|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 25 2014 06:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you  There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. Introvert, once more reminding us that christians only want to kill those who practice homosexuality. An important distinction!
On September 25 2014 06:39 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. This is a distinction that can only be made in the 21st century. It's not a religious distinction, the Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals and homosexual activity. It's a societal or scientific distinction, and Christianity has been forced to capitulate to it for the sake of appearing less Bronze Age than it really is.
Edit: uh, the vast majority of non-Westboro Christians don't want to do that? Jormundr once again reminding us of how inflammatory he is, intentionally. (Those stoning laws? Written for Israelites!)
Edit again: To be sure, in the ancient world the idea of "orientation" was most likely unknown. That doesn't change the emphasis on the act vs. the person.
The distinction is important enough that it should be stated and understood. If a two straight men were caught "in the act" then the punishment would be the same. Not just a 21st century distinction. And for people who actually think about and discuss these things (on both sides) it does matter. If one is so ignorant as to not even be aware of the distinction, then I don't think I'm under any obligation to trust their judgement with regards to its importance.
At the very least one should know these things so that one doesn't come off looking like an ignoramus. Of course then again, what are the chances that particular person would ever be corrected on the issue?
Of course the point I was making was ignored- you should know what you are criticizing so you can do so correctly. No honest person benefits from such misunderstanding. This is what I was trying to point out- the biblical example was just that- an example.
Yoav's opinion varies from mine it seems, for the record.
|
On September 25 2014 05:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 04:54 mordek wrote:
Bronze age. Keep it classy Simberto. Yeah that was definitely a little out of line. It's better described as a middle iron age belief system because they threw out the bronze age parts (yay technicalities) and added some new ones to make it a far more successful religion.
Not to actually use information or anything, but no. Hebrew Bible was finalized ~450 BCE based on materials from previous centuries, probably not quite as far as a millenium out. If we must use the outdated "[material] age" system, that lands the entire thing in the iron age. The NT was composed in the first century CE, on the cusp of "late antiquity."
But the thing everyone keeps saying about moral progress since the bronze age is of course correct, and largely thanks to the religious and philosophical ancestors of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Humanism is a Christian concept, and it reflects Christianity's dual roots in Greek philosophy and Israelite theology. The Bible, as anyone familiar with reading it knows, is a chronicle of a millennium and a half of that moral progress.
So when I say that I wish people listened to the Church more on immigration (by treating immigrants decently), capital punishment (by outlawing it), war (by adhering to just war principles), foreign policy (favoring human rights over economic concerns) and so on and so forth, I'm talking about the religion that created our moral framework and has put a lot more thought into it than even the brightest atheist.
Of course, fundamentalist religion is a lot more fun to talk about, despite being a minority almost everywhere except benighted places like Saudi Arabia or the American South, so that's what we talk about. And they throw away the vast majority of religious tradition to focus on relatively recent concerns. Remember people: the Bible has not a word to say against abortion or consensual, non-exploitative homosexual relationships.
|
You forgot poverty
|
On September 25 2014 06:52 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On September 25 2014 04:54 mordek wrote:
Bronze age. Keep it classy Simberto. Yeah that was definitely a little out of line. It's better described as a middle iron age belief system because they threw out the bronze age parts (yay technicalities) and added some new ones to make it a far more successful religion. Not to actually use information or anything, but no. Hebrew Bible was finalized ~450 BCE based on materials from previous centuries, probably not quite as far as a millenium out. If we must use the outdated "[material] age" system, that lands the entire thing in the iron age. The NT was composed in the first century CE, on the cusp of "late antiquity." But the thing everyone keeps saying about moral progress since the bronze age is of course correct, and largely thanks to the religious and philosophical ancestors of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Humanism is a Christian concept, and it reflects Christianity's dual roots in Greek philosophy and Israelite theology. The Bible, as anyone familiar with reading it knows, is a chronicle of a millennium and a half of that moral progress. So when I say that I wish people listened to the Church more on immigration (by treating immigrants decently), capital punishment (by outlawing it), war (by adhering to just war principles), foreign policy (favoring human rights over economic concerns) and so on and so forth, I'm talking about the religion that created our moral framework and has put a lot more thought into it than even the brightest atheist. Of course, fundamentalist religion is a lot more fun to talk about, despite being a minority almost everywhere except benighted places like Saudi Arabia or the American South, so that's what we talk about. And they throw away the vast majority of religious tradition to focus on relatively recent concerns. Remember people: the Bible has not a word to say against abortion or consensual, non-exploitative homosexual relationships.
When talking about western democracies most of them, if not all, have roots in the 10 commendments and the moral codex of humanism.
I read your fundamentalist as having a reading of the bible. The reading applied to those is very problematic in terms of modern societal values and holds little value as a guideline for the future of human morals - it is pretty regressive and closed-minded - but it is a legit reading of the bible. If you look at sharia in sunni islam you have a clear distinction between regimes in the acknowledgement of making judgement based on the holy textures being a question of interpretation. Today we regard sharia as a problematic incursion of religion into politics.
The real problem is that as soon as you start preaching a certain moral without actually regarding others interpretations as legitimate, you become a fundamentalist. Not for holding a religious views or morals, but for rejecting others morals as being relevant. In politics it is about choosing and rejecting, making it an area where religious views easily become fundamentalistic. I regard fundamentalism in christianity as being as bad as sharia. Seeing people wanting more religious influence in politics is concerning. If they truely want that, Saudi Arabia sounds like a better society for them.
|
The problem ends up being that far too many fundamentalists simply have a bad education when it comes to learning how to interpret the written word and judge the authority of a given source of information. The humanities are usually couched in negative, job-oriented terms, and yet it isn't exactly difficult to look around and see exactly why they are so important.
|
On September 25 2014 07:54 farvacola wrote:
The problem ends up being that far too many fundamentalists simply have a bad education when it comes to learning how to interpret the written word and judge the authority of a given source of information. The humanities are usually couched in negative, job-oriented terms, and yet it isn't exactly difficult to look around and see exactly why they are so important.
 Trying to justify something?
In terms of learning, college should be plenty sufficient regardless of direction, to understand the higher Bloom levels of learning. Humanites likely has an advantage at lower levels, though. But I would gauge understanding of society, democracy and religion as general education features that even elementary schools should be able to make the kids understand to a sufficient degree for them to understand the basics of what interpretation means.
|
On September 25 2014 06:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:37 Jormundr wrote:On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. Introvert, once more reminding us that christians only want to kill those who practice homosexuality. An important distinction! Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:39 Leporello wrote:On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. This is a distinction that can only be made in the 21st century. It's not a religious distinction, the Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals and homosexual activity. It's a societal or scientific distinction, and Christianity has been forced to capitulate to it for the sake of appearing less Bronze Age than it really is. Edit: uh, the vast majority of non-Westboro Christians don't want to do that? Jormundr once again reminding us of how inflammatory he is, intentionally. (Those stoning laws? Written for Israelites!) Edit again: To be sure, in the ancient world the idea of "orientation" was most likely unknown. That doesn't change the emphasis on the act vs. the person. The distinction is important enough that it should be stated and understood. If a two straight men were caught "in the act" then the punishment would be the same. Not just a 21st century distinction. And for people who actually think about and discuss these things (on both sides) it does matter. If one is so ignorant as to not even be aware of the distinction, then I don't think I'm under any obligation to trust their judgement with regards to its importance. At the very least one should know these things so that one doesn't come off looking like an ignoramus. Of course then again, what are the chances that particular person would ever be corrected on the issue? Of course the point I was making was ignored- you should know what you are criticizing so you can do so correctly. No honest person benefits from such misunderstanding. This is what I was trying to point out- the biblical example was just that- an example. Yoav's opinion varies from mine it seems, for the record.
Isn't this all a bit tedious though? Distinguishing between the person who commits a homosexual act and whether or not that person is a homosexual is something that is pretty unlikely to be a factor in any discussion. I mean wouldn't you agree that 99% of the time people who commit homosexual acts are in fact homosexuals and not just straight people exploring other possibilities? In all likelihood you're referring to the same people; practically the results of following (hypothetically) these rules would be the same...so its just as "bronze age" as it was without the technical distinction you made.
I don't think its fair to call people ignorant just because they don't understand the fine details that can only be discovered by some bible study, especially if the practical differences don't amount to a whole lot (you said it was important but didn't explain why)
|
Well I guess the principle makes sense (you should judge a paedophile for abusing a child, you shouldn't judge him for just being born a paedophile), what makes it ridiculous is that it's being applied to homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with being both gay and a Christian, the WBC doesn't represent the majority of Christians.
|
On September 25 2014 09:07 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 06:51 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 06:37 Jormundr wrote:On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. Introvert, once more reminding us that christians only want to kill those who practice homosexuality. An important distinction! On September 25 2014 06:39 Leporello wrote:On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote:On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote:On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote:That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. This is a distinction that can only be made in the 21st century. It's not a religious distinction, the Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals and homosexual activity. It's a societal or scientific distinction, and Christianity has been forced to capitulate to it for the sake of appearing less Bronze Age than it really is. Edit: uh, the vast majority of non-Westboro Christians don't want to do that? Jormundr once again reminding us of how inflammatory he is, intentionally. (Those stoning laws? Written for Israelites!) Edit again: To be sure, in the ancient world the idea of "orientation" was most likely unknown. That doesn't change the emphasis on the act vs. the person. The distinction is important enough that it should be stated and understood. If a two straight men were caught "in the act" then the punishment would be the same. Not just a 21st century distinction. And for people who actually think about and discuss these things (on both sides) it does matter. If one is so ignorant as to not even be aware of the distinction, then I don't think I'm under any obligation to trust their judgement with regards to its importance. At the very least one should know these things so that one doesn't come off looking like an ignoramus. Of course then again, what are the chances that particular person would ever be corrected on the issue? Of course the point I was making was ignored- you should know what you are criticizing so you can do so correctly. No honest person benefits from such misunderstanding. This is what I was trying to point out- the biblical example was just that- an example. Yoav's opinion varies from mine it seems, for the record. Isn't this all a bit tedious though? Distinguishing between the person who commits a homosexual act and whether or not that person is a homosexual is something that is pretty unlikely to be a factor in any discussion. I mean wouldn't you agree that 99% of the time people who commit homosexual acts are in fact homosexuals and not just straight people exploring other possibilities? In all likelihood you're referring to the same people; practically the results of following (hypothetically) these rules would be the same...so its just as "bronze age" as it was without the technical distinction you made. I don't think its fair to call people ignorant just because they don't understand the fine details that can only be discovered by some bible study, especially if the practical differences don't amount to a whole lot (you said it was important but didn't explain why)
I didn't go more in detail because it wasn't really relevant to my point. That is still true now. Therefore, I am not going to talk about that example anymore, if possible. Yes, I agree that the continued discussion on that point was in fact tedious
But if one is going to make claims, they ought to know if they are true. And of course people can disagree, but the proposition, as he stated it, is held seriously by no one (who is an expert on the topic). It wasn't just a difference in opinion, it was incorrect.
I understand that one cannot be an expert on all topics, but asserting things like that catches my eye because it is a peeve of mine.
I was making my point using his examples because they were conveniently placed to make my point. This is something that happens a lot in this thread- people repeatedly say things that are wrong or, to put it nicely, lack nuance. They chose to participate, so they should know something about that which they are commenting on.
I was, after all, using the examples he gave. I didn't pick them out of thin air.
On September 25 2014 09:23 IgnE wrote:
How about lacking nuance by imposing modern-day values on a work written 3,000 years ago, most often with a blatant disregard for historical methods?
I am often peeved when people slap our modern sensibilities on history. It is a tactic used by those who want to disregard history.
|
How about lacking nuance by imposing modern-day values on a work written 3,000 years ago, most often with a blatant disregard for historical methods?
|
On September 25 2014 09:18 Introvert wrote:
I am often peeved when people slap our modern sensibilities on history. It is a tactic used by those who want to disregard history.
Not all nuance is created equal. Exegesis that is searching for a way to reconcile 1) the modern notion of a sexual orientation, 2) the current tolerance for homosexuality by educated Westerners, 3) sentences within the text that seem to condemn homosexual acts, and 4) deeply held, religiously backed prejudices against homosexuality is not the same kind of nuance as that found in a hermeneutics which incorporates historical methods, anthropology, and literary criticism. Saying, "hold on now, you guys just don't understand, the bible condemns the acts not the person" is a very limited kind of nuance. It's an almost essential nuance, born of rationalization, and is of no credit to the person holding it, because you went looking for it.
|
On September 25 2014 09:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 09:18 Introvert wrote:
I am often peeved when people slap our modern sensibilities on history. It is a tactic used by those who want to disregard history.
Not all nuance is created equal. Exegesis that is searching for a way to reconcile 1) the modern notion of a sexual orientation, 2) the current tolerance for homosexuality by educated Westerners, 3) sentences within the text that seem to condemn homosexual acts, and 4) deeply held, religiously backed prejudices against homosexuality is not the same kind of nuance as that found in a hermeneutics which incorporates historical methods, anthropology, and literary criticism. Saying, "hold on now, you guys just don't understand, the bible condemns the acts not the person" is a very limited kind of nuance. It's an almost essential nuance, born of rationalization, and is of no credit to the person holding it, because you went looking for it.
I didn't go looking for anything. I came across this is my reading, not of the Bible, but of scholars and the like. This, and the view that Christianity and the Bible don't oppose homosexuality at all, are some of the dominant ideas right now among the intelligentsia. I dare say that what has happened is that, as internet atheism, gay rights movement, etc, grew so did the idea that "God hates gays." Activists, in their enthusiasm, did what people often do- mischaracterize that which they oppose. They removed the nuance.
I did not invent anything. Take it up with the experts. But I said I was done talking about this.
On September 25 2014 09:50 IgnE wrote:
Well when I accuse you, Introvert, of personally doing biblical interpretation that is widely held by millions of well-meaning Christians, it should be more obvious that that is what I was intending to do.
Of course they are the dominant ideas right now. That was my point. They went looking for answers.
I am not aware if that is how it came about, though it may be true that since "gay rights" wasn't even an issue until a few decades ago, that then perhaps they decided to delve deeper. It may just never have come up in the first place. But even Aquinas talks specially in terms of the homosexual acts (and other "unnatural acts"). He was careful all the way back then.
Perhaps Yaov knows more about the history of this. I, at the very least, disagree with your assessment. It seems to me that the distinction was simply assumed by those educated enough to think on the topic.
|
Well when I accuse you, Introvert, of personally doing biblical interpretation that is widely held by millions of well-meaning Christians, it should be more obvious that that is what I was intending to do.
Of course they are the dominant ideas right now. That was my point. They went looking for answers.
|
On September 25 2014 09:48 Introvert wrote:
I am not aware if that is how it came about, though it may be true that since "gay rights" wasn't even an issue until a few decades ago, that then perhaps they decided to delve deeper. It may just never have come up in the first place. But even Aquinas talks specially in terms of the homosexual acts. He was careful all the way back then.
Perhaps Yaov knows more about the history of this. I, at the very least, disagree with your assessment.
OK. You realize that your (read: Aquinas's) exegesis is still faith-focused, if legalistic, and totally lacks any historical, anthropological, or literary analysis? It's entirely conclusion-oriented, and post-hoc.
|
On September 25 2014 10:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 09:48 Introvert wrote:
I am not aware if that is how it came about, though it may be true that since "gay rights" wasn't even an issue until a few decades ago, that then perhaps they decided to delve deeper. It may just never have come up in the first place. But even Aquinas talks specially in terms of the homosexual acts. He was careful all the way back then.
Perhaps Yaov knows more about the history of this. I, at the very least, disagree with your assessment. OK. You realize that your (read: Aquinas's) exegesis is still faith-focused, if legalistic, and totally lacks any historical, anthropological, or literary analysis? It's entirely conclusion-oriented, and post-hoc.
My point is that, everything I've read on the topic simply speaks in terms of acts. From the very beginning. To say that modern Christians are working furiously to meld old views with modern sensibilities seems false on that front. From the very start, the discussion has been framed in terms of acts, not actors. All I'm doing is pointing that out.
Edit: it's on the freaking wiki page.
The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. For example, passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) has been interpreted by some as condemning homosexual practice.
On September 25 2014 10:16 IgnE wrote:
And how exactly would they have framed it in terms of "actors" when the concept of "the homosexual" didn't really take off until the 20th century?
The original discussion here was about your claim to the high horse of Nuance.
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else.
|
And how exactly would they have framed it in terms of "actors" when the concept of "the homosexual" didn't really take off until the 20th century?
The original discussion here was about your claim to the high horse of Nuance.
|
On September 25 2014 10:06 Introvert wrote:
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else.
Most people actually understand everything you've said. They are aware of the ubiquitous Christian apologetics:
"God hates the sin not the sinner"
"God doesn't hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts."
What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it.
|
The New York Times reports on the legal justification for strikes in Syria. It's still a work in progress, apparently.
Administration officials have said that as a matter of domestic law, they believe the United States has statutory authority to attack the Islamic State under Congress’s 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda. They also believe that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war could provide an alternative source of such authority. The United States has been bombing Islamic State forces in Iraq since August.
Both congressional authorizations provide legal authority for the strikes in Syria, too, the officials contended, because of the Islamic State’s history of ties to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that the two groups recently split. And, they said, the 2002 Iraq war authorization can be read in part as promising to help foster a stable, democratic government in Iraq, which would include defending it from terrorist attacks.
Senior Obama administration officials said on Tuesday that the airstrikes against the Islamic State — carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government or the United Nations Security Council — were legal because they were done in defense of Iraq...
[T]he senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had proved unable or unwilling to suppress that threat. Iraq asked the United States for assistance in defending itself, making the strikes legal, the officials said...
The United States is also asserting a right to defend its own personnel in Iraq from the Islamic State. The officials said this should be understood as supplementary authority to helping Iraq defend itself directly.
IMO he's on pretty solid legal ground for authorizing strikes, but it would be politically prudent to involve Congress and get them to vote straight up on an authorization bill. This is a fairly dramatic expansion of the War on Terror and Obama should work to make strong precedence for it.
|
States that refuse to accept Obamacare's Medicaid expansion aren't just leaving behind poor residents, they're also hurting hospitals' bottom lines.
Because the Affordable Care Act cut the number of people with no health insurance this year, hospitals across the country will see $5.7 billion less in unpaid bills, according to a report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday.
But the difference in states that have expanded Medicaid versus those that haven't is stark, the report shows. Hospitals in the 25 states that already have made Medicaid available to more poor residents and the District of Columbia will see $4.2 billion less in unpaid bills and charity care, a decrease of one-quarter. In the other states, the decline will be just $1.5 billion, or 9 percent.
In other words, the reduction in the uninsured brought about by Obamacare has predictably led to a decrease in the number of people turning up at hospitals with no health insurance and no means to pay for their medical care. And that decrease is more substantial in states that allowed their poorest residents access to Medicaid coverage.
"It's actually showing that this provides benefits to states," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said at a briefing with reporters prior to the report's release Wednesday.
The findings are a reflection of the fact that the uninsured rate, especially among low-income people, has fallen much more in states that expanded Medicaid than in states that didn't.
Source
|
Americans are getting increasingly worried about climate change and its impacts, according to results from at least two nationwide polls released this week.
A New York Times/CBS News poll found that nearly half of Americans believe that global warming is causing a serious impact now, while about 60 percent said that protecting the environment should be a priority "even at the risk of curbing economic growth."
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said that global warming is caused by human activity. This, the New York Times notes, is the "highest level ever recorded by the national poll."
Those results echo those of another survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which found that more than 70 percent of Americans believe climate change is either a critical or an important threat "to the vital interests" of the country, while more than 80 percent said that combating climate change is either a "very important" or "somewhat important" goal for the U.S.
The survey also found that 50 percent of the American public believe that the government is not doing enough to address the problem of climate change. According to poll makers, this is an increase of five percentage points from 2012 poll results.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
