted.
Have another good day with your invisible friend Vlad, regards,ippy.
-
I think tolerance of religion is an important matter, as is depriving religions of all of their so numerous privileges an important matter, but there as you hinted by the tone of this post of yours most religionists wrongly see anyone that tries to deprive them of their privileges to achieve a level playing field as just another form persecution and boy don't we all know those religionists love rallying the troops when they think they're being persecuted.
Have another good day with your invisible friend Vlad, regards,ippy.
There is a huge problem of privileges in our society. Religious privilege comes way, way, down the list. In fact I would imagine there are privileges you do supports.
-
There is a huge problem of privileges in our society. Religious privilege comes way, way, down the list. In fact I would imagine there are privileges you do supports.
I must admit the subtly of how the many privileges afforded to the religions are tucked away many hidden in plain sight does give the impression that religions are way down on the list, even to those that normally have no truck with religion manage to miss them for the moment.
I would be the first to recommend privileges for Humanists and Humanism in general but only until the level playing field between the various religious and non-religious beliefs has been well established, by removing privileges from all.
ippy.
-
I must admit the subtly of how the many privileges afforded to the religions are tucked away many hidden in plain sight does give the impression that religions are way down on the list, even to those that normally have no truck with religion manage to miss them for the moment.
I would be the first to recommend privileges for Humanists and Humanism in general but only until the level playing field between the various religious and non-religious beliefs has been well established, by removing privileges from all.
ippy.
But that removes religion but not non religion. Non religion is thence supremely privilege. Behind every antitheist bleating about privilege there is an antitheist wanting all the privileges themselves.
-
But that removes religion but not non religion. Non religion is thence supremely privilege. Behind every antitheist bleating about privilege there is an antitheist wanting all the privileges themselves.
You're off again Vlad No wonder you always going around in circles, non-religious beliefs, not anti anything.
What is it about religion Vlad? Isn't it robust enough to survive without having any of the many privileges it has at the moment?
Mind you religious belief is certainly taking a tumble here in the UK, last I heard the Anglicans were running at about 12% of the total of47% religious believers left here in the UK.
ippy.
-
I must admit the subtly of how the many privileges afforded to the religions are tucked away many hidden in plain sight does give the impression that religions are way down on the list, even to those that normally have no truck with religion manage to miss them for the moment.
I would be the first to recommend privileges for Humanists and Humanism in general but only until the level playing field between the various religious and non-religious beliefs has been well established, by removing privileges from all.
ippy.
What privileges would you want to grant to Humanists, and why?
-
Your God is:
a god who decides that anyone gathering sticks on the sabbath should be put to death
Here's an attempt at an explanation.
When the Israelites came out of Egypt they found they had nothing to eat, so they complained. God provided manna and said that he would test them through it to see if they'd follow his instructions (Ex 16:4). He told them that they should not go out to collect manna on the sabbath, but collect double the usual amount the day before, and it would keep for a further 24 hours. (If on any other day they kept some until the morning, it would go off and smell. So they may have thought it would be necessary to collect it on the Sabbath. Yet God told them to keep some from the day before, and that it wouldn't go off. This was God's miraculous way of showing that it was He who provided it).
Ex 16:27-28 says, Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?
Nobody was stoned to death on this occasion, neither were they after Nehemiah caught people bringing goods into Jerusalem to trade on the Sabbath, after the Exile.
We should assume that the person found gathering sticks (Numbers 15) knew it was prohibited, since everyone experienced the miracle of the manna. The principle of not working on the Sabbath is founded in the need of every part of creation to rest. This is built into it, such that if it is denied its rest then environmental disaster will follow. Thus when we work on this day we are storing up serious problems for later. Hence the seriousness of the punishment given in Exodus 31:14.
Nowadays we have what I have recently heard described as an economic surplus. This enables us to lock up murderers in prison, so avoiding the need for capital punishment. Without that, it would be necessary to punish murder in the most efficient way possible. Given that some other things, such as you have listed, are damaging to society, and assuming no economic surplus, these too were made into capital offenses.
-
Here's an attempt at an explanation.
When the Israelites came out of Egypt they found they had nothing to eat, so they complained. God provided manna and said that he would test them through it to see if they'd follow his instructions (Ex 16:4). He told them that they should not go out to collect manna on the sabbath, but collect double the usual amount the day before, and it would keep for a further 24 hours. (If on any other day they kept some until the morning, it would go off and smell. So they may have thought it would be necessary to collect it on the Sabbath. Yet God told them to keep some from the day before, and that it wouldn't go off. This was God's miraculous way of showing that it was He who provided it).
Ex 16:27-28 says, Nobody was stoned to death on this occasion, neither were they after Nehemiah caught people bringing goods into Jerusalem to trade on the Sabbath, after the Exile.
We should assume that the person found gathering sticks (Numbers 15) knew it was prohibited, since everyone experienced the miracle of the manna. The principle of not working on the Sabbath is founded in the need of every part of creation to rest. This is built into it, such that if it is denied its rest then environmental disaster will follow. Thus when we work on this day we are storing up serious problems for later. Hence the seriousness of the punishment given in Exodus 31:14.
Nowadays we have what I have recently heard described as an economic surplus. This enables us to lock up murderers in prison, so avoiding the need for capital punishment. Without that, it would be necessary to punish murder in the most efficient way possible. Given that some other things, such as you have listed, are damaging to society, and assuming no economic surplus, these too were made into capital offenses.
Nothing you have said, Spud, takes away from the downright viciousness and pettiness of a God which commanded Moses and his entourage to stone a man to death simply for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, which they did, seemingly with alacrity. Even as an allegory/mythical account(which it probably was, as there is little evidence that Moses actually existed) it simply portrays the harshness of a people whose leaders no doubt needed to keep control by such barbaric methods. Such a story I would suggest has little of moral worth to teach us today. indeed, such a story simply reduces this God to a rather despicable and demeaning level in my eyes.
-
Nothing you have said, Spud, takes away from the downright viciousness and pettiness of a God which commanded Moses and his entourage to stone a man to death simply for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, which they did, seemingly with alacrity.
Why do you think that? Alacrity means brisk and cheerful readiness. I would think the opposite.
Even as an allegory/mythical account(which it probably was, as there is little evidence that Moses actually existed) it simply portrays the harshness of a people whose leaders no doubt needed to keep control by such barbaric methods.
If we are to be consistent in interpretation, in the story it is because they had seen God's miracles in Egypt and the wilderness, which convinced them that he was real, that they carried out the stoning, not because they were barbaric in themselves. We have to ask why God would tell them to do it.
Such a story I would suggest has little of moral worth to teach us today. indeed, such a story simply reduces this God to a rather despicable and demeaning level in my eyes.
In context, the incident is an example of someone sinning defiantly, which is discussed in the previous paragraph of Numbers 15.
-
Why do you think that? Alacrity means brisk and cheerful readiness. I would think the opposite.If we are to be consistent in interpretation, in the story it is because they had seen God's miracles in Egypt and the wilderness, which convinced them that he was real, that they carried out the stoning, not because they were barbaric in themselves. We have to ask why God would tell them to do it.In context, the incident is an example of someone sinning defiantly, which is discussed in the previous paragraph of Numbers 31.
Poor Spud your posts lack any sort of credibility. Biblical literalism is sadder than sad.
-
Poor Spud your posts lack any sort of credibility. Biblical literalism is sadder than sad.
I'm with you LR, but when you look there are still people around that really think they're practising spiritual healing, really believe in horoscopes and some that swear by homeopathy etc and I suppose Spud and his ilk are no worse than that lot, I just wish there were some way to stop them teaching their nonsense to vulnerable young children as though it were the truth.
If some way could be found to stop people like Spud passing on this nonsense to our future generations as though it were true, it'd be so easy to ignore nonsensical discussions like this one between, Spud and Enki, and then although as I've agreed with you how sad that adults still take these things so seriously as Spud obviously does at least if our children were protected from religion's nonsense Spud could go on forever it wouldn't matter.
Oh yes and which mythical, magical and superstition based parts of the bible have they found any supporting evidence for them to this date, that'd be interesting if people like Spud had any?
Regards L R, ippy.
-
We have to ask why God would tell them to do it
OK. Why would God tell them to do it?
When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Why on Earth did God tell them to put a man to death for gathering firewood? It doesn't even say he was an Israelite.
-
Why do you think that? Alacrity means brisk and cheerful readiness. I would think the opposite.If we are to be consistent in interpretation, in the story it is because they had seen God's miracles in Egypt and the wilderness, which convinced them that he was real, that they carried out the stoning, not because they were barbaric in themselves. We have to ask why God would tell them to do it.In context, the incident is an example of someone sinning defiantly, which is discussed in the previous paragraph of Numbers 31.
Well, there is no mention of those that stoned him taking a long time to do it, or that they did it reluctantly. However, I'm quite happy to take back the word 'alacrity' with pleasure. It doesn't suggest the opposite however and it still doesn't change or excuse the deed one iota though.
You can ask whatever you like. It is still barbaric and reflects badly on the OT God.
Incidentally, in your previous post, your last paragraph said this:
Nowadays we have what I have recently heard described as an economic surplus. This enables us to lock up murderers in prison, so avoiding the need for capital punishment. Without that, it would be necessary to punish murder in the most efficient way possible. Given that some other things, such as you have listed, are damaging to society, and assuming no economic surplus, these too were made into capital offenses.
Apart from the obvious fact that it wasn't a case of murder for which the stick gatherer was being punished, you seem to be suggesting that any society which hasn't an 'economic surplus' would need to execute its murderers as being the way to go 'in the most efficient way possible'. You also seem to be suggesting that societies that do not have this 'economic surplus' should also execute their citizens in certain cases where no murder has been committed. God help us then, after we start to recover from the ravages of the Lockdown as execution, in your eyes, should be the order of the day. Frankly I'm appalled by your moral position, Spud. It certainly isn't mine. I'm not really surprised though, as you seem to be greatly influenced by this nasty OT God of yours.
-
Well, there is no mention of those that stoned him taking a long time to do it, or that they did it reluctantly. However, I'm quite happy to take back the word 'alacrity' with pleasure. It doesn't suggest the opposite however and it still doesn't change or excuse the deed one iota though.
You can ask whatever you like. It is still barbaric and reflects badly on the OT God.
Incidentally, in your previous post, your last paragraph said this:
Apart from the obvious fact that it wasn't a case of murder for which the stick gatherer was being punished, you seem to be suggesting that any society which hasn't an 'economic surplus' would need to execute its murderers as being the way to go 'in the most efficient way possible'. You also seem to be suggesting that societies that do not have this 'economic surplus' should also execute their citizens in certain cases where no murder has been committed. God help us then, after we start to recover from the ravages of the Lockdown as execution, in your eyes, should be the order of the day. Frankly I'm appalled by your moral position, Spud. It certainly isn't mine. I'm not really surprised though, as you seem to be greatly influenced by this nasty OT God of yours.
A society that is not in economic surplus (whatever that means) does itself harm by executing healthy people, especially for relatively minor crimes like gathering sticks on the wrong day.
-
Perhaps in suggesting it was about economic surplass I read too much into the situation. Shall we assume that it wasn't anything to do with not having enough resources to imprison someone.
One point to note is that the death penalty in OT Israel translates into excommunication in the church.
Another point is that Hebrews 10:26-28 seems to commentate on Numbers 15:30-36, saying that deliberately continuing to sin when you know something is wrong cannot be forgiven.
This suggests that it doesn't matter what the sin was, it was the fact that it was done defiantly that made it a capital offense.
-
More intolerant antitheistic intellectual totalitarianism.
There's a world of difference between removing religious education from the curriculum (which could, arguably, be anti-theistic) and removing the PRIVELEGED position of some (but not all) religions in the state education sector of an area. Having religious schools is a debatable issue - religious people have the right to express their outlook, but that needs to balanced against a child's right to an impartial exposure to the various points of view.
O.
-
There's a world of difference between removing religious education from the curriculum (which could, arguably, be anti-theistic) and removing the PRIVELEGED position of some (but not all) religions in the state education sector of an area. Having religious schools is a debatable issue - religious people have the right to express their outlook, but that needs to balanced against a child's right to an impartial exposure to the various points of view.
O.
And religious people do not (in my opinion) have the right to expect the state to pay for schools that promote a particular religious outlook, which is the case for state-funded faith schools.
-
I don't think the state should fund faith schools.
-
I don't think the state should fund faith schools.
I agree - if people want a school with a particular religious flavour that's fine - but they need to fund it themselves. And that same should apply to a humanist school, an atheist school, a Conservative party school etc etc. The role of the state is to fund provision that is suitable to all regardless of the religion of the parents or their children (if old enough to be able to make a choice on religion).
-
I agree - if people want a school with a particular religious flavour that's fine - but they need to fund it themselves. And that same should apply to a humanist school, an atheist school, a Conservative party school etc etc. The role of the state is to fund provision that is suitable to all regardless of the religion of the parents or their children (if old enough to be able to make a choice on religion).
The religion of the parents is up to them and if they feel it necessary to put these ideas to their children well that's for them to organise in their own time and pay any accompanying fees that might might be involved themselves.
Although I have no time for any kind of religion but these people must be free to have and express these views without fear or favour.
Things like the funding religions have provided for them from the public purse should have come to an end years ago.
ippy
-
Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.
-
Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.
Your morals are a belief system. Do you think your children should never have had any morals forced on them?
-
Your morals are a belief system. Do you think your children should never have had any morals forced on them?
One person's idea of morals is not that of another. For instance, some people think it morally wrong to be gay, or to have an abortion.
-
Children should always be permitted to make up their minds about belief systems, and never have them forced on them. There is no evidence to prove that any religious faith has any validity.
Whilst I do agree with you L R, it's a very well known fact that pre seven year old children have not on average gained the ability to challenge and guess what? The C of E has more schools that serve pre seven year old children than any of the other schools they run, I wonder why?
Regards L R, ippy.
-
One person's idea of morals is not that of another. For instance, some people think it morally wrong to be gay, or to have an abortion.
One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.
-
One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.
Murder, stealing, lying, cheating on your partner gay or straight, paedophilia and all forms of sexual abuse are morally wrong.
-
Murder, stealing, lying, cheating on your partner gay or straight, paedophilia and all forms of sexual abuse are morally wrong.
The devil, though, is in the details - what marks the difference between murder and justifiable homicide? When is it stealing and when is it colonisation, or 'seeking reparations'? What's the cut-off age for paedophilia? Is it abuse if he wants it?
Black and white moral pronouncements are rarely useful as anything more than starting points for discussions or pithy homilies for politicians election posters.
O.
-
One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.
Are you claiming that gay people know being gay is morally wrong but "do" it anyway? I would suggest that they've looked at it and decided that it doesn't hurt anybody and they had no choice about it and therefore it can't be morally wrong.
In fact, I would suggest that morality cannot even apply to something over which you have no choice.
-
I wonder (as I find myself doing frequently in these days of political pygmies) if people have the self awareness to feel guilty for being so mind-numbingly fucking stupid.
-
One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.
Like teaching religion to vulnerable young children as though all of the religious stories they teach are proven facts, I doubt there are many religionists that feel guilty about that Spud?
I'd guess a lot of religionists, like you Spud, think they're doing the children a favour teaching their magical, mystical and superstition based nonsense to children as though they are proven, tried and tested facts, more than likely without having the slightest feeling of guilt.
ippy.
-
Are you claiming that gay people know being gay is morally wrong but "do" it anyway? I would suggest that they've looked at it and decided that it doesn't hurt anybody and they had no choice about it and therefore it can't be morally wrong.
In fact, I would suggest that morality cannot even apply to something over which you have no choice.
I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.
-
I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.
So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.
-
I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.
Your conscience should be telling you that your attitude towards gays is WRONG! >:(
-
So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.
Absolutely spot on Proff, 'Moderator: content removed', comes to mind, can't for one moment think why?
Fancy these people letting the ignorance of a bronze age book have so much influence on their thinking and letting it take over any rationality they may have had, then having to work with such a reduced capacity for thought without giving good and fair consideration out to their fellow man rather than thinking for themselves.
Spud don't you remember the cruelty of when gay loved ones lay dying in hospital and someone they may have lived with for many years and the visiting rules used to be next of kin only and then inheritance and becoming homeless, so many gay people lost everything due to inequality mainly all due to the cruelty of god doctors just like yourself.
Thank goodness we're living in a far more enlightened world. no thanks to the religious.
I don't think we have to look very far to see who should be feeling guilty.
ippy
-
Absolutely spot on Proff, 'Moderator: content removed', comes to mind, can't for one moment think why?
Fancy these people letting the ignorance of a bronze age book have so much influence on their thinking and letting it take over any rationality they may have had, then having to work with such a reduced capacity for thought without giving good and fair consideration out to their fellow man rather than thinking for themselves.
Spud don't you remember the cruelty of when gay loved ones lay dying in hospital and someone they may have lived with for many years and the visiting rules used to be next of kin only and then inheritance and becoming homeless, so many gay people lost everything due to inequality mainly all due to the cruelty of god doctors just like yourself.
Thank goodness we're living in a far more enlightened world. no thanks to the religious.
I don't think we have to look very far to see who should be feeling guilty.
ippy
Many of the people on the front line of campaigning for gay rights were religious so the 'no thanks to the religious' comment is simply wrong
-
I was going to give as an example one or more people who use those small bags to pick up dog poo, then leave them on the ground near the litter bin on the otherwise clean street where I live. I can't believe someone does that without their conscience telling them it's wrong.
Ridiculously homophobic comment.
-
One can know something is morally wrong but still do it, because the desire to do it overcomes the conscience. Seems you are trying to eliminate feeling guilty.
One can, yes. Do you know of any reason at all why anyone should consider being gay to be 'morally wrong'?
O.
-
I would have thought that there has always been a percentage of gay people born into any society anywhere in the world, assuming that's correct wouldn't that make it, perfectly normal to be a gay person?
ippy.
-
As I have said many times, for all we know Jesus could have been gay, the Bible mentions there was one particular disciple whom he loved. It was so terrible to be gay, surely it would be one of the, 'thou shalt nots'.
-
If there is one thing that my intermittent attendance and posting on the Forum, knowledgeable as some of the posters are, to the point that I have to make sure that I have the Oxford handy, it is that there is absolutely no way in which a non-Christian, be they a "never have been a Christian" or "Am I glad I got out of that crowd" or "Iam a Christian but I am not THAT brainweashed", can convince ANY committed (and, yes, they all ought to be) Christian that their beliefs are in any way in error.
They will, if it suits the Christian faith that they hold so dear, tell you that Black is White and white is no colour at all and nothing short of nuclear annihilation will convince them differently, and thus all who are non-Christian are totally wasting their time posting any negative comment on Christianity.
They do however provide the occasional belly-laugh with some of their attempts at justification which do sometimes brighten up an otherwise dull day.
-
Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince non believers that their version of faith is TRUE, have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
-
Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince non believers that their version of faith is TRUE, have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.
-
Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.
Agree overall but I think 'world view' is a grandiose idea.
-
Agree overall but I think 'world view' is a grandiose idea.
Just be glad I didn't write "weltanschauung"!
-
I suspect non believers would be more prepared to give the preaching posters a listening ear if they admitted they had no evidence to support their faith, but it gives their life meaning.
None of us can know for certain there isn't any god tucked away somewhere, but as it has never revealed itself in an irrefutable way its existence must be in doubt.
-
Just be glad I didn't write "weltanschauung"!
I am ec-fecking-static.
-
I suspect non believers would be more prepared to give the preaching posters a listening ear if they admitted they had no evidence to support their faith, but it gives their life meaning.
None of us can know for certain there isn't any god tucked away somewhere, but as it has never revealed itself in an irrefutable way its existence must be in doubt.
That would though be a lie for some. Alan Burns does not believe because of that. He thinks he has evidence, and for many they feel they have had personal revelation so the ides that their god has never revealed itself for them is simply wrong.
-
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.
While that may be true there are major differences in the stickability of belief and non belief as a person moves from childhood to adulthood.
Virtually no people brought up in a non religious household shift in that view as they become adults. So I think that the data suggests that 97% of children brought up in non religious household stay non religious as adults, with just 3% altering their 'world view' as you put it. And this is despite that fact that non religious households rarely (if ever) actively teach 'non religion' - they don't send their kids to Sunday school where they are actively taught that religion is wrong, they don't send their children to schools where they will be taught to be non religious.
However the same isn't true for children brought up in religious households. Where both parent is religious just 50% of those children retain that 'world view' and become religious as adults. Put it another way half of those children change their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.
Where there is one religious parent and one non religious parent just 25% of children stay religious as adults with 75% changing their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.
And of course that is despite all that religious upbringing that goes on in those households - attending church, going to Sunday school, being taught to be religious in the home, being sent to faith schools which actively promote a particular religious 'world view' etc etc.
What this tells me is how poor the religious message is - that even if you pump it into kids from birth half (or more) once they become adults will conclude that they don't believe it.
-
That would though be a lie for some. Alan Burns does not believe because of that. He thinks he has evidence, and for many they feel they have had personal revelation so the ides that their god has never revealed itself for them is simply wrong.
Which makes my point, AB has never produced any evidence, as has been pointed out to him times without number. Each post he makes his take on faith look silly.
-
Which makes my point, AB has never produced any evidence, as has been pointed out to him times without number. Each post he makes his take on faith look silly.
No, it is disagreeing with your point entirely. You want Alan Burns to lie about why he believes.
-
No, it is disagreeing with your point entirely. You want Alan Burns to lie about why he believes.
No I don't want AB to lie, I want him to take on board the fact that however much he believes his faith to be true, he has never produced any evidence to substantiate it.
-
While that may be true there are major differences in the stickability of belief and non belief as a person moves from childhood to adulthood.
Virtually no people brought up in a non religious household shift in that view as they become adults. So I think that the data suggests that 97% of children brought up in non religious household stay non religious as adults, with just 3% altering their 'world view' as you put it. And this is despite that fact that non religious households rarely (if ever) actively teach 'non religion' - they don't send their kids to Sunday school where they are actively taught that religion is wrong, they don't send their children to schools where they will be taught to be non religious.
However the same isn't true for children brought up in religious households. Where both parent is religious just 50% of those children retain that 'world view' and become religious as adults. Put it another way half of those children change their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.
Where there is one religious parent and one non religious parent just 25% of children stay religious as adults with 75% changing their 'world view' as they become adults and become non religious.
And of course that is despite all that religious upbringing that goes on in those households - attending church, going to Sunday school, being taught to be religious in the home, being sent to faith schools which actively promote a particular religious 'world view' etc etc.
What this tells me is how poor the religious message is - that even if you pump it into kids from birth half (or more) once they become adults will conclude that they don't believe it.
If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.
-
No I don't want AB to lie, I want him to take on board the fact that however much he believes his faith to be true, he has never produced any evidence to substantiate it.
You wanted him to say that he only believes in his religion because it comforts him - that would be a lie for him.
You want him to say there is no contact from god - that would be a lie for him.
-
If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.
Only is they were correct for all places and all time - and i don't think Prof D is saying that - though he probably needs to be clearer on that.
-
You wanted him to say that he only believes in his religion because it comforts him - that would be a lie for him.
You want him to say there is no contact from god - that would be a lie for him.
I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.
-
I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.
Yes, but he wants the same for you.
-
I want a light to switch on in his brain, which gives him the opportunity to see what others see when he posts.
Which would be a lie for him. You want him to agree with other people when he doesn't
-
If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.
Yes those figures are accurate, and no it wouldn't mean religion would have died out, but would be declining.
Thee figures are for the UK over the past 60 years or so - what they predict is that religiosity halves every generation (about 30 years or so) and that's exactly what we see in practice.
-
Only is they were correct for all places and all time - and i don't think Prof D is saying that - though he probably needs to be clearer on that.
The UK for the past 60 years or so. But the basic trend applies to pretty well all countries with freedom of religion and are broadly what we would describe as the developed world.
-
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.
Cohort analysis also allows us to work out whether, on a population basis, people once they've reached adulthood get more or less religious as they age. This is done by asking the same group of people (e.g. people born in the 1950s) questions about their religiosity during the 1980s (when they were in their 30s) and then again a decade later and so on.
What this shows is that there is a gentle shift away from being religious as people get older (on a population basis). The reason why churches are packed with old people isn't because people get more religious as they get older (they don't) it is because each generation is markedly less religious than the previous one for the reasons I explained in my earlier posts.
-
The UK for the past 60 years or so. But the basic trend applies to pretty well all countries with freedom of religion and are broadly what we would describe as the developed world.
And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over.
-
And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over.
It is occurring over several generations and there are very similar trends in many countries.
Ultimately the decline in religiosity is expressed as an 's' shaped curve - so the decline is slow to start with and can be expressed as a doubling (exponential growth in the numbers of non religious people over a set time, about a generation). As the most rapid decline phase kicks in (we are in that now) the decline can be expressed as a halving of the proportion of religious people over that similar time (a generation). As it is a halving it never really gets to zero. So if the proportion of active christians in the UK is currently about 6% - in 35 years this will be 3%, in 70 years 1.5% and so on.
David Voas is the leading authority on this, working with the British Social Attitudes datasets amongst other research.
https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39293/1_bsa36_religion.pdf
-
So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.
First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.
-
First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.
So you are saying that me acting on my attraction to my partner is the same as leaving dog shit lying around.
Thank you so much for your clear sightedness and humanity.
-
And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over.
60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.
-
First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.
Which tells us the the "biblical pov" is morally repugnant.
-
So you are saying that me acting on my attraction to my partner is the same as leaving dog shit lying around.
And some things that I have done. We are all turds.
-
60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but ededit doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.
And again whoosh. Steve is making a gaualifiedneral point that were specific circs to be applied generally, religion would have died out. The statement needs qualified
-
Which tells us the the "biblical pov" is morally repugnant.
Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?
-
Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?
Stop.posting when you are pished.
-
And some things that I have done. We are all turds.
Which tells us that your god is unjust. If we all fail the test, it isn't a fair test to subject humans to. Your god should have done a better job in creating us or made a more appropriate test.
-
60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.
The half life of a generation is typically assumed to be about 35 years rather than 20 years which is not the average gap between generations in the UK currently.
So rather than use a generation, easier to say half life of 35 years. So since 1960 you'd expect levels to have gone through 1.7 half lives. That fits very well with the actual position.
This works very well for generations who have been UK based throughout - it gets thrown off track a bit with immigration.
-
And again whoosh. Steve is making a gaualifiedneral point that were specific circs to be applied generally, religion would have died out. The statement needs qualified
But Steve would be wrong. The claim he made was that with 3% of non religious children becoming religious religious and 50% of religious children becoming non religious, religion would be over. This is false.
In fact, once religious people were down to around 6% of the population, the ratio of religious to non religious would stabilise.
-
And some things that I have done. We are all turds.
No, you are not going to get away with that nonsense.
Why is it morally wrong for me to act on my attraction to my male partner, and yet it is ok for a heterosexual to act on their attraction to their partner.
You don't get to argue these things on the basis of comparing my life to stealing sweets from the coop when you were a kid. It doesn't work like that.
-
We are all turds.
You don't speak for me.
-
Why is it morally wrong for me to act on my attraction to my male partner,
That's an interesting question. Well, actually no, it's clearly not morally wrong for you to act on your attraction to your male partner. Why I mean is the interesting question is why the Abrahamic religions have arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.
You can see that there might have been a logical reason behind some of the arbitrary rules (like e.g. they probably observed people getting very sick after eating shellfish), but not this one.
-
But Steve would be wrong. The claim he made was that with 3% of non religious children becoming religious religious and 50% of religious children becoming non religious, religion would be over. This is false.
In fact, once religious people were down to around 6% of the population, the ratio of religious to non religious would stabilise.
Yup that's right - the 'S' shaped curve.
What is interesting is that the understanding that the decline in religion is almost exclusively due to generational replacement (in other words each generation is less religious than their parents) we can predict that the decline will continue for decades to come (not taking into account immigration).
Why, because as the oldest (and most religious generation) die out, they will be replaced with the least religious one and so on. Even if we started having kids who are just as religious as their parents it would be perhaps 80 years (once all generations have the same religiosity) before the decline would stop.
Even if the trend was reversed (each generation being more religious than their parents) we'd likely continue to see a decline for 40 years, until the youngest matched the religiosity of the oldest generation.
But there is no reason to predict anything other than a continuation of the long term trend - with each generation being less religious than their parents.
And this trend works for all aspects of religiosity - nominal affiliation (the kind of census christian), importance (people who see their religion as important) and activity (people who actively participate). Each aspect is declining with the same half live - certainly for christianity.
-
That's an interesting question. Well, actually no, it's clearly not morally wrong for you to act on your attraction to your male partner. Why I mean is the interesting question is why the Abrahamic religions have arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.
You can see that there might have been a logical reason behind some of the arbitrary rules (like e.g. they probably observed people getting very sick after eating shellfish), but not this one.
I read somewhere, a long time ago, so don't ask where, that it was to do with the survival of the species in the long ago past. So homosexual activity was deemed "wrong" because it deprived the population of more breeding capability. Something like that anyway. OF course God, had he wished could have fixed that in any number of ways. Such as not letting stillbirths happen, or not having diseases that kill children. But no, he took the nasty way out and decided to persecute gay people.
That God eh? Mysterious or what?
-
Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.
WRONG - They arer indoctinated before they are ten or eleven! It is easier to brainwas children!
-
WRONG - They arer indoctinated before they are ten or eleven! It is easier to brainwas children!
Thankfully children are more robust than we might imagine.
Religious families 'brainwashing' their children at a tender age with the aim to ensure they remain religious for life. Yet half of those children as they become adults will conclude that, do you know what, all that religious stuff - don't believe a word of it. Pretty poor hit rate for all those hours teaching bible stories, sat in pews, making sure their children go to a school that will continue that brainwashing in the class-room as well as at home.
Compare that with the non religious - simply being non religious with no overt brainwashing and guess what - pretty well 100% of their kids will agree with that non religious position as adults.
I think the mixed family is the most interesting - so have 2 religious parents, 50% likelihood of remaining religious as a adult. Merely the presence of a single non religious parent in the household (typically in those cases the religious parent and their church expect their view to prevail) and that hit rate drops to 25%.
Demonstrates just how unimpressive and unconvincing those religious arguments are in this day and age.
-
If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.
That rather depends on how long those figures have been accurate for - I'd suggest those rates are a relatively recent development.
O.
-
That rather depends on how long those figures have been accurate for - I'd suggest those rates are a relatively recent development.
O.
Yes - I've been clear about timeframe. And as we understand the process which is driving that decline (generational replacement) we can be confident the decline will continue for the next 80 years if the current children being born are less religious than their parents (or even as religious).
The only way you stop the decline is if children being born today are as religious as adults as the current 80 year-olds - and that is a barely credible proposition.
The only other complicating factor in a country such as the UK is immigration - but that is really any change in religiosity - merely the moving of a religious (or non religious) person from one place to another.
-
The only way you stop the decline is if children being born today are as religious as adults as the current 80 year-olds - and that is a barely credible proposition.
Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.
-
Thankfully children are more robust than we might imagine.
Religious families 'brainwashing' their children at a tender age with the aim to ensure they remain religious for life. Yet half of those children as they become adults will conclude that, do you know what, all that religious stuff - don't believe a word of it. Pretty poor hit rate for all those hours teaching bible stories, sat in pews, making sure their children go to a school that will continue that brainwashing in the class-room as well as at home.
Compare that with the non religious - simply being non religious with no overt brainwashing and guess what - pretty well 100% of their kids will agree with that non religious position as adults.
I think the mixed family is the most interesting - so have 2 religious parents, 50% likelihood of remaining religious as a adult. Merely the presence of a single non religious parent in the household (typically in those cases the religious parent and their church expect their view to prevail) and that hit rate drops to 25%.
Demonstrates just how unimpressive and unconvincing those religious arguments are in this day and age.
My personal experience would seem to show that, in Catholic, Muslim and JW families, the rate of remaining religious is closer to 75 to 80%.
One Catholic family whose child, at age 11, decided that his parents' adhererece to "a load of old superstitious bollocks" was not for him was dragged, fighting every inch of the way to Sunday Mass and, at the door of the church, became extremely loud in his protests at being dragged there to listen to "that old fart" (pointing to the priest welcoming the congregation) who talked nothing but a load of old cobblers.
The priest withstood the tirade for about five minutes before declaring that the child was clearly a lost cause as Satan had already claimed his soul and that he did not wish to contaminate his congregation with his presence, but would pray for his redemption.
He, the child not the priest, never again attended church of any Christian denomonation and, at sixteen, walked out of the family home and was treated as if he had never existed by the family.
An isololated case, but if it can happen once . . . ? And as this happened over thirty years ago I would agree that it is likely to happen more often now.
-
Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.
Is it not possible that God may be blamed for the "current pandemic"? Seeing as how everything that happens in this world happens by his will?
-
Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.
After decades of repression under communism, the Russian Orthodox Church is said to count nearly 70% of Russia's population - about 100 million people - among its members.
-
Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.
But you were the one who said that once people reach adulthood they very rarely change their religion - and you are correct.
And on major natural disasters etc - can you give me an example of one that has produced a revival in the religious attendance in the UK in my lifetime (I'm 53). I agree that sometimes a major incident results in churches being used as places to mark the event in the days and weeks afterwards and often many people attend, who might not have been in a church for years. But that isn't a revival as those people will go straight back to non-attendance. I suspect (and I'll look up the research on this) that major events produce a very short term uptick in religiosity-linked behaviour, but increase the decline in the longer term as people's faith is shaken further on the basis of 'how could god allow this to happen'.
On this particular one I imagine it will be detrimental to church attendance in the long run. Firstly, and most obviously, the increased death rate which is particularly associated with the oldest (and therefore most religious) age group. Secondly regular church goers will not have attended for weeks, if not months, once we are fully out of lockdown (I can't imagine religious gatherings will be top priority for the government to allow in the first stage of relaxation). Plenty of those people will head straight back to the old attendance pattern, but there will be some who, having got out of the habit of attending, just wont go back to it. Frankly I'm struggling to see why a non-religious, non-church attending person (the vast majority of the population), would suddenly think, post-lock-down, hey do you know what I going to go to church.
-
Is it not possible that God may be blamed for the "current pandemic"? Seeing as how everything that happens in this world happens by his will?
Religious belief is not entirely logical, nor should it be. There is, rightly, a large emotional element.
-
After decades of repression under communism, the Russian Orthodox Church is said to count nearly 70% of Russia's population - about 100 million people - among its members.
But I don't think that is really a revival as there wasn't freedom of religion during the communist period. All we are seeing there is a renewed ability to express that belief. And it isn't really applicable to the UK.
In my lifetime (53 years) can anyone think of an event that has produced a revival in religiosity in the UK beyond the immediate aftermath - I can't.
-
Just had a scan at the research on religiosity linked to disasters. There isn't much and largely it just looks at the immediate aftermath. My summary is:
1. There tends to be a short term uplift in religious-linked behaviour linked to natural disasters as communities come together with churches/mosques etc acting an as obvious focus for the community.
2. That uptick rapidly dissolves and religiosity reverts to pre-disaster trends at least.
3. Disasters where the main impact id deaths tend to show an short-term uptick in religious-linked behaviour. However disasters where the main impact is financial/economic result in a decline in religious-linked behaviour, presumably exacerbating the long range decline in religiosity.
To note I don't think any of this research has been performed in the UK - although there was some in Canada and New Zealand, which might be comparable. Countries where religious activity is largely the norm are likely to be different to ones where religious activity is relatively rare, such as the UK.
-
Clearly the odd earthquake, tsunami or plague isn't going to do it.
To get back on track &deity is going to need a new, global, dark ages. Make sure there is no education and any critical thinking is stamped out. Collapse due to climate change might do it - maybe spiced up with a dose of biological or nuclear warfare.
Or could just dial everyone direct as in "Cell"?
After which? The dawning of the Age of Aquarius!
Or maybe Gilead or like something out of Robert Harris' "The second sleep"?
-
Clearly the odd earthquake, tsunami or plague isn't going to do it.
To get back on track &deity is going to need a new, global, dark ages. Make sure there is no education and any critical thinking is stamped out. Collapse due to climate change might do it - maybe spiced up with a dose of biological or nuclear warfare.
Or could just dial everyone direct as in "Cell"?
After which? The dawning of the Age of Aquarius!
Or maybe Gilead or like something out of Robert Harris' "The second sleep"?
Or 'A Canticle For Leibowitz'?
-
Or 'A Canticle For Leibowitz'?
I've got that somewhere ... need to dig it out.
-
I read it 50-odd years ago. I must get hold of another copy, and re-read it.
-
Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?
You have every right to think the way you do about gay people don't you think it's about time you either change your ways or if you can't at least have the decency to shut up and keep your views on this particular subject to yourself.
Your pathetic, 'Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do, is hardly a part of any adult conversation.
P S As an after thought to my post above I think it's about time I told off my two adopted black sons, for being black, makes equally as much sense as your general attitude toward people that are gay
ippy.
-
Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?
What a bloody stupid comment.
-
Spud doesn't seem to put his brain into gear when posting! >:(
-
Why is it morally wrong for me to act on my attraction to my male partner, and yet it is ok for a heterosexual to act on their attraction to their partner.
I would say, here is a reason why you should not do that: simply, men and women's private parts compliment each others anatomically and physiologically, whereas two men's don't. I remember someone once saying that when your heart (which I took to mean finding someone attractive) and your head (eg you know your body is designed for a female partner) don't agree then something's not right.
-
I would say, here is a reason why you should not do that: simply, men and women's private parts compliment each others anatomically and physiologically, whereas two men's don't. I remember someone once saying that when your heart (which I took to mean finding someone attractive) and your head (eg you know your body is designed for a female partner) don't agree then something's not right.
Fuck off
-
Fuck off
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
-
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
And fuck off with your twee homophobia
-
Well, we are being witty and erudite tonight, aren't we? Oscar Wilde, look to your laurels!
-
Well, we are being witty and erudite tonight, aren't we? Oscar Wilde, look to your laurels!
Don"t really find a need to be witty to homophobes
-
My oh my.
I can assure Spud anatomically two men fit together just fine. However even if they didn't, so what? I would suggest that you are perhaps conflating your own squeamishness over certain acts rather than considering the whole person.
As to Steve, you surprise and disappoint me.
And just to tell you, you are wrong there were differences between Civil Partnerships and marriage, small but they were there.
The wider point is however, a social one. While ever there was a difference it was all too easy for the bigots out there to say that my relationship isn't as valid as a heterosexual relationship. The equalisation of marriage took that particular distinction away. I didn't expect Spud to see the value of that, but I did think you would Steve.
Sad, but there it is.
-
And just to tell you, you are wrong there were differences between Civil Partnerships and marriage, small but they were there.
True, which is why the pragmatic stepping stone toward equality, with civil partnership just for same sex couple and marriage for opposite sex couples, while necessary was never going to be tenable in the long run.
Fortunately we have now finally reached equality - the first step being extending marriage to same sex couples, the second being extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples.
Good when things eventually turn out right :)
-
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
Why shouldn't gay have exactly the same right as heterosexuals? If they wish to marry they should be able to do so, either in a register office or a church.
-
Why shouldn't gay have exactly the same right as heterosexuals? If they wish to marry they should be able to do so, either in a register office or a church.
Please do not hold your breath waiting for this to become fact! Spud would have a heartattack!
-
Is it not possible that God may be blamed for the "current pandemic"? Seeing as how everything that happens in this world happens by his will?
Of course he won't. People like me won't blame God because we don't believe he exists. Christians Steve won't blame God because they believe God is good.
What will be interesting is to see what happens in the USA with some religious groups not practising social distancing. If church congregations are cut down by the disease, will it lead to others drawing the conclusion that they don't want to be religious after all.
-
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
Hasn't it occurred to you that whatever gay couples have going between them in their private life is none of anybody else's business, so really the expression of go forth and multiply applies to you as much as it does to that other ignoramus.
Whatever happened to thinking for yourselves you two?
ippy
-
My oh my.
I can assure Spud anatomically two men fit together just fine. However even if they didn't, so what? I would suggest that you are perhaps conflating your own squeamishness over certain acts rather than considering the whole person.
As to Steve, you surprise and disappoint me.
And just to tell you, you are wrong there were differences between Civil Partnerships and marriage, small but they were there.
The wider point is however, a social one. While ever there was a difference it was all too easy for the bigots out there to say that my relationship isn't as valid as a heterosexual relationship. The equalisation of marriage took that particular distinction away. I didn't expect Spud to see the value of that, but I did think you would Steve.
Sad, but there it is.
Well Trent there's a lot more of us than these two ignorant examples, even now after the many times I've heard these ignorant people quoting the dogma they've allowed themselves be taken in by, I still find it a shocking intolerant stance for anyone to actually take up.
I suppose as long as these ignoramuses are not a threat to gay people in any way they are entitled to their point of view, I for one would rather they kept their idiotically regressive views to themselves.
Regards Trent, ippy.
-
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
I don’t think relationships should be judged by which holes are available into which a penis can be inserted. Furthermore, if the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is cosmetic, there’s no reason not to give gay people equal rights in that regard.
-
Please do not hold your breath waiting for this to become fact! Spud would have a heartattack!
Some churches are happy to give a blessing to gay couples, I am not sure if they can perform the marriage service.
-
Some churches are happy to give a blessing to gay couples, I am not sure if they can perform the marriage service.
Scottish Piskies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40190204
-
Scottish Piskies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40190204
Good for them.
-
Hasn't it occurred to you that whatever gay couples have going between them in their private life is none of anybody else's business, so really the expression of go forth and multiply applies to you as much as it does to that other ignoramus.
Whatever happened to thinking for yourselves you two?
ippy
I do think for myself. It is possible to do so, and yet come to different conclusions to you, you know.
-
I do think for myself. It is possible to do so, and yet come to different conclusions to you, you know.
Precisely the answer one would expect form a properly brainwashed Christian.
-
I do think for myself. It is possible to do so, and yet come to different conclusions to you, you know.
Yes. You've come to the conclusion that my relationship is less valid thàn every heterosexual married couples in the country. And you've done that without knowing anything about my relationship. That is quite breathtaking arrogance dont you think?
-
Yes. You've come to the conclusion that my relationship is less valid thàn every heterosexual married couples in the country. And you've done that without knowing anything about my relationship. That is quite breathtaking arrogance dont you think?
Don't be silly.
-
Don't be silly.
That's how your twee homophobia reads to me. Why do want trent's relationship as marked different from mine?
-
Don't be silly.
Not being silly. It is what you said. Not on a par. Did you even read my original reply to you?
-
Hanging your head in shame would be a good hobby for you to take up!
Shame is an emotion that Christians reserve for non-Christians - they do nothing that their religion considers to be shameful! It is against their religion!
-
Shame is an emotion that Christians reserve for non-Christians - they do nothing that their religion considers to be shameful! It is against their religion!
You obviously know no RCs
-
You obviously know no RCs
I have known more than a few RC's and I have always found that their aversion to anything even remotely thought of as "shameful" amounted almost to the hysterical!
-
I have known more than a few RC's and I have always found that their aversion to anything even remotely thought of as "shameful" amounted almost to the hysterical!
The entire idea of confession is built on shame.
-
Moderator:
Several recent posts in this thread have been removed in that they contained direct insults or were related to posts containing insults.
Please read the latest post in the 'Clarification regarding confrontational posting' thread in the Moderation & Admin Board for further information.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15129.msg795126;boardseen#new
-
The entire idea of confession is built on shame.
That is not an argument against it. All of us have done and said things we are, or ought to be, ashamed of.
-
That is not an argument against it. All of us have done and said things we are, or ought to be, ashamed of.
Possibly but my point was in reply to Owlswing's claim that Christians do not feel shame. And while there are reasons for shame many of the rules seem to me to be pointless - were I to have remained an RC, though I do not think I ever was. then I would be have been expected to feel shame for sex outside marriage, gay sex, and using contraception
-
Possibly but my point was in reply to Owlswing's claim that Christians do not feel shame. And while there are reasons for shame many of the rules seem to me to be pointless - were I to have remained an RC, though I do not think I ever was. then I would be have been expected to feel shame for sex outside marriage, gay sex, and using contraception
I agree that some of the things the RC church thinks people should confess and be shriven for are not sinful at all, but the general point remains.
-
I would say, here is a reason why you should not do that: simply, men and women's private parts compliment each others anatomically and physiologically, whereas two men's don't. I remember someone once saying that when your heart (which I took to mean finding someone attractive) and your head (eg you know your body is designed for a female partner) don't agree then something's not right.
My biological instinct, though, when someone disagrees with me is to kick him around the field then take his food and his women... haven't we moved beyond the naturalistic fallacy?
Regarding which - sex is not purely about reproduction in humans. It's clear from the evolution of various sexual traits and tendencies that sexual activity has a social as well as reproductive aspect, and that social aspect doesn't solely involve 'biological compatibility'.
You might think that two male genitals are incompatible, but I suspect there are any number of gay men who find frotting pleasurable. Sex does not have to be penetrative to be pleasurable, but even if that's your thing there are perfectly possible variations available. You do know that sex isn't limited to the missionary position with the lights off solely for the purposes of procreation, right?
N.B. Just one my personal aggravations, but men's and women's genitals do not compliment each other, they complement each other.
O.
-
The entire idea of confession is built on shame.
More importantly, it's built on the concept of sin as a proxy for immorality in order to avoid having to justify any of the individual judgements and just fall back on apparently arbitrary whims.
O.
-
More importantly, it's built on the concept of sin as a proxy for immorality in order to avoid having to justify any of the individual judgements and just fall back on apparently arbitrary whims.
O.
That's not more important in a discussion about whether RCs feel shame.
-
I agree that some of the things the RC church thinks people should confess and be shriven for are not sinful at all, but the general point remains.
But in terms of whether confession in the RC church it is an argument against it.
-
I am far from perfect I freely admit that. :-[ One should try to atone for one's wrongdoings by trying to put things right and offer a sincere apologise to anyone whom one has wronged.
-
I am far from perfect I freely admit that. :-[ One should try to atone for one's wrongdoings by trying to put things right and offer a sincere apologise to anyone whom one has wronged.
Absolutely - making yourself feel better by going and confessing to a priest seems completely inappropriate in terms of reparation, atonement and learning from wrongdoing. Particularly if it detracts from actually doing the right thing - namely putting things right with the person you may have wrongs and changing your ways.
-
Absolutely - making yourself feel better by going and confessing to a priest seems completely inappropriate in terms of reparation, atonement and learning from wrongdoing. Particularly if it detracts from actually doing the right thing - namely putting things right with the person you may have wrongs and changing your ways.
Giving the members of the RCC a number of hail Marys to say when they have misbehaved, has always struck me as being very silly indeed. ::)
-
That's not more important in a discussion about whether RCs feel shame.
I think it is, because it shows that even when they do feel ashamed it's a fabrication.
O.
-
I think it is, because it shows that even when they do feel ashamed it's a fabrication.
O.
Baseless assertion
-
Since this thread was withdrawn and I was thinking about these two with their extremely unkind unthinking regressive views on homosexuality, I now remember a few years back, about 45-50 years ago a chap I new had much the same an exactly similar ignorant regressive view of gay people.
ippy.
I particularly remember having a difference with him, I maintain the as there always is and always has been a percentage of gay people in any population I maintained this fact makes it perfectly normal to be a gay person, they're not abnormal as he would have had it, it wasn't a very pleasant exchange.
Anyway he had two young children at the time, two boys and then, guess what 'yes' one of them turned out to be gay which shows that sometimes justice does and can happen.
I've always found things like anti-gay or anti-black attitudes toward our fellow humans by anybody whoever they might happen to be well very shallow, it's a pity it doesn't stop there.
-
Since this thread was withdrawn and I was thinking about these two with their extremely unkind unthinking regressive views on homosexuality, I now remember a few years back, about 45-50 years ago a chap I new had much the same an exactly similar ignorant regressive view of gay people.
ippy.
I particularly remember having a difference with him, I maintain the as there always is and always has been a percentage of gay people in any population I maintained this fact makes it perfectly normal to be a gay person, they're not abnormal as he would have had it, it wasn't a very pleasant exchange.
Anyway he had two young children at the time, two boys and then, guess what 'yes' one of them turned out to be gay which shows that sometimes justice does and can happen.
I've always found things like anti-gay or anti-black attitudes toward our fellow humans by anybody whoever they might happen to be well very shallow, it's a pity it doesn't stop there.
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
So you are saying it is abnormal to be gay? :o
-
So you are saying it is abnormal to be gay? :o
*Sigh* No. Try reading what I posted.
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here: are you suggesting that being gay is somehow akin to having some kind of deficit?
-
So you are saying it is abnormal to be gay? :o
None of what Steve wrote lends itself to that interpretation
-
*Sigh* No. Try reading what I posted.
I did and you gave the impression that whilst you don't believe it is sinful to be gay, it is abnormal.
-
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here: are you suggesting that being gay is somehow akin to having some kind of deficit?
No, he's just making the point that because something exists and can be seen as normal doesn't necessarily mean it's good.
I am interested in why he thinks that trentvoyager's relationship is in some sense not as valid as a straight one as regards marriage though
-
None of what Steve wrote lends itself to that interpretation
He suggested being gay is akin to having a disability.
-
I did and you gave the impression that whilst you don't believe it is sinful to be gay, it is abnormal.
What part of 'I agree that homosexuality is not sinful, and could be considered normal' are you missing?
-
I am interested in why he thinks that trentvoyager's relationship is in some sense not as valid as a straight one as regards marriage though
Indeed.
The only reply I got to that query was "Don't be silly". A very considered, measured and in-depth response I thought.
-
He suggested being gay is akin to having a disability.
No, he didn't. He didn't say it was like a disability, he pointed out that just because something exists it does not necessarily make it a good thing. He's not saying homosexuality is a bad thing, rather he's taking issue with ippy's post that implies that because something has existed that it's ok.
-
What part of 'I agree that homosexuality is not sinful, and could be considered normal' are you missing?
There does sound to be a qualifying element to the "could be" part of the statement, perhaps?
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
Could you explain though why you don't see trentvoyager's relationship as deserving of the same status as mine?
-
There does sound to be a qualifying element to the "could be" part of the statement, perhaps?
Not in the context of his reply to ippy
-
What part of 'I agree that homosexuality is not sinful, and could be considered normal' are you missing?
Have you read his post? He goes on to state, Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.) That certainly gives the impression it isn't desirable to be gay.
-
No, he's just making the point that because something exists and can be seen as normal doesn't necessarily mean it's good.
I am interested in why he thinks that trentvoyager's relationship is in some sense not as valid as a straight one as regards marriage though
I see: perhaps I misunderstood.
Even so, if the point JC is advancing is that some relationships could be viewed as being less good, less desirable or less valid than others does require some kind of justification.
-
Have you read his post? He goes on to state, Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.) That certainly gives the impression it isn't desirable to be gay.
Which he needs to do to give examples of things that exist that are normal, sinful and not desirable. He's taking issue with ippy's argument that because something exists and is normal, that does not in itself make it desirable. He's not saying homosexuality is not desirable.
-
I see: perhaps I misunderstood.
Even so, if the point JC is advancing is that some relationships could be viewed as being less good, less desirable or less valid than others does require some kind of justification.
He isn't in that post making any comment on homosexuality other than it is not sinful and can be seen as normal. Ippy's post implies that mere existence of something makes it ok, Steve simply in that post points out that is not the case.
-
Which he needs to do to give examples of things that exist that are normal, sinful and not desirable. He's taking issue with ippy's argument that because something exists and is normal, that does not in itself make it desirable. He's not saying homosexuality is not desirable.
If you say so, but his post doesn't make that clear.
-
He isn't in that post making any comment on homosexuality other than it is not sinful and can be seen as normal. Ippy's post implies that mere existence of something makes it ok, Steve simply in that post points out that is not the case.
I've now read back, including ippy's post which is key to what Steve said, and which I neglected to read properly earlier, and realise that I have indeed misunderstood: my apologies, Steve.
-
If you say so, but his post doesn't make that clear.
It's perfectly clear in the context of him replying to ippy's post. You are filling in stuff that his post doesn't say.
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it>
The emphasis there is mine - that implies that you think it isn't normal to be gay. That might not be what you intended to suggest, so feel free to clarify, but that phrasing makes that implication.
Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
Where did 'desirable' suddenly creep into the conversation - the discussion was about 'normal'. If you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'typically occuring' then being gay is entirely normal; not only does it appear throughout human history, it appears in other places in the animal kingdom too, it appears to be an entirely typical part of the spread of animal behaviour.
If, on the other hand, you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'conforming to social or cultural norms' well than that's rather dependent upon which cultural norms you choose to cleave to.
O.
-
The emphasis there is mine - that implies that you think it isn't normal to be gay. That might not be what you intended to suggest, so feel free to clarify, but that phrasing makes that implication.
Where did 'desirable' suddenly creep into the conversation - the discussion was about 'normal'. If you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'typically occuring' then being gay is entirely normal; not only does it appear throughout human history, it appears in other places in the animal kingdom too, it appears to be an entirely typical part of the spread of animal behaviour.
If, on the other hand, you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'conforming to social or cultural norms' well than that's rather dependent upon which cultural norms you choose to cleave to.
O.
Steve is merely making the point in reply to ippy that just because something exists then it doesn't mean it's fine. You are not reading in context and you are adding in meaning that is not clear in his post.
-
None of what Steve wrote lends itself to that interpretation
It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.
-
So you are saying it is abnormal to be gay? :o
I specificaly said that it "could be considered normal". I was pointing out that Ippy's argument was invalid, not the homosexuality is abnormal. An analogy: the syllogism "some mixed-race people are Americans, Barack Obama is mixed-race; therefor Barack Obama is American" is invalid, and doesn't prove anything, but as it happens, Barack Obama is indeed American. I was arguing against the validty of a particular argumet, not the truth that the argument was trying (but failing) to demonstrate. Got it now?
-
I specificaly said that it "could be considered normal". I was pointing out that Ippy's argument was invalid, not the homosexuality is abnormal. An analogy: the syllogism "some mixed-race people are Americans, Barack Obama is mixed-race; therefor Barack Obama is American" is invalid, and doesn't prove anything, but as it happens, Barack Obama is indeed American. I was arguing against the validty of a particular argumet, not the truth that the argument was trying (but failing) to demonstrate. Got it now?
?
-
There does sound to be a qualifying element to the "could be" part of the statement, perhaps?
OK, so I was hedging my bets. It depends what you mean by normal. I don't think it sinful, and welcomed legalisation, equalisation of the age of consent, and civil partnerships. If that's not good enough, tough.
-
Reading back, I think ippy was making an appeal to nature and that is what Steve was picking up on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
-
OK, so I was hedging my bets. It depends what you mean by normal. I don't think it sinful, and welcomed legalisation, equalisation of the age of consent, and civil partnerships. If that's not good enough, tough.
Why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not as valid as mine to be recognised as marriage?
-
If you say so, but his post doesn't make that clear.
It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.
-
It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.
He didn't use the term abnormal in the post.
-
It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.
Except as you have said you were 'hedging your bets' which has led to your remarks being unclear in some ways. People have read your remarks in the knowledge that you don't think homosexual relationships should be seen as the same as heterosexual ones as regards marriage. So yet again I will ask why do see trentvoyager's relationship to be separated from mine as regards marriage?
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
Well it seems like there might be a bit of questioning yourself possibly a bit of realignment in your thinking, to your credit.
Although I've no idea of what the percentage of homosexual people there are in populations so let's say for sake of argument the percentage is somewhere about 5% per head of our U K population and this has been so since records began that would make it normal to have on or around this number of app 5% gay people as the norm, I don't see there is any point where you can lift up any one of the four corners that have been firmly bolted down and insert anything else.
There plenty of ailments that now days involve the necessary use of a wheel chair, again going back to when records began I'll guess and feel justified in saying, there is and always has been a percentage of wheelchair users and blind people so therefore the norm would be a percentage of chair users and blind people in most normal populations such as here in the U K.
How come I guess anyone that posts on this forum isn't in any way surprised when they see someone in a wheelchair or a blind person,? Therefore wheelchair users and blind people are normal!
Oh yes you can keep your idea of the word sin or sinful to yourself preferably keep it inside your, I think narrow minded, religion based society or societies.
ippy.
-
It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.
But you don't, you go all round the houses to make a simple point. If you used plain English your post might not have been questioned!
-
He didn't use the term abnormal in the post.
No LR did. I was trying to say her use of it wasn’t a fair representation.
-
But you don't, you go all round the houses to make a simple point. If you used plain English your post might not have been questioned!
What in Steve's post was not 'plain English'?
-
Except as you have said you were 'hedging your bets' which has led to your remarks being unclear in some ways. People have read your remarks in the knowledge that you don't think homosexual relationships should be seen as the same as heterosexual ones as regards marriage. So yet again I will ask why do see trentvoyager's relationship to be separated from mine as regards marriage?
I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.
-
I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.
No, you have simply stated that you think trentvoyager's relationship is not as valid as mine as regards marriage. And you have made no attempt to say why when asked by trentvoyager. Which seems to me both discourteous on top of your twee homophobia.
-
I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.
Cowardly evasion noted.
-
He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.
-
I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)
Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?
-
Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?
No, he isn't
-
Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?
Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.
-
Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.
Thank the Goddess for that!
-
He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.
He explicitly did unless there is another meaning to "not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones," that I am not aware of.
but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
-
He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.
He wrote it shouldn't be regarded as on a par, so yes in his twee homophobia, he regards Trentvoyager's relationship as lesser.
-
Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.
So why in plain English do you think trentvoyager's relationship isn't on a par with mine?
-
It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.
He didn't offend me, unintentionally or otherwise. I don't think there are any other gay members in the audience.
I'm just interested in his hierarchy of relationships where mine isn't quite up to the mark on the basis of not having the right bits for each other. Presumably some heterosexuals who have certain physical deformities are to be denied marriage on the same basis.
It's all so difficult trying to work out the order of things. I just need help from Steve to understand how he works out his classification of relationships.
-
It's all so difficult trying to work out the order of things. I just need help from Steve to understand how he works out his classification of relationships.
In three words - From the Bible!
-
In three words - From the Bible!
Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.
-
Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.
So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?
-
So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?
How many times are you going to ask that question before the realisation dawns that you are not going to get an answer?
-
Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.
You might not be, but the notion that homosexuals cannot be married in a chgurch does.
And I thought you's given up! I just knew my luck couldn't be that good!
-
How many times are you going to ask that question before the realisation dawns that you are not going to get an answer?
Why won't you answer why you are homophobic?
-
Why won't you answer why you are homophobic?
Why should I. I'm actually bi!
-
Why should I. I'm actually bi!
Apologies, I thought I was replying to SteveH. As to how many times I will ask that of him, who knows.
-
Apologies, I thought I was replying to SteveH. As to how many times I will ask that of him, who knows.
Maybe you should start a Sweep on it?
-
So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?
The anatomical details, as I've already explained. It was you who brought it down to individuals, not me.
-
You might not be, but the notion that homosexuals cannot be married in a chgurch does.
Does what? That sentence doesn't even make sense!
-
The anatomical details, as I've already explained. It was you who brought it down to individuals, not me.
What about the anatomical details allows you to justify your homophobia?
And if you make a generic statement it applies to individuals. Is it merely that you are uncomfortable when it is pointed out that your homophobia applies to trentvoyager that you want to avoid that?
-
I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?
-
I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?
You think his relationship is not on a par with mine. That makes you a homophobe.
-
I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?
The fact that you refuse him a church marriage does!
-
Does what? That sentence doesn't even make sense!
Apologies for the mis-type! The last word should read "IS"
-
The fact that you refuse him a church marriage does!
He doesn't want him to have a civil marriage.
-
Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.
Sir James Wilde in A v B (1868) LR 1 P&D 559, 562 stated that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage, so the anatomical point appears to be irrelevant to whether a civil marriage is valid or not.
-
Sir James Wilde in A v B (1868) LR 1 P&D 559, 562 stated that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage, so the anatomical point appears to be irrelevant to whether a civil marriage is valid or not.
The original question was regarding the morality of active homosexuality, not marriage. Trent says so what if the anatomy and physiology is not compatible (except in using the same public loos). Well here is a question, so what if a long lost 60 year-old brother meets his 69 year old post-menopausal sister and they fall in love. Is there any reason why they should not make out? Or can we say that it is just plain wrong? Or is it okay to have an affair and cover it up so no-one gets hurt?
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.
-
You think his relationship is not on a par with mine. That makes you a homophobe.
Who appointed you Trent's spokesman, and what does Trent think about it?
-
If you read back you can see what I've said.
-
The original question was regarding the morality of active homosexuality, not marriage. Trent says so what if the anatomy and physiology is not compatible (except in using the same public loos). Well here is a question, so what if a long lost 60 year-old brother meets his 69 year old post-menopausal sister and they fall in love. Is there any reason why they should not make out? Or can we say that it is just plain wrong? Or is it okay to have an affair and cover it up so no-one gets hurt?
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.
My impression is that society's interpretation of morality reflects their particular squeamishness about certain issues and changes according to time, technology and geography, which is presumably why you find morals are not the same in different countries and cultures at different times.
The UK prioritises individual freedom and happiness compared to many other countries. That's just the way the history of this country has shaped social norms. Society has become more morally pluralistic and multi-cultural rather than homogenous over time. Who knows - it may be that consenting brother and sister relationship or same sex sibling sexual relationships may be considered legal, acceptable (on par with other relationships?) in the future depending on medical advances in contraception and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. It does not mean that a large percentage of the population would be interested in pursuing such relationships, but many in society may accept that it is ok that other people find them desirable - if medical risks can be overcome with technology. Of course there will be others who will continue to condemn such relationships since diversity in moral opinions is normal.
-
Who appointed you Trent's spokesman, and what does Trent think about it?
He's already asked much the same question.
-
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.
So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?
-
The original question was regarding the morality of active homosexuality, not marriage. Trent says so what if the anatomy and physiology is not compatible (except in using the same public loos). Well here is a question, so what if a long lost 60 year-old brother meets his 69 year old post-menopausal sister and they fall in love. Is there any reason why they should not make out? Or can we say that it is just plain wrong? Or is it okay to have an affair and cover it up so no-one gets hurt?
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.
The ongoing homophobia from you and from Steve/Jebediah is a fucking disgrace. The constant denigration of trentvoyager's relationship that the two of you are carrying out on this thread shows that while it might not need the Bible for some Christians to excuse their small minded bigotry, there are still Christians such as you both who will seek any excuse for their unpleasant little prejudices. I honestly don't know whether I dislike your more overt homophobia. or Steve's 'I think gay people are fine but their relationship isn't on a par with a straight relationship' schtick - at least you front up to your bigotry as opposed to the twee dishonest stuff from Steve. Either way you both show Christianity in an appalling light.
-
The ongoing homophobia from you and from Steve/Jebediah is a fucking disgrace. The constant denigration of trentvoyager's relationship that the two of you are carrying out on this thread shows that while it might not need the Bible for some Christians to excuse their small minded bigotry, there are still Christians such as you both who will seek any excuse for their unpleasant little prejudices. I honestly don't know whether I dislike your more overt homophobia. or Steve's 'I think gay people are fine but their relationship isn't on a par with a straight relationship' schtick - at least you front up to your bigotry as opposed to the twee dishonest stuff from Steve. Either way you both show Christianity in an appalling light.
This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.
-
This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.
You have said it isn't on a par with a straight one - that is denigrating it. And that you seek to avoid then it just makes you a liar as well as a homophobe
-
The attitude of those two posters is the sort of thing I had in mind when I created this thread. I must admit I am surprised at how many posts it has attracted. Maybe one day it might be made a 'sticky' like 'Searching for God'.
-
Get stuffed.
No, because I'm not going to let you push your twee homophobia on here unchallenged
-
This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.
Steve, while your comments may not be on a par with Steve's in terms of extremism (see what I did there), low level homophobia (such as claiming gay relationships aren't on a par with straight ones), which you do engage in provides the oxygen to the more hateful comments of people like Spud. Over the centuries the most hateful comments and actions have always been justified and normalised because a larger body of less extreme people engage in lower level hate. In order to stamp out the likes of Spud you have to practice what you preach - you cannot reasonably denounce him while all the time engaging in homophobia yourself (even at a lower level).
There is no threshold of tolerance to hate - you either reject (and therefore should not engage in it) or you are part of the enabling crowd that leads to Spud and gay people hospitalised in random homophobic attacks. Which group do you want to be part of Steve? - it is your choice, but that choice comes with consequences.
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
-
While challenging what you perceive as homophobia is a good thing, presumably on this forum we still need to discuss different strands of morality where it is relevant to social issues today. Is discussing same-sex marriage or relationships any different from discussing the morality of Muslim polygyny in the UK or other consensual relationships?
I don't buy the argument that giving oxygen to that debate on a debating forum leads to Muslim-bashing. I think the discussion of ideas should be had as open discussion is too important to reaching understanding between opposing sides and learning tolerance without violence, but yes I agree we should always be aware of the extremists on the different sides of the debate. It's up to the criminal justice system to prevent and police criminal acts. It's up to people to seek to change views persuasively.
Personally I don't think NS's efforts on this forum are persuasive and probably counter-productive, but if it makes him feel better, that's his choice of the persona he wishes to adopt on here.
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
It isn't reasonable if you don't think gays should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.
-
So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?
While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.
Regards Trent, ippy.
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
Your position is certainly clear but it isn't reasonable, and is also homophobic. You can call people self righteous all you like but it isn't going to take away from the fact you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
-
While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.
Regards Trent, ippy.
As I have mentioned before, being left handed was looked down upon at one time. My mother and her older brother were punished for using their left hands for writing when at school. :o My uncle had polio as a baby and couldn't use his right hand! I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right. An elderly man saw me writing when I was a child, he said my parents should spanked me for doing so! >:(
-
While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.
Regards Trent, ippy.
Tell me about it. I'm left handed and gay.
There's no end to the shit god deals out ;-)
-
Tell me about it. I'm left handed and gay.
There's no end to the shit god deals out ;-)
You definitely need to be locked up as one of societies extreme outcasts, it's too late for capital punishment, if I'd known this Trent_________
Regards, ippy :D :D :D
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
Presumably you don't think there is a formula that can be used to decide whether one relationship is on par with another relationship? It seems to be your personal preference based on some arbitrary criteria you (along with many others) have chosen..
There are so many different types of relationships - marriages without any sex, marriages with some sexual acts but not others, emotionally or financially abusive marriages with non-abusive sexual acts; marriages which don't produce children; marriages that result in poverty and hardship; polygamy; marriages of duty; marriages of convenience; loveless marriages; marriages that appear horrible but the people in them are happy etc
I don't see how there can be any objective judgement about the quality of a marriage, though obviously society through Parliament, judges, social workers etc can legislate against certain behaviours they view as having an unacceptable cost to individuals or society.
-
As I have mentioned before, being left handed was looked down upon at one time. My mother and her older brother were punished for using their left hands for writing when at school. :o My uncle had polio as a baby and couldn't use his right hand! I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right. An elderly man saw me writing when I was a child, he said my parents should spanked me for doing so! >:(
I had an aunt Euphemia, yes that was her name, Feeny for short and she was made to sit on her left hand while she was doing any writing at school, I believe she developed a tick of some sort more than likely was connected to this treatment but fortunately it wasn't a lasting condition.
Regards, ippy.
-
It isn't reasonable if you don't think gays should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.
Being unreasonable and disagreeing with you are two different things.
-
Being unreasonable and disagreeing with you are two different things.
You are being UNREASONABLE if you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
-
You are being UNREASONABLE if you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.
-
You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.
Oh dear, it is you who seems to have lost it by having a childish temper tantrum as other posters don't agree with you. ::)
-
You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.
That's better than being a homophobe though. And there is now apparent misogyny as well with the word hysterical in this context.
-
That's better than being a homophobe though. And there is now apparent misogyny as well with the word hysterical in this context.
Etymological fallacy.
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
Precisely! You seem to think that low-level homophobia is less of an unpleasance than the virtiolic homophobia that Steve deines by quoting the bible.
Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?) but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.
It is merely a matter of degree and my hatred of anti-gays like you gets greater the more you try to excuse your attitude.
-
Precisely! You seem to think that low-level homophobia is less of an unpleasance than the virtiolic homophobia that Steve deines by quoting the bible.
Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?) but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.
It is merely a matter of degree and my hatred of anti-gays like you gets greater the more you try to excuse your attitude.
Do I care tuppence?
No, I don't.
-
I had an aunt Euphemia, yes that was her name, Feeny for short and she was made to sit on her left hand while she was doing any writing at school, I believe she developed a tick of some sort more than likely was connected to this treatment but fortunately it wasn't a lasting condition.
Regards, ippy.
My mother had the same treatment at school and wound up being able to write both right and left handed and also, just for a party trick could also write backwards, legibly, with both hands.
-
Do I care tuppence?
No, I don't.
That doesn't stop you being a homophobe - it just makes you a small-minded thick-skinned homophobe.
-
Etymological fallacy.
No, it's long been a term with a pejorative sense when used of women as an attempt to put down their arguments because of their sex. Given you will be aware of that your deliberate choice was to add misogyny to your homophobia.
-
Tell me about it. I'm left handed and gay.
There's no end to the shit god deals out ;-)
Jesus Christ. Next you'll be revealing that you are ginger too.
FTR I am left handed.
-
What is wrong with having ginger hair?
-
What is wrong with having ginger hair?
I'm reliably informed that it's an indication of 'soul deficit disorder'...
O.
-
Precisely! You seem to think that low-level homophobia is less of an unpleasance than the virtiolic homophobia that Steve deines by quoting the bible.
I assume by "Steve" you mean "Spud" and "deines" looks like a typo for "denies" but the word would be the opposite of what I think you meant.
In any case, yes it is.
Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?)
Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.
This is obviously false. Steve has, so far, expressed a belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry (other gay people of the same sex presumably) and that gay relationships are somehow lesser because they can't have standard heterosexual sex. I think he is wrong on both counts but that's a far cry from advocating the slaughter of homosexuals.
It is merely a matter of degree and my hatred of anti-gays like you gets greater the more you try to excuse your attitude.
There's nothing mere about the difference in degree between advocating the death of gay people and denying them access to a certain legal institution.
Whatever you say about Steve, or even Spud, they are not as bad as those who advocate killing gay people and it's absurd and destructive to suggest they are.
-
What is wrong with having ginger hair?
In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_On_(British_TV_series))
-
In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_On_(British_TV_series))
https://youtu.be/9NA64meSo04 (https://youtu.be/9NA64meSo04)
Parental guidance, may seriously offend sensitive red-heads.
-
I assume by "Steve" you mean "Spud" and "deines" looks like a typo for "denies" but the word would be the opposite of what I think you meant.
Your are correct in both your correction of "Steve" to "Spud" and "Deines" to "Denies" - I also meant that his denial of a xchurch marriage.
Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
This is obviously false. Steve has, so far, expressed a belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry (other gay people of the same sex presumably) and that gay relationships are somehow lesser because they can't have standard heterosexual sex. I think he is wrong on both counts but that's a far cry from advocating the slaughter of homosexuals.
There's nothing mere about the difference in degree between advocating the death of gay people and denying them access to a certain legal institution.
Whatever you say about Steve, or even Spud, they are not as bad as those who advocate killing gay people and it's absurd and destructive to suggest they are.
This, the balance of your reply is irrelevant as my comments were addressed to Jedediah Cleishbotham. hence the JC initials comment!
-
In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_On_(British_TV_series))
I think it predates that by quite some way - it was around in my school-days in the early to mid-80s, and 'Game On' didn't start until the 90's.
O.
-
Your are correct in both your correction of "Steve" to "Spud" and "Deines" to "Denies" - I also meant that his denial of a xchurch marriage.
This, the balance of your reply is irrelevant as my comments were addressed to Jedediah Cleishbotham. hence the JC initials comment!
Steve = Jebediah
-
Steve = Jebediah
Jedediah. Minor character from Scott's novels.
-
My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.
Is that aimed at me Steve - your post is unclear.
What I am trying to do is to get you to think, firstly about your views and secondly about the consequences of those view being expressed.
I cannot silence you but I can (hopefully make your think) - and if you choose to continue to hold such homophobic views and to express them there are consequences. Firstly people like me, and many others here, will call you out robustly for holding those views. Secondly people like Spud will see your comments as giving acceptability and legitimacy to his more extreme view and that in turn will be seen by others again as giving acceptability and legitimacy to homophobic actions, including violence. That's how it goes Steve - and you will be part of the trail of consequences.
-
Presumably you don't think there is a formula that can be used to decide whether one relationship is on par with another relationship? It seems to be your personal preference based on some arbitrary criteria you (along with many others) have chosen..
There are so many different types of relationships - marriages without any sex, marriages with some sexual acts but not others, emotionally or financially abusive marriages with non-abusive sexual acts; marriages which don't produce children; marriages that result in poverty and hardship; polygamy; marriages of duty; marriages of convenience; loveless marriages; marriages that appear horrible but the people in them are happy etc
I don't see how there can be any objective judgement about the quality of a marriage, though obviously society through Parliament, judges, social workers etc can legislate against certain behaviours they view as having an unacceptable cost to individuals or society.
Indeed - and frankly the only people really able to judge a relationship are the two people in that relationship. Surely the 'quality' of a relationship should be based on the consensual mutual love and respect for each other in that relationship. And that has nothing to do with the gender of the individuals in that relationship, nor whether they have chosen to marry or not, nor whether they have children etc. It is much more fundamental than that, but something we cannot really judge from the outside and certainly not something we should be categorising in some sort of bizarre league table.
-
Is that aimed at me Steve - your post is unclear.
What I am trying to do is to get you to think, firstly about your views and secondly about the consequences of those view being expressed.
I cannot silence you but I can (hopefully make your think) - and if you choose to continue to hold such homophobic views and to express them there are consequences. Firstly people like me, and many others here, will call you out robustly for holding those views. Secondly people like Spud will see your comments as giving acceptability and legitimacy to his more extreme view and that in turn will be seen by others again as giving acceptability and legitimacy to homophobic actions, including violence. That's how it goes Steve - and you will be part of the trail of consequences.
I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?
-
I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?
Someone who doesn't want to discriminate against homosexuals unlike you.
-
I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?
Someone who knows that if you make homophobic comments, refuse to accept them as such when called out over them, refuses to retract them when called out over them, refuses to accept those comments to be wrong is ... well ... a homophobe. Perhaps not an extreme homophobe, but a homophobe nonetheless.
And no I am not being patronising - I am challenging you to think about exactly what you are saying and the consequences of your comments. If you don't like being challenged in such a manner, perhaps better not to make such comments in the first place.
-
You are being UNREASONABLE if you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
Different subject but the same principle applies non-religious people are discriminated against by the BBC six days a week on the today programme non-religious people are actually not allowed to speak on the 'Thought For the Day' spot within the 'Today programme.
This amounts to the same thing, only it's Jed wanting to discriminate
against homosexual people, so it's just as you say L R.
Regards L R, ippy.
-
Different subject but the same principle applies non-religious people are discriminated against by the BBC six days a week on the today programme non-religious people are actually not allowed to speak on the 'Thought For the Day' spot within the 'Today programme.
This amounts to the same thing, only it's Jed wanting to discriminate
against homosexual people, so it's just as you say L R.
Regards L R, ippy.
If it is true 'Thought for the Day', is for people of faith only that is wrong. It is not something I listen to.
-
If it is true 'Thought for the Day', is for people of faith only that is wrong. It is not something I listen to.
Almost unbelievable L R, but yes it's a fact try the BBC complaints about it they have a standard answer that starts with, It's an opportunity', you'd be amazed at the attempt it makes to turn logic and fair play on its head to excuse itself for banning non-religious speakers from the T4TD spot.
BBC Radio 4 the 'Today' programme starts at 0600 to 9000 six days a week not on Sundays, T4TD is about a three minute spot within the 'Today programme.
I think someone like Alan Burns wrote their excuse for them whoever it was must be dead now due to irreversibly turning themselves inside out as they attempted to compose the excuse.
Regards, ippy.
PS I almost forgot there's a 'Pause for Thought' spot on Ken Bruce's early morning BBC's Radio 2 show, same rule as above applies.
-
He wrote it shouldn't be regarded as on a par, so yes in his twee homophobia, he regards Trentvoyager's relationship as lesser.
I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.
Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.
A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;
-
I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.
Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.
A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;
I'm so glad I'm in my world and not yours Robbie, although at the same time I'm sure you're a very good and well meaning person.
Regards, ippy.
-
I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.
Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.
A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;
Except since Steve/Jebediah has argued on this thread that there should be no homosexual marriage because their relationship is not on a par with straight ones, and when asked about it by trentvoyager who is gay told him not to be silly, I'm not seeking out prejudice, I'm pointing it out.
-
Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, ...
Each relationship is individual - no two are alike. I don't see the point of specifically dividing them into gay vs straight.
... that does not signify inferiority.
But to state that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones (as Steve did) implies just that - unless Steve was implying that gay relationships are better. The term 'par' is very clearly about better and worse - to be on a par means to be equal to in quality to, or importance. Therefore not to be on a par implies something to be worse than (or better than) or less important (or more important). It doesn't just mean different.
In the context of gay relationships - describing them as not being on a par doesn't mean different, it clearly means worse of less important (unless Steve thinks they are better or more important) than straight relationships. And I'm sorry but that is a homophobic comment.
-
Each relationship is individual - no two are alike. I don't see the point of specifically dividing them into gay vs straight.
But to state that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones (as Steve did) implies just that - unless Steve was implying that gay relationships are better. The term 'par' is very clearly about better and worse - to be on a par means to be equal to in quality to, or importance. Therefore not to be on a par implies something to be worse than (or better than) or less important (or more important). It doesn't just mean different.
In the context of gay relationships - describing them as not being on a par doesn't mean different, it clearly means worse of less important (unless Steve thinks they are better or more important) than straight relationships. And I'm sorry but that is a homophobic comment.
And he wants to discriminate against homosexuals based on it.
-
I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic.
See my comment above - claiming that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones is clearly homophobic as par relates to quality or importance - unless you believe that Steve was meaning that gay relationships are better or more important than straight ones, which I doubt.
-
If it is true 'Thought for the Day', is for people of faith only that is wrong. It is not something I listen to.
Actually even some faiths are excluded - Pagans, for instance!
-
I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.
Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.
A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;
Steve/Jebediah saying trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with with mine, and that homosexuals should be discriminated against
'Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.'
And where he tells Trentvoyager not to be silly for not wanting to be discriminated against
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16912.900
-
... that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying.
But he didn't say that they were different - he said that gay relationships were not on a par with straight ones - that clearly implies inferiority, not mere difference.
-
Your are correct in both your correction of "Steve" to "Spud" and "Deines" to "Denies" - I also meant that his denial of a xchurch marriage.
This, the balance of your reply is irrelevant as my comments were addressed to Jedediah Cleishbotham. hence the JC initials comment!
Ah, did you not know that Jedediah Cleishbotham is Steve? I apologise: you have been away for a while and hence you might not have known that.
-
Ah, did you not know that Jedediah Cleishbotham is Steve? I apologise: you have been away for a while and hence you might not have known that.
Until NS pointed it out I did not make the connection.
-
I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.
I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.
Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.
So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.
So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.
We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc. at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.
-
Indeed - and frankly the only people really able to judge a relationship are the two people in that relationship. Surely the 'quality' of a relationship should be based on the consensual mutual love and respect for each other in that relationship. And that has nothing to do with the gender of the individuals in that relationship, nor whether they have chosen to marry or not, nor whether they have children etc. It is much more fundamental than that, but something we cannot really judge from the outside and certainly not something we should be categorising in some sort of bizarre league table.
Agreed. Society still seems to be made up of a lot of people who think a relationship that does not result in marriage and produce healthy genetically-related offspring to propagate the species, add value to the economy and national security is not on par with relationships that do result in those outcomes. So I would not necessarily single out a phobia of same sex relationships - it could be more to do with a different set of priorities and values. Our priorities and values are not homogeneous in a morally pluralistic society.
-
I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.
I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.
Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.
So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.
So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.
We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc. at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.
I am so very sorry that you have been made to feel uncomfortable about your sexuality because of the nastiness of anti-gay bigots. :( Anyone who thinks all paedophiles are gay are totally looney tunes, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are paedophiles, including some famous names like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.
Gay or straight a person should have the same rights to an adult consensual relationship and feel happy in the skin they are in.
-
I am so very sorry that you have been made to feel uncomfortable about your sexuality because of the nastiness of anti-gay bigots. :( Anyone who thinks all paedophiles are gay are totally looney tunes, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are paedophiles, including some famous names like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.
Gay or straight a person should have the same rights to an adult consensual relationship and feel happy in the skin they are in.
The problem is trying to get a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to agree with you!
-
The problem is trying to get a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to agree with you!
If you mean by that a Biblical literalist, you are probably correct. Most Christians aren't literalists, and many are gay, including clergy, who are not shy where their sexuality is concerned.
-
If you mean by that a Biblical literalist, you are probably correct. Most Christians aren't literalists, and many are gay, including clergy, who are not shy where their sexuality is concerned.
Which, combined with the RC'c problem priests, demonstrates the Christian religions capacity for double standards!
-
See my comment above - claiming that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones is clearly homophobic as par relates to quality or importance - unless you believe that Steve was meaning that gay relationships are better or more important than straight ones, which I doubt.
Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage? It may be a considered, thought-out position. I think that kind of name-calling is called poisoning the well, and is regarded as a logical fallacy, but I'll leave it to the fallacy-hunters on here to conferm or correct that.
-
If a person doesn't treat homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned, they obviously have some sort of prejudice, however much they like to pretend they don't.
-
If a person doesn't treat homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned, they obviously have some sort of prejudice, however much they like to pretend they don't.
I think the point is that flinging around accusations of homophobia is not constructive and I do not think Steve is homophobic. Steve has said he does not agree with the idea of same sex marriage*. He has given his reasons and he has presented an argument (which I think contains fallacies). I'd rather have a discussion with Steve about why I think his reasoning is fallacious than have him hounded out of the conversation. Incidentally, a few pages back I did try to point out a couple of flaws in his argument, but it all got drowned out in the general verbal lynching.
*I do not use the term "gay marriage" because gay people have never been banned from getting married, only from marrying anybody they might be in love with.
-
OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?
-
OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
-
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
You just don't get it do you? The homophobia is instutionalised in the Christian Churches (via the Bible) who do NOT want to allow gays to get married in church and the government, for some reason, was not willing to tell them to shut up and obey the law, so the law was changed to allow a "Civil Partnership" to allow the Chruch to continue to be homophobic withoout breaking the law!
As has been said before the Church's homophobia is Biblical in origin and some christians are not prepared to admit it!
-
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
What is your reaction to Trentvoyager's post 1056 on this page?
-
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
I don't get that at all! Surely it shouldn't matter whether you are gay or straight, if you love each other and wish to get married, there should be nothing to stop you doing so.
BTW what is your take on gays having children?
-
Steve,
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
What on earth does “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” mean, and in any case of all the characteristics you could have selected to differentiate why pick in that one specifically to decide that equal marriage isn’t ”on a par” with heterosexual only marriage?
-
and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population
What the buggery bollocks has numbers got to do with matters of equality?
-
I think the point is that flinging around accusations of homophobia is not constructive and I do not think Steve is homophobic. Steve has said he does not agree with the idea of same sex marriage*. He has given his reasons and he has presented an argument (which I think contains fallacies). I'd rather have a discussion with Steve about why I think his reasoning is fallacious than have him hounded out of the conversation. Incidentally, a few pages back I did try to point out a couple of flaws in his argument, but it all got drowned out in the general verbal lynching.
*I do not use the term "gay marriage" because gay people have never been banned from getting married, only from marrying anybody they might be in love with.
What is your reaction to trentvoyager's post 1056 on this page?
-
BTW what is your take on gays having children?
And that's another thing: they can't, except with the co-operation of a woman friend, and one of them adopting. That said, I'm fine with gays (male or female) having children.
-
Steve,
Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage? It may be a considered, thought-out position. I think that kind of name-calling is called poisoning the well, and is regarded as a logical fallacy, but I'll leave it to the fallacy-hunters on here to conferm or correct that.
Homophobia is the dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. Telling us that homosexual marriage can’t be “on a par” with heterosexual marriage (ie, it’s less deserving of or entitled to parity) because gay people “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” with no rationale to support that statement implies a prejudice. Hence homophobia.
-
Steve,
And that's another thing: they can't, except with the co-operation of a woman friend, and one of them asdopting. That said, I'm fine with gays (male or female) having children.
And nor can lots of straight married people, and some straight married people choose not to have children in any case. Also some straight married people engage in sexual activity using bits of their bodies that, as you put it, "anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do". Are the marriages of all these groups not on a par with marriages between people who only have procreational sex?
-
Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.
-
Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.
Hmmm....that depends on the chap.
-
Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.
The typo is an interesting one.
-
The typo is an interesting one.
Ain't that the truth!
-
Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage?
Could we possibly stop referring to people as racist if they are not completely, 100% on board with black people being allowed to marry.
Nope your comments are homophobic in the same manner as my analogous comment is racist.
It may be a considered, thought-out position.
It may well be considered and thought out, but that doesn't stop it being homophobic - similarly if someone has a problem with black people being allowed to marry that is racist, regardless of how considered or thought our their position may be.
-
I think the point is that flinging around accusations of homophobia is not constructive and I do not think Steve is homophobic. Steve has said he does not agree with the idea of same sex marriage.
Jeremy would you be claiming that someone who does not agree with black people being able to marry isn't racist? I suspect not.
Is this a glaring lack of consistency on your part - or are you buying into a continuing societal perception that prejudice on the grounds of sexuality is somehow lesser to prejudice on the grounds of race. Seems to me this is just about timing - we are rather further ahead in the struggle for equality on racial grounds than on sexuality. But of course both are equally bad and in due course we will be as horrified at casual homophobia (as per Steve) as we are now about casual racism. Yet, of course, 30 years ago we kind of accepted all sorts of casual racist comment that we would never tolerate now, thank goodness.
-
Not sure that comparison to black people works. There isn’t a behaviour related to sex that black people can’t do but other races can. This is related to whether certain behaviours make a marriage better or not on par based on a particular historical definition of marriage as being a formal agreement between a man and a woman as a way of protecting their offspring and passing on property. There is less need for these formal arrangements now.
As I pointed out earlier, case law in the 19th century was that there does not need to be sexual relations for a marriage to be valid.
-
Could we possibly stop referring to people as racist if they are not completely, 100% on board with black people being allowed to marry.
Nope your comments are homophobic in the same manner as my analogous comment is racist.
It may well be considered and thought out, but that doesn't stop it being homophobic - similarly if someone has a problem with black people being allowed to marry that is racist, regardless of how considered or thought our their position may be.
Good well thought out post, which shows up Steve's comments on homosexuality.
-
I am trying to catch up with this continued discussion. I had a problem with my computer and missed an opportunity to comment about four pages ago.
I would just like to say (and I apologise if there has been appropriate discussion) that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction. However, for homo sapiens this is no longer appropriate. For homo sapiens the primary purpose of sex is the maintenance of the pair bond - and this is necessitated by the extremely long developmental period experienced by members of that species.
Human beings take about 12 years before they are able to reproduce. But this developmental milepost is reached before they have achieved full physical maturity and about 10 years before the human brain has fully developed. It is the time taken for the brain to fully develop which is the reason for the long childhood.
It is to the benefit of developing children that they have the protection of two parents. Sex is the reward that the couple receive for staying together. In most cases these are the the parents responsible for the infant's conception and birth. But it does not have to be so, children can be (and are) raised by people who with whom they have no genetic relationship. And children can be raised by two adoptive parents of the same sex. There is no requirement that only one member of the parenting couple should possess a penis or a vagina. The only requirement is that the relationship should be loving and supportive.
Q Four white, homosexual, American men went into a room together. What came out?
A West Side Story
PS
Another couple of points from a few pages ago.
I do not understand why Spud is so obsessed by the "Shalt nots" of the Mosaic commandments. Spud claims to be a Christian and the founder of his religion said that in his new testament there were only two commandments: (1) to love God, and (2) to love his neighbour as himself. If Spud's neighbour has a different sexual orientation from Spud that means that Spud is sinning if he treats his neighbour any differently than he treats himself. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is nothing to do with Spud.
RCs, shame and guilt with respect to confession. I speak as a former RC. Shame is public, guilt is private. The confessional is private. No priest would ever shame a confessor, but (I believe) absolution is not automatic. A priest may tell someone that he cannot grant absolution unless that person makes some attempt to make good his sinful action. This may be handing ones self in to the police or returning stolen property or making good some other kind of wrong. But what catholicism is very good at is making people feel guilty. I walked away from religion over half a century ago - but if bearing guilt were an Olympic event then I would be in the medals.
-
Good well thought out post, which shows up Steve's comments on homosexuality.
Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception. There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.
-
The ongoing homophobia from you and from Steve/Jebediah is a fucking disgrace. The constant denigration of trentvoyager's relationship that the two of you are carrying out on this thread shows that while it might not need the Bible for some Christians to excuse their small minded bigotry, there are still Christians such as you both who will seek any excuse for their unpleasant little prejudices. I honestly don't know whether I dislike your more overt homophobia. or Steve's 'I think gay people are fine but their relationship isn't on a par with a straight relationship' schtick - at least you front up to your bigotry as opposed to the twee dishonest stuff from Steve. Either way you both show Christianity in an appalling light.
Trent brought his relationship into the debate. My initial comment was related to both homosexuality and abortion. You guys forget that freedom of belief is a human right, so why can someone not make an argument that something is morally wrong without being accused of bigotry?
-
My impression is that society's interpretation of morality reflects their particular squeamishness about certain issues and changes according to time, technology and geography, which is presumably why you find morals are not the same in different countries and cultures at different times.
The UK prioritises individual freedom and happiness compared to many other countries. That's just the way the history of this country has shaped social norms. Society has become more morally pluralistic and multi-cultural rather than homogenous over time. Who knows - it may be that consenting brother and sister relationship or same sex sibling sexual relationships may be considered legal, acceptable (on par with other relationships?) in the future depending on medical advances in contraception and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. It does not mean that a large percentage of the population would be interested in pursuing such relationships, but many in society may accept that it is ok that other people find them desirable - if medical risks can be overcome with technology. Of course there will be others who will continue to condemn such relationships since diversity in moral opinions is normal.
I've checked, and was surprised to find that incest is legal in France, Spain, Russia and other countries.
Nevertheless, just because something is allowed, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. It can be allowed because people have desires that are too strong to control, but still viewed as wrong and better to aim at not doing it. People can change according to moral beliefs, and such change can be healthy, if it isn't forced upon them.
-
Trent brought his relationship into the debate. My initial comment was related to both homosexuality and abortion. You guys forget that freedom of belief is a human right, so why can someone not make an argument that something is morally wrong without being accused of bigotry?
Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional - and typically one of the conditions that apply is that the belief doesn't conflict with the freedom from discrimination of people with other protected characteristics. Also that expressing views based on belief cannot incite violence or hate crimes.
However on the point in hand - sure you can express your faith-based views (provided they don't fall foul of the above), but your 'freedom of belief' doesn't mean you are protected from the most robust challenge to those views where they are intolerance and prejudiced. Nor does it protect you from being called a homophobe when you clearly express homophobic views.
-
Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional - and typically one of the conditions that apply is that the belief doesn't conflict with the freedom from discrimination of people with other protected characteristics. Also that expressing views based on belief cannot incite violence or hate crimes.
However on the point in hand - sure you can express your faith-based views (provided they don't fall foul of the above), but your 'freedom of belief' doesn't mean you are protected from the most robust challenge to those views where they are intolerance and prejudiced. Nor does it protect you from being called a homophobe when you clearly express homophobic views.
Agreed, although I think there is a conflict. Note I have not said that same sex marriage should be banned (it should be tolerated), but have argued that it is morally wrong, in answer to Trent's question.
-
On this forum you can have your beliefs robustly challenged even if they are not intolerant or prejudiced. I used to get my belief in Islam robustly challenged just on the basis that the Quran had an Arabic word for unbeliever. Therefore beliefs in same-sex marriage are also open to robust challenge on here. Any moral belief is open to robust challenge on a debate forum.
-
Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception.
So an argument should be dismissed just because a poster uses a colloquial term - sounds like running away from the debate Steve.
There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.
Yes there is - both are inherent biological characteristics over which the individual has no choice.
In both cases those inherent characteristics have traditionally resulted in individuals possessing those characteristics being treated less favourably by society for no other reason than the possession of those characteristics. Further in both cases that discrimination has typically been based on a view that possession of those characteristics means that individual (or their abilities or behaviours) is considered inferior to other people who do not possess those characteristics.
You could add being female to that list.
-
Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.
The difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is that married people can present themselves to each other and to others as being married and everything that the institution represents. That's a distinction that matters to a lot of people including gay people.
I don't understand why the anatomical thing is important to anybody except the partners. Marriage is a human legal institution, not a biological function. In any case, surely one of the things that sets humans apart from other animals is our ability to transcend or biology - to go against our "animal nature".
-
Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception. There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.
Many of your posts are very childish when you are having a kiddie's temper tantrum as you seem to do when people don't see it your way. ::)
-
I think there is a difference between skin colour and sexual acts. One is a characteristic and the other is a behaviour With regards to women, they tend to be physically weaker after puberty than men so if you judge people on strength and speed your moral values would lead you to discriminate against women or you could argue that you are actually trying to protect them from the higher risk of harm.
-
Agreed, although I think there is a conflict. Note I have not said that same sex marriage should be banned (it should be tolerated), but have argued that it is morally wrong, in answer to Trent's question.
What is morally wrong about it?
-
Steve,
What on earth does “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”
It means Steve thinks marriage should only apply to couples with one penis and one vagina between them.
-
Many of your posts are very childish when you are having a kiddie's temper tantrum as you seem to do when people don't see it your way. ::)
"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.
-
"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.
TEMPER, TEMPER. ;D ;D ;D
-
Trent brought his relationship into the debate.
I brought my relationship into this debate because you and to a lesser extent Steve view homosexuality in the abstract. We are talking about people here.
PS I reject your tolerance.
-
I brought my relationship into this debate because you and to a lesser extent Steve view homosexuality in the abstract. We are talking about people here.
And in making generalized statements, Steve and Spud already brought your relationship, and indeed mine into it. I note other than tell you not to be silly, which is part of the reason I see Steve as being homophobic hete, he hasn't engaged with you, and has ignored your admirable post talking 1056.
-
Jeremy would you be claiming that someone who does not agree with black people being able to marry isn't racist? I suspect not.
Is this a glaring lack of consistency on your part - or are you buying into a continuing societal perception that prejudice on the grounds of sexuality is somehow lesser to prejudice on the grounds of race. Seems to me this is just about timing - we are rather further ahead in the struggle for equality on racial grounds than on sexuality. But of course both are equally bad and in due course we will be as horrified at casual homophobia (as per Steve) as we are now about casual racism. Yet, of course, 30 years ago we kind of accepted all sorts of casual racist comment that we would never tolerate now, thank goodness.
The situation is not completely analogous. There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married. The inequity of the pre 2014 situation arises from the fact that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman and that rules out a gay person marrying somebody who they love.
Steve thinks the ability to have heterosexual sex is important in a marriage. I don't know why he thinks it is important, I suspect it is because "that's the way it's always been". However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.
-
However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.
In which case he is.
-
The situation is not completely analogous. There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married. The inequity of the pre 2014 situation arises from the fact that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman and that rules out a gay person marrying somebody who they love.
Steve thinks the ability to have heterosexual sex is important in a marriage. I don't know why he thinks it is important, I suspect it is because "that's the way it's always been". However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.
Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.
-
Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional
No. Not unless you advocate putting people in prison for thought crimes.
and typically one of the conditions that apply is that the belief doesn't conflict with the freedom from discrimination of people with other protected characteristics. Also that expressing views based on belief cannot incite violence or hate crimes.
Beliefs don't conflict with anybody's freedom from discrimination. It's when you act on your beliefs that it becomes problematic. There should be no problem with believing gay marriage is wrong as long as you don't act on that belief by, for example, banning gay married couples from booking your B&B when you allow straight married couples to book it.
-
"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.
Actually, if anything it is a tautology. An oxymoron is where you juxtapose two contradictory words. "Compassionate Conservatism" just popped into my head as an example.
-
Actually, if anything it is a tautology. An oxymoron is where you juxtapose two contradictory words. "Compassionate Conservatism" just popped into my head as an example.
No, it's an oxymoron. Temper means " calmness, slowness to anger": it is what you lose when you get angry.
-
Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.
No that is homophobic. To be honest, I'd forgotten that he wrote that. However, you haven't won the argument just by labelling a statement homophobic.
-
No, it's an oxymoron. Temper means " calmness, slowness to anger": it is what you lose when you get angry.
Nope.
"a person's state of mind seen in terms of their being angry or calm"
-
No that is homophobic. To be honest, I'd forgotten that he wrote that. However, you haven't won the argument just by labelling a statement homophobic.
I didn't claim to have won any argument by labelling a statement as homophobic. And the use of the statement has been repeated in several posts by myself, Trent, and Prof D.
I did express my disgust at that, and it wasn't in any sense about being in a lunch mob, but genuine disgust. Especially given Steve's dismissive approach to Trent expressing his concerns.
ETA Autocorrect changed lynch to lunch but that is too good to change.
-
No. Not unless you advocate putting people in prison for thought crimes.
True in absolute terms - but when religious people talk of freedom of belief they don't mean simply the freedom to hold a view in their mind - no they mean the freedom to practice that belief and express their views.
-
Nope.
"a person's state of mind seen in terms of their being angry or calm"
No.
"Mental balance or composure, esp. under provocation; calmness; equanimity; (now chiefly in keep or lose ome's temper, out of temper)."
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, than which there is no higher authority, except for the Oxford English Dictionary from which it is derived.
I agree with you about "compassionate conservatism" being an oxymoron, though; like "military intelligence"!
-
Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.
I thought the “not equal” was based on sexual acts. As in the moral value that some sexual acts are not on par with penetrative sex of vagina by penis? I’m not clear if Steve thinks a sexless marriage between a man and a woman is on par with a marriage with penetrative sex of the specified female orifice.
-
I thought the “not equal” was based on sexual acts. As in the moral value that some sexual acts are not on par with penetrative sex of vagina by penis? I’m not clear if Steve thinks a sexless marriage between a man and a woman is on par with a marriage with penetrative sex of the specified female orifice.
Not really sure what difference that makes. He thinks specifically that homosexuals should be discriminated against because their relationships are not in a par with straight ones. Whether that is based on sex acts seems to me to be irrelevant to him being homophobic.
-
No.
"Mental balance or composure, esp. under provocation; calmness; equanimity; (now chiefly in keep or lose ome's temper, out of temper)."
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, than which there is no higher authority, except for the Oxford English Dictionary from which it is derived.
I agree with you about "compassionate conservatism" being an oxymoron, though; like "military intelligence"!
Leaving aside that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, the definition you give allows for temper to be something that can be lost and hence a temper tantrum makes perfect sense. Even if it didn't that it is a much used term with well understood meaning, so you pedantry was pointless.
Anyway I am much more interested in your reaction to Trent's post 1056. Could you read it and if you still think you are not homophobic, explain why? As I have already raised in addition to you wanting to discriminate against homosexuals because you don't think their relationships are on a par with straight ones, your facile dismissing of Trent's concerns in telling him not to be silly, also seems to me homophobic.
-
Leaving aside that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, the definition you give allows for temper to be something that can be lost and hence a temper tantrum makes perfect sense. Even if it didn't that it is a much used term with well understood meaning, so you pedantry was pointless.
Exactly - you lose your temper when you get angry. "calmness, equanimity, slowness to anger" is the original meaning. As applied to metalwork, it is what you give to iron or steel to make it pliable and not brittle. The fact that the term "temper tantrum" is widely used doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong.
-
There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married.
But marriage, under the law, is a consensual loving commitment between two people. Further that commitment can be annulled (and therefore declared void) if there isn't consummation. So I'm struggling to see how a homosexual person could actually make a valid legal commitment of that nature in the days when marriage was required to be between a man and a woman.
-
Steve has a problem with homosexuality being on a par with heterosexuality.
-
NS,
I did express my disgust at that, and it wasn't in any sense about being in a lunch mob,...
Can I join your lunch mob please? ;)
-
Exactly - you lose your temper when you get angry. "calmness, equanimity, slowness to anger" is the original meaning. As applied to metalwork, it is what you give to iron or steel to make it pliable and not brittle. The fact that the term "temper tantrum" is widely used doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong.
Again dictionaries are not prescriptive.
And I note that you have edited out the part of my post which asked you about Trent's post 1056. That seems like a deliberate and homophobic attempt to avoid engaging with Trent.
-
NS,
Can I join your lunch mob please? ;)
Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.
-
But to marriage, under the law, is a consensual loving commitment between two people. Further that commitment can be annulled (and therefore declared void) if there isn't consummation. So I'm struggling to see how a homosexual person could actually make a valid legal commitment of that nature in the days when marriage was required to be between a man and a woman.
One of my best friends came out as gay after 15 years of marriage during which he fathered a child.
-
Again dictionaries are not prescriptive.
And I note that you have edited out the part of my post which asked you about Trent's post 1056. That seems like a deliberate and homophobic attempt to avoid engaging with Trent.
As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.
-
As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.
It is breathtaking that you dismiss Trent thinking that it is important in this way. It underlines that your homophobia is based around a complete disregard for individuals.
-
As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.
What is wrong with them marrying if they wish to, like heterosexuals? ANSWER THE QUESTION?
-
Re the racism analogy, perhaps a better example would be to assert that interracial marriage is wrong on the basis that people of different skin pigmentations are "not compatible" as Steve put it. That's the problem I think - people will use terms like "not compatible" as if they mean something, and then claim to have made an argument so the charge of homophobia/racism is misplaced. It isn't though - "not compatible" is just a way of saying, "this is my prejudice but I don't like to call it that". And that I'm afraid is homophobia.
As for "I tolerate that" who the fuck does someone think they are to tolerate something personal to others as if it needs tolerating? Does Trent "tolerate" Steve's heterosexuality? Is Steve content with being thus tolerated? Sometimes... >:(
-
NS,
Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.
Was that a "no" then? I'll bring my own crisps if that helps?
-
What is wrong with them marrying if they wish to, like heterosexuals? ANSWER THE QUESTION?
Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!
-
Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!
Yep, be flippant and ignore your homophobia.
-
NS,
Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.
Was that a "no" then? I'll bring my own crisps if that helps?
You are more than welcome when we get to a new normal when Gordon and I have our next lunch mob.
-
Not really sure what difference that makes. He thinks specifically that homosexuals should be discriminated against because their relationships are not in a par with straight ones. Whether that is based on sex acts seems to me to be irrelevant to him being homophobic.
I’m not entirely sure either - it’s hard to be sure about meanings and words. What I think it means is if the “on par” related to whether the physical anatomy fits to attempt to produce genetically related off-spring then the quality of a marriage seems to be based on the chances of procreation to perpetuate the species. This seems different to arguing that relationships are not on par because there is a perceived difference in the ability to love your partner, which would be the same for same sex and opposite sex marriages. Anyway, we can’t measure love objectively to compare or differentiate on those grounds, plus love is not a necessary component of marriage.
-
I’m not entirely sure either - it’s hard to be sure about meanings and words. What I think it means is if the “on par” related to whether the physical anatomy fits to attempt to produce genetically related off-spring then the quality of a marriage seems to be based on the chances of procreation to perpetuate the species. This seems different to arguing that relationships are not on par because there is a perceived difference in the ability to love your partner, which would be the same for same sex and opposite sex marriages. Anyway, we can’t measure love objectively to compare or differentiate on those grounds, plus love is not a necessary component of marriage.
It's different but I don't see it as making a difference as to whether Steve is homophobic, which he is.
-
Re the racism analogy, perhaps a better example would be to assert that interracial marriage is wrong on the basis that people of different skin pigmentations are "not compatible" as Steve put it. That's the problem I think - people will use terms like "not compatible" as if they mean something, and then claim to have made an argument so the charge of homophobia/racism is misplaced. It isn't though - "not compatible" is just a way of saying, "this is my prejudice but I don't like to call it that". And that I'm afraid is homophobia.
As for "I tolerate that" who the fuck does someone think they are to tolerate something personal to others as if it needs tolerating? Does Trent "tolerate" Steve's heterosexuality? Is Steve content with being thus tolerated? Sometimes... >:(
Steve used the word “complementary” in relation to the anatomy required for procreation, which would not apply to inter-racial marriages.
I think it was Spud who made that comment about “tolerate” in relation to same sex marriages.
-
It's different but I don't see it as making a difference as to whether Steve is homophobic, which he is.
Quite possibly- the label is not really important to me any more than someone being labelled racist or Islamophobic is important- I’m more interested in the discussing the thoughts and ideas behind the moral values.
In Steve’s case, his latest comments suggest he finds the difference between marriage and civil partnership s cosmetic and unimportant rather than him trying to do anything to prevent same sex marriage. There are moral campaigns that I find unimportant but I would not stop other people campaigning for them. Though there might be some that I would actively oppose while still agreeing others who believe in them have a right to campaign for them.
-
Gabriella,
Steve used the word “complementary” in relation to the anatomy required for procreation, which would not apply to inter-racial marriages.
Happy to be corrected re the word “complementary” rather than “compatible” but it’s a difference without significance I think. Also, he made no mention of procreation. What he actually said (in response to the question “OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?”) was: “Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.” (Reply 1066)
I still don’t know what he means by “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” other than something like, “anatomically I find what gay people do a bit ikky”.
I think it was Spud who made that comment about “tolerate” in relation to same sex marriages.
I know, which is why I said just “who the fuck does someone think they are” rather refer to a poster by name.
-
Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!
The fact that you won't answer the question says it all about your attitude towards gays. >:(
-
The fact that you won't answer the question says it all about your attitude towards gays. >:(
I can't even remember what the question was!
-
I don't know if I've got it wrong, but I thought that the "Civil Partnership" cop out had nothing to do with the law, it was to get around the fact that the Christian marriage service states that marriage is bond, or something like that, between a man and a woman.
I cannot remember ever seeing a LAW that prevented the marriage of two gays, male or female, but the barrier was the wording of the Christian wedding service, and the well known refusal of the Church and its followers to drag itself kicking and screaming (having a temper tantrum?) into the twentieth century instead of insisting on using a ceremony dating from who knows how far back in history.
-
I can't even remember what the question was!
In spite of being asked the question so many times by different posters your memory has failed you, you poor old soul, you will soon need a carer. :P ;D
-
Steve,
I can't even remember what the question was!
How about, what did you mean by “the fact that gays…anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”?
-
Steve,
How about, what did you mean by “the fact that gays…anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”?
I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.
-
I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.
In your prejudiced opinion! ::)
-
Steve,
I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.
Humour me...
-
In your prejudiced opinion! ::)
Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.
-
Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.
You seem to think gay marriage is wrong but have not explained WHY, which therefore makes you prejudiced in favour of heterosexuals.
-
Steve,
Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.
What solid anatomical fact do you think the words "do not complement each other" establish?
-
Steve,
What solid anatomical fact do you think the words "do not complement each other" establish?
Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.
-
Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.
I don't see what that has got to do with two people of the same sex, who are in love, wishing to get married if they want to do so.
-
Steve,
Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.
“Supposed to go”? According to whom exactly? See, that’s the thing with prejudice – people who are prejudiced will often deny it, and will cite reasons for their positions not being prejudiced at all: “Wot me? Never!”. The trouble though is that their reasons always turn out to be as vapid, meaningless, insubstantive as “not complement”, “supposed” etc.
When you say “supposed” here for example presumably you’re trying to say something like, “if the couple want to procreate, then there’s one type of sexual activity that’s necessary for that and nature is all about procreation, therefore….” etc. Is that right?
Here’s the problem with that though: homosexual behaviour has now been observed in around 1,000 species with likely many more yet to be identified. (Bisexuality by the way has been identified in even more.) Why would this be? Have Trent and his evil cohort been out tempting everything from scarab beetles to dolphins to turn away from the true path with offers of Barbra Streisland records and the lure of fabulous dress sense? Or could it be that there are perfectly good reasons for nature itself requiring some incidence of homosexuality – providing more reliable options for the care of offspring for example?
What you have done is to pick on just one aspect of sexual activity (sticky-in and sticky-out bits as you so scientifically put it), for no good reason decided that that’s what really matters, then decided that people who don’t introduce those particular bits to each other are somehow inferior (“not on a par”) with those who do. Sex though is about much more than procreation – pair bonding, tribal/societal cohesion, optimising the survival of offspring etc and that means sex in any of its forms, not just the sticky-in meets sticky-out type.
Here’s an article about this to get you started:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html
-
An interesting article BHS. I have seen male dogs trying to have it off with each other from time to time.
-
Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.
Twee appeal to nature, which fails because it isn't even correct. It also in its own wee twee way ignores many form of sex in order to make use of a begging the question taking penetrative sex as the only form of sex, and with no rationale dismissing anal sex.
Add to all of this your continued avoidance of talking to Trent, other than saying 'Don't be silly' , and your avoidance of his name on posts asking about it to you, even to the extent of editing of the the on topic part of a post asking about your treatment of him makes me wonder if there is a small voice in your head suggesting you are homophobic, but that to evade it, and shut it up you avoid dealing with and mentioning Trent.
If so, then maybe there is some hope for you to break out of your carapace of homophobia. If not, perhaps you are just so overcome by your homophobia that such cowardly ignorant displays are all you will ever be capable of.
-
Steve,
“Supposed to go”? According to whom exactly? See, that’s the thing with prejudice – people who are prejudiced will often deny it, and will cite reasons for their positions not being prejudiced at all: “Wot me? Never!”. The trouble though is that their reasons always turn out to be as vapid, meaningless, insubstantive as “not complement”, “supposed” etc.
When you say “supposed” here for example presumably you’re trying to say something like, “if the couple want to procreate, then there’s one type of sexual activity that’s necessary for that and nature is all about procreation, therefore….” etc. Is that right?
Here’s the problem with that though: homosexual behaviour has now been observed in around 1,000 species with likely many more yet to be identified. (Bisexuality by the way has been identified in even more.) Why would this be? Have Trent and his evil cohort been out tempting everything from scarab beetles to dolphins to turn away from the true path with offers of Barbra Streisland records and the lure of fabulous dress sense? Or could it be that there are perfectly good reasons for nature itself requiring some incidence of homosexuality – providing more reliable options for the care of offspring for example?
What you have done is to pick on just one aspect of sexual activity (sticky-in and sticky-out bits as you so scientifically put it), for no good reason decided that that’s what really matters, then decided that people who don’t introduce those particular bits to each other are somehow inferior (“not on a par”) with those who do. Sex though is about much more than procreation – pair bonding, tribal/societal cohesion, optimising the survival of offspring etc and that means sex in any of its forms, not just the sticky-in meets sticky-out type.
Here’s an article about this to get you started:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html
I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.
-
I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.
He has said their relationships are inferior based on that heirarchy, and that that should be enshrined in law. And he has ignored Trent saying that that makes him feel as if he is being treated as inferior.
-
He has said their relationships are inferior based on that heirarchy, and that that should be enshrined in law. And he has ignored Trent saying that that makes him feel as if he is being treated as inferior.
I agree it’s not nice to make people feel inferior...but I’m not surprised it happens. After all, many posters try to make each other feel inferior on here so my impression is it goes with the territory of being on a religion and ethics forum. None of us have to take on board other people’s ethics, moral values or their opinions of our ethics, actions or beliefs.
For example, it doesn’t bother me that some posters think I am irrational or inferior in some way for practising certain religious beliefs. Nor does it bother me if people want to discuss legislating against certain religious practices. It’s good to discuss it on an anonymous forum, which like the real world will be made up of people holding a wide spectrum of beliefs and values. I’m not expecting everyone to agree on the “shoulds” that make up people’s morality.
-
I agree it’s not nice to make people feel inferior...but I’m not surprised it happens. After all, many posters try to make each other feel inferior on here so my impression is it goes with the territory of being on a religion and ethics forum. None of us have to take on board other people’s ethics, moral values or their opinions of our ethics, actions or beliefs.
For example, it doesn’t bother me that some posters think I am irrational or inferior in some way for practising certain religious beliefs. Nor does it bother me if people want to discuss legislating against certain religious practices. It’s good to discuss it on an anonymous forum, which like the real world will be made up of people holding a wide spectrum of beliefs and values. I’m not expecting everyone to agree on the “shoulds” that make up people’s morality.
I honestly have no idea of the point you are making here.
-
I was responding to your comment that Steve had ignored Trent saying Steve’s comments on same-sex marriage makes Trent feel inferior.
My point was that it is inevitable when discussing moral values that some posters might feel other posters are trying to make them feel inferior, as the discussion of moral values will contain judgements or “shoulds” about people’s behaviour and individual posters might engage in the behaviour being judged. When we have discussions on morals, ethics or beliefs I think we have to accept that individual posters on here might feel inferior so I don’t think Steve ignoring the possible effect on Trent is problematic, if that’s the price that needs to be paid to have a discussion.
-
On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.) Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos? There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.
And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.
-
Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.
This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.
-
On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.) Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos? There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.
And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.
Oh so much wrong in one post.
So firstly, now that you have admitted that your premise about anatomical compatibility is wrong, are you withdrawing your conclusion based upon that. Namely that homosexual relationships aren't "on a par" with heterosexual ones. Or do you still cleave to that?
Secondly, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia? Come on, skip back in the Tardis a few hundred years and marriage is a different creature altogether. Indeed get on a flight to other parts of the world now and it is still a vastly different institution.
Thirdly, if there is no difference between marriage and civil partnerships as you imply, then I would suggest that a difference which makes no difference is no difference and the distinction between the two is unnecessary.
-
Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.
I disagree - people fighting for equality were simply doing that to right a wrong.
If the church placed themselves in the 'wrong' camp that's entirely their fault - they could have supported human rights and equality, but they didn't. They took a position that was (and largely still is) morally bankrupt.
And this isn't the first time the church has positioned itself in that face of what is morally right. See also the continuing refusal of churches to support full equality for women. And also the churches who were through the second half of the 20thC firmly in the camp of segregation and apartheid, justified on biblical grounds.
-
Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless.
Firstly that isn't true - the definition of marriage has constantly evolved. Today we consider it to be a consensual loving commitment between two people - that wouldn't have been the case a couple of centuries ago where it was largely arranged (and not really consensual) and about property and power, rather than love.
Secondly the definition of marriage hasn't been changed (it was and remain a consensual loving commitment between two people) - what has been changed is there has been an extension to the people who can get married. Previously it had to be two people of different genders, not that requirement has been lifted. Again there have been numerous points throughout history where the restrictions on which people can and cannot marry has been eased.
-
Most marriages are very different to what they were in days of yore when men were the head of the house and women were expected to be subservient to them. >:( Things have changed these days, thank goodness, most marriages are an equal partnership. The fact that gays can marry and be on a par with heterosexuals is a big step forward, which has taken far too long to achieve. Anyone who thinks marriage should only be permitted between men and women is discriminating against gays and is displaying a homophobic attitude.
-
Gabriella,
I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.
He said it here: “…anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage” (Reply 1066).
“not be regarded as absolutely anatomically on a par with” means “inferior”. QED
-
I was responding to your comment that Steve had ignored Trent saying Steve’s comments on same-sex marriage makes Trent feel inferior.
My point was that it is inevitable when discussing moral values that some posters might feel other posters are trying to make them feel inferior, as the discussion of moral values will contain judgements or “shoulds” about people’s behaviour and individual posters might engage in the behaviour being judged. When we have discussions on morals, ethics or beliefs I think we have to accept that individual posters on here might feel inferior so I don’t think Steve ignoring the possible effect on Trent is problematic, if that’s the price that needs to be paid to have a discussion.
Nope, still not getting it. Who is feeling inferior in your scenario? How does that relate to Steve avoiding interacting, other than telling him not to be silly, with Trent?
-
Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.
This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.
Pish
-
Steve,
On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.)
Good. As you’ve now withdrawn the justification you offered for gay relationships being “not on a par” with heterosexual ones, does that mean that you no longer believe the former to be not on a par with the latter?
Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless.
There isn’t “the” definition of marriage. There are lots of definitions across time and across societies, and they change sometimes too. So what? Specifically, as we seem to have adapted most social conventions to equal status (you no longer have to be a man to vote for example) why exclude marriage from the principle?
What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos?
“Homos”? Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s is wrong though is marriage for heterosexuals and the exclusion from marriage of homosexuals.
There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.
But they are if they want to be married in the same way straight people can be.
And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.
It is, and charming. Why not though confront the prejudice rather than insult the people who point it out? Wouldn’t you feel better for the experience of personal growth?
-
Vlad,
Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.
This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.
Kirk: “Bridge to Engineering. Kirk here. Scotty, what the hell’s going on down there?”
Scottie: “It’s the Warp Word Generator Captain. It’s gone all random. I cannae hold it for much longer…”
Kirk: “What about the Basic Coherent Thought engine Scottie? Can you fix it?”
Scottie: “That’s the thing Jim – looks like we jettisoned it a while back. I should’ve known something was wrong when it stared misidentifying the Horse Laugh Nebula…”
Kirk: “Prognosis Scottie?”
Scottie: “We’ve been teetering on the edge of a Gibberish Meltdown for a while now Jim. When it reaches the core sense generator, we’re a gonner…”
Kirk: “Sound the alarm! Abandon ship!”
-
Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos?
As I've mentioned there is no redefinition of marriage, merely a change in the person that an individual can marry. It seems more equivalent to the scrapping of anti-miscegenation laws which existed in many countries which restricted who an individual could marry to a member of their own race:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
Scrapping those laws extended who a person could marry (to someone of a different race), just as allowing equal marriage extended who a person could marry to include someone of the same sex. Neither change to the law fundamentally changes the definition of marriage, but each has extended human rights and removed discrimination and lack of equality.
-
When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?
-
I brought my relationship into this debate because you and to a lesser extent Steve view homosexuality in the abstract. We are talking about people here.
PS I reject your tolerance.
No worries mate. Actually I don't view it in the abstract. I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke. I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man. I also know someone who says he has changed from gay to straight, and another who is same sex attracted but abstains.
You said, So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?
and I have an answer but thought I'd check whether you want me to post it here or in a PM or not at all.
-
When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?
Several of the patriarchs had more than one wife. What was that about redefining marriage?
-
When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?
As far as I remember, the bible simply mentions them; it doesn't offer either approval or condemnation. If you mean prostitutes, say so - "sex workers" is a tiresome euphemism.
-
I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke.
How can someone be a good friend, yet you don't seem to know whether he is married and if so whether his spouse is a man or a woman. Not my definition of a good friend.
Does your good friend know about your views on gay people Spud?
-
"sex workers" is a tiresome euphemism.
Says the poster who brought us "sinky in bits" and "sticky out bits" ::)
-
Actually I don't view it in the abstract. I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke. I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man. I also know someone who says he has changed from gay to straight, and another who is same sex attracted but abstains.
Classic 'I can't be a racist, because I've got a black friend' trope.
-
and I have an answer but thought I'd check whether you want me to post it here or in a PM or not at all.
Modify message
Post it here if you wish.
-
Says the poster who brought us "sinky in bits" and "sticky out bits" ::)
That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.
-
That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.
Not all sex workers are prostitutes.
ETA although, in the context of Solomon's courts they probably were.
-
That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.
Is that sarcasm as in the Trump style?
-
As I've mentioned there is no redefinition of marriage, merely a change in the person that an individual can marry.
and what is that, if not a redefinition of marriage?
-
Not all sex workers are prostitutes.
Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.
-
Classic 'I can't be a racist, because I've got a black friend' trope.
I agree, but "trope" and "narrative" are the two most irritating pseudo-intellectualisms around today.
-
Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.
Porn stars as an example.
-
Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.
And, if they are synonymous, then there's no problem with calling them sex workers is there.
-
and what is that, if not a redefinition of marriage?
So when some countries decided that a black man could marry a white woman, rather than just a black woman - was that redefining marriage or simply extending the number of people a person could marry?
When countries altered the age at which people can marry - is that redefining marriage of just extending the ability to marry to a wider group in society.
Changing the details of who someone can marry doesn't redefine marriage just alters the nature of the group of people who can marry and who they can marry.
-
And, if they are synonymous, then there's no problem with calling them sex workers is there.
Nor with calling them "prostitutes".
-
Porn stars as an example.
I don't think "sex worker" covers porn stars. (Nor does anything else, fnarr fnarr.)
-
So when some countries decided that a black man could marry a white woman, rather than just a black woman - was that redefining marriage or simply extending the number of people a person could marry?
When countries altered the age at which people can marry - is that redefining marriage of just extending the ability to marry to a wider group in society.
Changing the details of who someone can marry doesn't redefine marriage just alters the nature of the group of people who can marry and who they can marry.
I'm not sure all this quibbling about what counts as redefinition is really important. The legal definition of marriage has been changed by allowing same sex marriage but the nature of marriage is totally unaffected neither are any of the legal rights or obligations for people already married.
As you have pointed out, this change is insignificant compared to some of the previous changes is the "definition" of marriage. In the Hebrew Bible, it was an institution between one man and at least one woman, sometimes hundreds as pointed out by LR. In more recent times, marriage has been used as a tool for diplomacy and business. Love didn't come into it for the ruling classes. It's quite recent that marriage didn't effectively make the woman a possession of the man.
The definition of marriage has change continuously throughout history. It's nonsense to suggest that we can't make this little change to extend it to more people just because it's never been done that way before.
-
Nor with calling them "prostitutes".
Fine, but why then did you erroneously correct Little Roses?
-
I don't think "sex worker" covers porn stars. (Nor does anything else, fnarr fnarr.)
It does
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker
-
Spud,
I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man.
What the hell does that mean? Why not just treat him like you would any other person? Should a gay person treat you like he would any gay person? You really haven't thought this though have you.
-
As far as I remember, the bible simply mentions them; it doesn't offer either approval or condemnation. If you mean prostitutes, say so - "sex workers" is a tiresome euphemism.
I said sex worker, if you don't like the term TOUGH! ::)
-
I disagree - people fighting for equality were simply doing that to right a wrong.
I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.
Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.
I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.
-
I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.
Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.
I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.
You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.
-
You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.
;D
-
Vlad,
I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.
Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.
I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.
The scene: Kirk and Scottie in the escape pod, looking wistfully at the abandoned USS Enterprise as it spirals slowly toward the black hole:
Kirk: “She was a fine ship Scottie”
Scottie: “Aye Captain, that she was”
Suddenly Lieutenant Uhura appears behind them
Uhura: “Captain, we’re picking up an intermittent signal from the ship. It’s impossible to understand though… just random words, gibberish really. Looks like the Warp Coherence Generator has finally given up”
Kirk: “So sad. We knew it would happen when it started spewing out all those misunderstandings of philosophical terms and making up its own versions of everything we said to it, but there’s no going back now. Scottie – plot a course for Alpha Centauri”
Scottie: “Aye aye captain!”
Somewhere off the starboard bow there’s a brief flare as the badly damaged onboard logic engine explodes, then nothing…
-
You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.
Couldn't help thinking of Rowley Birkin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PICVTFfuOCg)...
-
Couldn't help thinking of Rowley Birkin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PICVTFfuOCg)...
WOW, I wonder if that guy and Vlad are one and the same? ;D
-
WOW, I wonder if that guy and Vlad are one and the same? ;D
Like me Rowley Birkenstock’s is a much loved Paul Whitehouse character.
Little roses.....please choose your Paul Whitehouse character from the following list:
First old git
-
I'm not sure all this quibbling about what counts as redefinition is really important. The legal definition of marriage has been changed by allowing same sex marriage but the nature of marriage is totally unaffected neither are any of the legal rights or obligations for people already married.
As you have pointed out, this change is insignificant compared to some of the previous changes is the "definition" of marriage. In the Hebrew Bible, it was an institution between one man and at least one woman, sometimes hundreds as pointed out by LR. In more recent times, marriage has been used as a tool for diplomacy and business. Love didn't come into it for the ruling classes. It's quite recent that marriage didn't effectively make the woman a possession of the man.
The definition of marriage has change continuously throughout history. It's nonsense to suggest that we can't make this little change to extend it to more people just because it's never been done that way before.
Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct - there is no doubt of that.
Regarding definitions - I think it depends on whether you include those who can, and cannot avail themselves of marriage, within the definition or whether that is effectivity an eligibility element.
If you include the eligibility criteria you end up with a horrible clunky definition, even now when eligibility has been extended for civil marriage. So you'd end up with:
'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people of sound mind who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce, who are over 18 (or 16-18 with additional parental consent) and who are not close blood relatives or are an adoptive parent or child of their intended spouse or are an in-law depending on the circumstances.'
And this would have been even more clunky in the past, and/or in religious of other jurisdiction context, when there were restrictions on same sex marriage, divorcees being able to marry, marriage between people of different races, restrictions on marriage between people of different religious faiths etc etc.
Sounds a bit clunky to me - in my mind better to separate the heart of what we consider marriage to be currently (what marriage is):
'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people'
From the eligibility criteria (who can and cannot get married)
-
Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct - there is no doubt of that.
Regarding definitions - I think it depends on whether you include those who can, and cannot avail themselves of marriage, within the definition or whether that is effectivity an eligibility element.
If you include the eligibility criteria you end up with a horrible clunky definition, even now when eligibility has been extended. So you'd end up with:
'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people of sound mind who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce, who are over 18 (or over 16 with parental consent) and who are not close blood relatives or are an adoptive parent or child of their intended spouse or are an in-law depending on the circumstances.'
Sounds a bit clunky to me - in my mind better to separate the heart of what we consider marriage to be currently (what marriage is):
'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people'
From the eligibility criteria (who can and cannot get married)
Whether you count it as part of the definition or not, it's clunky. That's laws for you - although I could reduce it a little bit by replacing "who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce" with "who are not already married".
Your definition doesn't cut the mustard either because marriages do not have to be loving to be valid. In some countries, they don't even have to be consensual.
-
Your definition doesn't cut the mustard either because marriages do not have to be loving to be valid.
Marriages in the UK cannot be merely a contractual relationship - certainly for heterosexual couples, sexual activity is a requirement as non-consumation remains one of the reasons why a marriage can be declared void and annulled. Marriages of convenience can be declared sham or null.
In some countries, they don't even have to be consensual.
I was talking largely about the UK.
Out of interest which jurisdictions legally permit marriage without consent - there are plenty that allow arranged marriage, but that isn't the same as it being non-consensual (in theory at least).
-
Spud,
What the hell does that mean? Why not just treat him like you would any other person? Should a gay person treat you like he would any gay person? You really haven't thought this though have you.
I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.
-
Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.
-
Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.
But Spud - you claimed he was a good friend. If that is the case, why on earth are you saying you have to work with him - surely if you are a friend, let alone a good friend, you'd be delighted to work with him, pleased to work with him etc.
And if he is a friend why are you treating him like someone he isn't - a genuine friend would never treat a gay friend as if they were heterosexual - nope, they would treat them as a gay person or it would be an irrelevant, likely the latter. But they's certainly know whether their good friend was gay or straight, married or not.
You are no friend of his if you'd rather not know that he is gay, rather not know that he is married, rather not know who his spouse is. And the person with the problem here is you Spud, not your supposed gay friend (although I suspect he may have a problem with you).
-
In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
But Spud - you claimed he was a good friend. If that is the case, why on earth are you saying you have to work with him - surely if you are a friend, let alone a good friend, you'd be delighted to work with him, pleased to work with him etc.
And if he is a friend why are you treating him like someone he isn't - a genuine friend would never treat a gay friend as if they were heterosexual - nope, they would treat them as a gay person or it would be an irrelevant, likely the latter. But they's certainly know whether their good friend was gay or straight, married or not.
You are no friend of his if you'd rather not know that he is gay, rather not know that he is married, rather not know who his spouse is. And the person with the problem here is you Spud, not your supposed gay friend (although I suspect he may have a problem with you).
I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.
-
In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.
Goddess - I'd hate to be a BAD friend of yours!
-
Marriages in the UK cannot be merely a contractual relationship
That's exactly what they are.
certainly for heterosexual couples, sexual activity is a requirement as non-consumation remains one of the reasons why a marriage can be declared void and annulled.
That's an anachronism though. Lack of sexual intercourse is not a reason for having a same sex marriage annulled and it's not a reason to have a marriage annulled if sexual activity happened once but is no longer happening.
Out of interest which jurisdictions legally permit marriage without consent - there are plenty that allow arranged marriage, but that isn't the same as it being non-consensual (in theory at least).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage
-
Regarding Solomon, he married Pharaoh's daughter, the only comment being that this was part of an alliance. There is a comment about his 1000 other wives and concubines, which was so say that they turned his heart away from God. So it is clear that the author did not see his polygamy as a good thing.
What about Abraham? Jacob?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage
Yes - I read that too. It isn't clear about the distinction between countries where forced marriages are legal (what I asked) and where they are not legal but are prevalent, which is a different matter.
-
I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.
Sadly, I suspect you have no idea just how offensive and utterly stupid this statement of yours is.
-
In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand. When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature. He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires. Homosexual desires are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality. Consequently I have no idea who his partner is, but from what I can tell he is not straight. He has subsequently become what I'd class as a good friend.
You are an unpleasant homophobic who uses the not so good book to support your bigotry. >:(
-
Spud,
I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.
Dear God, which century are you living in? What on earth do you mean by "I act as though he is straight"? How the hell would you act differently if you were acting as if he were gay? Surely you'd treat him just as a person and his sexual preferences (that are nothing to do with you) would make no difference to that would they. Would they?
-
That's exactly what they are.
But they aren't because if they were sham marriages wouldn't exist as any two people could just enter into the contractual arrangement regardless of the reason. But you can't. While there is a presumption under the law that if a couple go through the ceremony that the marriage is valid, that can be challenged if the couple are just entering into a contractual arrangement that isn't what we might consider marriage - for example to obtain immigration status etc. The key point being that the two people have no intention of being spouses, which would typically be considered to be living together in a loving relationship that includes sex.
-
But they aren't because if they were sham marriages wouldn't exist as any two people could just enter into the contractual arrangement regardless of the reason. But you can't. While there is a presumption under the law that if a couple go through the ceremony that the marriage is valid, that can be challenged if the couple are just entering into a contractual arrangement that isn't what we might consider marriage - for example to obtain immigration status etc. The key point being that the two people have no intention of being spouses, which would typically be considered to be living together in a loving relationship that includes sex.
How are you defining a sham marriage? Are arranged marriages sham marriages?
-
I act as though he is straight.
Good to know.
I act as if every straight person I meet is gay. ::)
I'm putting a referral in to St Jude for you right now.
-
How are you defining a sham marriage? Are arranged marriages sham marriages?
No arranged marriages are not necessarily sham marriages. It is perfectly possible for two people to consensually agree to an arranged marriage and agree to live as spouses - in other words sharing their lives in a relationship that includes a sexual element.
A sham marriage would be one where the two people sign the contract (for whatever reasons), but do not, at any time, live as spouses - in other words from day one living apart or living clearly distinct lives and not engaging in a sexual relationship. The most obvious reasons might be to allow one partner to gain a particular legal status as a 'spouse'. You've seen Green Card have you not!
The point being is that their is an expectation that the couple will attempt to live as spouses (even if ultimately they fail) for a marriage to be valid. So it is more than purely signing a contract if there is no attempt to fulfil those 'contractual' responsibilities.
-
What about Abraham? Jacob?
Hagar was Abraham's maidservant, he didn't marry her. Then he remarried when Sarah died. Jacob was tricked by Laban his uncle into marrying both Laban's daughters.
-
Spud,
Dear God, which century are you living in? What on earth do you mean by "I act as though he is straight"? How the hell would you act differently if you were acting as if he were gay? Surely you'd treat him just as a person and his sexual preferences (that are nothing to do with you) would make no difference to that would they. Would they?
My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.
-
Spud,
My work mate is not really important here.
To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.
I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective.
What moral perspective? What on earth has someone else's sexual orientation go to to do with you, let alone with morality?
Btw, God is outside time.
BTW you might want to trouble yourself with demonstrating the first two words of that ("God is") before presuming to tell us whether this god is inside or outside time (whatever that would mean).
-
Good to know.
I act as if every straight person I meet is gay. ::)
I'm putting a referral in to St Jude for you right now.
lol
-
My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.
Fuck off and take your illogical thug god with you.
-
I have to work with him. I suspect he's gay, but I would rather not know so I haven't asked. I act as though he is straight.
You really are nastily two-faced when it suits you, aren't you?
-
My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.
As he is gay, on this thread I would say that he is of primary importance, rather more so than your very (extremely? monumentally?) unpleasant God-inspired homophobia!
When are you planning on mating with this mate of yours?
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
Why not admit you were wrong for once?
-
I was concerned at first but decided not to mention sexuality.
Why on earth would you be concerned that a work colleague is gay. Can you not see how bizarre and frankly concerning that comment is to most right thinking people. Perhaps you can understand how awful that comment is by changing the nature of the concern.
How would you feel if someone said they were concerned that their work colleague was black - I think you'd undoubtedly think they were horribly prejudiced and racist. The same applies to you expect it isn't racism but homophobia.
-
My work mate is not really important here.
Your attitude towards them is, though.
I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective.
And yet you keep making reference to religion instead...
Btw, God is outside time.
And so, in terms of having an effect, meaningless.
O.
-
My work mate is not really important here. I am mainly interested in addressing the issue from a moral perspective. Btw, God is outside time.
Your anti-gay bigotry in IMMORAL, each post you make shows what an unpleasant little creep you are. You use your highly unpleasant take on Christianity as an excuse for your nastiness. >:(
-
Your anti-gay bigotry in IMMORAL, each post you make shows what an unpleasant little creep you are. You use your highly unpleasant take on Christianity as an excuse for your nastiness. >:(
Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.
-
Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.
Except in touting his homophobic views he is not being polite to anyone who is gay.
-
Except in touting his homophobic views he is not being polite to anyone who is gay.
So politeness matters on this board now? What complete humbug.
-
So politeness matters on this board now? What complete humbug.
My post doesn't say that.
Anyway here's a link to the forum rules which lay out what is and isn't allowed.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0
-
Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.
POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!
-
POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!
I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?
-
Vlad,
I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?
Just out of interest, is there any subject at all into which you wouldn't drag bloody atheists/antitheists (you wrongly use these terms interchangeably)? A recipe for scones maybe? An exchange of views on the mating habits of skylarks? Anything?
Pointing out Spud's/Steve's homophobia has nothing to do with atheism. A cleric possessed of a moral compass could say the same. But then again, you knew that already didn't you.
-
Vlad speak, translated into English is gobbledegook! ;D
-
Why not admit you were wrong for once?
Maybe she is waiting for you to do so first. Or do you consider that you have never been wrong, if so your arrogance is truly mind-blowing!
-
Why on earth would you be concerned that a work colleague is gay. Can you not see how bizarre and frankly concerning that comment is to most right thinking people. Perhaps you can understand how awful that comment is by changing the nature of the concern.
How would you feel if someone said they were concerned that their work colleague was black - I think you'd undoubtedly think they were horribly prejudiced and racist. The same applies to you expect it isn't racism but homophobia.
Black!?
It would be a damn sight worse if he were Christian!
-
Maybe she is waiting for you to do so first. Or do you consider that you have never been wrong, if so your arrogance is truly mind-blowing!
Steve thinks he is right about most things, which would be quite amusing if it wasn't so irritating.
-
Whatever else you can say about Spud - and I don't like his attitude towards gays, nor his fundamentalist version of Christianity, either - he is always unfailingly polite, unlike some others.
I hope you do not consider yourself not to be one of the "some others".
-
POLITE? Spud's attitude towards gays is far from polite, as is yours!
You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".
-
I very rarely comment on Gay issues. I did mention it once and was instantly accused of supporting the murder of Gays, itself a prime example of how atheists sometimes weaponise homosexuality. How do you mean therefore how I am far from polite specifically toward Gay people?
Vlad you are not Spud
-
You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".
You don't know the meaning of that word if your posts are an indication of your general attitude. ::)
-
You don't know the meaning of that word if your posts are an indication of your general attitude. ::)
I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.
-
I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.
What you post is often like a small kiddie have a temper tantrum, so don't try to tell others how to behave. You have not done yourself any favours at all on this thread. ::)
-
Steve,
I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.
I think your problem here is that people have been paying attention to what you actually post, and they're appalled by it – rightly so in my view.
-
I don't pretend to be polite all the time. Fewer childish ripostes and more attention to what people actually post would be welcome from you.
I paid attention. You think that marriage between two gay people should be viewed as somehow lesser than marriage between two straight people. I think you should, therefore, be looked upon as somehow lesser based upon your opinions of people's relationships. Others would seem to share my view.
How polite they are about it varies, but it doesn't change the message. Where your outlook comes from doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message, which is bigotry.
O.
-
You don't understnad the meaning of simple words like "polite".
I'm struggling to understand this 'politeness' argument.
If someone says something deeply intolerant and offensive I don't see it as any better if they do so using polite language rather than being ranty.
In some respects it is worse - the most dangerous people, in my view, are those that promulgate deeply extreme and offensive views while seeming superficially polite and reasonable. They are much more likely to garner supporters to their extremist views if they aren't coming across as a swivel-eyed loon.
-
Spud,
To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.
Sure. The statement will need to be explained as it does appear unpleasant, I know.
What moral perspective? What on earth has someone else's sexual orientation go to to do with you, let alone with morality?
I am talking about the morality of acting on one's sexual orientation. I notice that no-one has addressed my point in #1206. It can be made without reference to God.
Homosexual acts are unnatural. Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different sexual roles. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
-
Spud,
To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.
This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.
-
Spud,
Sure. The statement will need to be explained as it does appear unpleasant, I know.
You think?
I am talking about the morality of acting on one's sexual orientation. I notice that no-one has addressed my point in #1206. It can be made without reference to God.
Homosexual acts are unnatural.
No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?
Steve has already explained why,…
….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.
…but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different sexual roles. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
Absolute fucking idiocy. And nasty fucking idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong. Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.
And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly. You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here.
-
Spud,
This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.
This is a spoof right? If not though, what the fuck is so wrong with you?
-
Spud,
Just to add by the way that if you were a work colleague of mine and I suspected you of being a Christian I’d tolerate you, but would treat you exactly as if you were an atheist. This would be my way of saying I accept you as a person but I don’t accept your filthy moralising behaviour so I would engage you in atheist conversation.
Hope you’re ok with that.
-
This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.
sexist homophobic idiotic impolite shite.
-
Seriously. There is no wonder Jesus wept.
-
Vlad,
Just out of interest, is there any subject at all into which you wouldn't drag bloody atheists/antitheists (you wrongly use these terms interchangeably)? A recipe for scones maybe? An exchange of views on the mating habits of skylarks? Anything?
I have not been known to raise atheists/antitheists on cookery message boards or ornithological sites. To expect similar silence on a religionethics message board is either incredibly cheeky or incredibly stupid.
Pointing out Spud's/Steve's homophobia has nothing to do with atheism. A cleric possessed of a moral compass could say the same. But then again, you knew that already didn't you.
I can't see that there is any place in your moral philosophy for poles let alone a whole moral compass. I recall you poo pooing a theory that we hunt for a moral norm in an almost homeostatic manner so why the talk about moral compasses now?
On the other hand if you are turning toward moral absolutism/realism, that is progress.
-
The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa.
Are you pegging your argument on this?
-
Are you pegging your argument on this?
Cue an 'eh' from LR
-
This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.
Spud, you seem to be living in some kind of 70's sitcom influenced alternate reality.
You do know that gay men talk about all sorts of things, and furthermore the things they talk about are exactly the kind of things that straight men talk about.
For example this evening my partner and I have talked about musicals, eurovision, what curtains would go best with our carpet; we did stop talking for a while to ogle a young man cleaning windows across the street (wanked ourselves silly there) then returned to discussing recipes for the coming week, and we've just finished our meal with a very fine glass of pink gin.
I trust you can now see there is absolutely no difference between myself and the average joe. Except of course I talk with an effeminate lisp.
Do you want to be friends now that I've established my incredible masculinity?
-
This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.
This must be a spoof - no-one could really come out with something like that in this day and age ... surely :o
-
Vlad,
I have not been known to raise atheists/antitheists on cookery message boards or ornithological sites. To expect similar silence on a religionethics message board is either incredibly cheeky or incredibly stupid.
It’s neither when the topic has nothing to do with the atheism/antitheism of the person making the argument - here for example. That’s why I explained that a cleric with a functioning moral compass (if you could find one) would also find Steve's and Spud's homophobia to be contemptible.
It’s not a difficult idea, even for you.
I can't see that there is any place in your moral philosophy for poles..
And the king of the straw men walks among us again. Welcome back!
… let alone a whole moral compass.
Oh FFS. Do you think there to be some universal laws about which paintings are good art and which are bad? No? And yet you (presumably) think some art to be good and some to be bad nonetheless without access to such universal absolutes. How come?
I recall you poo pooing a theory that we hunt for a moral norm in an almost homeostatic manner so why the talk about moral compasses now?
Non sequitur – yet another of your logical fallacies.
On the other hand if you are turning toward moral absolutism/realism, that is progress.
Sadly I wish I could say the same of you – yet still you seem to be locked into the same straw men as ever. Oh well.
-
I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.
From Wikipedia: Pierce was raised, and remains, a Roman Catholic.[16] He is openly gay, strongly supports civil partnerships, and lives in a long-term civil partnership, legalised by the Labour Government's Civil Partnership Act 2004. He was, and remains, opposed to same-sex marriage, legalised by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. He stated that his opposition to its introduction was the lack of public support for it, the creation of a possible schism between Church and State, and that there were no new rights accorded to it that did not already exist under Labour's 2004 civil partnership law. He also cited the views of several prominent gay people opposed to it, such as Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, and those unsure about it, such as historian David Starkey, and its absence from the election manifestos of the political parties that introduced it.[17] He said it was therefore pointless to introduce it, and criticised Prime Minister David Cameron for treating it as a priority.[18]
-
I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.
From Wikipedia:
I am entirely used to you being a homophobe.
-
Spud, you seem to be living in some kind of 70's sitcom influenced alternate reality.
You do know that gay men talk about all sorts of things, and furthermore the things they talk about are exactly the kind of things that straight men talk about.
For example this evening my partner and I have talked about musicals, eurovision, what curtains would go best with our carpet; we did stop talking for a while to ogle a young man cleaning windows across the street (wanked ourselves silly there) then returned to discussing recipes for the coming week, and we've just finished our meal with a very fine glass of pink gin.
I trust you can now see there is absolutely no difference between myself and the average joe. Except of course I talk with an effeminate lisp.
Do you want to be friends now that I've established my incredible masculinity?
;D ;D ;D
-
I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.
I agree with you it doesn't. You are wrong, but it doesn't make you a homophobe.
However, stating that my homosexual relationship with my partner is not on a par with a heterosexual relationship does make you a homophobe.
-
;D ;D ;D
You enable Spud by your twee homophobia. Laughing at Trent's post just makes you look creepy
-
I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
-
I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
It is you who needs to grow up and accept that your posts on this thread are homophobic.
-
It is you who needs to grow up and accept that your posts on this thread are homophobic.
I'm not taking lessons in adult behaviour from someone who thinks "talking about yourself again" is sophisticated wit.
-
I'm not taking lessons in adult behaviour from someone who thinks "talking about yourself again" is sophisticated wit.
Your posts are not doing you any favours whatsoever, it is very sad that you are unable to comprehend that.
-
Spud,
You think?
No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?
….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.
Absolute fucking idiocy. And nasty fucking idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong. Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.
And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly. You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here.
I think the roles being referred to here was the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. A man being penetrated is seen as taking on the woman’s role, which was considered the less masculine more passive role. I knew lots of religious and non-religious people who openly held this view before and it was also a feature of sex as an expression of power though not necessarily by way of rape. I am sure less people think of sex in those traditional terms now but people don’t openly voice these opinions now so I have no idea how prevalent this view of sex is today.
ETA: women managed to reclaim some power in the sexual act by being on top. But I assume that’s not really anatomically possible in terms of anal sex?
-
Your posts are not doing you any favours whatsoever, it is very sad that you are unable to comprehend that.
I’m curious. What does “doing yourself any favours” mean? What favours would anyone need on a message board? It’s a place for discussing ideas.
-
I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
There are times when you demonstrate your qualification as a pompous git! As well as a homophobe!
-
I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.
Does one have to grow up to be a homophobe?
-
Because you asked someone to go back and answer your 'point' in #1206...
In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand.
Moses almost certainly is a mythical figure, there wasn't really a Moses.
When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature.
You don't 'understand' the naturalistic fallacy if you deploy it thinking it's a point, that's part of why it's a fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy says that because what you say upsets me I should hunt you down and beat you to a pulp because that's how primitive creatures establish primacy - the whole point of morality and humanity is to try to rise above baser instincts where they are problematic.
He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires.
And Gandalf says that you shouldn't trifle in the affairs of wizards, but that doesn't make it true either. The argument from authority is really, really threadbare when your 'authority' is make believe.
Homosexual desires are unnatural.
Except that it isn't:
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue
- referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
Shoes are unnatural, should we all go barefoot? So, when you look at it, is typing on the internet. Except that... we're human, we're tool-making, consciously-thinking, morally-capable independent animals. If we make a decision to rise above base instincts, that capacity is part of our nature. Even if the rest of the animal kingdom were suppressing the natural expression of homosexual behaviour, which they aren't, us choosing not to is entirely natural FOR US.
Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated.
Your sex life must be so, so limited if you thank that's the whole picture. Sometimes sex isn't penetrative at all, sometimes everyone 'get into it'... who are you to tell someone else what's the 'correct' way for them to find or give pleasure? Next you'll be telling me sex is only between two people at a time...
Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa.
Can you explain who's being penetrated by two tribbing lesbians, please?
This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.
Dishonouring who? How? If a straight man is pegged by his straight wife because they're both having fun is that 'morally wrong' and 'dishonouring'? Is it more morally wrong for you to try to impose on them your sexual preferences in the guise of 'sin police' or for them to enjoy themselves in private in a way that has absolutely no negative effect on anyone?
So, in summary:
"Homosexuality is unnatural" - not it isn't, all sorts of animals do it.
"Homosexuality in humans is unnatural" - no it isn't, humanity has a natural capacity to rise above base instincts.
"X is unnatural, and therefore morally wrong" - that's the naturalistic fallacy
"Moses said homosexuality is wrong" - Moses wasn't real.
"Someone in my holy book said homosexuality is wrong" - someone in your holy book could be wrong, given they thought it was Moses that seems likely.
"God say it's wrong" - That's just an appeal to authority to try to enforce one of those subjective moral judgements that religion is supposed to be so set again.
On a grade of 1-10 that arguments scores an F- 'Must try harder'... Except, don't try harder, just try to manifest that 'God is love' mentality and forget all the bronze age homophobic nonsense that's been wrapped around someone's attempts to marshal society into a breeding programme for religious soldiers. If two people care for each other, what they do or don't choose to do in a private setting isn't a moral question, at worst it's a healthcare question and at best it's something to be happy for them about.
O.
-
Does one have to grow up to be a homophobe?
Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!
-
Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!
Back at you. Bruv, back at you!
-
Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!
Why should I give your homophobia which you continue to display on this thread a 'rest'?
-
ETA: women managed to reclaim some power in the sexual act by being on top. But I assume that’s not really anatomically possible in terms of anal sex?
If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!
-
If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!
But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?
-
But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?
No, we've got real porn, with men being penetrated in the female fashion and dominant women dishing it out. This is porn for believers who get a hard-on from trolling people with an argument by ejaculating their word-salad all over the internet and getting their little 'soulgasm' of having spread the seed word.
O.
-
No, we've got real porn, with men being penetrated in the female fashion and dominant women dishing it out. This is porn for believers who get a hard-on from trolling people with an argument by ejaculating their word-salad all over the internet and getting their little 'soulgasm' of having spread the seed word.
O.
I say......Isn't that a bit strong?
-
If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!
Fair enough - sorry I think I didn’t elaborate enough - I was thinking facing away from the person you are on top of relinquishes some power but maybe people feel that’s not the case.
-
Some thoughts from members of the gay community on notions of masculinity, gender roles, tops and bottoms.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.insider.com/the-most-common-myths-about-gay-sex-between-men-2019-6%3famp
-
But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?
If that is the case what the **** are YOU doing here?
-
If that is the case what the **** are YOU doing here?
Wanking with words
-
Wanking with words
Careful now. It's nearly time for me to chose another handle.
-
Careful now. It's nearly time for me to chose another handle.
I, for one. could not give a tinker's cuss for what you call yourself until you change your handle to "The Foul-mouthed Theist Homophobic" - then I might, just possibly, give a damn!
TO VLAD
Apologies for this - got the monikers mixed-up again! Sorry!
-
This article runs through some of the differences in approach between humans and other primates in relation to reproductive and social sex from an anthropological perspective. Not really surprising that there are such diverse views on sexual morality.
https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/human-sex-evolution-creative-sex/
Humans, like other primates, seek one another out for sexual activity and have lots of social sex. But here is where many of the similarities cease.
Our sexuality is tied to the societies we live in; the rules, laws, and belief systems we participate in; and the partnerships, bonds, and alliances we form, rupture, and create anew. Humans are the only mammalian species we know of where a percentage of the species has a consistent homosexual sexual orientation, and we are the only species to take vows of chastity (and sometimes maintain them). We are very rare among primates in that we often form long-term bonds between two individuals that can be related to sex and reproduction. We are unique in having sets of symbolic associations between sex, age, ethics, morality, and behavior: For humans, when, how, where, and with whom we have sex matters a great deal, not just to the individuals having sex but to their communities and the society as a whole.
-
Humans are the only mammalian species we know of where a percentage of the species has a consistent homosexual sexual orientation,
But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.
and we are the only species to take vows of chastity (and sometimes maintain them).
There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know. And using the term 'vow' in this context is totally inappropriate as it is a human notion, reflecting a societally-accepted position that some members of that society choose, or feel compelled by societal norms to accept. It is a societal construct, and you can easily see analogous scenarios in other highly social species in which certain members do not engage in sexual activity driven by a broader societal norm structure.
-
But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.
There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know. And using the term 'vow' in this context is totally inappropriate as it is a human notion, reflecting a societally-accepted position that some members of that society choose, or feel compelled by societal norms to accept. It is a societal construct, and you can easily see analogous scenarios in other highly social species in which certain members do not engage in sexual activity driven by a broader societal norm structure.
I have not read the book but can only imagine that Professor Fuentes meant there is no evidence for orientation in non-human species. If evidence for orientation in non-humans is found, he will probably revise his opinion.
Regarding the term ‘vow’ in this context or any other wording in his book, I think his point was to highlight the difference in sexual behaviour between humans and other primates due to the higher cognitive functions that humans possess and their capacity for abstract thoughts and their capacity to hold beliefs. We can see that because humans have this capacity their views on sexual behaviour are very diverse.
But you can always discuss it further with the author - according to Wiki “ Agustín Fuentes is an American primatologist and biological anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame. His work focuses largely on human and non-human primate interaction, pathogen transfer, communication, cooperation, and human social evolution.“
-
Spud,
Just to add by the way that if you were a work colleague of mine and I suspected you of being a Christian I’d tolerate you, but would treat you exactly as if you were an atheist. This would be my way of saying I accept you as a person but I don’t accept your filthy moralising behaviour so I would engage you in atheist conversation.
Hope you’re ok with that.
I actually think that’s a reasonable position to take - the subject of this thread is bigotry, which as I understand it is intolerance for someone else’s beliefs/ race/ way of life so isn’t tolerance despite disagreement and disapproval of behaviour a good thing in the context of this thread title?
Human higher cognitive functions seem to derive meaning from imaginative abstract thoughts and mental representations and this cognitive drive to find meaning seems to feed into the evolution of our current moral systems from our historical social, cultural, economic, political, and religious interactions and beliefs. So I find positive meaning in the abstract notion of tolerance and have therefore tried to adopt tolerance as part of my moral values.
-
Gabriella,
I actually think that’s a reasonable position to take - the subject of this thread is bigotry, which as I understand it is intolerance for someone else’s beliefs/ race/ way of life so isn’t tolerance despite disagreement and disapproval of behaviour a good thing in the context of this thread title?
No. Tolerance implies that there’s something to be tolerated. At best I suppose you could argue that the bigot is “tolerating” his own bigotry by finding a way of being in the world that contains it in work, social etc situations.
Human higher cognitive functions seem to derive meaning from imaginative abstract thoughts and mental representations and this cognitive drive to find meaning seems to feed into the evolution of our current moral systems from our historical social, cultural, economic, political, and religious interactions and beliefs.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. If it’s something like, “people find their moral positions to have meaning for them” then fine, but so what? Moral positions can change, and so therefore can the meanings people attach to them. Thus someone who previously thought equal marriage was morally wrong and now thinks it morally right might derive the meaning, “I used to be a bigot about that, but now I’m not”. Again, so what though?
So I find positive meaning in the abstract notion of tolerance and have therefore tried to adopt tolerance as part of my moral values.
So do I. In general tolerance – live and let live etc – is a good thing. I might for example find my life to be inconvenienced by a neighbour starting his car at six in the morning, but I also know that’s his only way to get to his job and thus to support his family so I tolerate it. On the other hand though, if that man happens to be gay who am I to presume to “tolerate” him when his sexual orientation has bugger all (as it were) to do with me?
-
But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.
Animals do not have "gender". Gender is a human social construct.
There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know.
It would be interesting to know whether the individual animals observed engaging in "homosexual" behaviour might also be observed engaging in "heterosexual" behaviour. In non-primate species sex does not have any expressive value and is merely stimulus-response drive behaviour. The female emits some (frequently pheremonal) signal which stimulates the male to inseminate her. I have heard it said that in many (perhaps most) mammalian species the likelihood is that the majority of males die virgins. Dominant males mate, subordinate males do so at the risk of serious injury from an infuriated dominant male (who has earned that status by being able to see off any challenger). Perhaps same sex mounting attempts are being performed by sexually aroused males who are unable to gain access to a female but are driven to act.
Then there are females ...
I once heard a farmer describe the action of a cow attempting to mount another cow as "bulling". He said that it was a sign that the cow was in oestrous and had not been inseminated and needed the attention of a bull. I have idea whether this s true or not.
-
Animals do not have "gender". Gender is a human social construct.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Gender means characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity and those go beyond mere genetics/anatomy (i.e. sex) but pertain also to behaviour and so-called 'gender roles' within a society. Now many social non human species have highly developed gendered behaviour and role and I think there is significant evidence across a range of species that individuals adopting specific gendered behaviour and roles does not always align with biological sex of that individual. In effect those non human societies are also operating in a manner where gender is not synonymous with biological sex.
-
Gabriella,
No. Tolerance implies that there’s something to be tolerated. At best I suppose you could argue that the bigot is “tolerating” his own bigotry by finding a way of being in the world that contains it in work, social etc situations.
I disagree because I think there is nearly always something to be tolerated - it goes with the territory of social participation and interaction. This thread expresses disapproval of the intolerance of people who express a particular moral value. On the Searching for God thread it was argued that people cannot choose their likes/ desires/ wants though they could resolve a conflict between competing wants. In that context it follows that people inevitably have to tolerate things they do not choose to dislike but which they nevertheless do dislike. There are many behaviours in society that people will dislike without choosing to dislike it. Tolerance is very useful in resolving those conflicts and provides an advantage to people who have developed or evolved that ability. It may be that different people have different capacities for tolerance.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. If it’s something like, “people find their moral positions to have meaning for them” then fine, but so what? Moral positions can change, and so therefore can the meanings people attach to them. Thus someone who previously thought equal marriage was morally wrong and now thinks it morally right might derive the meaning, “I used to be a bigot about that, but now I’m not”. Again, so what though?
Yes I agree the meaning people find in abstract concepts can change. I am just stating that it is not surprising that there is diversity in this as there is in most other biologically driven functions. Hence the need to find a balance between freedom, personal security and tolerating that diversity in society. Diversity of thought could lead to curiosity, innovation and exploration of ideas - which can lead to positive and negative outcomes.
So do I. In general tolerance – live and let live etc – is a good thing. I might for example find my life to be inconvenienced by a neighbour starting his car at six in the morning, but I also know that’s his only way to get to his job and thus to support his family so I tolerate it. On the other hand though, if that man happens to be gay who am I to presume to “tolerate” him when his sexual orientation has bugger all (as it were) to do with me?
Regarding your specific example of the car engine, before lockdown my neighbours had to tolerate me starting the car 4 mornings a week at 5am, returning at 5.40am and starting the car again at 6.45am to drop my daughter at swim squad practice, come back and pick her up again. It was a 5.30am engine start on a Saturday for the same reason. My point being that she swims because she likes it - nothing to do with jobs or providing for family. There are behaviours or moral values we tolerate that we don’t choose to dislike, simply because it has meaning for others and we see a benefit to getting along amicably.
-
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Gender means characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity and those go beyond mere genetics/anatomy (i.e. sex) but pertain also to behaviour and so-called 'gender roles' within a society. Now many social non human species have highly developed gendered behaviour and role and I think there is significant evidence across a range of species that individuals adopting specific gendered behaviour and roles does not always align with biological sex of that individual. In effect those non human societies are also operating in a manner where gender is not synonymous with biological sex.
We would have to find a way to ascertain if the behaviour that does not conform to normal biological roles was due to environmental factors. Compared to other species humans seem to have a more abstract concept of gender and highly individualised meanings that gender terms hold for them.
-
Gabriella,
I disagree because I think there is nearly always something to be tolerated - it goes with the territory of social participation and interaction. This thread expresses disapproval of the intolerance of people who express a particular moral value.
Nope. The fact that someone thinks another person’s sexual orientation is a thing to be “tolerated” implies that it’s therefore wrong, inferior, “not on a par” etc. Nonetheless, decent, mature person that he is he’ll “tolerate” it despite that wrongness. Utter bollocks. What someone does in bed with a partner has absolutely sweet FA to do with the work colleague claiming to “tolerate” it, so there’s nothing to be tolerated. The only toleration on display here (albeit unwittingly) is the bigot asking you to tolerate his bigotry because of the strategies he’s come up with to maintain it while still operating successfully in the world – ie, by not getting fired.
On the Searching for God thread it was argued that people cannot choose their likes/ desires/ wants though they could resolve a conflict between competing wants. In that context it follows that people inevitably have to tolerate things they do not choose to dislike but which they nevertheless do dislike. There are many behaviours in society that people will dislike without choosing to dislike it. Tolerance is very useful in resolving those conflicts and provides an advantage to people who have developed or evolved that ability. It may be that different people have different capacities for tolerance.
You’re missing the point. When the reasoning that exposes bigotry is explained to the bigot he can either resile from his bigotry or he can used mealy-mouthed evasions like, “but I tolerate the gay man in the office” so as to maintain it.
Yes I agree the meaning people find in abstract concepts can change. I am just stating that it is not surprising that there is diversity in this as there is in most other biologically driven functions. Hence the need to find a balance between freedom, personal security and tolerating that diversity in society. Diversity of thought could lead to curiosity, innovation and exploration of ideas - which can lead to positive and negative outcomes.
Yes there is diversity, but there’s also reason and evidence and moral philosophy and the Zeitgeist and…. Again, so what though? Let’s say for example that you found someone who thought enslaving back people was morally good. Is he entitled to think that? Of course he is – that’s freedom of thought. Should he expect to receive both barrels from those who think him to be morally disgusting if he argues for it though? Damn right he should, no matter how much he assures us he “tolerates” the black work colleague by talking to him just as if he were a white person.
Regarding your specific example of the car engine, before lockdown my neighbours had to tolerate me starting the car 4 mornings a week at 5am, returning at 5.40am and starting the car again at 6.45am to drop my daughter at swim squad practice, come back and pick her up again. It was a 5.30am engine start on a Saturday for the same reason. My point being that she swims because she likes it - nothing to do with jobs or providing for family. There are behaviours or moral values we tolerate that we don’t choose to dislike, simply because it has meaning for others and we see a benefit to getting along amicably.
You’ve missed the point. The point was that it’s hard to justify tolerating something when that something doesn’t affect you in any way. Would you tolerate my love of playing the bagpipes at 3am for example? No, because you had no idea I did that. “Toleration” in this context is meaningless. If I was your neighbour on the other hand and the piecing shrieks of the thing woke you up (maybe disturbing the sleep you’d need to be able to get up two hours later to take your daughter swimming) then in/tolerance would have meaning, and your exercise of it would be contextual. That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?
-
That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?
I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.
-
I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.
Agree those are Spud's words not Steve's. But Steve still thinks that gay relationship's are not on a par with straight ones so not sure there is that much of a difference
-
HH,
I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.
Which I am happy to give. Steve - I apologise for misattributing to you a quote made by Spud. I should have checked before posting.
I cannot though apologise for attributing the sentiment of homophobia in general to you both.
-
HH,
Which I am happy to give. Steve - I apologise for misattributing to you a quote made by Spud. I should have checked before posting.
I cannot though apologise for attributing the sentiment of homophobia in general to you both.
Apology accepted. I wasn't even aware that yiu'd misattributed anything to me before now!
I can live with you and Really Sanctimonious thinking I'm a homophobe, even though i still don't think I am.
-
Apology accepted. I wasn't even aware that yiu'd misattributed anything to me before now!
I can live with you and Really Sanctimonious thinking I'm a homophobe, even though i still don't think I am.
I'm sure you don't think you are , however your evasion of nearly all the points I have put to you really does suggest that either you just don't like talking to me or you are actually a little bit homophobic. I refer you to my post way back #1056.
-
Gabriella,
Nope. The fact that someone thinks another person’s sexual orientation is a thing to be “tolerated” implies that it’s therefore wrong, inferior, “not on a par” etc. Nonetheless, decent, mature person that he is he’ll “tolerate” it despite that wrongness. Utter bollocks. What someone does in bed with a partner has absolutely sweet FA to do with the work colleague claiming to “tolerate” it, so there’s nothing to be tolerated. The only toleration on display here (albeit unwittingly) is the bigot asking you to tolerate his bigotry because of the strategies he’s come up with to maintain it while still operating successfully in the world – ie, by not getting fired.
You’re missing the point. When the reasoning that exposes bigotry is explained to the bigot he can either resile from his bigotry or he can used mealy-mouthed evasions like, “but I tolerate the gay man in the office” so as to maintain it.
Yes there is diversity, but there’s also reason and evidence and moral philosophy and the Zeitgeist and…. Again, so what though? Let’s say for example that you found someone who thought enslaving back people was morally good. Is he entitled to think that? Of course he is – that’s freedom of thought. Should he expect to receive both barrels from those who think him to be morally disgusting if he argues for it though? Damn right he should, no matter how much he assures us he “tolerates” the black work colleague by talking to him just as if he were a white person.
You’ve missed the point. The point was that it’s hard to justify tolerating something when that something doesn’t affect you in any way. Would you tolerate my love of playing the bagpipes at 3am for example? No, because you had no idea I did that. “Toleration” in this context is meaningless. If I was your neighbour on the other hand and the piecing shrieks of the thing woke you up (maybe disturbing the sleep you’d need to be able to get up two hours later to take your daughter swimming) then in/tolerance would have meaning, and your exercise of it would be contextual. That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?
No. I am not missing the point though I can tolerate you thinking I am. Humans have evolved in a way whereby as a society they ascribe abstract concepts such as values to sexual activities, unlike other primates. One reason for this could be the increase in STIs in society where there is increased sexual activity but I do not think that’s the only reason for society developing abstract values and restrictions related to sexual activity.
Some societies have developed in a way whereby they place more value on individuality than others - this was evident in the way different people reacted to lock down with some governments taking a more prescriptive and systematic approach and their citizens being more compliant. Societies that prioritise personal freedom, autonomy and diversity will assign a different moral value to certain behaviours compared to societies that prioritise compliance with social norms or the zeitgeist.
Regarding the “on par” comment - I have been thinking about that and it depends on the criteria that’s being judged. If the criteria is love and companionship then same sex marriages are on par. If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose. It’s up to individuals what criteria they judge behaviour on regardless of zeitgeist as much as it is your prerogative to judge/ tolerate/ swear at others for their judgements.
If a person sees individual freedom as the most important priority they will hold a different moral view from someone who does not prioritise individual freedom. The different views can be tolerated - or not - again it depends on what the individuals who make up society decide to do. Individual posters on this forum getting hysterical about a moral view they don’t like doesn’t change anything, though they are of course free to swear and rage as much as they like if it makes them feel better in some way. My sub-conscious preference appears to be that I am more tolerant of Steve’s views on same sex marriage than I am of hysterical emotional reactions to his views, whereas I actively like Trent’s response. But that’s just my sub-consciously driven preferences. If that gets me labelled a homophobe, I prefer that outcome compared to not having the freedom to discuss the possible implications of Steve’s comment.
The Searching for God thread had lots of arguments supporting the idea that our likes and dislikes are determined by nature/nurture or are random, and our conscious brain becomes aware of these sub-conscious preferences. Reasoning by your conscious brain cannot apparently change what you sub-consciously like or dislike but it can allow you to tolerate what you dislike because there is perceived benefit to tolerating it. For example, tolerating behaviour such as people exhibiting their religious values and acts that they find meaning in or posters posting emotional rants on here.
Your bagpipe example misses the point. Marriage and other publicly displayed social constructs, values and rituals are not like playing bagpipes in your home where someone else does not know you are doing it. People are not getting married at home with no one knowing about it.
-
I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.
I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.
Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.
So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.
So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.
We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc. at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.
-
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite.
What's the difference? A man or woman is in love with someone in both. Someone is in love with a man or a woman in both. Those people get up to some combination of sexual activities that (hopefully) bring them mutual pleasure, typically in private. What's the significant difference?
Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.
Different but (notionally) equal was Apartheid in South Africa. If it's not a significant difference why does it need a different word? Why do we have to differentiate if they're equal?
O.
-
If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose.
But then some man-woman marriages are not "on a par" because of medical reasons - infertility, older couples remarrying, for example. I don't think Steve was arguing for those people to have civil partnerships instead of marriages.
-
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.
If you think gay relationships aren't sinful or inferior why shouldn't they marry like heterosexuals? Your 'reasoning' makes no sense at all. ::)
-
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.
The point of the post was to try to make you see the issue differently and to prompt you to examine what you had said and why. If I am still subject to society's past conditioning then there is every chance that you could be too, not a given, but a chance.
You seem to have rowed back on your original "not on a par" statement.
IF you can't see a difference between Civil partnerships and marriage why are you still clinging to a different definition?
In the eyes of a lot of gay people, including myself now, the very existence of the distinction is enough to prove that some don't value our relationships as equal. I'm not saying that's what you think, but it does come across that way with your different but equal premise.
Someone once said equality does not come with qualifiers.
Only in some people's minds apparently.
-
But then some man-woman marriages are not "on a par" because of medical reasons - infertility, older couples remarrying, for example. I don't think Steve was arguing for those people to have civil partnerships instead of marriages.
Fair point.
On a practical level I think some people may decide to differentiate relationships on the basis of same sex and opposite sex as a quicker method of sorting categories, because it would be impossible to carry out exhaustive tests on fertility issues, which could take years, before deciding what category of marriage to put people into - those couples who are capable of procreating with each other vs those who definitely aren’t capable. Especially as sometimes there is no medical explanation for the woman not getting pregnant for years. A friend even went through the long adoption process after 10 years of a childless marriage and then fell pregnant just as she and her husband adopted a 15 month old.
Equally, many people in a particular society might ignore statistical probability of couple procreation as a criteriion for categorising legal relationships, because they prioritise other factors - individual freedom, abstract notions of equality, protection of minorities etc
-
I'm sure you don't think you are , however your evasion of nearly all the points I have put to you really does suggest that either you just don't like talking to me or you are actually a little bit homophobic. I refer you to my post way back #1056.
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?
-
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?
Changing the definition of marriage hurts no one. If you don't like two men getting married, don't go the wedding.
I don't think I've claimed Steve has changed the definition of homophobia, if I have then explain how I have cos I honestly can't see it.
-
Changing the definition of marriage hurts no one. If you don't like two men getting married, don't go the wedding.
I don't think that's clear.
Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?
-
Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?
So long as 'The Church' just involves itself in singing hymns and talking to their imaginary friend, yeah fine. When they start lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn't be legal, though, then they get push back. If they are, by the fact of their existence, lending credence to the fact that religion has some sort of merit at the same time that religion is the motivator behind war crimes, homophobia, misogyny and slaughter around the world, then there's a cause to stand up and push back.
O.
-
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?
oh look a bit of straightsplaining
-
So long as 'The Church' just involves itself in singing hymns and talking to their imaginary friend, yeah fine. When they start lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn't be legal, though, then they get push back. If they are, by the fact of their existence, lending credence to the fact that religion has some sort of merit at the same time that religion is the motivator behind war crimes, homophobia, misogyny and slaughter around the world, then there's a cause to stand up and push back.
O.
You seem to be saying here that people who want to change the definition of marriage aren’t themselves lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn’t be legal. That is just laughable.
That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?
-
You seem to be saying here that people who want to change the definition of marriage aren’t themselves lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn’t be legal. That is just laughable.
That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?
Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
-
Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
Religion and communism don't kill people, people do.
-
Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
what about dynastic ambition, nationalism, tribalism and politics?
If you exclusively focus on religion then that is just antireligionism.
Anyway what about the little reported Austin atheist own goal.
When challenged on their TV show as to why religionists had accrued more charity the answer was that atheism hadn’t been around for as long as religion.
By the same logic therefore we can look forward to Atheism catching up on charity, slaughter, oppression and anything else atheists have accused religion of.
-
I don't think that's clear.
Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?
And following your logic I have no problem with it as long as the Churches and their followers stay the fuck out of trying to regulate my life.
PS I put your quote right in your previous post to make it read right.
-
Gabriella,
Who was it who said, “I’m sorry I’ve written such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one”? You have a rambling, discursive style so it’s hard to know what points you think you’re making sometimes but I’ll respond to what I think they are at least.
No. I am not missing the point though I can tolerate you thinking I am.
As it was my point I think I’m entitled to decide whether you’ve missed it, especially when I explain it to you again. Don’t you?
Humans have evolved in a way whereby as a society they ascribe abstract concepts such as values to sexual activities, unlike other primates. One reason for this could be the increase in STIs in society where there is increased sexual activity but I do not think that’s the only reason for society developing abstract values and restrictions related to sexual activity.
We’ve also evolved to have morality about all sorts of non sex-related activities too. As other species don’t have morality at all (except perhaps in some cases in proto forms) what point do you think you are making?
Some societies have developed in a way whereby they place more value on individuality than others - this was evident in the way different people reacted to lock down with some governments taking a more prescriptive and systematic approach and their citizens being more compliant. Societies that prioritise personal freedom, autonomy and diversity will assign a different moral value to certain behaviours compared to societies that prioritise compliance with social norms or the zeitgeist.
Zeitgeists vary across societies, yes. How does this relate to anything you think you’re replying to?
Regarding the “on par” comment - I have been thinking about that and it depends on the criteria that’s being judged. If the criteria is love and companionship then same sex marriages are on par. If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose. It’s up to individuals what criteria they judge behaviour on regardless of zeitgeist as much as it is your prerogative to judge/ tolerate/ swear at others for their judgements.
Except so far as I’m aware homophobes don’t apply the same moral judgment to those who wish to marry but not to have children. It’s a stupid rationale for determining moral status in any case (not least because childless couples also play an important role in genomic success), but if someone did want to use it nonetheless then they should use it consistently – gay people, infertile people, pensioners, people who wish to have only non-procreational sex etc. should all be “not on a par” in their opinion.
That’s not what homophobes say though is it. Why do you think that is do you suppose?
If a person sees individual freedom as the most important priority they will hold a different moral view from someone who does not prioritise individual freedom. The different views can be tolerated - or not - again it depends on what the individuals who make up society decide to do.
I have no idea what point you think you’re making here but clearly it doesn’t work. Should my “individual freedom” to kill my neighbours be “tolerated” for example? What you’re edging toward here so far as I can tell is a spectrum – total individual freedom at one end and total control at the other. Different societies at different times and places have put the cursor at different places along that spectrum. Again, so what though?
Individual posters on this forum getting hysterical about a moral view they don’t like doesn’t change anything, though they are of course free to swear and rage as much as they like if it makes them feel better in some way.
Can you identify anyone who’s been “hysterical” or are you just poisoning the well with pejorative language?
My sub-conscious preference appears to be that I am more tolerant of Steve’s views on same sex marriage than I am of hysterical emotional reactions to his views, whereas I actively like Trent’s response. But that’s just my sub-consciously driven preferences. If that gets me labelled a homophobe, I prefer that outcome compared to not having the freedom to discuss the possible implications of Steve’s comment
That’s called a non sequitur. No-one has denied you that freedom, and nor is your “sub-conscious preference” to be homophobic been denied to you. You are though to some degree a thinking being, and you should conceptually at least be able to understand why it is homophobic when the reasons are explained to you.
The Searching for God thread had lots of arguments supporting the idea that our likes and dislikes are determined by nature/nurture or are random, and our conscious brain becomes aware of these sub-conscious preferences. Reasoning by your conscious brain cannot apparently change what you sub-consciously like or dislike but it can allow you to tolerate what you dislike because there is perceived benefit to tolerating it.
You’ve misunderstood. A highly complex system like consciousness is essentially a feedback arrangement. I might have a firm moral view about something, but when my reasons for justifying it are shown to be wrong then I have the opportunity to think, “actually I was wrong about that” and so my opinion changes. That’s what happens in an open system that acquires data from its environment.
For example, tolerating behaviour such as people exhibiting their religious values and acts that they find meaning in or posters posting emotional rants on here.
Who has had an “emotional rant” here, or is this more poisoning of the well? What’s actually happened is that the homophobes have been told why they’re homophobes, but also they’ve been dealt with in very firm terms. Shall I tell you why? It’s because they (and now you) are trying to sanitise some very nasty opinions that have even nastier real world consequences. I’m not suggesting for one moment that Spud or Steve or you will wander the streets at night looking for young men to beat up, but other people do. It happens. And where do you think these people find succour and support for their actions? Yes, from authority figures like clerics who assert flooding to be caused by the legalisation of equal marriage, from sweaty men in pubs who make anti-gay jokes, from mealy-mouthed ever-so-‘umble contributors to message boards who try to justify their contemptible views – in other words, from all the people who contribute in their various ways to the Zeitgeist. You may want be part of that but I don’t, and I see nothing wrong with saying so in no uncertain terms.
Your bagpipe example misses the point. Marriage and other publicly displayed social constructs, values and rituals are not like playing bagpipes in your home where someone else does not know you are doing it. People are not getting married at home with no one knowing about it.
No it doesn’t, and the point remains that people of the same sex are having hanky panky in bedrooms all the time – what possible business is that of yours, let alone to think it’s something to be “tolerated”? If the sound is coming through your wall on the other hand (whether the sex is gay, straight or anything else) then the thing to be tolerated is the disturbance to your right to peace and quiet, not the fact of which bits are going where on the other side of the wall.
-
And following your logic I have no problem with it as long as the Churches and their followers stay the fuck out of trying to regulate my life.
PS I put your quote right in your previous post to make it read right.
I’m having my life regulated or attempted regulation all the time. You sound lucky that it’s just the church in your case.
-
Vlad,
I’m having my life regulated or attempted regulation all the time. You sound lucky that it’s just the church in your case.
By people who were voted for. The point here is that "the church" enjoys an entirely unwarranted position in daily life for all of us for reasons of tradition only. Religiously-affiliated schools (primary in particular), guaranteed media access, seats in the HoL etc. Get rid of all that (and more) and treat them as private members' clubs and then - but only then - would you have point.
-
If you think gay relationships aren't sinful or inferior why shouldn't they marry like heterosexuals? Your 'reasoning' makes no sense at all. ::)
You wouldn't know reasoning if it jumped up and bit you on the bum, LR sweetie.
-
I’m having my life regulated or attempted regulation all the time. You sound lucky that it’s just the church in your case.
I think you will find, when you've calmed down, that I never claimed it was only the Church.
I accept that others have the right to regulate what I do, otherwise I'd be outside not practising social distancing like so many young people hereabouts are intent on doing.
-
Vlad,
By people who were voted for. The point here is that "the church" enjoys an entirely unwarranted position in daily life for all of us for reasons of tradition only. Religiously-affiliated schools (primary in particular), guaranteed media access, seats in the HoL etc. Get rid of all that (and more) and treat them as private members' clubs and then - but only then - would you have point.
These things are historical Hillside.
Vis a vis guaranteed media access, not a lot and certainly not proportional compared with other folk guaranteed media access. Food sellers, crap sellers.etc.
Why are atheists not standing on their ability to set up free view channels? Answer atheist Raison d’etre namely the undermining of religion more than handled by the overwhelming presence of secular broadcasting.
deter
-
You wouldn't know reasoning if it jumped up and bit you on the bum, LR sweetie.
Stop talking about yourself, it is getting boring. ::)
-
That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
No it is NOT! War Crimes - the total annihilation of the Mayans and the Aztecs, 90,00o murdered as witches, thousands killed by venerial disease due to the Catholic Church'se ban on contraceptives. Stop talking "antitheist spin" bollocks!
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?
Those deaths were political NOT religious you idiot!
-
You seem to be saying here that people who want to change the definition of marriage aren’t themselves lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn’t be legal. That is just laughable.
I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to have their opinion, I said they should be prepared to have people push back against it, and its sources.
That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
I'm sure the ongoing tension in the Middle-East has absolutely nothing to do with the Abrahamic religions... ::)
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?
Did anyone suggest that religion was the ONLY source?
O.
-
I think you will find, when you've calmed down, that I never claimed it was only the Church.
Thank you........I’ve stopped hyperventilating now.
-
I don't think that's clear.
Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?
I agree 100% with the first three words of the post quoted above!
-
Vlad,
These things are historical Hillside.
This morning I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 and was treated to the Thought for the Day slot. Then I took the dog for a walk and went past St Mary’s Primary CofE School. Then I read an article about the possible reopening of schools, schools that are still required by that little thing called the law to have a “daily act of collective worship”.
In what sense do you think these things are “historical” exactly?
Vis a vis guaranteed media access, not a lot and certainly not proportional compared with other folk guaranteed media access. Food sellers, crap sellers.etc.
Deliberately evasive? Whenever there’s a big issue of moral import for some reason the main media outlets all seem to think it’s appropriate to invite a cleric to opine on the matter. Why do you suppose they have a season ticket right to this kind of access when, say, professors of moral philosophy don't?
Why are atheists not standing on their ability to set up free view channels? Answer atheist Raison d’etre namely the undermining of religion more than handled by the overwhelming presence of secular broadcasting.
deter
Irrelevant gibberish. Why should "atheists" have to set up their own channels when the BBC, ITV, Sky etc exist already?
Anyway, the point you dodged remains: “the church” still enjoys huge, unelected access to the daily lives of all of us and it’s barely commented on. Your call just to ignore what they do behind closed doors misses this point entirely – if they kept it behind closed doors no-one would care much. That’s not what they do though is it.
-
I agree 100% with the first three words of the post quoted above!
Can I refer you to words 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the last sentence of the post you are referring to.
-
Gabriella,
Who was it who said, “I’m sorry I’ve written such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one”? You have a rambling, discursive style so it’s hard to know what points you think you’re making sometimes but I’ll respond to what I think they are at least.
As it was my point I think I’m entitled to decide whether you’ve missed it, especially when I explain it to you again. Don’t you?
We’ve also evolved to have morality about all sorts of non sex-related activities too. As other species don’t have morality at all (except perhaps in some cases in proto forms) what point do you think you are making?
Zeitgeists vary across societies, yes. How does this relate to anything you think you’re replying to?
My point is that since humans have evolved to assign moral values to sexual behaviour, and since different societies differ on where to put the cursor, create social norms or legislate and these changing decisions come about through discussion between the different people and stakeholders who make up each society, it’s a good thing that different and often opposing ideas around humans’ evolved capacity to hold beliefs about abstract concepts, religious influence, morals, social constructs and rituals are all being openly discussed on this forum and in society. Same sex marriage is just another issue to be discussed as it’s a social construct so is open to regulation by society.
Except so far as I’m aware homophobes don’t apply the same moral judgment to those who wish to marry but not to have children. It’s a stupid rationale for determining moral status in any case (not least because childless couples also play an important role in genomic success), but if someone did want to use it nonetheless then they should use it consistently – gay people, infertile people, pensioners, people who wish to have only non-procreational sex etc. should all be “not on a par” in their opinion.
That’s not what homophobes say though is it. Why do you think that is do you suppose?
I think there are different views on the issue but I can tolerate you labelling all the different views as homophobic. Trent raised the same point a few posts ago and I responded as to why delineating by statistical probability of procreation rather than by exhaustive time-consuming medical tests on fertility was more practical. Alternatively, the criteria or definition of marriage could be historically based or something else - it’s all up for discussion as stakeholders have the capacity to influence the zeitgeist and lobby to change legislation - as we saw when civil partnerships and same sec marriage legislation was passed by Parliament.
I have no idea what point you think you’re making here but clearly it doesn’t work. Should my “individual freedom” to kill my neighbours be “tolerated” for example?
Obviously not as the discussion was about holding different moral values whereas actual behaviour is regulated by legislation What you’re edging toward here so far as I can tell is a spectrum – total individual freedom at one end and total control at the other. Different societies at different times and places have put the cursor at different places along that spectrum. Again, so what though?
As above, I think it’s useful that given this moral plurality in societies, it’s useful that we continue to discuss moral values openly, including same sex marriages.
Can you identify anyone who’s been “hysterical” or are you just poisoning the well with pejorative language?
Sorry - not playing that game. This forum and this thread is riddled with pejorative language so the well was poisoned long before I wrote my post.
That’s called a non sequitur. No-one has denied you that freedom, and nor is your “sub-conscious preference” to be homophobic been denied to you. You are though to some degree a thinking being, and you should conceptually at least be able to understand why it is homophobic when the reasons are explained to you.
You too are a thinking being so should be able to grasp that being called homophobic by posters on here during a discussion is an irrelevance to me.
You’ve misunderstood. A highly complex system like consciousness is essentially a feedback arrangement. I might have a firm moral view about something, but when my reasons for justifying it are shown to be wrong then I have the opportunity to think, “actually I was wrong about that” and so my opinion changes. That’s what happens in an open system that acquires data from its environment.
No, I’m aware of the feedback arrangement- the feedback is interpreted by the brain based on nature/nurture.
Who has had an “emotional rant” here, or is this more poisoning of the well? What’s actually happened is that the homophobes have been told why they’re homophobes, but also they’ve been dealt with in very firm terms. Shall I tell you why? It’s because they (and now you) are trying to sanitise some very nasty opinions that have even nastier real world consequences. I’m not suggesting for one moment that Spud or Steve or you will wander the streets at night looking for young men to beat up, but other people do. It happens. And where do you think these people find succour and support for their actions? Yes, from authority figures like clerics who assert flooding to be caused by the legalisation of equal marriage, from sweaty men in pubs who make anti-gay jokes, from mealy-mouthed ever-so-‘umble contributors to message boards who try to justify their contemptible views – in other words, from all the people who contribute in their various ways to the Zeitgeist. You may want be part of that but I don’t, and I see nothing wrong with saying so in no uncertain terms.
You are free to be as firm on this forum as you think is necessary, within the forum rules. We will have to agree to disagree on whether certain posts come across as hysterical responses or not. I am not aware of any evidence that firmly dealing with posters on here that people disagree with has any positive impact on real world consequences. Nevertheless, if people are enjoying themselves I can see the point of tolerating it.
No it doesn’t, and the point remains that people of the same sex are having hanky panky in bedrooms all the time – what possible business is that of yours, let alone to think it’s something to be “tolerated”? If the sound is coming through your wall on the other hand (whether the sex is gay, straight or anything else) then the thing to be tolerated is the disturbance to your right to peace and quiet, not the fact of which bits are going where on the other side of the wall.
Actually the point remains that marriage is a public ritual with historical significance that has widely and openly been practised in societies, unlike you playing the bagpipes in your bedroom.
-
Can I refer you to words 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the last sentence of the post you are referring to.
Another demonstration of your total inability to accept criticism of any sort from any source - In other words your monumental arrogance!
-
My point is that since humans have evolved to assign moral values to sexual behaviour, and since different societies differ on where to put the cursor, create social norms or legislate and these changing decisions come about through discussion between the different people and stakeholders who make up each society, it’s a good thing that different and often opposing ideas around humans’ evolved capacity to hold beliefs about abstract concepts, religious influence, morals, social constructs and rituals are all being openly discussed on this forum and in society. Same sex marriage is just another issue to be discussed as it’s a social construct so is open to regulation by society.
I think there are different views on the issue but I can tolerate you labelling all the different views as homophobic. Trent raised the same point a few posts ago and I responded as to why delineating by statistical probability of procreation rather than by exhaustive time-consuming medical tests on fertility was more practical. Alternatively, the criteria or definition of marriage could be historically based or something else - it’s all up for discussion as stakeholders have the capacity to influence the zeitgeist and lobby to change legislation - as we saw when civil partnerships and same sec marriage legislation was passed by Parliament.
Obviously not as the discussion was about holding different moral values whereas actual behaviour is regulated by legislation As above, I think it’s useful that given this moral plurality in societies, it’s useful that we continue to discuss moral values openly, including same sex marriages.
Sorry - not playing that game. This forum and this thread is riddled with pejorative language so the well was poisoned long before I wrote my post.
You too are a thinking being so should be able to grasp that being called homophobic by posters on here during a discussion is an irrelevance to me.
No, I’m aware of the feedback arrangement- the feedback is interpreted by the brain based on nature/nurture.
You are free to be as firm on this forum as you think is necessary, within the forum rules. We will have to agree to disagree on whether certain posts come across as hysterical responses or not. I am not aware of any evidence that firmly dealing with posters on here that people disagree with has any positive impact on real world consequences. Nevertheless, if people are enjoying themselves I can see the point of tolerating it.
Actually the point remains that marriage is a public ritual with historical significance that has widely and openly been practised in societies, unlike you playing the bagpipes in your bedroom.
Just playing the bagpipes anywhere when we no longer have the option of capitol punishment?
ippy.
-
With regards to morals and sexuality I thought it was obvious that we don’t want Hector nor Auntie Frances to appear where it isn’t appropriate.
-
Vlad must have had a huge amount of spirits poured on his cornflakes this morning! :o
-
Vlad must have had a huge amount of spirits poured on his cornflakes this morning! :o
That would explain about 97.5% of his posts!
-
That would explain about 97.5% of his posts!
;D
-
Vlad must have had a huge amount of spirits poured on his cornflakes this morning! :o
You say that as though it were a bad thing.
-
You say that as though it were a bad thing.
Alcohol for breakfast could never be a good thing. :o
-
Alcohol for breakfast could never be a good thing. :o
Not on it's own perhaps, but occasionally as an added extra it can be delightful.
-
Not on it's own perhaps, but occasionally as an added extra it can be delightful.
NO THANKS. :o
-
Gabriella
My point is that since humans have evolved to assign moral values to sexual behaviour, and since different societies differ on where to put the cursor, create social norms or legislate and these changing decisions come about through discussion between the different people and stakeholders who make up each society, it’s a good thing that different and often opposing ideas around humans’ evolved capacity to hold beliefs about abstract concepts, religious influence, morals, social constructs and rituals are all being openly discussed on this forum and in society. Same sex marriage is just another issue to be discussed as it’s a social construct so is open to regulation by society.
So far as I can see, no-one has said otherwise. Sometimes though the arguments are racist, homophobic etc when that happens and it’s legitimate to say so.
I think there are different views on the issue but I can tolerate you labelling all the different views as homophobic.
I’ve done no such thing.
Trent raised the same point a few posts ago and I responded as to why delineating by statistical probability of procreation rather than by exhaustive time-consuming medical tests on fertility was more practical. Alternatively, the criteria or definition of marriage could be historically based or something else - it’s all up for discussion as stakeholders have the capacity to influence the zeitgeist and lobby to change legislation - as we saw when civil partnerships and same sec marriage legislation was passed by Parliament.
No. “Marriage should be only for people who produce children” is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, socially divisive and unpleasant. The point you missed or avoided though is that that’s not what homophobes say – rather they say it only in respect of gay people. That’s what makes it homophobic.
Obviously not as the discussion was about holding different moral values whereas actual behaviour is regulated by legislation
But you were talking about “personal freedom” remember? Are you now suggesting that gay people should be free to feel attracted to other gay people, but not to act on their feelings? What?
As above, I think it’s useful that given this moral plurality in societies, it’s useful that we continue to discuss moral values openly, including same sex marriages.
Again, no-one has said otherwise. “Discussing openly” though also includes explaining why some arguments are wrong, arbitrary, bigoted etc.
Sorry - not playing that game. This forum and this thread is riddled with pejorative language so the well was poisoned long before I wrote my post.
You were the one who threw out a general claim of “hysterical” behaviour, presumably to poison the well. If you now want to resile from that claim though then fair enough.
You too are a thinking being so should be able to grasp that being called homophobic by posters on here during a discussion is an irrelevance to me.
Why is the identification of your homophobia (and the explanation for why it is homophobic) irrelevant to you? Imagine if I were to post some racist comments, you explained why I was being racist and I replied “being called racist by posters on here during a discussion is an irrelevance to me”. It may be an irrelevance to you, but it probably shouldn’t be.
No, I’m aware of the feedback arrangement- the feedback is interpreted by the brain based on nature/nurture.
Then I’m at a loss to understand why you posted something that suggested you didn’t understand that at all.
You are free to be as firm on this forum as you think is necessary, within the forum rules. We will have to agree to disagree on whether certain posts come across as hysterical responses or not. I am not aware of any evidence that firmly dealing with posters on here that people disagree with has any positive impact on real world consequences. Nevertheless, if people are enjoying themselves I can see the point of tolerating it.
Why have you completely ignored the point that was made to you, namely that low-level homophobia (or racism for that matter) is part of a continuum with gay (or black) men being beaten up (or worse) at the other end it? If left unchecked each layer legitimises the next one to some degree at least, so they all contribute to the Zeitgeist. That’s why some people will confront you or Steve or Spud when you try to legitimise or sanitise homophobia, and it’ll happen whether or not you find the argument “irrelevant”.
Actually the point remains that marriage is a public ritual with historical significance that has widely and openly been practised in societies, unlike you playing the bagpipes in your bedroom.
I assume that you’re being deliberately evasive here. The point I was making was that you don’t get to “tolerate” things when they don’t inconvenience you (eg homosexuality) – ie, there’s nothing to be tolerated – but you do when those things do affect you (eg bagpipes being played next door). If you want to tell me that you “tolerate” homosexuality for example, my response is “who the hell do you think you are to presume to be in a position to tolerate that?”. It’s simple enough.
-
You enable Spud by your twee homophobia. Laughing at Trent's post just makes you look creepy
did you read Trent's post that he was laughing at? I'm pretty sure Trent was playing for laughs.
-
Gabriella
So far as I can see, no-one has said otherwise. Sometimes though the arguments are racist, homophobic etc when that happens and it’s legitimate to say so.
Of course. This is a message board where people are free to exchange opinions within the rules. There is no rule stopping posters from labelling any post racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic etc etc so you go ahead. It happens in real life too - people try to discuss something and someone somewhere starts labelling them phobic or racist or some such thing while other people disagree with the label. The labels are so overused they’ve become meaningless a lot of the time.
No. “Marriage should be only for people who produce children” is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, socially divisive and unpleasant. The point you missed or avoided though is that that’s not what homophobes say – rather they say it only in respect of gay people. That’s what makes it homophobic.
Glad we’ve got onto a discussion about the arbitrary social construct called marriage. It can be arbitrarily defined any way society chooses to define it. Currently there is an arbitrary rule that it should only be between 2 people. In the future this arbitrary rule may change. I personally do not think it Islamophobic that legally marriage in Britain is restricted to only 2 leaving a small minority of Muslim wives who are in a polygynous marriage unprotected by legal matrimonial rights. I also do not think it Islamophobic to say polygyny is morally wrong or to discuss possible reasons why someone would consider it morally wrong. It’s a religion and ethics board so it would be kind of boring if these things cannot be discussed openly. But that’s just the way I choose to use this forum. If someone else wants to start playing the race card or the Islamophobic card in response to discussions that’s up to them.
But you were talking about “personal freedom” remember? Are you now suggesting that gay people should be free to feel attracted to other gay people, but not to act on their feelings? What?
Yes when it comes to civil marriage. Though I suppose it depends on what you mean by “suggesting”. I am repeating points made by people in society as arbitrary social constructs make for an interesting discussion - if that is what you mean by saying I am suggesting it, then yes, I am suggesting it and being called ....Xxxxxxphobic (fill in the blank) is a small price to pay to continue a discussion. If you meant that I support a particular definition of marriage then I personally don’t care how civil marriage is defined - I think it’s up to elected MPs, lobby / pressure groups (well-funded or otherwise), voters and other stakeholders in society to make those decisions in a democracy - whether it’s about same sex or polygamous marriages.
Again, no-one has said otherwise. “Discussing openly” though also includes explaining why some arguments are wrong, arbitrary, bigoted etc.
You have fun with that.
You were the one who threw out a general claim of “hysterical” behaviour, presumably to poison the well. If you now want to resile from that claim though then fair enough.
No. If I wanted to name specific posters, I would have.
Why is the identification of your homophobia (and the explanation for why it is homophobic) irrelevant to you? Imagine if I were to post some racist comments, you explained why I was being racist and I replied “being called racist by posters on here during a discussion is an irrelevance to me”. It may be an irrelevance to you, but it probably shouldn’t be.
See above
Then I’m at a loss to understand why you posted something that suggested you didn’t understand that at all.
I didn’t. As I pointed out, the feedback is interpreted by different brains differently, depending on the individual brain’s nature / nurture. So my point was that the information derived from reasoning is not the same for everyone, hence different people will take that reasoning and arrive at different conclusions due to subjective perceptions, filters and understanding.
Why have you completely ignored the point that was made to you, namely that low-level homophobia (or racism for that matter) is part of a continuum with gay (or black) men being beaten up (or worse) at the other end it? If left unchecked each layer legitimises the next one to some degree at least, so they all contribute to the Zeitgeist. That’s why some people will confront you or Steve or Spud when you try to legitimise or sanitise homophobia, and it’ll happen whether or not you find the argument “irrelevant”.
Firstly, I disagree with the generalised idea of a continuum that legitimises the next layer. Sometimes these people may feel legitimised but sometimes they don’t- so I don’t think it’s a given. I think many people who engage in criminal violence will find a way to do that regardless of the reason, if they sense weakness and have an opportunity where they have power over someone- whether that is by being in the Armed Forces serving in a foreign war or being in a gang or at a football match. I am not suggesting that people cannot be engaged in discussions about their various moral outlooks and if it helps you feel better to label them (something)phobic or racist, be my guest. But as I am fairly liberal when it comes to free speech I can tolerate hearing uncomfortable views and I can tolerate people calling other people (something)phobic.
I assume that you’re being deliberately evasive here. The point I was making was that you don’t get to “tolerate” things when they don’t inconvenience you (eg homosexuality) – ie, there’s nothing to be tolerated – but you do when those things do affect you (eg bagpipes being played next door). If you want to tell me that you “tolerate” homosexuality for example, my response is “who the hell do you think you are to presume to be in a position to tolerate that?”. It’s simple enough.
I think you’re being deliberately evasive. The point I was making was about the public institution of marriage. If you want to discuss people having sex, you’ll have to find someone else to discuss it with - maybe someone who watches porn. Trying to picture other people having sex just seems weird regardless of the sex, genders, numbers involved. It’s as weird as trying to think about my parents having sex. I feel like I am intruding on people’s privacy.
-
Gabriella,
Of course. This is a message board where people are free to exchange opinions within the rules. There is no rule stopping posters from labelling any post racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic etc etc so you go ahead. It happens in real life too - people try to discuss something and someone somewhere starts labelling them phobic or racist or some such thing while other people disagree with the label. The labels are so overused they’ve become meaningless a lot of the time.
That flat surface in front of you supported by four legs that has a cup of tea on it: do you “label” it “table”? You’re trying to imply that “labelling” is the problem, but sometime the labels – ie, the descriptions – are appropriate. Here for example if someone wants arbitrarily to assert marriages that can’t produce children to be “not on a par” with those that can, but then relates that to gay marriage but not to other types of non-procreational marriages then he’s pretty much providing a textbook example of homophobia: he’s selected one criterion for parity (albeit spuriously) and then applied it just to one sub-set of the various groups within that category.
Glad we’ve got onto a discussion about the arbitrary social construct called marriage. It can be arbitrarily defined any way society chooses to define it. Currently there is an arbitrary rule that it should only be between 2 people. In the future this arbitrary rule may change. I personally do not think it Islamophobic that legally marriage in Britain is restricted to only 2 leaving a small minority of Muslim wives who are in a polygynous marriage unprotected by legal matrimonial rights. I also do not think it Islamophobic to say polygyny is morally wrong or to discuss possible reasons why someone would consider it morally wrong. It’s a religion and ethics board so it would be kind of boring if these things cannot be discussed openly. But that’s just the way I choose to use this forum. If someone else wants to start playing the race card or the Islamophobic card in response to discussions that’s up to them.
No-one has, and you’ve missed the point again. Discussion about which types of marriages are “on a par” with other types is one thing; having decided that though, selecting just one-sub-set that (supposedly) fails that test is discriminatory. If you want to decide that non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones, the former must include not only gay marriages but marriages of infertile couples, of pensioners, of people who choose not to have children etc.
Yes when it comes to civil marriage. Though I suppose it depends on what you mean by “suggesting”. I am repeating points made by people in society as arbitrary social constructs make for an interesting discussion - if that is what you mean by saying I am suggesting it, then yes, I am suggesting it and being called ....Xxxxxxphobic (fill in the blank) is a small price to pay to continue a discussion. If you meant that I support a particular definition of marriage then I personally don’t care how civil marriage is defined - I think it’s up to elected MPs, lobby / pressure groups (well-funded or otherwise), voters and other stakeholders in society to make those decisions in a democracy - whether it’s about same sex or polygamous marriages.
No – again, I describe something as homophobic when it is homophobic for the same reason I describe racism as racist, ageism as ageist etc. And if you don’t care about how civil marriage is defined, why do you care about how traditional marriage is defined?
You have fun with that.
I already have. It’s shame you won’t engage with it though.
No. If I wanted to name specific posters, I would have.
Still missing it. If you want to claim “hysterical” behaviour then to justify the claim you need to provide examples of it (named or otherwise). I haven’t seen it here, and I suspect you haven’t either but you thought it was a useful straw man. It isn’t.
See above
Ditto.
I didn’t. As I pointed out, the feedback is interpreted by different brains differently, depending on the individual brain’s nature / nurture. So my point was that the information derived from reasoning is not the same for everyone, hence different people will take that reasoning and arrive at different conclusions due to subjective perceptions, filters and understanding.
You’ve shifted ground now, but in any case yes of course people interpret things differently but any field of communication – social, scientific, philosophical, whatever – requires commonality of understanding it it’s to function at all. For example you’ve had explained why the example “non-procreational marriage is not on a par with procreational marriage, but I’ll apply that test only to gay couples” is homophobic. You may be “interpreting” that differently but I have no idea why unless it's to avoid engaging with the argument, preferring instead endless evasions and diversions.
Firstly, I disagree with the generalised idea of a continuum that legitimises the next layer. Sometimes these people may feel legitimised but sometimes they don’t- so I don’t think it’s a given.
That’s a non sequitur. No one said “it always happens”, but your concession to “sometimes” should bother you a lot more than it appears to I’d suggest. How many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok would you say?
I think many people who engage in criminal violence will find a way to do that regardless of the reason, if they sense weakness and have an opportunity where they have power over someone- whether that is by being in the Armed Forces serving in a foreign war or being in a gang or at a football match. I am not suggesting that people cannot be engaged in discussions about their various moral outlooks and if it helps you feel better to label them (something)phobic or racist, be my guest. But as I am fairly liberal when it comes to free speech I can tolerate hearing uncomfortable views and I can tolerate people calling other people (something)phobic.
I’m very liberal when it comes to free speech, but free speech does not imply that people can express their various “isms” without being challenged on them. That’s not a denial of free speech – it’s the epitome of it.
I think you’re being deliberately evasive. The point I was making was about the public institution of marriage. If you want to discuss people having sex, you’ll have to find someone else to discuss it with - maybe someone who watches porn. Trying to picture other people having sex just seems weird regardless of the sex, genders, numbers involved. It’s as weird as trying to think about my parents having sex. I feel like I am intruding on people’s privacy.
Where the hell did that come from? As you’ve just ducked it again, I’ll give it one more try:
1. For you to “tolerate” something there needs to be something to be tolerated.
2. When something doesn’t negatively affect you, your immediate circle, your society etc then it’s not tolerance-apt. It’s just irrelevant to you except in an abstract sense, so it’s misplaced and presumptuous to decide that you do or don’t tolerate it nonetheless.
3. As somewhere less than 2% of the population identify as gay and assuming that, say, half want to get married that’s around 1% of the population. Assuming they all did, you would go about your business as entirely unaffected by the fact of those equal marriages as you are by the fact of, say marriages between pensioners. What on earth then do you think it is that you’ve being expected to “tolerate” when it has nothing at all to do with you?
-
No it is NOT! War Crimes - the total annihilation of the Mayans and the Aztecs, 90,00o murdered as witches, thousands killed by venerial disease due to the Catholic Church'se ban on contraceptives. Stop talking "antitheist spin" bollocks!
Those deaths were political NOT religious you idiot!
You're quiet right Owl, but the trouble is where supporting evidence is required for any of the religions it's so thin on the ground which in turn makes any of these delusional people that have chosen religion tend to fall back on clutching at straws,
You always know it's going to be a gem coming from the lips of a religionist when you hear those tired old words Starlin, Pol Pot and Hitler.
Regards, ippy.
-
You're quiet right Owl, but the trouble is where supporting evidence is required for any of the religions it's so thin on the ground which in turn makes any of these delusional people that have chosen religion tend to fall back on clutching at straws,
You always know it's going to be a gem coming from the lips of a religionist when you hear those tired old words Starlin, Pol Pot and Hitler.
Regards, ippy.
Anybody who considers the Bible to be a book worth following as "the revealed word of God" is deluded - you only have to look at the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 to see what a load of rubbish it is.
I have lost count of the number of different explanations for the existence of those two verses that have been served up! Somehow they either dismiss one or t'other or claim that one is not from God. Guess which one!
-
Spud,
You think?
No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.
Absolute idiocy. And nasty idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong.
How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.
And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here.
Classic example of **
-
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
Clearly it was designed for the purpose I use it for, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use my body that way.
(Not that, for one minute I accept the notion that my body was designed, but that's another argument)
-
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
Classic example of **
What a load of bollocks trying to justify unjustifiable homophobic nonsense!
-
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not >:( consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
Classic example of **
You homophobic bigot. >:( >:( >:( I know I have said it boringly often, but I do hope Jesus was gay and had a wonderful sex life.
-
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
Then you had no need to mention rape at all.
I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation.
You do realise that both women and men can make use of options to avoid (bar error) the risk of unintended pregnancy: maybe you haven't got to that chapter yet,
Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes.
Provided it is between consenting adults, Spud, it really is none of your (or anyone else's) business.
You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman.
I think you need to get out a bit more, Spud.
You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Here in the UK anyway, given the legality of same sex marriage, perhaps it is you that is out of step with society, and of course 'society' isn't static and the zeitgeist constantly shifts. As I recall a main source of objections to legalising SSM came from those with religious affiliations, and they were perfectly free to object, but as events played out 'society' concluded that their minority theological stance wasn't as compelling an argument as was the case that marriage laws were discriminatory.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Who are you to define 'unnatural'? By the way, consent and pleasure are highly relevant.
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
Leaving aside the 'design' nonsense, perhaps you'd explain how 'pleasure' and 'reason' are incompatible, and were it not for the 'pleasure' aspect: and presumably you do realise that people can have sex purely for pleasure, then many of us wouldn't be here - so let's have a big hand for 'pleasure' when it comes to sex.
-
You do realise that both women and men can make use of options to avoid (bar error) the risk of unintended pregnancy: maybe you haven't got to that chapter yet,
And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!
God made a good fuck pleasurable so that you would keep sinning so he could keep Heaven from being overpopulated with loads of randy old sods and oversexed women!
-
- so let's have a big hand for 'pleasure' when it comes to sex.
....other size hands are also available, and in no way detrimental!!
:o
-
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.
How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act.
Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.
But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time.
Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.
So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation.
But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?
So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel.
No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.
Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman.
Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs? Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'? Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?
You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with.
I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.
But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society.
Yes and no. Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable. Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).
What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex.
Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural. Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.
male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex.
Because of who penetrates who? What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman? What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?
Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
What reason? You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.
Classic example of **
That whole trail is just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.
O.
-
....other size hands are also available, and in no way detrimental!!
:o
Its all in the wrists
-
And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!
When you talk about 'every fuck' are you talking about celebrity atheists?
-
And you do realise that the Church still sees contraception (except for guesswork) is a offence against God and thus every fuck must be for the purposes of procreation!
God made a good fuck pleasurable so that you would keep sinning so he could keep Heaven from being overpopulated with loads of randy old sods and oversexed women!
The Catholic Church sees it that way, I don't think other denominations do. I reckon many Catholics these days stick up two fingers to their church when it comes to using contraception.
-
Gabriella,
That flat surface in front of you supported by four legs that has a cup of tea on it: do you “label” it “table”? You’re trying to imply that “labelling” is the problem, but sometime the labels – ie, the descriptions – are appropriate.
No. Not trying to imply that labelling is the problem. Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day. I just don't think a label is relevant as I am more interested in the ideas than the label. But for you labels are relevant. That's ok as there's room on here for diversity in opinions. Here for example if someone wants arbitrarily to assert marriages that can’t produce children to be “not on a par” with those that can, but then relates that to gay marriage but not to other types of non-procreational marriages then he’s pretty much providing a textbook example of homophobia: he’s selected one criterion for parity (albeit spuriously) and then applied it just to one sub-set of the various groups within that category.
No-one has, and you’ve missed the point again. Discussion about which types of marriages are “on a par” with other types is one thing; having decided that though, selecting just one-sub-set that (supposedly) fails that test is discriminatory. If you want to decide that non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones, the former must include not only gay marriages but marriages of infertile couples, of pensioners, of people who choose not to have children etc.
Regarding your point that it's only same sex marriages that are seen as not on par. That may be true for some/many of the people you refer to, but not all. There are still a sizeable chunk of people/ communities who think that based on the criteria that procreation is a biological imperative for the survival of the species and for passing on of culture and values (which is something humans seem to have evolved to prioritise) that any relationship that does not have this as a goal is not on par with relationships that do. Therefore they think same-sex marriage is wasting time on an unproductive tangent, based on that criteria. I already addressed the point about marriage for people who might not be able to procreate - on a practical level it would not work to test everyone for fertility and child-bearing plans before society accepts the marriage so it can be done on the basis that statistically same-sex couples can never procreate with each other, whereas opposite sex couples are statistically much more likely to procreate with each other. Yes an arbitrary criterion - but marriage is full of arbitrary criteria - some countries allow legal polygamy and others don't, some countries while not allowing legal polygamy, tolerate societies which allow polygamy even if the spouses do not have the legal rights that a civil marriage would give them. Some countries tolerate people marrying non-humans, though again there are no legal regulations around this and no offspring https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/legal-marry-animals-inanimate-objects-10493582/
If you are looking at civil marriage, for the government's purpose it is a legal contract that sets out the rights of the parties to certain benefits - immigration status, tax especially relating to spousal inheritance, property rights, next of kin decisions. So it makes sense on that basis to extend civil marriage to include same-sex couples. It also makes sense to extend it to polygamous marriages.
No – again, I describe something as homophobic when it is homophobic for the same reason I describe racism as racist, ageism as ageist etc. And if you don’t care about how civil marriage is defined, why do you care about how traditional marriage is defined?
Not sure I understand the question. Same-sex civil marriage and traditional marriage just seem to be abstract social constructs that attract diverse moral opinions so I think they are interesting topics for discussion to explore the different moral views, and to explore how arbitrary the prioritisation of different values can be.
Still missing it. If you want to claim “hysterical” behaviour then to justify the claim you need to provide examples of it (named or otherwise). I haven’t seen it here, and I suspect you haven’t either but you thought it was a useful straw man. It isn’t.
I think I have seen it so we will have to agree to disagree. It shouldn't surprise you that what you perceive to be hysterical behaviour might differ from what I perceive as hysterical behaviour, given that we don't share a brain.
You’ve shifted ground now, but in any case yes of course people interpret things differently but any field of communication – social, scientific, philosophical, whatever – requires commonality of understanding it it’s to function at all. For example you’ve had explained why the example “non-procreational marriage is not on a par with procreational marriage, but I’ll apply that test only to gay couples” is homophobic. You may be “interpreting” that differently but I have no idea why unless it's to avoid engaging with the argument, preferring instead endless evasions and diversions.
No not shifted ground. I kept my point brief, you didn't understand it, so I have elaborated to help you understand the point I was making. Happy to continue making my posts longer to try to minimise such misunderstandings. See above for the reasoning for only applying it to same-sex marriages as well as for the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage.
That’s a non sequitur. No one said “it always happens”, but your concession to “sometimes” should bother you a lot more than it appears to I’d suggest. How many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok would you say?
Firstly, given you argued on this forum that law-abiding theists provide intellectual cover for/ enable religious extremists it's unlikely that you and I are going to agree on this issue.
Secondly, that would be an interesting question to ask Parliament and the law enforcement agencies - how many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok? There are lots of measures that could be taken to monitor the movements of people who express homophobic views to try to prevent actual criminal violence, but society chooses not to allow or fund the surveillance, so society seems to have some tolerance for gay men being beaten up. It could be because society arbitrarily chooses where to place the cursor to balance the interests of different parties. I note too that the discussion of certain unpalatable ideas are often tolerated and even encouraged in the hope of achieving compromise and agreement on some arbitrary values. For example doctors urging us to have discussions on whether as a society we want to prioritise funding of neo-natal care for very premature babies over for example care of the elderly or cancer treatments or fertility treatments - because there is not sufficient funding to ensure everyone who needs it has access to important medical procedures.
I’m very liberal when it comes to free speech, but free speech does not imply that people can express their various “isms” without being challenged on them. That’s not a denial of free speech – it’s the epitome of it.
I agree - I'm all for allowing challenging discussions in the interest of free speech - whether it's on the morality of same-sex marriages or whether it's calling people homophobic, or whether it's stating perceptions that some people's reactions to the discussion seem a little hysterical.
Where the hell did that come from? As you’ve just ducked it again, I’ll give it one more try:
1. For you to “tolerate” something there needs to be something to be tolerated.
2. When something doesn’t negatively affect you, your immediate circle, your society etc then it’s not tolerance-apt. It’s just irrelevant to you except in an abstract sense, so it’s misplaced and presumptuous to decide that you do or don’t tolerate it nonetheless.
3. As somewhere less than 2% of the population identify as gay and assuming that, say, half want to get married that’s around 1% of the population. Assuming they all did, you would go about your business as entirely unaffected by the fact of those equal marriages as you are by the fact of, say marriages between pensioners. What on earth then do you think it is that you’ve being expected to “tolerate” when it has nothing at all to do with you?
For a person to tolerate something they need to perceive that there is something to be tolerated. I think we've established that everyone does not share one brain so individual's perceptions vary. Morality serves many purposes and presumably that's how humans evolved into morally pluralistic societies. So while I agree with your argument that there isn't anything to tolerate based on my perceptions, it's not a convincing argument for someone who perceives that the traditional meaning of marriage being eroded has an adverse effect on the arbitrary concept of marriage that developed in the last few hundred years and a knock-on effect on the values and morals in society that they perceive as important to them and that they want to preserve and pass on to their offspring in their circle of friends or communities because that serves a particular moral purpose for them that they prioritise over individuality. For those people, they certainly perceive same-sex marriage as something they need to tolerate.
-
This article contains a lot of the ideas that I was referring to regarding a social theory of moral autonomy:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260595818_Durkheim's_Naturalistic_Moral_Education_Pluralism_Social_Change_and_Autonomy
-
Anybody who considers the Bible to be a book worth following as "the revealed word of God" is deluded - you only have to look at the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 to see what a load of rubbish it is.
I have lost count of the number of different explanations for the existence of those two verses that have been served up! Somehow they either dismiss one or t'other or claim that one is not from God. Guess which one!
Both of them, god?
Regards, ippy.
-
That doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans. Animals also commit rape (no I'm not comparing homosexuality with rape).
How you concluded that from what I wrote, I don't know. I wasn't talking about the role of sex but the different roles of men and women in the sexual act. But since you seem to want to talk about the role of sex, here's how I see it. Procreation can only happen two days a month for a woman, and she can't be expected to know exactly when that is every time. So it's not wrong for people to have sex that may not, or will not, result in procreation. Yet it doesn't follow that any form of sex goes. You see, everyday observation shows us that the only way to reproduce naturally is for the train to go up the tunnel; this is confirmed by biological observation. So it follows that the proper place to actively put the hose for the purpose of releasing the testicular contents, is in the funnel. Not in any other place. A sexual relationship ought then to be between a man and a woman. You might reply that people have a right to decide who they want a relationship with. But relationships by their nature involve all of society, meaning that any relationship has to happen with the consent of the participants and society. What I see happening is any member of society who does not consent to gay relationships being ostracized**, so that out of fear they accept them, leading to an apparent acceptance of them.
Bearing in mind that I was talking specifically about unnatural sex. male-male or female-female, yes the participants because they become like the opposite sex. Consent and pleasure are irrelevant.
Why would someone deliberately use their body in a way for which it was not designed? Well, yes, for pleasure. But ask yourself, is pleasure worth a departure from reason?
Classic example of **
Spud you seem to know a lot about the goings on between these people?
Do you remember Mary Whitehouse, is was OK for her to look into all of the salacious goings on from all sauces without it affecting her because your god idea thingy was protecting her, there seems to be something very familiar while I'm reading in this post of yours Spud.
I think Mary managed to disappear up her own exhaust pipe too.
Regards, ippy.
-
Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.
Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.
Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.
But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?
No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.
Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs? Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'? Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?
I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.
Yes and no. Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable. Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).
Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.
Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural. Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.
Because of who penetrates who? What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman? What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?
Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?
What reason? You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.
That whole trail is just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.
O.
Could I suggest that you continue this discussion with the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - you will get far more intelligent answers!
-
When you talk about 'every fuck' are you talking about celebrity atheists?
Ho Ho Ho!
-
Given that the crime of rape is about the boundary of consent, and how little we understand about whether animals have sufficient awareness to give or withhold consent, that's debatable.
Yet you're doing so from a puritanically naive stance - not all sex is penetrative, when it is there any number of body-parts and artificial tools that can be penetrated or used for penetration, by any combination of one, two or more people.
Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things.
Sex isn't just about procreation; in particular, sex between gay people REALLY isn't about procreation.
But if it's not wrong for people to have sex that will not result in procreation, why should they be restricted to the particular methodology that would result in procreation if it were Tuesday and not Sunday?
I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.
No, it doesn't follow, that's another attempt at the naturalistic fallacy, and one that explicitly contradicts your own conclusion two sentences before that sex that isn't about procreation isn't wrong.
It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.
Why? Even if you were to have a case about sex necessarily mimicking the mechanics of reproduction, why should the mechanics be restricted to particular organs? Why is fingering not an acceptable form of sexual activity, given that it's penetrative into a 'funnel'? Is it only the fingerer that's transgressing?
The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.
I might. I might also suggest that they have a right to decide what they want from their relationship, too.
Yes and no. Relationships impact on society, and society impacts on relationships, but that doesn't give either the implicit right to dictate to the other; any restrictions or new attempts have to be justifiable. Whilst a relationship might impact on society, it's difficult to see how the sexual activity within a relationship - presuming it's done in a relatively private setting - has an impact on society outside of producing children (which isn't an issue, here).
The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.
Instead of the people who wanted to have a gay relationship being ostracised, criminalised and in many, many instances physically chastised or punished.
Either, given humanity's capacity for abstraction, nothing humans do is 'unnatural', or pretty much everything that is 'culture' or 'social' is unnatural - wearing shoes is unnatural, using a computer to fail to justify homophobia is unnatural. Given that we see homosexual activity in a range of different species it's difficult to justify the claim that, of all the things humanity does, gay sex is unnatural.
Because of who penetrates who? What about those men who like to have a finger inserted at the culmination of the act, even it they're with a woman? What is different about women and men giving a hand-job? Who gets to decide what's justifiable and what's not?
Consent and pleasure are everything - why do you get to determine what's acceptable for two other people to do that has no impact on you whatsoever because you've got a book?
What reason? You're citing the subjective whim of a mercurial character from a bronze-age mythic figure as justification for restriction the private activity of 21st century willing, consenting adults.
That whole trail is just wrong on so many levels that it starts to be almost as distasteful as the homophobia it fails to justify.
O.
Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong. And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his eye.
-
because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.
Oh lust - those were the days.
-
Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things.
If you're trying to isolate the two into distinct categories in order to get some sort of purely mechanistic part that's 'sex' then you're looking for the term 'coitus' - 'sex' is the range of activities which includes that, but isn't limited to it.
I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.
You're not saying they should restrict themselves, but they should restrict themselves? It doesn't become more about lust than love necessarily, but for some (most?) people part of love is lust - certainly I can honestly say that my marriage would be harder to keep going if Mrs. O. weren't still attractive to me, and she gives me the same impression.
It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.
Best for what? You're coming back to trying to make sex about procreation again, it seems. Best for whom? In what way is it the best way of having sex for people who don't like that kind of sex? One size does not fit all.
The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender).
Which one, because they are different - and they are not the same thing as someone's sexuality. The thing is, being a lesbian and having sex with women is absolutely in keeping with both someone's sex and their gender; a lesbian having sex with a man is in keeping with her sex (which she isn't changing) and her gender (which she isn't changing) but it's not in line with her sexuality.
Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for.
Yes, but we categorise books by their content, not by the colour of the cover. Saying 'that person has this format of genitalia, therefore they must have sex this way and this way only' fails to appreciate that within blue covers, books range from cookery to erotica to shoes to Gandalf.
Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder.
No. You are responsible for your response to someone else's actions. If it disorders you, that's about your perception of it - that may or may not be justified, but it's not intrinsically about them. A woman kissing the person they love in public is not a source of disorder - you can tell, because when the person they love is a man there's no issue. When a woman is kissed by someone she loves in public it's not a source of disorder - you can tell, because when the person they love is a man there's no issue. The act is the same, the target is the same, the perception - in some instances - overlays a difference.
People watching expect men to kiss women.
You watching expect men to kiss women. I expect people to kiss people, under the right circumstances; the only time I have cause to object is if they're trying to kiss me, Mrs. O, or someone I don't think is into it.
The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society.
Of the sex, or of the relationship? If the sex is in private, none of it spills out; you don't know if they're a celibate gay couple or a sexually-active gay couple. You might presume, but again that's on you. If the relationship is the issue, why are we talking about the physical acts?
And then... what is the 'effect' that spills out into society of gay people visibly having relationships? What's the downside? Where's the harm?
The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.
Wow! How do you pack so much authoritarian wrong into one short sentence? The goal of society is whatever the people within the society collectively decide it is; that varies by culture, and time, and subculture. If the goal is 'maintain order' (which I strongly question) then how is forcing men and women to act against their nature conducive to that? Surely allowing - even encouraging - gay people into stable, loving, respected relationships where they can add to society and be a productive, active, welcome member of society is conducive to maintaining order?
Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong.
Which, in principle, I'd agree with - I just can't see where you get the idea that any of this is 'wrong' from.
And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his eye.
Homophobia in other people's eyes, though, is more thank a speck, and has been harming more than just my brother for a long, long time; I'd come back with 'evil only requires good men to stand by and say nothing.'
O.
-
The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.
Who knew I was a library book?
As to watching kissing, you sir are a pervert.
-
The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.
I am a man and I am acting as what I am. I don't see how I create disorder in society, in fact I'm pretty sure I don't, but do explain how you think I do.
-
Spud
You do realise that every post that you make on this thread makes you look more and more like a brainwashed idiot who talks (writes) like a parrot that has learned the words but has abso-bloody-lutely no comprehension of what thoser words actually mean in terms of emotion and human love and interaction!
You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you procreate and brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here.
I sometimes wonder why the God you worship and kow-tow to bothered to give his followers brains capable of logical reasoning or. alternatively, why you appear to be incapable of such reasoning.
-
Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for.
Putting a gay man in the same sexual category as straight men means that some people will not find what they are looking for. I've known several people whose (mixed sex) marriages ended after it was discovered that one partner was gay. Perhaps if there hadn't been such a lot of social pressure to be categorised with the straight men, there would have been no marriages but also far less unhappiness.
So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.
If you get incited to creating public disorder if you see two people of the same sex kissing in public, it's you that has a problem, not them.
The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society.
Hatred spills out into society is and is far more damaging than gay sex. Your opinions incite hatred.
The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.
And some men and women are gay. Let them act like what they are. They'll be much happier.
-
Spud
You do realise that every post that you make on this thread makes you look more and more like a brainwashed idiot who talks (writes) like a parrot that has learned the words but has abso-bloody-lutely no comprehension of what thoser words actually mean in terms of emotion and human love and interaction!
You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you procreate and brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here.
I sometimes wonder why the God you worship and kow-tow to bothered to give his followers brains capable of logical reasoning or. alternatively, why you appear to be incapable of such reasoning.
Hi Owlswing,
If you look back on this thread Spud spent quite some time defending genocide and slavery when his "God" does it or condones it. Trying to justify the unjustifiable is his speciality.
As far as I'm concerned the immorality of many parts of the Bible is well demonstrated by every post he makes. I'm glad others are still challenging his nonsensical ideas. I find them disturbing.
-
Christian religious extremists, like Spud, claim their god approves of their highly unpleasant bigotry. I have come across so many of them over the years on different forums, they sicken me, hence the title of this thread.
-
Hi Owlswing,
If you look back on this thread Spud spent quite some time defending genocide and slavery when his "God" does it or condones it. Trying to justify the unjustifiable is his speciality.
As far as I'm concerned the immorality of many parts of the Bible is well demonstrated by every post he makes. I'm glad others are still challenging his nonsensical ideas. I find them disturbing.
What disturbs me most are the millions who agree with the load of old bol - - , rubbish that Spud preaches.
I am not sure that some of his posts do not constitute a hate crime!
It is about time that such indoctrination of children be decalared illegal. those not of the Christian persuasion outnumber those of it considerably and a referendum on the subject might provide some interesting discussions on this Forum, especialy on how many of the other religions practised in the UK banded together with the Christians.
All in all I think that Spud had been a living demonstration of the actuality of the thread title!
-
Perhaps a lot of that can be described as foreplay? Touch, along with sight, sound, smell, are all good things.
I'm not saying they should, however, I think they do better if they do restrict it to that, because otherwise it becomes more about lust than about love.
It follows because it gives a clue as to what is the best form for it to take.
The issue was not about what is penetrating what, but about behaving in accordance with one's sex (gender). Which shelf a book in a library is kept on will depend on its category, in order to enable customers to find what they are looking for. Keeping it on a different category shelf defeats the object of having a library. So if two men or two women kiss in public or on TV, they are creating disorder. People watching expect men to kiss women.
The problem is that even if the setting is private, the effects spill out into society. The goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, so it helps if men and women act like what they are.
Most of this I have answered. I am arguing without referring to God or the Bible. I don't think anyone should be ostracized, but people have to be able to say if they think something is wrong. And of course everyone has to remember the plank in their own eye before telling their brother about the speck in his eye.
Clearly men who are not attracted to women but are attracted to men exist. And similarly women who are not attracted to men but are attracted to women exist. The sexual attraction or lack of it towards a particular sex clearly does not conform to the "ordered" way you would prefer it.
If the goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, and the majority of society seems to have the opinion that more order is created and maintained by society accepting that people should be with the people they are attracted to rather than people they feel no attraction for, what is your solution to you perceiving order differently from the majority of the society you live in?
In a liberal democracy like the UK, a minority cannot maintain social order without the consent of the majority.
-
Spud
You do realise that every post that you make on this thread makes you look more and more like a brainwashed idiot who talks (writes) like a parrot that has learned the words but has abso-bloody-lutely no comprehension of what thoser words actually mean in terms of emotion and human love and interaction!
You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you procreate and brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here.
I sometimes wonder why the God you worship and kow-tow to bothered to give his followers brains capable of logical reasoning or. alternatively, why you appear to be incapable of such reasoning.
Mouth foaming paganism at it's most entertaining.
-
Mouth foaming paganism at it's most entertaining.
Your usual running interference for homophobia
-
Mouth foaming paganism at it's most entertaining.
Wonder what Owlswing's reaction would be to someone posting the following to a gay poster on here:
"You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here."
-
Your usual running interference for homophobia
Thank you ,weaponiser in chief.
-
Wonder what Owlswing's reaction would be to someone posting the following to a gay poster on here:
"You would do well to hive yourself off to the nearest closed monastic-community and restrict your sexual ideas to solitary and hidden masturbation, I have absolutely no wish to see you brainwash your children with the sane load of old bollocks that you peddle here."
I don't think there is a clear equivalence. One, Owlswing's comment is the equivalent of talking about a racist. Your change would apply to someone talking about someone being black.
-
Thank you ,weaponiser in chief.
You will be able to back that up with a quote?
-
What disturbs me most are the millions who agree with the load of old bol - - , rubbish that Spud preaches.
I am not sure that some of his posts do not costiturte a hate crime!
It is about time that such indoctrination of children be decalared illegal. those not of the Christian persuasion outnumber those of it considerably and a referendum on the subject might provide some interesting discussions on this Forum, especialy on how many of the other religions practised in the UK banded together with the Christians.
All in all I think that Spud had been a living demonstration of the actuality of the thread title!
I would vote against making the loving upbringing my mother gave me being made criminal. I find your suggestion deeply scary.
-
It is acceptable for a parent to share their religious belief which their children, letting them make up their own minds about whether they wish to take it on board or not. Forcing it on children with threats of hell and damnation if they don't believe, is definitely not on.
-
I don't think there is a clear equivalence. One, Owlswing's comment is the equivalent of talking about a racist. Your change would apply to someone talking about someone being black.
I agree no clear equivalence. It is hard to take Owlswing's post seriously though, as I wondered what this forum would become if everyone decided to write posts like that to each other when they disagreed with someone over values or behaviour.
I think this forum works better by arguing the merits of the points being debated, rather than telling someone they should hide themselves away and not procreate because their ideas are out of step with current thinking.
-
I agree no clear equivalence. It is hard to take Owlswing's post seriously though, as I wondered what this forum would become if everyone decided to write posts like that to each other when they disagreed with someone over values or behaviour.
I think this forum works better by arguing the merits of the points being debated, rather than telling someone they should hide themselves away and not procreate because their ideas are out of step with current thinking.
If their views are very extreme it would definitely be better if they didn't procreate, imo.
-
I agree no clear equivalence. It is hard to take Owlswing's post seriously though, as I wondered what this forum would become if everyone decided to write posts like that to each other when they disagreed with someone over values or behaviour.
I think this forum works better by arguing the merits of the points being debated, rather than telling someone they should hide themselves away and not procreate because their ideas are out of step with current thinking.
I think the forum provides a number of different functions. If people want to let of some steam, while obeying the rules that seems reasonable.
The idea that we are or could be just arguing without emotion doesn't seem possible to me.
-
If their views are very extreme it would definitely be better if they didn't procreate, imo.
The idea of controlling people's procreation because of their views is frightening.
-
If their views are very extreme it would definitely be better if they didn't procreate, imo.
Quite possibly there might be lots of people who others think it would be better if they did not procreate because they do not like their ideas. I just don't think this forum would work very well if our posts told people they should not procreate because we disagree with their ideas. Why not just try to change the idea and why assume that children will not change the minds of their parents?
It's hard for me to take that kind of a comment seriously when expressed in an ethics debate, which is usually about arguing the merits of a subject or idea, which that comment clearly doesn't.
-
The idea of controlling people's procreation because of their views is frightening.
So you think members of ISIS, for example, who are so extreme they are out of sight, should procreate and no doubt encourage their offspring to be extremists too?
-
I think the forum provides a number of different functions. If people want to let of some steam, while obeying the rules that seems reasonable.
The idea that we are or could be just arguing without emotion doesn't seem possible to me.
Oh sure - I agree the forum provides different functions and it's reasonable to let off steam.
Everyone is different in their style of arguing and it's good to have a mix of styles.
-
So you think members of ISIS, for example, who are so extreme they are out of sight, should procreate and no doubt encourage their offspring to be extremists too?
I think restricting people procreating solely on the basis of those views is out of sight extreme but I support your right to procreate.
-
So you think members of ISIS, for example, who are so extreme they are out of sight, should procreate and no doubt encourage their offspring to be extremists too?
Was that the argument for not letting Shamima Begum and her baby back into this country? Which side of that debate you come down on probably in part depends on if you think people can be persuaded to change their ideas or not. Presumably you think people are open to persuasion otherwise you would not be worried about ideas being passed on?
-
Was that the argument for not letting Shamima Begum and her baby back into this country? Which side of that debate you come down on probably in part depends on if you think people can be persuaded to change their ideas or not. Presumably you think people are open to persuasion otherwise you would not be worried about ideas being passed on?
I wouldn't let that woman back into the country. It is not likely she has changed her views, even if she pretends she has, and she could be dangerous.
-
Mouth foaming paganism at it's most entertaining.
If you knew the first thing about Paganism you would know that you are talking total complere and utter bollocks - but from you, regardless of the subject, that is no surprise whatsoever!
-
If you knew the first thing about Paganism you would know that you are talking total complere and utter bollocks - but from you, regardless of the subject, that is no surprise whatsoever!
You are a pagan are you not? And you are when writing about Christianity while foaming at the mouth are you not? And it is highly entertaining is it not?
-
I would vote against making the loving upbringing my mother gave me being made criminal. I find your suggestion deeply scary.
If you were brought up Christian with the Bible as the book of rules you seem to be one of those who had the strength of mind to see through the rubbish and grow up able to deal with it!
Unlike some here.
-
I wouldn't let that woman back into the country. It is not likely she has changed her views, even if she pretends she has, and she could be dangerous.
If your view is not based on actual evidence of whether she has changed or not, is this an example of bigotry? If you don't think it is bigotry - how would you define "bigotry"? Is it not bigotry if the majority of the country agree with you?
-
If you were brought up Christian with the Bible as the book of rules you seem to be one of those who had the strength of mind to see through the rubbish and grow up able to deal with it!
Unlike some here.
Are you suggesting that NS's mother is weak-minded? Do you think all Christians are weak-minded and is being weak-minded a disorder and possibly a little bit unnatural?
-
You are a pagan are you not? And you are when writing about Christianity while foaming at the mouth are you not? And it is highly entertaining is it not?
Answer to Q1 - YES!
Answer to Q2 - NO, because it is not the Christianity at which I am directing my comments it is the Christians and their interpretation of their book of rules!
Answer to Q3 - To someone with, apparently, the intelligence of a week old overcooked sausage, the wit of a simpleton, YES! YES! YES!
To use you own expession - on the subject of Paganism and Pagans, please SHUT THE FUCK UP - AT LEAST UNTIL YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
-
If your view is not based on actual evidence of whether she has changed or not, is this an example of bigotry? If you don't think it is bigotry - how would you define "bigotry"? Is it not bigotry if the majority of the country agree with you?
Bigotry isn't defined by popular vote.
O.
-
riella,
No. Not trying to imply that labelling is the problem. Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day. I just don't think a label is relevant as I am more interested in the ideas than the label. But for you labels are relevant. That's ok as there's room on here for diversity in opinions.
Language is “labels”; that’s what words are - labels. If you want to argue for non-parity of some types of marriage then you do it using labels, thus: “gay (label) marriage (label) is not on a par (label) with heterosexual (label) marriage (label) because…” etc. Sometimes too these collections of labels represent a consistent position such that we can use other labels like “sexist” or “racist” or, yes, “homophobic” to describe what those positions are.
Can I suggest that if you really want to patronise someone with phrases like “Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day” you take the time to establish first how out of your depth you are?
Regarding your point that it's only same sex marriages that are seen as not on par. That may be true for some/many of the people you refer to, but not all. There are still a sizeable chunk of people/ communities who think that based on the criteria that procreation is a biological imperative for the survival of the species and for passing on of culture and values (which is something humans seem to have evolved to prioritise) that any relationship that does not have this as a goal is not on par with relationships that do. Therefore they think same-sex marriage is wasting time on an unproductive tangent, based on that criteria.
Irrelevant. That’s like trying to defend racism on the grounds that, yes some people are horrible to people of different ethnicities to their own, but not all of them – after all, a “sizeable chunk” are horrible to everyone. The point though that you keep ducking and diving to avoid is that there is a set of people who will use non-procreation as their justification for non-parity, but will only apply that criterion only to gay people. That’s what homophobia entails. So far as I can tell for example, Spud is one such – certainly he’s made no reference to thinking other types of non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones. Why do you suppose that is if not for his deep-seated homophobia?
I already addressed the point about marriage for people who might not be able to procreate - on a practical level it would not work to test everyone for fertility and child-bearing plans before society accepts the marriage so it can be done on the basis that statistically same-sex couples can never procreate with each other, whereas opposite sex couples are statistically much more likely to procreate with each other.
You do know that gay people can adopt don’t you? That sometimes they have children from previous relationships they wish to bring up with their new partners? That sometimes people who thought they were infertile turn out not to be? That…etc. All of these folks are every bit as capable of good parenting as anyone else, so why would their relationships still be "not on a par" with those who by some means know pre-marriage that they can conceive even if you were stupid enough to use conceiving or bringing up people as your criterion for marital equality?
Yes an arbitrary criterion - but marriage is full of arbitrary criteria - some countries allow legal polygamy and others don't, some countries while not allowing legal polygamy, tolerate societies which allow polygamy even if the spouses do not have the legal rights that a civil marriage would give them. Some countries tolerate people marrying non-humans, though again there are no legal regulations around this and no offspring https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/legal-marry-animals-inanimate-objects-10493582/
Which all goes to show that marriage is a societal construct rather than a universal property, and one therefore that can adapt as societies adapt. Hooray! Whence then those who would claim that marriage is "meant to be …X” as if it were the former?
If you are looking at civil marriage, for the government's purpose it is a legal contract that sets out the rights of the parties to certain benefits - immigration status, tax especially relating to spousal inheritance, property rights, next of kin decisions. So it makes sense on that basis to extend civil marriage to include same-sex couples. It also makes sense to extend it to polygamous marriages.
Yes I know, and traditional religious marriage confers various advantages to those who find them meaningful too. Why grant some people equal treatments with civil partnerships and deny other equal treatments from traditional marriages? Either you believe in equality or you don’t – suggesting it in some some areas but not in others is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Not sure I understand the question. Same-sex civil marriage and traditional marriage just seem to be abstract social constructs that attract diverse moral opinions so I think they are interesting topics for discussion to explore the different moral views, and to explore how arbitrary the prioritisation of different values can be.
You seemed to be taking a “civil weddings are nothing to do with me so I don’t care about them, but traditional marriages are so I do care about them” approach. I was just asking why either would matter to you more or less than the other.
I think I have seen it so we will have to agree to disagree. It shouldn't surprise you that what you perceive to be hysterical behaviour might differ from what I perceive as hysterical behaviour, given that we don't share a brain.
But we do share dictionaries – “hysterical” is described in them and no-one here that I know of has behaved in a way that matches the description. What “wildly uncontrolled emotion” have you seen though?
No not shifted ground. I kept my point brief, you didn't understand it, so I have elaborated to help you understand the point I was making. Happy to continue making my posts longer to try to minimise such misunderstandings. See above for the reasoning for only applying it to same-sex marriages as well as for the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage.
Not only did I understand your point, I rebutted it. And what you did above was just to list some of the areas in which civil partnerships grant equal treatment to gay couples. There’s nothing there though that even tries to justify the denial of other equal treatments to gay couples.
Firstly, given you argued on this forum that law-abiding theists provide intellectual cover for/ enable religious extremists it's unlikely that you and I are going to agree on this issue.
Actually I argued (and still argue) that privileging faith over just guessing in the public square legitimises the same defence for those who use their faith beliefs for nefarious ends, but ok…
Secondly, that would be an interesting question to ask Parliament and the law enforcement agencies - how many gay men being beaten up because of societal homophobia is ok?
No it wouldn’t. The answer is none, zero, zilch obviously. Don’t you think so? Why not?
There are lots of measures that could be taken to monitor the movements of people who express homophobic views to try to prevent actual criminal violence, but society chooses not to allow or fund the surveillance, so society seems to have some tolerance for gay men being beaten up. It could be because society arbitrarily chooses where to place the cursor to balance the interests of different parties. I note too that the discussion of certain unpalatable ideas are often tolerated and even encouraged in the hope of achieving compromise and agreement on some arbitrary values. For example doctors urging us to have discussions on whether as a society we want to prioritise funding of neo-natal care for very premature babies over for example care of the elderly or cancer treatments or fertility treatments - because there is not sufficient funding to ensure everyone who needs it has access to important medical procedures.
No, “society” – or rather this society – privileges religions in various ways, and when those religions are inherently homophobic (as many are) then their views are thereby legitimised and encouraged. That’s nothing to do with freedom of speech – they can say whatever they like – but I happen to think that doing it with the sanction of the state is a bad thing. Don’t you?
I agree - I'm all for allowing challenging discussions in the interest of free speech - whether it's on the morality of same-sex marriages or whether it's calling people homophobic, or whether it's stating perceptions that some people's reactions to the discussion seem a little hysterical.
Only the charge of homophobia is legitimate and the charge of hysteria isn’t according the meanings of those words, but ok…
For a person to tolerate something they need to perceive that there is something to be tolerated.
Yes, and when that perception is shown to be misplaced using reason employing words with commonly understood meanings but they persist in it anyway that’s called prejudice or bigotry.
I think we've established that everyone does not share one brain so individual's perceptions vary.
Not really. Either you think there’s commonality of language and reason or you don’t (in which case anything goes). Despite not “sharing one brain” we agree what we mean we either of us says “table”, we agree that the reasoning available to each of us implies that germs cause disease etc. You also (presumably) agree that there are such things as prejudice and bigotry – you can’t therefore just sweep away the versions of it you quite like on the basis we don’t share one brain, but recognise its existence in respect of matters of which you disapprove. Either homophobia and racism both exist, or neither of them do. Take your pick.
Morality serves many purposes and presumably that's how humans evolved into morally pluralistic societies. So while I agree with your argument that there isn't anything to tolerate based on my perceptions,…
Good. So are we now agreed that you no longer “tolerate” gay marriage as you said you did earlier but rather that you’re just indifferent to it?
…it's not a convincing argument for someone who perceives that the traditional meaning of marriage being eroded has an adverse effect on the arbitrary concept of marriage that developed in the last few hundred years and a knock-on effect on the values and morals in society that they perceive as important to them and that they want to preserve and pass on to their offspring in their circle of friends or communities because that serves a particular moral purpose for them that they prioritise over individuality.
Yes it is when the argument and reasoning they attempt to justify their beliefs are shown to be false. If they still assert them nonetheless, then (depending on the topic at hand) that makes them homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, whatever-ist etc. You know this already though – imagine if I were to say that I perceive black or brown people to be Untermensch, fit only for slavery and in no circumstances should they be allowed to marry into the pure Aryan “race”. That would be my “perception” about the “traditional meaning” of racial purity etc and maybe too I’d want that perception to be “passed on” to my offspring in my “circle of friends or communities” etc. And lets’s say too that you’d dismantled every attempt I’d made to justify these views using your superior command or reason and argument.
At what stage would you say would you be entitled to call my views racist, and at what point too would you think your eventual “well fuck you then” to be anything but “hysterical”?
For those people, they certainly perceive same-sex marriage as something they need to tolerate.
And if I was a disgusting racist the fact of black and brown people would be something I’d perceive I’d need to tolerate too. That wouldn’t mean that I wasn’t a racist though would it?
-
Same-sex civil marriage and traditional marriage ...
I'm puzzled by your phraseology here.
What are you comparing to what - are you comparing same sex marriage to heterosexual marriage (I accept the latter is more 'traditional'). But then why add 'civil'. Do you somehow think that civil marriage is not traditional? If so I think you need to learn a little more history - the earliest formulations of marriage from ancient times that we know about were pretty well all civil institutions.
-
Blue and Gabriella, you are being very good value on this thread. Keep it up. ;)
I can't help feeling however that you are both somehow involved in separate arguments. Perhaps not quite hearing what the other person is actually saying. Too many words I reckon... or maybe I'm just out of my depth again ;) (two winkies?... that's right, I did that).
I'm going to dip my toe in and probably regret it. But it's very interesting and I can't resist.
Gabriella's central point, as I see it, is that diverse and sometimes opposing views are simply a reality in society. Their moral 'correctness' appears to be beside the point, as it is all arbitrary anyway, steeped in nuance and complex historical context. As a consequence, people have a right to hold provocative views and these views should be explored carefully as part of a democratic society. In the end, the law is the ultimate expression of what we collectively decide to be acceptable / permissible, imperfectly constructed as it is by majority rule. The legitimacy of everything outside of that is up for debate and discussion. It is perhaps a pluralistic or relativistic position to take? Is a bad thing? I’m not qualified to make that judgement.
Blue on the other hand (ah Blue, how many years have I been reading your posts now? getting on 15 I reckon) appears to be far more absolutist. Views based on religious faith are simply dismissed as guesswork in a sort of wholesale way. Nuance and context be damned. They have no basis in reality and should not be given any regard whatsoever. It's almost utilitarian in its bald pragmatism. Fair enough. He’s not wrong, but I wonder sometimes if it separates views and people too readily. One is something that can be delineated by language and dealt with objectively, the other is a flesh and blood participant in society and cannot simply be dismissed in the same way that bad ideas can be.
The way I see it, in this debate about views on marriage and homophobia, the only significant difference in your positions is that Gabriella seeks to argue from the person as a participant in society whilst Blue argues the merits or problems of a particular idea or attitude. Otherwise, honestly, you seem to actually agree on the basics.
I may of course be wrong. I probably am. Usually it is the case, especially when I’m talking to Blue (another winkie?... nah, don’t want to overdo it)
Neither of you is hysterical.
Both of you are pretty patronising to be perfectly honest.
It is all hugely entertaining and I am utterly engrossed! Sincerely. Please continue. Sorry for the interruption.
p.s. Blue, I imagine you are probably itching to take apart my post point by point, but honestly I don’t really have the time to properly get into a discussion with you. I wish I did. So, please proceed if you must, but forgive me if I don’t respond.
-
Hi Samuel, always nice to hear from you.
As you asked me not to post a point-by-point reply here’s a shorthand version:
Gabriella's central point, as I see it, is that diverse and sometimes opposing views are simply a reality in society. Their moral 'correctness' appears to be beside the point, as it is all arbitrary anyway, steeped in nuance and complex historical context. As a consequence, people have a right to hold provocative views and these views should be explored carefully as part of a democratic society. In the end, the law is the ultimate expression of what we collectively decide to be acceptable / permissible, imperfectly constructed as it is by majority rule. The legitimacy of everything outside of that is up for debate and discussion. It is perhaps a pluralistic or relativistic position to take? Is a bad thing? I’m not qualified to make that judgement.
Neither of us disputes that there’s a diversity of opinion, and nor that people should be free to think and speak as they wish (subject to limitations at the extremes). Where we differ so far as I can tell though is that I think we have terms like “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” etc legitimately when the opinions expressed match the definitions of these terms. Gabriella on the other hand seems to me to want to dismiss or sanitise one of them – homophobia – on various grounds to do with the way people perceive things. I can’t see how homophobia could cease to exist as a phenomenon on that basis (whereas apparently racism, sexism etc cannot) but there it is nonetheless.
Blue on the other hand (ah Blue, how many years have I been reading your posts now? getting on 15 I reckon) appears to be far more absolutist. Views based on religious faith are simply dismissed as guesswork in a sort of wholesale way. Nuance and context be damned. They have no basis in reality and should not be given any regard whatsoever. It's almost utilitarian in its bald pragmatism. Fair enough. He’s not wrong, but I wonder sometimes if it separates views and people too readily. One is something that can be delineated by language and dealt with objectively, the other is a flesh and blood participant in society and cannot simply be dismissed in the same way that bad ideas can be.
Actually I simply say that, absent any method to distinguish religious claims from just guessing, there’s no good reason not to treat them as just guessing. Not sure how “absolutist” that is – should I take that view most of the time but not on Wednesdays half-day closing or something? – but that’s my position nonetheless.
The way I see it, in this debate about views on marriage and homophobia, the only significant difference in your positions is that Gabriella seeks to argue from the person as a participant in society whilst Blue argues the merits or problems of a particular idea or attitude. Otherwise, honestly, you seem to actually agree on the basics.
I may of course be wrong. I probably am. Usually it is the case, especially when I’m talking to Blue (another winkie?... nah, don’t want to overdo it)
Actually the way I see it Gabriella subscribes to a homophobic religious faith but can’t bring herself to say so, so seeks to dilute the problem to nothingness by repositioning the it in terms of personal perception and the like. This looks like evasion of the issue to me, but no doubt she’ll tell us otherwise in due course.
All best.
-
Gabriella's central point, as I see it, is that diverse and sometimes opposing views are simply a reality in society. Their moral 'correctness' appears to be beside the point, as it is all arbitrary anyway, steeped in nuance and complex historical context.
Sure - what society considers to be acceptable evolves and changes over time, but that doesn't mean that individual views must too. That is what many religionists feel (that just because society has changed it doesn't mean they must change their view too) and it similarly applies to those who aren't religious - so consider discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality to be wrong - society broadly agrees with me now. But I still think is was wrong in the past even when society accepted discrimination and considered homosexuality to be morally wrong.
Where there is a different, perhaps, is that some who hold religious views see morality as absolute rather than a varying societal construct - the difference being the notion of personal and a subjective view or morality and absolute, objective view of morality. The latter, in my opinion, hold no water.
As a consequence, people have a right to hold provocative views ...
Of course they do, but people who hold provocative views cannot expect those views not to be challenged and to be described as sexist, racist, homophobic etc if those views espouse discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, sexuality.
and these views should be explored carefully as part of a democratic society.
Up to a point - exploring and accepting views are different things within a democratic society. While it is useful to explore (i.e understand) why people might hold sexist, racist, homophobic etc views that does not mean that society should accept those views - I do not think it should.
But there is also a challenge in exploring views that are justified on the basis that 'god said it is so' (to paraphrase). It is a non argument unless or until you demonstrate at the very least that god exists. Otherwise it is no different to blaming your invisible friend for steeling the biscuits. So it is extremely difficult to explore such views based on religious teaching. But I'd go further - to my mind there is a unloved playing field in terms of views and their expectation of challenge. So while we robustly challenge non religious moral or political view as soon as the view is based on religion, we start to tip-toe around it, allowing a kind of 'get out of jail free-play the religion card'. We permit views and practices within religious contexts that we'd never in a million years permit within other organisations or espoused on a basis other than religion.
-
Clearly men who are not attracted to women but are attracted to men exist. And similarly women who are not attracted to men but are attracted to women exist. The sexual attraction or lack of it towards a particular sex clearly does not conform to the "ordered" way you would prefer it.
If the goal of society is to work towards and maintain order, and the majority of society seems to have the opinion that more order is created and maintained by society accepting that people should be with the people they are attracted to rather than people they feel no attraction for, what is your solution to you perceiving order differently from the majority of the society you live in?
In a liberal democracy like the UK, a minority cannot maintain social order without the consent of the majority.
Your first paragraph is true. The second implies that good order results from people being allowed to sleep with whoever they are attracted to; does this include having affairs? What the majority thinks is right is not necessarily best.
-
Your first paragraph is true. The second implies that good order results from people being allowed to sleep with whoever they are attracted to; does this include having affairs? What the majority thinks is right is not necessarily best.
There is clear evidence that the mental health of gay men in relationships is better than those who are not.
Therefore unless you seriously want gay people to be depressed and possibly commit suicide I would suggest you shut up.
-
There is clear evidence that the mental health of gay men in relationships is better than those who are not.
Therefore unless you seriously want gay people to be depressed and possibly commit suicide I would suggest you shut up.
I don't want gay people or heterosexuals who love people who are already married to be depressed, but I can't change change what is good and what is not good.
-
I don't want gay people or heterosexuals who love people who are already married to be depressed, but I can't change change what is good and what is not good.
Nor do you get to define what is 'good' and what is 'not good'.
-
The second implies that good order results from people being allowed to sleep with whoever they are attracted to; does this include having affairs?
Why are you bringing up affairs - they involve deceit. That is entirely different is a purely consensual relationship between two people, regardless of whether they are of the same sex or opposite sexes.
-
Nor do you get to define what is 'good' and what is 'not good'.
Fair do's - nor do you, unless you say why it's good or bad.
-
Best for what? You're coming back to trying to make sex about procreation again, it seems. Best for whom? In what way is it the best way of having sex for people who don't like that kind of sex? One size does not fit all.
Yes it does. I'll have to refer to the Bible now, but do so in order to appeal to logic rather than theism. According to Genesis 38:9, someone called Onan spilled his seed onto the ground. This says literally that he 'destroyed it to the ground'. The point in the passage is that Onan refused to give his brother's wife a child; it also seems to be warning against deliberately destroying seed, or 'non-procreative sex' (sex that is not male-female intercourse).
Yes, but we categorise books by their content, not by the colour of the cover. Saying 'that person has this format of genitalia, therefore they must have sex this way and this way only' fails to appreciate that within blue covers, books range from cookery to erotica to shoes to Gandalf.
Not sure this follows. Any book can be blue, just as a man and a woman can have black skin, but not any book can be categorized as a cookery book. There are two categories of people, depending on whether they have sperm or eggs.
-
Fair do's - nor do you, unless you say why it's good or bad.
Well I'd say it's good because its good for my mental health. But if Spud wants increased demand on mental health services who am I to argue?
-
There are two categories of people, depending on whether they have sperm or eggs.
Sure are, I have eggs for breakfast, do you prefer sperm?
-
Why are you bringing up affairs - they involve deceit. That is entirely different is a purely consensual relationship between two people, regardless of whether they are of the same sex or opposite sexes.
Having more than one lover, with the consent of each, doesn't involve deceit, but does go against the principle of keeping the structure of the family intact.
-
Having more than one lover, with the consent of each, doesn't involve deceit,
But that isn't what most people would consider as an affair - that is an open relationships, and those are pretty rare. Affairs are, unfortunately, not rare and the reason why they are wrong is because of their deceit and cheating aspects - typically involving one member of the relationship not being honest with the other that they are having an affair.
but does go against the principle of keeping the family structure intact.
Only if there are kids involved - a genuinely open relationship, where all parties know what is going on, consent to it and are happy with the situation and where there are no kids caught in the middle - what's the issue - none of our business I would have thought.
-
But that isn't what most people would consider as an affair - that is an open relationships, and those are pretty rare. Affairs are, unfortunately, not rare and the reason why they are wrong is because of their deceit and cheating aspects - typically involving one member of the relationship not being honest with the other that they are having an affair.
Only if there are kids involved - a genuinely open relationship, where all parties know what is going on, consent to it and are happy with the situation and where there are no kids caught in the middle - what's the issue - none of our business I would have thought.
You were right, but going back to Gabriella's post, anything that distorts the family structure I would consider to fall short of good order.
-
You were right, but going back to Gabriella's post, anything that distorts the family structure I would consider to fall short of good order.
Some families I know distort good order.
-
anything that distorts the family structure I would consider to fall short of good order.
What on earth do you mean by 'distorts the family structure' - Spud.
-
You were right, but going back to Gabriella's post, anything that distorts the family structure I would consider to fall short of good order.
Have you ever actually read the Bible? Many of the deeds attributed to the characters in that book distort a family structure, yet god looks on them with favour. GET REAL spud. ::)
-
Fair do's - nor do you, unless you say why it's good or bad.
Absolutely.
-
Yes it does. I'll have to refer to the Bible now, but do so in order to appeal to logic rather than theism. According to Genesis 38:9, someone called Onan spilled his seed onto the ground. This says literally that he 'destroyed it to the ground'. The point in the passage is that Onan refused to give his brother's wife a child; it also seems to be warning against deliberately destroying seed, or 'non-procreative sex' (sex that is not male-female intercourse).
Not sure this follows. Any book can be blue, just as a man and a woman can have black skin, but not any book can be categorized as a cookery book. There are two categories of people, depending on whether they have sperm or eggs.
Reading this I think the word most accurately describing you from the views expressed aboive is "terminally and dangerously gullible"!
Where, other than in the Bible, anywhere other than in the Bible over the entire history of mankind, is a man, a wanker, named Onan mentioned.
You are demanding that, oin the example of one man who, in all probability either never existed, or only existed in the mind of a monk in a monastery who eas, as he wrote the words, wanking his brains out or thinking of the choir boy he was going to sodomize after prayers.
Other than the Bible you have NO basis for your views - this I tnink is a 20 carat gold proof that the Bible is an unacceptable record of history from first to last, if it can lie about a man having a wank it can lie about abso-bloody-lutely EVERYTHING!
Moderator: content removed.
I sometimes wonder why (if he exists at all) your God gave you a brain to think with and then gave you the Bible so that you never had to use that organ or that ability!"
The only other book I can think of that ranks with the Bible in the number of humans killed on the basis of its content is Mien Kampf!
Which do you want "AMEN" or SIEG HEIL"?
-
Yes it does. I'll have to refer to the Bible now, but do so in order to appeal to logic rather than theism. According to Genesis 38:9, someone called Onan spilled his seed onto the ground. This says literally that he 'destroyed it to the ground'. The point in the passage is that Onan refused to give his brother's wife a child; it also seems to be warning against deliberately destroying seed, or 'non-procreative sex' (sex that is not male-female intercourse).
But when the bible was written people didn't understand how reproduction works - procreative sex (as you describe it) requires more than just male-female intercourse. It requires the woman to be fertile, which only happens for a few days per month - so any sex outside of that period is no more procreative than masturbation or male-male sex as there is no chance of fertilisation taking place.
So if you want to apply Genesis to the actual realities of procreation you should consider all sex outside of those few days a month to be wrong as it is clearly not procreative.
But in biblical times people typically considered the sperm to be a seed and the woman to be a receptacle for germination - hence the description in Genesis - but this, we now know, is completely incorrect. And as the comment is completely factually incorrect, why should we take any notice of it.
-
And as the comment is completely factually incorrect, why should we take any notice of it.
BECAUSE IT IS IN THE BLOODY MIS-BEGOTTEN BLOODY BIBLE! How many times does he have to tell you before you bloody listen?
-
Yes it does. I'll have to refer to the Bible now, but do so in order to appeal to logic rather than theism. According to Genesis 38:9, someone called Onan spilled his seed onto the ground. This says literally that he 'destroyed it to the ground'. The point in the passage is that Onan refused to give his brother's wife a child; it also seems to be warning against deliberately destroying seed, or 'non-procreative sex' (sex that is not male-female intercourse).
And there is a further point as this notion not only fundamentally misunderstands human reproduction, it also misunderstands the role of sex in humans (and other similar species).
There are plenty of species (typically non social animal species) where sex only occurs in the fertile period - the female on heat, so to speak. And their physiology is such that the urge have sex is limited to, or at least greatly enhanced, just during that period.
Humans aren't like that - the urge to engage in sex is similar throughout the reproductive cycle - and that is evolutionary. Why, well because as social animals sex in humans is as much about bonding and pleasure between partners as about reproduction since the chances of survival of the offspring are enhanced by a strong bonding relationship between the parents.
So sex in humans is clearly not just about procreation, so why should we therefore consider non procreative sex to be wrong.
-
ProfessorDavey,
I think you're missing something here. I'm not sure I want to go into all this stuff, but in my experience I've never been comfortable with anything other than monogamous marriage as a context for sexual intimacy. Surely the very nature of what comes out of men is a clue that its proper place is inside him (not counting accidental emission) or inside his wife, and what comes out of her is a clue that the latter should only be when she is not menstruating.
Incidentally, I understand from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves that there are signs when a woman is fertile.
Agreed, dogs go mental when they're on heat- ours used to run away, and came back pregnant twice.
Re: your point about the biblical word 'seed', perhaps our word 'gamete' would be a more accurate meaning?
-
ProfessorDavey,
I think you're missing something here. I'm not sure I want to go into all this stuff, but in my experience I've never been comfortable with anything other than monogamous marriage as a context for sexual intimacy. Surely the very nature of what comes out of men is a clue that its proper place is inside him (not counting accidental emission) or inside his wife, and what comes out of her is a clue that the latter should only be when she is not menstruating.
Incidentally, I understand from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves that there are signs when a woman is fertile.
Agreed, dogs go mental when they're on heat- ours used to run away, and came back pregnant twice.
Re: your point about the biblical word 'seed', perhaps our word 'gamete' would be a more accurate meaning?
You see things your way, others see it differently.
-
I think you're missing something here. I'm not sure I want to go into all this stuff, but in my experience I've never been comfortable with anything other than monogamous marriage as a context for sexual intimacy.
If you aren't comfortable then don't do it. But you have no right to impose that view on others. And just to point out gay people can now be in a monogamous marriage, so surely you should be comfortable with sexual intimacy in that context.
Surely the very nature of what comes out of men is a clue that its proper place is inside him (not counting accidental emission) or inside his wife, and what comes out of her is a clue that the latter should only be when she is not menstruating.
Thanks for explaining how reproduction works - but that is irrelevant. Sex in humans is not just for reproduction - it is just as much about bonding and intimacy as part of complex relationship behaviour. And what are you on about with regard to menstruation.
Incidentally, I understand from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves that there are signs when a woman is fertile.
Ok - you are beyond parody now.
Re: your point about the biblical word 'seed', perhaps our word 'gamete' would be a more accurate meaning?
But the word used is seed because the people who wrote the bible did not understand how human reproduction worked and would have had no concept of the idea of a gamete. And as their understanding of human reproduction is flawed so must be any notion of spilling of seed being wrong. Seeds and gametes are not the same thing - you do understand that do you Spud.
-
... I've never been comfortable with anything other than monogamous marriage as a context for sexual intimacy...
Then don’t have sex other than in a monogamous marriage. Why should other people curtail natural and healthy activity based on what you find comfortable? I’m uncomfortable about attempts to justify genocide, slavery and homophobia by referencing a book of old stories, are you going to stop doing it?
-
You see things your way, others see it differently.
Well, obviously. why not answer his points, one by one?
-
Then don’t have sex other than in a monogamous marriage. Why should other people curtail natural and healthy activity based on what you find comfortable? I’m uncomfortable about attempts to justify genocide, slavery and homophobia by referencing a book of old stories, are you going to stop doing it?
You wish!
-
Well, obviously. why not answer his points, one by one?
They aren't worth the bother of doing so.
-
riella,
Language is “labels”; that’s what words are - labels. If you want to argue for non-parity of some types of marriage then you do it using labels, thus: “gay (label) marriage (label) is not on a par (label) with heterosexual (label) marriage (label) because…” etc. Sometimes too these collections of labels represent a consistent position such that we can use other labels like “sexist” or “racist” or, yes, “homophobic” to describe what those positions are.
Can I suggest that if you really want to patronise someone with phrases like “Label away if doing so adds some meaning to your day” you take the time to establish first how out of your depth you are?
Can I suggest that given the patronising tone of most of your posts on here without first taking the time to establish how out of your depth you are, your suggestion won't be taken seriously. Glad we are agreed that labelling is fine if that is what you want to do on here. If you want to labour the point that we both agree that you can attach labels to posters, please feel free to carry on.
Irrelevant. That’s like trying to defend racism on the grounds that, yes some people are horrible to people of different ethnicities to their own, but not all of them – after all, a “sizeable chunk” are horrible to everyone.
No idea what point you think you are making with that comment or how it has any relevance to what I wrote. The point though that you keep ducking and diving to avoid is that there is a set of people who will use non-procreation as their justification for non-parity, but will only apply that criterion only to gay people. That’s what homophobia entails. So far as I can tell for example, Spud is one such – certainly he’s made no reference to thinking other types of non-procreational marriages are not on a par with procreational ones. Why do you suppose that is if not for his deep-seated homophobia?
I have not suggested that Spud is or is not homophobic so not sure why you are addressing that question to me. You will have to ask Spud about the details of his opinions on heterosexual non-procreational sex in order to form an opinion.
You do know that gay people can adopt don’t you? That sometimes they have children from previous relationships they wish to bring up with their new partners? That sometimes people who thought they were infertile turn out not to be? That…etc. All of these folks are every bit as capable of good parenting as anyone else, so why would their relationships still be "not on a par" with those who by some means know pre-marriage that they can conceive even if you were stupid enough to use conceiving or bringing up people as your criterion for marital equality?
I have already answered this so there is no point asking me the question again as my answer has not changed. Whether something is "on par" with something else depends on which criteria people choose to apply to form a judgement. If the criteria is parenting, and the evidence is that the parenting of same-sex couples is equal to the parenting of opposite-sex couples, then based on that criteria the relationships are "on par". If the criteria is the ability to procreate with each other then the relationship is not "on par" with relationships where procreating with each other is possible. If the criteria is love or companionship, and the evidence shows that same-sex couples feel the same love and companionship as opposite sex couples, then based on that criteria the relationships are "on par". Presumably we form opinions based on the evidence currently available.
Which all goes to show that marriage is a societal construct rather than a universal property, and one therefore that can adapt as societies adapt. Hooray! Whence then those who would claim that marriage is "meant to be …X” as if it were the former?
Yes that was my point - it's a social construct based on social values. I suggest you ask those people to explain their claims but my impression of those people is that those people view themselves as part of society and therefore will lobby and argue and seek to construct marriage according to their particular values.
Yes I know, and traditional religious marriage confers various advantages to those who find them meaningful too. Why grant some people equal treatments with civil partnerships and deny other equal treatments from traditional marriages? Either you believe in equality or you don’t – suggesting it in some some areas but not in others is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Religious rituals are often arbitrary and depending on who is interpreting and practising them, they are probably often inconsistent. Non-religious cultural values and behaviour and rituals can also be arbitrary and inconsistent, including social constructs such as marriage which prohibit polygamy. So not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Equality is an abstract value that is open to interpretation and subject to change over time, usually through court cases, the work of pressure groups, activists and as the result of public campaigns. So I think your statement "either you believe in equality or you don't" is meaningless. Whose interpretation of equality do you suggest I believe in? Yours? I think I'll form my own opinions and beliefs, thanks.
You seemed to be taking a “civil weddings are nothing to do with me so I don’t care about them, but traditional marriages are so I do care about them” approach. I was just asking why either would matter to you more or less than the other.
I'm still not sure how you are differentiating civil marriage from traditional marriage. I know how I am using the 2 terms. I used the term "civil" marriage to mean the legal form of marriage formally enacted by laws. Given that in England, laws are decided by Parliament and interpreted by the Courts and that Parliament is accountable to voters and that laws are used by society to regulate behaviour, I was focusing on the laws around marriage.
I think the term "traditional marriage" refers to the social construct that existed for centuries and then became codified in UK law before the law was recently changed to allow same-sex civil marriages. What are you referring to when you use the term "traditional marriage"?
But we do share dictionaries – “hysterical” is described in them and no-one here that I know of has behaved in a way that matches the description. What “wildly uncontrolled emotion” have you seen though?
You do know that despite sharing dictionaries and even legal qualifications, there are numerous court cases where lawyers and judges differ in their interpretation of words used in legislation and reach different opinions and conclusions?
Not only did I understand your point, I rebutted it.
I believe you claimed earlier that if you make a point you are entitled to decide whether I missed your point or not. So on that basis - you misunderstood the point I made and therefore did not rebut it. I said the Searching for God thread argued that our like and dislikes are determined by nature/ nurture. Nurture refers to environmental factors, which obviously includes feedback from your environment. And what you did above was just to list some of the areas in which civil partnerships grant equal treatment to gay couples. There’s nothing there though that even tries to justify the denial of other equal treatments to gay couples.
Where am I listing areas in which civil partnerships grant equal treatment? I don't think I mentioned civil partnerships - can you quote the bit you are referring to where I was discussing civil partnerships? I thought we were discussing civil marriage.
No it wouldn’t. The answer is none, zero, zilch obviously. Don’t you think so? Why not?
I already explained why not. Restrictions in spending tax-payer funds on more effective law enforcement and the decision by society to not put everyone under surveillance all the time to ensure that no crime is committed undetected, means that society is inevitably tolerating the beating up of some gay men.
No, “society” – or rather this society – privileges religions in various ways, and when those religions are inherently homophobic (as many are) then their views are thereby legitimised and encouraged. That’s nothing to do with freedom of speech – they can say whatever they like – but I happen to think that doing it with the sanction of the state is a bad thing. Don’t you?
The state is made up of elected representatives. So it depends on what the public - the voters - want from the State. I assume they weigh up alternative scenarios and at some point they may well decide that the State should not privilege religions. I presume that depends on what benefit the majority who make up society perceive that they get from privileging religion and what they perceive as the cost of dismantling those privileges.
Only the charge of homophobia is legitimate and the charge of hysteria isn’t according the meanings of those words, but ok…
You 're certainly entitled to hold that belief/ opinion.
Yes, and when that perception is shown to be misplaced using reason employing words with commonly understood meanings but they persist in it anyway that’s called prejudice or bigotry.
According to the Searching for God thread their perception is determined by their nature/ nurture. The environmental inputs to their perceptions are interpreted by filters constructed by their nature/nurture. Once their conscious brain becomes aware of their perceptions, they will have a choice of either tolerating or not tolerating something they dislike. I don't think the pragmatic reality of resolving this choice changes just because you call them prejudiced or bigoted. You can call them that if you like, if you perceive a benefit to doing so. You must exercise your own judgement on that.
Not really. Either you think there’s commonality of language and reason or you don’t (in which case anything goes).
I don't think there is commonality when it comes to the abstract ideas that humans are capable of constructing, hence we have debates about it. Despite not “sharing one brain” we agree what we mean we either of us says “table”
A table is not an abstract construct. we agree that the reasoning available to each of us implies that germs cause disease etc.
Until evidence to the comes along that challenges that view. You also (presumably) agree that there are such things as prejudice and bigotry – you can’t therefore just sweep away the versions of it you quite like on the basis we don’t share one brain, but recognise its existence in respect of matters of which you disapprove. Either homophobia and racism both exist, or neither of them do. Take your pick.
Not sure what your point is. Humans have created abstract concepts, which they label "homophobia", "racism", Islamophobia etc. You do know that there are often protracted court cases and appeals that are required to determine if the reasoning supports a claim of homophobia or racism? The lawyers don't just come to the Religion & Ethics forum and ask for a show of hands. In fact on this forum most people decided the Ashers Bakery case was an example of homophobia and I disagreed and the Supreme Court decided that it wasn't homophobia and the case has now been referred to the ECHR.
Good. So are we now agreed that you no longer “tolerate” gay marriage as you said you did earlier but rather that you’re just indifferent to it?
I will respond once you clarify where I said I "tolerate" gay marriage.
Yes it is when the argument and reasoning they attempt to justify their beliefs are shown to be false. If they still assert them nonetheless, then (depending on the topic at hand) that makes them homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, whatever-ist etc. You know this already though – imagine if I were to say that I perceive black or brown people to be Untermensch, fit only for slavery and in no circumstances should they be allowed to marry into the pure Aryan “race”. That would be my “perception” about the “traditional meaning” of racial purity etc and maybe too I’d want that perception to be “passed on” to my offspring in my “circle of friends or communities” etc. And lets’s say too that you’d dismantled every attempt I’d made to justify these views using your superior command or reason and argument.
At what stage would you say would you be entitled to call my views racist, and at what point too would you think your eventual “well fuck you then” to be anything but “hysterical”?
You are entitled to employ it right at the start of the discussion as much as you are entitled to wait for 4 years of back and forth discussion before employing the term. As far as I know there is no rule as to the timing of deploying the term. Whether someone calls you hysterical or not depends on what you actually say and how you say it. Different people will have a different point of view on that. It's almost as if you haven't read all the recent media reports on people being called "transphobic" for discussing issues about vulnerable women. Clearly different people have different views on when to deploy the term.
And if I was a disgusting racist the fact of black and brown people would be something I’d perceive I’d need to tolerate too. That wouldn’t mean that I wasn’t a racist though would it?
Yes you might well be being racist, and yet you would still have to make a choice of whether you tolerate and don't get arrested for a hate crime or don't tolerate and possibly end up in prison.
-
Blue and Gabriella, you are being very good value on this thread. Keep it up. ;)
I can't help feeling however that you are both somehow involved in separate arguments. Perhaps not quite hearing what the other person is actually saying. Too many words I reckon... or maybe I'm just out of my depth again ;) (two winkies?... that's right, I did that).
I'm going to dip my toe in and probably regret it. But it's very interesting and I can't resist.
Gabriella's central point, as I see it, is that diverse and sometimes opposing views are simply a reality in society. Their moral 'correctness' appears to be beside the point, as it is all arbitrary anyway, steeped in nuance and complex historical context. As a consequence, people have a right to hold provocative views and these views should be explored carefully as part of a democratic society. In the end, the law is the ultimate expression of what we collectively decide to be acceptable / permissible, imperfectly constructed as it is by majority rule. The legitimacy of everything outside of that is up for debate and discussion. It is perhaps a pluralistic or relativistic position to take? Is a bad thing? I’m not qualified to make that judgement.
Blue on the other hand (ah Blue, how many years have I been reading your posts now? getting on 15 I reckon) appears to be far more absolutist. Views based on religious faith are simply dismissed as guesswork in a sort of wholesale way. Nuance and context be damned. They have no basis in reality and should not be given any regard whatsoever. It's almost utilitarian in its bald pragmatism. Fair enough. He’s not wrong, but I wonder sometimes if it separates views and people too readily. One is something that can be delineated by language and dealt with objectively, the other is a flesh and blood participant in society and cannot simply be dismissed in the same way that bad ideas can be.
The way I see it, in this debate about views on marriage and homophobia, the only significant difference in your positions is that Gabriella seeks to argue from the person as a participant in society whilst Blue argues the merits or problems of a particular idea or attitude. Otherwise, honestly, you seem to actually agree on the basics.
I may of course be wrong. I probably am. Usually it is the case, especially when I’m talking to Blue (another winkie?... nah, don’t want to overdo it)
Neither of you is hysterical.
Both of you are pretty patronising to be perfectly honest.
It is all hugely entertaining and I am utterly engrossed! Sincerely. Please continue. Sorry for the interruption.
p.s. Blue, I imagine you are probably itching to take apart my post point by point, but honestly I don’t really have the time to properly get into a discussion with you. I wish I did. So, please proceed if you must, but forgive me if I don’t respond.
Samuel - thanks. I think you've summed up my position very well and in a lot less words. Thank you. Please do help me out more often. And yes - absolutely agree on the patronising tone of our posts :)
I will leave it to BHS to comment on whether you have summed up his position.
-
Bigotry isn't defined by popular vote.
O.
How is it defined? What is the process of defining something?
-
Hi Samuel, always nice to hear from you.
As you asked me not to post a point-by-point reply here’s a shorthand version:
Neither of us disputes that there’s a diversity of opinion, and nor that people should be free to think and speak as they wish (subject to limitations at the extremes). Where we differ so far as I can tell though is that I think we have terms like “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic” etc legitimately when the opinions expressed match the definitions of these terms. Gabriella on the other hand seems to me to want to dismiss or sanitise one of them – homophobia – on various grounds to do with the way people perceive things. I can’t see how homophobia could cease to exist as a phenomenon on that basis (whereas apparently racism, sexism etc cannot) but there it is nonetheless.
Please quote where I have differentiated between racism, sexism and homophobia.
Actually I simply say that, absent any method to distinguish religious claims from just guessing, there’s no good reason not to treat them as just guessing. Not sure how “absolutist” that is – should I take that view most of the time but not on Wednesdays half-day closing or something? – but that’s my position nonetheless.
From observation, it appears society has chosen to privilege some abstract concepts over others, in this case religious beliefs This may be because religious beliefs have for thousands of years had something to say about managing challenges in life and also managing the process of dying, grief and abstract concepts of morality. No doubt when enough humans cease finding meaning in religion in relation to those issues, the State will stop privileging religious beliefs - and no doubt you will throw a party to celebrate. Until you and like-minded people have achieved that outcome, the privileging of religious beliefs by the State is just something you will have to tolerate.
Actually the way I see it Gabriella subscribes to a homophobic religious faith but can’t bring herself to say so, so seeks to dilute the problem to nothingness by repositioning the it in terms of personal perception and the like. This looks like evasion of the issue to me, but no doubt she’ll tell us otherwise in due course.
All best.
Not sure what you mean by "subscribes to". I consider myself a Muslim and practise my interpretation of Islam, although to be fair, like all Muslims, there are lots of interpretations/ practices that I either cannot be bothered to do or I disagree with. Given the millions of variations in interpretation it's to be expected. My interpretation is that Islam defines a "nikah" or Muslim marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no desire to campaign to change that definition and I also have no desire to campaign against people like Daayiee Abdullah, an openly gay imam who conducts same-sex Muslim marriages. I would happily pray with him and accept him as a fellow Muslim. https://voiceofsalam.com/2018/08/31/saying-yes-to-same-sex-marriage-meet-imam-daayiee-abdullah/
But I'm absolutely fine with you or anyone else thinking I am homophobic for being a Muslim or for any other reason (as I have stated on here many times). Label away. If I had to choose which label I care about the most, it's no contest - I would rather be considered homophobic by everyone on this Message Board than stop calling myself a Muslim. Was there anything else you needed me to clarify for you? By the way, Eid Mubarak everyone.
-
Your first paragraph is true. The second implies that good order results from people being allowed to sleep with whoever they are attracted to; does this include having affairs? What the majority thinks is right is not necessarily best.
And who delegated to you the authority to decide what is best for anyone except yourself?
The only person for whom you have the authority to make a decision on anything for (outside a work environment) is you and your family if they allow you to do so and I must presume that they do so!
-
I'm puzzled by your phraseology here.
What are you comparing to what - are you comparing same sex marriage to heterosexual marriage (I accept the latter is more 'traditional'). But then why add 'civil'. Do you somehow think that civil marriage is not traditional? If so I think you need to learn a little more history - the earliest formulations of marriage from ancient times that we know about were pretty well all civil institutions.
I was responding to BHS's question differentiating between civil marriage and traditional marriage. We will have to wait for him to reply to explain his phraseology. See #1436 where I explain what I meant by the terms. I was discussing civil marriage in this thread as that is what has been recently changed by new legislation. I was referring to traditional marriage as the type of marriages that occurred before the change in legislation.
I am well aware of the history of marriage - there have been some very interesting historical documentaries that highlight that up until fairly recently, there was a strong tradition for the privileged, wealthy and those with high public profiles to marry and produce offspring in order to try to resolve potential conflicts by forming social, political or economic alliances between families, communities, or countries and producing lineal descendants. In the case of British royalty, it appears that the Act of Settlement 1701 and Royal Marriages Act 1772 as amended by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 does not allow adopted children to be in line to succeed to the British throne.
-
Your first paragraph is true. The second implies that good order results from people being allowed to sleep with whoever they are attracted to; does this include having affairs? What the majority thinks is right is not necessarily best.
I personally don't think that good and bad can be defined in a simplistic way when it comes to sexual behaviour, and there are plenty of interpretations of religions that highlight the moral complexities that make it difficult for people to judge the actions of others by interpreting what is just or good for them in any given situation. You can judge for yourself what is best for you, and you can certainly have an opinion on the behaviour of others, but given how little we know about the circumstances of other people's lives our judgement or opinions will always be flawed due to imperfect information.
So I would say that there may be benefits to sexual behaviours such as sleeping with whoever they are attracted to and there may also be costs. There may also be benefits and costs to society policing or seeking to influence/ not influence other people's sexual behaviour - mental health issues as mentioned by Trent, freedom and human rights issues, social and political damage caused by authoritarian rules, impact on health and economic resources from not controlling the spread of STDs, potential for sexual exploitation, mental health or emotional pain from having multiple relationships or abortion. The religious morality aspect is one part of the equation and as I said deciding morality with imperfect information can result in flawed judgements.
Different people will have different views on which costs outweigh which benefits, and people may change their views due to their experiences.
-
Please do help me out more often. And yes - absolutely agree on the patronising tone of our posts :)
I don't think you need any help. Perhaps you should switch to a matronising tone. ;)
-
They aren't worth the bother of doing so.
Then why bother replying at all?
-
And who delegated to you the authority to decide what is best for anyone except yourself?
The only person for whom you have the authority to make a decision on anything for (outside a work environment) is you and your family if they allow you to do so and I must presume that they do so!
I agree with you.
-
And who delegated to you the authority to decide what is best for anyone except yourself?
The only person for whom you have the authority to make a decision on anything for (outside a work environment) is you and your family if they allow you to do so and I must presume that they do so!
This is true and I'm not trying to force my views on anyone - please show me where if I have done. But we do have the right to express our opinions, since that's how we decide what the majority view is and hence make our laws.
-
So I would say that there may be benefits to sexual behaviours such as sleeping with whoever they are attracted to and there may also be costs. There may also be benefits and costs to society policing or seeking to influence/ not influence other people's sexual behaviour - mental health issues as mentioned by Trent, freedom and human rights issues, social and political damage caused by authoritarian rules, impact on health and economic resources from not controlling the spread of STDs, potential for sexual exploitation, mental health or emotional pain from having multiple relationships or abortion. The religious morality aspect is one part of the equation and as I said deciding morality with imperfect information can result in flawed judgements.
Different people will have different views on which costs outweigh which benefits, and people may change their views due to their experiences.
And democratic society is free to make laws that change a long-established norm, such as introducing same sex marriage. But there has to be a continual evaluation so that if the costs do outweigh the benefits, there is the freedom to modify them.
I agree that people should be allowed to decide who they sleep with. The state does however have an interest in marriage, because of the need to identify who has fathered a child and is responsible for raising it. It also makes sense for the state to help gay people to be accepted, for example with civil partnerships. But in my view, making sexual relationships between gays equal to those of heteros and introducing same sex marriage is going too far. The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument). There are also gay people who wish to walk away from a homosexual lifestyle. But they now face the psychological pressure to walk into it. I'm thinking of last year's gay pride day episode of eastenders.
-
But when the bible was written people didn't understand how reproduction works - procreative sex (as you describe it) requires more than just male-female intercourse. It requires the woman to be fertile, which only happens for a few days per month - so any sex outside of that period is no more procreative than masturbation or male-male sex as there is no chance of fertilisation taking place.
So if you want to apply Genesis to the actual realities of procreation you should consider all sex outside of those few days a month to be wrong as it is clearly not procreative.
But in biblical times people typically considered the sperm to be a seed and the woman to be a receptacle for germination - hence the description in Genesis - but this, we now know, is completely incorrect. And as the comment is completely factually incorrect, why should we take any notice of it.
Actually, in the story about Onan, the word 'seed' is not used. Clearly too the Jews understood basically how reproduction works, so there is no need to ignore the Bible.
Note also that I said the deliberate destruction of 'seed' (sperm) which does not include coitus but does include anything else other than accidental emission.
-
And democratic society is free to make laws that change a long-established norm, such as introducing same sex marriage. But there has to be a continual evaluation so that if the costs do outweigh the benefits, there is the freedom to modify them.
I agree that people should be allowed to decide who they sleep with. The state does however have an interest in marriage, because of the need to identify who has fathered a child and is responsible for raising it. It also makes sense for the state to help gay people to be accepted, for example with civil partnerships. But in my view, making sexual relationships between gays equal to those of heteros and introducing same sex marriage is going too far. The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument). There are also gay people who wish to walk away from a homosexual lifestyle. But they now face the psychological pressure to walk into it. I'm thinking of last year's gay pride day episode of eastenders.
In my opinion it is as bad to be an anti-gay bigot as it is to be a racist. It is right to prosecute such people if they discriminate against gays. Using the Bible as an excuse for evil bigotry is PATHETIC, imo >:(
-
The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument).
Whether it is a false argument I think depends on what is being argued. If the person is considered racist for disliking a behaviour e.g. saying "I dislike the pungent smell of fried onion, garlic and ginger emanating from people on the tube who cook a lot of curry" isn't racist in my opinion even if a lot of those people happen to be brown.
I personally do not think I have to consider the feelings and circumstances and views of every minority group before forming or expressing an opinion on something - and if that gets me labelled a bigot, am happy to be labelled a bigot as I think it's a price worth paying for discussing the complexities and myriad implications of arriving at different views or opinions.
There are also gay people who wish to walk away from a homosexual lifestyle. But they now face the psychological pressure to walk into it. I'm thinking of last year's gay pride day episode of eastenders.
Yes - I remember Shaker foaming at the mouth (figuratively) when I said I thought if genetic/ epigenetic engineering was available as an option to change your sexuality from any point on the spectrum from gay to straight to any other point on the spectrum, then that should be a permissible option available to consenting adults - much like lightening or darkening your skin or increasing or decreasing the size of your breasts/ muscles/ penis is an option. He thought people who wanted to change their sexuality should be prevented from having the freedom to pursue that option but they could have the freedom to change other things about themselves they did not like. Seemed an inconsistent argument to me - some/ many atheists appear to not be as rational and consistent as some/ many of them seem to think they are. Presumably because like everyone else, their value judgements are made through a mix of emotion and reason.
-
Talking of Shaker, I wonder if anyone is in contact with him, he hasn't posted on R&E since February last year?
-
The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument).
Spud try being turned away from a B&B for being gay. It feels like bigotry. I know.
But in the interests of equality I want to take this idea of yours for refusing services to people a little further and introduce an element of reciprocity to it.
So for the B & B people and indeed any bigots out there that want to refuse gay people services can they simply wear a badge that says "Refusing to serve gay people because I am a bigot/bigoted Christian/ etc" on it. Gay people can wear one that says "gay person/nurse/bus driver etc". Then everyone will know where they are and why services are being refused.
So I trot up to a B & b and I am refused service because I've got a great big gay badge on, that says "I love The Golden Girls" or something similar. The man who opens the door has a "I love Ann Widdecombe" badge on, we both know where we stand and I leave.
Unfortunately, the person wearing the Anne Widdecombe badge has an accident and breaks their leg the next day and turns up at hospital. Unfortunately for them the male nurse has gay emblazoned all over his uniform, accompanied by rather too much glitter for my liking. The nurse sees the Anne Widdecombe badge and says quite rightly, I'm really sorry I can't treat you due to your obvious support for an anti-gay stance that makes me uncomfortable and it goes against my conscience.
So off he limps to get the bus home........and Oh my Lord the bus driver is dressed head to toe in pink with "gay" tattooed on his forehead. He's having a tough day, poor man.
I have another alternative suggestion though. Just treat people as you yourself would like to be treated, then all these problems just disappear.
If life was approached in the spirit of the following we would all be a lot better off.
" A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Pagan and an Atheist went into a coffee shop. They talk, laugh, have nice conversation over coffee and become good friends"
I wish you would grow up.
-
That's a belter, Trent.
[doffs hat]
-
A magnificent post, Trent!
-
Good post TV. :)
-
Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.
-
Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.
It is you who is being silly! Gays have as much right to share a bed as heterosexuals. :o
-
It is you who is being silly! Gays have as much right to share a bed as heterosexuals. :o
I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.
-
I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.
imagine that Rosa Parks just wanting to sit down.
-
imagine that Rosa Parks just wanting to sit down.
Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.
-
Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.
Why shouldn't a gay couple highlight discrimination?
-
Why shouldn't a gay couple highlight discrimination?
Unlike Rosa Parks, who put herself at serious risk by her action, given the atmosphere of lynchings, other violence, and the blatant bias of the law-enflrcers, these two only put the B&B owners out of business, st no risk to themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gays sleeping together (within a faithful, long-term relationship), but many Christians are opposed, and, with strict limits, there should be a conscience clause for them.
That's my last word, so don't start nagging me to make another U-turn, because I'm not going to, and will not reply.
-
I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.
Shouldn't discrimination be deliberately and specifically challenged?
-
Unlike Rosa Parks, who put herself at serious risk by her action, given the atmosphere of lynchings, other violence, and the blatant bias of the law-enflrcers, these two only put the B&B owners out of business, st no risk to themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gays sleeping together (within a faithful, long-term relationship), but many Christians are opposed, and, with strict limits, there should be a conscience clause for them.
That's my last word, so don't start nagging me to make another U-turn, because I'm not going to, and will not reply.
Surely such discrimination needs to be challenged - and that the circumstances are not exactly the same makes no difference. Your post supports discrimination.
-
I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.
-
I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.
That is supporting discrimination.
-
Shouldn't discrimination be deliberately and specifically challenged?
Of course it should.
-
I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.
Therefore you are supporting discrimination.
-
That is supporting discrimination.
If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?
-
If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?
You just don't want to justify things. You are taking a moral position just as I am but you want to poison the well so that you can avoid discussion.
-
#1452 - good post Trent
-
I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.
What do you mean by “cannot countenance”? What would happen to them if they knew there was an active homosexual relationship being conducted? Is it like a Labour supporter being forced to organise a rally to cheer and celebrate Boris and canvas Tory votes? Is it like a Brexiter being forced to organise a speaking engagement to welcome Jean Claude Juncker to Britain to persuade us to accept ECJ jurisdiction after the transition period?
-
If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?
You will continue to do so, so don't tell porkies! ;D
-
Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.
Yes because nothing says we are in a committed relationship that is respected like being forced to sleep in separate rooms.
Would you think it acceptable for gay B & B owners to stop bigoted heterosexual Christians sleeping together?
-
Steve
I'm glad that you think it is ok for people to discriminate against myself and my partner of 41 years.
I can only hope that you also experience something similar in your life. In the interests of equality.
Your weasel words are fucking insulting.
-
Yes because nothing says we are in a committed relationship that is respected like being forced to sleep in separate rooms.
Would you think it acceptable for gay B & B owners to stop bigoted heterosexual Christians sleeping together?
I think that is a very good question: and that it deserves an answer.
-
I think that is a very good question: and that it deserves an answer.
As do I - and it will be interesting to put a stop-watch on how long it takes for him to find one!
Other than, of course the most probable one that bigoted Christains would avoid gay owned B&B by as wide a margin as they would a lesbian sex aids and erotic underwear party!
-
Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.
I've left this awhile in the hope that you would reconsider your prejudiced view of this matter. My analogy does not fall at any fence. The B & B owners were not prepared to treat a homosexual couple in the same way as a heterosexual couple so you are wrong with that analysis. That they offered separate rooms just shows how much you missed the point or don't understand how any couple when they go away prefer to share rooms - unless you are royalty of course.
Moving on from that, I really would like you to explain why you are prepared to see discrimination against me allowed in this country.
Your silence now, indicates a willingness to assert, but when challenged an unwillingness to engage.
Is that because deep down you know you can't defend your position without making yourself look like a person who is willing to allow and encourage prejudice against gay people, of whose number I count myself lucky enough to be.
You frequently criticise another poster for asserting things without back up.
Except for the number of words used I see little difference between you and that posters approach.
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
What if some "genuine religious' people want to exclude black people? What is it about 'genuine religious' views that means you want to privilege them above 'genuine political' views? Surely you are just effectively supporting a system where some people can put up the equivalent of 'No Jews, No Irish, No Blacks'in their window?
-
What if some "genuine religious' people want to exclude black people? What is it about 'genuine religious' views that means you want to privilege them above 'genuine political' views? Surely you are just effectively supporting a system where some people can put up the equivalent of 'No Jews, No Irish, No Blacks'in their window?
There is no history of any major religion or denomination excluding black people.
-
There is no history of any major religion or denomination excluding black people.
There is a history of justification of slavery of black people in Christianity. Christian values were used to justify (and deny) apartheid. And how given the conscious clause can you avoid someone saying I genuinely religiously believe I should be allowed to exclude black people?
Why do see a difference between homosexuality and race here.
What about someone refusing to allow Muslims or Jews?
-
I'm fed up of your far-fetched, dodgy analogies and your general achingly right-on, sanctimoniou, and rather immature attitude. I've explained my pov, so that's that.
-
I'm fed up of your far-fetched, dodgy analogies and your general achingly right-on, sanctimoniou, and rather immature attitude. I've explained my pov, so that's that.
They aren't analogies. They are questions trying to find the limits of how much bigotry you want to be allowed to be enshrined in law and why. That you are unwilling to answer questions is very revealing.
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
Using religion as an excuse for bigotry is WRONG, they should be prosecuted for taking that stance if they excluded anyone who didn't have a white skin.
-
Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.
Yert another posty based firmly in homophobia land!
What's that song that goes "When will they ever learn"!?
-
Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.
Typical mindless response!
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
So you are arguing for what you see as "wrong headedness" to be rewarded?
-
Typical mindless response!
I agree, he refuses to see that his responses are homophobic.
Totally off topic, but I am surprised to see how this thread has taken off. Maybe it will be granted sticky status sometime?
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
That reads like a double helping of fallacies - implying both an argument from tradition, the problem being that the tradition involved is discriminatory, and an argument from authority where the problem there is that, here in the UK anyway, these religious traditions aren't an authoritative source of social policy any more: and since they are inherently discriminatory, and given the shift in the moral zeitgeist that saw marriage equality legislated for, there are no good reasons that I can see to tolerate overt homophobia such as displayed by these B&B providers and the traditions they espouse.
-
I agree, he refuses to see that his responses are homophobic.
Totally off topic, but I am surprised to see how this thread has taken off. Maybe it will be granted sticky status sometime?
As long as it is a circular parade of everyone chasing aroung trying to get a hint of common sense and a realisation he is a truly unpleasant and unrepentant homophobe so that he wiill, hopefully S T F U!
The same position repeated again and again but with different words make a thread bloody boring very quickly!
-
I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited.
There already is - religious organisations, for instance, are not compelled (even the established church) to conform to all the requirements of the Equalities Act with regards to employment, they are not required to fulfil all the variants of marriage despite being authorised to conduct marriage ceremonies.
It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religious qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.
Where does that stop? Why should your 'genuine' religious qualm that gayness is unacceptable get in the way of, for instance, my 'genuine' social qualm that bigotry is unacceptable?
How do you determine what a 'genuine' religious qualm is, over just regular small-minded bigotry? Is it 'genuine' if it's the result of an historical bigot in the religious records?
O.
-
Is it 'genuine' if it's the result of an historical bigot in the religious records?
O.
I truly pray for the day when another trove like the Dead Sea scrolls is found that express the view that Jesus was actually as bent as a nine-bob note and the real reason for his crucifixion was his offering his bare arse, in public, to Pilate with the words "Come on Big Man let's see what you got!"
-
In my opinion it is as bad to be an anti-gay bigot as it is to be a racist. It is right to prosecute such people if they discriminate against gays. Using the Bible as an excuse for evil bigotry is PATHETIC, imo >:(
But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.
-
But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.
So you are arguing for the right for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a person who campaigns against equal rights for gay people then. After all that is something the doctor would believe is wrong.
-
But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.
My conscience tells me that 90% of the doctrines of the Bible are socially unacceptable in the 21st century!
Does this mean that it perfectly OK for me to tell Christians to stop persecuting gays and lesbians in thought, word and deed?
If you keep it to yourself, i e keep your mouth shut, as your conscience in an internal entity, we neither of us will have a problem, but that is the major problem with militant Christians, they are totally incapable of keeping their bigoted mouths shut!
-
So you are arguing for the right for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a person who campaigns against equal rights for gay people then. After all that is something the doctor would believe is wrong.
There's quite a difference between treating someone who campaigns against equal rights for gay people and say, blessing a same sex marriage. Your analogy would work if the gay doctor was being required to get involved in the campaign against equal rights for gay people.
-
But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.
Being gay isn't wrong, being intolerant of gays is WRONG! >:(
-
There's quite a difference between treating someone who campaigns against equal rights for gay people and say, blessing a same sex marriage. Your analogy would work if the gay doctor was being required to get involved in the campaign against equal rights for gay people.
Well taking it to an extreme if the doctor is keeping a bigot alive then he is indeed involved in perpetuating a campaign against equal rights.
If it is against your conscience then its against your conscience. That's the whole thrust of your argument.
People have different ideas about what their "conscience" tells them. If you want equality on those grounds then logically you have to let everyone discriminate as their own conscience dictates.
-
There's quite a difference between treating someone who campaigns against equal rights for gay people and say, blessing a same sex marriage. Your analogy would work if the gay doctor was being required to get involved in the campaign against equal rights for gay people.
Were the B&B owners being required to campaign for gay rights?
-
Well taking it to an extreme if the doctor is keeping a bigot alive then he is indeed involved in perpetuating a campaign against equal rights.
You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.
-
You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.
The priest should be booted out of office if they refuse to bless a same sex marriage, imo.
-
You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.
I wasn't talking about priests. They are already exempt.
-
Were the B&B owners being required to campaign for gay rights?
They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.
-
They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.
In which case they shouldn't be owners of a B&B, there is NOTHING wrong with gay couples having sex.
-
In which case they shouldn't be owners of a B&B, there is NOTHING wrong with gay couples having sex.
The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.
-
They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.
You do realise, Spud, that sometimes people go to bed to, you know, go to sleep (as in slumber) - unless you believe that two people sleeping (as in slumbering) in a double bed is wrong: maybe you should form the Bed Police and keep a watchful eye on events (though it might get you arrested)!
In any event, what business is it of yours or anyone else's what two consenting adults do in bed?
-
The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.
So if they had been married, there would have been no problem in letting the room?
-
The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.
What law would this be?
-
The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.
I think you have made it up!
-
What law would this be?
According to one website there's one that says you cannot refuse a married couple a room; it says nothing about unmarried couples.
-
You do realise, Spud, that sometimes people go to bed to, you know, go to sleep (as in slumber) - unless you believe that two people sleeping (as in slumbering) in a double bed is wrong: maybe you should form the Bed Police and keep a watchful eye on events (though it might get you arrested)!
In any event, what business is it of yours or anyone else's what two consenting adults do in bed?
They were offered single rooms which had they just wanted to sleep would have been all they needed.
-
So if they had been married, there would have been no problem in letting the room?
Not if they had been married to women, no.
-
Not if they had been married to women, no.
If they had been married to each other?
-
If they had been married to each other?
This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.
-
This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.
I always find it amusing that you are all for stopping gay people access to a B & B but you never ever mention lets say, racists. Must come lower down on the list for "conscientious objectors" ::)
-
This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?),
The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple;
Doesn't it?
-
This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.
So it doesn't protect them, except when it protects them by saying that your 'conscientious objection' isn't sufficient grounds for discrimination.
O.
-
This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same-sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.
There can be no doubt to anyone with one iota of intelligence reading the last few posts of yours that you are, without a shadow of a doubt, an unmitigated and unrepentant bigot of the worst possible sort, your bigotry based upon a book whose veracity is dubious at best!
Homosexuals are, whatever else they might not be, including Christian, human beings and as such are entitled to be treated exactly like any and every other human being including an (self-censored) and (self-censored) bigot!
-
According to one website there's one that says you cannot refuse a married couple a room; it says nothing about unmarried couples.
Citation please.
-
Citation please.
You beat me to it!
-
So it doesn't protect them, except when it protects them by saying that your 'conscientious objection' isn't sufficient grounds for discrimination.
O.
Arguably there was no discrimination in this case, as they were offered single beds.
What damage does the £3,700 fine pay for?
-
Arguably there was no discrimination in this case, as they were offered single beds.
What damage does the £3,700 fine pay for?
They wanted a double bed so of course there was discrimination. A fine is deserved for anti-gay bigotry.
-
They wanted a double bed so of course there was discrimination.
Given that discrimination does happen (no unaccompanied children, for example), what damage was done by denying them a double bed? They weren't denied access to the B&B.
-
Given that discrimination does happen (no unaccompanied children, for example), what damage was done by denying them a double bed? They weren't denied access to the B&B.
They presumably wanted to sleep TOGETHER and have sex, not as easy to do so in a single bed. ::)
-
They presumably wanted to sleep TOGETHER and have sex, not as easy to do so in a single bed. ::)
I wouldn't presume anything about having sex.
-
Given that discrimination does happen (no unaccompanied children, for example), what damage was done by denying them a double bed? They weren't denied access to the B&B.
Are you bleeding IN-FUCKING-SANE?
Can you see no reason for hotels of all classes any size being prohibited from taking in unaccompanied children?
Jesus ******* Christ - I give up! To say what I truly think of your post quoted above would get me banned for life and I am not giving you that satisfaction!
-
It is simple Spud.
There are no grounds for treating a gay couple differently from a heterosexual couple when it comes to booking a hotel/B&B room under the current law.
As Gabriella pointed out somewhere, if you don't want to provide or be involved in those services do something else.
Simples.
-
A fine is deserved for anti-gay bigotry.
Bigotry relates to differences of opinion. This case was about beliefs.
-
Are you bleeding IN-FUCKING-SANE?
Can you see no reason for hotels of all classes any size being prohibited from taking in unaccompanied children?
Jesus ******* Christ - I give up! To say what I truly think of your post quoted above would get me banned for life and I am not giving you that satisfaction!
You remind me of an alcoholic I used to know.
-
Given that discrimination does happen (no unaccompanied children, for example), what damage was done by denying them a double bed? They weren't denied access to the B&B.
No unaccompanied children is about safeguarding the children, not punishing them for not being of an acceptable age for your fairy tale morality.
The damage done was that their relationship was treated as second class in comparison to other relationships.
O.
-
You remind me of an alcoholic I used to know.
I suggest you turn the other cheek.
-
It is simple Spud.
There are no grounds for treating a gay couple differently from a heterosexual couple when it comes to booking a hotel/B&B room under the current law.
As Gabriella pointed out somewhere, if you don't want to provide or be involved in those services do something else.
Simples.
The BnB case was won by the gay couple I think because they were in a civil partnership, which has the same protected status as marriage under the equalities act. But the penalty imposed on the owners was unjust, because they had no intention to offend or victimize the men - the law should have assumed this, as they were doing business and making a living, so wouldn't set out to hurt feelings. They offered them alternative arrangements.
-
The BnB case was won by the gay couple I think because they were in a civil partnership, which has the same protected status as marriage under the equalities act. But the penalty imposed on the owners was unjust, because they had no intention to offend or victimize the men - the law should have assumed this, as they were doing business and making a living, so wouldn't set out to hurt feelings. They offered them alternative arrangements.
Which discriminated against them.
-
The BnB case was won by the gay couple I think because they were in a civil partnership, which has the same protected status as marriage under the equalities act. But the penalty imposed on the owners was unjust, because they had no intention to offend or victimize the men - the law should have assumed this, as they were doing business and making a living, so wouldn't set out to hurt feelings. They offered them alternative arrangements.
You know you said someone reminded you of an alcoholic you once knew?
You remind me of a bigot I once knew.
For goodness sake if you went to a B&B with your wife would you expect to be offered 2 separate rooms while everyone else was given the accommodation they expected?
They clearly intended to victimise them as they singled them out for different discriminatory treatment.
Why are you bothering to argue in favour of discrimination?
-
You know you said someone reminded you of an alcoholic you once knew?
You remind me of a bigot I once knew.
For goodness sake if you went to a B&B with your wife would you expect to be offered 2 separate rooms while everyone else was given the accommodation they expected?
They clearly intended to victimise them as they singled them out for different discriminatory treatment.
Why are you bothering to argue in favour of discrimination?
let's also ask if a mixed race couple went to a B&B but the people who ran it believed it was wrong, would Spud think it was ok if they were asked to have separate rooms? If not why not?
-
Bigotry relates to differences of opinion. This case was about beliefs.
Bigoted unpleasant beliefs. >:(
-
The BnB case was won by the gay couple I think because they were in a civil partnership, which has the same protected status as marriage under the equalities act. But the penalty imposed on the owners was unjust, because they had no intention to offend or victimize the men - the law should have assumed this, as they were doing business and making a living, so wouldn't set out to hurt feelings.
Except that it should have been eminently foreseeable that telling gay people their relationship isn't acceptable would be offensive.
I do find that the courts' interpretation of the equalities act too often falls down on whether someone took offence rather than whether it could reasonably have been expected that a given action would be offensive, but that's not an ambiguous case in the slightest.
They offered them alternative arrangements.
So they didn't treat them the same... if only there was a word for that...
O.
-
You know you said someone reminded you of an alcoholic you once knew?
You remind me of a bigot I once knew.
For goodness sake if you went to a B&B with your wife would you expect to be offered 2 separate rooms while everyone else was given the accommodation they expected?
Heterosexual marriage is universally accepted, but not everyone is comfortable with gay partnerships.
They clearly intended to victimise them as they singled them out for different discriminatory treatment.
That is your perception of their motive, but as I said, if someone needs to do business to make a living, they are more than likely to do all they can to satisfy a customer, so should be assumed to be acting sincerely (edit: ie without intending to victimize them) unless good reason is provided that they weren't.
Why are you bothering to argue in favour of discrimination?
I see no difference between the men in this case and a straight couple who aren't married, and I think the B&B owners had the right to decide whether to offer them double beds or single.
-
You remind me of an alcoholic I used to know.
Bleedin' tough! I'm teetotal!
And you remind me of a bloke who hated evetyone who wasn't WASP!
-
Bleedin' tough! I'm teetotal!
Good, me too
-
Heterosexual marriage is universally accepted, but not everyone is comfortable with gay partnerships.
That is your perception of their motive, but as I said, if someone needs to do business to make a living, they are more than likely to do all they can to satisfy a customer, so should be assumed to be acting sincerely (edit: ie without intending to victimize them) unless good reason is provided that they weren't.
I see no difference between the men in this case and a straight couple who aren't married, and I think the B&B owners had the right to decide whether to offer them double beds or single.
That's because you are a homophobic bigot
-
Good, me too
But you are a homophobic bigot
-
Bigotry relates to differences of opinion. This case was about beliefs.
Collins English Dictionary
BIGOT - (n) a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, especially on RELIGIOB, politics or race.
BIGOTRY - (n) the attitudes, behaviour. or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice, intolerance
You, Sir. are a bigot and you indulge in bigotry!
-
Quote from: Owlswing on Today at 17:55:32
Bleedin' tough! I'm teetotal!
Response from Spud!
Good, me too
If that is the case I'm about to get totally pissed because there is no way I ever want to be like you in any way, shape, or form!!
-
let's also ask if a mixed race couple went to a B&B but the people who ran it believed it was wrong, would Spud think it was ok if they were asked to have separate rooms? If not why not?
Assuming they are a married couple: It would be unreasonable to offer them separate rooms, because they meet the criteria for marriage (as in the well established estate provided for binding a man and a woman to each other and to any children they have). The equalities act says that religious belief is only protected if it is well established and set out; personal convictions have to be in respect to a deep, or weighty (wrong words maybe?) matter, rather than just an opinion, in order to be protected. Your example doesn't have any firm rationale to it, so wouldn't be ok.
-
Assuming they are a married couple: It would be unreasonable to offer them separate rooms, because they meet the criteria for marriage. The equalities act says that religious belief is only protected if it is well established and set out; personal convictions have to be in respect to a deep, or weighty (wrong words maybe?) matter, rather than just an opinion, in order to be protected. Your example doesn't have any firm rationale to it, so wouldn't be ok.
Bigoted religious convictions like yours deserve no respect or protection, they are highly unpleasant and so very WRONG! >:(
-
Collins English Dictionary
BIGOT - (n) a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, especially on RELIGIOB, politics or race.
BIGOTRY - (n) the attitudes, behaviour. or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice, intolerance
You, Sir. are a bigot and you indulge in bigotry!
If so then you are also, because you are intolerant of my views
-
If so then you are also, because you are intolerant of my views
I suspect if that chap Jesus, was a decent person when alive, he would have been intolerant of your bigotry too.
-
If so then you are also, because you are intolerant of my views
So a racist is exactly the same as an antiracist? You need to think.
-
If so then you are also, because you are intolerant of my views
NEGATIVE -
BIGOT - (n) a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own, especially on RELIGION, politics or race.
You are a bigot on account of your religious views and your intolerance of anyone else's!!
-
Spud you need to read this:
https://www.bigperspectives.com/2019/04/new-study-show-people-who-hate-gays-are.html?
-
Spud you need to read this:
https://www.bigperspectives.com/2019/04/new-study-show-people-who-hate-gays-are.html?
. . . and not just Spud!
No names - No packdrill!
-
Heterosexual marriage is universally accepted, but not everyone is comfortable with gay partnerships.'
Not everyone is comfortable with overt religion, that's not grounds for rejecting someone's business.
That is your perception of their motive, but as I said, if someone needs to do business to make a living, they are more than likely to do all they can to satisfy a customer, so should be assumed to be acting sincerely (edit: ie without intending to victimize them) unless good reason is provided that they weren't.
That's a possibility - however it was shown here that they were victimizing against their business interests in favour of their own bigotry.
I see no difference between the men in this case and a straight couple who aren't married, and I think the B&B owners had the right to decide whether to offer them double beds or single.
Being a B&B owner doesn't entitle you to act as any sort of 'sin police'. You might see no difference between a gay couple and an unmarried couple, but thankfully the law has been updated since 150 AD, unlike your perceptions it seems.
O.
-
Not everyone is comfortable with overt religion, that's not grounds for rejecting someone's business.
That's a possibility - however it was shown here that they were victimizing against their business interests in favour of their own bigotry.
Being a B&B owner doesn't entitle you to act as any sort of 'sin police'. You might see no difference between a gay couple and an unmarried couple, but thankfully the law has been updated since 150 AD, unlike your perceptions it seems.
O.
Please see 1544 and 1551 above and note Spud's pathetic efforts to justify his Christian bigotry!
Even down to denying that Christian beliefs ARE bigotry! wasn't there a song once upon a time, something about "When will they ever learn"?
-
Not everyone is comfortable with overt religion, that's not grounds for rejecting someone's business.
That's a possibility - however it was shown here that they were victimizing against their business interests in favour of their own bigotry.
Being a B&B owner doesn't entitle you to act as any sort of 'sin police'. You might see no difference between a gay couple and an unmarried couple, but thankfully the law has been updated since 150 AD, unlike your perceptions it seems.
O.
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry. I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman. But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to. This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
-
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry. I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman. But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to. This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
YOU UNPLEASANT ANTI-GAY BIGOT! >:( >:( >:( Of course your attitude is harmful you silly man!
-
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry. I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman. But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to. This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
I come back to my previous point. You then have to allow equity of discrimination. So if I find out your views I can refuse you services on the grounds that you are bigoted against me.
BTW you have just pretty much defined victimisation at the same time as denying it.
-
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry. I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman. But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to. This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
You really are a most unpleasant individual!
You use your religion to justify anything and everything that you think, do and feel. For you, your religion can, via that verdampt (sic) and never to be sufficiently cursed book justify absolutely anything from genocide to child murder to anti-homosexual/Lesbain bigotry.
You are a miserable excuse for a human being, a human being with no humanity in him.
I truly hope that your God loves you because I cannot think of anyone else who, in all good conscience, would!
-
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves who stripped him of his raiment and wounded him and left him half dead. By chance there came down a certain priest that way and when he saw him he passed upon the other side. Likewise a Christian, when he arrived at the place, looked on him and passed by on the other side. But a certain homosexual as he journeyed, came to where he was and when he saw him, he had compassion on him and went to him and bound his wounds and brought him to an inn and took care of him. Which now of these three, do you think was the neighbour unto him that fell amongst thieves? Luke 10 (30-36).
-
I wonder if spud thinks homosexuals should seek to be 'cured' of their 'affliction'?
-
I wonder if spud thinks homosexuals should seek to be 'cured' of their 'affliction'?
I think we know the answer to that one ;)
-
I think we know the answer to that one ;)
It should be illegal to offer such a 'cure'.
-
It should be illegal to offer such a 'cure'.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/05/uk-gay-conversion-therapy-lgbt-ban-liz-truss/
-
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/05/uk-gay-conversion-therapy-lgbt-ban-liz-truss/
The sooner the better.
-
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves who stripped him of his raiment and wounded him and left him half dead. By chance there came down a certain priest that way and when he saw him he passed upon the other side. Likewise a Christian, when he arrived at the place, looked on him and passed by on the other side. But a certain homosexual as he journeyed, came to where he was and when he saw him, he had compassion on him and went to him and bound his wounds and brought him to an inn and took care of him. Which now of these three, do you think was the neighbour unto him that fell amongst thieves? Luke 10 (30-36).
Nice one!
-
You should ponder on the implication of that sentence.
You must stop comparing our own times and way of life to a time where people did horrible things like sacrifice their children.
It is clear that we have to use our own intelligence and reasoning when trying to justify something that happened to people in different times and where people psychologically very different.
-
You must stop comparing our own times and way of life to a time where people did horrible things like sacrifice their children.
It is clear that we have to use our own intelligence and reasoning when trying to justify something that happened to people in different times and where people psychologically very different.
Psychologically different, really? How do you make that one out? ::)
-
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry. I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman. But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to. This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
We have been drawing a distinction between public and private actions for years for a reason. Businesses are subject to certain rules that do not exist for private interactions - tax rules, Health & Safety rules, equality rules to name a few. Having weighed up the costs and benefits, voters have repeatedly decided that it is in the best interests of a democratic society that there are common rules everyone has to abide by in terms of how they discriminate against others when doing business. Presumably because businesses are public-facing and use public infrastructure and resources that has been paid for by all tax-payers, therefore it is only fair that the the public get to decide collectively through Parliament about the circumstances where private morality/ preferences/ likes and dislikes can be imposed on others. When this was not regulated in the past, those who did not agree with the discrimination went on strike and/or boycotted businesses and services, and this caused havoc in society as essential jobs were left undone and it was also very bad for the economy.
That's why even when you think an action is wrong - which is your own private morality - you may have to sell it in your business even if you don't want to, but don't have to accept it in private interactions if you don't want to.
-
Psychologically different, really? How do you make that one out? ::)
EASY.. Live in times where it is illegal to harm your child or abuse them. More importantly, as humans the greater majority love their children would die for them.
In them days they readily gave their children to die for an idol and they would sell them to survive. It isn't difficult. Mankind today are selfish too. They can treat people badly because
they themselves have been abused when younger. But truth is knowing right and wrong helps us change who we are and realise we do not have the right to hurt others.
-
You must stop comparing our own times and way of life to a time where people did horrible things like sacrifice their children.
It is clear that we have to use our own intelligence and reasoning when trying to justify something that happened to people in different times and where people psychologically very different.
The nuns in Ireland were sacrificing children not centuries, but decades ago, because, the babies, being illegitimate, they were sending them to purgatory as per God's, your God's, law!
-
EASY.. Live in times where it is illegal to harm your child or abuse them. More importantly, as humans the greater majority love their children would die for them.
In them days they readily gave their children to die for an idol and they would sell them to survive. It isn't difficult . Mankind today are selfish too. They can treat people badly because
they themselves have been abused when younger. But truth is knowing right and wrong helps us change who we are and realise we do not have the right to hurt others.
People still abuse and kill their children today, so nothing much has changed!
Please don't use my given name on forums!
-
The nuns in Ireland were sacrificing children not centuries, but decades ago, because, the babies, being illegitimate, they were sending them to purgatory as per God's, your God's, law!
Owlswing,
Thou shalt not kill. Who do the nuns make their vows to?
Why have children to priest and then put them to death?
The truth is that the ROMAN CATHOLIC church were hiding behind a manmade set of rules and at no time did their actions fit in with the final covenant. Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself. If a nun was following Christ those murders and babies would not have happened. People rebelled because they became angey at being named and shamed made to be cast outs of society. God forgives sinners his son died to save them. Truth is man is too scared in those times of what others think, rather than realising Gods love is about forgiveness and treating others with love.
-
People still abuse and kill their children today, so nothing much has changed!
Please don't use my given name on forums!
Please delete had not realised I had done that Roses.
They get punished now and they don't use their children as human sacrifices.
But you knew that and draw attention away from what you do not want to face.
-
Please delete had not realised I had done that Roses.
They get punished now and they don't use their children as human sacrifices.
But you knew that and draw attention away from what you do not want to face.
What don't I want to face?
-
What don't I want to face?
It is clear in my other posts.
You do not want to face that your arguments have all been dealt with.
You hang on to arguments which are outdated and without any reality regarding the beliefs of others concerning God. Had you really any beliefs that you adhere to then you would not be posting these arguments and you could argue your beliefs reasonably and logically but you never move past them.
-
Owlswing,
Thou shalt not kill. Who do the nuns make their vows to?
Why have children to priest and then put them to death?
The truth is that the ROMAN CATHOLIC church were hiding behind a manmade set of rules and at no time did their actions fit in with the final covenant. Love God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself. If a nun was following Christ those murders and babies would not have happened. People rebelled because they became angey at being named and shamed made to be cast outs of society. God forgives sinners his son died to save them. Truth is man is too scared in those times of what others think, rather than realising Gods love is about forgiveness and treating others with love.
A couple of points!
One - I am NOT, NOT, NOT, talking about nun's murdering their own babies and I am bloody sure that you damn well knew that when you wrote the above. I was and am talking about nuns running orphanages and homes for un-wed pregnant girls thrown out of by their CHRISTIAN parents, where they took the newborn's and chucked them down a well that was later found to contain over 800 - GET THAT 800 corpses!
And don't try and disown the Catholic Church - both it and the Protestants worship the same God! Maybe in different ways but they both use the same benighted book of rules - The BIBLE!
You use the Bible as the rulebook and carefully ignore the bits that don't fit what you want to make you seem holy and righteous.
The stupidity of your beliefs was demonstrated to me when a military Padre preached a sermon to a regiment of soldiers on how they should obey the Ten Commandments and I leave you to work out what is wrong with that!
-
It is clear in my other posts.
You do not want to face that your arguments have all been dealt with.
You hang on to arguments which are outdated and without any reality regarding the beliefs of others concerning God. Had you really any beliefs that you adhere to then you would not be posting these arguments and you could argue your beliefs reasonably and logically but you never move past them.
Oh for pity's sake Sass, you don't half talk some drivel. ::)
-
Oh for pity's sake Sass, you don't half talk some drivel. ::)
Drivel is the tool of choice of most Christians.
-
A couple of points!
One - I am NOT, NOT, NOT, talking about nun's murdering their own babies and I am bloody sure that you damn well knew that when you wrote the above.
DID not know that.
The nuns in Ireland were sacrificing children not centuries, but decades ago, because, the babies, being illegitimate, they were sending them to purgatory as per God's, your God's, law!
Are you saying the babies the nuns gave birth to centuries ago and were killed and threw in lime pits under the Churches were not illegitimate or sent to purgatory? It is a well known fact that children born to pregnant unmarried teenagers were given to childless couples. Where is purgatory in the bible and why would being a child of an unmarried mother be worse than murder?
I was and am talking about nuns running orphanages and homes for un-wed pregnant girls thrown out of by their CHRISTIAN parents, where they took the newborn's and chucked them down a well that was later found to contain over 800 - GET THAT 800 corpses!
Dead babies like still born and how many were born alive to unwedded mothers or even nuns?
Do you think the nuns or the priest run these homes and where would such orders come from? As you do not believe in God who ultimately would be guilty? More importantly who as a parent or mother could really condone this? So if no God then it is surely a mans fault.
And don't try and disown the Catholic Church - both it and the Protestants worship the same God! Maybe in different ways but they both use the same benighted book of rules - The BIBLE!
You forgot the teachings of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH are NOT ALL BIBLE BASED. The protestant Church of England here not in Ireland did not have babies chucked in wells.
Purgatory is not biblical.
The general Protestant view is that the Bible, from which Protestants exclude deuterocanonical books such as 2 Maccabees, contains no overt, explicit discussion of purgatory and therefore it should be rejected as an unbiblical belief.
You use the Bible as the rulebook and carefully ignore the bits that don't fit what you want to make you seem holy and righteous.
Wrong: We read the bible in the context it was meant to be read. The fact is the last covenant mentioned and taught in that bible is about Spirit and Truth. It is not about how the Jews or 12 tribes of Israel came into existence but the purpose and reasons why things happened as they did. Producing the very best and worse of mankind in the world. The last Covenant is about LOVE and if you knew the bible you would know the faith of CHrist in the world today and the reason for the church which is the only true Church not denominations or their unrighteous actions but the true Church of God where mankind loves God and others. So do not refer to my faith as being anything like your concocted beliefs based on lack of understanding about the things you try to discuss.
The stupidity of your beliefs was demonstrated to me when a military Padre preached a sermon to a regiment of soldiers on how they should obey the Ten Commandments and I leave you to work out what is wrong with that!
There you go again completely ignoring the truth about my beliefs. When and which padre told a regiment they should obey the 10 commandments? Now I will ask you a question.
Those 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not kill." So you have a wife and children and you own a gun. Men burst into your home. You can kill them all and save your wife and children being raped and then murdered. Which do you choose and more importantly why?
Which do you think God would expect you to choose?
-
It is a well- known fact that children born to pregnant unmarried teenagers were given to childless couples. Where is purgatory in the bible and why would being a child of an unmarried mother be worse than murder? . . . .
When and which padre told a regiment they should obey the 10 commandments?
1962 - His name I forget but he was a Regimental Padre in the Royal Armoured Corps.
Those 10 commandments say "Thou shalt not kill." So you have a wife and children and you own a gun. Men burst into your home. You can kill them all and save your wife and children being raped and then murdered. Which do you choose and more importantly why?
ARE YOU TOTALLY DEAF? Or just plain stupid?
I AM TALKING ABOUT SOLDIERS! Regular Army soldiers! Not some civilian sitting comfortably in his own home!
[/quote]
Sassy - as far as I am concerned the only description I can attach to you is THOROUGHLY COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED and beyond medical help of any sort.
Have it your way, I really cannot be bothered with you any longer, the only choice you have left me is to return to the state I was at before I took a computer enforced holiday from this Forum.
To totally ignore you.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
)O(
Owlswing - Pagan, Priest and Witch in the Third Degree
-
1962 - His name I forget but he was a Regimental Padre in the Royal Armoured Corps.
ARE YOU TOTALLY DEAF? Or just plain stupid?
None of the above... as you can see there is nothing to HEAR and my replies show that you would not be speaking to me if you thought me stupid as it makes you look stupid too.
Asking me if I am totally deaf is the stupidest thing you have written on a forum where we write.
I AM TALKING ABOUT SOLDIERS! Regular Army soldiers! Not some civilian sitting comfortably in his own home!
Where was this issue raised?
Sassy - as far as I am concerned the only description I can attach to you is THOROUGHLY COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED and beyond medical help of any sort.
Have it your way, I really cannot be bothered with you any longer, the only choice you have left me is to return to the state I was at before I took a computer enforced holiday from this Forum.
To totally ignore you.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
)O(
Owlswing - Pagan, Priest and Witch in the Third Degree
So you run away when you are questioned and asked to prove what you state and someone questions your reasoning. Truth is you DO NOT CHOSE to ignore me. The TRUTH is you realise that you have nothing to support your arguments or even you way of reasoning with matters of faith. I bear no ill will or feeling. Enjoy your break. Would be useful to concentrate on what you wrote and why you could not answer.
-
What have you got to support your arguments, Sass?
-
The reason I don't see any difference is that I don't believe two gay men can marry.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/contents) It's fairly clear that they can, here's a link to the text of the parliamentary act that made it so.
I've explained this in #61 on the gay marriage thread: marriage is, always has been and always will be a contract for a man and a woman.
And even a cursory glance at history will show that this is absolute nonsense. At the height of Christian power in the European middle ages marriage was a contract between a husband and his father-in-law (or potential bride's other male guardian/governor). Marriage throughout the Islamic world involves a man and up to four wives, marriage in various places around the world has been between gay people in the past. Christianity (or its predecessor, Judaism) did not 'invent' the concept of marriage, nor is it solely from those traditions that the world gets influences on the concept.
If you choose to cleave to a particular interpretation of marriage based upon your take on Christian scripture and history that's fine, but it's pure arrogance to assume that your selective interpretation applies to anyone else who doesn't also choose it for themselves.
But the point is, I believe homosexual sex, like unmarried sex, to be wrong, and I don't have to sell it in my business if I don't want to.[/qoute]
And, again, what you choose to believe is up to you right up until it starts to impact on other people's lives - we, as a society, have decided that you can believe whatever nonsense you like, but you have to act reasonably. Denying people service because of your particular interpretation of religious texts is something we've collectively decided isn't acceptable.
This might offend a customer, but it isn't victimization and it doesn't harm him, though he may pretend it does.
If it offends, it harms. If it's targetted at a particular group - as this very obviously is - then it's victimization.
What you need to remember here is that your religious beliefs are a choice; people's sexuality isn't.
O.
-
Were the B&B owners being required to campaign for gay rights?
No, but then, they weren't refusing the gay couple accommodation, only a double bed, because that would be specifically facilitating what they disapprove of, i.e. gay sex. Doctors refusing to treat patients because they disapprove of their lifestyle is not a valid analogy.
-
No, but then, they weren't refusing the gay couple accommodation, only a double bed, because that would be specifically facilitating what they disapprove of, i.e. gay sex. Doctors refusing to treat patients because they disapprove of their lifestyle is not a valid analogy.
A gay couple have as much right to a double bed as a heterosexual couple. Anti-gay bigots should NOT be running a guest house. It is as bad as refusing to let a couple, one of whom is black and the other white, have a double bed because one doesn't approve of mixed race marriages. >:(
-
No, but then, they weren't refusing the gay couple accommodation, only a double bed, because that would be specifically facilitating what they disapprove of, i.e. gay sex. Doctors refusing to treat patients because they disapprove of their lifestyle is not a valid analogy.
It seems valid to me: these doctors would be denying certain patients access to the full range of the medical services they offer based on their (the doctors) personal disapproval of certain specific aspects of the personal characteristics of these patients.
-
It seems valid to me: these doctors would be denying certain patients access to the full range of the medical services they offer based on their (the doctors) personal disapproval of certain specific aspects of the personal characteristics of these patients.
I think it is valid too.
-
All you have done Steve is make it clear you are in favour of upholding discrimination against homosexuals.
If you do believe this is acceptable you have to allow everybody else the opportunity to act on their prejudices.
I'm not going to swear but you really make me want to. You devalue every gay persons life with this attitude, I despise it.
-
All you have done Steve is make it clear you are in favour of upholding discrimination against homosexuals.
If you do believe this is acceptable you have to allow everybody else the opportunity to act on their prejudices.
I'm not going to swear but you really make me want to. You devalue every gay persons life with this attitude, I despise it.
Read my post again: all I was doing was pointing out the invalidity of the analogy. I don't agree with the B&B owners' actions or attitude.
-
Read my post again: all I was doing was pointing out the invalidity of the analogy. I don't agree with the B&B owners' actions or attitude.
And yet your position is that there should be religious based exemptions allowing for discrimination.
-
All you have done Steve is make it clear you are in favour of upholding discrimination against homosexuals.
If you do believe this is acceptable you have to allow everybody else the opportunity to act on their prejudices.
I'm not going to swear but you really make me want to. You devalue every gay persons life with this attitude, I despise it.
I agree with you, I despise his attitude too.
-
Read my post again: all I was doing was pointing out the invalidity of the analogy. I don't agree with the B&B owners' actions or attitude.
Read my post. Will you allow equality of discrimination?
-
You are obviously determined to be outraged, whatever I say, so I don't think I'll bother replying any more. As for JJ. she really is one of the biggest bigots on this forum. She's just flounced yet again from the other one, because some people had the nerve to disagree with her.
Nice to see you take a position that religious people should have some ability to discriminate against gay people, and when a gay person challenged you on it tell them off and imply that they are lying about being outraged, and indulge in a piece of irrelevant whataboutery about someone else's actions on a different board.
-
You are obviously determined to be outraged, whatever I say, so I don't think I'll bother replying any more. As for JJ. she really is one of the biggest bigots on this forum. She's just flounced yet again from the other one, because some people had the nerve to disagree with her.
NO idea about LR flouncing elsewhere, that's entirely her decision and right, don't see the relevance here.
If you insist on supporting prejudice against me do you really think I am just going to stay quiet?
If so you sound to be operating in much the same way that you claim LR is doing.
That is, hiding when challenged.
-
Moderator:
Please note that several recent posts have been removed since they involved discussion of events in another Forum, and included references to the activities of identifiable people who aren't actively posting here: this Forum should not be used to rehearse issues occurring elsewhere.
-
Sorry Gordon. :-[
-
Oops - sorry. Should've known not to.
-
NO idea about LR flouncing elsewhere, that's entirely her decision and right, don't see the relevance here.
If you insist on supporting prejudice against me do you really think I am just going to stay quiet?
If so you sound to be operating in much the same way that you claim LR is doing.
That is, hiding when challenged.
I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.
-
I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.
You then validate that prejudice. You say people should have the right to treat gay people worse. Would you do the same for black people? If not, why not?
-
I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.
So, what does 'the right of people to be prejudiced' actually mean?
-
So, what does 'the right of people to be prejudiced' actually mean?
Seems clear enough to me.
-
Seems clear enough to me.
Certainly not to me, explain.
-
I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.
It is the same thing as soon as you can foresee a situation where one of the prejudices people might choose to manifest is against him. You can't have prejudice independent of the people it's aimed at - you can't be homophobic and not consider that it's targetted at gay people.
At the same time, you can't control what people think - all we can do is try to create a society where we educate children to be better, and implement laws to limit what the people with the prejudices can do to manifest those into problems for people in their everyday life.
O.
-
Seems clear enough to me.
And to me- it means you want people to be allowed to be actively prejudiced against homosexual. It means you support a society based on prejudice against homosexuals. It means that you are homophobic.
-
It is the same thing as soon as you can foresee a situation where one of the prejudices people might choose to manifest is against him. You can't have prejudice independent of the people it's aimed at - you can't be homophobic and not consider that it's targetted at gay people.
At the same time, you can't control what people think - all we can do is try to create a society where we educate children to be better, and implement laws to limit what the people with the prejudices can do to manifest those into problems for people in their everyday life.
O.
And Steve is actively supporting keeping that prejudice in society. He wants children to be taught that is legal to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks some people should have the right to do so.
-
Certainly not to me, explain.
People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)
-
Steve.
Keep on digging.
I have a spare shovel if needed.
-
People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)
A right based on what? Or is this just a fundamental human right, you think, to judge an entire group of people based on no knowledge of them as individuals but out-grouping them based on an immutable trait?
O.
-
A right based on what? Or is this just a fundamental human right, you think, to judge an entire group of people based on no knowledge of them as individuals but out-grouping them based on an immutable trait?
O.
And how do you propose stopping them being prejudiced - lobotomies?
-
And how do you propose stopping them being prejudiced - lobotomies?
I've already said that you can't control what people think, but you can put limitations on what people do. You framing this as a right, you suggesting that people should be allowed to discriminate - that's not failing to control what they think, that's failing to control what they do.
You're advocating people being penalised because of what they are.
What 'right' is it that you're seeing here?
O.
-
People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)
I'm not confused you support some people's right to be act in a prejudiced manner against homosexuals in some circumstances. You support it to be legally enshrined that they have that right. You are a homophobe.
Again would you support the right to be prejudiced against black people in certain circumstances? If not, why not?
-
People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)
Why have they a right to be prejudiced?
-
Why have they a right to be prejudiced?
Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?
-
Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?
Disingenuous. You are supporting people's rights in certain circumstances to act in a prejudicial manner to homosexuals - so portraying it as simply freedom of thought is not in line with that.
-
Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?
So freedom of thought and speech, which is racist or homophobic is a fundamental right is it?
-
Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?
What you're suggesting, though, goes beyond merely letting people think or say what they feel, you want them to have the right to deny service. I fully support freedom of speech, I don't see any way to prevent freedom of thought even if I were so inclined; neither of those, though, extends to prejudicial behaviour.
O.
-
Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists. However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.
-
And to me- it means you want people to be allowed to be actively prejudiced against homosexual. It means you support a society based on prejudice against homosexuals. It means that you are homophobic.
*Sigh...*
I am emphatically not a homophobe, but neither do I support the idea of thought-control.
-
So freedom of thought and speech, which is racist or homophobic is a fundamental right is it?
Yes. If you want to live in Orwell's 1984, fine; I don't.
-
*Sigh...*
I am emphatically not a homophobe, but neither do I support the idea of thought-control.
I didn't say you did. I said you want legally people to have the right to discriminate against homosexuals in certain circumstances. You are supporting homosexuals being treated as second class citizens. You are a homophobe
-
Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists.
The argument could be made that abetting misogyny or homophobia is complicity. That you dislike the attitude is the most important thing here, I'd not really acknowledged or appreciated that.
I'm not sure I'd agree that I see grounds for one particular type of group to be permitted to continue their discrimination. The law, as written, grants people the right to discriminate if doing so is justifiable to achieve some other benefit (i.e. to redress existing imbalances, to acknowledge physiological differences). I don't see how the right of the religious to persist with misogyny and homophobia fulfils those criteria.
However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.
Fair enough.
O.
-
Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists. However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.
But you have already said that you support the right of people in certain circumstances to legally discriminate against homosexuals. Adding in MPs is simply an attempt to appeal to authority and numbers. You support treating homosexuals as second class citizens - that is why you are a homophobe.
-
I can only take so much self-righteous sanctimoniosity, so I'm off this tread for now.
-
I can only take so much self-righteous sanctimoniosity, so I'm off this tread for now.
You are the self-righteous sanctimonious one on this thread. No doubt you will be back posting on it again very soon. ;D
-
I can only take so much self-righteous sanctimoniosity, so I'm off this tread for now.
Because objecting to you telling Trentvoyager that you think people should be allowed to treat him as a second class citizen is just self righteous 'sanctimoniosity'. Keep telling yourself that.
-
Seems clear enough to me.
Oh I get that people have a right to think whatever they like, and that is an internal subjective process.
The issue though, since we are talking 'rights', is how a 'right' to be prejudiced is qualified and what obligations this 'right' entails in respect of interactions across society at large.
-
I can only take so much self-righteous sanctimoniosity, so I'm off this tread for now.
I think the point is that you are correct that people can think what they like. This is obviously true.
But I think but correct me if I am wrong, that you think they this should allow them to act in accordance with their beliefs?
-
I think the point is that you are correct that people can think what they like. This is obviously true.
But I think but correct me if I am wrong, that you think they this should allow them to act in accordance with their beliefs?
In which case ISIS should be permitted to act in the way they are doing, and kill people who don't see it their way. :o
-
I think the point is that you are correct that people can think what they like. This is obviously true.
But I think but correct me if I am wrong, that you think they this should allow them to act in accordance with their beliefs?
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
-
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
Special privileges for those who will not admit that their deity may be non-existent, may only be, in fact, most probably are, a matter of their faith without any evidence of it being a fact!
Why? So you can legally be an anti-gay bigot?
-
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
Are conscience clauses exclusively to cater for the prejudices of conservative religious people: and is that people of all religions, or just Christians?
If not, then presumably us non-religious people could request a conscience clause to justify a stance against any allowing any religious tradition(s) to have any special status as regards social policy if that tradition is being used to justify any form of discrimination or if it involves any form of restraint in choice, trade or social interaction.
-
In which case ISIS should be permitted to act in the way they are doing, and kill people who don't see it their way. :o
Except in the matter in question it is more a case of not acting.
-
It seems valid to me: these doctors would be denying certain patients access to the full range of the medical services they offer based on their (the doctors) personal disapproval of certain specific aspects of the personal characteristics of these patients.
You've moved from a doctor denying treatment to an anti-gay rights activist, to denying it to a gay person, I think?
The comparison was with denying a double bed to a gay couple. One is allowing someone to potentially die, the other is denying someone access to sexual activity.
-
You've moved from a doctor denying treatment to an anti-gay rights activist, to denying it to a gay person, I think?
The comparison was with denying a double bed to a gay couple. One is allowing someone to potentially die, the other is denying someone access to sexual activity.
No - both cases involve a restriction in the services offered (certain type of bed or medical treatment) due to the prejudices of the service provider.
-
You've moved from a doctor denying treatment to an anti-gay rights activist, to denying it to a gay person, I think?
The comparison was with denying a double bed to a gay couple. One is allowing someone to potentially die, the other is denying someone access to sexual activity.
What a surprise! Homophobic person hung up on the idea of sexual activity. There's been many a time when I have stayed in hotels and b'n'bs with my partner and not had sex. But I do like sleeping with my partner. It gives me joy and comfort to fall asleep in their arms.
But you want that stopped for gay people because you want them to be treated as second class citizens, my little homophobic tuber.
And mindblowingly I have had sex in a single bed!
-
You've moved from a doctor denying treatment to an anti-gay rights activist, to denying it to a gay person, I think?
The comparison was with denying a double bed to a gay couple. One is allowing someone to potentially die, the other is denying someone access to sexual activity.
Gays have as much right to have sex in a double bed as heterosexuals.
-
Gays have as much right to have sex in a double bed as heterosexuals.
Missing the point in classic LR fashion.
-
Missing the point in classic LR fashion.
No I am not. Gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
-
You've moved from a doctor denying treatment to an anti-gay rights activist, to denying it to a gay person, I think?
The comparison was with denying a double bed to a gay couple. One is allowing someone to potentially die, the other is denying someone access to sexual activity.
No you are missing the point. I was taking it to something of an extreme. My point is you don't get to decide to be able to discriminate without any repercussions. If you want to discriminate on religious grounds then you have to allow others to discriminate on their own defined terms,if you don't allow that you are ....guess what..... discriminating against them.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card to be played when you want to uphold centuries of religious bigotry against gay people.
-
No you are missing the point. I was taking it to something of an extreme. My point is you don't get to decide to be able to discriminate without any repercussions. If you want to discriminate on religious grounds then you have to allow others to discriminate on their own defined terms,if you don't allow that you are ....guess what..... discriminating against them.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card to be played when you want to uphold centuries of religious bigotry against gay people.
Good comment.
-
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
I'm presuming you mean religious institutions - churches, mosques - rather than individuals?
O.
-
Except in the matter in question it is more a case of not acting.
Refusing specific groups or classes of people is an active choice.
O.
-
I'm presuming you mean religious institutions - churches, mosques - rather than individuals?
O.
Yes. Not sure, tbh, about whether B&B owners should be allowed to refuse a gay couple a double bed - they certainly shouldn't be allowed to refuse them altogether, and I've never suggested otherwise, despite the wilful misunderstanding of some posters - but there should be limited allowance for religious bodies to discriminate against women in the priesthood (or equivalent - minsters, Imams, Rabbis, etc). However, the C of E, as I've said before, has gone much to far in pandering to the misogyny of 'Backward in Bigotry'.
-
Yes. Not sure, tbh, about whether B&B owners should be allowed to refuse a gay couple a double bed - they certainly shouldn't be allowed to refuse them altogether, and I've never suggested otherwise, despite the wilful misunderstanding of some posters - but there should be limited allowance for religious bodies to discriminate against women in the priesthood (or equivalent - minsters, Imams, Rabbis, etc). However, the C of E, as I've said before, has gone much to far in pandering to the misogyny of 'Backward in Bigotry'.
It's the fact that you want to give rights to individuals to treat homosexual people as second class citizens that you have been picked up on, no matter how much you wrongfully whinge about 'wilful misunderstandings'.
-
Yes. Not sure, tbh, about whether B&B owners should be allowed to refuse a gay couple a double bed - they certainly shouldn't be allowed to refuse them altogether, and I've never suggested otherwise, despite the wilful misunderstanding of some posters - but there should be limited allowance for religious bodies to discriminate against women in the priesthood (or equivalent - minsters, Imams, Rabbis, etc). However, the C of E, as I've said before, has gone much to far in pandering to the misogyny of 'Backward in Bigotry'.
I'm against religious organisations being able to discriminate, but I understand the argument for it. The B&B owners it's a clear-cut no, for me - that's not a religious activity, that's a business. You can argue whether Churches are running as businesses too much, but they are certainly actively conducting religious activity at least part of the time. Once you allow them the right to discriminate you run into all sorts of knock-on problems - is a Catholic school a religious or educational enterprise, and should they be allowed to discriminate against gay teachers, for instance.
A B&B, though, no matter how devoted/fervent/rabidly dogmatic the owners is not an expression of their religion, and so doesn't get the exemption. The depth of somebody's belief is not the measure, it's the nature of their activity - if their belief system prevents them from behaving in a manner that's acceptable to broader society that's their issue in exactly the same way that a murderous psychopath, a misogynistic rapist or a racist thug needs to moderate their internal beliefs in order to accommodate the social contract we all work under.
O.
-
Steve, you wrote:
I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.
I think this is the bit that is confusing me, and possibly others.
If you don't support prejudice against me, how can you support the right of people to be prejudiced against me, if they are then able to act on that prejudice by refusing myself and my partner a double bed?
What you appear to be saying is I am not prejudiced, but I recognise the rights of others to discriminate against gay people.
Is this really what you mean?
-
Steve, you wrote:
I think this is the bit that is confusing me, and possibly others.
If you don't support prejudice against me, how can you support the right of people to be prejudiced against me, if they are then able to act on that prejudice by refusing myself and my partner a double bed?
What you appear to be saying is I am not prejudiced, but I recognise the rights of others to discriminate against gay people.
Is this really what you mean?
I've made it perfectly clear more than once that I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate in practise, but they should be allowed to be prejudiced, and to express their obnoxious opinions, within limits that already exist. Maybe the B&B owners should not be allowed to refuse a double bed, but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity. They knew in advance of the views and policy of the B&B owners.
-
No - both cases involve a restriction in the services offered (certain type of bed or medical treatment) due to the prejudices of the service provider.
That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.
I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.
-
That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.
I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.
Being treated as second class citizens is harming the people. Would you support it being ok for the BnB owners to turn away black people?
-
I've made it perfectly clear more than once that I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate in practise, but they should be allowed to be prejudiced, and to express their obnoxious opinions, within limits that already exist. Maybe the B&B owners should not be allowed to refuse a double bed, but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity. They knew in advance of the views and policy of the B&B owners.
Isn't that their right of free speech?
O.
-
I've made it perfectly clear more than once that I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate in practise, but they should be allowed to be prejudiced, and to express their obnoxious opinions, within limits that already exist. Maybe the B&B owners should not be allowed to refuse a double bed, but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity. They knew in advance of the views and policy of the B&B owners.
Imagine those gay trouble makers wanted to be treated equally.. What is they were black people, and the owners wanted to discriminate against them?
-
That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.
Being discriminated against is being caused harm. The more widespread and the more acceptable it is, the more widespread and pernicious the harm.
I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to.
The Equalities Act's provision do not distinguish between types of organisation in that sense - a non-profit is still an organisation subject to the rules. If they aren't taking payment at all - even in goods in kind or services - then it becomes a purely personal venture and they're effectively inviting guests into their home. You can discriminate in your private affairs if you want, you just can't take cash for discrimination.
It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
A distinction needs to be drawn here between non-profit - who can charge fees, cover their costs, invest in the development of the business - and a non-commercial venture where money doesn't change hands.
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.
It doesn't seem harsh at all to say that you can believe whatever you want to believe in private but your business doesn't get to ignore overdue legislation because you as the owner are a bigot. When the Disability Discrimination Act came into force people objected to being 'forced' to employ 'spastics'; when the far-less all encompassing Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force there were sections of the populace who railed against the idea that a woman could even contemplate doing a man's job, let alone being paid equally for it.
These ideas are generally seen as patent nonsense now - they were patent nonsense then, but they weren't necessarily seen as such by everyone. This idea that some sorts of bigotry are acceptable is patent nonsense, and soon that won't even be considered worth talking about.
O.
-
That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.
I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.
Those unpleasant religious bigots don't deserve any consideration whatsoever.
-
Those unpleasant religious bigots don't deserve any consideration whatsoever.
Everyone deserves consideration. If you want people's opinions to change, you don't achieve that by haranguing or ostracising them - their ideas, yes, but not them.
O.
-
Everyone deserves consideration. If you want people's opinions to change, you don't achieve that by haranguing or ostracising them - their ideas, yes, but not them.
O.
If they are doing something wrong, which they are, they deserve to be ostracised.
-
That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.
Both cause harm: discrimination leading to unequal access to services is harmful by being demeaning to those discriminated against and being the cause of social discord - as we see from the varying views expressed in this thread.
I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
They can hold discriminatory personal views, be they religious or not, but as soon as they place themselves in a position of inviting social interaction from the populace at large then, and irrespective of how they fund this, they are required to act fairly - this isn't rocket science, Spud.
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.
I'd say it is more the case that society in general benefits from constraining examples of overt homophobic bigotry.
-
but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity.
Irrelevant.
-
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
Why?
Once you start allowing certain discrimination where does it end, who decides.
You are advocating discrimination.
-
Why?
Once you start allowing certain discrimination where does it end, who decides.
You are advocating discrimination.
Quite right.
-
No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.
Why should conscience clauses only apply to religious people?
Surely that is inherently discriminatory if someone with an extremely firmly held belief is allowed a conscience clause opt-out to the law if they are religious, while someone else with an equally firmly held belief is denied an opt out to the law as they are not religious.
Any conscience clause has to be based on how firmly and consistently that view is held by an individual not whether the individual is religious or not nor whether the belief derives from religion or not.
-
It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
No - whether an organisation is for-profit or not-for-profit makes no fundamental difference to their requirement to abide by equalities legislation. A charity is held to the same rules on discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services as a for-profit company.
-
If something is wrong like being an anti-gay bigot no exceptions should be made, religion should never be permitted as an excuse for bigotry.
-
Both cause harm: discrimination leading to unequal access to services is harmful by being demeaning to those discriminated against and being the cause of social discord - as we see from the varying views expressed in this thread.
They can hold discriminatory personal views, be they religious or not, but as soon as they place themselves in a position of inviting social interaction from the populace at large then, and irrespective of how they fund this, they are required to act fairly - this isn't rocket science, Spud.
I'd say it is more the case that society in general benefits from constraining examples of overt homophobic bigotry.
It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte
-
It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte
Say they didn't want to support a mixed race marriage? Would you be fine with that?
-
It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte
Religious convictions of that sort are sick and should be disregarded.
-
It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions." https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte
And yet, at the same time, we now have taxpayers forced to fund religious schools in the US, following last week's Supreme Court decision - either personal opinion is important or it isn't, or you have religious privilege. It seems that the US, currently, is moving towards the position that the religious should have entitlements that, say, gay people shouldn't.
It really is as simple as insisting on equal access to services. If you can discriminate because of a 'sincere belief', then there is no equality, there is no means by which minority groups can be defended from discrimination. Asking someone who bakes cakes for a living to bake a cake is not an unwarranted assault on their belief; if they can't bring themselves to live and let live they shouldn't be putting themselves in the position where they have to make the choice. No gay people forced them to become bakers, that was a choice. No gay people forced them to become homophobic fairy-tale believers, that was a choice.
O.
-
Say they didn't want to support a mixed race marriage? Would you be fine with that?
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.
You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.
-
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is a perversion of the normal use for sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.
You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.
You are using your version of god, which probably doesn't exist, to back your highly unpleasant anti-gay bigotry.
-
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.
You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.
You haven't really grasped that marriage is a social construct that has changed over the years have you?
At what point in time do you wish to preserve marriage in Aspic? Do you want to take the time of Christ's life for example?
-
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
....
Since I didn't suggest that because mixed race marriage being fine means same sex marriage is fine, the entirety of your post is irrelevant
-
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.
You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.
This is as good an example of condensed idiocy as I've seen for a while.
1. Marriage is a social construct: it is both variable at any one time and changes over time, and is not the property of the religiously inclined.
2. Sexual orientation leads to the possibility of sexual activity in line with that orientation: you don't get to accept the former but deny the latter because you don't approve. As regards what consenting adults do - it is none of your business, Spud.
3. If traders don't wish to provide their services freely and equally because of their religious views, and in prioritising their beliefs they deny their services to those they disapprove of, then the answer is simple: they need to get out of the market-place.
4. Would black people in Scotland be better off moving south - would Carlisle be far enough south do you think?
I think you need to do more thinking.
-
4. Would black people in Scotland be better off moving south - would Carlisle be far enough south do you think?
Probably cheaper to get a supply of Vit D pills from Wilko's* (* alternative retailers are available)
-
Probably cheaper to get a supply of Vit D pills from Wilko's* (* alternative retailers are available)
Surely Spud must have thought of that before advising relocation from Scotland to sun-drenched areas such as, say, Wetherby.
-
Surely Spud must have thought of that before advising relocation from Scotland to sun-drenched areas such as, say, Wetherby.
Vitamin pills are probably the work of the devil.
-
Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're well aware of the difference between the biological and commonplace usage of race, here.
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
How? Are people discriminate against not for being black, but for 'acting upon their blackness'?
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman.
Then he probably shouldn't have same-sex sex; why does his delusion, though, impose a restriction on anyone else?
Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved.
Which equally applies to someone who stupidly thinks that there's an issue with a black man and a white woman having sex.
Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is.
Do you not? And when you live in a locale where this sort of stupidity is rife, what then? What if there isn't another florist, or baker, or doctor, or abortion provider, or undertaker...
I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.
Turning people away based on their nature is intrinsically hateful.
You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude?
You might, if you were a fucking moron.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
The marriage vow isn't inherently anything; the marriage vow is whatever the culture in which it's made has decided to collectively agree to it being.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.
Providing a cake for a wedding is not 'participating' in same-sex marriage, it's selling a cake. On that basis bigots shouldn't have to pay taxes because some of that money might go to pay for registrars who register gay weddings, or nurses who keep husbands and wives alive without asking important questions like 'are you or have you ever been in a perfectly acceptable relationship that might make a twat foam at the mouth'.
O.
-
Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're well aware of the difference between the biological and commonplace usage of race, here.
How? Are people discriminate against not for being black, but for 'acting upon their blackness'?
Then he probably shouldn't have same-sex sex; why does his delusion, though, impose a restriction on anyone else?
Which equally applies to someone who stupidly thinks that there's an issue with a black man and a white woman having sex.
Do you not? And when you live in a locale where this sort of stupidity is rife, what then? What if there isn't another florist, or baker, or doctor, or abortion provider, or undertaker...
Turning people away based on their nature is intrinsically hateful.
You might, if you were a fucking moron.
The marriage vow isn't inherently anything; the marriage vow is whatever the culture in which it's made has decided to collectively agree to it being.
Providing a cake for a wedding is not 'participating' in same-sex marriage, it's selling a cake. On that basis bigots shouldn't have to pay taxes because some of that money might go to pay for registrars who register gay weddings, or nurses who keep husbands and wives alive without asking important questions like 'are you or have you ever been in a perfectly acceptable relationship that might make a twat foam at the mouth'.
O.
Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.
-
Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.
No, he wants them to do their job and not be a bunch of homophobic bigots like you.
-
Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.
All your 'points' are spurious ones: if you are a baker then you bake what the customer wants cake-wise irrespective of your personal opinions, else don't be a baker.
-
You want to make them redundant.
Nope. They want to make themselves redundant.
You haven't yet answered my question about reciprocal arrangements.
If Christians have the right to decide who to serve on the basis of their sincerely held beliefs (prejudices) then you must allow it for everybody else.
My sincerely held beliefs are as valid as yours. If you think they are not, how do we decide? Who judges? And who judges the judge?
-
Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.
You points aren't worth making as they are homophobic and very nasty. I know I have said it many times, but it would be great if that guy, Jesus, had a gay sexual relationship with the specific disciple the gospels state he loved. If it was possible to prove that was a fact, the look on the faces of anti-gay Christians would be wonderful to behold, LOL!
-
Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.
If, as a photographer, you think you're taking part in the wedding then you've missed your brief. If, as a caterer, you think you're taking part in a wedding then you've misunderstood the nature of the relationship, which might explain why you think it's your place to object. If, as a member of society, you think it's your place to deny people access to a perfectly normal everyday activity that you offer for money because you have an issue, then you have identified the wrong issue.
I don't want to make them redundant, I want to make them grow up and accept that not everyone thinks the same as they do, but that's ok.
As to 'missing your points'...
1 - you attempted a sophistric 'bait and switch' by conflating two different uses of race, and I pointed this out rather than leave you with the impression that you actually had made a valid point.
2 - you tried the now old-hat move of 'be gay but don't do gay', like that's somehow an acceptable differentiation, and you suggested that it was the difference between racism and homophobia: yet black history is replete with examples of their culture - the 'doing' black rather than being black - being oppressed: accepted beauty standards, acceptable workplace hairstyles, rock and roll being castigated as the Devil's music. Homophobia is still catching up to racism, we haven't got to the part where it's overwhelmingly just the statistical, institutional residue that's affecting people with the odd smattering of actively malicious bigotry, it's still very much in the mainstream for gay people.
You then tried to suggest that not baking a cake was the moral equivalent of conscientious objection, which frankly is insulting to pretty much everyone involved not least the innumerable conscientious objectors who put their own lives on the line in various medical services rather than put other people's lives on the line by taking up arms. They made their issues solely their's, and still played their part for the greater good.
Then I showed you how directly comparable your 'gay objection' was to 'miscegenation objection', which you neatly avoided addressing.
Then you tried to make the 'but there are other florists' argument, which is freely admitting that there should be a burden on gay people that isn't on others to suit your bigotry - it's your bigotry, it's your issue, it's your problem, it's for you to deal with not them.
Then you misunderstood the nature of the concept of marriage, and I corrected you on that.
So if you can show me which point of yours I missed, I'll be more than happy to clarify.
O.
-
Hello Out,
Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.
Your point about race: even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is morally wrong for a same sex couple.
Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses. Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector.
Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.
As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.
As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit. Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.
-
You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
And I wonder why that is?
Could it be anything to do with societal disapproval, disapproval from their family, their friends, in some cases their church, in some cases the fear still engendered by threats to their physical well being by thugs who think it's fun to beat up gay people ?
Add all that together and there is no wonder that gay people have significantly more mental health issues than the general population and that they then get into a position where they say "I'd rather not be gay".
But that is not a free choice you are talking about. That is a choice forced on them by ignorant, prejudiced, stupid bigots.
-
Hello Out,
Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.
Your point about race: even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is morally wrong for a same sex couple.
Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses. Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector.
Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.
As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.
As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit. Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.
You are a hateful person, I hope you don't have children your sick bigotry would not have been a good influence at all. >:( >:( >:(
-
You are a hateful person, I hope you don't have children your sick bigotry would not have been a good influence at all. >:( >:( >:(
And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.
-
Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.
So we shouldn't put murderers in prison because it means they have to give up their profession in order to learn that they were wrong?
Your point about race: even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is morally wrong for a same sex couple.
Their moral stance, though, is their issue, and should only impose restrictions on their behaviour. I don't get to say that stupidity is immoral, and therefore everyone should be banned from churches and homeopathy; I can, in our current society, make a case that one or both of those is sufficiently harmful that I think our society should prohibit it, and if enough people agree then we update our collective social contract to make it illegal.
Tellingly we've done that with discrimination on the grounds of race, sexuality, age, disability, gender identity, religious belief and sex; what we haven't done is impose it on having other people do things you don't like.
Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
I don't forget, it's just they aren't relevant to the discussion. It's not for you to impose limitations on people who aren't causing anyone any harm, it's for them to determine if they are happy with their life choices. If they come to you and ask for help or an opinion, give it freely; if they come to you for a cake because you're a baker shut the fuck up and make them a damned cake.
Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses.
Nobody is asking them to be immoral; they're being asked to bake a cake, which they're perfectly happy to do the rest of the time. Nobody's asking them to support the concept of gay marriage; if it comes up in a referendum, they can vote however they want. They're being asked, given that they've pitched to the world that they're bakers, to bake a cake.
Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector. Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.
If you don't like the rules, you can either pitch to change them (we live in a democracy, of sorts, after all) or you can try to emigrate to a society which cleaves more closely to your beliefs for now - I hear Iran is nice,this time of year.
As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.
Is it 'external pressure'? That 'pressure' presumably was on other people, who didn't have the issue - maybe it was 'internal' pressure brought about by your particular stance?
As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit.
If your definition goes beyond what the law sets, then you're perfectly at liberty to hold to that definition for you, for others in your club who choose to adopt the same definition. You don't get to decide that for other people, though.
Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.
Or to accept that other people have other positions and it's not your place to try to enforce your particular choices on other people.
O.
-
And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.
I don't tolerate anti-gay cretins, they are evil. It would appear that you are supportive of anti-gay bigots, which doesn't do you any credit. >:(
-
I don't tolerate anti-gay cretins, they are evil. It would appear that you are supportive of anti-gay bigots, which doesn't do you any credit. >:(
What I think when I see yet another of your predictable posts. (https://flic.kr/p/2jjvDGn)
-
if you are a baker then you bake what the customer wants cake-wise irrespective of your personal opinions, else don't be a baker.
I would disagree with that. If free speech means anything it includes the right not to speak. A baker who strongly disagrees with a message they are asked to incorporate in their goods has the right - or should have the right - to refuse the business. I see no reason why a baker should be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika, for example.
There is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake because of the message it incorporates and refusing to bake a cake because of who is asking you to bake it.
-
I would disagree with that. If free speech means anything it includes the right not to speak. A baker who strongly disagrees with a message they are asked to incorporate in their goods has the right - or should have the right - to refuse the business. I see no reason why a baker should be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika, for example.
Refusing to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika already has protections under the hate speech clauses of the regulations; as to whether it's a free speech issue, as the baker you aren't saying anything, the person putting the order is saying it.
There is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake because of the message it incorporates and refusing to bake a cake because of who is asking you to bake it.
Arguably, in some circumstances, but even if there was a free speech issue here, the right to free speech is butting up against the right to be free of discrimination.
O.
-
And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.
As is this one of yours!
Read the posts on this thread and this post puts you in the very small minority!
-
What I think when I see yet another of your predictable posts. (https://flic.kr/p/2jjvDGn)
As do I when I see one like this from you! Your reaction was totally predictable.
And I notice a total lack of similar comments made about posts by NS and Trent and others of the same opinion as LR.
-
It makes Steve's day to have a go at me about something or other! ;D
-
It makes Steve's day to have a go at me about something or other! ;D
I had noticed
-
I was totally shocked the other day when looking at an American forum on which I used to post a few years ago, to see someone who claims to be an ever so holy 'Christian' making the sort of comments about Black people, which would have made the evil Hitler proud. >:( Basically he was saying that god intended all people to be white and Blacks were an aberration of nature! >:( >:( >:( If a god and Jesus are in the ether somewhere and decent entities, I hope they would condemn people like that and refuse them entry to heaven, if it exists.
-
I was totally shocked the other day when looking at an American forum on which I used to post a few years ago, to see someone who claims to be an ever so holy 'Christian' making the sort of comments about Black people, which would have made the evil Hitler proud. >:( Basically he was saying that god intended all people to be white and Blacks were an aberration of nature! >:( >:( >:( If a god and Jesus are in the ether somewhere and decent entities, I hope they would condemn people like that and refuse them entry to heaven, if it exists.
I think you'll find that God and Jesus believe in repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Who gets into heaven is none of your or my business.
-
I think you'll find that God and Jesus believe in repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Who gets into heaven is none of your or my business.
Your belief with no evidence to support it. It is one's business if they do exist and only allow into heaven people of the unpleasant 'born again' dogma, however evil they have been in life, whilst good unbelievers will wind up in hell.
-
Arguably, in some circumstances, but even if there was a free speech issue here, the right to free speech is butting up against the right to be free of discrimination.
Nobody has the right to be free of discrimination. We routinely discriminate and are discriminated against in all kinds of ways. Certain groups of people are protected against discrimination based on their membership of that group but that doesn't mean we can't discriminate against them in there ways. I can't discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are gay, but I can discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are not qualified.
Refusing to bake a cake because of the message it conveys is not the same as refusing to bake a cake because of the sexuality of the customer.
-
I was totally shocked the other day when looking at an American forum on which I used to post a few years ago, to see someone who claims to be an ever so holy 'Christian' making the sort of comments about Black people, which would have made the evil Hitler proud. >:( Basically he was saying that god intended all people to be white and Blacks were an aberration of nature! >:( >:( >:( If a god and Jesus are in the ether somewhere and decent entities, I hope they would condemn people like that and refuse them entry to heaven, if it exists.
Clearly he's an idiot.
Jesus was a middle Eastern Jew. By his logic, all of us white people are an aberration.
-
Clearly he's an idiot.
Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. By his logic, all of us white people are an aberration.
I've just got in from going to the bank, read the previous couple of posts, went to respond and found this!
You beat me to it.
Respect - Bruv!
-
Nobody has the right to be free of discrimination.
All discrimination perhaps, no, but we have legislation to enforce rights that we as a society have agreed which are rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of some fairly basic characteristics.
We routinely discriminate and are discriminated against in all kinds of ways.
Yep. And sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it's not important, but where we've had really obvious examples of it being widespread and harmful we've stepped in.
Certain groups of people are protected against discrimination based on their membership of that group but that doesn't mean we can't discriminate against them in there ways.
And whilst I didn't spell that out, it should have been implicit from the context.
I can't discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are gay, but I can discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are not qualified.
That's not discrimination.
Refusing to bake a cake because of the message it conveys is not the same as refusing to bake a cake because of the sexuality of the customer.
As I said, not intrinsically, but if you're trying to separate someone's sexuality from their behaviour around that sexuality, that's a difficult line to draw at the best of times, and the law is phrased so as to note that your intent isn't necessarily the determining factor, but the likelihood of the outcome is significant.
If you have no intention of discriminating against gay people, but your actions are disproportionately likely to affect gay people - say, if you object to baking a cake which you perceive to support gay marriage - then you are in breach of the law.
O.
-
Clearly he's an idiot.
Jesus was a middle Eastern Jew. By his logic, all of us white people are an aberration.
That would make more sense. It is crazy the way some Christians think Jesus was as depicted in paintings of yesteryear with white skin and blue eyes. ::)
-
...
If you have no intention of discriminating against gay people, but your actions are disproportionately likely to affect gay people - say, if you object to baking a cake which you perceive to support gay marriage - then you are in breach of the law.
O.
Not in the Asher's case.
-
Your belief with no evidence to support it. It is one's business if they do exist and only allow into heaven people of the unpleasant 'born again' dogma, however evil they have been in life, whilst good unbelievers will wind up in hell.
What would you do about it if they (or the triune IT) did exist and applied such vile criteria to the fate of humans?
-
What would you do about it if they (or the triune IT) did exist and applied such vile criteria to the fate of humans?
Christians insist that they do exist and do apply those criteria.
And on such support, if they did actually exist, they would continue to operate on the same criteria!
-
So we shouldn't put murderers in prison because it means they have to give up their profession in order to learn that they were wrong?
When someone already thinks an action would be wrong and gives up their profession because they would otherwise be required to do that thing - is what I meant.
-
Christians insist that they do exist and do apply those criteria.
And on such support, if they did actually exist, they would continue to operate on the same criteria!
Indeed, and presumably neither LR nor any of the rest of us who think such things are absurd and disgusting could do a blind thing about it - if IT exists. That was the point I was making.
-
Indeed, and presumably neither LR nor any of the rest of us who think such things are absurd and disgusting could do a blind thing about it - if IT exists. That was the point I was making.
Maybe eventually human ingenuity being what it is, might find a way of destroying the evil entity.
-
Maybe eventually human ingenuity being what it is, might find a way of destroying the evil entity.
I find it a little confusing when you talk about destroying an entity you don't actually believe in.
Surely it would be the belief in an entity that you would wish to erase?
-
I find it a little confusing when you talk about destroying an entity you don't actually believe in.
Surely it would be the belief in an entity that you would wish to erase?
I don't believe the Biblical god does exist, but of course I could be wrong. I hope I am not, but if it does exist and is as evil as the Bible suggests it is, humans should be seeing if they can find a way of destroying it.
-
Moderator A number of posts have been removed as a derail as they were concentrating on individual's opinion of others rather than the posts.
-
I don't believe the Biblical god does exist, but of course I could be wrong. I hope I am not, but if it does exist and is as evil as the Bible suggests it is, humans should be seeing if they can find a way of destroying it.
Littleroses, you sound confused. Do you think of God as a physical being? The Christian God is a spiritual entity and thus cannot be destroyed.
-
Littleroses, you sound confused. Do you think of God as a physical being? The Christian God is a spiritual entity and thus cannot be destroyed.
I am of the opinion that all gods including the evil entity in the Bible are human creations, therefore they can be destroyed eventually.
-
The Christian God is a spiritual entity and thus cannot be destroyed.
How do you detect an extant 'spiritual entity', and how have you established that, if extant, it is indestructible?
-
If you have no intention of discriminating against gay people, but your actions are disproportionately likely to affect gay people - say, if you object to baking a cake which you perceive to support gay marriage - then you are in breach of the law.
As long as you understand that the law restricts free speech. You're obviously OK with this particular restriction. I'm not. I agree with Peter Tatchell (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion) on the subject.
-
So do I. Good for PT.
-
There has never been any kind of ancient document, now the modern form of the media any irrefutable evidence to be found and presented that would confirm the presence or existence of a god of any kind.
I suppose this wish to hold irrational beliefs shows it self where people still believe in things like horology, homeopathy and stage mediums even when the believers are shown how these stage tricks are performed and have the process fully described by people like Derren Brown on just how they mislead.
It still surprises me how often when otherwise very intelligent people in a lot of cases, yet there they are they're devout believers with their heads still full of talking snake like ideas despite the zero evidence there's about that would, if there were any, support these in many ways rather strange ideas.
I have to agree with Douglas Addams quote, he got there long before me:
'I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously'.
I can't imagine any kind of scenario where we non-believers would be allowed to forget even for a half of a millisecond if there were or was found sometime in the future indisputable evidence that proved existence of a god, it hasn't happened yet, surprisingly!
Why not prove the existence of god first and then have the discussion after that unlikely event?
ippy
-
There has never been any kind of ancient document, now the modern form of the media any irrefutable evidence to be found and presented that would confirm the presence or existence of a god of any kind.
I suppose this wish to hold irrational beliefs shows itself where people still believe in things like horology, homoeopathy and stage mediums even when the believers are shown how these stage tricks are performed and have the process fully described by people like Derren Brown on just how they mislead.
It still surprises me how often when otherwise very intelligent people in a lot of cases, yet there they are their devout believers with their heads still full of talking snake-like ideas despite the zero evidence there's about that would, if there were any, support these in many ways rather strange ideas.
I have to agree with Douglas Addams quote, he got there long before me:
'I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously'.
I can't imagine any kind of scenario where we non-believers would be allowed to forget even for a half of a millisecond if there were or was found sometime in the future indisputable evidence that proved existence of a god, it hasn't happened yet, surprisingly!
Why not prove the existence of god first and then have the discussion after that unlikely event?
ippy
I think you have the wrong thread for this particular post.
-
I suppose this wish to hold irrational beliefs shows it self where people still believe in things like horology...
The irrational and superstitious belief in clocks and watches? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horology)
-
The irrational and superstitious belief in clocks and watches? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horology)
Think Ippy got a bit confused, probably means astrology. As I'm sure you worked out.
-
Mike Pence, the US vice president, is a good example of a Christian extremist who has used the Bible as an excuse for his anti-gay and anti-abortion bigotry. He can probably find a verse in that book, which he reckons supports his support of that con-man, Trump. >:(
-
I am of the opinion that all gods including the evil entity in the Bible are human creations, therefore they can be destroyed eventually.
This is rather different from what you were saying earlier. Of course, if all gods are human creations ( as I believe) then once belief is eradicated, then the supposed entities would disappear as well.
However, earlier on you were saying that should the Biblical god actually exist, humans should be able to find some means of destroying it. This is nonsense, since such an entity would be the source of all life, by definition. And whether you like it or not, such an entity would be pulling all the strings, whether it be good or evil. If it's evil, it's tough luck.
-
This is rather different from what you were saying earlier. Of course, if all gods are human creations ( as I believe) then once belief is eradicated, then the supposed entities would disappear as well.
However, earlier on you were saying that should the Biblical god actually exist, humans should be able to find some means of destroying it. This is nonsense, since such an entity would be the source of all life, by definition. And whether you like it or not, such an entity would be pulling all the strings, whether it be good or evil. If it's evil, it's tough luck.
It is MY opinion the Biblical god doesn't exist as there is no evidence to support its existence, the stories in the Bible concerning that character appear to be very human creations. However, as yet we have no evidence to prove beyond all shadow of doubt it is only a mythical character, hopefully one day we will. Have I made myself clear?
-
The irrational and superstitious belief in clocks and watches? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horology)
As I have said before it's only a matter of time before I make another horilogical mistake, never could spell and now at 78 years it sure aint going to get any better, be more surprised when I get them all right.
I suppose I should have checked my spell checker, mind you it was a bit of a howler that one.
Regards to all of you clock watchers, ippy
-
As I have said before it's only a matter of time before I make another horilogical mistake, never could spell and now at 78 years it sure aint going to get any better, be more surprised when I get them all right.
I suppose I should have checked my spell checker, mind you it was a bit of a howler that one.
Regards to all of you clock watchers, ippy
Don't worry about it, do you have dyslexia? Our middle daughter who has a Mensa level intelligence has dyslexia as does her younger son, but she still got her degree. Her lad, who is 16 next month, is going to study electrical engineering.
Although I have never been tested for it, I think I have dyscalculia, which is a problem with maths. I have never got to grips with the subject, even though I had maths tutors throughout my childhood. Thank goodness for calculators, or I would be really stuffed when checking our bank accounts as I do on a daily basis.
-
As long as you understand that the law restricts free speech. You're obviously OK with this particular restriction. I'm not. I agree with Peter Tatchell (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion) on the subject.
I don't see it as an undue restriction - these people have every right to have their say in the public sphere. In their professional endeavours there are innumerable restrictions upon them to avoid them causing harm; food hygiene, tax codes, expectations around fire and health and safety. Adding another restriction to their professional activities doesn't seem an undue burden to me.
O.
-
I don't see it as an undue restriction - these people have every right to have their say in the public sphere. In their professional endeavours there are innumerable restrictions upon them to avoid them causing harm; food hygiene, tax codes, expectations around fire and health and safety. Adding another restriction to their professional activities doesn't seem an undue burden to me.
O.
Forcing them to propagate messages with which they do not agree is different to forcing them to make cakes that do not poison people.
-
Forcing them to propagate messages with which they do not agree is different to forcing them to make cakes that do not poison people.
Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.
They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech. They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.
O.
-
Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.
How does it cause harm to allow people not to bake cakes with overtly pro-gay messages?
They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech. They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.
Not being forced to say things with which they disagree is also free speech.
-
Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.
They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech. They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.
O.
Well on the current law as decided by the Supreme Court, Asher's were in the right. (Though an appeal may happen to the ECHR)
-
How does it cause harm to allow people not to bake cakes with overtly pro-gay messages?
How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are? How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?
Not being forced to say things with which they disagree is also free speech.
They aren't being forced to say anything; they are baking a cake on which someone else has asked for words. It's not their words, it's not their ideas.
O.
-
How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are? How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?
They aren't being forced to say anything; they are baking a cake on which someone else has asked for words. It's not their words, it's not their ideas.
O.
They were not refused for who they ere. The cake is being produced by Asher's - so they are 'saying' it.
-
They were not refused for who they ere. The cake is being produced by Asher's - so they are 'saying' it.
They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message. The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.
In this instance the decision has come down that their decision was based upon the message, not the speaker; I feel that's a misapplication of the law, and enough others in the legal community do that it was a case that went to the Supreme Court.
O.
-
They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message. The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.
"Whoever". Your quibble doesn't alter the fact that they are being asked to produce a message that they feel unable to in conscience. It isn't going to noticeably affect gay rights for a few bakers to be allowed to refuse to bake cakes with certain messages on - there are plenty of other bakers.
-
"Whoever". Your quibble doesn't alter the fact that they are being asked to produce a message that they feel unable to in conscience.
That's their problem; it's not an objectively offensive message, such as would fall foul of the hate crimes legislation or the Obscene Publications Act. There is legislation in place upon which they could rely to protect them from having to create something generally offensive. If this is the test case, then Facebook is in for a whole world of hurt because they reproduce other people's opinions every second of every day and they're not responsible because it's not their job to be editors; they aren't journalists, they're a platform. This cake/baker scenario is the same; they aren't the editor, they're the printer.
It isn't going to noticeably affect gay rights for a few bakers to be allowed to refuse to bake cakes with certain messages on - there are plenty of other bakers.
Just like there were plenty of other landlords when the 'no blacks' signs were up? There's part of the 'what harm' that you were talking about - why should anyone doing something perfectly acceptable have to trawl through the options rather than just rock up at the door like everyone else?
O.
-
I would agree with Outrider on this.
Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.
The bakers were clearly acting from bigotry and although I can see some of the complications in other examples a lot of those given could easily covered by hate speech legislation.
For me it still comes back to acting on your prejudice, and if they can do it over a cake, then other have the right to refuse according to their prejudices and it just becomes messy and unworkable.
Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.
-
They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message. The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.
In this instance the decision has come down that their decision was based upon the message, not the speaker; I feel that's a misapplication of the law, and enough others in the legal community do that it was a case that went to the Supreme Court.
O.
Should a Jewish baker have to print amessage on a cake which says End The State of Israel if a Muslim customer asks him for it?
-
I would agree with Outrider on this.
Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.
The bakers were clearly acting from bigotry and although I can see some of the complications in other examples a lot of those given could easily covered by hate speech legislation.
For me it still comes back to acting on your prejudice, and if they can do it over a cake, then other have the right to refuse according to their prejudices and it just becomes messy and unworkable.
Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.
So it would bd ok if the cake had a disclaimer on it?
-
So it would bd ok if the cake had a disclaimer on it?
A side of A4 in the window should cover it.
-
Should a Jewish baker have to print a message on a cake which says End The State of Israel if a Muslim customer asks him for it?
I think so, yes. If it's calling for the extermination of the Jewish people, no, if it's calling for political change to the status of the land, then yes.
O.
-
I think so, yes. If it's calling for the extermination of the Jewish people, no, if it's calling for political change to the status of the land, then yes.
O.
Say it's not a Muslim asking for the cake, just Joe Bloggs?
-
How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are?
They weren't refusing service because the customer was gay, they were refusing service because of the message they were being asked to put on the cake.
How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?
I'd note the bigotry and I would not favour them with my custom anymore. Note that, I'm not black but if a black friend had asked me to order such a cake and it was refused because of the message, my reaction would be the same. Also the same if I tried to order a cake with a pro-gay message and it was refused. If the person who refused me service, was not the owner of the business, I might consider making a complaint to the owners too.
They aren't being forced to say anything;
Yes they are.
-
A side of A4 in the window should cover it.
Which no one who sees the cake might ever see.
Do they have the right to refuse to bake a cake with 'Fuck' as the message on it?
-
I would agree with Outrider on this.
Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.
Would you accept a cake with a pro-gay message on it that also had a disclaimer on it saying "this is not the view of Acme bakers"?
Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.
I'm not happy to see you discriminated against. I would not be happy to see a baker refuse to bake a cake with a pro gay message and I would take my custom elsewhere.
But this is a free speech issue. Free speech is too precious to start restricting it because people are offended.
-
Then it is free speech and an action as a consequence that would allow a B&B to refuse a shared room for a gay couple. I ain't seeing a difference.
-
Then it is free speech and an action as a consequence that would allow a B&B to refuse a shared room for a gay couple. I ain't seeing a difference.
Because they are saying they would refuse to bake a cake with that message on it for anyone.
-
Just like there were plenty of other landlords when the 'no blacks' signs were up? There's part of the 'what harm' that you were talking about - why should anyone doing something perfectly acceptable have to trawl through the options rather than just rock up at the door like everyone else?
O.
You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity. You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.
-
Say it's not a Muslim asking for the cake, just Joe Bloggs?
Joe Bloggs isn't allowed a position on whether the existence of the Israeli state is acceptable?
O.
-
Joe Bloggs isn't allowed a position on whether the existence of the Israeli state is acceptable?
O.
Joe Bloggs is, I was trying to find out if your argument wasbased on protected characteristics. The question is whether the baker can refuse him because it has a position. As also asked of Trent - could the bakery refuse to to print Fuck as a message?
-
They weren't refusing service because the customer was gay, they were refusing service because of the message they were being asked to put on the cake.
Which is the distinction the Supreme Court eventually relied upon, in the end.
I'd note the bigotry and I would not favour them with my custom anymore.
And if you're the majority that kind of market-force influence is effective; if you're not the majority, though, that leaves you at the mercy of those that are. Morality by market forces is at best to rely on a fickle judge.
Note that, Im not black but if a black friend had asked me to order such a cake and it was refused because of the message, my reaction would be the same.
And mine wouldn't change, either - please note, I think someone who comes down on the side of free speech triumphing in this debate is an advocate of free speech, not a homophobe hiding behind that excuse. I don't doubt there are homophobes out there who'd support the argument because in this instance it suits their purpose, and there are probably cancel-culture leftists who'd back my position because they think it's grounds to silence people they disagree with. It's an argument of balance and nuance when you get people who actually appreciate that it's trying to balance rights against each other.
Yes they are.
If they were being stopped from having their say, we would never have heard about it, they'd never have been in all the papers they were...
O.
-
You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent.
To what extent is it not?
You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own.
If that was what was happening, yes.
I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple.
Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay (which is their nature, it's not something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen) then you can compare it fairly clearly with prohibiting a black couple from service because they are black (which is their nature, it's something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen).
If you were barring a Muslim because they're a Muslim then although it's equally protected under the law, it's not a directly comparable situation.
In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong.
There are people who believe that 'being' black makes you somehow lesser, less deserving. I believe that being a Christian fundamentalist is idiocy of the first order, to a level that's verging on offensive in a first world country, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse service because someone's a Young Earth Creationist.
I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity.
And if a mixed race couple were to try to book a room and be turned away...? There are people who believe that 'activity' is wrong, do they have grounds to refuse service? And if so, is it any different to refusing a gay couple?
You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.
The children aren't banned, though, the situation in which they are permitted to do everything anyone else can do is moderated; and it's done so in order to achieve the specific, demonstrable, justifiable aim of reducing shoplifting. Discrimination is permissible where it can be shown to be justified.
O.
-
You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity.
But in refusing to allow a gay couple a room then you are treating them less favourably due to their sexual orientation. That the reason the B&B owner is doing this is because they don't like the 'activity' of gay sex is irrelevant - the relevant point is the discrimination.
And is also goes without saying that renting a B&B room to a gay couple doesn't mean they will have sex.
Bottom line - if you cannot run your business without discriminating then I think you are in the wrong business. There are plenty of professions where you will never be in a position of feeling conflicted in this manner. Better to choose one of those. In your private life you can think what you want, but in business you cannot discriminate in the provision of goods or services on the basis of a ranges of protected characteristics, one of which is sexual orientation.
-
You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity. You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.
What is wrong with gay sex?
-
What is wrong with gay sex?
LR → → → →
The point.
-
LR → → → →
The point.
Does Spud actually have a point?
-
Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay
They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms
-
They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms
They are not being offered the same service as other people in their situation, based upon their sexuality. Equivalent but separate, similar but different, those were the hallmarks of segregation, Apartheid and Jim Crow era US law - is that really the equivalence you want to conjure up?
O.
-
They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms
But if they were straight they'd be offered a double room. They are being treated less favourably on the basis of their sexual orientation - that is discrimination and quite rightly unlawful in the UK.
-
They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms
Which is discrimination and WRONG! >:(
-
Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay (which is their nature, it's not something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen) then you can compare it fairly clearly with prohibiting a black couple from service because they are black (which is their nature, it's something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen).
O.
They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.
The miscegeny point is interesting - I will think about it.
Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?
-
They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.
You do realise, Spud, that neither bedrooms nor certain items of furniture are required for sexual activity to happen - not only that: said activity doesn't have to wait until 'bedtime'.
Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?
These vicars, as I understand it, operate as registrars in order that the marriages they conduct are legal, since the religious bit in isolation is insufficient in legal terms. So I'd say that they should provide their legal services on an equitable basis to anyone who is qualified to marry, and if they can't then they should stop acting as registrars.
-
They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.
They aren't being refused because of that characteristic? If one married man and his spouse can book a double room and another married man and his spouse can't, and the difference is that the second man is gay, then he's being refused because he's gay. Whether or not either is going to conduct the sexy time when they get there isn't discussed (I'm presuming) so it can't be relevant - they are being treated differently - judged - because of their sexuality.
The miscegeny point is interesting - I will think about it.
Fair enough.
Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?
I don't think they should be required to, but at the same time I don't see that churches should be permitted to conduct marriages with any legal standing at all until and unless all organisations are allowed to conduct them.
O.
-
Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.
Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.
The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")
The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?
Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.
Which means you are indeed supporting prejudice. The personal, is indeed, political.
-
Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.
Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.
The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")
The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?
Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.
Which means you are indeed supporting prejudice. The personal, is indeed, political.
Can a baker refuse to write the message 'Fuck' on a cake?
-
Can a baker refuse to write the message 'Fuck' on a cake?
Yes.
-
Yes.
So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?
-
Turn it round: suppose a gay baker was asked to make a cake with the words "Homosexuality is sinful -Leviticus 18:22". Would s/he be justified in refusing the order? (I don't think it'd qualify as hate speech, so you can't get out of it that way.)
-
So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?
Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?
As to rules, too complicated for me, but we could start by looking at the motivation rather than the action that follows.
-
Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?
As to rules, too complicated for me, but we could start by looking at the motivation rather than the action that follows.
I want people to be treated as equally as possible and sensible (that sensible is about women's sports amongst others). The problem with motivation is that you need to define good and bad motivations, be able to prove them, and then justify that one person is allowed to act exactly opposite to another. It is always about rules.
-
Turn it round: suppose a gay baker was asked to make a cake with the words "Homosexuality is sinful -Leviticus 18:22". Would s/he be justified in refusing the order? (I don't think it'd qualify as hate speech, so you can't get out of it that way.)
The sexual orientation of the owner is irrelevant here. If people can refuse to put certain messages then it doesn't matter who or why.
BTW can you cover what specific exemptions you want to give to 'religious' people to be able to discriminate against gay people and why?
-
Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?
The B&B owners are clearly treating the gay couple less favourably than a straight couple in the provision of a service (in this case a double room). That is clear cut direct discrimination.
The case of the bakers is more complicated - they are objecting to the message and presumably would have objected if the person asking them to bake the cake was straight not gay, which could easily have been the case. Whether the person asking for the service (baking a cake with a message) is being treated less favourably due to their sexuality is less clear cut - probably indirect discrimination and the courts thought not even that.
The motivation of the B&B owners or bakers in discriminating is irrelevant - the law quite rightly focusses on the victim of the discrimination and whether discrimination has taken place rather than why the perpetrator decided to discriminate. If someone refuses to employ women (clear direct discrimination) it doesn't matter if it is because they think:
1. A woman's place is in the home
2. That women aren't as intelligent as men
3. That women aren't as hard working as men
4. That women aren't trustworthy and will spend all their time gossiping
5. A general hatred of women due to a bad relationship experience
The motivation isn't the issue and the discrimination is the same regardless of whether the motivation is 1 or 3 or 5 etc.
-
So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?
The distinction lies in whether their objection contravenes the equality act legislation. In the case of the latter it would be judged on whether it was deemed to be direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics.
So (in a situation more akin to the B&B owners) had the baker refused to make a wedding cake for Adam and Steve, but would make one for Adam and Eve, then I think that would be clear cut unlawful discrimination - treating one couple less favourably on the basis of their sexuality.
However, once outside of the realm of protected characteristics I think any business owner is able to refuse business if they choose (they might be stupid to do so as business owners, but I think it is their right). So a baker can refuse to make a cake with a message they deem offensive or bake a Arsenal cake if they are a hard-core Tottenham fan etc etc - but only if it doesn't infringe on equalities rights of protected characteristics.
-
And if a mixed race couple were to try to book a room and be turned away...? There are people who believe that 'activity' is wrong, do they have grounds to refuse service? And if so, is it any different to refusing a gay couple?
This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.
But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.
It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
-
This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.
But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.
It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
As long as children are well cared for it matters not whether their parents are a same sex couple, or male and female.
-
because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
Yes of course. Because what the world needs now is a larger population.
And just for your information I, nor indeed any gay person I know has ever advocated "prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children."
That's something you have made up in your own little mind.
-
...because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
lying homophobic drivel.
-
But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.
What on earth has this to do with children - there is no mention in a civil marriage ceremony of children. In terms of civil marriage and civil society a decision to get married and a decision to have children are entirely independent matters. You can get married and choose not to have children - you can choose not to get married and choose to have children.
-
This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.
By whom: citations please.
But the argument is specious.
You haven't made an argument though nor demonstrated that others have - hence we need citations.
If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad.
So we don't subscribe to it, for various reasons.
Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.
Only if 'good' can be found in overt homophobia, which is a driver in opposition to SSM, where this is often expressed on the basis of religious traditions and a presumption that marriage is defined according to these religious traditions - and it isn't, being a social institution.
It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
That will be because they are subscribing to outdated homophobic religious traditions that, of course, just make them look like intolerant bigots since they are intolerant bigots.
-
The sexual orientation of the owner is irrelevant here. If people can refuse to put certain messages then it doesn't matter who or why.
"Evasion noted", as you like to say.
-
"Evasion noted", as you like to say.
No evasion. Just pointed out that the sexual orientation is actually irrelevant to the principle.
What do think I'm evading?
Unlike you editing this out of my post
'BTW can you cover what specific exemptions you want to give to 'religious' people to be able to discriminate against gay people and why'
And completely ignoring it.
-
But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region.
The viewpoint of what family? That idea of 'family' is itself a term that religions - Christianity in particular - have coopted to fit their particular restriction and definition.
Its motivation is bad.
That's your subjective opinion; it has exactly as much weight as my judgement that opposition to extending marriage to gay people comes from bad motivation.
Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents.
You know how reproduction works, right? If gay people get married, there are no children, that's why so many anti-gay arguments have that specious 'but they can't have children' argument.
It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.
That expectation that marriage will produce offspring is a different argument to connecting children to their parents; it's also expressly part of most Christian conceptions of marriage, but there's nothing intrinsic to the concept of marriage. We don't deny marriage to straight people with no intention or capability of having children, so whilst it might be seen as desirable in some parts of the community it's far from a deal-breaker.
It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.
No, they don't, they realise that some people don't want children, some people do, some people on both sides of that are gay, but despite those combinations it turns out that marriage is about commitment to each other and building stable homes that benefit society and culture as a whole, regardless of whether there are children in that household.
As it is, developments in technology and institutions like adoption are increasingly bringing the option of parenting to gay couples.
O.
-
Less people are opting to marry these days, particularly heterosexuals, which is fine as long as if there are any children of the relationship they are well cared for. Not that marriage ensures that children are looked after as they deserve.
-
Less people...
Fewer.
-
Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.
Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.
The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")
The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?
Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.
Your descriptions are slightly disingenuous. The B&B couple weren't endorsing anything by providing a service. They were providing a service. They claimed that they would not allow any unmarried couple to share a double room. They lost the case because the gay couple were technically married (i.e. in a civil partnership at a time when that was all that was available to gay couples). They were discriminated against because the landlords refused to accept that they qualified for a double room. There was no free speech issue involved at all.
The cake case is a free speech issue because the baker was being asked to put a message (i.e. speech) that they disagreed with on a cake. There are two principles at play: one is that a right to free speech also includes a right not to speak and also your right to speech does not imply a duty on me to give you a platform for that speech.
If I, a heterosexual, had walked into that shop and asked for the same cake, do you think the baker would have refused me? I think he probably would. The person who actually did walk into the shop was not refused service on the grounds of their sexuality.
-
This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.
The courts didn't make that decision. They allow same sex marriage because it is the law - a law that was created by the combined efforts of two governments.
-
What on earth has this to do with children - there is no mention in a civil marriage ceremony of children. In terms of civil marriage and civil society a decision to get married and a decision to have children are entirely independent matters. You can get married and choose not to have children - you can choose not to get married and choose to have children.
The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/
-
The courts didn't make that decision. They allow same sex marriage because it is the law - a law that was created by the combined efforts of two governments.
Thanks - I should maybe have written, 'U.S. government' rather than 'courts'.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. and is remembered annually on Loving Day. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
-
The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates.
I don't see that as a problem.
This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father.
Is there any evidence that the children of gay couples suffer in any way by not having a parent of each sex?
If there is (there isn't, but let's pretend for a minute), it's not an argument for stopping gay people from getting married, it's an argument for stopping them from adopting children.
-
Thanks - I should maybe have written, 'U.S. government' rather than 'courts'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
I thought you were talking about Britain. The situation is different in the USA
-
The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/
Biological parents aren't always the best people to bring up children by any means. We have two adopted sons as well as our birth children, the eldest was removed from his biological parents as they abused him and his siblings. Our younger son was given up for adoption as he has Down's Syndrome and his biological parents didn't wish to raise him. As long as a child is given the love, care and attention they require it doesn't matter if their parents are gay, straight or non biological.
-
If there is (there isn't, but let's pretend for a minute), it's not an argument for stopping gay people from getting married, it's an argument for stopping them from adopting children.
True, but it is far more nuanced than that.
You'd have to demonstrate that all gay couples provide a worse home environment for adoptive children than all straight couples to justify a blanket ban. Decisions on adoption should always be made on a case by case basis taking account of the needs of the child and the individual circumstances of the potential adopting parents.
-
The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father.
And why's that a problem? Numerous studies have shown that there's no significant impact on children of gay couples compared to children of straight couples, whilst there's a notable impact on children of divorced or separated parents, especially those who end up being raised by a single parent. That can be reduced by implementing policies which increase the likelihood of have more, longer-lasting, stable marriages - like implementing gay marriage.
I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
It's not universal by any stretch, but it's certainly more likely than not.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/
So many fallacious arguments in one place, it's no surprise I've not seen this cited before.
It starts by saying the equality arguments originally deployed were based on reason, but now they're based on sophistry, but the arguments in favour of decriminalising homosexuality and affording gay people equal rights haven't changed.
Then he spouts nonsense about how opening marriage to gay people won't redefine it it will 'undefine' it, which is obviously untrue; if marriage still exists, in any form, then it can't have been 'undefined'.
And then with the pearl-clutching 'won't somebody think of the children' wail - it will deny children the right to a mum and a dad. Children don't do any better or worse with two mums or two dads than with one of each, they do worse when they have only one parent, or when they don't have any at all. There are continuously children growing up in care because there aren't stable families for them to be fostered or adopted by - the longer that gay couples are excluded from contributing to that solution the longer we'll see children being negatively affected by not having enough parental figures.
Drivel.
O.
-
The problem is that same sex marriage opens the door to same sex couples having children by way of donors or surrogates. This prevents children from being raised in a natural way by both biological parents, or at least by an adopted mother and father. I don't know what the incidence of this is, but it seems likely to happen, since the instinct to have children is universal, in straight and gay people.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9622/
But there are already countless heterosexual couples and individuals having children via donors and surrogates - are you planning to ban them from doing so.
-
True, but it is far more nuanced than that.
You'd have to demonstrate that all gay couples provide a worse home environment for adoptive children than all straight couples to justify a blanket ban.
I don't agree. I think you'd have to demonstrate that gay couples provide a dangerous home environment to justify a blanket ban.
Decisions on adoption should always be made on a case by case basis taking account of the needs of the child and the individual circumstances of the potential adopting parents.
Agreed. As a rule, we should alway treat people as individuals rather than assign them characteristics based on a group stereotype.
-
I don't agree. I think you'd have to demonstrate that gay couples provide a dangerous home environment to justify a blanket ban.
I think we are actually in agreement - we are effectively saying the same thing, albeit in a slightly different way.
-
I think we are actually in agreement - we are effectively saying the same thing, albeit in a slightly different way.
I was nit picking to an extent. Being bad at something is not a justification for legal restrictions, but being dangerously bad at something is.
However, it is a bad idea to legislate against a whole group just because some - or even most - of them would be dangerously bad at the activity. Spud's thesis is that same sex marriage should be banned because it will lead to dangerously bad parenting. It fails on two grounds: 1. marriage does not automatically mean children. 2. the generalisation "gay people make bad parents" is false.
-
I was nit picking to an extent. Being bad at something is not a justification for legal restrictions, but being dangerously bad at something is.
However, it is a bad idea to legislate against a whole group just because some - or even most - of them would be dangerously bad at the activity. Spud's thesis is that same sex marriage should be banned because it will lead to dangerously bad parenting. It fails on two grounds: 1. marriage does not automatically mean children. 2. the generalisation "gay people make bad parents" is false.
Rest assured, gents, the data seems to show that they're no better or worse than anyone else :)
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313 (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313)
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ (https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309949/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6309949/)
https://qz.com/1320434/new-research-debunks-old-science-about-the-negative-effects-of-same-sex-parenting/ (https://qz.com/1320434/new-research-debunks-old-science-about-the-negative-effects-of-same-sex-parenting/)
O.
-
Rest assured, gents, the data seems to show that they're no better or worse than anyone else :)
What a surprise.
Actually, I would have thought that they would be marginally better on the grounds that gay people don't have children by accident as a rule.
-
Don't worry about it, do you have dyslexia? Our middle daughter who has a Mensa level intelligence has dyslexia as does her younger son, but she still got her degree. Her lad, who is 16 next month, is going to study electrical engineering.
Although I have never been tested for it, I think I have dyscalculia, which is a problem with maths. I have never got to grips with the subject, even though I had maths tutors throughout my childhood. Thank goodness for calculators, or I would be really stuffed when checking our bank accounts as I do on a daily basis.
It used to worry me in the long distant past, it just get annoyed with myself now more than anything else.
It's irksome the spelling where I can't even get close enough for spell checker to know what I'm looking for.
I go to google for a lot of my stuff the spell checker wont pick up or, say a word begins with 'M' I'm looking for I then go to my O E D the shorter version start at the beginning of the m's and keep running through until I come to the word I'm looking for, fortunately I'm a really fast reader at least I've not had any significant trouble with that.
Oh yes I can be spelling a word without any trouble one day and have trouble with the same word the next day or time.
All this and my Mensa score is 275, difficult to believe I know.
Regards, ippy.
-
It used to worry me in the long distant past, it just get annoyed with myself now more than anything else.
It's irksome the spelling where I can't even get close enough for spell checker to know what I'm looking for.
I go to google for a lot of my stuff the spell checker wont pick up or, say a word begins with 'M' I'm looking for I then go to my O E D the shorter version start at the beginning of the m's and keep running through until I come to the word I'm looking for, fortunately I'm a really fast reader at least I've not had any significant trouble with that.
Oh yes I can be spelling a word without any trouble one day and have trouble with the same word the next day or time.
All this and my Mensa score is 275, difficult to believe I know.
Regards, ippy.
WOW! However, I am not surprised you have always come over as intelligent.
-
On having read quiet a few of Spuds contributions to this thread and remembering that the last government survey I saw indicated that 53% of the U K's population were now non-religious, so now when reading Spud like posts I look forward to seeing the results of the next survey where the non-religious have been in the ascendancy of the numbers game for some years now, which is giving the more rational among us a bonus of knowing those with regressive Spud like views are a dying breed and good riddance to them, the sooner the better.
ippy
-
WOW! However, I am not surprised you have always come over as intelligent.
So intelligent I even knew you wouldn't believe me.
Regards, ippy.
-
So intelligent I even knew you wouldn't believe me.
Regards, ippy.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? I do believe you.
-
And why's that a problem? Numerous studies have shown that there's no significant impact on children of gay couples compared to children of straight couples, whilst there's a notable impact on children of divorced or separated parents, especially those who end up being raised by a single parent. Th
O.
Gay adoption became legal in 2002. In 2018 there were 450, the highest of any year. Suppose there were up to 10,000 since 2002. Most of those are too soon to tell how they are affected. That leaves a fairly small sample compared with the numerous children of divorced and single parents.
-
Gay adoption became legal in 2002. In 2018 there were 450, the highest of any year. Suppose there were up to 10,000 since 2002. Most of those are too soon to tell how they are affected. That leaves a fairly small sample compared with the numerous children of divorced and single parents.
Another load of garbage from you! ::)
-
Gay adoption became legal in 2002. In 2018 there were 450, the highest of any year. Suppose there were up to 10,000 since 2002. Most of those are too soon to tell how they are affected. That leaves a fairly small sample compared with the numerous children of divorced and single parents.
Not really, because gay parents adopting someone else's child isn't the only way gay couples get to raise children; sometimes, people who were in straight relationships have children, then leave those relationships and raise the children in a gay relationship... no adoption involved!!!
That's been happening since about the dawn of time...
O.
-
...my Mensa score is 275...
Out of what?
-
Not really, because gay parents adopting someone else's child isn't the only way gay couples get to raise children; sometimes, people who were in straight relationships have children, then leave those relationships and raise the children in a gay relationship... no adoption involved!!!
That's been happening since about the dawn of time...
O.
Often one of the couple in a gay relationship is the biological parent of the child they are bringing up, by using a sperm donor, or a woman as a surrogate using their sperm.
-
Not really, because gay parents adopting someone else's child isn't the only way gay couples get to raise children; sometimes, people who were in straight relationships have children, then leave those relationships and raise the children in a gay relationship... no adoption involved!!!
That's been happening since about the dawn of time...
O.
Well, certainly since the first episode of Friends.
-
Bring forth the Ceremonial Turkey Baster and Clarice Cliff Coffee Cup!!!
-
Bring forth the Ceremonial Turkey Baster and Clarice Cliff Coffee Cup!!!
Oh dear!
Clarice Cliff as an indicator of sexuality is so 1980's.
-
Oh dear!
Clarice Cliff as an indicator of sexuality is so 1980's.
I was thinking more of the paraphenalia of home insemination.
-
I was thinking more of the paraphenalia of home insemination.
So why mention Clarice Cliff?
-
So why mention Clarice Cliff?
Because if you are going to do something............You do it right.
-
Because if you are going to do something............You do it right.
Why was it 'right' to mention Clarice Cliff?
-
Why was it 'right' to mention Clarice Cliff?
Well o great one who was not present when sense of humours were handed out. I think you got the wrong end of the stick. If you are going for a home insemination you should no more not use fine ceramics than serve up a great darjeeling in a novelty blue mug marked "frae bonny Scotland".
-
Well o great one who was not present when sense of humours were handed out. I think you got the wrong end of the stick. If you are going for a home insemination you should no more not use fine ceramics than serve up a great darjeeling in a novelty blue mug marked "frae bonny Scotland".
Which does not answer why you think it was 'right' to mention Clarice Cliff. Why did you mention Clarice Cliff? What do you think was funny about it?
-
Which does not answer why you think it was 'right' to mention Clarice Cliff. Why did you mention Clarice Cliff? What do you think was funny about it?
I totally and utterly definitively indubitably unequivocally polyurethane antidisestablishmentarianismly and arseclenchingly think it not only right to mention it but it’s mentioning will restore piece and harmony to the world and allow microwaves to work better.
-
I totally and utterly definitively indubitably unequivocally polyurethane antidisestablishmentarianismly and arseclenchingly think it not only right to mention it but it’s mentioning will restore piece and harmony to the world and allow microwaves to work better.
Why is it you won't answer why you mentioned Clarice Cliff or why you think mentioning Clarice Cliff in regard to homosexual people having children is funny?
-
Why is it you won't answer why you mentioned Clarice Cliff or why you think mentioning Clarice Cliff in regard to homosexual people having children is funny?
Anybody who inseminates at home should be using Clarice Cliff.
-
Anybody who inseminates at home should be using Clarice Cliff.
Why is it you won't answer why you mentioned Clarice Cliff or why you think mentioning Clarice Cliff in regard to homosexual people having children is funny? Why have you not answered again?
-
Why is it you won't answer why you mentioned Clarice Cliff or why you think mentioning Clarice Cliff in regard to homosexual people having children is funny? Why have you not answered again?
Why does it matter? Why haven't you got a sense of humour?
-
Why is it you won't answer why you mentioned Clarice Cliff or why you think mentioning Clarice Cliff in regard to homosexual people having children is funny? Why have you not answered again?
I mentioned Clarice cliff because if you are going to have a home insemination then surely to goodness it is special occassion. And what do you do on a special occasion. That’s right.......You get the best China out. It doesn’t matter what your sexuality is.
-
Why does it matter? Why haven't you got a sense of humour?
Why do you think it's funny?
-
I mentioned Clarice cliff because if you are going to have a home insemination then surely to goodness it is special occassion. And what do you do on a special occasion. That’s right.......You get the best China out. It doesn’t matter what your sexuality is.
Of course you did.
-
Why do you think it's funny?
Ironic use of tired stereotypes, like the black bloke I once knew who said he wouldn't want to be white "because I'd lose my natural sense of rhythm".
-
Of course you did.
Look consider the following carefully. If you or anybody is involved in a home insemination are you just going to unceremoniously “crack off and crack on. Or Are you going to crack out the Cliff or theWedgewood or Moorcroft, crack off and crack on?
-
Look consider the following carefully. If you or anybody is involved in a home insemination are you just going to unceremoniously “crack off and crack on. Or Are you going to crack out the Cliff or theWedgewood or Moorcroft, crack off and crack on?
Just you keep digging
-
Ironic use of tired stereotypes, like the black bloke I once knew who said he wouldn't want to be white "because I'd lose my natural sense of rhythm".
Can you see the difference in the two examples?
-
Just you keep digging
Digging? you’ve yet to expose my hole.
-
Digging? you’ve yet to expose my hole.
I don't have to, you are an inveterate self exposer.
-
Can you see the difference in the two examples?
Can you stop patronising me?
-
Can you stop patronising me?
I wasn't. So can you see the difference in the two examples?
-
I wasn't. So can you see the difference in the two examples?
Yes you were. Just tell us what you think the difference is, and then we can have a discussion.
-
Yes you were. Just tell us what you think the difference is, and then we can have a discussion.
I am trying to establish what you think - do you think the two examples are the same? Unlike you I'm not mind reader.
-
You obviously think there's a relevant difference, so either tell us what it is, or sod off.
-
You obviously think there's a relevant difference, so either tell us what it is, or sod off.
Think of who is making the comments in the 2 examples. I'm pretty sure you can manage it. (Now that is patronising you)
-
Think of who is making the comments in the 2 examples. I'm pretty sure you can manage it. (Now that is patronising you)
Hmmm... fair point, I suppose. However, I don't think you can accuse suppository of being a homophobe on the strength of that.
-
Hmmm... fair point, I suppose. However, I don't think you can accuse suppository of being a homophobe on the strength of that.
I just want to know why he used the term. I don't believe his 'explanation'.
-
I just want to know why he used the term. I don't believe his 'explanation'.
Nor me - completely unconvincing. I don't know why he didn't admit the obvious truth.
-
Nor me - completely unconvincing. I don't know why he didn't admit the obvious truth.
Alright then one of you has got to speak the theory which dare not speak it's name namely what my meaning here was.
I find the idea of home insemination all pretentious ''earth mother'' and ''tree beard'' wank anyway, if you'll pardon the pun, no matter who is involved.
-
Alright then one of you has got to speak the theory which dare not speak it's name namely what my meaning here was.
I find the idea of home insemination all pretentious ''earth mother'' and ''tree beard'' wank anyway, if you'll pardon the pun, no matter who is involved.
Read Trentvoyager's reply.
-
Read Trentvoyager's reply.
No, I want YOUR take on it.
-
Alright then one of you has got to speak the theory which dare not speak it's name namely what my meaning here was.
I find the idea of home insemination all pretentious ''earth mother'' and ''tree beard'' wank anyway, if you'll pardon the pun, no matter who is involved.
Now that IS prejudice. There are all sorts of good reasons. I knew a woman who used the method in an agreement with a gay couple because she was almost totally paralysed below the neck, due to spinal muscular atrophy.
-
Now that IS prejudice. There are all sorts of good reasons. I knew a woman who used the method in an agreement with a gay couple because she was almost totally paralysed below the neck, due to spinal muscular atrophy.
I'm sure there are special circumstances that go beyond pretention.
-
Tree Beard ??
This part of the thread is convoluted enough without dragging Lord of the fucking Rings into it.
Plus what MR Micawber said in his last post.
-
No, I want YOUR take on it.
That you use lazy ignorant stereotypes because you have the sense of humour of Bernard Manning. That when picked up on it by Trent you ignore it because you are uncomfortable with your tedious backward attitudes. That when you are asked about it you decided to make a transparent lie because you are a coward.
-
That you use lazy ignorant stereotypes because you have the sense of humour of Bernard Manning. That when picked up on it by Trent you ignore it because you are uncomfortable with your tedious backward attitudes. That when you are asked about it you decided to make a transparent lie because you are a coward.
Picked up on what?
What lie?
Lazy ignorant stereotypes?......Yeh i'll give you that.
-
Picked up on what?
What lie?
Lazy ignorant stereotypes?......Yeh i'll give you that.
》Trent picked you up on your lazy ignorant stereotypes. Your lie was your pish about the best china. Your cowardice is boring.
-
》Trent picked you up on your lazy ignorant stereotypes. Your lie was your pish about the best china. Your cowardice is boring.
As far as I can see the only people who have issue with me here are Earth mothers and Tree beards. Who else do you think is being stereotyped?
-
As far as I can see the only people who have issue with me here are Earth mothers and Tree beards. Who else do you think is being stereotyped?
Why are you pissing on Christianity with your lying cowardice?
-
Why are you pissing on Christianity with your lying cowardice?
If you are going to accuse somebody lay down what the fucking charge is.
-
If you are going to accuse somebody lay down what the fucking charge is.
Already have. Your antediluvian use of stereotypes which you then lied in a cowardly manner about your meaning. You continue to piss upon any faith you announce you have. You reduce Christianity to cowardice and lying.
-
Already have. Your antediluvian use of stereotypes which you then lied in a cowardly manner about your meaning. You continue to piss upon any faith you announce you have. You reduce Christianity to cowardice and lying.
Where it's just been innuendo. There you go I used the word innuendo no doubt you'll find something to moan about that. I'm afraid I'm fucked off with this now and with 26609 posts I think I've explained myself by now.
-
Where it's just been innuendo. There you go I used the word innuendo no doubt you'll find something to moan about that. I'm afraid I'm fucked off with this now and with 26609 posts I think I've explained myself by now.
Manning-like innuendo from a working man's club lost in time which you then lied about. Cowardly liar.
-
As far as I can see the only people who have an issue with me here are Earth mothers and Tree beards. Who else do you think is being stereotyped?
If you mean the Pagans please say so or does your complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others extend to the inability to spell PAGAN?
And before you ask me what makes me think that you possess a "complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others" it is the number of times that said 'others' tell you so.
-
If you mean the Pagans please say so or does your complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others extend to the inability to spell PAGAN?
And before you ask me what makes me think that you possess a "complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others" it is the number of times that said 'others' tell you so.
If you mean the Pagans please say so or does your complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others extend to the inability to spell PAGAN?
No I'm not talking about pagans especially.
-
Out of what?
Probably out of millions W M.
Regards, ippy.
-
Gay adoption became legal in 2002. In 2018 there were 450, the highest of any year. Suppose there were up to 10,000 since 2002. Most of those are too soon to tell how they are affected. That leaves a fairly small sample compared with the numerous children of divorced and single parents.
No one these days has to base there moral or ethical judgements on the sad and ill informed two thousand year old examples of rather naive ignorance, surly it must be better to think for yourself than that.
I get the impression that there's more to you than these rather ancient outmoded ways of thinking you tend to express Spud, time for an update.
ippy
-
If you mean the Pagans please say so or does your complete inability to answer straight questions put to you by others extend to the inability to spell PAGAN?
No, I'm not talking about pagans especially.
Then please define "Earth mothers and Tree beards" - who are these people?
-
I mentioned Clarice cliff because if you are going to have a home insemination then surely to goodness it is special occassion. And what do you do on a special occasion. That’s right.......You get the best China out. It doesn’t matter what your sexuality is.
I'd never thought of that, s'pose you might :o. Less utility than pyrex.
-
Quote from The Suppository of Human Wisdom
No, I'm not talking about pagans especially.
End quote
Then please define "Earth mothers and Tree beards" - who are these people?
I will take your lack of response to my question to be an admission that, once again and exactly as I expected you are lying yet again!
Your reputation for avoiding giving an answer or lying when you can't see a way to avoid answering is clearly well deserved - I will therefore hereafter ignore you! You are clearly not worthy of my attention. Or anyone else's but that is for them to address.
Had I taken the advice of others who know you better than I, I would have taken this action a while ago and I truly regret not having done so, but, for a while, I thought that I could match your ability to be brutally insulting without breaching the Forum rules on posting insults, but, hey ho, I am clearly not even in your school much less your class!
Incidentally, you Do know what a suppository is and where it goes don't you?
Live long and Prosper!
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and Mat the Old Ones watch over you and yours always!
)O(
-
Quote from The Suppository of Human Wisdom
No, I'm not talking about pagans especially.
End quote
I will take your lack of response to my question to be an admission that, once again and exactly as I expected you are lying yet again!
Your reputation for avoiding giving an answer or lying when you can't see a way to avoid answering is clearly well deserved - I will therefore hereafter ignore you! You are clearly not worthy of my attention. Or anyone else's but that is for them to address.
Had I taken the advice of others who know you better than I, I would have taken this action a while ago and I truly regret not having done so, but, for a while, I thought that I could match your ability to be brutally insulting without breaching the Forum rules on posting insults, but, hey ho, I am clearly not even in your school much less your class!
Incidentally, you Do know what a suppository is and where it goes don't you?
Live long and Prosper!
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and Mat the Old Ones watch over you and yours always!
)O(
That is where his 'reasoning' for his posts are created. ;D
-
That is where his 'reasoning' for his posts are created. ;D
L O L!
-
As I have mentioned many times our three daughters are Christians, but moderate in their views, thank goodness. Our Anglican Priest daughter, doesn't preach she shares her views with the congregation. Her talks are very memorable in a good way, and often talked about by the church members for a very long time. :D
Did you have sex before you were married or get pregnant?
I just wondered Roses. you would not be doing one thing whilst professing to live a different way surely.
i think fear governs some people.