46 replies to this topic

[Lava_Lady]

Umm... how is NPH pushing the "gay agenda" by putting the superbowl date on his face?  I don't get it.  I'm not getting the blasphemy angle either.  Can anyone dumb it down for me?

[Sean93]

Paranoid Android, on 09 January 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

A General in the army who gives an order to assault a bunker and kill anyone who gets in the way may be praised during wartime but condemned during peace for the same action.  It doesn't mean we should remove it from our High School History curriculum just because we are currently not at war with anyone. Understanding the history of Christianity and its early roots in tribal society is absolutely fundamental for any true Christian.  Take out the bits that don't directly apply to us anymore and we are left with an incomplete and false understanding of Christianity.

~ Regards,

God being a general, I get the analogy; and from bible readings, I can see god has his favorites, his 'army' so to speak, I'm fully aware he ain't all sunshine and lolly pops...and I'm beyond caring.

My Skeptical side tends to see the various massacres in the bible as nothing more than the crusades all over again; that 'god' told them they could do it. You can either trust that god did it with the best intentions and allowed the massacres for the greater good or that history was 'written by the victor'.

Think about it: If you lived in a barbaric bronze age society where death by the sword was common, where mass slaughter was easily perpetrated and wanted to justify your actions, well what better way to do it than use the be-all-end-all of things: God. I'm pretty sure, much like the crusades; that the Israeli soldiers who ripped the limbs from the Caananite children had 'God allows it' on their minds and so would have been fine with it...**** that. I don't give a damn if god really did will it, any general, peace-maker or not, who commanded his troops to kill kids in front of their parents can go **** themselves.

I'm thinking about an omnipotent creator who created out beautiful universe and trying to compare them to the god-manifestation of a few, mainly illiterate desert tribes. Surely killing families and commanding young men to murder and pillage entire settlements isn't the best way to go about 'peace-time'. With all of that power at it's finger tips, this god chose possibly the worst way of bringing peace. I was gonna' write more but I'm tired, I've got House episodes to watch and I've seen this debate a few times before...

God and stuff...free will, god is boss...god no longer judges in the present...that comes later, evil tribes...Somewhere along those lines.

[Paranoid Android]

Sean93, on 09 January 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

....and I'm beyond caring.

My Skeptical side tends to see the various massacres in the bible as nothing more than the crusades all over again; that 'god' told them they could do it. You can either trust that god did it with the best intentions and allowed the massacres for the greater good or that history was 'written by the victor'....

...I was gonna' write more but I'm tired, I've got House episodes to watch and I've seen this debate a few times before...

God and stuff...free will, god is boss...god no longer judges in the present...that comes later, evil tribes...Somewhere along those lines.

Actually, I was going to say it was about upholding the promises God made in Genesis 12 (ultimately culminating in Jesus), but as you say, you're beyond caring so I won't go further into it.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 09 January 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[Lava_Lady]

???  :/

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 January 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

I agree with the first - the Bible is alleged to be the word of God.  The second, I do not agree - it is not "effectively, law".  Those are your words and do not represent what Christians believe.  Not all the Bible is law, there's plenty of exposition where no commands are made and we are left to evaluate for ourselves whether the actions were right or wrong or helpful or harmful.

I didn't mean all parts are law but come on, there's plenty of things christians do/not do solely because the bible says so.

Quote

I was, of course, referring to Sean's comment about the passage in Ezekiel, it is God relaying a command to people at a specific time and place, and therefore directly comparable to a General giving his troops orders, stating what happened.

And yet the comment you were responding to (and thusly I was responding to) was far more general than that. The comment wasn't referring to a specific passage, but to somethingore.

Quote

That's the thing, though - it is in separate texts.  The Bible is not just one single book.  It is a collection of 66 books written by approximately 40 different authors.  Some of it is history, and a large portion of it is not a command to us today in the year 2013, but instead simply a recounting of what happened in the past.  I can't help it that people choose to take a passage out of context to justify hate towards others.

The problem is it's not treated as such is it? Because those 66 have all (essentially) been smushed together as one thing, it's treated as a whole and it's treated as infallible truth despite it coming from different sources. Now in some other instances, such a thing can work, but religion is not one of them. Personally some of the things would be better off split again.

Your attitude is one of the things I really can't stand. Some people use passages to justify hate upon others and the most the rest of you do is shrug, say you 'can't help it' and give token admonishments.Especially puzzling is when the hatred is fostered by religious leaders who seem to perfectly use those passages to create harm when they should know better.

Quote

Yes, it bothers me, but there's nothing I can do about it.  I can't force billions of people to read their holy text critically.  I can only do my best to ensure that I understand it myself and grow and learn as best I personally can.

Again, the apathy. As for the rest, I'm well aware (unless your mind has changed) that you rather blindly follow the bible when it suits you and toss critical thinking out 'because the bible says so'. Religious texts seem to give plenty of people excuses not to think or read critically. We leave in a real world and a big problem with believers seems to be that for parts of it believers want to go 'la la la' and stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that fact. I can't take seriously a person that does that, even if they claim that they use 'critical thinking'.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

I didn't mean all parts are law but come on, there's plenty of things christians do/not do solely because the bible says so.

Sorry, if you did not mean all parts, then I revise my comment.  I was just going by your statement that it was "effectively, law".

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

And yet the comment you were responding to (and thusly I was responding to) was far more general than that. The comment wasn't referring to a specific passage, but to somethingore.

With respect, the comment I responded to was made due to Sean's use of Ezekiel 9:6.  Extending beyond Ezekiel there are many reasons for many different passages, but each must be analysed within their respective contexts.  As I said, the one concerning Ezekiel was indeed comparable to a General issuing commands to troops.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

The problem is it's not treated as such is it? Because those 66 have all (essentially) been smushed together as one thing

You are aware that the term "Bible" is derived from the Latin biblia meaning a collection of works?  That is, more than one, multiple, many.....

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

it's treated as a whole and it's treated as infallible truth despite it coming from different sources. Now in some other instances, such a thing can work, but religion is not one of them. Personally some of the things would be better off split again.

I believe it is a whole, and that it is infallible, but with that said it does not mean that every thing said must therefore be a direct command to us in the year 2013 AD to do exactly what happened all those millennia ago.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Your attitude is one of the things I really can't stand....

....As for the rest, I'm well aware (unless your mind has changed) that you rather blindly follow the bible when it suits you and toss critical thinking out 'because the bible says so'.

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate with you about what I believe and how I read the Bible.  We've been over that too many times to rehash it.  Complain if you will that I am making a "token admonishment", but the fact is I can't change how others use the Bible.  I won't justify it any further by arguing with you!!!!

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Sorry, if you did not mean all parts, then I revise my comment.  I was just going by your statement that it was "effectively, law".

It does contain parts that aren't law, however it still effectively is. Like I said you (and other christians) do things/don't do things purely because of what it says. That sounds like law to me.

Quote

With respect, the comment I responded to was made due to Sean's use of Ezekiel 9:6.  Extending beyond Ezekiel there are many reasons for many different passages, but each must be analysed within their respective contexts.  As I said, the one concerning Ezekiel was indeed comparable to a General issuing commands to troops.

With respect, the part you directly quoted was about getting rid of parts of the OT that are misused. I'll even bring up the part you directly quoted.

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

P.s, perhaps the rules and regulations that the Christians don't follow in the OT should be, y'know...taken out of the book that governs their lives; some of them might get the wrong idea about what they can and can't do.

That's the part you directly responded to. Nowhere does it state that passage. In fact it speaks in very general terms. It's under that basis that I was responding.

Quote

You are aware that the term "Bible" is derived from the Latin biblia meaning a collection of works?  That is, more than one, multiple, many.....

I believe it is a whole, and that it is infallible, but with that said it does not mean that every thing said must therefore be a direct command to us in the year 2013 AD to do exactly what happened all those millennia ago.

No I was not aware of that. However, my point still stands and that's things aren't made clear enough.

Let's take a history book as an example. Now let's say it's one that covers ancient civilisations. Now in such a book there's clear divisions. ie, this section covers the Greeks, another covers Romans etc. It's made perfectly clear which parts apply to each civilisation and which parts don't. So you could read that book and know that Sparta was a city-state in Greece, or that Anubis was an Egyptian god. It's clear what means what.

Now is the bible that clear? Is it clear what applies to now and what is simply history? NO, it is not, because people are using the parts which are history and applying them to now with diasterous results. If the history book was formed in such a way that the readers would be left thinking that Anubis was Roman in origin or that Sparta was an Aztec city you'd have no problems saying that something was seriously wrong with the book and that it should be changed so such confusion wasn't possible. Yet in the case of the bible, where such confusion runs rampant (and has done for centuries) it's just shrugged off and such change is acttively discouraged, even if it would diminish such confusion and serve the greater good.

Quote

I'm not going to get drawn into a debate with you about what I believe and how I read the Bible.  We've been over that too many times to rehash it.  Complain if you will that I am making a "token admonishment", but the fact is I can't change how others use the Bible.  I won't justify it any further by arguing with you!!!!

Probably for the best. I don't want to go over beliefs which are foolish that are somehow acceptable to you because they're in the bible. Even if that acceptability comes from 'critical thinking'.

You can't necessarily change how others read, but you can try and make try and make sure others are reading it correctly. Like making sure the historical parts are treated as being purely historical, not as commands.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

With respect, the part you directly quoted was about getting rid of parts of the OT that are misused. I'll even bring up the part you directly quoted.

That's the part you directly responded to. Nowhere does it state that passage. In fact it speaks in very general terms. It's under that basis that I was responding.

Again, I apologise.  If you go back to the beginning of this thread, on page 1 you will note the following comment:

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Just for fun i'd put Ezek 9:6 on my face, be interesting to see what happens.

Now if you take the quote you quoted for me that was "in very general terms" you will note that this is the post that sparked said comment - note who replied to this and what replies followed up.  As such, I took it in context and discussed military concerns.  In any case, this was just one example, each Bible passage must be analysed within its own context, and not all of them are the same.  Is there a point in continuing argument here?

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

No I was not aware of that. However, my point still stands and that's things aren't made clear enough.

Again we are at an irreconcilable difference.  I think anyone who understands context can understand clearly.  Hopefully at the least my post has helped you understand the etymology of the word "Bible".

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Probably for the best. I don't want to go over beliefs which are foolish that are somehow acceptable to you because they're in the bible.

On top of saying I don't wish to discuss it, I will now ask you not to try and provoke me into response by referring to my own beliefs as "foolish" and "somehow acceptable to me".  I've already said I won't discuss it and I won't be dragged into a discussion on it.

Oh look, what was the topic again - Neil Patrick Harris it appears.

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

You can't necessarily change how others read, but you can try and make try and make sure others are reading it correctly. Like making sure the historical parts are treated as being purely historical, not as commands.

And I do this to the best of my ability.  But I am only a single human being.  I have no theology degree (though it is a goal of mine to study at a Bible College one day), I have no special ability to tell others that they must follow me.  My ability to ask others to read the Bible critically is about as strong as your ability to tell people that they should respect your bisexuality.  In other words, speak all you want but those who don't wish to listen will not listen.

I am not uniquely placed to change how other people read the Bible, and no matter how many times I suggest things on UM, those who do not wish to listen will not listen.  For some reason, it feels like you are holding ME accountable for how OTHERS use the Bible.  I won't be drawn into that, and that is that.

~ Regards, PA

[Rafterman]

Oh that's just absurd.  You've got to connect so many dots to even try and make this somewhat controversial that it's simply ridiculous.

He's one of the most popular actors in Hollywood right now on one of CBS' top shows.  Why wouldn't they use him to promote the Super Bowl.

And, frankly, athletes had been doing eye black messages years before Tebow was even born.

[tcgram]

I haven't seen the advertisement but looked at the link and am having trouble figuring out why people are offended by it.  I'm a Christian and I didn't find it offensive.

[and then]

shadowhive, on 09 January 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

The two things are completely different entirely and are not comparable in the slightest.

The bible is supposedly the word of god and, effectively, law. Christians do things (or don't do things) solely on the basis of what the bible tells them to do. In the case of some of the parts that deserve removing, those parts lead people to do incredibly stupid things (or hold incredible foolish or harmful beliefs).

By contrast that story of a general assaulting a bunker (in either war or peace time) is simply the recounting of events that happened. It's not commanding the reader to do it or not do it, it's simply stating what happened.

Whereas the bible is quite unhelpful and at times contradictory. It would be like a history book saying the general assaulted the bunker in wartime, yet in the next sentence saying it happened during peacetime, then switching back. In any other situation such things would be corrected quite simply, but with religion there's always resistance, despite the obvious (and real) problems caused by the contradictions.

To be honest, with so many contradictions, with so many mistranslations and with the amount of different factions that have sprung up, if there's one thing that needs to be seriously looked over it's religious texts.

Now you say understanding the history is important. I don't necessarily disagree. However, as long as the history is left in the main body of the religious text, it will be misused. Having it as a seperate text will surely ease some of the damage done by retaining it and ease the damage done by it. Does that misuse not bother you at all? Because it certainly bothers me and many others.

Standard procedure when something gets misused and harms other is to try and limit that harm or remove the thing that's being misused entirely. Yet with religion it seems that making excuses is more important than preventing the misuse. And that's what I hear there, another excuse in a long line. It's quite shameful actually.

If you really want to keep it as history, fine, make sure it's kept as that: history and that people are educated that it's just history. As it stands, though, people will constantly use ecuses from the parts that should be historical in nature to harm others.

And when they do it is to their shame.  Neither P.A. nor any OTHER Christian is responsible for the misuse of scriptural understanding.  It would be equivalent of holding you responsible for the belief system of total strangers who happen to self identify as part of your cohort socially or economically.  It would just be unfair.  Those Christians who use OT law or verses to justify an act that is clearly against what Christ taught are in error and should be held to account but to use their behavior to lay blame on all of Christendom is no better.

[ChloeB]

and then, on 09 January 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

And when they do it is to their shame.  Neither P.A. nor any OTHER Christian is responsible for the misuse of scriptural understanding.  It would be equivalent of holding you responsible for the belief system of total strangers who happen to self identify as part of your cohort socially or economically.  It would just be unfair.  Those Christians who use OT law or verses to justify an act that is clearly against what Christ taught are in error and should be held to account but to use their behavior to lay blame on all of Christendom is no better.

That's funny, but how many Christians (national Chicken fast food chains, politicians, etc) do you see going on and on about closing down tattoo parlors, taking away your right to get a tattoo, get a divorce, all things in the bible, but they use that book as a weapon against a minority of people because it's handy way to bully and hide their own prejudice and cowardice and not own up that it's their own hangups, while they can disregard PLENTY of the other stuff in there.

Edited by ChloeB, 09 January 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[shadowhive]

and then, on 09 January 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

And when they do it is to their shame.  Neither P.A. nor any OTHER Christian is responsible for the misuse of scriptural understanding.  It would be equivalent of holding you responsible for the belief system of total strangers who happen to self identify as part of your cohort socially or economically.  It would just be unfair.  Those Christians who use OT law or verses to justify an act that is clearly against what Christ taught are in error and should be held to account but to use their behavior to lay blame on all of Christendom is no better.

If it was a few isolated incidents, yes I'd agree. The trouble is, though, that it's not. It's the 'official party line' of the vast majority of christian groups and because that's the case, I do consider most christians responsible unless they decide to take it upon themselves to doing something. Unfortunately, what happens more often than not is they'll condemn the actions of westboro or people that murder or commit acts of violence, but anything less? There's a surprising amount of inaction and apathy. I see people like PA as part of the problem because while they condemn the extreme stuff, they don't condemn or deal with the root, biblical cause.

Like I've said before, in any other situation the root cause would be dealt with, yet when it comes to religion, everything but the root cause is dealt with.

[supervike]

Sean93, on 08 January 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Christianity is big business.

And extremely thinned skinned.

[Lava_Lady]

There is absolutely NOTHING in that ad that pushes "the gay agenda".  As a matter of fact, there is NOTHING in that ad that even hints at NPH's sexual orientation... same goes for the "anti-Christian" accusation.  There is NOTHING in that ad that refers to Christianity or any religion at all.

The one thing that Conservative news site WND's accusation has established is that they are petty.  Ok, maybe two things, because whoever initiated the "pushing the gay agenda" thing thinks about gays a lot.  Because anyone who didn't know NPH probably wouldn't even get that he's gay from that ad...

  The whole thing is silly.