Homosexuality

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Dan » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:09 pm

By the way, I know very few people who actually believe in the old testament. Adam and Eve is a ridiculous theory. The old testament appeared to be a tool to scare people into worship.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Remus » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:54 pm

I don't get Adam and Eve either. I mean, surely at one point you would get interbreeding and that would just throw up a whole lot of complications and genetic problems. :?

I don't get these people who say homosexuality in unnatural. In the animal world, it happens all the time in various species. Some species such as insects do this basically because some unfortunately can't actually tell the difference between boy and girl where other species such as dolphins and penguins do it for social bonding. I heard in one lesson that this zoo in I think Germany have this gay pair of penguins and the two have actually adopted a little chick and are raising it as their own which is so cute.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Brian » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:37 pm

Adam and Eve is a load of bull, so is the first line of the bible "god is the creator of the world and heaven".

Homosexuality is fine in my opinion but they shouldn't be allowed to marry and if they want to adopt kids let them because there is far worse straight parents in the world who can have kids at their will.
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:19 pm

Actually, the Bible begins:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (New Revised Standard Version)


Most Christians take Genesis to be metaphorical - God id create the world, but considering God is eternal, a "day" to God may be millions of years to us.

Please don't refer to other people's views as a load of bull. Try to find a more polite way to express disagreement.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Dan » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:59 pm

Thirteen-thirty-seven wrote:Actually, the Bible begins:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (New Revised Standard Version)


Most Christians take Genesis to be metaphorical - God id create the world, but considering God is eternal, a "day" to God may be millions of years to us.

Please don't refer to other people's views as a load of bull. Try to find a more polite way to express disagreement.


I agree about creation but there is not any metaphorical way to interpret "Adam and Eve" in a way that it doesn't feel unlikely.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Fortnox » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:44 pm

Dan wrote:
Thirteen-thirty-seven wrote:Actually, the Bible begins:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (New Revised Standard Version)


Most Christians take Genesis to be metaphorical - God id create the world, but considering God is eternal, a "day" to God may be millions of years to us.

Please don't refer to other people's views as a load of bull. Try to find a more polite way to express disagreement.


I agree about creation but there is not any metaphorical way to interpret "Adam and Eve" in a way that it doesn't feel unlikely.


OOH! OOH! Can I? May I? I think I will.

Here's the interpenetration of Adam and Eve for you- here's the metaphor, the message the Bible was trying to tell you:

Adam is a stereotypical dominant male, he teaches men that they must protect women and take the lead.
Eve is a stereotypical submissive woman, she teaches women their place but also warns men to be wary, not trust, women.
More obviously, the forbidden fruit lesson exists to tell the reader not to go too far- not to reach out for riches, fame and passion because you will only loose what you have been given (Not by God, by the State)- to stay in line and do what you're told or you'll be kicked out. Another function of the apple is to give the readers (the workers, the peasants) an excuse for why life is so horrible to them- to say that they are surrounded by hate, plague, pain and death because of Man's original sin. It isn't your fault or anyone else's! Well, in reality, it is the fault of the Monarchy, the bankers and the tax collectors.

Of course, it is the Monarchy, the bankers, the tax collectors- the rich that created the Bible and Christianity to pacify the poor, they picked forth odd bits from holy writ and played the saint when most they play the devil. Christianity is a badly put-together religion created mostly from odd bits of other religions for the purpose of giving the Monarch's laws (IE do not kill, go to work, do not steal- laws that exist purely to protect the Monarchy's riches and social order) moral and ethical justification. That is, if the Kings- the conquerors, knights and lords told the peasants "We have all your money, treat you like cattle and exploit your very lives for our benefit but don't kill us" the peasants would eventually rise up in revolt. Instead, they said "God commands that you don't kill us", giving their unjust laws ethical justification so that people would follow them.

Christianity is and always has been a method of oppression from the rich unto the poor. Hah, and this is me holding back.

*Edit* I probably seem quite passionate about this. I should explain, I am quite annoyed at Christianity for it's many centuries of dogma, aggression and repression of knowledge. But more over that, I have a very intelligent friend, much younger than me, that I saw developing into a great individual before his parents started forcing Christianity down on him until he fit their mould. He now thinks less, does less, he is full of stupid, hypocritical ideas. He double thinks constantly, he can't produce logical answers. He's gay, and he knows he's gay, but because he believes in Christianity he won't "lay with another man", he's going to live a life without love or sex. And no, I don't respect his decision. It's stupid. And I have seen plenty of things tangible and theoretical die and whither but nothing compares to seeing someone's intelligent capacity, someone's very potential be crushed down and diminished- because there is nothing more precious than that.

KILBAHA wrote:When god made the world, he made adam and eve, not adam and steve. People are surposed to have relationships with the oposite sex, not the same sex

Perhaps you are like this. You are wrong, I know that, and we both know that you're only repeating what you have been told. If you have the strength of character to get past this, to remove the idea of Christianity from your mind, to accept that God doesn't exist and with courage face the vast consequences of that decision you will see a world fit for yourself, designed for yourself, a world where you can make your own decisions and achieve your own beliefs.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Re: Homosexuality

Postby druchi » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:00 pm

How dare you suggest that she should have the 'courage' to look past her beliefs, I may not agree with those views but I think the bible has some important lessons and I know this is becoming a bit repatative but.

Sadly its been allready said that "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Surely if anything what we can take away from a discussion like this is a message of understanding from both sides? Now I am VERY tired right now so this may sound like rambling nonsense in which case Im sorry in advance.

Wether you agree with Homosexuality or not is personal but I do think it should be made on personal evaluations rather than just saying "Oh its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." or other such arguments, what you need to ask I think is, would Jesus have cared if someone was gay?

Thank you for reading all =)
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Dan » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:16 pm

Interesting post Fortnox, your theory seems very plausible. I have yet to understand where exactly Christians draw the magic line between fiction and fact. Apparently Jesus really DID turn water into wine but God didn't create the Earth, or did he? Who knows?

If we're going to interpret the bible we should at least be consistent. It has a few good moral values embedded in it and I see all them miracles in the same way I see legends. They tend to teach a simple life lesson in an easy to digest fashion.

It's a shame your friend has been damaged by Christianity although it's not Christianity exactly, it sounds like it's his parents who have hurt him. If it wasn't Christianity it'd be something else.

Christianity has many many evil steps across history as can be seen with the Catholic church (especially in the 16th century). I'd probably say that Christianity has caused more evil than most other religions but you cannot blame people who believe in Christianity for the past. That's like blaming Germans for the holocaust. They have no control other what their ancestors did.

Reassuringly, the rate of Christians in America is falling fairly rapidly which will hopefully speed up scientific research and remove some of the ridiculous rules such as "You can't have birth control if you have been raped and are in a Christian hospital".

I'm tired, I'm not sure where I was going with this post. Have a nice day.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Brian » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:32 pm

Dan wrote:Christianity has many many evil steps across history as can be seen with the Catholic church (especially in the 16th century). I'd probably say that Christianity has caused more evil than most other religions but you cannot blame people who believe in Christianity for the past. That's like blaming Germans for the holocaust. They have no control other what their ancestors did.


Dan, don't bring this into the equation because the Protestant church haven't got a leg to stand on regarding this situation because there are many acts of evil that have strongly involved the Protestant church that have gone back to recent years when a certain woman prime minister was in charge of the uk
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Fortnox » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:47 am

druchi wrote:How dare you suggest that she should have the 'courage' to look past her beliefs, I may not agree with those views but I think the bible has some important lessons and I know this is becoming a bit repatative but.


Sure does sound like trying to justify something you know is wrong. I realised once that tip-toeing around issues of Religion and "respecting others beliefs" makes you just as wrong as the people that lied to them in the first place- that they didn't have the strength to tell them the truth and neither do you. I'm never going to pretend I respect Christian beliefs or give Christianity even a moments chance on the floor of debate that it doesn't deserve.

When it comes to respecting people's beliefs, there is no such thing as peaceful co-existence. Both parties slowly become filled with repressed negative emotions- anger, frustration, hate- until they burst. That is mostly what our society and Christianity teaches- this idea of co-existing peacefully with people by simply not talking about what conflicts exist between us, this peaceful ignorance begets emotional instability and confusion. I'm just going to express my thoughts and feelings clearly each step of the way and never allow myself to become that, nor will I refuse to give someone the ticket out of that place. What is a peaceful world if we're not honest, and how far are you willing to take it? If you lived with a Neo Nazi, would you decide not to question his views or start debate with him because it is easier for you both to co-exist if you don't?

Dan wrote:Interesting post Fortnox, your theory seems very plausible. I have yet to understand where exactly Christians draw the magic line between fiction and fact. Apparently Jesus really DID turn water into wine but God didn't create the Earth, or did he? Who knows?


Christians are blighted with what I call "speculative reasoning", or "speculative justification". This is opposed to deductive logic, which is simply a matter of dealing with the evidence and finding the most likely answer. Speculative reasoning is largely regarded with superstitions and religion. It is when you say "Perhaps Snails are suicidal creatures". There is no evidence that Snails are suicidal creatures, and as such that theory is as useful as any other baseless theory such as "Perhaps there is an omnipotent being watching our every move" or "Perhaps pigs can fly". Yes, they ARE possible. But as deductive logic dictates, if there is no evidence for such a thing, there is no reason to believe it.

But Christians- speaking purely of the extremely dedicated Christians here that invent new ways to try and preserve the Bible such as "creationism"- are so attached to their speculative religion that gives them so much emotional and social satisfaction and gratification that they find new speculative reasons to justify it. Even though there is no evidence that the Bible was written in metaphors, once part of the Bible has been disproved they will simply use their speculative reasoning to say "Well, there must be ANOTHER way in which it could feasibly be correct, so I will find that way and say that is how the Bible must be interperated". Yes, it could be possible, but if there is no evidence of it, there is no reason to believe it.

This circle could go on *for ever*. One day maybe they'll say the Bible was a joke written by God to test our faith but God still exists. The real reason they have "faith" is because it gives them emotional and social gratifications, not because it is right. Because of this, they will use anything to justify their "faith" to stop you and themselves from realising this.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Re: Homosexuality

Postby parnassus » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:24 pm

OOH! OOH! Can I? May I? I think I will.


Before you do so, I think you should look into the history of the Bible. The Old Testament was not written by one person, or even one particular group of people with a common idea in mind. It was compiled over hundreds of years and heavily edited/revised by different people with widely differing views. The Deuteronomist version, for example, was written during the time of the Assyrian oppression, when the Israelite people were actually subject to the domination of a succession of foreign and very bloodthirsty kings. Consequently the Deuteronomist texts are very triumphalistic and violent in tone. It was at this time that the story of the Israelite possession of Canaan was heavily revised to include a war and a great victory. This was a story with a sharp political message, aimed at the Assyrian rulers. It was also designed to boost morale among an enslaved people.

Yet it was not the Deuteronomists who left a lasting mark on the creation mythos that opens Genesis, but a writer or group of writers known collectively to present-day scholars as 'P'. The 'P' stands for 'priestly', as the author (or authors - it is not known for certain whether P was a single person or a group of people from a particular school of thought) was a priest. He was writing at the time of the exile in Babylon. He rewrote the basic creation myths (which were common to many Middle Eastern religions and cultures at the time, and often recited as prayers when people gave birth, began a new project, prepared to sow crops, or made any kind of new beginning) to reflect what he saw as the goal of a good life: to live in harmony with the whole of creation. His chief point was that people and animals are all interdependent. In this version of creation, Eve was formed from the rib of Adam - a place close to his heart. Yet biologically, man is formed in woman, nourished in woman, and eventually born of woman. Was it man who gave rise to woman or woman who gave rise to man? In his retelling, P is drawing attention to the way in which men and women complement one another in the process of creation, a special kind of interdependence.

The Hebrew language of P's text is actually very inclusive, and (unusually) the distinctions that are made between Israelite and outsider are very courteous. Adam and Eve's exile from Eden represents P's own exile in Babylon, along with the rest of the captive Israelites. He uses the ancient creation story to emphasise that it is a Jewish responsibility to respect the sacred 'otherness' of every living creature - including Babylonians. This is shown by the way in which P underscores the distinctions between creatures in Genesis, but also makes clear that they are all part of the same seamless whole. Another distinctive feature of his creation narrative and the subsequent version of Exodus is his belief that nothing can be owned by anyone, not even the land. People are stewards of creation, not masters of it. Knowing this, it is hard to see how the book of Genesis can be read as an oppressive tool of the monarchy who were attempting to keep the peasants in their place - especially given that the books were written by a group of people who were themselves living in exile and subject to a foreign power.

It should also be noted that the Israelites did not have a king of their own at the time all this was written. Monarchy in Israel was a much later invention.

As for the apple, it doesn't represent material possessions, as you seem to be implying. The point of the apple is that it enabled humans to learn what 'evil' meant. Before there was knowledge of evil, it was impossible to commit evil. Again, it's an allegory - literalistic interpretations of Genesis only became current in the sixteenth century. It warns against the dangers of allowing what you want to damage who you are.

That is, if the Kings- the conquerors, knights and lords told the peasants "We have all your money, treat you like cattle and exploit your very lives for our benefit but don't kill us" the peasants would eventually rise up in revolt. Instead, they said "God commands that you don't kill us", giving their unjust laws ethical justification so that people would follow them.


'Do not steal' applies to kings just as much as peasants. So does 'do not kill'. The Pentateuch (Old Testament) makes this much clear in its often harsh treatment of the Jewish monarchs. King Saul was toppled by a shepherd boy, a peasant. The reign of Ahab and Jezebel was destroyed by a man who owned nothing and lived in a cave. Moving on to the New Testament, the man whom the Bible describes as the 'king of kings' was born in a stable and laid to sleep in a cattle trough. None of this squares with your interpretation.

Christianity is and always has been a method of oppression from the rich unto the poor. Hah, and this is me holding back.


Your post talks a lot about Christianity in relation to the Old Testament, but makes no mention of Judaism. The story of Genesis predates Christianity by over a thousand years, so even if your misinterpretation of it happened to be correct, it would be very difficult to see what these infamous Christian monarchs had to do with it.

*Edit* I probably seem quite passionate about this. I should explain, I am quite annoyed at Christianity for it's many centuries of dogma, aggression and repression of knowledge.


Before you talk about 'repression of knowledge', it would make sense to acquire some knowledge about the history of the Bible yourself. It is possible to be knowledgeable about history and Biblical exegesis and still not believe in any religion, so I'm not asking you to convert. I am asking that you don't hold forth at length on subjects that you know nothing about, concluding with a very ironic mention of 'repression of knowledge'

But more over that, I have a very intelligent friend, much younger than me, that I saw developing into a great individual before his parents started forcing Christianity down on him until he fit their mould. He now thinks less, does less, he is full of stupid, hypocritical ideas. He double thinks constantly, he can't produce logical answers. He's gay, and he knows he's gay, but because he believes in Christianity he won't "lay with another man", he's going to live a life without love or sex. And no, I don't respect his decision. It's stupid.


I'm not sure what to think of this. In this post and others on DT you have made it very clear that you see religion as either a sign of lack of intelligence or lack of courage, so I'm not sure whether I would trust you to evaluate the intelligence of a religious person - you seem to automatically assume that their thinking is flawed at the outset. Some of the assumptions that you're making - "He's going to live a life without love and sex!" - show me that your prejudices could be clouding your judgement of your friend and his choices. (Not that it is your responsibility or your right to be judging him anyway, no matter how impartial you are able to be.) Believe it or not, living without sex does not mean living without love. I know a lot of celibate people who are among the happiest and most loving individuals I've ever known. One of them is a close friend who has recently begun training as a Catholic priest. A mathematics graduate from Cambridge. A teacher. Twenty-six years old. Always laughing. Another is a nun in her nineties who turned down a place at Oxford to enter the convent when she was seventeen. She has quite possibly the most generous heart I've ever met. She's loved by a lot of people, and she doesn't stint in giving the love back either.

It is a shame that you can't recognise the potential, the intelligence, and yes, the capacity to love in people whose views differ from your own. As for 'intellectual capacity', I disagree that there is 'nothing more precious than that'. Brains are fragile things. What happens to you if you suffer from acute brain damage at some point in the future, Fortnox? Do you lose value as a person? And what about the people I work with, teenagers who have Down's Syndrome and other severe learning disabilities? Some of them are never going to learn to write their own names. Some of them don't know that pressing a light switch will bring on the light. Some of them don't even know how to wipe their own backsides. They're precious, but it's not because of their intellectual capacity. It's because they're human beings.

The mere fact that someone is human is enough for them to be deserving of my respect. If I can't find something to respect in them, that's a flaw in me, and not in them or their choices. If you only give respect to people based on how closely their views conform to your own, don't you think that this might say more about you than it does about the people you seem so ready to write off as lacking in courage or intelligence?
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Fortnox » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:56 am

---This really isn't very long, it's just been padded out by the quotes---

parnassus wrote:
OOH! OOH! Can I? May I? I think I will.


Before you do so, I think you should look into the history of the Bible. The Old Testament was not written by one person, or even one particular group of people with a common idea in mind. It was compiled over hundreds of years and heavily edited/revised by different people with widely differing views. The Deuteronomist version, for example, was written during the time of the Assyrian oppression, when the Israelite people were actually subject to the domination of a succession of foreign and very bloodthirsty kings. Consequently the Deuteronomist texts are very triumphalistic and violent in tone. It was at this time that the story of the Israelite possession of Canaan was heavily revised to include a war and a great victory. This was a story with a sharp political message, aimed at the Assyrian rulers. It was also designed to boost morale among an enslaved people.


I know this, but there is no real way of knowing what authors contributed to the Bible as the Bible is often cited to fictitious characters, and most of the conventionally accepted authors are only theorised about. You can never really pin for certain an author down to a book as historically inaccurate as the Bible, anyway- you can't be sure which periods each part was written in. But more importantly, how does saying that one particular people used the Bible to spread a political message do anything but re-enforce my point that the Bible was created to enforce political dogma?

parnassus wrote:Yet it was not the Deuteronomists who left a lasting mark on the creation mythos that opens Genesis, but a writer or group of writers known collectively to present-day scholars as 'P'. The 'P' stands for 'priestly', as the author (or authors - it is not known for certain whether P was a single person or a group of people from a particular school of thought) was a priest. He was writing at the time of the exile in Babylon. He rewrote the basic creation myths (which were common to many Middle Eastern religions and cultures at the time, and often recited as prayers when people gave birth, began a new project, prepared to sow crops, or made any kind of new beginning) to reflect what he saw as the goal of a good life: to live in harmony with the whole of creation. His chief point was that people and animals are all interdependent. In this version of creation, Eve was formed from the rib of Adam - a place close to his heart. Yet biologically, man is formed in woman, nourished in woman, and eventually born of woman. Was it man who gave rise to woman or woman who gave rise to man? In his retelling, P is drawing attention to the way in which men and women complement one another in the process of creation, a special kind of interdependence.


So first of all you point out that you have no knowledge of the author's intentions or beliefs and then claim to have a perfect understanding of what they wished to imply? I think it's painfully obvious after all the centuries of lies and deceit, of leaders using Christianity for their benefit while behind curtains paying no attention to such old beliefs and fake charities or money scams because God despite being all-powerful just can't seem to handle money well that the Bible does not exist to help the people.
The Bible is full of parts that teach the reader how to sow, raise cattle and children. Peasant jobs for lowly people that need to be passed down through the workers generations. It says that if you sow clothes of two different threads you will go to hell- a method of convincing the poor to conserve their resources.

parnassus wrote:The Hebrew language of P's text is actually very inclusive, and (unusually) the distinctions that are made between Israelite and outsider are very courteous. Adam and Eve's exile from Eden represents P's own exile in Babylon, along with the rest of the captive Israelites. He uses the ancient creation story to emphasise that it is a Jewish responsibility to respect the sacred 'otherness' of every living creature - including Babylonians. This is shown by the way in which P underscores the distinctions between creatures in Genesis, but also makes clear that they are all part of the same seamless whole. Another distinctive feature of his creation narrative and the subsequent version of Exodus is his belief that nothing can be owned by anyone, not even the land. People are stewards of creation, not masters of it. Knowing this, it is hard to see how the book of Genesis can be read as an oppressive tool of the monarchy who were attempting to keep the peasants in their place - especially given that the books were written by a group of people who were themselves living in exile and subject to a foreign power.


From the introduction to Richard Elliot Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed, 2003 we know that the original chapters of the Bible were combined from odd bits of other religions all written by unkown authors, and that there is no way to predict who the original authors, or the editors, may have been. You never once cited where your belief that this "P" is an Israelite or any of this information you have on "him" comes from. "Nothing can be owned by anyone, not even the land" (A quote I can't find) is rather irrelevant in face of many beliefs in the very same book, Genesis, that cover God *giving* land to people, an idea that is still causing wars today.

parnassus wrote:It should also be noted that the Israelites did not have a king of their own at the time all this was written. Monarchy in Israel was a much later invention.

It should be noted that no-one knows exactly when or by who the Bible was, or to be exact parts of it were, written

parnassus wrote:As for the apple, it doesn't represent material possessions, as you seem to be implying. The point of the apple is that it enabled humans to learn what 'evil' meant. Before there was knowledge of evil, it was impossible to commit evil. Again, it's an allegory - literalistic interpretations of Genesis only became current in the sixteenth century. It warns against the dangers of allowing what you want to damage who you are.

We are both speculating on this point and it's pointless to discuss without going back in time to meet the original authors.

parnassus wrote:
That is, if the Kings- the conquerors, knights and lords told the peasants "We have all your money, treat you like cattle and exploit your very lives for our benefit but don't kill us" the peasants would eventually rise up in revolt. Instead, they said "God commands that you don't kill us", giving their unjust laws ethical justification so that people would follow them.


'Do not steal' applies to kings just as much as peasants. So does 'do not kill'.

Haha. No. The rich have always believed the laws do not apply to them. In a more recent example, Nixon claiming that when the President commits a crime, it is not a crime. During the Crusades Knights and Lords forced Christianity upon people telling them that they shall not kill; while killing pillaging hundreds of thousands of people in the name of that very teaching. Even George Bush starting a war to prevent a war from starting, and claiming that God is one his side- this does not follow Christian ethics, but the dogma and ignorance that surrounds Christianity allowed it to be used in this way. No, the law makes have never followed the laws, they are only designed for us.

parnassus wrote:The Pentateuch (Old Testament) makes this much clear in its often harsh treatment of the Jewish monarchs. King Saul was toppled by a shepherd boy, a peasant. The reign of Ahab and Jezebel was destroyed by a man who owned nothing and lived in a cave. Moving on to the New Testament, the man whom the Bible describes as the 'king of kings' was born in a stable and laid to sleep in a cattle trough. None of this squares with your interpretation.

The "King of Kings" and Jesus' presence as a ordinary working person was used to try and tell the poverty-stricken workers that they had something to live for, that people in their position could do great things. King Saul killed himself in battle and The Bible should never be used as historical evidence for any historical figure. Furthermore, The Bible is full of hypocrisy and breaking it's own rules, especially with the wrathful and dangerous God that existed in the Old Testament. It's not a surprise that stories like that will exist, especially because of the amount of material that went toward completing this dictionary of random assorted stories.

parnassus wrote:
*Edit* I probably seem quite passionate about this. I should explain, I am quite annoyed at Christianity for it's many centuries of dogma, aggression and repression of knowledge.


Before you talk about 'repression of knowledge', it would make sense to acquire some knowledge about the history of the Bible yourself. It is possible to be knowledgeable about history and Biblical exegesis and still not believe in any religion, so I'm not asking you to convert. I am asking that you don't hold forth at length on subjects that you know nothing about, concluding with a very ironic mention of 'repression of knowledge'


Christianity has always been about the repression of knowledge, that has always been it's greatest power. To make people into hypocrites that will not accept any ideas conflicting their own- perhaps it was an ingeniously designed psychological attack, or perhaps it was just a lucky mishap that after landing in the hands of the wrong people has been used in this way, but Christianity does not exist for the benefit of the people. And I know plenty about this subject, I grew up in a backward English village having Christianity pushed down upon me. I still remember the shock and confusion teachers displayed when they heard I was not going to pray.

parnassus wrote:
But more over that, I have a very intelligent friend, much younger than me, that I saw developing into a great individual before his parents started forcing Christianity down on him until he fit their mould. He now thinks less, does less, he is full of stupid, hypocritical ideas. He double thinks constantly, he can't produce logical answers. He's gay, and he knows he's gay, but because he believes in Christianity he won't "lay with another man", he's going to live a life without love or sex. And no, I don't respect his decision. It's stupid.


I'm not sure what to think of this. In this post and others on DT you have made it very clear that you see religion as either a sign of lack of intelligence or lack of courage, so I'm not sure whether I would trust you to evaluate the intelligence of a religious person - you seem to automatically assume that their thinking is flawed at the outset.

It is. There is no logical reason to believe in Christianity. A neat idea, but no. There is no reasoning, no rationality behind it. An emotional response triggered by decades of indoctrination and hypocrisy is not a valid reason to believe in God.

parnassus wrote:Some of the assumptions that you're making - "He's going to live a life without love and sex!" - show me that your prejudices could be clouding your judgement of your friend and his choices.

This isn't an assumption, he told me this himself.

parnassus wrote:It is a shame that you can't recognise the potential, the intelligence, and yes, the capacity to love in people whose views differ from your own. As for 'intellectual capacity', I disagree that there is 'nothing more precious than that'. Brains are fragile things. What happens to you if you suffer from acute brain damage at some point in the future, Fortnox? Do you lose value as a person?


Yes. This much should be obvious.
And I very much recognise the potential and intelligence of people who disagree with my own views, and I'm used to watching these flush down the drain as they repeat hypocritical bullshit fed to them since they left the cradle. I can debate with someone irregards to the Death Sentence and the value of Human life all night but then seeing them turn around and say "Well, they're going to burn in Hell anyway" ruins the deep intellectual discussion we could otherwise have brought ourselves to.

parnassus wrote:And what about the people I work with, teenagers who have Down's Syndrome and other severe learning disabilities? Some of them are never going to learn to write their own names. Some of them don't know that pressing a light switch will bring on the light. Some of them don't even know how to wipe their own backsides. They're precious, but it's not because of their intellectual capacity. It's because they're human beings.


That is an emotional response. Your emotions become attached to people who are more vulnerable than yourself and tell you to protect them as a mechanism to protect the group mentality of Humans, who are largely collectively-minded creatures. In most cases, such as charities or the make a wish foundation, such things are done purely for the emotional gratification of those that are helping these people, not for the people they are helping.
I'm not saying they should be put to death- doing so would be in no way ethical. However, you can't expect them to become productive members of society, to become great scholars or even to live independently.

parnassus wrote:The mere fact that someone is human is enough for them to be deserving of my respect. If I can't find something to respect in them, that's a flaw in me, and not in them or their choices. If you only give respect to people based on how closely their views conform to your own, don't you think that this might say more about you than it does about the people you seem so ready to write off as lacking in courage or intelligence?


It's nothing to do with conforming with my views. The most intelligent people I know largely disagree with my views. One particular friend of mine I consider to be very intelligent has a vested interest in Psychology, but no matter how far our discussions go, they cannot go past death itself because he is a Christian and refuses to discuss the subject as it triggers an emotional reaction in him- I feel free to discuss such a subject without being emotionally affected, but perhaps as a defence mechanism, most Christians when discussing the fragility of their own beliefs seem to become angry, anxious and frustrated. I suppose in the same way I would be angry, anxious and frustrated if God came down from Heaven and proved me wrong.

For the most part, I agree with Nietzsche that Christianity has put back Philosophy by hundreds of years- perhaps done even more damage to Human development than the burning of The Great Library, home to hundreds Plato and Aristotle's lost texts. It does this by giving you all the answers- it says that things are evil because the Devil exists and things are good because God exists. Rather than allowing you to develop your own system of morals and ethics- that is, your own opinion- it tells you in very clear terms what is right, and what is wrong. The Bible seeks to give you all the answers in life that you should find for yourself, and this does not help but hinder people's development for it prevents people from thinking for themselves.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:21 am

Fortnox, I don't have the time, energy or inclination to respond to your views on religion. However, I really must respond to this:

I'm not saying they should be put to death- doing so would be in no way ethical. However, you can't expect them to become productive members of society, to become great scholars or even to live independently.


Wow! You don't want to put intellectually disabled people to death. How magnanimous of you! [/sarcasm]

What do you mean by "productive members of society"? That's a very vague phrase. What does a person have to produce to be a worthwhile person, in your mind?

Most people, even people with very high IQs, do not become "great scholars". Do you honestly think that anyone will will read your writings in 1000 years? Or mine? Or the writings of most of the people you ever met? And does that mean that we are not important? That we cannot be happy? That we cannot bring joy to others? That we have fewer rights? That we are without full personhood?

And no-one is independent.

Cal Montgomery wrote:And, because disability is so identified with dependence, let me talk for a moment about that.
I am a dependent person. I eat food whose final preparation I handle myself, but which has come to me across roads laid and maintained by other people from stores staffed by other people -- and even those people didn't grow or raise or harvest or slaughter any of it. I wear clothes made by other people from cloth woven by still others. I am human: I depend on others. And this is called independence.

I am a dependent person. I need human contact, most of which I receive through an Internet built and maintained by many other people. I do not know my neighbors, but even face-to-face interaction requires someone's cooperation. I have learned from my time in isolation rooms that I can handle a while without human interaction, but that eventually it will become unbearable. I am human: I depend on others. And this is called independence.

I am a dependent person. The words I work with were taught to me by people who wrote and read them before I traced my first A. The language I work in is a living entity, shaped and grown over centuries by billions upon billions of speakers. The ideas I work on are part of a tradition nurtured by many thinkers. I am human: I depend on others. And this is called independence.

I am a dependent person. I do not -- have learned that I cannot safely -- live alone. I require the patterns of life to be modeled for me over and over again. I struggle to get, and to keep, jobs in workplaces designed for "plug-and-play" workers. I learn some things quickly and easily; I need to be explicitly taught many things that seem obvious to others. I am human: I depend on others. And this is called dependence.

Independent can mean self-governing. It can also mean self-reliant. It can deny others' influence on our decisions or others' support in carrying those decisions out.

Dependent can mean controlled by others. It can also mean requiring the support of others.

None of us, of course, is independent in either sense. We grow up in social contexts, supported and denied, enabled and disabled by those around us.

But some rely on supports which are so common as to go unnoticed, while others use support that is atypical and therefore apparent. Some supports are provided by the community as a whole and go unnoticed, while others are borne -- or not -- by a small number of people whose lives are profoundly affected.

So I know the ways in which I am dependent not by looking at how I depend on others, but by watching other people. I look to nondisabled people to tell me which kinds of dependence are recognized, which are devalued. I know the shame that comes with asking for "inappropriate" help.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Re: Homosexuality

Postby Steph » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:17 am

I agree with Esther. One of the students I work with (I work in a school similar to Vicky's) has a severe, life shortening chromosomal abnormality. She can no longer swallow effectively so has been fitted with a feeding tube which goes directly into her stomach. She wears incontinence pads and has multiple seizures daily. She is also one of the happiest, loving people I know. On her good days, she has a lot of words that she uses to communicate with others and her smile is absolutely beaming! Yes she will never become a doctor or a scholar or be able to live independently-in fact, she probably won't survive beyond her mid twenties but she is an extremely productive member of society for the very fact that she makes people happy. She has the personality and smile that brightens up a room and her happiness is infectious. The ability to make others so happy is something that many "normal" people, people with lots of exam results and who earn a decent wage, lack. Therefore, it could be argued that they are, in fact, less productive than her. Productivity is not just about the workforce or academia-it can be down to personality as well. Another student I work with is assessed regularly at Great Ormond Street. At his last appointment, the doctors expressed amazement that he was still able to walk, even if only for short distances (he has severe spinal problems)-he is still able to walk because he has a gritty determination to use his walker and his standing frame even when they cause him pain. Never giving up is a productive thing.
Steph
Forum God !
 
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Surrey, south east England

Re: Homosexuality

Postby druchi » Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:52 pm

What I hate is the way that those who blieve in science act like there way is the only way. Science can act just like the fundamentalists they claim to abhor sometimes.
I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die.
druchi
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Scotland, Helensburgh

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest