33 replies to this topic

[jcrdude]

It's like quoting portions on the Dionysia out of context and calling the Athenians nutters for having a festival where they walked around with giant wooden dicks for a day or two

This still happens today. In Japan, there are the fertility festivals where giant penises are paraded around the shrines, penis candies are handed out, penis sculptures are bought and sold, etc.

[Mr. Hobo]

And further shit up a perfectly viable thread? Oh, whatever.

Fair enough

The age in which those quotes were written is substantially different to the one we live in today - different values were mainstream and the ideologies in which they were held in stead would widely be considered barbaric or primitive by today's society purely for the fact that we live in an age of unparalleled intellectual freedom, riding on the back of almost four hundred years worth of collective knowledge.


Regardless, the bible is a rulebook that tons of people want to follow (and force others to follow) and it has rules like these. The circumstances in which these rules were written does not change that they are evil and oppressive. Under no circumstances I can think of, should rape be dealt with in this fashion


Those laws were written for that age, which arguably had very different issues and situations to this age that we live in, and not being experienced in the geopolitical and social climate of such age, it is utterly folly to draw absolute borders around such quotes and demeaning to a conducive atmosphere of intellectual discussion and debate to assert your own personal opinions through such fragmented sources.

Once again, regardless of what age it was written in people still want them to apply to this one. This isn't an issue of the morality or necessity of that rule back then but whether it should be applied in modern society

In any stretch, taking such quotes out of context only furthers to spurn the less intellectually capable into researching and founding their own educated opinions by devaluing a largely significant historical source from a 'shock and awe' approach. I remember enough of you to know this is an atmosphere you certainly don't want to cultivate. It's like quoting portions on the Dionysia out of context and calling the Athenians nutters for having a festival where they walked around with giant wooden dicks for a day or two - when there's so much more under the surface of both sources that such quotes only seek to demean in the favor of upholding or reinforcing personal opinions and beliefs.

Same things are just being repeated, the context of the quotes doesn't change the effect the quote can have. Oppressive rules from an oppressive time that people want to enforce. Yes, back then women had little rights and these rules weren't particularly harsh, but there is a very large amount of people who would like to set up a theocracy following these rules, these rules come from god hence they can't really be argued against once they are law and should be argued against now

What's wrong with spurning (pretty sure you just made up a new definition for this word, but it suits it really well and it easily inferred from the context, kudos) people into researching things and forming their own opinions? Yes, it does devalue the Bible, it is sensationalist but people can easily understand the meaning of the quotes, even if they were to read the surrounding books (or even the whole bible itself), it doesn't really change the meaning of the quotes and might encourage them to rethink their current opinion, one which was created by others and passed down as absolute

All up, it's not cool, man.

Offense wasn't intentional, neither is degenerating the current atmosphere but I think people should be critical of all things, especially those things which have the potential to effect billions (or in this case, already do). It's not an issue of lack of respect, all it boils down to is Christianity is ultimately a theory, one that should be tested, not accepted as truth and these quotes encourage critical thinking. Obviously if I were to quote a random part of the bible which didn't blatantly and harshly contrast with most peoples views, people would not be effected with it, making posting that quote a waste of time. The only way to reach out sometimes is through sensationalism

Anyways, tried using color instead of quotes, more appealing visually imo . Also it's like 4am so I'm gonna revise this once I wake up. Till then it might be a little incoherent/rambly

[414de7fe6]

I suppose this may be slightly hypocritical, but for the most part, the 'old' laws of the bible (the ones you mentioned and Leviticus respectively) are generally not followed (or even remotely considered for as you say, they are quite barbaric and oppressive) as such today and remain primarily to preserve the historical integrity of the book and to draw a stark contrast towards religion in its various phases - specifically, regarding the Testaments.

But as such, people will take things from texts to suit their own purposes, and this is arguably true both regarding the context of the bible and the scenario we have here. I am not denying that the text has been used as a tool of oppression, but it has also been used as one to liberate - this much can be said for any 'significant' text of either religious or scientific merit depending on which perspective it is viewed from.

Personally I find it sad that sensationalism is as effective as it is (the last thing we want are 'tabloid' intellectuals, but I suppose that's better than the alternative), but I suppose you are correct in that regard.

[Mr. Hobo]

Yay, stalemate!

[414de7fe6]

Is there any outcome in a discussion like that which isn't a stalemate?

[Vexage]

Sounds reasonable. I mean there is a good chance he'll get it anyway right?

[vendetta.inc]

Sounds reasonable. I mean there is a good chance he'll get it anyway right?

Yep, exactly.

[kbbbb]

I suppose this may be slightly hypocritical, but for the most part, the 'old' laws of the bible (the ones you mentioned and Leviticus respectively) are generally not followed (or even remotely considered for as you say, they are quite barbaric and oppressive) as such today and remain primarily to preserve the historical integrity of the book and to draw a stark contrast towards religion in its various phases - specifically, regarding the Testaments.

But as such, people will take things from texts to suit their own purposes, and this is arguably true both regarding the context of the bible and the scenario we have here. I am not denying that the text has been used as a tool of oppression, but it has also been used as one to liberate - this much can be said for any 'significant' text of either religious or scientific merit depending on which perspective it is viewed from.

Nicely said.

The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" one, for example, isn't followed any more in most western countries...I would argue it was written in a different time in history in mind, when contrasted to Jesus' 2 commandments- love God and Love Thy Neighbour. Also because it really doesn't make victims feel any better. Prison can be far nastier than a death sentence- life in Bali prison, for the Australians who have got caught in Indonesia smuggling drugs, is causing some of them to go through bouts of psychosis. Perhaps the murderer would prefer the quicker option?

Victims are generally better with a lot of time and space to grieve, rather than destroying what destroyed their life. Because in murdering another, you won't bring back the thing you lost- the person, but more over that connection you had to the person and the love that came from that person.

The death sentence, as has been suggested in this topic, rarely involves actually exercution. There was this quote in the TV show Dilbert about when Dilbert was falsey accused of a massacre, that he would go through, instead of execution, "forty years of appeals, and once everyone associated with the case is long dead, strange men with conspiracy theories can once again breathe a sigh of relief". The execution of another human being is so permanent, holding it off, and re-examining the case becomes more and more necessary. While incarceration in theorey is expensive (at 40k a year last time i checked), running lots of appeals would be more expensive, unless it was an open and shut case (and murder with the threat of the death penality rarely is). It isn't like you can call someone objecting to their exercution a vexatious litigant, like they have to some in Melbourne who, from jail, keep bringing case after case to court- because it's life or death for someone on death row professing their innocence.

And i totally agree with the comments about Republicans- the most nutty of them, at least, don't give a rats once a person is born- both medically and in prison- but they seem to want to continually protect the unborn. It's complete hypocrisy.

[Mr. Hobo]

It's complete hypocrisy.

No it's not. They rationalize it as the baby is innocent and pure and should have a chance to live...

Is there any outcome in a discussion like that which isn't a stalemate?

Rarely happens