Please Stop Claiming Jesus Accepts LGBT People

[Firiel]

I think ya missed something there[emoji12]

I didn't even think to include homophobia because I accept Foucault's theory that homosexuality didn't exist as a social category until the 18th or 19th century, thus I don't really see any of the ancient texts as addressing homosexuality as understood today. But, of course, I should have. It's still relevant. I just got caught up in making sure I remembered to add genocide to the list. I was particularly impressed with myself when I remembered imperialism because I'm a pretentious ass. :D

[Firiel]

Um, that's not what I'm saying? For a start, I made no mention of 'proud atheists' (my friend's colleagues were probably nominally Anglican or generally non-religious) and I certainly don't consider it 'testifying against the LGBT community'. Neither did I say, nor do I think, that atheists/non-religious people stereotype LGBT people more. I just pointed out that the stereotype of LGBT people being all about sex is very widespread and is made by non-religious people too. My dad is a humanist and said it when I came out - it's just a very common misconception, especially about gay men and bisexual people.

Well, you're a Christian, so you must hate atheists and have an agenda to make them look bad by blaming them for having ignorant attitudes that are, in reality, only held by Christians. And, as a plus, because atheists are so enlightened, it's impossible for them to use straw man arguments even when they are using ridiculous, hyperbolic language. So answer the question. For science! :lol: :wink-kitty:

[2xx1xy1JD]

Foxy - here's another article that I found on the shifting gay culture in Toronto: http://www.digitaljournal.com/blog/10187

You actually have some debate in the community between those that are happy to be included in the mainstream, and those with more "liberationist" views who can't stand the fact that things like the Pride Parade have gone corporate.

Here's a piece on the feminist critiques of same-sex marriage in Canada: http://www.academia.edu/7145825/Feminis ... x_Marriage

I do agree, to a certain extent, with one concern. I'm concerned that in the quest for acceptance (aka approval), we may be forgetting about tolerance (aka supporting the civil rights of others even when you don't approve of them). I think that the image of gay parents in the media, for example, tends to be almost too positive. Cam and Mitch on Modern Family are like Leave it to Beaver, except that June is replaced by a gay man. I can understand that squeaky-clean middle-class images help get the wedge in the door and make the idea of gay parenting seem less scary and more normal. I just wonder about how much it helps gay parents who are a bit more flawed and human. Tolerance means that those imperfect parents can know that they will be judged on their actual parenting, not on their sexuality.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Firiel:

I'd say that some of the laundry list of societal ills you mention ARE dealt with, at least in certain passages (keeping in mind that the Bible is an anthology, not a book), but cannot be fully understood without looking at historical context.

Take slavery, for example. It was a fact of life in ancient societies, and existed long before the Bible. The Book of Exodus paints a clear picture of it as an oppressive institution. Subsequent laws, though, still addressed a society where it was pretty common, and used for things like debt repayment. In the New Testament, there's the revolutionary idea that slaves are equal in God's eyes - and the pragmatic advice to slaves to obey their masters in order to avoid anyone blaming Christians for undermining Roman society.

[Firiel]

Firiel:

I'd say that some of the laundry list of societal ills you mention ARE dealt with, at least in certain passages (keeping in mind that the Bible is an anthology, not a book), but cannot be fully understood without looking at historical context.

Take slavery, for example. It was a fact of life in ancient societies, and existed long before the Bible. The Book of Exodus paints a clear picture of it as an oppressive institution. Subsequent laws, though, still addressed a society where it was pretty common, and used for things like debt repayment. In the New Testament, there's the revolutionary idea that slaves are equal in God's eyes - and the pragmatic advice to slaves to obey their masters in order to avoid anyone blaming Christians for undermining Roman society.

Thanks for the context! I know a decent amount about the Old Testament but only have a very general, painted-by-Christian-education understanding of the culture(s) in which it was written, so the specific examples of how the writers of those books were interacting with the cultures around them is lost on me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I remember it blew my mind a bit when I learned something about the Canaanite religion. The OT gives the impression of a dramatic invasion by the Israelites with a completely new religion, but we've got some archaeological evidence that the process was likely more gradual and that there's a fair bit of Canaanite influence in parts of the OT. The Ugaritic texts, for example, talk about practices like redeeming the first-born son (a Jewish practice which still exists, called a pidyon ha-ben).

You also have some parallels between the Hyksos rule and expulsion from Egypt and the story of the Exodus. Endless scholarly debate on that.

[Firiel]

I remember it blew my mind a bit when I learned something about the Canaanite religion. The OT gives the impression of a dramatic invasion by the Israelites with a completely new religion, but we've got some archaeological evidence that the process was likely more gradual and that there's a fair bit of Canaanite influence in parts of the OT. The Ugaritic texts, for example, talk about practices like redeeming the first-born son (a Jewish practice which still exists, called a pidyon ha-ben).

You also have some parallels between the Hyksos rule and expulsion from Egypt and the story of the Exodus. Endless scholarly debate on that.

That's fascinating. I mean, it makes SO much sense because invasions/conquests tend to end up as a cultural exchange to some extent and not just a complete takeover/replacement as is described in the OT, but I had never really thought about it. What an interesting project it would be to look at the way that period is portrayed in Jewish historical texts and compare it to the histories of the other cultures and the archaeological evidence. I bet there's been a ton written about it. It's times like this that I miss having access to a college library and all it's resources. :evil:

[formergothardite]

I little bit off topic, but has anyone read this book?

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/f ... kel-review

I've just started it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Studying Ancient Israelite History in a secular university was my most interesting and thought-provoking course, and it taught me more about critical thinking and evidence than anything else.

One big lesson is that you don't just take something at face value because it's written. Seeing something in writing only tells you that someone was motivated to write that statement, and you still need to consider why they would have written it. To understand motivations, you need to consider the full historical context, with the political and economic issues.

Of course, parts of the course weren't as interesting as it sounds. I really wanted to do my major project on the origins of the Israelite God, the relationship between El and Yahweh and the relationship to the Canaanite El. The prof told me that it would be too hard and speculative, and that I should compare temple architecture if I wanted to look at religious influence. It was really, really boring.

[Firiel]

FG, I haven't read it, but it does look interesting. Of course, I was always taught that the presence of a flood myth in other cultures is evidence that the flood actually happened. :roll: Knowing your upbringing, I'm betting you learned something similar as a kid.

2xx, I sort of had a similar experience. I went to a liberal Christian university (after graduating from a conservative Christian high school) and studied literature, focusing on medieval literature. Obviously, Christianity played a huge role in the culture of Anglo-Saxon and medieval residents of Britain, and thus, many of my research papers touched on how the literature of the time was shaped by religious understandings and vice versa. It gave me a kind of "backdoor in" to start thinking about how religion is so clearly linked to and influenced by (even constructed by) the culture at any particular time. Eventually, it gave me permission to think about Christianity in the US with that same critical mind, which I would have been afraid to do before because of my upbringing.

Also, I like your research paper idea better. Speculative writing is the go-to in lit courses. I took a few history classes in college, and the writing was just foreign to me. I had NO idea how to not make a speculative argument. 8-)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Firiel - here's some fun reading for you. It's a decent snapshot of the El/Yahweh issue from the POV of historians. http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are ... -same-god/

BTW, this is also one of those examples of how the KJV doesn't adequately translate the original Hebrew. Use of God and Lord God as translations of El and Yahweh obscures the fact that different names for God are used in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

[Mama Mia]

FG, I haven't read it, but it does look interesting. Of course, I was always taught that the presence of a flood myth in other cultures is evidence that the flood actually happened. :roll: Knowing your upbringing, I'm betting you learned something similar as a kid.

I grew up in a very non-literal Christian church. I don't really recall much discussion of the flood in church. But just in everyday life I assumed that the fact that a wide variety of cultures all had some version of a great , widespread, flood story in their histories meant there likely was a gigantic flood (or floods) .Obviously not precisely as portrayed with Noah, but why would it be an appropriation if many cultures all had the same recollection?

I'm assuming every cultures recorded history is similar to a reality show --loosly based on actual events- highly edited to create drama and push an agenda.

So , can someone explain to me like I'm 5 why theflood story being widespread means it's not true?

? I'm confused. :?

I'm actually wondering, I don't have a big attachment to the idea one way or the other.

That book looks really interesting, I love that the guy is so excited about his topic! :)

[Firiel]

I grew up in a very non-literal Christian church. I don't really recall much discussion of the flood in church. But just in everyday life I assumed that the fact that a wide variety of cultures all had some version of a great , widespread, flood story in their histories meant there likely was a gigantic flood (or floods) .Obviously not precisely as portrayed with Noah, but why would it be an appropriation if many cultures all had the same recollection?

I'm assuming every cultures recorded history is similar to a reality show --loosly based on actual events- highly edited to create drama and push an agenda.

So , can someone explain to me like I'm 5 why theflood story being widespread means it's not true?

? I'm confused. :?

I'm actually wondering, I don't have a big attachment to the idea one way or the other.

That book looks really interesting, I love that the guy is so excited about his topic! :)

I guess I should clarify my comment to say that I was taught it was proof that a *worldwide* flood happened.

It's not something I've done extensive research on, so FG is a better resource. If there are a lot of people in the same area that have flood mythologies, I could see that being an indication that there was a large, regional flood in the area.

[formergothardite]

I grew up in a very non-literal Christian church. I don't really recall much discussion of the flood in church. But just in everyday life I assumed that the fact that a wide variety of cultures all had some version of a great , widespread, flood story in their histories meant there likely was a gigantic flood (or floods) .Obviously not precisely as portrayed with Noah, but why would it be an appropriation if many cultures all had the same recollection?

I'm assuming every cultures recorded history is similar to a reality show --loosly based on actual events- highly edited to create drama and push an agenda.

So , can someone explain to me like I'm 5 why theflood story being widespread means it's not true?

? I'm confused. :?

I'm actually wondering, I don't have a big attachment to the idea one way or the other.

That book looks really interesting, I love that the guy is so excited about his topic! :)

The biblical Noah flood story clearly didn't happen. But most likely all over the world in various places in various times in history there have been large local floods that were devastating. The survivors passed down the stories and exciting bits got added as time went on. Various floods stories are just proof that large local floods happened in the past, not that there was a world wide flood like Noah's flood.

I just started the books, so I can't say for sure, but I think the importance of this tablet is that it shows that the Biblical flood story with a guy building an ark and bringing on two of each kind of animal is not unique to the Noah one and that the Noah one might have borrowed from this one since it was written first.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I guess I should clarify my comment to say that I was taught it was proof that a *worldwide* flood happened.

It's not something I've done extensive research on, so FG is a better resource. If there are a lot of people in the same area that have flood mythologies, I could see that being an indication that there was a large, regional flood in the area.

Found this: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-au ... y-enormous

It makes sense that there would have been a number of big regional floods at the end of the last Ice Age - think about what climate change experts keep warning us.

[Mama Mia]

The biblical Noah flood story clearly didn't happen. But most likely all over the world in various places in various times in history there have been large local floods that were devastating. The survivors passed down the stories and exciting bits got added as time went on. Various floods stories are just proof that large local floods happened in the past, not that there was a world wide flood like Noah's flood.

I just started the books, so I can't say for sure, but I think the importance of this tablet is that it shows that the Biblical flood story with a guy building an ark and bringing on two of each kind of animal is not unique to the Noah one and that the Noah one might have borrowed from this one since it was written first.

I'm finding this so interesting, because I'm getting the opposite impression :D . Just reading the blurb, and the article 2xx1xy1jd linked -- and to me it looks like the Noah account basically lines up with the information regarding the ark. Since the old testament was put together over many centuries, and it was in the same general area- I guess, to me, it lends validity to the basics of he story of the ark. With extra drama added of course.

It's interesting that you were raised with a literal biblical belief system and I was raised with a bible- as allegorical belief system -- but we're coming away with the opposite ideas from the same pieces of information.

[formergothardite]

What that article is saying is what I was saying, but maybe I didn't express myself clearly. There were large local catastrophic floods all over the world. The people who survived passed the stories down. The Noah story was most likely based on one of these floods, but it isn't unique and THE flood story like many people like to claim. It is a flood story that had a hell of a lot of stuff added to it and perhaps the writers of the Noah story borrowed elements from the writers of the other flood/ark story that was about the same flood.

Basically a flood happened, possibly caused by a lot of rain. Some people survived and the story was passed on. Eventually the Noah's Ark story was created but it is kind of like one of those "based on a true story" movies where it is very, very loosely based on a true story with tons of non-true stuff added to make it more exciting but then some people think that because it said it was based on a true story that almost everything in the movie happened.

ETA: When I said that the Biblical Noah flood clearly didn't happen I didn't mean that a huge flood in that region didn't happen, just that the actually story of Noah didn't happen like it is told in the Bible. It might not seem like a big deal to find a similar flood story that was written before the Noah one, but to some groups of Christians(like the groups I was raised in) it is a HUGE deal. It would be considered blasphemy to say that the Biblical version was written after another version and didn't literally happen exactly as it is written. Answers in Genesis called the idea "an attack against God's Word", said that the idea it was older was only an evolutionary lie, and that the biblical account contains no embellishments so it has to be true. And that this tablet is a later one that was written by the descendants of one of the eight people on Noah's ark and it was not accurate because they added local flair.

[Mama Mia]

I see what you're saying, I guess it's just different perspectives. To me, since most of the big, sweeping biblical events, like the flood, seemed to be presented as more of a parable --" washing away sins and starting new and pure" the idea that there may have been other cooberating sources for an actual ark built for that actual flood - with animals even! Is kind of cool. Regardless of when / who recorded it first.

[formergothardite]

I see what you're saying, I guess it's just different perspectives. To me, since most of the big, sweeping biblical events, like the flood, seemed to be presented as more of a parable --" washing away sins and starting new and pure" the idea that there may have been other cooberating sources for an actual ark built for that actual flood - with animals even! Is kind of cool. Regardless of when / who recorded it first.

I do think it is cool to learn about what really inspired the stories. I really love learning about this sort of stuff which is why I love threads like this one. We grew up with different perspectives on the biblical Noah's Ark story, but at this moment I think we share the same perspective on it. It is more of a parable that was inspired by a real event. I think that probably someone really did survive the flood with his family and animals by getting on a large boat. Even though we will never really know the true story that inspired it these flood/ark stories, I bet it is pretty damn awesome.

[Bretta]

Question: Does the Bible say that certain sexual practices are bad because they are associated with idolatry, or does it say that idolatry is bad because it is associated with certain sexual practices?

We know that the Bible compares worshipping other gods to whoring after other men, and we know that forms of sacred prostitution involving both male and female cult prostitutes existed in the surrounding pagan religions. There are a ton of references in the Bible linking idolatry and certain sexual practices.

I'm not always sure which came first, though - seeing idolatry as bad, or seeing the sexual practices as bad.

Either way, some of the points in the original article would still stand. If we simply say, "Ah, it's all about disgust over idolatry!", does that make everything ok? Does it make it legitimate to hate polytheism? Would hating on pagans and Hindus be any better than hating on gays?

I don't think it's a chicken and egg or cause/effect thing. I think that the Bible (Mosaic law in particular) disallows both idolatry and certain sexual practices and somehow in the context of neighbouring cultures both often came hand in hand.