Bouncelot wrote:Only somebody who would be seen as symbolic of perfection. It's hardly racial purity to have one job in the entire country like that.
No dogs, no blacks, no Irish.
Bouncelot wrote:Which isn't how it's intended at all. There's a fair chance that in that society it would have been as much a hygiene thing as much as anything else/
A hygeine thing that restricts the movements of women, sets them apart from men, and stems from fear of a natural bodily function (something religion has done again and again, there's a reason why it's known as "the curse".
Bouncelot wrote:Neither of which is something I was advocating. Firstly, however you take it, that commandment doesn't refer to "gay men", but to engaging in a particular activity. Secondly, the rule would appear to only apply to the community of Israel, somebody who is supposedly committed to serving God but, if the "pagan practice" interpretation is correct is moonlighting with another god. I can at least understand it in that context. As for the severity thing, I don't consider any one type of sin to be more severe than another.
Strangely I do, killing is a bit more severe than telling your dad to **** off. And you're still trying to defend the notion that it's okay to kill people who practise sodomy and worship another god, but pretend to worship your god. Which is precisely why Impy, myself and others consider religious people so frightening.
Bouncelot wrote:So it's okay to be gay as long as you're celibate? Of course, why didn't we think of that before?
Well, why not?
I cann't believe you're seriously asking that question. Do you know anything about what people are actually like, or do you totally live in a world of make-believe?
Bouncelot wrote:You should see the ****ing kids who hang around my garden.
A product of a culture that's radically different to the one in which that law was given. In that society children were much more respectful of their parents and much less likely to have the opportunity to pursue such a lifestyle.
You think that in the times of the bible everyone lived an idyllic lifestyle, children abstained from alcohol until they were eighteen, went to school and agreed with everything their parents said? I think this law was passed to deal with precisely the sort of kids who hang around my estate.
Bouncelot wrote:So if your son drinks too much, kill him? Nice.
Twist what I said until it fits your preconceptions? Nice.
Your interpretation was extremely ropey, I was just cutting to the chase. Bottom line, if your son drinks too much, you can drag him to court and have him sentenced to death. Not how I want things run in my town. Again, I'd have been executed a few times now, probably several times a week when I was at university.
Bouncelot wrote:Um, sorry, but I missed that. I've dealt with the genocide bit, but precisely where were you claiming that the Bible condones murder or incest?
You haven't really dealt with the genocide bit at all, you've said "yeah, but, no but, yeah but, no but" How about Lot ****ing his two daughters? The people of Sodom get their city destroyed (in an area known for its geological instability, curiously enough) for sodomy, but Lot ****s both his daughters and gives rise to two tribes. Not once does the Bible mention that the whole ****ing your daughters thing is sick. It presents it as the most natural thing in the world and also shifts most of the blame onto the girls. It's nasty, sexist, incestual ****, and there's no defending it, though I'm sure you'll say that God made a special compensation in his case or something equally banal and meaningless.
Bouncelot wrote:After the flood, God said that He wouldn't do the same kind of thing again, though the way it's described gives the impression that they were as close to that level of nastiness as their technology allowed.
It's convenient that God said he'd never send a flood or anything to kill people again. I remember a tsunami not long back. And the level of nastiness is relative, but I doubt it was anything like as bad as, say, the past 2,000 years.
Bouncelot wrote:Well, if you're going to say that the Bible is lying about why God chose somebody for a particular task, you might as well forget the idea of any kind of discussion about what the God of the Bible is like. If you look at any example of a Biblical hero, you can always spot flaws and say "God could have chosen or created someone better suited for the task". That's probably the whole point, actually.
What, that an all-powerful and all-knowing God makes mistakes? Doesn't that disprove the whole point?
Bouncelot wrote:Bouncelot wrote:In the case of genocide, the Bible portrays the conquest of the promised land as being God's judgement on the people living there for their sins.
And not, for example, the history of a people living in the middle east who conquered everyone else and then used 'God' to justify it?
That's not what the Bible portrays.
Since when? You think the Midianites slaughtered themselves? You think the other tribes abandoned their gods and worshipped the Israelites' war god because they wanted to, or because the Israelites were giving away free cakes that week?
No. War. Slash, stab, murder, conquer, worship. Old Testament stuff.
Bouncelot wrote:Bouncelot wrote:And yes, the idea is unpalatable to a 21st Century Western Worldview, and no I don't completely get it, although many of the practices these religions were into were truly truly evil.
Source please? All I can find in the Bible is that they worshipped Ba'al and some of their women slept with Israelite men. Hardly "truly truly evil" by any standards.
You missed the bits about worship of Molech involving child sacrifice, then? These were not nice fluffy religions.
Neither were the followers of Jehovah. They slaughtered their neighbours and their neighbours' children on the whim of their god. I mean, they are supposed to be the good guys in all this, right? The way you seem to see it is that they're only good because they're the least evil. Which ain't good, by any stretch.
Bouncelot wrote:In the case of incest, well I guess you're referring to Abraham being married to his half-sister Sarah. They were already married before God called Abraham, so it's a case of God taking a situation that is not good, but turning that situation into something that is good.
Retcon. The dude who shagged his sister got to be leader of the tribe. He said later, 'God' did it.
Nice retcon of yours there. Pity it doesn't work. Abraham left his tribe (actually city) with his wife at which point God hadn't called him to anything. He never actually obtained a tribe.
Whatever. Invented monotheism, essentially. The father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam ****ed his sister.
Bouncelot wrote:Well, how about the example of Onan, who had a wank and was then killed by God? On that reasoning I should have been killed by God about 4 times a day, on average, for the past 15 years.
Somebody really hasn't read the passage he's talking about. Because if you had, you'd know that it says nothing of the sort.
Onan, first page:
Wikipedia wrote:One Jewish interpretation is that Onan was deserving of the death penalty solely because he sinned by spilling his seed (see Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a). The narrative is cited as a reason for the ban on both masturbation and coitus interruptus.
Medieval Catholic authors also understood the activities of God in this story as a condemnation of masturbation and contraception. This interpretation was held by important figures in the early Church, such as St. Jerome who makes explicit reference to Onan's sexual act.
Goes on to say that the act punishable by death is now generally regarded to be coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation, though again, I've been guilty of this one a few (hundred) times as well. Though it didn't always fall on the ground. Point being, your God murdered someone because of it. What a pleasant and understanding God he is. And inconsistent.
Bouncelot wrote:I actually said that we think we've moved on. Society is very different to what it was then. What worked then wouldn't work now. That doesn't necessarily mean that our way of life or our worldview is any better.
I don't know about your worlddview, but I think I'm considerably better informed than, say, a biblical farmer. And if you paid more attention to the world around you instead of trying to justify why intolerance is okay when God does it or listening to the voice in your head labelled "God", maybe you would be too.
Bouncelot wrote:You get as much confusion over the Koran - which claims to be God doing just that. Any substantial revelation given within history will inevitably have aspects which are not so obvious when related to a different culture in a different time to that in which the original revelation was given.
As you'll have seen from my discussions with Yaya, I don't consider the Koran to be the authentic word of God either. I think that both books are fascinating as cultural artifacts, I don't think they're particularly useful lifestyle guides and I certainly wouldn't want either of them as the basis for a legal system for precisely the reason you give above. They are of that time, and that culture. They're anachronous. They're not needed any more.
Bouncelot wrote:I make a fair bit of effort to understand the historical and cultural context of the Bible. But taking the Bible's commentary of itself as an interpretation of those parts does not equate to picking and choosing the bits I like. And my point about genocide is that the only passages which talk about genocide in a positive light are very specific - this is divine judgement on this particular group of people. There is no remit within the text (especially when looked at in the historical context) for genocide outside the context of peoples who no longer exist. And even then there was provision for people from those groups to be saved from it.
No? You don't think that it allows for those who follow God's word to slaughter those who don't? You don't think it might encourage people to mistrust those who follow different religions? Hell, above you're advocating celibacy for homosexuals - essentially you say they should curtail their freedoms for fear of upsetting your God's predilictions. It's already made you into a bigot, how much further before you decide it's time to take the Lord's work into your own hands?