Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: What's Going on in the Americas? (Read 261127 times)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #450 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Everybody has it's share of suffering in life. But there are categories of people that think their kind of suffering is special and so they deserve special protection. And damn the rest.
Clearly you mean the religious. The LGBT weren't suffering over the restrooms. But now the religious are. Poor little things with feelings made of glass :( I wish there as something I could do for them, but they decided I was a threat and the enemy so they won't accept my help. Lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink....
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #451 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
At what point did I say it was the only way? What's your idea to keep everyone safe? At no point did I say to legislate it like this, either. Who's legislating?
In American context, consies are trying to legislate in panic to pre-empt the kind of onslaught of LGBTQ "rights" as seen in Europe. As seen in Europe, it's a real onslaught. I agree with you on one point - this thing is going its course to the bitter end, no matter how anyone tries to react or avert it. This "progressive" thing would not progress if concepts like marriage, man, woman, husband, wife, family, mother, father, son, and daughter still had a meaning, but unfortunately they have all lost meaning in Western civilisation.

In European context, the progressives have already legislated their thing.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
About the LGBT being "harsh." The religious lobby got legislation passed amendments against us, we fought back and now they're crying like any other defeated bully. Don't like that same sex-same marriage is legal in all 50 states?
American context is boring and irrelevant. The little bit which is not boring is stupid and shallow and gets boring quickly.

You are blind to the real nature of LGBT movement. You can see their true nature in action in Europe where they already won sweepingly. Here they are shameless and ruthless. Anybody even remotely questioning them, e.g. calling them a "foreign trend that feels wrong" gets instantly persecuted. Here they are, without absolutely any pedagogical qualification or research, considered authoritative source for teaching materials for kindergarten children on all topics.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #452 –
Of course this whole thing is stupid. Out of nowhere, transgenders using the restroom they feel most comfortable in is a major threat.  Since the dawn of gender reassignment surgery in 1931, they've been doing this without being a threat to anyone. Now suddenly women and children are in danger? Yup, this ranks among the stupidest things ever I've heard of.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #453 –
What I find amusing is that appeals to tradition so often fall completely flat, even if you ignore whether or not such an appeal holds any merit at all. How it's always been at best equals how it was in their youth, and is more often akin to some kind of oddly distorted vision of the 1950s.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #454 –
It seems the only thing going in the (Northern) Americas is where transgenders (?) should piss.
Excellent, maybe now we can start talking about Southern America, a much more interesting place with so much more going on.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #455 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
What I find amusing is that appeals to tradition so often fall completely flat, even if you ignore whether or not such an appeal holds any merit at all.
But you of course don't ignore the merit and you acknowledge it, right? Or, you can demonstrate how there is no merit, so that "appeal to tradition" indeed falls flat.

What demonstrably falls flat is the appeal to "right to marriage", the invented concept of "marriage equality" etc. that imply that marriage is a right or that marriage thus far was somehow unequal. It's easily demonstrated that marriage is not a right. Namely, it takes two to have a marriage. If nobody wants to marry you, you will not get married, ever.

This is different from example right to basic education. You may not want to go to school, but it's made a duty regardless if you like it or not. Every kid gets assigned to a school and a teacher. It's ensured that nobody misses this right. Not so with marriage. The state doesn't assign everybody a spouse. Why? Because there's no such thing as right to marriage. Similarly, also "marriage equality" (an American concept, not European, AFAIK) is a delusion.

Now let's hear how "appeal to tradition" falls flat.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #456 –
Quote from: ersi on
But you of course don't ignore the merit and you acknowledge it, right? Or, you can demonstrate how there is no merit, so that "appeal to tradition" indeed falls flat.
An appeal to tradition is correct if the justifications for said tradition were correct to start with and if those justifications still apply to the present. But I was saying that most supposed appeals to tradition do not appeal to anything but pure fantasy.

Quote from: ersi on
Now let's hear how "appeal to tradition" falls flat.
It's not an appeal to tradition, but it is rather odd. Equal rights to marriage, during marriage and to dissolve marriage are words from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Was marriage somehow unequal? Well, that depends on the country. Given that in some countries a spouse can or could be literally property, or how people might've previously only been allowed to marry within their class or race, I think the answer is obvious.

But going back to your simple proof that a right isn't a right, that falls flat because it's a simple case of conflicting rights. One person's right to get married doesn't override another person's right not to. Or to put it another way, you have the right to enter into wedlock only with the free, full, and informed consent of all spouses.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #457 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
An appeal to tradition is correct if the justifications for said tradition were correct to start with...
This applies to any and all appeals and justifications.

Quote from: Frenzie on
...and if those justifications still apply to the present.
Time is not on the side of any truth of principle. Also, popular opinion is not on the side of any truth of principle. My appeal is not to tradition, but to truth of principle, law of nature, and precision of definition.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Equal rights to marriage, during marriage and to dissolve marriage are words from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Interesting. I didn't know that UDHR mentioned marriage. However, reading UDHR it looks like its articles are not far out the way the demands of queer lobby and gay rightists are.

Quote from: UDHR, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
The "equal rights" here applies specifically to "men and women". Meaning, marriage is understood here properly as that between opposite sexes.

Further, my argument is absolutely independent of any actual legislation of rights. Legislation can get screwed up, as we all know. I showed how "right to marry" does not have the same nature as for example "right to education" (Article 26), but, if it be understood as a right at all, it's not universal by any stretch of the imagination. UDHR specifies that marriage applies to (a) men and women who are (b) full age. Why such delimitations, what do you think? Are they merely some traditional ballast that should be discarded because the time has moved on and we should be over those barriers? Do they represent only false shame that is unbecoming to modern times?

Quote from: Frenzie on
Was marriage somehow unequal? Well, that depends on the country. Given that in some countries a spouse can or could be literally property, or how people might've previously only been allowed to marry within their class or race, I think the answer is obvious.
This is not the aspect that the concept of "marriage equality" is meant to deal with by those who push the concept. The difference is as follows.

As understood in UDHR, the "equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution" mean that men and women should have equal right to initiate marriage and divorce. For LGBTQ campaigners, "marriage equality" means that any random "sexual orientation" can initiate it to start whatever "configuration" or "constellation of family" they want. Those latter are all novel concepts that stand no rational analysis. And I don't mean appeal to tradition, but rational analysis. Those innovations presuppose something equivalent to married bachelors or square circles, which is nonsense.

Quote from: Frenzie on
But going back to your simple proof that a right isn't a right, that falls flat because it's a simple case of conflicting rights.
I didn't argue that it's a right that is not a right. I argued that it's not the kind of right that can be applied universally whether the subject likes it or not. Education can be (and is being) pushed on kids regardless if they want it. You cannot do the same with marriage, because that would be forced or arranged marriage which is a strict no-no in your world.

Quote from: Frenzie on
One person's right to get married doesn't override another person's right not to.
Is there a right to refuse education? No, there is not. So, let's be precise about the nature of the specific right here. If marriage were a universal right like education, then there should be no way to refuse it. However, since UDHR mentions divorce in the same breath as it mentions marriage ("equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution"), it's evident that marriage and education are not the same kind of right.

The right in this case is to be free in one's decision to marry or to divorce or, implicitly, to abstain from marriage. This is the complete sense of "right to marry" in UDHR. Reductive reading of "right to marry" (with emphasis on "marry", excluding divorce) violates the intention of UDHR. 

And even if the nature of "right to marry" were conflated with "right to education", this does not get around the fact how marriage is implicitly defined in UDHR, namely as between man and woman. I say there are good reasons as per natural law and truth of principle why marriage is (and must be) defined this way. When marriage is understood any other way, the concept of marriage becomes void and any associated right also becomes void - due to definitional clash of natural concepts, not due to imaginary nostalgia for tradition.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #458 –
Quote from: ersi on
This applies to any and all appeals and justifications.
Naturally, but an appeal to tradition tries to sweep such concerns under the rug.

Quote from: ersi on
Why such delimitations, what do you think? Are they merely some traditional ballast that should be discarded because the time has moved on and we should be over those barriers? Do they represent only false shame that is unbecoming to modern times?
Here you somewhat engage in what I mentioned above. Traditionally one entered adulthood between 13 and 16 years (cf. Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah). You have already swept aside that ballast. In any case, I already said free and informed consent.

Quote from: ersi on
I didn't argue that it's a right that is not a right. I argued that it's not the kind of right that can be applied universally whether the subject likes it or not.
Just a quick reminder, you wrote this: "It's easily demonstrated that marriage is not a right."

Quote from: ersi on
When marriage is understood any other way, the concept of marriage becomes void and any associated right also becomes void - due to definitional clash of natural concepts, not due to imaginary nostalgia for tradition.
The concept of rights associated with marriage is void either way. It's a personal union between two people. All of the state-imposed nonsense is just that. And, incidentally, this is the traditional view of marriage. It was sufficient to speak the right words in the presence of two witnesses. The Catholic Church butted in on the process and that's how we acquired our current mess.

NB This does not imply a case for gay marriage, although iirc the Romans claimed the Gauls were too tolerant of it. In any event, the anti-gay lobby didn't really get started until Late Antiquity. Tradition is a buffet with no need to fantasize.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #459 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Here you somewhat engage in what I mentioned above. Traditionally one entered adulthood between 13 and 16 years (cf. Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah). You have already swept aside that ballast. In any case, I already said free and informed consent.
Are you saying that you reject the "full age" delimitation in UDHR?

Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: ersi on
I didn't argue that it's a right that is not a right. I argued that it's not the kind of right that can be applied universally whether the subject likes it or not.
Just a quick reminder, you wrote this: "It's easily demonstrated that marriage is not a right."
Correct. But you said that I provided a "proof that a right isn't a right". I would sincerely prefer to not call marriage a right at all and, when examined closely, UDHR indeed does not call marriage a right. Rather, "right to marry" includes, in UDHR context, right to divorce at the same time. I can live with that, for the sake of argument, even though my full opinion is that marriage is a sacred privilege, to be treated with utmost reverence without ever losing sight of its purpose.

Quote from: Frenzie on
The concept of rights associated with marriage is void either way. It's a personal union between two people. All of the state-imposed nonsense is just that.
So, again, you actually reject the UDHR definitions? Because, in UDHR, marriage is not reductive the way you present it here. It's not between two people. It's between man and woman. And "equal rights" in the relevant article are obviously meant to emphasise women's equal rights to marry and divorce as freely as men do.

And all human rights in UDHR are obviously meant for state legislatures to formulate and enforce. Under the law of the jungle you would not have right to marry or any other right.

Quote from: Frenzie on
And, incidentally, this is the traditional view of marriage. It was sufficient to speak the right words in the presence of two witnesses. The Catholic Church butted in on the process and that's how we acquired our current mess.
Well, prior to the existence of the Catholic Church there were other religious and state institutions that fulfilled the same role. Traditionally, marriage has always been a social event of some degree of broader institutional interest, never a private matter between two people.

Quote from: Frenzie on
NB This does not imply a case for gay marriage, ...
That's correct. But my stronger claim is that a case for gay marriage cannot be made at all, because gay marriage is a self-contradiction like square circle. Its only effect is to mock marriage and obviate it as a social event with meaningful content.

Quote from: Frenzie on
...although iirc the Romans claimed the Gauls were too tolerant of it.
Romans claimed that Gauls were too tolerant of gay marriage? Any source to this?

Quote from: Frenzie on
In any event, the anti-gay lobby didn't really get started until Late Antiquity.
Marriage was always understood as inapplicable to gays by definition. There was no gay marriage movement in Antiquity, late or otherwise, nor later in history, until very recently. As far as I know, "gay rights" even just a century ago only meant a modest request to be free from persecution, without any claim to right to marriage. Feel free to correct me on this point by providing an Antique Roman or Renaissance or any pre-WWII source that argues how gays have right to marry among themselves like heteros.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #460 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
It seems the only thing going in the (Northern) Americas is where transgenders (?) should piss.
Excellent, maybe now we can start talking about Southern America, a much more interesting place with so much more going on.

I think what's going on in Southern America is as baffling as what's going on in Northern, but at least those things matter, maybe even to us in the Old World.

Of all things the US conservatives could be concerned about, and you would think there would be plenty, this is what they get all twisted around. Shouldn't they be worried about Jade Helm 15 or something? (I assume there are still serious and sane conservatives about, but they seem quite absent at the moment.)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #462 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Tradition is a buffet with no need to fantasize.
Yup, here's an article when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite . So one appeal to tradition on the pro same-sex marriage side, as well. What was unnatural this whole time was trying to force gay men and lesbians to either remain celibate or push them into marriage with a member of the opposite, especially now that all the scientific evidence points future sex orientation being determined before birth.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #463 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Yup, here's an article when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite .
It wasn't. This controversy started with Boswell. Had it been a real thing, it would have been a notable issue during the Catholic-Orthodox schism and Reformation, but there's no trace of that. The Bible is against same-sex marriage, most clearly perhaps in 1. Cor 6:9-10.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #464 –
Quote from: jax on
I think what's going on in Southern America is as baffling as what's going on in Northern, ...
Like the putsch in Brazil for instance...

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #465 –
Quote from: ersi on
Are you saying that you reject the "full age" delimitation in UDHR?
That's mostly a definitional question of when one can give informed consent. You can split philosophical hairs about it, but for practical purposes adulthood ("full age") and marriage age can safely be regarded as the same thing. I would say that being able to give informed consent to enter into marriage with a prospective spouse is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of being an adult. As such, one can give informed consent to marry at some point in time before one becomes an adult.
Quote from: ersi on
So, again, you actually reject the UDHR definitions? Because, in UDHR, marriage is not reductive the way you present it here. It's not between two people. It's between man and woman. And "equal rights" in the relevant article are obviously meant to emphasise women's equal rights to marry and divorce as freely as men do.
I actually wrote people because I'm a humanist. I regard both men and women as People,[1] and consider the reverse to be the reductive approach. As a humanist I neither define People by nor reduce People to their genitals or race. But now that you've rubbed my nose in it, that must indeed logically include People of certain sexual persuasions.

Quote from: ersi on
Romans claimed that Gauls were too tolerant of gay marriage? Any source to this?
I meant relationships. I wouldn't know if and to what extent they could be classified as marriage.

Quote from: ersi on
Marriage was always understood as inapplicable to gays by definition. There was no gay marriage movement in Antiquity, late or otherwise, nor later in history, until very recently. As far as I know, "gay rights" even just a century ago only meant a modest request to be free from persecution, without any claim to right to marriage. Feel free to correct me on this point by providing an Antique Roman or Renaissance or any pre-WWII source that argues how gays have right to marry among themselves like heteros.
People entered into cohesive same-sex unions. You can either say that they're not marriage by definition or you can acknowledge that it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, much the same as our the present-day cohabitation agreements. As such it is certainly valid to ask why homosexuals care whether or not their relationship is officially called a marriage when it's the same in practice anyway, but it's equally valid to ask why you care so much if it is called a marriage. Excluding for a second forced child marriages, the most demeaning thing to marriage as a concept I can think of is stuff like religious people getting married pretty much just to have sex. A loving, dedicated same-sex couple seems to do more to restore my faith in the institution than to break it down.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Yup, here's an article when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite .
I remain highly skeptical. The Bible as well as early Christianity are in favor of polygamy — only for the men, of course, because the Bible is deeply sexist. Monogamy was adapted within a century or two to become more respectable to pagan (Roman/Greek) culture. It's certainly possible that some same-sex unions were performed, but it doesn't make much sense logically. Limiting yourself to only one wife to abide by pagan law and culture is hardly the same as completely copying pagan law and culture including those icky same-sex unions. To be fair to the hypothesis, Christians completely failed at their project to replace the days of the week by the series of dies dominica, feria secunda, feria tertia, etc.[2]

Quote from: ersi on
The Bible is against same-sex marriage, most clearly perhaps in 1. Cor 6:9-10.
Wasn't Paul talking about pederasty? Not that this invalidates the general point, although I will point out that there were plenty of Christian sects other than those main two. Arianism was a particularly important one.
1 Dutch and German have significantly better vocabulary in this regard than English and French.↵
2 I say completely, but actually they were successful in Portuguese if I'm not mistaken.↵

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #466 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
2 I say completely, but actually they were successful in Portuguese if I'm not mistaken.↵
Yes, segunda feira, terça feira, quarta feira and so on.
A matter of attitude.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #467 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
People entered into cohesive same-sex unions. You can either say that they're not marriage by definition or you can acknowledge that it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, much the same as our the present-day cohabitation agreements.
I can grant that it quacks like a cohabitation agreement, but a cohabitation agreement is not marriage. Kids in love may run away from their parents and spend their life together thereafter, this by itself doesn't make them married.


Quote from: Frenzie on
A loving, dedicated same-sex couple seems to do more to restore my faith in the institution than to break it down.
Marriage is not just about love and dedication. The very assumption that all you need is love thoroughly demolished the institution in the 20th century.

Quote from: Frenzie on
The Bible as well as early Christianity are in favor of polygamy — only for the men, of course, because the Bible is deeply sexist.
No. Admittedly, Bible describes polygamy as if common practice (which it was in every culture in Middle East, so call them all deeply sexist for fairness' sake), but it never praises it and there's absolutely no question what the ideal was. The ideal is presented in the creation story.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: ersi on
The Bible is against same-sex marriage, most clearly perhaps in 1. Cor 6:9-10.
Wasn't Paul talking about pederasty?
This is impossible, if Romans 1:27 is about the same thing. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..." Clearly mutual and consensual, not one making use of another. Besides, the specific Greek word choice in 1. Cor 6:9-10 seems to refer back to Leviticus 20:13 as given in Septuagint. If so, then no.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Arianism was a particularly important one.
What about them? Did they bless homosexual couples?

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #468 –
There was a reference on our news yesterday of a number of States taking legal action against Obama over gender issues re toilets, changing facilities, etc. There was a man on form the shirt lifters saying that they were being denied their rights of what they mentally thought. Duh. Well how far does this nonsense go and that women who make up roughly around the same number of men outnumber queers by massive numbers but hey they don't count. Modern liberalism has become a farce of a joke.  If you have a penis you are a man whether you want to be something else or not and if a vagina a woman. Surprise, surprise. Minorities do get rights but when they think automatically that they are almost divine and that others don't count then that is going too far.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #469 –
Quote from: ersi on
It wasn't. This controversy started with Boswell. Had it been a real thing, it would have been a notable issue during the Catholic-Orthodox schism and Reformation, but there's no trace of that.
Look at the dates. This predated the reformation.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #470 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Look at the dates. This predated the reformation.
You should look at the dates, Sang: Boswell's bad scholarship didn't come to light until the mid-1990s… :) And it was effectively dealt with.
Of course, you'll grasp at any straw…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #471 –
Quote from: ersi on
This is impossible, if Romans 1:27 is about the same thing. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..." Clearly mutual and consensual, not one making use of another. Besides, the specific Greek word choice in 1. Cor 6:9-10 seems to refer back to Leviticus 20:13 as given in Septuagint. If so, then no.
I don't have a proper critical copy of the New Testament at my disposal, for it interests me little compared to the Tanach, but be careful about drawing such inferences. To my knowledge the Septuagint is dated no earlier than the third century and it's not at all unthinkable that potential references are the other way around, whether on purpose or subconsciously. The footnote here does seem to talk about pederasty though.

Quote from: ersi on
No. Admittedly, Bible describes polygamy as if common practice (which it was in every culture in Middle East, so call them all deeply sexist for fairness' sake), but it never praises it and there's absolutely no question what the ideal was. The ideal is presented in the creation story.
The Bible explicitly regulates the practice, it was commonplace among the Jewish people, and it was equally common among early Christians. In my reading of the Bible, almost all of the great patriarchs that are held up as shining examples had multiple wives and not as one of their flaws (like pride). There's a quick overview here. And not just that. On top of all your wives, you can have sex slaves:

Quote from: Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
Quote from: Numbers 31:15-18
And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
Quote from: Deuteronomy 21:10-12
When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house.


Quote from: ersi on
What about them? Did they bless homosexual couples?
The prior possibility may be less unfavorable after proper consideration than at first glance. Of course prior possibility is ultimately of little importance in the grand scheme of evidence.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #472 –
@Frenzie

You are in a particularly blessed situation, because there's a Greek-Dutch interlinear NT online. Take this file and locate the last word in verse 9. It's αρσενοκοιται - I trust you can read this. It's a noun.

Now let's go to Leviticus 20:13 in Septuagint. There it says κοιμηθῇ μετά ἄρσενος which is a phrase with a verb, preposition and a noun.

The noun in 1. Cor is unique. It occurs only in that text in whole Greek literature. This is the reason why its meaning is contested. However, it's a regular compound formation consisting of the exact same roots as the phrase in Leviticus. If 1. Cor 6:9 is a direct reference to Lev 20:13, the meaning of the word cannot be challenged. But even if it's not a direct reference, there is no ambiguity about it.

Quote from: Frenzie on
In my reading of the Bible, almost all of the great patriarchs that are held up as shining examples had multiple wives...
Yes, the patriarchs are shining examples, but I never got the feeling that their polygamy was upheld as a shining example. Of course I grant that poygamy was not condemned either, just  like slavery was not condemned. Those were inevitable aspects in social order at that time and place.

At the same time, I don't think anyone can question the ideal example set by the creation story. In every religion I know, the human problem is seen as a fall from original grace and the solution is to reinstate it. Except maybe in Islam where every good man is promised a bordello of virgins (not directly in Koran though).

Edit: fixed the faulty link to NT.

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #473 –
Quote from: ersi on
You are in a particularly blessed situation, because there's a Greek-Dutch interlinear NT online. Take this file and locate the last word in verse 9. It's αρσενοκοιται - I trust you can read this. It's a noun.
That's potentially an amazing resource, thank you for that. Do you have any indications as to its trustworthiness as a scholarly work? It's clear from the accompanying writings that it must be a work planned and executed by Protestants, but the site itself gives no indications that I can find.

Quote from: ersi on
It's αρσενοκοιται - I trust you can read this. It's a noun.
I can read the Greek alphabet as well as the next guy, but that doesn't change the fact that the word means nothing to me. :)

Quote from: ersi on
Yes, the patriarchs are shining examples, but I never got the feeling that their polygamy was upheld as a shining example. Of course I grant that poygamy was not condemned either, just  like slavery was not condemned. Those were inevitable aspects in social order at that time and place.
That's the thing though. The slaves are obviously there but barely mentioned, besides a few rules on how to treat them *ahem* right. I've always seen the overt inclusions as meaningful.

Quote from: ersi on
At the same time, I don't think anyone can question the ideal example set by the creation story. In every religion I know, the human problem is seen as a fall from original grace and the solution is to reinstate it. Except maybe in Islam where every good man is promised a bordello of virgins (not directly in Koran though).
I do question Augustine. I'm not convinced that the state of sublime ignorance constitutes an ideal, but perhaps that's just because I find it an utterly repulsive one. Besides, there are two Eves — one out of dust and one out of a rib. :D

Re: What's Going on in the Americas?

Reply #474 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Do you have any indications as to its trustworthiness as a scholarly work?
None. Except that on that spot I expected to find what I found. I have read Greek NT ad hoc here and there on the web when I needed it, and what I found now seems to be the same contents that I have found before.

Quote from: Frenzie on

It's clear from the accompanying writings that it must be a work planned and executed by Protestants, but the site itself gives no indications that I can find.
All Bible scholars are Christians or former Christians. Same with apologists and anti-apologists. There seems to be a conspiracy there.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: ersi on
It's αρσενοκοιται - I trust you can read this. It's a noun.
I can read the Greek alphabet as well as the next guy, but that doesn't change the fact that the word means nothing to me. :)
Here's the same argument all over again http://www.equip.org/article/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/
This argument (not the website which I dug up just now randomly, but the philological incident) was first brought to my attention by Christian apologist and NT Greek scholar James White.

Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: ersi on
Yes, the patriarchs are shining examples, but I never got the feeling that their polygamy was upheld as a shining example. Of course I grant that poygamy was not condemned either, just  like slavery was not condemned. Those were inevitable aspects in social order at that time and place.
That's the thing though. The slaves are obviously there but barely mentioned, besides a few rules on how to treat them *ahem* right. I've always seen the overt inclusions as meaningful.
And how's that different from wives/concubines? Aren't they too barely mentioned?

Quote from: Frenzie on
I do question Augustine. I'm not convinced that the state of sublime ignorance constitutes an ideal, but perhaps that's just because I find it an utterly repulsive one. Besides, there are two Eves — one out of dust and one out of a rib. :D
And Zohar says there was also a Lilith. I'm not qualified to question the manner of exegesis that is represented by Zohar. They are the experts.