http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html

By Diana Fishlock
Religion News Service

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The billboard is down, but the issue's not gone.

A billboard erected in one of the city's most racially diverse neighborhoods featured an African slave with the biblical quote, "Slaves, obey your masters." It lasted less than a day before someone tore it down.

Now, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is investigating and is meeting with both the atheists who sponsored it as well as leaders of the NAACP who found it offensive and racially charged.

The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

But there were concerns that erecting such a billboard is playing with fire.

"If this had been Detroit, there would have been a riot," said Aaron Selvey of Harrisburg, who visited the billboard site last Wednesday (March 7), the day after the sign was put up and later torn down.

"We don't want things to escalate into violence or community tension, so we try to address situations like that right away," added Shannon Powers, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. "We would not recommend tearing down because it could lead to escalation. It hasn't, and we're tremendously thankful for that."

The billboard was quickly replaced with an ad for the Harrisburg Symphony Orchestra.

Ernest Perce V, the Pennsylvania state director of American Atheists, said he won't press charges against whoever damaged the billboard he designed, and said he, too, is a victim after receiving death threats.

"We hope people can see just a little bit of discrimination we get," said Perce, who offended local Muslims last year when he dressed as a "Zombie Muhammad" in a Halloween parade.

Perce and the atheist sponsors of the billboard said they are dismayed that people were offended by the image instead of what he called injustices in the Bible and legislators naming 2012 "The Year of the Bible."

Perce said he will proceed with a 25-billboard statewide campaign against the Bible and the legislation.

"We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

Brian Fields, president of the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, understands the image was provocative.

"I want to say that I'm truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard. It was never our intention to use race as our message itself," Fields said.

"I don't know if that would have had the impact, the same meaning if it wasn't tied into something visceral. The picture shows the consequences of the statement that the Bible makes."

Andrew Rebuck, general manager of the Lemar Advertising office in Lemoyne, Pa., said his firm will review all images from the atheists before posting any new billboards.

"We don't endorse the message," he said. "That is not my intent to have the community upset."

Stanley Lawson, president of the Greater Harrisburg Branch of the NAACP, said his group didn't advocate taking the sign down, "but, boy, was I pleased it was done."

"It caused a lot of hurt and a lot of pain in the community. I've gotten more phone calls about this than I have about any issues in the past three or four years. It wasn't just elderly people, it was young people, across the board."

Selvey, the man who visited the billboard site and made the comparison to Detroit, called the billboard a hit to his soul.

"That image, that was my ancestors. That represents their struggle and all the pain they went through," he said. "I don't think a lot of people understood how offensive that is. Schoolchildren will just see that black face and the words. They don't understand the context."

Diana Fishlock writes for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. Staff writer Matthew Kemeny contributed to this report.

enjoy

GG

I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

It isn't more likely nor was it what the poster was about. Some Atheists see Christianity in the African American community as a result of it being imposed on them as slaves, and that by continuing to follow their slave masters religion that they are still in bondage.

I think this proves that athiests arent immune to not having common sense.
god who thought this was a good idea. Yeah there is a slave bit in the bible but jeez man have some class.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think this proves that athiests arent immune to not having common sense.

Well, yeah.

hotsauceman1 wrote:god who thought this was a good idea.

Not sure if that is funny on purpose or accident.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah there is a slave bit in the bible but jeez man have some class.

It isn't about the 'slave bit' in the Bible, but that Christianity is seen as being hoisted upon the African-American community by the slave masters in the past.

Its quoted from the bible!

An exact quote.

Surely people that are complaining and saying that they find it offensive should be more offended by the bible than the billboard?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:god who thought this was a good idea.

Not sure if that is funny on purpose or accident.

Accident, but funny nonetheless.

Ahtman wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:I think it's more likely that it was intended to be racist, and they're just covering their tracks.

It isn't more likely nor was it what the poster was about. Some Atheists see Christianity in the African American community as a result of it being imposed on them as slaves, and that by continuing to follow their slave masters religion that they are still in bondage.

Ahtman not sure if you believe that or just reporting here..but I hope you see the incredible irony of that belief.

It's also quite insulting and patronizing to Black Christians..It's tantamount to saying..."You blacks don't know any better due to your history of slavery, and can't help your selves... we know better than you do so..let us help you get better you poor poor people."

GG

generalgrog wrote:Ahtman not sure if you believe that

What part would make you think I believe that? Was it the part where I didn't say "these are my personal beliefs"? I didn't accidentally leave that off.

generalgrog wrote:or just reporting here..but I hope you see the incredible irony of that belief.

Being hypocritical and ironic are not the same thing, but yes, I do see why it is problematic to try and refute a religious belief by also making a claim of absolute knowledge.

They aren't wrong that Christianity was forced on African slaves, becuase it was. Where they are wrong is the assumption that they would only still be Christians becuase it was hoisted on some of their ancestors.

Ernest Perce V, the Pennsylvania state director of American Atheists, said he won't press charges against whoever damaged the billboard he designed, and said he, too, is a victim after receiving death threats.

"We hope people can see just a little bit of discrimination we get," said Perce, who offended local Muslims last year when he dressed as a "Zombie Muhammad" in a Halloween parade.

Yep, those are the same.

IRL trolls, gotta love 'em.

Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

You can't be that dense. Here I know. Go to Compton. Break out the phrase and start shouting it out. Let me start the stopwatch on your remaining life span. I give it 1.37.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

They would have endorsed the billboard.

generalgrog wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html


The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

Unconstitutional what?

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said(OUT OF CONTEXT) / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

Fixed that for ya.

GG

I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority.

That said, an attack on the Bible isn't the same as an attack on christianity. Especially when the attack isn't so much an attack, as it was an offensive reminder that the Bible's got some nasty bits to it.

But, it does support my theory that the underlying tenent behind all organized religions is that one should be offended by the actions of others as much as possible.

Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I think the Image gives it a bit more context.

The Year of the Bible apparently.

In the United States, 1983 was designated as the national Year of the Bible by President Ronald Reagan by Proclamation 5018, made on February 3, 1983 at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. President Reagan was authorized and requested to so designate 1983 by Public Law 97-280 (Senate Joint Resolution 165], 96 Stat. 1211) passed by Congress and approved on October 4, 1982.

The law recited that the Bible "has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people" and that, quoting President Jackson, the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests". It also acknowledged a “national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” “Can we resolve to reach, learn and try to heed the greatest message ever written, God’s Word, and the Holy Bible?” Reagan asked. “Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known.”

On January 30, 2012, Pennsylvania state lawmakers declared 2012 the "Year of the Bible". The Resolution passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, HR 535, has faced resistance from atheist groups. In response, an atheist group, American Atheists, paid for the placement of a billboard in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that protests the bill.

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

Well according to Southpark...

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

Polonius wrote:I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority.

My thought is that this movement actually loves religion -- I mean, the aspects of imperialistic posture, political mobilization, and dogmatic thinking, which aren't even inherently religious characteristics. Yes, the inevitable response to your post that "atheism is not a religion" is true. But then again this atheistic movement isn't really primarily about atheism, anyway.

I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

AustonT wrote:

generalgrog wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html


The atheists behind the sign said they were trying to draw attention to the state House's recent designation of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible" -- an action by lawmakers that the atheists have called offensive.

Unconstitutional what?

Not only, but it would be mildly offensive to non-Christians, just not so much that they would pay for a billboard. Most would just shake their head and move about their day. There are degrees of being offended, after all. Have they had a Year of the Koran? Year of the Heart Sutra? or more importantly, Year of the Kama Sutra?

@Polonius: That'll do very well.

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

Haven't gotten to use this one in weeks:
Papist.

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

If you have said or do e something bad (or continue to support someone/something bad) then it is YOU that have made yourself look bad.

It is not my responsibility to hide your badness.

As for you ludicrous example Frazz, it is flawed because doing so would be largely perceived as a statement of belief on my part as opposed to an illumination of an existing thingwhich the billboard was.


Regardless my question was asking if quoting someone is an attacking principile?

@LoneLictor:

You don't need one major organization to have a religion.

And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you.

Oops, I just foiled your plan.

LoneLictor wrote:

Polonius wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position. Just because there's one crazy atheist doesn't automatically mean we're all a bunch of zealots launching crusades and writing holy scripture with quotes from Dawkins and Darwin.

I buy contraception in bulk, but Santorum and I are both practicing catholics. I"m no more painting all atheists with the same brush than I'd want people to paint all Catholics with the same brush.

Athiests have a shared faith, and apparently some sort of organization. You can quibble all you want, but I'm not sure what makes it not a religion at that point.

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

I'm not stereotyping anything. I'm calling annoying zealots annoying zealots.

I wasn't making a generalization about atheists, I'm saying that there are now atheists at the annoying zealot table in the big inter-faith cafeteria.

There is clearly some organizaiton, more than you'd see in some evangelical churches. Somebody raised the money to buy the billboard.

And frankly, I don't care much if people stereotype my religion. I mean, I don't wnat them to stereotype me, but few people that have met me in person have relied on stereotypes, so I'm not worried about that.

CT GAMER wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

If you have said or do e something bad (or continue to support someone/something bad) then it is YOU that have made yourself look bad.

It is not my responsibility to hide your badness.

As for you ludicrous example Frazz, it is flawed because doing so would be largely perceived as a statement of belief on my part as opposed to an illumination of an existing thingwhich the billboard was.


Regardless my question was asking if quoting someone is an attacking principile?

What ludicrous example? South Park? They say fanatics never have a sense of humor...

LoneLictor wrote:

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

How about...Freedom From Religion Foundation or http://www.atheistalliance.org/ or The council for secular humanism http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php Will any of those do?

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Also I find it interesting that renowned athiests are having a "reason rally" on the national mall this weekend. http://reasonrally.org/ Doing rallies at the national mall is hardly insignificant.

Since I live in MD now, I may saunter on down there to see the spectacle.

GG

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

Medium of Death wrote:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/531825/thumbs/r-ATHEIST-SLAVERY-BILLBOARD-large570.jpg

I think the Image gives it a bit more context.

Well, considering that the Bible condones slavery, the context does make a little more sense, but it's still a stupid billboard.

The Year of the Bible apparently.

In the United States, 1983 was designated as the national Year of the Bible by President Ronald Reagan by Proclamation 5018, made on February 3, 1983 at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. President Reagan was authorized and requested to so designate 1983 by Public Law 97-280 (Senate Joint Resolution 165], 96 Stat. 1211) passed by Congress and approved on October 4, 1982.

The law recited that the Bible "has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people" and that, quoting President Jackson, the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests". It also acknowledged a “national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” “Can we resolve to reach, learn and try to heed the greatest message ever written, God’s Word, and the Holy Bible?” Reagan asked. “Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known.”

On January 30, 2012, Pennsylvania state lawmakers declared 2012 the "Year of the Bible". The Resolution passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, HR 535, has faced resistance from atheist groups. In response, an atheist group, American Atheists, paid for the placement of a billboard in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that protests the bill.

Seriously? Jesus fething Christ.

It's like nobody cares that the founding father's of the US were mostly Deists. Or that the US was found on secular values, especially the separation of Church and State.

Why learn history when I can opine my own?

Fafnir wrote:

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

You can call it whatever you want, but rarely is atheism defined as the complete absence of belief. Even http://atheists.org/atheism says this:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

I quoted things that at least one athiest group thinks atheists believe in.

I'm not sure what I'd call a list of shared beliefs instead of a creed.

They seem to be twisting an ankle tap dancing around saying that they believe that there isn't a god.

Seriously? Jesus fething Christ.

It's like nobody cares that the founding father's of the US were mostly Deists. Or that the US was found on secular values, especially the separation of Church and State.

Why learn history when I can opine my own?

Well... it's a bit more complicated than that. They were diests, but most would still consider the Bible to be incredibly important books.

Fafnir wrote:
Well, considering that the Bible condones slavery, the context does make a little more sense, but it's still a stupid billboard.

So where does the Bible condone slavery again?
Where does the Bible say go out and get slaves?

Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Secular humanism isn't necessarily atheistic.

Secular doesn't mean "atheist".

Fafnir wrote:

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

generalgrog wrote:There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.


GG

Oh, you mean interns.

generalgrog wrote:Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.

GG

Quick side question, feel free to PM me the answer. Where in the Bible does it refer to the 7 years thing? Or that its references to slavery are referring to indentured servitude instead of slavery? Honest question, I just want to know. Thanks.

IcyCool wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.

GG

Quick side question, feel free to PM me the answer. Where in the Bible does it refer to the 7 years thing? Or that its references to slavery are referring to indentured servitude instead of slavery? Honest question, I just want to know. Thanks.

Deuteronomy 15:12-15 (KJV)
The Sabbatical Year

12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.
13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.


Also for clarity on "manstealing"
Exodus 21:16

King James Version (KJV)
16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
GG

Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Just go with that carpenter guy. He's a cool cat who had his *^( together.

Polonius wrote:Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

GG

Without the transatlantic slave trade, there might well be openly held slaves in the West today and little moral repugnance to go along with it. As things are, we have a lot of arrangements that seem similar to slavery in the ancient world as I understand it. Probably more restrictive than that, actually.

generalgrog wrote:
Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

Yes, I'm sure people were enslaved out of benevolence. That must be it.

You could at least attempt at the "new covenant" argument, its better than trying to hand wave Leviticus alone.

Manchu wrote:Without the transatlantic slave trade, there might well be openly held slaves in the West today and little moral repugnance to go along with it. As things are, we have a lot of arrangements that seem similar to slavery in the ancient world as I understand it. Probably more restrictive than that, actually.

Slavery in the new world was tied to race in a way that it rarely was in other areas.

It's an institution that changed dramatically over the millenia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

Yes, I'm sure people were enslaved out of benevolence. That must be it.

Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

Exodus 21:7-11 (NLT)
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


Hmmm... selling your daughter into the sex trade and beating slaves to within an inch of their life is totally acceptable. What about forcably taking slaves?

Numbers 31:7-18 (NIV)
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Wow. So, you can forcably take female slaves, but only if they're virgins. Otherwise, you should just kill them (and all the boys). Seems a little extreme. How about we ask Jesus?

Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


So, it's okay to severely beat a slave who didn't do what you want. But, make sure to ease up a bit on the slaves who didn't know what you wanted.

Polonius wrote:
Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

That reads to me as a choice between attempting to prevent future transactors from defaulting, and getting the value of the debt from the debtor.

The desire to not kill, or injure, may have played a role, but I doubt it was a big one.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

That reads to me as a choice between attempting to prevent future transactors from defaulting, and getting the value of the debt from the debtor.

The desire to not kill, or injure, may have played a role, but I doubt it was a big one.

I don't think benevolence has anything to do with it, but I don't think benevolence is a reason for much.

Grakmar wrote:Exodus 21:7-11 (NLT)
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


Hmmm... selling your daughter into the sex trade and beating slaves to within an inch of their life is totally acceptable. What about forcably taking slaves?

Numbers 31:7-18 (NIV)
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Wow. So, you can forcably take female slaves, but only if they're virgins. Otherwise, you should just kill them (and all the boys). Seems a little extreme. How about we ask Jesus?

Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


So, it's okay to severely beat a slave who didn't do what you want. But, make sure to ease up a bit on the slaves who didn't know what you wanted.

As usual context is forgotten.

Where does it say the daughter is a sex slave? In fact it talks about the slave marrying the slave owners son? if you had a sex slave would you want her to marry your son?

If you are going to quote exodus please quote it in context.
Exodus 21:18-21
18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed,
19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Look at the context of the punishment for physical harm between two men fighting, and what to do when one or the other recovers or not, to the situation between a master and slave when the master punishes their slave. Using this verse to say that the Bible condones beating slaves is like saying the bible condones fighting and beating each other up.

Also the quote from Jesus's parable and trying to say that Jesus is agreeing with the beating is just laughably out of context.

GG

@Grakmar: That's a terrible reading of the parable.

Frazzled wrote:Just go with that carpenter guy. He's a cool cat who had his *^( together.

Jeshua, if he existed, was said to work with his hands. No one knows if this meant carpentry, stone mason, ditch digger, etc.

Best,

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

Came to see someone defend slavery, leaving satisfied.

Dakka OT, you so crazy.

Good hell, what were they thinking, putting up a billboard like that?
I don't think many black people seeing that thing would get much past the slave picture and the comment about obeying masters before they were reaching for an axe to take the thing down with.
I can just picture the conversation that would have gone on if the designer of that thing were trying to outline the thing face to face with some of the blacks I know:

Board designer, "I've got a great idea for a bill board"

Black man, "What's that?"

Board designer, "It's a picture of a black slave, wearing a collar with a biblical statement telling slaves to obey their masters. It then includes a "

Smash! Bam!Crunch!

Board designer, "Oh God, help me please!"

Ouze wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

Came to see someone defend slavery, leaving satisfied.

Dakka OT, you so crazy.

Same reason I looked.

But honestly I see nothing wrong with this billboard

dogma wrote:
What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

Many people feel the need to resign themselves to some set of belief or creed, even if it isn't a god. Dogma is the problem, not belief or lack-thereof.

Fafnir wrote:

dogma wrote:
What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

Many people feel the need to resign themselves to some set of belief or creed, even if it isn't a god. Dogma is the problem, not belief or lack-thereof.

You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!

The idea of a 'Year of the [X]' is pretty slowed anyway.

I guess there could be a reasonable assumption that many people who have heard about this incident are having these same discussions - looks like the billboard was a good thing after all.

@generalgrog: From what I can see there that verse only condemns beating a slave to death, not just beating them.

GG: Defending slavery since at least 2012.

Really, it's not that bad, guys. And you have to free your slave after seven years. Oh wait, no, that's only if he's of your tribe. Oh, and the Bible doesn't condone beating slaves; oh no, wait, it totally says it's fine to do that unless the victim dies in less than a day or two. Then you overdid it.

The billboard was kind of a dick move, but it did provoke some discussion, at least.

Mannahnin wrote:GG: Defending slavery since at least 2012.

Really, it's not that bad, guys. And you have to free your slave after seven years. Oh wait, no, that's only if he's of your tribe. Oh, and the Bible doesn't condone beating slaves; oh no, wait, it totally says it's fine to do that unless the victim dies in less than a day or two. Then you overdid it.

The billboard was kind of a dick move, but it did provoke some discussion, at least.

why am I not surprised that you would not understand me.

GG

I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

I think black people probably care more about having a job and the state of their communities than they do some billboard.
Just a thought.

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery,

I'm pretty sure that he claimed that the Bible doesn't condone permanent slavery, that it didn't condone beating slaves, that it doesn't condone taking slaves (and implied that the only type of slavery practiced was indentured servitude). All of which are untrue.

...just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

That's legimate, sure. But I don't think that's the kind of historical perspective being asked for by apologists who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Well, bear in mind that (IIRC) the New Testament does say that the Old Testament doesn't really apply anymore.

Christians don't consider themselves bound by the stuff in Leviticus, though some dishonest and/or ignorant ones will reference it in support of their prejudices (like some of them hating gay people).

The way a lot of people round where I live see it, is that the Old Testament is the Jewish Holy Book and has some decent bits in it, but the New Testament is the important bit.

Look the important thing is...and polonius nailed it. At the time the pentatuch was written, slavery was a fact of life, and laws were written to deal with these facts. It doesn't mean that God thinks slavery is A'OK.

GG

But the Bible is a book on how to live your life in order to get into Heaven. It is also God's will, it's his words...

mattyrm wrote: Its quoted from the bible!

An exact quote.

More like a third of a quote.

Paul slaves to buy their freedom if they can. However if they are slaves, do not rebel, accept your lot in life:

1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

This is about social conformity and non-dissent and is not pro-slavery. In the context of the time it was written slavery was a problem that was not going to go away, and those who wished it to go away normally got cracked down upon, hard. Paul suggests that slaves work within the system. Paul urged those who owned slaves to treat them fairly. Paul preached messages about slavery in Corinthians, Colossians and Ephesians. The message was consistent.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position.

Its like saying abstinence is a choice of sexual behaviour.

No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Look the important thing is...and polonius nailed it. At the time the pentatuch was written, slavery was a fact of life, and laws were written to deal with these facts. It doesn't mean that God thinks slavery is A'OK.

Slavery as an institution is evil. While it was a fact of life at the time, that just means it was an accepted evil. If the god of the Hebrews gave instructions allowing and perpetuating it, then that's a deity condoning evil. Either the book is written by men, or it's guided by a god who accepts and facilitates evil behavior.

Polonius wrote:the moral rules of the bible are based in their own time and place.

maybe Jesus will eventually put out an FAQ or a proper revised rulebook

Mannahnin wrote:No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

Mannahnin wrote:
Slavery as an institution is evil. While it was a fact of life at the time, that just means it was an accepted evil. If the god of the Hebrews gave instructions allowing and perpetuating it, then that's a deity condoning evil. Either the book is written by men, or it's guided by a god who accepts and facilitates evil behavior.

You ought to read the context before you make comments like the above. The 'instructions' are how to cope with it, as an individual believer. The epistles are very clear that freedom is better and to be achieved if legally possible. Therefore in an advanced culture based around a believing populace slavery should be phased out.

By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

Sure, just as choosing not to eat ice cream is an "ice cream choice".

If you bought billboard time proclaiming how you don't believe in ice cream and made up your own name for people who do not eat ice cream and insult anyone who does eat ice cream.

It should be noted that the context of the quoted verse on the billboard was aimed at Christians who were slaves during the early days of Christianity. The next couple verses after should make that clear.

Ie: the early church wouldn't survive rocking the boat of the dominant superpowers society of the time.

Mannahnin wrote:By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

The point is... divorce, like slavery was allowed, but not endorsed.


GG

edit...also look back at what Manchu posted about the definition of slaves or "bond servant". It's not 100% clear that the term slave meant the same thing back then as it does today or at the very least such as the way it was used during the african slave trade/ or the Roman times...I.E. chattle. It's possible that slave meant servant.

NELS1031 wrote:It should be noted that the context of the quoted verse on the billboard was aimed at Christians who were slaves during the early days of Christianity. The next couple verses after should make that clear.

Why let that get in the way of kicking GG around? Can't wait for the next bullying thread so I can revel in the hypocrisy.

Having read the whole thread, his point is clear, and consistent, and doesn't really seem to defend slavery as much as say that slavery was a fact of life in Biblical times, which is hardly a uniquely Christian/Hebrew phenomenon. In addition, the idea of just riding out whatever hideous lot you've received in life with the promise that afterward things should be better, which is also a strong theme in the Bible, isn't a solely Christian trait either.

Oh, yeah, and not a big fan of the billboard. It's right up there with those "The World Is Going to End on X Date" signs from last year.

Polonius wrote:Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Something about that Paul guy saying the old law was destroyed.

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

The point is... divorce, like slavery was allowed, but not endorsed.

If I give you rules of conduct regarding an activity, I am tacitly approving you engaging in that activity. The police department doesn't tell its officers "Taking bribes is bad, but here are some rules for how to do it." The Old Testament forbids a lot of things. It forbids working on the Sabbath. It forbids cutting your beard. It forbids cooking meat with milk. Slavery is far worse than any of those things.

generalgrog wrote:edit...also look back at what Manchu posted about the definition of slaves or "bond servant". It's not 100% clear that the term slave meant the same thing back then as it does today or at the very least such as the way it was used during the african slave trade/ or the Roman times...I.E. chattle. It's possible that slave meant servant.

No, I don't think that's really possible. One of the passages quoted specifically says it's fine to beat your slave, because they're your property. It's fine as long as it's not so badly that they die immediately.

Does anyone here believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

That poster is kinda offensive, but I take everything the athiests do to bash religion with a grain of salt.

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

Not unless sugar cane production is in the Tanakh.

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context just like manny.

But bringing this around to the point of the thread and the billboard. It's very insulting to take an image of an African slave and use a misunderstood portion of the Bible to try and "make points" against a state house(edit). It's very demeaning to use/abuse black people that way.

GG

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Im roman catholic and i have pretty much given up on the bible. I live by a code of two rules. Try not to hurt other and try to help others when you can.
Like i said. If god wanted mindless followers we would have been made that way.
Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian. This isnt a shock. This isnt like naming it "Year of the Quaran"(i would love to see that passed) its not a shocker.

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context...

Of course it wasn't motived by the Old Testament.

But as GG says, most of the people engaged in it were Christians who sincerely believed that slavery was part of the natural order, sanctioned by god, and used the OT to support their position.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. -Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.- Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention.

Of course there were a lot of Christian Abolitionists too. But let's not pretend that the texts are silent, or anti-slavery, or that they weren't used in its defense.

generalgrog wrote:[But bringing this around to the point of the thread and the billboard. It's very insulting to take an image of an African slave and use a misunderstood portion of the Bible to try and "make points" against a state house(edit). It's very demeaning to use/abuse black people that way.

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

AustonT wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

Opinions are divided on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

Most people in this country identify as various flavors of Christian, but certainly not all of us. Let me give you a famous Jefferson quote regarding why he would not declare a day of prayer (and a rationale I think also entirely appropriate for not declaring a "Year of the Bible"):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

The Virginia legislature was predominantly Christian when they wrote the Virginia Act For Religious Freedom, too, and yet Jefferson had this comment in his autobiography:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Being by Christian lights an Infidel of some other denomination, I have always taken comfort in these words.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

Opinions are divided on that.

\
You'll note that no mention is made of the Nag Hammadi library because it doesn't mesh well with that belief. Well, perhaps I should point out that SOME of the supporters of bible inerrancy point to Nag Hammadi but clearly don't comprehend the Gnostic and dischordant nature of it's apocryphal contents. You'll also find these people will not address the inconsistency between the various Gospels of the New Testament. Not to mention the well recognized belief that Josiah "found" Deuteronomy, which was pretty clearly written during his lifetime. Although some parts do predate the original portions of the book, those are recognized from other ancient Hebrew sources. In other words clearly authored for the benefit of a reformer king, that conveniently divenly supported legal reformation.

It would be prudent to point out that I am a subscriber to the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and that as such I recognize bible inerrancy as a fallacy.

If you ever want to have fun with one of these people play a game I like to call "have you actually read the bible?" Ask them whether man or woman was created first, and/or how woman came to be. The classic answer is man first then woman and some tit bits about a rib. Flip to GEN 1:27 were they are created at the same time on the 6th day and God speaks to THEM, giving them the dominion of the earth and all its creatures. Then work your way to GEN 2:19 where the dude is alone naming gak, gets told he can eat everything...just not to eat from that one tree, then gets konked out and a woman gets made. Depending on how big your font is the first two pages of the bible don't even jive. Inerrancy my fat ass. Clearly there are and have been many interpretations on the subject but in plain black and white in multiple translations the two chapters simply do not agree.

Having a Year of the Bible is just obnoxious. The answer isn't to post an obnoxious atheist billboard.

It's why I hate these debates. Everytime both sides end up arguing against pluralism more than anything. Seriously, you can be a happy, good Christian without having a year of the bible, and I can be a happy, good atheist without posting obnoxious billboards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Secular humanism isn't atheism, in the same way that Catholicism isn't Christianity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:So where does the Bible condone slavery again?
Where does the Bible say go out and get slaves?

Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

This is an interpretation of the bible, like any other.

You'd have to be kidding yourself to claim that people in history have never made simple, straightforward interpretations of the bible that their holding of slaves was endorsed by the good book, as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

There are poor and starving people today. I don't think making them slaves would improve things much.

But you're right it was part of the economic system of the times, that is to say, the book was the product of it's times.

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Seriously, you can be a happy, good Christian without having a year of the bible

At the cost of being discriminated against yeah.

generalgrog wrote:As usual context is forgotten.

Where does it say the daughter is a sex slave? In fact it talks about the slave marrying the slave owners son? if you had a sex slave would you want her to marry your son?

If you have a slave, and you take her in marriage, do you really honestly truly believe that there was a proposal, with the boy on bended knee dearly hoping the slave girl would say yes?

I mean seriously dude, the coercion apparent in that situation is hardly subtle. So yeah, when you take a girl as your wife, and because she was your slave you had no right to say no, it's a sex slave.

Look at the context of the punishment for physical harm between two men fighting, and what to do when one or the other recovers or not, to the situation between a master and slave when the master punishes their slave. Using this verse to say that the Bible condones beating slaves is like saying the bible condones fighting and beating each other up.

It says he can beat him and shouldn't be punished as long as the slave recovers within a day or two. It's really very clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

But he's pretending those morals aren't purely of their time and place, and can be given some kind of context to make them okay today. Which is pretty fethed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Where it gets complicated is that much of the Bible remains very powerful, and very insightful today, in a way that very few books written even just a generation ago can retain their value.

But there's also the stuff about beating slaves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian. This isnt a shock. This isnt like naming it "Year of the Quaran"(i would love to see that passed) its not a shocker.

Because it's naming the source of faith for one group of people above other groups, and it's doing it at a state level. Anyone who was genuinely motivated by a live and let live train of thought, that I'll worship my way and you'll worship yours, would never want such a thing. It wouldn't interest him.

But unfortunately that is not the approach most people take to their faith. Instead their faith must dominate, hold positions of greater importance than others. I don't know why people act like that, I really don't. But there's no point pretending it doesn't happen.

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Polonius wrote:I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority .

Atheisim isn't a Religon.

While I agree that all people of all beliefs make stupid mistakes and moves, people can critisise Religon, however if you must (I have, when people get angry over my beliefs) try and use a proper argument. Not some stupid bill board which will make all Athiests look ridiculous, and racist.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery,

I'm pretty sure that he claimed that the Bible doesn't condone permanent slavery, that it didn't condone beating slaves, that it doesn't condone taking slaves (and implied that the only type of slavery practiced was indentured servitude). All of which are untrue.

...just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

That's legimate, sure. But I don't think that's the kind of historical perspective being asked for by apologists who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

But he's pretending those morals aren't purely of their time and place, and can be given some kind of context to make them okay today. Which is pretty fethed up.

I think you're all missing the bigger point here. GG "defending" slavery is scandalous and fun, but what he's doing in terms of biblical interpretation and playing translation games is the real prize here.

he's arguing that the word "slave" doesn't mean what we think it does. Which is almost certainly somewhat true, but probably still refers to some sort of bound, unfree laborer. Let's see how he reacts to other interpretations. I think in the future, any time he drops the bible in a discussion, we all remember this and try to show how that it doesn't mean what a facial reading says.

In short, once you start explaining away biblical verses, you open the door.

Monster Rain wrote:Why let that get in the way of kicking GG around? Can't wait for the next bullying thread so I can revel in the hypocrisy.

I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Indeed. Waiting with interest here.

Mannahnin wrote:... who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

Manny said "inerrant." Nice.

Best,

Mannahnin wrote:

Of course there were a lot of Christian Abolitionists too. But let's not pretend that the texts are silent, or anti-slavery, or that they weren't used in its defense.

You can misread pro-slavery commentaries only if you, not God, are evil. The people you quoted would have read the New Testament as well as the old and turned a blind eye to the whole message.
To get a pattern of life for the time try the Old Testament, frankly its not recommended. The actual contextual message is not revealed until the New Testament, it links to the old but has a completely different outlook.

In a nutshell the Old Testament says: your society is evil so here is how to best organise your society until God gets around to fixing it.
New Testament: this is the promised moral fix.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Indeed. Waiting with interest here.

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The way a lot of people round where I live see it, is that the Old Testament is the Jewish Holy Book and has some decent bits in it, but the New Testament is the important bit.

The Old Testament has the creation myths in it. The Old Testament supposedly foretold a Messiah's coming. (The Hebrew Messiah)

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
If god created everything, than he endorses everything, including the bad parts. It doesn't do to separate out the parts you don't like, as then none of it would mean anything.

If I recall correctly, yahweh ordered Joshua to conquer the Promised Land, with instructions on how to deal with everything in it. Thus god ordered (and so endorsed)mass murder, rape, pillage, plunder and injustice.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

Regards,

Orlanth wrote:

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

Neither Communism or the French Revolution was done in the name of atheism.

Communism certainly was against religion, but only because it was viewed as a tool to keep the working class in place. Same for the French Revolution and how neatly the disgustingly wealthy church fitted into feudal society.

Mannahnin wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context...

Of course it wasn't motived by the Old Testament.

But as GG says, most of the people engaged in it were Christians who sincerely believed that slavery was part of the natural order, sanctioned by god, and used the OT to support their position.

I think you're "falling for it" a bit, Mannahnin. After reading this book, I began to wonder about the connection between medieval Christianity and what I practice today. Could a religion that, according to some of its most powerful contemporary adherents, demanded the murder of an entire sub-culture in 1208* be the same one that I profess in 2012? This is certainly the conception of Christianity that the vocal opponents of Christianity employ -- that what blood Christians shed in the middle ages is an undeniable testament to the true character of Christianity as a timeless worldview. And that's the argument that the atheists in this case deployed on their billboard: that the transatlantic slave trade prosecuted by white Christians was, in some part at least, an authentic function of their Christian belief system. But this is only convincing in an ahistorical or even anti-historical sense. Most obviously, human beings don't need the Bible to do really terrible things to one another. Perhaps less obviously to this audience, human beings have regularly done terrible things to one another in spite of the Bible.

The most crushing analysis of the billboard argument, however, is that Christians did hold slaves right from the beginning and yet it took them sixteen centuries to invent the kind of slavery that we now recognize as morally reprehensible. (As I said earlier, modern society is chock full of unquestioned relationships that resemble ancient forms of slavery, which some Christians supported and others opposed.) Maybe, just maybe, other developments -- such as mercantilism -- would help us to explain the development, prosecution, and continued consequences of transatlantic slavery better than an attack on Christianity. Unfortunately, that would call into question the propriety of rationalism. And it's odd to me that we can talk about Christianity "allowing" for this novel invention, a rather ambivalent claim, and also not talk about the Christian origins of the abolitionist movement. But that brings us back to the new atheist conception of Christianity as some kind of timeless mold that presses human beings into the same shape no matter what century they inhabit. That explanation simply cannot account for some Christians plying the slave trade at one point and other Christians passionately working to end that same trade at another point.

Of course, the answer is pretty obvious: things change. That's the phenomenon apprehended by history. And the fact that the Christian slave trader is just as much a Christian as the Christian abolitionist, or indeed the Cathar-murdering Christian crusader, would seem to show that slavery (and murdering Cathars) is not actually a significant principle for Christianity, one way or the other, despite what each of these Christians might have desired or demanded based on their historically contingent cultural, political, and economic contexts. But the new atheist ahistorical/antihistorical perspective obliterates these distinctions in favor of rhetoric -- yet another thing the new atheists have in common with other fundamentalists. If you think back over the last decade, it won't be hard to see how this ahistorical/antihistorical argument has been deployed time and again against Muslims. American liberals, even those who not terribly sensitive to a historical point of view, understood that these arguments were simply thinly-disguised calls to lynching. Like I said, one does not need the Bible to round up a lynch mob. But when this same hate speech is directed against Christianity, whose adherents are not so closely tied to any particular race or culture, the same liberals are slow to acknowledge it for what it is. In the politically-charged atmosphere of American religion, I can understand that -- but I can't excuse it.

* I want to clarify, in case anyone misses the whole point of what I wrote, that it was not a religion that killed the Cathars.

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

I just want to chirp in again..

I mean, I know I promised I wouldn't argue anymore, but I don't want anyone thinking I agree with GG or anything.

In short, I am very very glad that only a small percentage of Americans are fully off their tits. As a result, a man like Santorum will never get elected because far too many Americans are switched on.

God bless America indeed. You guys deserve a hearty backslap!

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Why would you say that about kittens?

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

Yes, it does seem there are a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. For example, claiming someone was "acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life" while neglecting to mention their personal judgement of the morality of such (it was to save them from starvation, so they were being done a solid).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

Neither Communism or the French Revolution was done in the name of atheism.

Communism certainly was against religion, but only because it was viewed as a tool to keep the working class in place. Same for the French Revolution and how neatly the disgustingly wealthy church fitted into feudal society.

And I may be a little rusty on my Russian, but if I remember correctly, didn't Stalin actually end up embracing the influence of the church when it occurred to him that he could use it to his advantage?

Nope.

EDIT: Well, I suppose a more nuanced answer is that Stalin abated his systematic persecution the Orthodox church so it could more effectvely act as a propaganda organ during WWII.

Mannahnin wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

Most people in this country identify as various flavors of Christian, but certainly not all of us. Let me give you a famous Jefferson quote regarding why he would not declare a day of prayer (and a rationale I think also entirely appropriate for not declaring a "Year of the Bible"):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

The Virginia legislature was predominantly Christian when they wrote the Virginia Act For Religious Freedom, too, and yet Jefferson had this comment in his autobiography:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Being by Christian lights an Infidel of some other denomination, I have always taken comfort in these words.

All im saying is there are better ways to spend time/money then protesting something which doenst harm others.

Manchu wrote:
After reading this book, I began to wonder about the connection between medieval Christianity and what I practice today.

If you have the time I'd encourage you to read Bart Ehrman's Lost Cristianities, and Lost Scriptures books. They are for the most part companion books, if you want analysis Christianties is the book to read, if you want to read raw apocryphal texts Scriptures is your game. If you do choose to read one or both I think you'll find that Christians from the 1st Century CE would find very little in common with medieval Christianity and even less with ours.
Another fascinating read is the Gospel of Mary Magdala.

mattyrm wrote: I just want to chirp in again..

I mean, I know I promised I wouldn't argue anymore, but I don't want anyone thinking I agree with GG or anything.

In short, I am very very glad that only a small percentage of Americans are fully off their tits. As a result, a man like Santorum will never get elected because far too many Americans are switched on.

God bless America indeed. You guys deserve a hearty backslap!

It's probably sad to note that at one time he convinced the state of Pennsylvania to elect him to our highest legislative body, which says bad things about the judgement of (voting) Pennsylvanians. The man is a complete and utter lunatic.

@AustonT: I'd counter recommend Elaine Pagels to you, although I don't find her "the victor's write the history" argument to be a convincing view of Christianity's development. But then again I do believe in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

Manchu wrote:@AustonT: I'd counter recommend Elaine Pagels to you, although I don't find her "the victor's write the history" argument to be a convincing view of Christianity's development. But then again I do believe in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

I have Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief" not 3 feet from me.

These are the two I read:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327

As I said, I don't find them terribly convincing.

Manchu wrote:Nope.

EDIT: Well, I suppose a more nuanced answer is that Stalin abated his systematic persecution the Orthodox church so it could more effectvely act as a propaganda organ during WWII.

I think the main issue is not that it was an atheistic state, but rather that Stalin chose to place himself and the state as the god figure. Similar to a less awesome version of Kim Jong Il of Best Korea. Most 'atheistic' regimes tend to simply be as such only for a dictator to attempt take the roll of god, sadly. Whether this is a fault of the people or a fault of the dictator, I can't tell.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

I can't say this particular book has impressed me that her skills as a writer, nor are her conclusions particularly convincing. I guess you have to go to Princeton to "get it." For my part I would not expand my scholarship in her books.

Manchu wrote:These are the two I read:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327

As I said, I don't find them terribly convincing.

I enjoyed this one:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-perfect-heresy-stephen-oshea/1007598989

I have Pagels book, but stopped reading it after a few chapters. Writing is a talent.

Regards,

@AustonT: In that case, I'd recommend Peter Brown's Rise of Western Christendom ... or really anything by him.

This all begs the question: Why isn't condemning homosexuality considered something from the time when society was evil? Something that 'all' Christians can move past.

Throughout the history of Christianity, some Christians have had a problem with sex (of all kinds) and some have not. That continues to this day. I cannot myself foresee a time when the Catholic Church will accept that homosexual marriage is sacramental, i.e., religiously valid, or that extramarital sexual acts are morally acceptable.

Manchu wrote:Throughout the history of Christianity, some Christians have had a problem with sex (of all kinds) and some have not. That continues to this day. I cannot myself foresee a time when the Catholic Church will accept that homosexual marriage is sacramental, i.e., religiously valid, or that extramarital sexual acts are morally acceptable.

Oh You never know..I'd never say never.

The Church might evolve. I mean, when a catholic priest is raping a boy he is breaking both of them.

They must be coming around!

Christiany's issue with homosexuals may stem from the fact that a majority, around 2/3s of the NT was authored or at least attributed to Paul...who was a pretty huge homophobe. SOME of the apochrophal texts point to homoeroticism possibly among the disciples...of whom Paul was not while Jesus lived. In fact Judas identified Jesus with a passionate kiss...
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

AustonT wrote:
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

Not each other, that would be lewd.

Rent boys, however...

Phanatik wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God is self limiting by his decision to allow free will to exist. If everything were suddenly fixed free will would be gone. To do so justly would also involve correction/punishment. As we all contribute to the worlds woes it is in aggregate better that God does not intervene in this way or we would all be in trouble.

Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery. He doesn't want to be an overbearing master, so He abstains to a large extent from what happens in the world. Is this right? Ask God, but at least understand that from Gods perspective the timeless effects of the spiritual journey are worth more than the cost of lessons learned in the (comparatively) fleeting moment which is a human lifespan. I think a lot is taken with what to us is an overly long term perspective.

Phanatik wrote:
God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

We choose to be 'sick'.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Wait can we go back to those bible truthers again? Do they kiss each other passionately on the mouth? WWJD: kiss dudes.

Not each other, that would be lewd.

Rent boys, however...

Hey I'm a pretty rough and tumble bloke and even I wouldn't kiss a rent boy, those guys put all sorts of gak in their mouths!

I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

feth that!

The Catholic tradition views marriage as an aspect of God's self-expression of grace, perfected in the definitionally sacramental physical realization of the spiritual, rather than as a mere social construct representing social approval. Homosexuality is therefore "intrinsically disordered" because it does not involve biological "complementarity," i.e., represents a non-reproductive union and can thus only be defective at best and parody at worst. It's tempting to equate extramarital heterosexual acts with homosexual ones, in terms of sin. But if you look at it in terms of what is closer to a moral and licit sexual relationship, it is apparent that whereas extramarital heterosexual intercourse is but "one step away" from the ideal, as it were, homosexual intercourse is two steps away. So while extramarital sex as between a man and a woman is certainly itself a perversion of a sacrament, homosexual sex is so much more the perversion in that not only is the context incorrect but also the actors.

Now that the thread is woefully Off topic...I forsee it lasting about 1 or 2 more pages(if that) before lock ensues. As topic starter I ask that the mods keep a close eye on this.

GG

I don't see why it needed to be put up, actually. I mean, I'm an Atheist, and I don't know why some Atheists go through so much length to take jabs against the bible. Really, why is it so hard to just mind your own business?

It's evangelical atheism. The salvation of ... something is at stake here. Society?

Manchu wrote:The Catholic tradition views marriage as an aspect of God's self-expression of grace, perfected in the definitionally sacramental physical realization of the spiritual, rather than as a mere social construct representing social approval. Homosexuality is therefore "intrinsically disordered" because it does not involve biological "complementarity," i.e., represents a non-reproductive union and can thus only be defective at best and parody at worst. It's tempting to equate extramarital heterosexual acts with homosexual ones, in terms of sin. But if you look at it in terms of what is closer to a moral and licit sexual relationship, it is apparent that whereas extramarital heterosexual intercourse is but "one step away" from the ideal, as it were, heterosexual intercourse is two steps away. So while extramarital sex as between a man and a woman is certainly itself a perversion of a sacrament, heterosexual sex is so much more the perversion in that not only is the context incorrect but also the actors.

I think you need to check for typos in the above?

GG

Thanks, I fixed it.

crunchym8 wrote:I don't see why it needed to be put up, actually. I mean, I'm an Atheist, and I don't know why some Atheists go through so much length to take jabs against the bible. Really, why is it so hard to just mind your own business?

Minding your own business is the ideal. But, when lawmakers start forcing their religious views on everyone, that's a problem.

This poster was a (poor) attempt to fight that.

Grakmar wrote:This poster was a (poor) attempt to fight that.

The proffered explanation is dubious. I mean, there must be some point where a plan is so obviously ineffective that one must have some other intentions than stated in putting it into action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery.

That's a wonderful point.

There was this documentary i watched. I think it was called
"Lord, Save us from your Followers. Why is the gospel of love destroying america" It said that bible literalists are recent. And until that time much of the bible was up for debate and scholary review. and how many encouraged to read it critically.

For Catholics, it's almost the opposite, in a sense. Not that Catholic exegists were ever necessarily literalists (which is considered grave error) or that there was no room for scholarly work. But until very recently, historical-critical methods were not allowed and even throughout much of the twentieth century, that approach was still tied up in the heresy called "Modernism."

It's funny that so many atheists are just as literalist-fundamentalist in their approach to the Bible as their Christian targets. This billboard crap is a great example.

Polonius wrote:Athiests have a shared faith

This is such epic fail...

I thought he made a pretty good point. I mean, how do you organize of the absence of belief in a particular thing? It's obviously more than that. I reckon it's a worldview, although not a particularly coherent one.

If just organizing is enough to be a religion than Fantasy Football is a religion.

Who's talking about what it takes to be a religion? Fantasy Football ain't a worldview and yes I would say that to their faces.

mattyrm wrote:
I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

Your Brit Card has been revoked.

You organize the absence of belief the same way you organize the belief in something: open bar.

I've heard the argument made that becuase atheists have some level of organization it is akin to a being a religion, and your argument seemed to be in the same vein as that.

Ahtman wrote:If just organizing is enough to be a religion than Fantasy Football is a religion.

There is also the fact that you are fething forcing everyone to be in this "Religion"!

I can accept the premise that someone who avows certainty could be accused of being in a Religion of some kind, because they would indeed need faith of a kind, someone who believes 100% that there definitely is nothing out there at all in any form, but how many non believers actually believe that? Most peoples issue with Religion comes from "people" trying to force their rules onto others, not the actual question of a god entity.

I care if Religious people want to stop me buying beer on a Sunday, I dont give a gak if there is a God or not! But under this premise, simply being utterly disinterested in the question "is there a God", or being ignorant of the big Religions or being agnostic (seems like the majority of citizens in Europe are this) are we all now being rounded up and forced into it?!

My lack of belief is the same as it always has been, I don't care enough about the answer to be bothered with the question! Maybe there is an afterlife and A God, maybe there isn't, I don't read scripture, I don't go to Churches, I don't pray, I reserve the right to change my mind if the evidence changes and I just want to spend my free time ignoring the whole premise, and go drinking in the pub, walking, working out and painting minis, does that mean I'm Religious?! I only get involved if they try to force rules upon me, not if they want to talk about what made everything.

And don't I get a say in the matter?!

This question has been brought up hundreds of times and it always annoys me because it always boils down to actual Religious people telling me that I am Religious and what I say or feel is irrelevant.

A lack of something can never ever BE something, no matter how much actual Religious people (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians etc etc etc) want it to be because they think it improves the validity of their argument.

Ahtman wrote:You organize the absence of belief the same way you organize the belief in something: open bar.

But only till 10, by that time everyone is too drunk to realize they're paying for the comped drinks in the form of inflated prices.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I mean, they hang around outside 7-eleven all night, I'm talking about Big Bite Hotdogs, $1 Taquitos, corndog rollers... Gummi worms!

Your Brit Card has been revoked.

Mate I actually like all that gak.. toss some ales into me and Ill eat anything!

I came out of Rock Bottom in Long Beach and troffed 3 of those nasty hot dogs and about 5 Taquitos while my (food snob) missus shook her head at me in utter disgust.

Then I went back to my room and washed a bag of gummi worms down with a can of Red Dog.

mattyrm wrote:
A lack of something can never ever BE something, no matter how much actual Religious people (Sikhs, Hindus, Christians etc etc etc) want it to be because they think it improves the validity of their argument.

Well, the absence of a belief can be a thing, an absence. Its fine the recognize that fact, and further point out that lots of people believe in the lack of that thing (distinct from the absence of a belief). The problem becomes that, when "atheism" is a religion, so is everything else, and that just turns the world into a UU paradise*; which no one wants.




*Disclaimer: I'm biased against UUs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Mate I actually like all that gak.. toss some ales into me and Ill eat anything!

I came out of Rock Bottom in Long Beach and troffed 3 of those nasty hot dogs and about 5 Taquitos while my (food snob) missus shook her head at me in utter disgust.

Then I went back to my room and washed a bag of gummi worms down with a can of Red Dog.

The Red Dog we can see eye to eye on, but anything that comes out of 7-Eleven that's warm by way of cooking is dreadful.

Then again, I'm from one of the two cities in the US that has its own "style" of hot dog, so I've been spoiled.

dogma wrote:
Well, the absence of a belief can be a thing, an absence. Its fine the recognize that fact, and further point out that lots of people believe in the lack of that thing (distinct from the absence of a belief). The problem becomes that, when "atheism" is a religion, so is everything else, and that just turns the world into a UU paradise*; which no one wants.

*Disclaimer: I'm biased against UUs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

I've not heard of Unitarian Universalism before so I had to google it.

Well, unless...

You weren't talking about the University of Ulster where you?

dogma wrote:

The Red Dog we can see eye to eye on, but anything that comes out of 7-Eleven that's warm by way of cooking is dreadful.

Then again, I'm from one of the two cities in the US that has its own "style" of hot dog, so I've been spoiled.

So the long haired colonel tells me, but there is nothing warm I wont eat from 7-eleven if im ten pints deep.

My missus loves Chicago Dogs, where's the other one from?

Ahtman wrote:... and your argument seemed to be in the same vein as that.

Nah, I just criticizing Melissia's dismissal of Polnius's point form earlier. Atheism is no religion.

mattyrm wrote:
So the long haired colonel tells me, but there is nothing warm I wont eat from 7-eleven if im ten pints deep.

If you haven't been to a White Castle, you're missing out on your long lost home.

mattyrm wrote:
My missus loves Chicago Dogs, where's the other one from?

New York, its not named after the city, but the style of the dog itself is pretty consistent; usually mustard and sauerkraut on top. Nathans is a good example.

Also, I found this abomination when I googled "hot dog":



The white stuff is mayonnaise.

Truly, Chile is an awful place.

Thread: Not all Christians believe all parts of it (they just blame the others for "misinterpreting"), but the Bible has a fair amount of currently irrelevant crap.

Going back to the original topic, is it against the Separation Clause for the government to designate the Year of the Bible?

I'd take that case.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
So the long haired colonel tells me, but there is nothing warm I wont eat from 7-eleven if im ten pints deep.

If you haven't been to a White Castle, you're missing out on your long lost home.

mattyrm wrote:
My missus loves Chicago Dogs, where's the other one from?

New York, its not named after the city, but the style of the dog itself is pretty consistent; usually mustard and sauerkraut on top. Nathans is a good example.

Also, I found this abomination when I googled "hot dog":



The white stuff is mayonnaise.

Truly, Chile is an awful place.

There's also Sonoran Hotdogs which are themselves abominations.

crunchym8 wrote:IReally, why is it so hard to just mind your own business?

If both sides agreed to this then the world would be a much better place...

Manchu wrote:I thought he made a pretty good point. I mean, how do you organize of the absence of belief in a particular thing?

Which is why most atheist organizations are so small. But the ones that are there tend to be focused around the belief that religion (or at least religious extremism) is bad for humanity, rather than about the atheistic aspect.

Manchu wrote:Who's talking about what it takes to be a religion?

You.

My objection was over the idea that atheism itself is a "faith".

It's one of the more stupid claims made on the topic. Atheism is, in general, a position which argues that there is no proof of the existence of whatever entity that one might call "god", singular or plural. If that's faith, then everything is faith and the term is meaningless trash to be tossed aside like the gak my cat had on my floor this morning.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Who's talking about what it takes to be a religion?

You.

Nope, but you know that. Or you just dismissed Polnius without understanding what he was actually saying.

More likely, you read it without actually understanding what he was saying.

Aaaand read my post without really understanding it either.

By the way, I edited an explanation.

One of the many nice things about Adepticon is being within easy shuttle ride distance of Portillo's, which is one place to get good Chicago dogs.

Manchu wrote: And that's the argument that the atheists in this case deployed on their billboard: that the transatlantic slave trade prosecuted by white Christians was, in some part at least, an authentic function of their Christian belief system. But this is only convincing in an ahistorical or even anti-historical sense. Most obviously, human beings don't need the Bible to do really terrible things to one another. Perhaps less obviously to this audience, human beings have regularly done terrible things to one another in spite of the Bible.

Certainly true and valid, but I think sidestepping a bit the point that the book does explicitly condone slavery. And that many modern practitioners still seem to adhere (at least superficially) to the concept of Biblical inerrancy, and regularly take (what seem at least to me outdated) bits from the Old Testament when they choose, such as to reinforce prejudice against homosexuals, or pagans. If modern Christians still reference the OT in justifying their intolerance toward some people, is it an enormous leap to think that members of that religion might retain sympathy toward some of the other outdated and barbaric concepts their holy book endorses from those times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery wrote: Some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan (an organization dedicated to the "empowerment of the white race"), and Christian Reconstructionists still argue that slavery is justified by Christian doctrine today.

Certainly Identity Christians and KKK members are the extreme end, and not representative of the vast majority of the religion’s adherents. But when you’ve got people like GG who are not them, but seem to be trying to mislead us about what’s present in the Bible, it does invite questions. When he tells us that slaves really were just servants rather than property, or that all slaves were to be freed after seven years, what are we to think? It seems like he believes that the passages on slavery really don’t correspond to any immoral act.

Manchu wrote: The most crushing analysis of the billboard argument, however, is that Christians did hold slaves right from the beginning and yet it took them sixteen centuries to invent the kind of slavery that we now recognize as morally reprehensible.

I don’t think it took sixteen centuries for slavery to become something we would or should consider morally reprehensible. While I agree that the particular form we most often think of (mercantile, industrial slavery) is relatively recent, and has little or no connection to early Christianity, that doesn’t mean that I can find the concept of owning a person to be okay. Or excusing physical abuse of that person on the basis of them being property.

Manchu wrote: But that brings us back to the new atheist conception of Christianity as some kind of timeless mold that presses human beings into the same shape no matter what century they inhabit. That explanation simply cannot account for some Christians plying the slave trade at one point and other Christians passionately working to end that same trade at another point.

I’m not an atheist, as you know, and I’m not familiar with that idea, really. I will say that I don’t see anything particularly surprising in the facts that some Christians ardently opposed slavery while others just as ardently supported it. Not everyone is primarily defined or their behavior controlled by their religion. And as slavery is not a central tenet of Christianity, obviously there’s a lot of room for abolitionists to write it off as an obsolete and immoral concept belonging to the past.

Manchu wrote:But the new atheist ahistorical/antihistorical perspective obliterates these distinctions in favor of rhetoric -- yet another thing the new atheists have in common with other fundamentalists. If you think back over the last decade, it won't be hard to see how this ahistorical/antihistorical argument has been deployed time and again against Muslims.

If Atheists can legitimately be grouped into a unified perspective or organization I’d be surprised. If there are many who can be described as fundamentalist that’d surprise me too. I think I know what you’re talking about in terms of Muslims. Being slandered by people taking certain passages out of context from the Koran and acting as if the modern religion hasn’t changed at all and still adheres primarily to a medieval and intolerant mindset.

Manchu wrote: American liberals, even those who not terribly sensitive to a historical point of view, understood that these arguments were simply thinly-disguised calls to lynching. Like I said, one does not need the Bible to round up a lynch mob. But when this same hate speech is directed against Christianity, whose adherents are not so closely tied to any particular race or culture, the same liberals are slow to acknowledge it for what it is. In the politically-charged atmosphere of American religion, I can understand that -- but I can't excuse it.

It seems to me that you’re making quite a leap to get from this billboard to hate speech or lynchings. If liberals are slower to leap to Christianity’s defense, I can only say that for my part, I do regularly defend Christianity and Christians when I see them slandered. But that I don’t see much danger to them in critical or even hateful speech. One fears for a person or small group in the midst of a crowd of those who hate them. One isn’t so scared for the crowd if a couple of people in their midst are shouting nasty names at them.

Melissia wrote:More likely, you read it without actually understanding what he was saying.

No, read further. He and I talked a little more about it and settled on the term creed as opposed to religion.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely, you read it without actually understanding what he was saying.

No, read further. He and I talked a little more about it and settled on the term creed as opposed to religion.

Try reading. My post happens to be put in words.

Polonius wrote:Athiests have a shared faith

Melissia wrote:My objection was over the idea that atheism itself is a "faith".

It's one of the more stupid claims made on the topic. Atheism is, in general, a position which argues that there is no proof of the existence of whatever entity that one might call "god", singular or plural. If that's faith, then everything is faith and the term is meaningless trash to be tossed aside like the gak my cat had on my floor this morning.

The argument that "atheism is faith" is stupid and as a science major who has to keep a very distinct difference between proof and faith in mind any time any study is made, the argument is frankly offensive. Faith is a very specific concept, which really doesn't apply to the general concept of the view of atheism.

I wouldn't even describe myself as atheistic, I just hate the misuse of the term "faith". Just like I hate it when people claim that you have no faith because you don't go to church, as if somehow attendance is tied to anything other than attendance (church is a social event, it does not define one's faith, one does not need to belong to any faith to participate, and one doesn't need to have any particularly strong faith to participate regularly).

Mannahnin wrote:If modern Christians still reference the OT in justifying their intolerance toward some people, is it an enormous leap to think that members of that religion might retain sympathy toward some of the other outdated and barbaric concepts their holy book endorses from those times?

Yes, I think that's quite a leap. Similarly, mere racism doesn't imply advocacy of transatlantic style slavery.

I don’t think it took sixteen centuries for slavery to become something we would or should consider morally reprehensible.

Well, but it did -- I mean, even longer than that actually.

While I agree that the particular form we most often think of (mercantile, industrial slavery) is relatively recent, and has little or no connection to early Christianity,

Or Christianity at all.

And as slavery is not a central tenet of Christianity, obviously there’s a lot of room for abolitionists to write it off as an obsolete and immoral concept belonging to the past.

Yes, exactly right. But I'd still criticize that narrative of the inferior past along the same lines I already have.

If there are many [new atheists] who can be described as fundamentalist that’d surprise me too.

I think it's quite common, based on the self-representations I've seen.

It seems to me that you’re making quite a leap to get from this billboard to hate speech or lynchings.

The distance is equivocal to me, in this case. To quote from the Prometheus trailer, big things have little beginnings. Most hate speech won't result in a lynching the next day.

One isn’t so scared for the crowd if a couple of people in their midst are shouting nasty names at them.

This doesn't seem to be the case at hand though, does it, where a group of atheists went into someone else's community to cast stones?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Faith is a very specific concept, which really doesn't apply to the general concept of the view of atheism.

I'd disagree that faith is a very specific concept. This is belied by its actual use by actual people. As in this case, where faith was meant along the lines of "doctrine" or "worldview" as was apparent in the context of the conversation.

Yes, there are people who are misusing the term. Just like tehre are people who use the term "Christian" in place of "mentally slowed"; as in "You seriously ran a red light? Stop being Christian."

But misuse of the term is irrelevant except to point out that it is misuse.

I recognize that in a narrower discourse, terms have very specific meanings. But a narrow discourse does not capture all possible uses of a word.

Manchu wrote:I recognize that in a narrower discourse, terms have very specific meanings. But a narrow discourse does not capture all possible uses of a word.

If you want to "capture all possible uses of a word" then all words are meaningless.

Thankfully we can discover what people actually mean by discussing it with them.

Which could be anything and everything. One can use faith for "stupidity", "enlightenment", "ignorance", "wisdom", "disk jockeys", or anything else you can think of.

But since subjectivism pisses me off with its intellectual laziness, I don't really find myself caring overmuch about subjectivist philosophies on topics.

I think I understand what you mean and generally agree with you. In this case, however, Polonius used a term to make a point and then that point and the terms involved were discussed and different terms were introduced in order to make the point more clear. Saying that the earlier, less clear terminology is an "epic fail" several pages after that part of the conversation is needlessly provocative and doesn't even address the point Polonius was trying to make.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If modern Christians still reference the OT in justifying their intolerance toward some people, is it an enormous leap to think that members of that religion might retain sympathy toward some of the other outdated and barbaric concepts their holy book endorses from those times?

Yes, I think that's quite a leap. Similarly, mere racism doesn't imply advocacy of transatlantic style slavery.

Of course not, but:
A) Remember I'm not just talking about the transatlantic slave trade. IMO local slavery (of war prisoners and members of neighboring tribes) is still an evil, and saying "It's fine to beat your slave, because they're your property, it's only a problem if they die" represents a kind of barbarism which we find morally reprehensible today and which I have no doubt at least some people found morally reprehensible at the time, even if it was generally accepted by the societal mores of the time and place.
B) Not to pick on GG, but by inaccurately describing what the Bible says about slavery, he seemed to minimize and excuse that barbarity and that evil, even to the extent of arguing or at least implying that it wasn't actually wrong or bad.
C) We know there are a few racist extremist Christians out there who do miss slavery and would like to see it back, and who still use scripture (like good ol' Jeff Davis did) in justifying it.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It seems to me that you’re making quite a leap to get from this billboard to hate speech or lynchings.

The distance is equivocal to me, in this case. To quote from the Prometheus trailer, big things have little beginnings. Most hate speech won't result in a lynching the next day.

I still don't agree that it's hate speech. And the idea that it could result in lynching, ever, relies on the possibilty that Fundamentalist Atheists could ever become a large enough percentage of society to put such acts into practice, while remaining angry enough to do so. A possibility that seems absurd on its face, to me. From what I've seen it seems that the strident Atheists are the way they are because they feel isolated and alone, like they have to shout and be nasty to be heard at all. Hence attention-getting stunts like this billboard.

That exchange between Mel and Manchu made me lol hard

I like returning to a thread and finding myself being called stupid for a choice of words I had long since corrected.

As an atheist myself, I think this billboard is a bit extreme I don't really see why they had to bring race into it.

Although maybe extreme statements like this are needed to make America wake up. I dunno.

Mannahnin wrote:I still don't agree that it's hate speech.

I think it's a pretty clear example but I agree we won't have atheist lynchmobs anytime soon. My point is there's nothing about atheism itself that doesn't preclude it. It's very like Christianity and slavery. There's nothing inherent to Christianity or atheism that necessitates humans being despicable to humans. But inhumanity will find a way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:Although maybe extreme statements like this are needed to make America wake up. I dunno.

Wake up from what? That's a pretty awful thing to say itself so I guess I can understand why you might give that billboard a pass.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I still don't agree that it's hate speech.

My point is there's nothing about atheism itself that doesn't preclude it. It's very like Christianity and slavery. There's nothing about inherent Christianity or atheism that necessitates humans being despicable to humans. But inhumanity will find a way.

I agree with this about 90%. Certainly nothing about atheism prevents being hateful, or a dick. And human beings of all kinds and creeds find ways to be awful to each other.

But I do think there's a distinction between a set of people who don't have any specific dogma, and don't have any foundational texts supportive of ancient barbarity, and a set of people who do. Now, all of us have lots of ancestors (Christian and Pagan and other) who engaged in barbaric acts we would find immoral today. But if a member of any religion starts making excuses for the barbaric, outdated parts of their holy text and pretending that those parts aren't barbaric or nasty, that seems a bit off to me. I can totally respect you putting things into historical perspective. I can't respect a Christian misrepresenting the text, claiming it says something other than what it does, and acting like ancient slavery wasn't a bad thing. Any more than I could respect a Muslim who stood up for oppression of women based on outdated parts of the Koran. Or a Shinto practitioner defending racism toward non-Japanese.

I'm not saying your comments to GG constitute hate speech by any stretch. I'm saying that the billboard in this case, with it's ludicrous charge of Christianity being responsible for the terrible treatment black people have suffered and continue to suffer in the country, is hate speech.

The old testaments tacit approval has many possible reasons.

First: that the human writers of the OT knew they couldn't end slavery, but thought they could clean it up some.

Second: That even the divine author of the OT knew He couldn't end slavery, but thought He could clean it up some.

Third: The God of the OT actually has no problem with slavery.

Fourth: god realized that humanity could only handle some truths at certain times. So, rather than explain macro evolution or heliocentrism from the get go, he told a story. Rather than try to create a moral code of human dignity, he gave them complicated rules.

Honestly, there's plenty of support for four. The whole reason for Jesus was to free humans from complicated regulations, and instead base moral decisions on more basic principles.

The problem, of course, is that such a reading requires viewing all specific moral lessons of the new testament through modern understanding. Which would lead no more murders or robberies, but more non-procreative sex, and less slavery, wife beating, and rape.

It's also possible that God is either a dick, not all powerful, or not the author of Leviticus.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I still don't agree that it's hate speech.

I think it's a pretty clear example but I agree we won't have atheist lynchmobs anytime soon. My point is there's nothing about atheism itself that doesn't preclude it. It's very like Christianity and slavery. There's nothing inherent to Christianity or atheism that necessitates humans being despicable to humans. But inhumanity will find a way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:Although maybe extreme statements like this are needed to make America wake up. I dunno.

Wake up from what? That's a pretty awful thing to say itself so I guess I can understand why you might give that billboard a pass.

Wake up from thinking that every word from the bible or any other religious text is the word of god and what is right (Not that it is all bad. There are quite a few things in the Bible that I do agree with. Things like "Thou shall not Kill" ). But bringing race into it was the wrong thing to do. They could have just used the same quote in another way. (or something completely different. I dunno)

GD, I don't think most religious people think that every word of their chosen religious text are infallible. I think that's pretty uncommon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I'm not saying your comments to GG constitute hate speech by any stretch. I'm saying that the billboard in this case, with it's ludicrous charge of Christianity being responsible for the terrible treatment black people have suffered and continue to suffer in the country, is hate speech.

Is that what it said? When I read it, it appeared to reference "Bronze age ethics" being part of the Bible, and made clear that the statement was in response to the state legislature's declaration of the "Year of the Bible".

That is not a depiction of Bronze Age slavery, my friend.

Has anyone recognized mannys propensity to compare GG with the bogey man?

Really Polonius is spot on yet again... stop trying to read into the OT Law the same kind of understanding we have today ( we don't have a complete understanding of the way they did things and how they saw things back then). I tried(and failed) to explain it to Manny earlier. Guess I should just stop trying.


GG

generalgrog wrote:Has anyone recognized mannys propensity to compare GG with the bogey man?

Really Polonius is spot on yet again... stop trying to read into the OT Law the same kind of understanding we have today ( we don't have a complete understanding of the way they did things and how they saw things back then). I tried(and failed) to explain it to Manny earlier. Guess I should just stop trying.

So, you're saying that the Bible is either not inerrant, or not directly applicable to modern times?

GG, you are not a bogeyman. You post what I perceive to be dishonest and harmful things.

If I see a falsehood being spoken, I can help others by pointing out that falsehood and contradicting it. In this case one of your fellow Christians pointed out several of the, to put it charitably, inaccurate things you posted. But if you keep going on basing your reasoning and your arguments on untruths, I have to reference those untruths to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

Manchu wrote:That is not a depiction of Bronze Age slavery, my friend.

That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

Mannahnin wrote:That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

The purpose of the conflation is what concerns me.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

The purpose of the conflation is what concerns me.

I can see that. Per the original article, Perce has opined that the Bible is "evil"; if he doesn't perceive the distinction, that could be one reason why he holds that opinion.

And I think that's a hateful thing. Ignorance is not excuse for hatred, as in the case of racism.

LOL just found something. Judas dies twice in the bible:

1st time:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. -- Matt. xxvii, 5.

2nd time:

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity: and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. -- Acts i, 18.

Manchu, he may well hate the Bible. It doesn't necessarily follow that he hates Christians in general.

Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Mannahnin wrote:GG, you are not a bogeyman. You post what I perceive to be dishonest and harmful things.

If I see a falsehood being spoken, I can help others by pointing out that falsehood and contradicting it. In this case one of your fellow Christians pointed out several of the, to put it charitably, inaccurate things you posted. But if you keep going on basing your reasoning and your arguments on untruths, I have to reference those untruths to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

Manchu wrote:That is not a depiction of Bronze Age slavery, my friend.

That may be so, but I don't think it's a hate crime for people to conflate Bronze Age slavery and Industrial slavery. Both are monstrous things.

But you seem to be hypersensitive to things I post. Is it possible that I just made a mistake when I posted the information about the 7 year release? A mistake in not following through with enough research? Why do you immediately think there is something sinister at work.

When polonius posted his response to mine....I immediately thought.."Uh Oh..that's what I get for being quick to post something".

Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable. Who is the OT mod now? If it's manny then that would explain things.

GG




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Hmmm westboros are going to be there....this could get interesting.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:LOL just found something. Judas dies twice in the bible:

1st time:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. -- Matt. xxvii, 5.

2nd time:

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity: and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. -- Acts i, 18.

Sigh....

Judas hanged him self and then fell headlong and burst asunder.

One death, one hanging, one bursting asunder.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Who is the OT mod now? If it's manny then that would explain things.

There is no OT-specific mod and that's a little much.

generalgrog wrote:
Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable.

You should read some of my older posts. If anything these are halcyon days compared to times of yore.

And, really, lets be honest. This thread aside, dropping the "deviant" bomb when homosexuality (or porn) comes up isn't going to win you many friends.

Man what happened to this thread. I'm not even sure what it's about anymore. Hot dogs, for a while, I got that.

"One death, one hanging, one bursting asunder."

That is one interpretation, yes.

Not necessarily the correct one.

I agree with Melissia. Traditionally, exegists have favored a harmonization like GG proposed (specifically, rupture due to botched hanging) but their concerns were about divine inerrancy rather than historical-critical evaluation.

Back to the topic; my interpretation of the poster was that it was intended to mock the legislature who promoted the "Year of the Bible", by highlighting one of the more questionable passage in the Bible.

That was a very indirect way of making the attack, however, and as seen was liable to interpretation in various ways.

It would have been more useful simply to sue the legislature on the grounds of no establishment of religion.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Since when did the OT become so snarky? There are a few posters on here namely Melissia, Howard treesong, and mannaheim that seem to get away with a lot more than what used to be considered acceptable.

You should read some of my older posts. If anything these are halcyon days compared to times of yore.

And, really, lets be honest. This thread aside, dropping the "deviant" bomb when homosexuality (or porn) comes up isn't going to win you many friends.

Yeah see, GG got Matty banned plenty of times Im sure..

Basically I think that some Christians seem to think they should be immune to criticism. Ridiculously vitriolic comments about how we are perverts and sexual deviants and Melissa is the snarky one?!

PhantomViper wrote:People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

Which, of course, unfortunately doesn't somehow make GG's posts in any way approving of slavery.

Monster Rain wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

Which, of course, unfortunately doesn't somehow make GG's posts in any way approving of slavery.

Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

mattyrm wrote: Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

When Christians focus solely on the New Covenant and the Golden Rule, I foresee a significant decrease in criticism of the religion.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Yeah of course it doesnt, but surely his point was simply that they pick and choose from the bible so they can pretty much argue for or against anything?!

I mean, on one hand these Christian types are saying "oh well.. The Bible when it talks about the slavery thing has to be taken in the context of the time/ignored/altered.... but this bit here about the dirty queers is 100% accurate!"

When Christians focus solely on the New Covenant and the Golden Rule, I foresee a significant decrease in criticism of the religion.

Damn straight..

They would probably be fine if they just forgot about the auld testament!

I think I'm on topic here though I might be wrong.

The bible isnt simple, It's not like 1 + 1 = 2. It's more like x + 2 = fish with no explaination as to how they got there. So its up to the reader to decide how.

The billboard was a Dick move.

If I'm still not on topic then hotdogs = meat which I don't eat therefore everyone who does will suffer when I bring about the apocalypse at the end of the year.

Nom

Ahtman wrote:Athiest Rally in DC

I reiterate: open bar.

Open bar!?

Thats worth the plane ticket alone!

GalacticDefender wrote:... There are quite a few things in the Bible that I do agree with. Things like "Thou shall not Kill" ).)

Misquote:
It actually says "Thou shalt not murder."

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God is self limiting by his decision to allow free will to exist. If everything were suddenly fixed free will would be gone. To do so justly would also involve correction/punishment. As we all contribute to the worlds woes it is in aggregate better that God does not intervene in this way or we would all be in trouble.

Incidently this is evidence of Gods actual opinion on slavery. He doesn't want to be an overbearing master, so He abstains to a large extent from what happens in the world. Is this right? Ask God, but at least understand that from Gods perspective the timeless effects of the spiritual journey are worth more than the cost of lessons learned in the (comparatively) fleeting moment which is a human lifespan. I think a lot is taken with what to us is an overly long term perspective.

Phanatik wrote:
God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

We choose to be 'sick'.

Supposition.
Do you have any evidence to support that you understand the mind of god and/or his intentions?

God created sickness. God created sick man. Man has no choice but to be sick. God commands Man get well or suffer.

Regards,

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu, he may well hate the Bible. It doesn't necessarily follow that he hates Christians in general.

True.

Faith/religion brings a lot of comfort on the individual level. I have no issue with someone having faith or believing in a religion themselves.

I see organized religion (the institutions themselves) as corrupt, hatemongering, self-interest groups that cause much of the world's ills and unrest.

Mannahnin wrote:GD, I don't think most religious people think that every word of their chosen religious text are infallible. I think that's pretty uncommon.

In the south it's extremely common, fwiw. That's why these people are scary.

And GG, there's no way to say "I'm right" without saying "you're wrong." Anytime someone claims to know the absolute truth and is clearly playing with a rigged deck (at this point in time your argument will ALWAYS be in favor of your belief system regardless of what anyone says) despite the fact that at least double the number of people disagree, there's never going to be a good reception. Also, again, the calling people perverts bit was way over the line. Expressing beliefs is one thing, but most of us don't think we're judged and it just kind of makes you look like a loony when you get really fanatical.

My personal stance is that no one should have to feel guilty for who they are, and I will always defend someone's right to make their own decisions without someone telling them it's wrong because an outdated book that belonged to a culture completely unlike our own says otherwise. There's enough hurt in the world, let's just stop perpetuating it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:GD, I don't think most religious people think that every word of their chosen religious text are infallible. I think that's pretty uncommon.

In the south it's extremely common, fwiw. That's why these people are scary.

And GG, there's no way to say "I'm right" without saying "you're wrong." Anytime someone claims to know the absolute truth and is clearly playing with a rigged deck (at this point in time your argument will ALWAYS be in favor of your belief system regardless of what anyone says) despite the fact that at least double the number of people disagree, there's never going to be a good reception. Also, again, the calling people perverts bit was way over the line. Expressing beliefs is one thing, but most of us don't think we're judged and it just kind of makes you look like a loony when you get really fanatical.

My personal stance is that no one should have to feel guilty for who they are, and I will always defend someone's right to make their own decisions without someone telling them it's wrong because an outdated book that belonged to a culture completely unlike our own says otherwise. There's enough hurt in the world, let's just stop perpetuating it.

Cannerous I really do appreciate your point. I never called anyone on dakka a pervert, I never picked a member of dakka and said this person is a pervert. I did focus on the behavior, and I did so with the intent of trying to get people to look at things differently. Sometimes love must be tough. I think maybe it wasn't the best way to go about it on the internet, with people that only know of me through things I type on a forum. When I think about it, I probably wouldn't have approached the situation the same way in person.

GG

Ha, in person we'd all be sharing a pint around a 40k table, someone making an atheist joke and you making a scrunchy face for a second and not much more, with you later making a religious reference and someone else making the same scrunchy face. People are nowhere near as rude IRL

While you didn't call anyone out specifically, knowing that 99% of Dakka users utilize porn, it's hard not to see what you said as an insult designed to slip past Rule #1 and probably why no mods stepped up to do anything about the discussion til a couple pages later. You might be that naive, but on the intrawebz it's just so much more fun to assume the worst That being said, I used to believe like you did (hell, you can trace my corruption through my Dakka history...) and now I don't, whereas you used to not believe like I do now, and now you do. What that ultimately tells me is that we're probably both wrong Good luck with that whole afterlife bit though.

Also, at some point saying "doing X is perverted" becomes "peole that do X are perverts."

I mean, isn't a pervert "somebody that that engages in perversion?"

When you repeatedly and earnestly label a group of behaviors with a negative label, you can't act shocked that people who engage in those behaviors feel like you're attacking them.

Particularly when you're in a dwindling minority about the moral nature of those behaviors.

Part of the problem, I think, is that you're using a secular term, "pervert," but no secular rationale. If you want to call homosexual acts sins, that's fine, because sin is defined by religion.

No, that is actually the problem. That distinction does not allow for the Catholic understanding of homosexual acts as sinful. Insisting that there is a difference between perverted/deformed/defective sexuality and sin is fine only if you don't care about understanding Catholic tradition. I mean, its fine if you dont. But ignorance is a poor ground for criticism.

nomsheep wrote:The billboard was a Dick move.

So was the "year of the bible" crap.

I'd suggest having a "year of evolution" but I think the idea of change scares these people.

Manchu wrote:No, that is actually the problem. That distinction does not allow for the Catholic understanding of homosexual acts as sinful. Insisting that there is a difference between perverted/deformed/defective sexuality and sin is fine only if you don't care about understanding Catholic tradition. I mean, its fine if you dont. But ignorance is a poor ground for criticism.

What?

I was saying that the term perverted has a secular, even psychological, meaning. Modern science does not, generally, consider homosexuality to be "perverted."

It's still a sin to many christians.

Calling something "perverted" solely becuase it's a sin is going to offend people, because many things are sins that aren't considered abnormal.

I wouldn't call a person eating a steak on Good Friday a freak. That's normal behavior.

Though I do know some people that go out of their way to have the biggest, juiciest steak they can on good Friday, as a "celebration of god's love towards men" because obviously god loves us if he gave us so many tasty animals to eat.

Melissia wrote:

nomsheep wrote:The billboard was a Dick move.

So was the "year of the bible" crap.

True.

I'd suggest having a "year of evolution" but I think the idea of change scares these people.

You say that as if they all think the same or are still in the majority.

I'd back you 100% in a year of evolution.

Nom

They have a huge impact on the Republican party regardless.

I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage, for that matter, but you still have politicians talking as if America is some backwater religious fundamentalist hellhole like, say, Iran.

Is there not a way to work within the system on order to change it in the way the majority want? (Legitimate question politics are not my strong point)

A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government

Nom

Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

Polonius wrote:I was saying that the term perverted has a secular, even psychological, meaning.

I understand the distinction that you're trying to make, as far as folks who for example hear a politician say "gays are perverts." I'm using the word "perversion" in the sense of "corruption of a divinely intended purpose." Yes, this is sin. But sin is not some ephemeral or hypothetical concept in Catholicism that can be hand-waved away as "religious" or "theological." Sin is a social matter. For example, the impoverishment of the many for the sake of the obscenely wealthy few -- this is transparent perversion and sin. The trouble with homosexuality as sin is that most people are used to thinking of sin as crime (or some other actionable liability). In order for something to be a sin, we have to establish a harm. Do gay couples break more laws or can they not raise children as well? This doesn't seem to be the case, as more and more people are forced to admit. So if there is no harm, how can it be a crime? That's the sense in which a lot of people understand words like "perversion," I agree. A pervert is a criminal and it makes no sense to call people a criminal because they're gay. But there's a big difference between a criminal and a sinner -- the difference, however, is not that the sinner is not really guilty.

The problem with that comes when they focus so much on others that they ignore their own sins.

Any time someone says "I'm proud of being '[insert Christian denomination here]" I facepalm because they just sinned and probably don't even know it.

Agreed. This whole line of thought about homosexuality as perversion and sin has no bearing on how Catholics ought to treat gay people, except insofar as barring them from sacremental marriage. And even that is not really a "punishment." People who want to marry someone of the same sex are simply not eligible for sacramental marriage.

Melissia wrote:Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

So find something equally as compelling as the sinners are coming then? It shouldn't be that hard Canada has gay marriage and so do the UK (to a degree) so there must be ways and means.

Same with anything that needs changing (equality for all, etc ) there has to be a way, right?

Nom

Course there's a way.

Canada's gay marriage came through the courts, not through democratic action.

But the problem with this is your requirement of "A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government" is that the courts themselves are not necessarily beholden to the public (and I'd argue that making them too much so would result in miscarriage of justice and corruption), though they are there to protect the public in a sense.

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

Canada's legislature was IIRC required by the courts to change its laws to more fit its constitution, and this is what they came up with:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Somehow I doubt many Americans would have a problem with this, but actually getting it pushed through congress, even a state one (or perhaps especially a state one in many states) is a nightmare.

GG has a good point. Not far from half of all American would probably have an issue with that definition.

Melissia wrote:Course there's a way.

Canada's gay marriage came through the courts, not through democratic action.

Didn't know that.

But the problem with this is your requirement of "A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government" is that the courts themselves are not necessarily beholden to the public (and I'd argue that making them too much so would result in miscarriage of justice and corruption), though they are there to protect the public in a sense.

There are obviously limits. For example murder is wrong no matter how many want it.

But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

Nom

Manchu wrote:GG has a good point. Not far from half of all American would probably have an issue with that definition.

45% according to that gallup poll, a small (three percentage poitns or so?) decrease. But in comparison, support for gay marriage increased by nine points in one year. Other polls have similar results.

But my point still stands:

Melissia wrote:Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomsheep wrote:But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

So you think that Abe Lincoln was wrong? Or that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Brown v. Board of Education? And so many other executive orders and court rulings which sided with civil liberties were all wrong, because they weren't "the people" deciding?

It's easy to say "let the people decide" when you're not the one being oppressed.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/from a time when religion was more prevalent

GG.

Fixed that for you.

Melissia wrote:

nomsheep wrote:But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

So you think that Abe Lincoln was wrong? Or that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Brown v. Board of Education? And so many other executive orders and court rulings which sided with civil liberties were all wrong, because they weren't "the people" deciding?

It's easy to say "let the people decide" when you're not the one being oppressed.

Old honest Abe was right but he didn't act alone. Others must have stood with him or he'd have never succeeded.

And thankfully I have the fortune to not be oppressed by anyone and I'm glad of that.

Melissia wrote:They have a huge impact on the Republican party regardless.

I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage, for that matter, but you still have politicians talking as if America is some backwater religious fundamentalist hellhole like, say, Iran.

I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/ns/politics/t/voters-pass-all-bans-gay-marriage/#.T24ILKN5mSM

Getting off topic.........in the off topic forum?

GG

Relapse wrote:I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

It's pretty likley that the people that feel strongly about gay marriage are more likley to oppose it.

It's simple self interest. There are people that feel that they're threatened by gay marriage, but aside from gays that want to marry, few people see a benefit.

Florists, maybe.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

If you're going to call someone out for conflating two disparate concepts, you might want to avoid doing so yourself; especially when its done so starkly. Indeed, older people tend to approve of gay marriage at a lower rate than younger people, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wisdom, which further doesn't necessarily arise from age.

If older people are more likely to be racist than younger people, is it because they're wiser than younger people?

Phanatik wrote:
Supposition.
Do you have any evidence to support that you understand the mind of god and/or his intentions?

Do you?

Because it appears below that you believe that you do.

Phanatik wrote:
God created sickness. God created sick man. Man has no choice but to be sick. God commands Man get well or suffer.

Also supposition.

Sickness, wellness, and suffering need not carry the same meaning when the discussion regards some sort of ultimate purpose. In essence, one can be "sick" and "suffer", or be not "well", in the long run if one is not sick, does not suffer, or is well in the short run.

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

Everytime gay marraige gets put on a referendum there is always a huge news coverage, along with major rallies from both sides, so I also have to disagree with the statement these referendums are not well known.

Good dodge.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

That's because most of us don't give a damn who your humping, as long as you don't do it on a park bench.

Seriously, if a gay guy walks up to me and starts talking to me, I don't care. The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

Slarg232 wrote:The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

I'm not gay, or even bi, but I've taken great pleasure in making many an overly aggressive former or current frat boy feel uncomfortable after watching them push a little too hard with the ladies.

In a phrase:

"Hey, honey."

Yeah seriously.

If a woman told a stereotypical man "stop hitting on me", no matter the reason why she said it, he'd be deeply offended... anywhere from "I'm married" to "I'm not interested" to "I'm lesbian", same emotionally offended response.

Thankfully most men aren't the stereotypical man, but still.

Melissia wrote:Good dodge.

Artful?

Certainly!

It sure wasn't actually answering the point.

Melissia wrote:Certainly!

It sure wasn't actually answering the point.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were putting across. It wouldn't be the first time in my lifeand probably won't be the last.

Let me elaborate:

Melissia wrote:You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

Essentially, how people vote does not really actually indicate much about how the country feels about any particular subject because what motivates people to vote can be quite different than what they feel. A person who just doesn't care either way, for example, is not going to be motivated to vote against a ban on gay marriage. A person who is okay with it is harder to motivate than someone who absolutely detests it, as well.

Thus my last statement-- your objection would be relevant and a good objection to my statement ... if everyone voted all the time on all topics that concern them. They don't, however. I'm not arguing agains the assertion that people vote more often to ban gay marriage, but I am making my own counter assertion, that there is a very specific reason for this outcome despite the fact that the majority of Americans really aren't that bothered by it.

Yup.... just printed out my Maryland voter registration form. Lets just say that me and babydoll are fairly motivated.

GG

Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

I see what you're saying there Melissa, but gay marriage, from what I see on the news is a very real hot button topic where greater than normal numbers of people from both sides come out to vote.
It appears at this juncture that there are more people in the camp against gay marriage that are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Will it always be so? I think it is getting closer to the day where we see people actually voting it in instead of it being legislated
but currently I think most people are against it because if someone can't be bothered to vote for it, than they aren't really for it beyond lip service.

So basically like most people and religion.

But that aside, just because the majority is for or against it doesn't make it right or wrong.

Exactly like most people and religion. Very good analogy.

I dont'really view it the same way. If someone is for it but it isn't a major issue that is OMGWTFIMPORTANT to their lives, I can easily see why they'd let it slide. That doesn't mean just lip service, it just means that it's not a big deal.

Melissia wrote:I dont'really view it the same way. If someone is for it but it isn't a major issue that is OMGWTFIMPORTANT to their lives, I can easily see why they'd let it slide. That doesn't mean just lip service, it just means that it's not a big deal.

I really think your analogy cuts close, though. It got me thinking.

Melissia wrote:Yes, homophobia-- fear and hate, the basics of bigotry-- is a very strong motivator compared to acceptance.

Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.
-------------------------------------------------
On Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy

There is a specter haunting America. That specter is the movement to promote homosexual marriage. The movement has adopted a cunning political strategy to appeal to everyone from the suburban soccer mom to the urban white male liberal: It has packaged its demand for a radical re-definition of marriage in the rhetoric and images of the Civil Rights Movement. This strategy, though utterly cynical and possibly racist, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King, Jr. and pacifistic marchers facing down dogs and hoses? In the aftermath if the struggle for racial justice, who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?

As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the “poverty pimps”, of thirty-five years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African American history for partisan purposes.

But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the historiographical literature of the Civil Rights Movement and its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support their political and moral argument of equivalence. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed over thirty years ago, the Black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences historically and politically could compare with the physical and brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of the unique experience of slavery the Civil Rights Movement was born.

The Civil Rights Movement was born with the establishment of the United States as a slaveholding republic. This extraordinary history included the kidnapping and brutal transport of Blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision—Dred Scott v. Sandford—denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.

It is these basic facts that weaken the efforts of apologist for homosexual marriage to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the interest of a generally privileged group.

In fact, the campaign for homosexual marriage is, ironically, an assertion of white skin privilege. Frequently, same-sex couples wanting to “marry” are white lesbians who seek the accoutrements if family life, with kids and proverbial white picket fence, without the benefit of a father for the children. From their positions if socioeconomic privilege, they insist that their desires must be viewed as rights instead of preferences. The dominant demographic behind this political initiative is neither homosexual males nor people of color, notwithstanding the occasional interracial lesbian couple who are projected for propaganda purposes.

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups’ desires and preferences as rights that has eviscerated the moral authority of the paleo-liberal civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a homosexual’s aspiration to overturn thousands of years if universally recognized morality and practice a “right”? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interest are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital conduct?

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination as based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation us utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not affect or interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become “one flesh,” as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level—biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual—that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people (despite the desire of polyamorist to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed).

Moreover, the analogy between the requirement if sexual complementarity and the prohibitions if interracial marriages disregards the fact that the whole point of those prohibitions was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition if marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or regulate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does to be sure, exclude the recognition as lawful “marriages” of some forms of sexual combining—including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as morally equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law’s refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous , and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting true marriage, the law does not violate the “rights” of people whose “lifestyle preferences” are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

Well-intentioned moderates and liberals shudder upon hearing the very word “discrimination.” Its simple enunciation instills guilt and dulls their critical faculties. The word has now been emptied if its normative and historical content, thereby once again serving to disadvantage Blacks in American society. Malcontented members of any group—however privileged—can simply invoke the term and launch their own personalized civil rights industry. It is the recrudescense of a culture of narcissism.

Defending the Civil Rights legacy should prove cold comfort to its historic advocates, because the loss of its distinctive nature is our own fault. It was our failure, philosophically and politically, to develop a compelling historiography of the movement that contributed to its decline and decay. From the teaching in school, to the use of the term in the public square, the notion of civil rights has been diluted, ahistoricized, and nearly emptied of content in relation to the lived historical experience of Blacks in this country. That the authorized institutional inheritors if the Civil Rights Movement failed to recognize and prevent this loss brings in question their ability to continue as effective leaders of Black people.

It is especially sad and disturbing that the established leadership of the Civil Rights industry has utterly failed to resist the corruption and co—optation by a predominantly white special interest group of the history of the Civil Rights phase of the Black freedom struggle. This failure highlights the need for a regime change in favor of new leadership and a post-Civil Rights conceptual framework for addressing a more complex racial reality. Moreover, in light of the phenomenon of judicially mandated homosexual marriage, we believe that Black leaders need to speak forcefully in favor of President George W. Bush’s proposal for a Federal Marriage Amendment. If their support for true marriage alienates them from their white liberal friends, so be it. No community has suffered more than has ours from the weakening of the institution of marriage at the hands of purveyors of the doctrines of the sexual revolution. It is our sons and our daughters who have paid the bulk of the cost imposed by a cultural elite which seeks to overthrow cultural and Biblical principles of sexual restraint and responsibility. Leaders of our community should therefore be in the vanguard of the movement to prevent further moral erosion and begin reversing historical declines.

We respectfully suggest that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not give his life, nor Fannie Lou Hamer struggle, so that libertines could be free to pursue their polymorphous forms of sexuality under the banner if the Black Civil Rights Movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

dogma wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

I'm not gay, or even bi, but I've taken great pleasure in making many an overly aggressive former or current frat boy feel uncomfortable after watching them push a little too hard with the ladies.

In a phrase:

"Hey, honey."

I'm probably going to end up doing something like that, as well; Not only will it creep them bastards out, but it will score me points with the ladies


You know something I just don't understand, going ever so slightly off topic? "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage". So it's not ok for two women to love eachother for eternity, but it's perfectly fine for Kim Khardashian to turn her wedding into a publicity stunt for less than a month?

Not to mention Elvis weddings, Star wars weddings, Lord of the rings weddings and Star Trek weddings. Anyone had a Warhammer 40000 wedding yet?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

I think the point you missed is that when you start throwing the term bigot around the way melissia does it cheapens the word, and makes it actually useless. This is one of the main points he made. People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe). When peoples choices are criticized the people criticizing those choices are labeled bigot and when this happens it cheapens the african american civil rights movement usage of bigot, and quite frankly the overall usage. So he is offended by that.

GG

Slarg232 wrote:
I'm probably going to end up doing something like that, as well; Not only will it creep them bastards out, but it will score me points with the ladies

Its a fine line you walk when you do that type of thing. You can get lots of credit for it, but if you're not careful you can also end up being thought of as homophobic yourself.

Then, of course, there's the risk of someone deciding they want to kick your ass.

Slarg232 wrote:
You know something I just don't understand, going ever so slightly off topic? "Gay Marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage". So it's not ok for two women to love eachother for eternity, but it's perfectly fine for Kim Khardashian to turn her wedding into a publicity stunt for less than a month?

In my experience most arguments against gay marriage boil down to being fundamentally uncomfortable with homosexuality, or some (weird) preference for the idealized 50s family of Leave it to Beaver.

Private_Joker wrote:Not to mention Elvis weddings, Star wars weddings, Lord of the rings weddings and Star Trek weddings. Anyone had a Warhammer 40000 wedding yet?

Assuming all things about marriage are true, I think the Big Guy would be willing to forgive a Harry Potter Wedding if the two people lasted longer than a year (Or two hours, in Paris Hilton/Brittany Spears' case, forget which).

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Is Bishop Charles Blake a Bigot? Head of the largest (primarily) African American denomination in the world.

Short answer:

Yes, largely because he's trying to riff off a hierarchy of suffering argument, and further possess the essential spirit of the CRM as intrinsically black (it wasn't), which is always stupid outside demagoguery (which is usually bad).

Long answer:

He likes to play fast and loose with the ideas of "sex", "caste", "right", and "preference." He's playing rhetorical games in order to justify his own opposition to gay marriage, going so far as to deny any commonality because, apparently, most gay people (lesbians only, though) are white.

There's also this line...

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.

...which is comically stupid. It hearkens to the notion that people are equal in worth and dignity insofar as we ignore the things that make them unique individuals, which is to say: people.

Basically, his argument is crap, and his position is deplorable.

Thank god someone said this because after reading that steaming pile of feces I don't think I would have put it quite so nicely myself.

generalgrog wrote:
I think the point you missed is that when you start throwing the term bigot around the way melissia does it cheapens the word, and makes it actually useless.

I didn't see the word "bigot" in that piece. I saw a lot of stuff about not liking that the CRM was being compared to the GRM, and especially gay marriage as a particular issue.

generalgrog wrote:
This is one of the main points he made.

No it wasn't, the word didn't even appear. The whole of the piece was about why gay rights aren't like black rights because the author doesn't believe that being homosexual is like being black.

generalgrog wrote:
People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe). When peoples choices are criticized the people criticizing those choices are labeled bigot and when this happens it cheapens the african american civil rights movement usage of bigot, and quite frankly the overall usage. So he is offended by that.

Well, no, when people criticize the choice, or nature, of a person on the basis of what they claim is a rational argument, but which is in fact wholly irrational, they are considered to be a bigot because that disconnect indicates obstinance and intolerance. Or at least, that's what goes down when the term "bigot" is properly applied. Of course it isn't always properly applied for the same reason that "racist" isn't. That being most people are average, and average isn't very good.

And, beyond all that, whether or not you're a bigot has no bearing on what you're bigoted against. You can be bigoted against a choice.

Edit: And that's all before I dig into this:

What makes a homosexual’s aspiration to overturn thousands of years if universally recognized morality and practice a “right”?

Which is wrong on at least two levels.