Religion as an Invention
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 9267
PAGE 9 of 12
Quote:Amen.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Paul was a dick.
But he was also a hardass. He was watching Christians grow soft and spoiled, and he wanted them to suck it up and live the life, like the early, early Christians did. So I think some of his harshness comes from that.
But yeah, no question. He was a dick too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.
Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.
Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh, both Paul and Peter have some preserved letters outside of the bible that suggest their views. Peter didn't like women, and Paul was militant. And some of that carries through in their respective gospels, though I can't speak to how much editing and translation shenanigans happened with the gospels.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My earlier post got deleted.
The gist was that it's well establish that Emperor Pius sent Paul down to turn the Christians into good Romans as a mole. It's assumed that Pius intended to drag Christianity into the Pantheon, or perhaps destroy it. Paul instead converted to Christianity and then changed what Christianity was to make it more Roman. I don't see any reason to assume that this was off track from what the Emperor wanted, it was probably Mission Accomplished. (If you're a pro-Paul christian, I get where you might disagree with this analysis, but you can see where it's coming from.)
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I never claimed the passage changed, only that it no longer applies. Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't feel it is willfully 'omited' when it does not apply to us. This is my interpretation. You are welcome to yours.
Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.
Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.
Ditto ditto. Thanks for that, CTS.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Evolution: Adultresses raised their children to think it wasn't such a bad thing; gay men generally didn't raise kids even if they had them. Ergo, they got no votes in the evolution of the religion.
Think about it: There is no real constant religious faith that lasts more than a couple hundred years. Every religion will splinter, doctrine will change, etc.
Whatever splinter group has the most kids is going to win. I guess that means in the future all Christians will be Amish and all Jews will be Satmars, and Muslims will be whoever, Wahabi? Not sure.
But not the 20-year future, the 200-year future. Point being, on the side, that whatever else these groups believe will also likely influence the final beliefs. Not saying that all the beliefs will remain, but that the new religion will evolve out of them, and not evolve out of, say, the Shakers.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My problem with fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is that they pick and choose what they believe "no longer applies."
Meaning, they are not as literal as they say they are. They make tons of arbitrary exceptions from their literal interpretation, and then thump the Bible for the rest.
Why the few texts against homosexuality aren't lumped in with the few texts on stoning adulteresses, I will never understand.
Probably because in the text attributed to homosexuality, homosexuality did not exist as we understand it today. Was God angry at the sodomites because they wanted teh homo buttshex, or because they wanted to rape his angels? Romans 1:26-27 refers to the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty (a hetero practice ironically enough).
Also, are you calling me a fundamentalist?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Probably because in the text attributed to homosexuality, homosexuality did not exist as we understand it today.
Um, of course it existed, and not in much different form than today. The Greco-Roman pederasty was NOT heterosexual. The Greeks even believed a relationship between men was better than one between men and women, because women were inferior, and so homosexuality was more a relationship between peers.
They had arguments about whether platonic love between men was better than romantic/erotic love between men. Seriously. That's where the term comes from, Plato's arguments about this.
Though, granted, the Sodomites were probably more along the lines of "anything that moved" than pure homosexuality. I seem to recall Lot offering up his two daughters (I think they were refused, but still, it's suggested if the angels weren't so pretty it might have worked).
But, you're not fundamentalist Happy, you're pretty easy going and we like that about you. And hey, if you want to be tolerant, then that's in your favour. I think we ought to credit people for what they say they believe, and not what the generalizations are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It describes an erotic relationship between an older man and an adolescent boy outside the immediate family. While not 'hetero' (or homo IMO) in nature, it was practiced by many hetero men, unless you consider that the 'act' determines sexuality.
Today we understand that some people are just made homo or hetero and there is nothing wrong with that. A homosexual need not have gay sex to qualify.
Sorry if that's not a great answer for now, I might add more later but I gotta go, 1 more lesson to teach.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Music is good.
Em, I dunno. I just think it's a stretch to say that it was not homosexual, or at the very least bisexual, considering the long running views on women at the time. It's better argued that heterosexuality for the Greeks and Romans then was not like the present day.
Even in the present day you have guys who get married and have families, then come out of the closet and leave their families. That's almost certainly homosexual. So by my consideration it was homosexual back then as well.
Imagine if you will a world where, yes, guys are married, but mostly only so that they have children, otherwise they have nothing to do with their wives and either spend all their time with courtesans and hierodules (heterosexual) or other men/ boys (homosexual). People they admire either physically or intellectually, which generally women and wives were not admired for either. There were rare occasions where women were admired (Helen of Troy comes to mind) or where a guy genuinely liked his wife and spending time with her. But there was an off balance between the lifestyles; the arts, literature, and religious practice suggest homosexuality was seen as preferable to heterosexuality.
As I'm researching it, I'm seeing that the passage in Romans is taken out of context, with Paul mostly angrily decrying Roman salaciousness in art, architecture, and prostitution, and attributing heightened sexuality of both sexes to the surrounding stuff.
Leviticus isn't really taken out of context, but then I think Leviticus is so outdated that it could be completely dumped without any impact to modern practice of the religion. (Does anyone even read Leviticus anymore, aside for the homosexuality passage and other stupid rules about clothes and kosher meat?)
So I'm also good if you say you are Christian, and don't care about homosexuality or what people do behind closed doors. Clearly that is a valid pair of beliefs to have that can be held simultaneously, as you obviously do so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME