Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do Fundies have such a HUGE Persecution Complex?

Page 5 of 10 [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Jan 2012, 8:36 pm

Orwell wrote:
The problem is that no justification is given for discarding the portions of Levitican law that fundies no longer like, while retaining the ones that support their prejudices. There is that passage discarding the old food laws, but there's plenty else in there that isn't followed either.

The problem is that all theologies in the Christian faith arrive at absurdity. The issue isn't that ONE theological problem exists. The problem is that the text and the tradition have numerous problems that are incompatible either internally, or with external intuitions, or with empirical reality. The efforts to reinterpret this ultimately then have to reflect the subjective inclinations of the interpreter, which renders them failures at any efforts at tracking the truth.

Attacking a fundamentalist for being inconsistent on one issue is meaningless. The effort is a construction of meaning that is merely blind to the fact that it is an effort to construct meaning where one does not exist, just like the efforts to paste a coherent timeline on many long-standing multi-author fictional narratives like comic books, etc. It is ridiculous to attack ONE issue as if the structure would be fine if it weren't for that ONE issue.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,187
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jan 2012, 8:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
The problem is that no justification is given for discarding the portions of Levitican law that fundies no longer like, while retaining the ones that support their prejudices. There is that passage discarding the old food laws, but there's plenty else in there that isn't followed either.


There is a commandment for all Israelites to carry a shovel to buryh their poop. The idea is that when G_D walks in the camp of His people He should not step in Jew Doo. Deut: 22 - 24. So if Christians really want to follow the bible they will carry a shovel to bury their poop. And then of course, and I hate to bring it up, is the matter of circumcising all the male children. That is not negotiable under Levitical law.

ruveyn


The image of people burying their poop so God won't walk in it made me laugh out loud. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Jan 2012, 8:40 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Attacking a fundamentalist for being inconsistent on one issue is meaningless.


Meaningless, but fun, since Fundies maintain inerrancy.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Jan 2012, 8:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
The problem is that no justification is given for discarding the portions of Levitican law that fundies no longer like, while retaining the ones that support their prejudices. There is that passage discarding the old food laws, but there's plenty else in there that isn't followed either.


There is a commandment for all Israelites to carry a shovel to buryh their poop. The idea is that when G_D walks in the camp of His people He should not step in Jew Doo. Deut: 22 - 24. So if Christians really want to follow the bible they will carry a shovel to bury their poop. And then of course, and I hate to bring it up, is the matter of circumcising all the male children. That is not negotiable under Levitical law.

ruveyn


The image of people burying their poop so God won't walk in it made me laugh out loud. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You may find Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth to be amusing

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm

From Acts 10:

Quote:
"God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean...He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”


It doesn't say "Everyone who isn't a Sodomite", but rather EVERYONE!



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

09 Jan 2012, 9:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Such would negate that Christ is your Lord, thus invalidating the rest.

cite or shut up

Matthew 5:11-20; Leviticus 18:22-30, 20:13; John 3:16-21.

Quote:
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


could not find the gay part so I am confused on your meaning.

the other verses are condemnation of homos?
Leviticus 18:22-30 is the best one
unfortunately it is right next to
And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.
16But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

so do you avoid eat treyf and have a mikveh when you do?
where is your congregations mikveh kept?
or is it only the queers that bother you?

Leviticus 20:13 are you are guilty of the sin of not killing gay men?
or is the literal translation better.
Quote:
"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

it lets you off the hook. it also fit better in context as the surrounding verses are about sexual betrayal.
John 3:16-21. does not apply or how it applies escapes me.
no where in that construction of verses is a "biblical" reason for denying rights to gays.
only a defense for murdering them.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

09 Jan 2012, 10:01 pm

that anyone thinks a two millenia old book written by what was in large barbarians is justification for anything but stupidity is beyond me.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Jan 2012, 10:25 pm

pandabear wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Attacking a fundamentalist for being inconsistent on one issue is meaningless.


Meaningless, but fun, since Fundies maintain inerrancy.

My larger point was that the errors are so pervasive and significant that the matter reduces down to ridiculousness. There are reinterpretations that arrive at the fundamentalist's aim, but the problem is that this is not a problem of a single issue, but rather that this is the entire framework. The problem with the Bible isn't that ONE moral teaching has problems, but rather that the entire structure is rotted out to the degree that focusing on the ONE issue obscures HOW MANY issues are problems.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Jan 2012, 12:24 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
My larger point was that the errors are so pervasive and significant that the matter reduces down to ridiculousness. There are reinterpretations that arrive at the fundamentalist's aim, but the problem is that this is not a problem of a single issue, but rather that this is the entire framework. The problem with the Bible isn't that ONE moral teaching has problems, but rather that the entire structure is rotted out to the degree that focusing on the ONE issue obscures HOW MANY issues are problems.


Okay, I hereby demand that you demonstrate the error in biblical inerrancy with SEVEN instances of problematic passages.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Jan 2012, 1:54 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Such would negate that Christ is your Lord, thus invalidating the rest.

So then it is similarly impossible for unrepentant bacon-eaters and beard-shavers to get into Heaven. At least they won't be running out of room up there anytime soon.


Oh yes, right, the whole kosher laws and appearance is so equivalent to moral issues.

It's about cleanliness, not appearance. If you were God, would you want to hang around with a bunch of people who smelled like pigs? Of course not!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Jan 2012, 2:30 am

LKL wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Such would negate that Christ is your Lord, thus invalidating the rest.

So then it is similarly impossible for unrepentant bacon-eaters and beard-shavers to get into Heaven. At least they won't be running out of room up there anytime soon.


Oh yes, right, the whole kosher laws and appearance is so equivalent to moral issues.

It's about cleanliness, not appearance. If you were God, would you want to hang around with a bunch of people who smelled like pigs? Of course not!


It's still not equivalent to morality. The outward appearance is irrelevant if what's inside is rotten.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Jan 2012, 8:26 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Such would negate that Christ is your Lord, thus invalidating the rest.

So then it is similarly impossible for unrepentant bacon-eaters and beard-shavers to get into Heaven. At least they won't be running out of room up there anytime soon.


Oh yes, right, the whole kosher laws and appearance is so equivalent to moral issues.


When your wife is mestruating, do you make her sleep on a cot? And also make sure that she never touches any chair on which you might like to place your bottom?



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

10 Jan 2012, 8:59 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
LKL wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Such would negate that Christ is your Lord, thus invalidating the rest.

So then it is similarly impossible for unrepentant bacon-eaters and beard-shavers to get into Heaven. At least they won't be running out of room up there anytime soon.


Oh yes, right, the whole kosher laws and appearance is so equivalent to moral issues.

It's about cleanliness, not appearance. If you were God, would you want to hang around with a bunch of people who smelled like pigs? Of course not!


It's still not equivalent to morality. The outward appearance is irrelevant if what's inside is rotten.


where you put your dick is also a cleanliness issue.
I think you have a quirk where morality only means sexual morality.
do you love your enemies or pray for them that spitefully use you?
have you sold all you have and given it to the beggars?
would you?
Do you refuse to swear oaths?
Every religious person has bits they do and swathes they don't follow
in the text. But this Gay thing is very important God said it twice.
The man upstairs said 14 times not to charge interest.
Why no constitutional amendment against bankers?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jan 2012, 9:32 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
The man upstairs said 14 times not to charge interest.
Why no constitutional amendment against bankers?


Not charging interest applies to personal loans. It does not apply to business investments where one hopes to get a return on money invested. Which leads to how Orthodox Jews and Muslims get around the "no interest" rule. Instead of lending someone money for business purposes, form a partnership with him. If the business is profitable let him buy you out at what you invested in the partnership plus half the profits which are yours by right.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Jan 2012, 10:46 am

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
The man upstairs said 14 times not to charge interest.
Why no constitutional amendment against bankers?


Not charging interest applies to personal loans. It does not apply to business investments where one hopes to get a return on money invested. Which leads to how Orthodox Jews and Muslims get around the "no interest" rule. Instead of lending someone money for business purposes, form a partnership with him. If the business is profitable let him buy you out at what you invested in the partnership plus half the profits which are yours by right.

ruveyn


There is a work-around to just about everything, isn't there?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Jan 2012, 11:25 am

pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
The man upstairs said 14 times not to charge interest.
Why no constitutional amendment against bankers?


Not charging interest applies to personal loans. It does not apply to business investments where one hopes to get a return on money invested. Which leads to how Orthodox Jews and Muslims get around the "no interest" rule. Instead of lending someone money for business purposes, form a partnership with him. If the business is profitable let him buy you out at what you invested in the partnership plus half the profits which are yours by right.

ruveyn


There is a work-around to just about everything, isn't there?


Gee, listen to yourself sometime... :roll: