fleblebleb Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 and I don't think Robertson is the live and let live kind of person. He is more the "everyone should believe my way" kind of guy. You're right, because that is one of the tenets of Christianity: to spread the Gospel. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing (unless, taken to the extreme "believe my way or die" as in the Inquisitions). i was reading one of ther responses to dr. laura online somewhere, and it notes that a section of the bible saying that homosexuality is an abomination, also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, and wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics is an abomination. any bible scholars out there confirm or deny this??? like to see some xtians head for ivars and preach to the sinners there abominating themselves with the clam chowder. Leave my Schoeller out of this! (Lock it baby, you know you want to ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Does that mean that layering with fleece and Smartwool is abominable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Fleece is OK since it's made of pure used bottles, right? Smartwool though, they use a wool-nylon blend I think... that's eternal damnation for you right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Careful there flebbi, you're about to get locked... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Ah yes, the cc.com equivalent to eternal damnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayner Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 "i was reading one of ther responses to dr. laura online somewhere, and it notes that a section of the bible saying that homosexuality is an abomination, also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, and wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics is an abomination. any bible scholars out there confirm or deny this???" Yes, all of that is in there. And unless you understand the historical, cultural and theological context, including a lot of other related information presented in the Torah (the books of law = the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), the meaning of these prohibitions is not immediately obvious. Some of these laws, among other things, are both practical (bad shellfish can mess you up), and also religious (kosher food as self-denial and discipline as a holiness issue). The pig prohibition may mean all of the above and might also be economically wise in the ancient near east as pigs are hard to herd, etc. (I've written two books with chapters that deal with the ideas behind these Jewish laws, so I'm not just randomly popping off in the typical cc.com fashion.) I would imagine that many people who ridicule about these Biblical laws because they don't understand them. Some of these rules have additional context outside of the laws themselves, including the prohibition against homosexuality that is not only bluntly stated in the oft-quoted verse from Leviticus, but is also deeply imbedded in the 2nd Chapter of Genesis, in which God creates a pair, male and female as part of the divine plan. Having studied Genesis in Hebrew (which I continue to do, in fact, our group just met today), I can assure you that there are layers upon layers of profound, often metaphorical, meaning and implications in nearly every verse, much of what can't be derived from reading a translation. To scoff and dismiss these things without having studied this material is all too easy to do. I don't claim to have all the answers (and there are loads of interpretations) but I have a tremendous respect for this stuff. It's a lifetime study even for the experts. shalom, Dwayner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 So Dwayner - What are you saying? That cc.com sprayer's have no right to comment on the bible? I am not a biblical scholar, and I wouldn't profess to be able to argue with you, but what are you saying here? Eating shellfish may have been a bad idea in biblical times, and pigs may have been difficult to herd. But what about homosexuals? Is someone who scoffs at the biblical prohibition on homosexualty or someone who deems it a historical oddity incorrect? Or is it simply your position that none of us have a right to comment on the Bible? Please tell us, Your pal, -Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayner Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 "Or is it simply your position that none of us have a right to comment on the Bible?" Mattp....I really expect more out of you than this kind of crap. My point is that a lot of people have opinions about the Biblical text that are based on nothing more than clichés and hearsay. They haven't studied it. That's all. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that there is far more to the text beyond quoting it without a knowledge of its context. flebleblebleblebleb asked if anyone was a Biblical scholar so I offered some insights. Did I ever say that someone couldn't comment? Comment away! Lack of knowledge doesn't seem to stop too many people from popping off around here! Realistically, if someone doesn't have a respect for the spiritual content or authority of the Bible, it all becomes a bunch of historical trivia. If one thinks there is some sort of meaningful substance to the Bible, than an interested person would try to find out what it might mean. Some people don't like some of the possible conclusions because it doesn't fit their view of life. So be it. I really don't care what anybody's personal religious beliefs are around here. I'm not a religious missionary. - Dwayner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 moving on from a pointless debate on religion: prostate cancer in men of Pat Robertson's age is not uncommon and tends to be very slow progressing. It is often the case that these men ultimately die from other problems related to aging long before the prostate cancer seriously ails them. Sad that anybody has cancer but lets not put the nail in his coffin yet (at least not from this) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 My ancestors believed that we all came from frozen balls of sweat in the armpits of the Frost Giants, what did your ancestors believe? Dwayner, many people ridicule these biblical laws because they find the assertion that everything you need to know comes from a pre-scientific anthology that attempts explain how the world works and provide a health code to be ludicrous. Sure, the historical framework around the bible's prohibition of homosexuality could be quite interesting, but as a justification for legislation it carries about as much weight as a pig fart in Kansas. The study of ancient mythology is pretty fascinating, but having it govern a modern society is akin to taking advice from a dentist's ex-wife who is channeling a 35,000 year old warrior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 (edited) Sure, the historical framework around the bible's prohibition of homosexuality could be quite interesting, but as a justification for legislation it carries about as much weight as a pig fart in Kansas. Not to the people who believe the Bible, Off White. They, very seriously, pattern their life after what the Bible teaches. That is their choice, just as you live by your choices. Why is it so acceptable to ridicule Christianity or the Bible? Yet, if I ridicule gays or Muslims or people who believe in abortion, I can be arrested for a "hate crime". Maybe you should just respect another individual's right to choose their own belief system. Oh, and Dwayner, Mattp's just a product of a left-wing, anti-religion propaganda machine. Edited February 14, 2003 by Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Oh, so now you're gonna blasphemy Ramtha, are you? You obviously should have lined your underground dwelling with copper while you had the chance, cuz now the alien waves have polluted your mind. Heathen. Just keep an eye on Rainier, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Sure, the historical framework around the bible's prohibition of homosexuality could be quite interesting, but as a justification for legislation it carries about as much weight as a pig fart in Kansas. Not to the people who believe the Bible, Off White. They, very seriously, pattern their life after what the Bible teaches. That is their choice, just as you live by your choices. Why is it so acceptable to ridicule Christianity or the Bible? Yet, if I ridicule gays or Muslims or people who believe in abortion, I can be arrested for a "hate crime". Maybe you should just respect another individual's right to choose their own belief system. Greg, Last time i checked there was supposed to be a separation of theology and governing in this country. Voters can vote their beliefs and in this country that does lead to a heavy biblical influence. However, the difference is that laws are supposed to be secular. A hate crime is a hate crime. If it's perpetrated against a christian it would still be a hate crime. This is a largely christian country. It seems to me that laws prohibiting hate crimes are there to provide for freedom of religion and free speech in this country; things i'm pretty sure that you're in favor of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Last time i checked there was supposed to be a separation of theology and governing in this country. Voters can vote their beliefs and in this country that does lead to a heavy biblical influence. However, the difference is that laws are supposed to be secular. A hate crime is a hate crime. If it's perpetrated against a christian it would still be a hate crime. This is a largely christian country. It seems to me that laws prohibiting hate crimes are there to provide for freedom of religion and free speech in this country; things i'm pretty sure that you're in favor of? Not to split hairs, minx, but the First Amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is far different than your "separation of theology and governing" assertion, which is rather misguided. It is misguided for the simple fact that ALL individuals, including those in government, use their morals and belief system when making decisions, casting votes, etc. "Hate Crimes",as you call them, do not exist. This is a bullshit attempt to legislate thought. I am vehemently opposed to "hate crime" legislation because it automatically elevates the importance of certain victims over others. Why should the murder of a black man be punished or prosecuted more aggresively than the murder of a white man? Why not just punish the crime of murder to the fullest extent of the law? This "hate crime" legislation doesn't go both ways, either. It only seems to apply to blacks, gays, etc. When a white woman is murdered by blacks or a teenage boy is kidnapped, repeatedly raped, and murdered by two homosexual men the "hate crimes" legislation isn't pursued. George Orwell's double-speak and thought police ideas are growing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 greg, let me keep this simple for you. Not everyone in this country is a christian. they shouldn't get the shaft b/c of that regardless of your religious beliefs. yes my earlier post was a gross oversimplification but i don't have all day to write a bloody novel to cover all the nuances. Thought you were bright enough to get the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old, and likely to be 13-14 billion years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Whatever. "Gross oversimplifications", as you call them, are what leads to may people's inaccurate ideas about what is, and is not, contained in the Constitution. If you are debating a specific portion of it, get the wording right. As a scientist, I would think you would understand the importance of accurately quoting sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 the universe is between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years old, and likely to be 13-14 billion years old. So you say. Sounds like you're "age-ist". Isn't that a hate crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Whatever. "Gross oversimplifications", as you call them, are what leads to may people's inaccurate ideas about what is, and is not, contained in the Constitution. If you are debating a specific portion of it, get the wording right. As a scientist, I would think you would understand the importance of accurately quoting sources. greg, you are absolutely correct. my bad. trying to keep it simple. but i still find your position unsettling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 the grand canyon had nothing to do with noah's ark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 but i still find your position unsettling. Shift a little to the right, that's it. More comfortable now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 greg, that is NOT going to happen. For someone w/my belief structure that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 the grand canyon had nothing to do with noah's ark. How do you know? That's an awful tiny river to make such a huge canyon. Maybe an enormous runoff (like, from a flood) caused by tectonic uplift made it. The same thing happens when I pee on soft dirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 minx - while being noseless would make it harder to keep your glasses on, you might find life a lot simpler; liberating, even. Plus, you could always wear contacts or get Lasik surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 So you say. Actually it's these guys who said it, in the latest issue of Science: Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Contraints on Cosmology Lawrence M. Krauss and Brian Chaboyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.