Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 2, 2012
Religion The Sermon on the Mount
Posted by Goldy on Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Ah, that old "the Old Testament isn't Christian" trope that Dan is now being forced to push back against. I get it all the time in my weekly Slog Bible Study threads whenever I quote from the Old rather than the New. Well, to settle this thorny and persistent issue once and for all, let's go straight to the source, perhaps the most Jesusy scripture of them all, the Sermon on the Mount:
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
Those "laws of Moses" Jesus says he's come to accomplish not abolish? They're laid down in the Old Testament—mostly in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—which by the way, explains their inclusion in the Christian Bible. That the laws and commandments of Leviticus are not broadly repeated in the Gospel of Mark or the Epistles of Paul should be no more surprising than the fact that they're not repeated in Kings or in Psalms. It would be redundant. They're all part of the same book.
I'd argue that those Christians who do not understand that the Old Testament has always been a fundamental part of Christian scripture, do not understand the doctrinal underpinning of their own religion. Indeed, there is more disagreement between various Christian denominations over which texts should properly be included in the New Testament than there is over which texts should be included in the Old.
And by the way, the "Old Testament" is not the Jewish Bible. We've got the Torah, the five books of Moses, as our holiest of texts. The Nevi'im and Ketuvim, in which the other books are compiled, are also taught and studied, but are separate texts.
One final observation. It does strike me that there is something vaguely anti-Semitic about this effort by some Christians to downplay the significance of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible, as if the Jewishness of it taints their religion. Well too fucking bad. Your religion is, at its core, a Jewish sect. Deal with it.
1
The majority of Christians don't know anything about their scriptures. I've been saying this a while now.
2
Thank you for making that last point. It deserves to stand outside the tedium of those very long recent discussions.
3
Ask a "Christian" about Acts 4:32-35 sometime: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had [...] that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
You can't really own a house (or much of anything else) and be a good Christian. It's RIGHT THERE IN YOUR BOOK. YES, THE NEW ONE.
You can't really own a house (or much of anything else) and be a good Christian. It's RIGHT THERE IN YOUR BOOK. YES, THE NEW ONE.
4
Acts 2:44-45: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need."
How do you like that Range Rover now, Ken Hutcherson?
How do you like that Range Rover now, Ken Hutcherson?
5
It seems like this brand of cafeteria style pick-and-choose Christianity is getting so out-of-control that eventually it either has to implode from the weight of its own self-contradiction, or break off from main-stream Protestantism (not that Catholics are immune from this sort of selectivity, but realistically, it does seem to be the Protestant denominations, and most particularly fundamentalist and evangelical Baptists doing most of this) and form its own separate branch, ala Mormonism & Seventh Day Adventism.
These people have no clue what's in The Bible, and, so far as I can tell at least, they don't really seem to care what it does or doesn't actually say; they only care about bending what's in it to rationalize their own bigotry and hatred as being sanctioned by the god they supposedly worship, while at the same time using other, more knowledgeable and better-read people's criticism of their abject ignorance as "evidence" of how they're being persecuted for their beliefs.
I mean seriously, is it just me, or does this strike other people as being downright pathological behavior?
These people have no clue what's in The Bible, and, so far as I can tell at least, they don't really seem to care what it does or doesn't actually say; they only care about bending what's in it to rationalize their own bigotry and hatred as being sanctioned by the god they supposedly worship, while at the same time using other, more knowledgeable and better-read people's criticism of their abject ignorance as "evidence" of how they're being persecuted for their beliefs.
I mean seriously, is it just me, or does this strike other people as being downright pathological behavior?
6
Well, he does add a bit to the old laws, and he makes a new contract with his peeps. There's no change to the old laws (I have no idea what version of the bible that is, every one I've ever read said, "I have not come here to replace/abolish the laws AND the prophets", because there are many other, incredibly important laws in the old testament, and some that are not contained in those books but were still relevant to life at the time, beside the ones that Moses drops...), but he does add the 1st positively worded example of "The Golden Rule" in the history of religion up until that point in time, and the same rule exists in almost every other religion, so that's kinda cool, anyway.
Also, at the time he gave that speech, he was planning to break the law, and also his buddy out of jail, so perhaps his actions can be used to infer a little bit more than a single statement made during a time when he was pissed they locked his friend in the Roman Empirical Pokey for no reason...
Also, Leviticus isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Only God could buy your daughter into, and out of, slavery, so the price is simply a sacrifice to God. Most of the stuff that doesn't seem to make sense, unlike not eating shrimp when you don't have a refrigerator, has both an allegorical, and practical, meaning as well as a story somewhere else in the book to which it refers.
Also, at the time he gave that speech, he was planning to break the law, and also his buddy out of jail, so perhaps his actions can be used to infer a little bit more than a single statement made during a time when he was pissed they locked his friend in the Roman Empirical Pokey for no reason...
Also, Leviticus isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Only God could buy your daughter into, and out of, slavery, so the price is simply a sacrifice to God. Most of the stuff that doesn't seem to make sense, unlike not eating shrimp when you don't have a refrigerator, has both an allegorical, and practical, meaning as well as a story somewhere else in the book to which it refers.
7
I don't believe any of them or anything they say. It all seems so petty and infantile. Oh, BTW, there's nothing "vague" about it.
8
When I was starting to see that most of the Bible was mostly allegory and egomaniacal writings of schizophrenics with some good advice thrown in the mix, I was in Bible study when a Christian friend said, in an attempt to strengthen people’s beliefs and understanding of the holy scriptures, “how much of the Bible do you know from what you’ve read in it and how much have you been told it contains?”
And I thought good point. I then started to read it even more closely than I had before. And it turns out that most of what had been interpreted by Sunday school teachers and youth pastors were shiny-happy feel-good stories that had little foundation in the Bible itself. I already hated Paul on a personal level, but hadn’t realized how power-drunk he was.
Every Christian should read - really read, without someone else’s interpretation - the Bible front to back. Skip nothing. Start with the gospels and then go back through the Old Testament and on to revelations. If this is truly God’s love letter to you, then you won’t need interpretation. Even a high-school flunky should be able to understand it, right? This is God’s message to each of us; we’ll be able to understand it in our bones without translation.
And I thought good point. I then started to read it even more closely than I had before. And it turns out that most of what had been interpreted by Sunday school teachers and youth pastors were shiny-happy feel-good stories that had little foundation in the Bible itself. I already hated Paul on a personal level, but hadn’t realized how power-drunk he was.
Every Christian should read - really read, without someone else’s interpretation - the Bible front to back. Skip nothing. Start with the gospels and then go back through the Old Testament and on to revelations. If this is truly God’s love letter to you, then you won’t need interpretation. Even a high-school flunky should be able to understand it, right? This is God’s message to each of us; we’ll be able to understand it in our bones without translation.
10
@8
Bible ain't meant to be read start to finish, though everyone should read as much of it as they can (plus, sometimes things in one part are explained, partially or completely, in another part. Reading it front to back is a perfect way to misunderstand a significant portion of the book.)
@9
If Buddhism is a Hindu sect, it is.
Bible ain't meant to be read start to finish, though everyone should read as much of it as they can (plus, sometimes things in one part are explained, partially or completely, in another part. Reading it front to back is a perfect way to misunderstand a significant portion of the book.)
@9
If Buddhism is a Hindu sect, it is.
12
You are being a little inaccurate here Goldy. If you read the epistles of Paul, specifically Romans you'll see a slightly less extreme interpretation. Paul basically says that the Laws of Moses still apply for those who can follow them but not everyone can. For those who cannot they can still achieve salvation through Jesus. Jesus was not as many Christians suggest a replacement of the Old Testament but an alternative path.
13
The problem Christians have is that most of the Leviticus rules are impossible to follow and still live the life they want to live. So out of convenience, they selfishly (from a god viewpoint) disregard these laws of god.
However, oppressing gays does not interfere with their lives, so that is an acceptable rule.
It is a back breaking logical fallacy, and impossible to reconcile without invoking magical thought.
Is it the perfect, unmutable word of god or isn't it? And if we can disregard god's rules which we do not like, what is the point of the book itself?
However, oppressing gays does not interfere with their lives, so that is an acceptable rule.
It is a back breaking logical fallacy, and impossible to reconcile without invoking magical thought.
Is it the perfect, unmutable word of god or isn't it? And if we can disregard god's rules which we do not like, what is the point of the book itself?
14
@10 nah, if God's hand was in the assembling of His Word, then one should be able to read it however they feel led to read it. If that's front-to-back, back-to-front, every other word... fine. But since our current language reads from left-to-right, it stands to reason that The Creator of the Universe and All Living Things would have made accommodations for that during the English translation phase and encouraged the printers to rearrange the books.
He didn’t, though, so it seems that God’s design is that we read it the way our language dictates.
He didn’t, though, so it seems that God’s design is that we read it the way our language dictates.
15
Ultimately the religion of Christians is one of acts, not words.
For example, what part of the Old Testament advises people to consort with prostitutes...as Jesus did?
And what part of the Old Testament advises us that if we have two cloaks, we give one to a man who has none?
16
One of the most interesting books I've read this year is Unclean, by Richard Beck. Part of the book details two overarching, conflicting ethical drives in the Old Testament: purity and mercy. The argument is that these were the same basic conflicts in the religious communities when Jesus was alive, and that he sides with the the mercy tradition.
http://theotherjournal.com/2012/02/16/th…
That little snippet from the sermon on the mount is interesting, but it doesn't overturn the rest of what Jesus says in the gospels, or what he does.
http://theotherjournal.com/2012/02/16/th…
That little snippet from the sermon on the mount is interesting, but it doesn't overturn the rest of what Jesus says in the gospels, or what he does.
17
@14
So, by that same logic, the only way to read a dictionary, thesaurus, Farmer's Almanac, etc would also be "left-to-right, front to backk"?
Man...that's gonna make finding xylophone a bitch next time I can't remember how many individual blocks are on a set.
So, by that same logic, the only way to read a dictionary, thesaurus, Farmer's Almanac, etc would also be "left-to-right, front to backk"?
Man...that's gonna make finding xylophone a bitch next time I can't remember how many individual blocks are on a set.
18
Well, except for that whole New Covenant bit, which supposedly supplants/replaces the old Covenant.
19
Hold on. How is it “vaguely anti-Semitic” for Christians to downplay the laws in Leviticus but perfectly ok for many Jews to do much of the same thing? I don’t see Jews stoning their children for backtalking their parents, nor do I think that they should. Modern Christians and many (if not most) modern Jews believe that the literal interpretation of the law of Moses no longer is applicable to modern life. We may have different reasons for it (despite what you say, Fr. Goldy, Jesus spoke against and actively broke much of the law of Moses and, as previously mentioned, Paul wrote that the old law was fulfilled through Jesus and is not applicable to Christians, especially Gentiles), but modern Christians and Jews can agree that women shouldn’t be sent to the wilderness once a month because they are unclean. And you can’t say that Jews are allowed to do it because it’s their own sacred text because, as you so adamantly wrote, it’s the sacred text of Christians as well, meaning perhaps Christians have just as much a right to interpret it as Jews do.
I sense a vague hypocrisy in calling Christians anti-Semitic for not following the law of Moses and giving Jews a pass for doing something similar.
I sense a vague hypocrisy in calling Christians anti-Semitic for not following the law of Moses and giving Jews a pass for doing something similar.
20
@17 I don't think The Omnipotent One is credited as the author of the dictionary.
The assemblers of the dictionary get to decide how to put their project together. If you were simply consulting a definition, you would jump to that word, yes? But if you were compelled to read the full contents of the dictionary, it would be logical to start at the beginning. And you could and read it all the way through without a problem; you may not feel the need to jump around. If you did, you’d have a lot to keep track of.
Same as the Bible. If you want to know what Proverbs 31:17 says, you’d look it up directly. You want to read the Bible completely, start wherever the fuck you want. But it seems that if God wanted you to read it a particular way, he’d program that into its construction.
The assemblers of the dictionary get to decide how to put their project together. If you were simply consulting a definition, you would jump to that word, yes? But if you were compelled to read the full contents of the dictionary, it would be logical to start at the beginning. And you could and read it all the way through without a problem; you may not feel the need to jump around. If you did, you’d have a lot to keep track of.
Same as the Bible. If you want to know what Proverbs 31:17 says, you’d look it up directly. You want to read the Bible completely, start wherever the fuck you want. But it seems that if God wanted you to read it a particular way, he’d program that into its construction.
21
"not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. "
Right, and Jesus achieved that purpose when he (supposedly) died on the cross.
Right, and Jesus achieved that purpose when he (supposedly) died on the cross.
22
@20
If there was a God, and if He wrote The Bible, then perhaps, but since The God in The Bible isn't either omniscient nor omnipotent (he apologizes after losing his shit and floods the world because of what he interpreted as "general wickedness"...apologizes...as in admits that he fucked up), and also because people took for granted that others knew common things like Levirate law that no one even knows how to pronounce now, perhaps if others would encourage the correct reading of a book (because, like with a dictionary, to know what a zoo is, you must also know what an animal is, no?), rather than denigrating it and not understanding it, we'd be encouraging a generation of Christians to be a generation of better Christians instead of resenting them for whatever the hell everyone resents them for.
If there was a God, and if He wrote The Bible, then perhaps, but since The God in The Bible isn't either omniscient nor omnipotent (he apologizes after losing his shit and floods the world because of what he interpreted as "general wickedness"...apologizes...as in admits that he fucked up), and also because people took for granted that others knew common things like Levirate law that no one even knows how to pronounce now, perhaps if others would encourage the correct reading of a book (because, like with a dictionary, to know what a zoo is, you must also know what an animal is, no?), rather than denigrating it and not understanding it, we'd be encouraging a generation of Christians to be a generation of better Christians instead of resenting them for whatever the hell everyone resents them for.
23
One final observation. It does strike me that there is something vaguely anti-Semitic about this effort by some Christians to downplay the significance of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible, as if the Jewishness of it taints their religion. Well too fucking bad. Your religion is, at its core, a Jewish sect. Deal with it.
Goldy, it's typical of you to take a "vague" feeling, then treat it like a proven fact, as you do here. If you have evidence that antisemitism is a component of this, then show it. You only damage your own credibility when you don't.
25
@22 Sure.
Christians, typically, believe that their God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. They believe that the Bible is His “love letter” (blech) to each of them individually. So they should read it. Start to finish, because if they believe that God wrote this to them, for them, through the hands of man, then the assembly is perfect as it is and they should understand it as it is.
What did I find as a young adult who finally read the Bible and paid closer attention to words God was saying to me? He’s either an ego-maniacal schizophrenic deity or He was created by ego-maniacal schizophrenic men who could write.
Either way, He’s not for me.
And, following your dictionary example, the editors of a dictionary are never purported to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Therefore no one expects their book to be understood by everyone without prior understanding (the ability to read, for instance).
Christians, typically, believe that their God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. They believe that the Bible is His “love letter” (blech) to each of them individually. So they should read it. Start to finish, because if they believe that God wrote this to them, for them, through the hands of man, then the assembly is perfect as it is and they should understand it as it is.
What did I find as a young adult who finally read the Bible and paid closer attention to words God was saying to me? He’s either an ego-maniacal schizophrenic deity or He was created by ego-maniacal schizophrenic men who could write.
Either way, He’s not for me.
And, following your dictionary example, the editors of a dictionary are never purported to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Therefore no one expects their book to be understood by everyone without prior understanding (the ability to read, for instance).
26
Also, if you're gonna seriously talk about The Bible, read it in Latin or Ancient Greek, because, unlike Joseph Smith and his magical golden plates, no one has claimed Divine Intervention in the translation of that book (...at least not that I know of...), and quite a bit gets lost in translation (and, wherever possible, try to find pre-14th Century Latin definitions for the important words...The Yale School of Divinity can assist in this pursuit)
28
@23
The Epistles are Anti-Semitic. "Anti-Christ", as it is used in those books of The New Testament, has nothing to do with Satan, but in fact refers to those who are "against Christ". In The Epistles, The Anti-Christ are the same people to whom the letters (1Corinthians, etc) are being written - Jews.
Those books are incredibly disgusting.
@25
It doesn't matter if you or I believe in The God of The Bible. The majority of those in The Western world do believe in Him, so whether or not He exists, He exists. And, as it turns out, you have a God-Part of your brain (in the temporal lobe), so the idea of God was obviously important enough to stick around as part of the evolutionary process, therefore, whether he exists of not, you would not exist without God.
You either gotta deal with it or get run over by those who haven't spent enough time thinking critically about the whole deal...and, some of them ain't so bad, anyway, and it may be possible to reason with some of them (though, plenty are).
The Epistles are Anti-Semitic. "Anti-Christ", as it is used in those books of The New Testament, has nothing to do with Satan, but in fact refers to those who are "against Christ". In The Epistles, The Anti-Christ are the same people to whom the letters (1Corinthians, etc) are being written - Jews.
Those books are incredibly disgusting.
@25
It doesn't matter if you or I believe in The God of The Bible. The majority of those in The Western world do believe in Him, so whether or not He exists, He exists. And, as it turns out, you have a God-Part of your brain (in the temporal lobe), so the idea of God was obviously important enough to stick around as part of the evolutionary process, therefore, whether he exists of not, you would not exist without God.
You either gotta deal with it or get run over by those who haven't spent enough time thinking critically about the whole deal...and, some of them ain't so bad, anyway, and it may be possible to reason with some of them (though, plenty are).
29
@ 26, I believe some of the crazier sects claim that the translators of the KJV (the old, original one) were divinely guided. I couldn't name which ones, though.
30
@17
"So, by that same logic, the only way to read a dictionary, thesaurus, Farmer's Almanac, etc would also be 'left-to-right, front to backk'?"
Of course. Because each of those examples is inspired/dictated by God or His Son.
You do know the difference between The Bible and The Farmer's Almanac, right?
"So, by that same logic, the only way to read a dictionary, thesaurus, Farmer's Almanac, etc would also be 'left-to-right, front to backk'?"
Of course. Because each of those examples is inspired/dictated by God or His Son.
You do know the difference between The Bible and The Farmer's Almanac, right?
31
One thing to keep in mind is that Matthew, whose Sermon on the Mount Goldy refers to, was writing to a community that was primarily Hebrew. That's why you see so many references to the Torah and the Prophets and the Psalms in Matthew's Gospel. Luke, on the other hand, was writing to a primarily Greek audience in the Sermon on the Plain, you don't see that reference at all. But they both stole parts of sermon itself (the Beatitudes) from Mark and a source commonly called Q.
Understanding who the writers of the books of the Bible were aiming their message at and what there motivation was (such as the very clear anti-Semitism in John) helps the Bible to make sense, and helps to separate the good stuff from the bullshit, as Dan so eloquently put it a few days ago.
Understanding who the writers of the books of the Bible were aiming their message at and what there motivation was (such as the very clear anti-Semitism in John) helps the Bible to make sense, and helps to separate the good stuff from the bullshit, as Dan so eloquently put it a few days ago.
32
@1, what's interesting about that is that most Christians are, in fact, pretty devout readers and interpreters of the Bible. They carry them around, often with so many underlinings and highlightings you can barely make out the text. They constantly bring up specific passages of scripture, and quote it extensively when you argue with them. There are any number of famous bigots who knew the Bible by heart, straight off. Ken Hutcherson could undoubtedly lay a hundred verses on you without stopping.
And yet you are still correct. They still know very little about this book that is at the center of their lives. Very bizarre.
And yet you are still correct. They still know very little about this book that is at the center of their lives. Very bizarre.
33
Harvey Cox: "Every religion is like Peer Gynt's famous onion. If you tried to peel away all they have absorbed from other faiths, which are in turn already conglomerates, you would find only more and more layers underneath..."
I like this analogy: religion as an onion.
I like this analogy: religion as an onion.
34
@3,
My favorite part of Acts is one passage (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up) where two converts tried to hide some of their material wealth from the community. They were struck dead.
True, but that doesn't explain the Christians who write to Dan and inform him that Christians in general (not them personally, not their particular sect, ALL Christians) aren't meant to abide by the Old Testament at all. That's as much a lie as if Reform Jews tried to deny the existence of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews.
My favorite part of Acts is one passage (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up) where two converts tried to hide some of their material wealth from the community. They were struck dead.
Modern Christians and many (if not most) modern Jews believe that the literal interpretation of the law of Moses no longer is applicable to modern life.
True, but that doesn't explain the Christians who write to Dan and inform him that Christians in general (not them personally, not their particular sect, ALL Christians) aren't meant to abide by the Old Testament at all. That's as much a lie as if Reform Jews tried to deny the existence of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews.
35
@4: I think your pinko verses are trumped by one of the most important verses in the bible (I don't have time to look up chapter and verse): "God helps those who help themselves."
That's really the scriptural underpinning for capitalism, Mr. Smartpants Communist!
That's really the scriptural underpinning for capitalism, Mr. Smartpants Communist!
36
@30
I know one is about an ass, one an aardvark and one is about yo mama, but I have no idea which is which.
I know one is about an ass, one an aardvark and one is about yo mama, but I have no idea which is which.
37
@34 I agree. I didn't say that those Christians were correct in any way, I just said that it's not anti-Semitic for Christians to not follow the old law.
38
Only problem, @35 is that that saying is not in the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_t…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_t…
39
@32: Part of the reason why is that they are (we were) encouraged to read in specific ways with specific questions we should ask of each passage. If we didn't understand anything (or understood anything to be different from what we were told about what the Bible says), we were supposed to use certain study guides or speak to specific people. All interactions with the bible were intermediated, in one way or another.
41
@36
"I know one is about an ass, one an aardvark and one is about yo mama, but I have no idea which is which."
Nice. So since you cannot tell the difference between the divine origins of the The Bible and the Farmer's Almanac ...
The question remains, if God is God and created everything as is claimed in The Bible then why does God have trouble phrasing His divine instructions to in such a way that can be easily read and understood today?
"I know one is about an ass, one an aardvark and one is about yo mama, but I have no idea which is which."
Nice. So since you cannot tell the difference between the divine origins of the The Bible and the Farmer's Almanac ...
The question remains, if God is God and created everything as is claimed in The Bible then why does God have trouble phrasing His divine instructions to in such a way that can be easily read and understood today?
42
@34. They were struck down, but the strike down was for lying about it, not for hiding what their money. More bothersome? Less bothersome? Choose your own adventure.
43
General comment: "Torah" _has_ been used more generally for the Writings and the Prophets, and sometimes even the Mishneh and Gemara.
More specifically: The Law as notionally given to the Children of Israel has always been interpreted as applying in all its details only to us; only the commandments notionally given to Noakh apply to all human beings, though of course there is room for interpretation (e.g., and esp., the prohibition against 'adultery' has been taken to include all forms of sexual 'immorality').
@16: Great point...and see how it overlaps with Jonathan Haidt's work on conservative and liberal moral pillars---conservatives are purity/authority based in this scheme, so (for example) they often care more about the nature of sexual acts (which bits are in/on which other bits, and whose) than on the volition of the partners involved. (For an extreme version of this, see Aquinas'[?] holding that 'natural' [in his terminology] heterosexual rape were less wrong than 'unnatural' [i.h.t.] masturbation, it not involving the wrong bits and also potentially leading to a 'good' [i.h.t.] in the form of a baby.)
More specifically: The Law as notionally given to the Children of Israel has always been interpreted as applying in all its details only to us; only the commandments notionally given to Noakh apply to all human beings, though of course there is room for interpretation (e.g., and esp., the prohibition against 'adultery' has been taken to include all forms of sexual 'immorality').
@16: Great point...and see how it overlaps with Jonathan Haidt's work on conservative and liberal moral pillars---conservatives are purity/authority based in this scheme, so (for example) they often care more about the nature of sexual acts (which bits are in/on which other bits, and whose) than on the volition of the partners involved. (For an extreme version of this, see Aquinas'[?] holding that 'natural' [in his terminology] heterosexual rape were less wrong than 'unnatural' [i.h.t.] masturbation, it not involving the wrong bits and also potentially leading to a 'good' [i.h.t.] in the form of a baby.)
45
@15: The Old Testament commands us, quite strictly, not to glean our mown fields or pick bare our orchards, but to leave a portion of our harvests to those who are less fortunate. Right back at you, SRotU.
46
@19: That's not what I implied. Follow the link to Dan's post; he is being accused of not understanding the Bible in referring to Leviticus... which is, as I point out, an integral part of the Christian Bible.
The anti-Semitism as I see it is not in failing to follow the laws of Leviticus, but rather in denying that Leviticus is part of the Christian tradition.
The anti-Semitism as I see it is not in failing to follow the laws of Leviticus, but rather in denying that Leviticus is part of the Christian tradition.
47
@38: don't be ridiculous. Of course "God helps those who help themselves" is in the bible. If it weren't, why would everyone be so sure that you have to be Republican to be a really good Christian? If it is not an actual commandment, it must be at the very least from the Sermon on the Mount somewhere. As I say, you could look it up.
48
Christians have a long history of struggling with how to view the Old Testament, a history that is even found in the books of the New Testament. In the beginning, there was fighting over whether Christians should continue Jewish practices such as circumcision and kosher or to set them aside. Ultimately, Paul's vision of a Gentile Christianity won out. Later, there was debate about whether to include the Old Testament as part of the Christian canon. Christians decided to include it because they felt it gave context to Jesus's life and death.
Also, the Bible isn't a single book. Rather it is a collection of books written by diverse authors with a variety of viewpoints written over the course of centuries.
It is quite arrogant to tell people of another faith how they should live their religion. People are free to come to different interpretations than you.
The hypocrisy of dismissing Levitical laws isn't that people are downplaying the Old Testament in favor of the New Testament. The hypocrisy is in dismissing the entire book of Leviticus except for two verses related to homosexuality.
Also, the Bible isn't a single book. Rather it is a collection of books written by diverse authors with a variety of viewpoints written over the course of centuries.
It is quite arrogant to tell people of another faith how they should live their religion. People are free to come to different interpretations than you.
The hypocrisy of dismissing Levitical laws isn't that people are downplaying the Old Testament in favor of the New Testament. The hypocrisy is in dismissing the entire book of Leviticus except for two verses related to homosexuality.
50
@40 and @41
My point was it is a reference book, similar in how it should be read and approached to the other books I mentioned. I get how many Christians approach it, but they literally don't know what the words mean, as they were used in the book when the book was written.
FOR EXAMPLE -
Fornication has come to mean sex of any type, and while I DON'T have a dictionary handy, I do know that saying fornication in polite conversation will convey the meaning of any kind of sex, depending on the context in which it is used.
HOWEVER, if one goes back far enough to the oldest translation available for fornacario (the latin word translated as fornication), one will find that the root of fornicario is fornix. A fornix is an arch. The suffix is the equivalent of "ing", so fornication literally means "arching".
At the time The Bible was written, there were small, 1/2 basements/crawl spaces in nearly every building where commerce was practiced, and this is because the foundations were arches (because these areas were controlled by The Roman Empire, and they did love their arches...)
In these basements, you would typically find hookers. So, in this case, "arching", or fornicario, like so many sex words, was slang for banging a hooker.
Anywhere you see fornication translated in the bible, it is not a prohibition against sex in general, but instead a prohibition against banging a whore (because, at the time, all prostitutes were slaves, or PORN, but that's a lesson for another day).
Perhaps my little troll will now understand why I made what I believe to be an important, yet subtle distinction between support and endorsement.
When the words used are words which are included in these ancient texts that are still relied upon for a rigid, unchanging moral compass, their original meaning matters, especially in this case.
As you go through the other words for sex in the bible (or, the words you thought were for sex) and review their original, pre-14th century ecumenical counsel meaning, you will see that all relate to adultery or prostitution, sans the bullshit stuff about homosexuality, which I am fully convinced (though I have no direct evidence of this) that it was added at a later time than the rest was written.
So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up.
You jerkoffs that can't just leave well enough alone know so much less on this topic than I do, that you believe me to be stupid and you to be the expert, which is why I said before, "if you think I'm stupid, then I'm doing something right."
Go to Yale if you want to check my work. It's all 100% accurate.
More...
My point was it is a reference book, similar in how it should be read and approached to the other books I mentioned. I get how many Christians approach it, but they literally don't know what the words mean, as they were used in the book when the book was written.
FOR EXAMPLE -
Fornication has come to mean sex of any type, and while I DON'T have a dictionary handy, I do know that saying fornication in polite conversation will convey the meaning of any kind of sex, depending on the context in which it is used.
HOWEVER, if one goes back far enough to the oldest translation available for fornacario (the latin word translated as fornication), one will find that the root of fornicario is fornix. A fornix is an arch. The suffix is the equivalent of "ing", so fornication literally means "arching".
At the time The Bible was written, there were small, 1/2 basements/crawl spaces in nearly every building where commerce was practiced, and this is because the foundations were arches (because these areas were controlled by The Roman Empire, and they did love their arches...)
In these basements, you would typically find hookers. So, in this case, "arching", or fornicario, like so many sex words, was slang for banging a hooker.
Anywhere you see fornication translated in the bible, it is not a prohibition against sex in general, but instead a prohibition against banging a whore (because, at the time, all prostitutes were slaves, or PORN, but that's a lesson for another day).
Perhaps my little troll will now understand why I made what I believe to be an important, yet subtle distinction between support and endorsement.
When the words used are words which are included in these ancient texts that are still relied upon for a rigid, unchanging moral compass, their original meaning matters, especially in this case.
As you go through the other words for sex in the bible (or, the words you thought were for sex) and review their original, pre-14th century ecumenical counsel meaning, you will see that all relate to adultery or prostitution, sans the bullshit stuff about homosexuality, which I am fully convinced (though I have no direct evidence of this) that it was added at a later time than the rest was written.
So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up.
You jerkoffs that can't just leave well enough alone know so much less on this topic than I do, that you believe me to be stupid and you to be the expert, which is why I said before, "if you think I'm stupid, then I'm doing something right."
Go to Yale if you want to check my work. It's all 100% accurate.
51
@50
"Fornication has come to mean sex ... "
Fascinating. Really! It is fascinating.
I mean it's not like best-selling and award-winning author Terry Pratchett didn't make a similar observation as a JOKE back in 2007 in a book that was nominated for a Nebula award and only sold a millions of copies.
So millions of people have known about that for years ...
"So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
You really don't know what a Farmer's Almanac is, do you?
"Fornication has come to mean sex ... "
Fascinating. Really! It is fascinating.
I mean it's not like best-selling and award-winning author Terry Pratchett didn't make a similar observation as a JOKE back in 2007 in a book that was nominated for a Nebula award and only sold a millions of copies.
So millions of people have known about that for years ...
"So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
You really don't know what a Farmer's Almanac is, do you?
52
Goldy, I'm glad you're reading the Bible and trying to make sense of it. To help you out some, here's Bible 101 on the difference between Old and New Testaments (which, unfortunately, most Fundamentalist Christians have never taken):
Much of the NT, beginning at the Book of Acts, is about whether Christians need to follow the Jewish laws. The Old Testament laws are voided by Paul in the Letter to the Galatians. This 6-chapter book is the most important letter of Paul in understanding the boundaries between Old and New Testaments and is neglected by both Christians and opponents of Christianity. Look especially at Chapters 5-6 which begin, "For freedom Christ has set you free. Do not submit again to the yoke of slavery (i.e. the Old Testament laws).
Trust me on this, I'm pastor of one of Seattle leading liberal churches and have a doctorate in Christian theology. If our fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters would understand this we would all be spared a lot of the silliness that masquerades as Christianity.
---End of Bible Lesson ---
Much of the NT, beginning at the Book of Acts, is about whether Christians need to follow the Jewish laws. The Old Testament laws are voided by Paul in the Letter to the Galatians. This 6-chapter book is the most important letter of Paul in understanding the boundaries between Old and New Testaments and is neglected by both Christians and opponents of Christianity. Look especially at Chapters 5-6 which begin, "For freedom Christ has set you free. Do not submit again to the yoke of slavery (i.e. the Old Testament laws).
Trust me on this, I'm pastor of one of Seattle leading liberal churches and have a doctorate in Christian theology. If our fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters would understand this we would all be spared a lot of the silliness that masquerades as Christianity.
---End of Bible Lesson ---
53
@51
i've never read this book you speak of, and I've never heard of this author, and that is one of many biblical information digs I've been on, sans guidance from whomever wrote whatever book. It is simply an example which seems to keep people's attention because it involves sex.
The farmer's almanac charts out when the aardvark should bang your mother's ass...something like that. I know it has to do with fertility, anyway.
(how many google searches did it take you to find that book? I mean, I'm sure you read it in 2007 when it came out, except everything else you seem to know comes off of the 1st hit on a google search, so maybe I'm less confident of your reading of that book than I just intimated...basically, I'm fairly confident that boils down to your mother's ass as well...
Troll, from the French troller, which means to hunt. I still haven't bothered to learn your moniker, and yet I recognize your BS argument style from a mile away, and all I've seen is a bunch of dick behavior between you and people with whom you disagree...you have any ideas of your own, or do you just try to wiki little points here and there to pick at people with whom you don't agree, in general?
gofuckyourself (from the latin, gofuckyourself, which loosely translated means, gofuckyourself.)
i've never read this book you speak of, and I've never heard of this author, and that is one of many biblical information digs I've been on, sans guidance from whomever wrote whatever book. It is simply an example which seems to keep people's attention because it involves sex.
The farmer's almanac charts out when the aardvark should bang your mother's ass...something like that. I know it has to do with fertility, anyway.
(how many google searches did it take you to find that book? I mean, I'm sure you read it in 2007 when it came out, except everything else you seem to know comes off of the 1st hit on a google search, so maybe I'm less confident of your reading of that book than I just intimated...basically, I'm fairly confident that boils down to your mother's ass as well...
Troll, from the French troller, which means to hunt. I still haven't bothered to learn your moniker, and yet I recognize your BS argument style from a mile away, and all I've seen is a bunch of dick behavior between you and people with whom you disagree...you have any ideas of your own, or do you just try to wiki little points here and there to pick at people with whom you don't agree, in general?
gofuckyourself (from the latin, gofuckyourself, which loosely translated means, gofuckyourself.)
54
@52
Where does Paul get the divine authority to void the old testament when 1/3 of the Trinity which is the Christian God said, specifically, that it was not void?
Paul's Epistles, specifically, are the justification for douchebags like Mel Gibson to hate Jews (it's the only part of the bible to which I can't find a plausible interpretation that actually turns hateful words into a meaningful lesson in morality).
Acts, Romans and the Epistles are the absolute worst parts of a book which is otherwise fairly decent in the lessons it teaches. I have no idea why anyone would hang their hat in that nasty section of an OK, for the most part, book about simple, easy to follow morality. (since humans haven't seemed to have found anything else in this arena, in the West, to use as a learning tool around this very important part of our society)
Where does Paul get the divine authority to void the old testament when 1/3 of the Trinity which is the Christian God said, specifically, that it was not void?
Paul's Epistles, specifically, are the justification for douchebags like Mel Gibson to hate Jews (it's the only part of the bible to which I can't find a plausible interpretation that actually turns hateful words into a meaningful lesson in morality).
Acts, Romans and the Epistles are the absolute worst parts of a book which is otherwise fairly decent in the lessons it teaches. I have no idea why anyone would hang their hat in that nasty section of an OK, for the most part, book about simple, easy to follow morality. (since humans haven't seemed to have found anything else in this arena, in the West, to use as a learning tool around this very important part of our society)
55
@50 - The point you seem to be missing is that neither the dictionary or an almanac is a narrative.
You may just as well say reading the Book of Job in order is the akin to reading the "J" section of the dictionary in order, or reading a tide-table in order.
Or, is reading the Book of Job supposed to be just like reading a single definition, or a single high-tide event? Okay, if that is your assertion, is reading Genesis and Exodus in order the same as reading the definitions of "clucky" and "clue" in order?
At any rate, you lost me, because neither the dictionary or an almanac TELLS A STORY. (And, to forestall your denial of this, I mean *literally* tells a story.)
Plus, you told me you majored in Economics, not in "The Similarities and Differences between Types of Books." I didn't know Yale even offered that as a curriculum. Man, your parents must have been pissed!
You may just as well say reading the Book of Job in order is the akin to reading the "J" section of the dictionary in order, or reading a tide-table in order.
Or, is reading the Book of Job supposed to be just like reading a single definition, or a single high-tide event? Okay, if that is your assertion, is reading Genesis and Exodus in order the same as reading the definitions of "clucky" and "clue" in order?
At any rate, you lost me, because neither the dictionary or an almanac TELLS A STORY. (And, to forestall your denial of this, I mean *literally* tells a story.)
Plus, you told me you majored in Economics, not in "The Similarities and Differences between Types of Books." I didn't know Yale even offered that as a curriculum. Man, your parents must have been pissed!
56
@53
"i've never read this book you speak of, and I've never heard of this author, and that is one of many biblical information digs I've been on, sans guidance from whomever wrote whatever book."
Of course you haven't. So you claim. He just happened to make a similar comment, years ago, in a book that sold millions of copies and was on the New York Times best seller list. But you researched that independently. Despite it being known by millions of people for years.
"The farmer's almanac charts out when the aardvark should bang your mother's ass...something like that."
And yet you claim that a Farmer's Almanac has to be "studied and heavily examined".
Let me make sure that is emphasized.
YOU claim that the Farmer's Almanac has to be "studied and heavily examined".
Otherwise ... "because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
Again, that is about The Farmer's Almanac.
"Go to Yale if you want to check my work."
Quite. I'm sure.
Strange how you went into detail on "fornication" and how it is of Latin origin (slang) but I'm sure that you know that The Bible was not written in Latin (and particularly not Latin slang).
So you claim that your work at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
And because of that you claim that your dictionary has the only true definitions of words and that the other dictionaries have false definitions.
And that (at Yale?) you learned that The Bible is a reference book and should be read as a reference book.
Yet The Bible does not seem to contain an index or any of the other features of reference books.
More...
"i've never read this book you speak of, and I've never heard of this author, and that is one of many biblical information digs I've been on, sans guidance from whomever wrote whatever book."
Of course you haven't. So you claim. He just happened to make a similar comment, years ago, in a book that sold millions of copies and was on the New York Times best seller list. But you researched that independently. Despite it being known by millions of people for years.
"The farmer's almanac charts out when the aardvark should bang your mother's ass...something like that."
And yet you claim that a Farmer's Almanac has to be "studied and heavily examined".
Let me make sure that is emphasized.
YOU claim that the Farmer's Almanac has to be "studied and heavily examined".
Otherwise ... "because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
Again, that is about The Farmer's Almanac.
"Go to Yale if you want to check my work."
Quite. I'm sure.
Strange how you went into detail on "fornication" and how it is of Latin origin (slang) but I'm sure that you know that The Bible was not written in Latin (and particularly not Latin slang).
So you claim that your work at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
And because of that you claim that your dictionary has the only true definitions of words and that the other dictionaries have false definitions.
And that (at Yale?) you learned that The Bible is a reference book and should be read as a reference book.
Yet The Bible does not seem to contain an index or any of the other features of reference books.
58
@55
The bible doesn't really tell a consistent, coherent story as well.
I assume you're familiar with the section that goes on as X begat Y and Y begat Z and so on and so on.
Is this a story? Or, is it more of a story than, in a dictionary, where the etymology of a word is explained?
Unfortunately, the bible isn't marked like either the dictionary or rife with charts like a farmer's almanac. One needs to know where and how to look things up, and one must also understand the relevant laws of man that were used at the time so that they may understand the character's actions and how they relate to the world in which they live.
The people who read it as if it is a novel, and not a reference book, have absolutely no understanding of it, and if you're making an honest argument and not just trolling me (AGAIN), then you're a waste of flesh.
WHAT DO YOU THINK (that doesn't involve simply refuting what I think)? Do you have any thoughts that don't involve being a douchebag? If not, then feel free to troll me further, but I'm done playing this game (you, at least, seemed to not be a complete asshole like your partner in cyber crime, but if I'm incorrect about that, then there's nothing for me to do except pay you the attention your non-existent ideas warrant, which is none further.
I hope I was right, but I have little care either way.
The bible doesn't really tell a consistent, coherent story as well.
I assume you're familiar with the section that goes on as X begat Y and Y begat Z and so on and so on.
Is this a story? Or, is it more of a story than, in a dictionary, where the etymology of a word is explained?
Unfortunately, the bible isn't marked like either the dictionary or rife with charts like a farmer's almanac. One needs to know where and how to look things up, and one must also understand the relevant laws of man that were used at the time so that they may understand the character's actions and how they relate to the world in which they live.
The people who read it as if it is a novel, and not a reference book, have absolutely no understanding of it, and if you're making an honest argument and not just trolling me (AGAIN), then you're a waste of flesh.
WHAT DO YOU THINK (that doesn't involve simply refuting what I think)? Do you have any thoughts that don't involve being a douchebag? If not, then feel free to troll me further, but I'm done playing this game (you, at least, seemed to not be a complete asshole like your partner in cyber crime, but if I'm incorrect about that, then there's nothing for me to do except pay you the attention your non-existent ideas warrant, which is none further.
I hope I was right, but I have little care either way.
59
@57
Fart rules apply - he who smelt it, dealt it.
Welcome to Trollville - population you (and one other, for sure, and perhaps one other. If you don't like my ideas, ignore them. If you'd like to engage me in any real sort of way, then do so. I'm the only person, among the now 3 others calling me a troll, who is trying to have a positive conversation about ideas. So, I think I know the deal with the others. What's your excuse?)
Fart rules apply - he who smelt it, dealt it.
Welcome to Trollville - population you (and one other, for sure, and perhaps one other. If you don't like my ideas, ignore them. If you'd like to engage me in any real sort of way, then do so. I'm the only person, among the now 3 others calling me a troll, who is trying to have a positive conversation about ideas. So, I think I know the deal with the others. What's your excuse?)
60
@57
"Fairly sure that MalcolmXY is a high-grade troll."
Naw. A high-grade troll knows the material better than the average person and is able to troll the newbs into making classic newb mistakes.
A high-grade troll would never claim that dictionaries did not have the correct definitions.
"Fairly sure that MalcolmXY is a high-grade troll."
Naw. A high-grade troll knows the material better than the average person and is able to troll the newbs into making classic newb mistakes.
A high-grade troll would never claim that dictionaries did not have the correct definitions.
62
I was trying to make a reasonable argument, with some assholish trolling tacked onto the end. Sorry for that, but I'm an asshole and that's what I do.
The Bible can indeed be used as a reference, but no part of the dictionary can be read as story is read. That's why no one ever called it "The greatest story ever told." That's all I was trying to point out.
Have a good evening, sir.
The Bible can indeed be used as a reference, but no part of the dictionary can be read as story is read. That's why no one ever called it "The greatest story ever told." That's all I was trying to point out.
Have a good evening, sir.
63
@59
So you claim that your work on many biblical information digs while at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
And because of that you claim that your dictionary has the only true definitions of words and that the other dictionaries have false definitions.
"So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
You do not know what the Farmer's Almanac is, do you?
So you claim that your work on many biblical information digs while at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
And because of that you claim that your dictionary has the only true definitions of words and that the other dictionaries have false definitions.
"So, as I was saying, the bible is not to be read from cover to cover, but studied and heavily examined, as one would with a dictionary or a farmer's almanac, because if one is not careful with it, they might just fuck it all up."
You do not know what the Farmer's Almanac is, do you?
64
@63 - I wish this guy would pick his battles.
While I admire his taking the bold stance of, "Reading the Bible in order makes the same amount of sense as reading the dictionary in order," it's hard to admire his tenacity, what with saying the etymology of a word is a story the same way The Creation or The Flood is a story. (In fact, I tried to forestall him from making that blunder to no avail.)
Sigh. I'm still trying to figure out if this is some elaborate art project, like SeattleBlues or Spindles
While I admire his taking the bold stance of, "Reading the Bible in order makes the same amount of sense as reading the dictionary in order," it's hard to admire his tenacity, what with saying the etymology of a word is a story the same way The Creation or The Flood is a story. (In fact, I tried to forestall him from making that blunder to no avail.)
Sigh. I'm still trying to figure out if this is some elaborate art project, like SeattleBlues or Spindles
65
@63
That was the word the vatican chose as the best to use to control their congregation.
The church purposely misinterprets myriad sections from the bible, and especially the ones which revolve around sex and slavery, because those, at the time, were the easiest means to control the herd and turn them into slaves (just before the dark ages...).
It's all an extension of Paganism, evolved through time (though, compared to Judaism, which Christianity was supposed to be the next evolution of, Christianity has remained extremely stagnant, as has Islam, which should have been to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism).
A funny thing happened with Catholicism on the way to the Coliseum, though - The Roman Empire was falling and a unifying religion is a great way, along with an invasion army, to breathe a little life back into a dying empire.
So, instead of a philosophy of relative peace (it ain't perfect, but it was decent enough for the time), Christianity became a tool for power and control.
This isn't conspiracy theory, either...it's well documented, and it's easily explainable through the normal cycle an empire goes through, and especially the phases that happen at the end of said artifice.
But, instead of talking about that (or anything else of any substance), y'all are stuck on a metaphor that you either actually can't wrap your brains around, or one that you're pretending you can't wrap your brains around in a feeble attempt to "win" these battles that I apparently need to learn how to choose.
I'm not in a battle. I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as the javascript that is fed to my computer by the sites on which I write them.
I haven't seen Rod Roddy, so what did y'all win? Good stuff, I hope.
(and, for all the sense it supposedly makes, no one but me mentioned Jesus's purpose for reciting the Sermon on the Mount, the only example of him preaching/giving a sermon in all of the Gospels of Canon, so either no one else knew, no one thought it was important enough to mention, or no one else understood why he was there, and it was a pretty cool reason...completely analogous to MLK and his marches in Selma, AL...but, ignore that...please, tell me about how confusing this metaphor is to wrap your 2 brain cells around again.)
More...
That was the word the vatican chose as the best to use to control their congregation.
The church purposely misinterprets myriad sections from the bible, and especially the ones which revolve around sex and slavery, because those, at the time, were the easiest means to control the herd and turn them into slaves (just before the dark ages...).
It's all an extension of Paganism, evolved through time (though, compared to Judaism, which Christianity was supposed to be the next evolution of, Christianity has remained extremely stagnant, as has Islam, which should have been to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism).
A funny thing happened with Catholicism on the way to the Coliseum, though - The Roman Empire was falling and a unifying religion is a great way, along with an invasion army, to breathe a little life back into a dying empire.
So, instead of a philosophy of relative peace (it ain't perfect, but it was decent enough for the time), Christianity became a tool for power and control.
This isn't conspiracy theory, either...it's well documented, and it's easily explainable through the normal cycle an empire goes through, and especially the phases that happen at the end of said artifice.
But, instead of talking about that (or anything else of any substance), y'all are stuck on a metaphor that you either actually can't wrap your brains around, or one that you're pretending you can't wrap your brains around in a feeble attempt to "win" these battles that I apparently need to learn how to choose.
I'm not in a battle. I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as the javascript that is fed to my computer by the sites on which I write them.
I haven't seen Rod Roddy, so what did y'all win? Good stuff, I hope.
(and, for all the sense it supposedly makes, no one but me mentioned Jesus's purpose for reciting the Sermon on the Mount, the only example of him preaching/giving a sermon in all of the Gospels of Canon, so either no one else knew, no one thought it was important enough to mention, or no one else understood why he was there, and it was a pretty cool reason...completely analogous to MLK and his marches in Selma, AL...but, ignore that...please, tell me about how confusing this metaphor is to wrap your 2 brain cells around again.)
66
@65
"I'm not in a battle. I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as the javascript that is fed to my computer by the sites on which I write them."
And yet you have a dictionary that holds the true definitions of words which proves that all the other dictionaries are false.
You have no idea what the Farmer's Almanac is.
You claim that your work on many biblical information digs while at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
"... I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as..."
That is usually known as "trolling".
"I'm the only person, among the now 3 others calling me a troll, who is trying to have a positive conversation about ideas."
What was that?
"... I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as ..."
You claim others are trolls and and that you are the one trying to have "a positive conversation about ideas". But when presented with your own claims of "Yale" and "biblical information digs" you claim that you are "fucking around on the internet" and that "the words are meaningless to" you.
"I'm not in a battle. I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as the javascript that is fed to my computer by the sites on which I write them."
And yet you have a dictionary that holds the true definitions of words which proves that all the other dictionaries are false.
You have no idea what the Farmer's Almanac is.
You claim that your work on many biblical information digs while at Yale showed you that the holy book known as The Old Testament was translated by Christian priests from ancient Hebrew (a complex language) into Latin slang (even more complex than regular Latin) and from Latin slang into English. Yet still used the Latin slang which had, over the years, been adapted to modern English because that was the word the scholars chose as the best translation.
"... I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as..."
That is usually known as "trolling".
"I'm the only person, among the now 3 others calling me a troll, who is trying to have a positive conversation about ideas."
What was that?
"... I'm fucking around on the internet - a place where the words are as meaningless to me as ..."
You claim others are trolls and and that you are the one trying to have "a positive conversation about ideas". But when presented with your own claims of "Yale" and "biblical information digs" you claim that you are "fucking around on the internet" and that "the words are meaningless to" you.
67
troll means hunt. you're looking for me, not vice versa. and, I don't bring up any of your tired, retarded arguments from prior, because all you really got is this word thing that you still don't understand and are wrong about (and on which I already provided links). Now you're saying I don't know what the farmer's almanac is, when I so obviously do.
THIS is the definition of trolling, but whatever. Keep hunting me down and interjecting with your irrelevant arguments. Ain't like I can stop you nor that I care enough to try.
THIS is the definition of trolling, but whatever. Keep hunting me down and interjecting with your irrelevant arguments. Ain't like I can stop you nor that I care enough to try.
68
@64
"Sigh. I'm still trying to figure out if this is some elaborate art project, like SeattleBlues or Spindles "
I don't think so.
What kind of "art project" would have the artist claiming to have been on "biblical information digs" at "Yale" where he got his degree in "economics" and also use "he who smelt it, dealt it", "douchebag", "complete asshole", "You jerkoffs" and "the aardvark should bang your mother's ass".
"Sigh. I'm still trying to figure out if this is some elaborate art project, like SeattleBlues or Spindles "
I don't think so.
What kind of "art project" would have the artist claiming to have been on "biblical information digs" at "Yale" where he got his degree in "economics" and also use "he who smelt it, dealt it", "douchebag", "complete asshole", "You jerkoffs" and "the aardvark should bang your mother's ass".
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (68) RSS