[Closed] Religion. Again.

So what's worse? The people who are actually out there saying they hate homosexuals/muslims/insert other option or... those that publicly say we have no issue with homosexuals/muslims/insert other option, but behind closed doors out of the public eye have those prejudices?

The former as if those sorts of people are allowed to get away with it, it legitimizes racism and homophobia among those people who are borderline racists etc, allowing it to become socially acceptable.

Re the great ape on slavery
Its a rationlaisation made by a christian to explain the fact the Bible is clearly not against slavery. Would you wish to defend the positon? No who would? Therefore they try to argue "slavery" was not actual slavery but somehow different. It was not it was slavery You were not free you were owned.

reviewing OT through 21C lenses is a bit silly really

Aristotle had some interesting things to say about slaves. Shall we discard his writings too?

I don't know JY ?

From the link I quoted, it talks about how slaves should be dealt with, then later [i]In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).[/i]

So, even for just this one small example, as far as I can see there are two options.

1) the bible is both pro-slavery and simultaneously anti-slavery and therefore completely contradictory, or

2) each bit must be read and considered in context, because taking small snippets in isolation rather than in context will result in misunderstanding of the point that is being made.

Of course what you end up with is those who think it's a load of crap doing the former, and those who think it's not doing the latter, which in both cases more often than not reinforces the position already held!

God is pretty clear on what to do with gays etc

I would take Aristotle and Kant and parts of many different religious texts above Russell Brand any day. Contemporary voices are not necessarily better!

Not sure what biblical [ translation] version that is the King James is

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I am not massively sure what manstealer means here - adultery? or slave traders. I suspect the former

I dont recall anything recanting slavery in the New testament but I am not an expert. Its certainly not as clear cut or as repetitive as it is on being gay. its seems reasonable to conclude the Bible does not condemn it and we can debate how much it condone its IMHO. the answer to that is far to much as well

And that servant*, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

* means slave but they say servant [ OT as well] to sound more acceptable a rebranding of the Bible if you will 😉

Shall we agree it was institutionally slavist

FWIW I think the bible is always both 1 [ contradictory] and 2 needs to be read in context
Its like fables many hand makes light work or too many cooks spoil the broth

Its unequivocal on homosexuality though. Kill them but the progressive dont want to either admit this nor accept the moral authority of their lord is questionable as it all falls down then if you can think god was wrong.

Aww it's a great book......
just like statistics you can always dig out something that proves what you want to prove.

And Aristotle, he was a bugger for the bottle.

I used this line with my physics students last week and they had no idea what I was on about.

Everybody knows that the bits that are supposed to be true have been constantly revised/translated over however many hundreds of years. So to believe that it contains some stuff God said, knowing that a few hundred years ago you'd have been believing something different, requires some mental gymnastics IMO

Surely the sentiment can still be there? Why do you think it's been discussed so much over the centuries? Because it's not explicit.

the bible is both pro-slavery and simultaneously anti-slavery and therefore completely contradictory

The Bible is not one single work, so why wouldn't it be self contradictory?

God is pretty clear on what to do with gays etc

Which bit of the Bible did God write?

The current pope is fairly progressive. He has made several changes to doctrine that have moved the Catholic church forward in a positive way. I think he is a good influence on the church. Still a long way to go but he cannot change things too dramatically too quickly as he has to gather support from cardinals and bishops.

The issue here is can a doctor chose who they treat and who they don't. Secondly is discriminating on the basis of sexuality allowable. Trying to benchmark one society (US mid West) against another (UK) is interesting but ultimately pointless.

As for quoting from the bible, a series of books written between 1800 and 3000 years ago, a totally different age is not really relevant. There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

They aren't irreligious though.

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

Russia ?

Russia ?

China, I'll let you dwell on that for a while.

Russia is actually religious in the classical sense of the word.

Russia ?

Yeah, Russia is a great example alright these days
The orthodox church is literally Putin's right hand man in governing the country
[img] [/img]

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

a) you'll be hard pressed to find a society which discriminates against homosexuals [i]because [/i]they're atheist, and

b) so what? Did you ever get caught eating sweets at school and respond with "but Miss, Paul's chewing as well!" Did the teacher reply "oh, well that's all right then, carry on"?

China, I'll let you dwell on that for a while.

China as a communist single party system has more in common with a theocracy than any modern secular "more atheistic" society.
The reason communist regimes denounce religion is mainly because it competes with it from totalitaran point of view.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, if there is one person I wish I could meet....more than my other favorite academics and writers....eg Locke, John Nash, Hitchens, Czes?aw Mi?osz, Stanislaw Lem.......it would be a toss up between Eric Hoffer and Darwin.

Darwin because...well....Biology is my area. Eric because I would love to get him in a room and talk about his thoughts on religion, authoritarian regimes and mass psychology.

The cruel paradox that all you neo liberals fail to grasp is that the progressive doctrines you can't help but tout are unequivocally a form of religion.. Why don't you sign up for some Common Purpose classes ..

The cruel paradox that all you neo liberals fail to grasp is that the progressive doctrines you can't help but tout are unequivocally a form of religion.. [b]Why don't you sign up for some Common Purpose classes[/b] ..

By neoliberal are you trying to mean socialist? Poor you.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

HTH.

^^^^^^^
ZZ Top are beginning to show their age.

You'll be telling me next Xmas is an abbreviation of Christmas.

FWIW,

The 'X' in Xmas and Xtian isn't an X; it's the Greek letter Chi which has been used as shorthand for "Christ" for a very long time. The whole 'removing Christ from Christmas' movement is relatively recent thing and a misinterpretation.

(I used "Xtian" earlier to to refer to varying Christian denominations generically rather than a specific branch. That might be misuse on my part because they're really synonyms, but that was what was in my head at the time.)

There you go. I knew this forum was the repository of all knowledge from the moment I first looked at it. I knew nothing of the X Chi Christ connection. But then it's all Greek to me.

I'm still calling to Crossmas.

whenever I'm in a moral quandry, I like to think 'what would a load of bronze age religious zealots living in a desert and fighting against much larger, far more civilised empires and battling surrounding hostile tribes do?"

Unfortunately, this has wandered off to become yet another religion thread.
One of the few replies that's relevant to my original point is the one about the refused abortion in Ireland.

Out of interest, is there anything in the bible specifically about abortion, or this bit entirely made up by the catholic church?

I'm guessing there must be at least one doctor in Ireland who is not catholic, but it looks like even if they want to perform an abortion on a patient who is not catholic either, the system itself is catholic, so it is not possible.
Going back to the original point, if ever this medical staff not treating gay patients thing did go to court in the USA, I suspect the result would be more down to the prejudices of the judge and jury than to following established legal practice.

As a loose analogy;
As a vegan, my employers are obliged to supply me with non leather safety boots as veganism is a "strongly held ethical belief" and is considered the same as a religion for discrimination purposes.
If my employer caught me eating meat, that would prove that my ethical beliefs are not that strongly held and they can give me leather boots like everyone else.
If a christian refuses to treat a gay person because of their religion, then if they were caught wearing a poly-cotton shirt, that would prove that they are not really christian and it was a personal prejudice against gay people.

Religion. Again.

Then...

Unfortunately, this has wandered off to become yet another religion thread.

Erm. Yeah....

Fair point MTG.

There is a difference between a doctor refusing to participate in an abortion and refusing to treat a person because they're gay (which of course is presently a hypothetical scenario in the debate about this legislation, although being America probably won't be long).

The former is an unwillingness to participate in an act that one believes is a sin/morally wrong. Whatever your views on that there is at least some logic behind it.

The latter, however, is not at all logical. If Christians believe that nobody is perfect and everyone is a sinner, then the doctor should see themselves, heterosexual patients and the homosexual patient as equal in that respect, and in addition, they are not being asked to participate in something that compromises their faith, merely help a fellow man. I'd be interested to see a scriptural basis for taking such a stance, particularly some sort of guidance from the man who chose to hang around with, for want of a better word, the dregs of society rather than the elite.

I've missed the connection between Christians and polycotton shirts. What's all that about then?

You know how all these religious half-wits go on about how "gay" is a lifestyle "choice"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30413515

[url= http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm ]"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"[/url]

MY point is that [i]in a court of law[/i], not just on the internet, would it be found acceptable for someone to refuse carry out their duties as a medical professional because they have chosen to take one part of the bible literally, while ignoring another part?

Surely the sentiment can still be there? Why do you think it's been discussed so much over the centuries? Because it's not explicit.

Who is it that the Pope is supposed to be talking to then? A sentiment? On the rare occasions I find myself in a church a lot of the stuff that goes on there and is on the walls seems to be about specifics, not sentiment. It's based on events that are supposed to have occurred and things that people have said. The bible seems to be treated as if it's more than a book of stories that you pick and choose from. But people [i]have[/i] picked and chosen(?- that reads wrong!) but everything carries on as if they haven't and at least some of it is literal. It just seems a bit odd to me.

I guess that might depend on whether they can provide a satisfactorily explain of their reasons for recognising some of the rules as still applicable and some as no longer applicable, notwithstanding that regardless of whether or not they can do that, it may well conflict with discrimination laws (I don't really know what they have in America), which might create something of a quandry for a court if two different laws contradict each other.

Are we going to have medical staff that have to be issued with christian friendly clothing?

Who is it that the Pope is supposed to be talking to then?

As I understand it, the Pope's job is to talk to God, and interpret the Bible for you.

On the rare occasions I find myself in a church a lot of the stuff that goes on there and is on the walls seems to be about specifics, not sentiment.

Well yes - they are telling you how to interpret the Bible. Of course, a certain German monk had other ideas and thought we should all be able to interpret it for ourselves. When you think about it, this is a pretty huge idea. It means that the established church can no longer control what people think. And from a political point of view it means that the Pope can no longer control everyone, the Kings etc are then free to do so.

Calling the Bible 'just' stories doesn't mean there's nothing of importance in it. For a start, it's not just stories. Some of it is, some are parables that have a moral point (still relevant today), some of it is history and some is accounts of the teachings of an important figure.

As I understand it, much of Christianity is dealing with the implications of what that figure said. Again, I don't see a problem with focusing on this instead of the tribal code of some people from a few thousand years earlier.

As a vegan, my employers are obliged to supply me with non leather safety boots as veganism is a "strongly held ethical belief" and is considered the same as a religion for discrimination purposes.
If my employer caught me eating meat, that would prove that my ethical beliefs are not that strongly held and they can give me leather boots like everyone else.

I think you've got this backwards. You're not talking about discriminating against a belief system, you're talking about a lack of positive discrimination towards it.

The shoes thing is a slightly weak analogy in that the rules are there for your benefit. If, hypothetically, vegan-friendly safety shoes didn't exist (which they probably do but lets roll with it), you're in a position where you need to either suck it up or risk having your feet smashed to bits. An employer should be able to insist on you wearing PPE to protect its workforce (and avoid litigation), should it not?

Putting that another way; why should a doctor get to pick and choose who they treat? If their "deeply held belief" means that they won't provide help to people who really need it based on, let's be honest here, their own prejudice, surely they either need to consider a career more compatible with their belief system or take a good hard look at those beliefs.

Say we had a doctor who is also a staunch UKIP / BNP etc supporter. Should his "deeply held beliefs" permit him to refuse treatment to brown people?

Calling the Bible 'just' stories doesn't mean there's nothing of importance in it

Perhaps, but even if we take that as being the case, it's a bit of a leap from there to telling us what we shalt and shalt not do because god said so, is it not?

For a start, it's not just stories. Some of it is, some are parables that have a moral point (still relevant today), some of it is history and some is accounts of the teachings of an important figure.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Do you have the Cliff Notes to tell us which is which? It'd avoid a lot of confusion and argument.

Do you have the Cliff Notes to tell us which is which? It'd avoid a lot of confusion and argument.

No - may I suggest you go to church and ask for some help 🙂 as I believe this is much of the point of having clergy.

I will, soon as they all agree between themselves.

Why do they all need to agree?

Students of literature don't all agree on Shakespeare or Proust do they? Just because not everyone agrees, doesn't make it worthless.

It gets a bit confusing, to me at least, when you start talking about unintentionally discriminating [i]against[/i] someone and intentionally positively discriminating [i]for[/i] them.

All our buses have wheelchair ramps to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.
Old buses didn't have ramps and were deemed to discriminate against disabled people.
It wasn't intentional, but effectively it was little different to having "No Blacks or Irish" sign.

Aren't Sikh police officers exempted from wearing helmets because they won't fit over a turban?
I guess if vegan safety boots didn't exist, then I suppose that similarly, I'd have to be exempted from wearing safety boots.

I believe this is much of the point of having clergy

Why can't their invisible friend speak to me directly?

Shakespeare and Proust don't claim to be infallible and omnipotent.

Why can't their invisible friend speak to me directly?

I dunno. This too has been debated a lot.

Shakespeare and Proust don't claim to be infallible and omnipotent.

Did the authors of the Bible?

Did the authors of the Bible?