Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mothra]

From what I've heard, a lot of those rules about sexin' (the story of Onan, going forth and multiplying, Leviticus 18, etc.) were made when the Jews were a tinier race than ever and were trying to build a nation. So to have a nation, you need a big population and army, which required lots and lots of babies. That would make any waste of semen (which men just have SO LITTLE OF DON'T WASTE IT) a crime against the state, I guess.

I'm probably mixing something up, but it sounds more realistic to me than "AN INVISIBLE SKY GIANT TOLD ME TO DO THIS OR WE'LL ALL BE SODOMIZED WITH HOT POKERS AND LIKE IT FOREVER"

It was a common belief in some middle eastern cultures that it takes 100 drops of blood to make a drop of marrow, and 100 drops of marrow to make a drop of semen.

Solid Gold Load 

[Pacobird]

Wait, really? So the fact that these Pagan priests were homosexual wasn't really the focus so much as "general perversion"?

Well, the primary place that evangelicals reference as a condemnation for homosexuality is in Leviticus, which is a super crazy book and honestly we don't know what the hell it says there. Common interpretations are that it was a prescription against raping your prisoners of war as was common at the time or what transportation said.

Not a totally complete picture; one passage in Corinthians is usually translated as saying homosexuals cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but that may be a mistranslation (more likely it means male prostitutes, but who knows).

More importantly, debating that passage with fundamentalists allows you to get into a discussion about the spiritual/divine status of Paul when he contradicts Jesus, which is usually a pretty hilarious exchange.

[François]

The thing about Onan is that he was supposed to get his dead brother's wife pregnant to continue the family line. The spilled seed is wholly incidental; the punishment was not about the fluid, it was about the deliberate refusal to impregnate.

[Classic]

That's what I'd heard too.

Of course, no matter which of these "exegeses" you consider to be the version with the most longevity or whatever criterion would make one interpretation more or less canon than another, we've still got lots of competing interpretations being chosen for their compatibility with an individual's personal beliefs.

Of course, this is not to say that people never have holy books influence their outlook/morals. Only that it is difficult to establish whether the "moral" conclusion drives the interpretation, or the interpretation driving the "moral" conclusion*. Though I'm personally leaning towards the former, much as I hate agreeing with that Dawkins schmuck.



*Obvs, people don't usually choose their beliefs and reasons for believing in discrete steps.

[Rico]

More importantly, debating that passage with fundamentalists allows you to get into a discussion about the spiritual/divine status of Paul when he contradicts Jesus, which is usually a pretty hilarious exchange.

Oh man I totally love that this must be why we're best friends.

I never pinned down the precise moment in church history when Paul changed from, "A guy who gave pretty good advice on how to fix very specific problems in specific regional churches," to "Oh shit this is better than that Jesus guy," but it's pretty embarrassing.

But anyhow, Kabbage, it's simplified but probably right.  Kashan's "So a bunch of people who have no context for what they're reading pick up the bible and start interpreting things however they like, and teaching their interpretations to anyone who will listen." was pretty accurate, and there've been a lot of unintentional or really-bad-best-faith-effort (I am pretty sure we have better resources on Greek and Roman history just using the Wikipedia article than the best of medieval scholarship) problems with localization in the various translations of the Bible.

[Royal☭]

This entire debate takes on a different level once you're aware of The Family.  The Family is best summed up as a secretive theocratic society with vast connections to not just US power but foreign ones as well.  They are also hyper-fundamentalist.  Among their supposed affronts to Jesus are homosexuals, abortion, worker's rights and democracy.  The Members in Congress portion of the page is particularly jarring, with recognizable names such as Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak, who are currently waging a political war against a woman's right to control her own body in the health care bill.

This really starts to unveil itself when one of the allies of the Family is Yoweri Museveni, the.. uh... president of Uganda.  There are supposedly other ties, but I haven't found anything yet.

[Kashan]

The Family is kind of hilariously heretical. They're less Christian than the Mormons which are a completely separate religion. Unfortunately they're influential.

[Catloaf]

Well, in general, only evil people are influential.  Just look at human history and modern politics.

[Pacobird]

Define evil.

[Royal☭]

Evil is best defined as anything that threatens ones own welfare or the welfare of a larger group.  It's tenuous.  Best not to use the term.  Instead, it's easier to see that self-interested, un-sympathetic, un-empathetic, ambitious, charismatic individuals tend to find the most influence.  Still not perfect, but the key is that in addition to wanting exclusively what they want, they are willing to ignore the needs, desires, and rights of others to get it.

That is what I define as evil, anyway.  There are other ways to put it I'm sure.  What do you think Kant would say, hmm?

[Pacobird]

So these are traits universally shown by figures of authority throughout history?

Was Martin Luther King Jr. an evil individual, or was he not actually influential?

How about Ghandi?

EDIT: Ambitious and competent people become influential.  Sometimes this includes evil people, certainly, but to think ambition and competence are character flaws is to prove Ayn Rand right.

[Büge]

To be fair, Gandhi was kind of a jerk before that whole nonviolence thing.

[Misha]

didn't Ayn rand view ambition and competence as virtues?

[Pacobird]

Yes; she argued that the hoi polloi demonized them to compensate for the fact that they had neither.

[The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji]

It was a common belief in some middle eastern cultures that it takes 100 drops of blood to make a drop of marrow, and 100 drops of marrow to make a drop of semen.

...by my math, even modest definitions of a "drop" would demand at least twice the amount of blood in an average human male!

Also, in regards to the Family, it's ambitions, it's membership, and it's capabilities:

[sei]

It was a common belief in some middle eastern cultures that it takes 100 drops of blood to make a drop of marrow, and 100 drops of marrow to make a drop of semen.

by my math, even modest definitions of a "drop" would demand at least twice the amount of blood in an average human male!

the human body contains approximately 6 quarts (or 5.6 liters) of blood

"metric" drop = 1/20 mL (50 μL)
(5.6 liter) / (100*100*50 microliters) = 11.2 drops

The force and amount of semen that will be ejected during an ejaculation will vary widely between men and may contain between 0.1 and 10 milliliters.

Best case scenario, someone ejaculates 2/11.2~=18% of their blood.
Worst case, they ejaculate (10/(1/20)=200) "drops," or (200/11.2=17.86) times the total supply of blood in their body.

[Catloaf]

So these are traits universally shown by figures of authority throughout history?

Was Martin Luther King Jr. an evil individual, or was he not actually influential?

How about Ghandi?

That's why I said 'In general.'  Also, my personal definition of Evil has an "And is willing if not eager to harm, usually but not necessarily violently, those in the way of attaining their ambitions" clause in addition to the traits mentioned above.

Also, honestly working towards peace takes away a fuckton of points from the 'evil' character trait.

[Royal☭]

Paco seems to have willingly ignored the part where I also stated that it involved people who ignore the well-being of others.  He chose to do this so he could instead make a joke about Ayn Rand.

[sei]

Andropov's decision to destroy the remains of the Nazi leaders and their family members was motivated by the fears of the KGB and Soviet Communist Party leadership that Hitler's burial site could become a place of worship for supporters of fascist ideas.

[Pacobird]

So these are traits universally shown by figures of authority throughout history?

Was Martin Luther King Jr. an evil individual, or was he not actually influential?

How about Ghandi?

That's why I said 'In general.'  Also, my personal definition of Evil has an "And is willing if not eager to harm, usually but not necessarily violently, those in the way of attaining their ambitions" clause in addition to the traits mentioned above.

Also, honestly working towards peace takes away a fuckton of points from the 'evil' character trait.

So what would you say is the split here? 80-20?