LGBTQ Derail Discussion From "Do Democrats Realize..."

[Politesse]

Hey, wait.
God didn't say 'For this reason a man..' etc. That was Adam who said that.



So is Jesus contradicting the OT?
Half-Life, why do you quote someone who doesn't know the Bible?

I suspect that HL doesn't themselves know the Bible.

Granted, I would say that reading with a critical mind is necessary to pick up on things like this. You don't see contradictions, after all, when you believe there are not, cannot, must not be any in your book. It takes 2-3 solid readings of the Bible to really find it unmistakably contradictory (well, every book but Numbers... I NEVER finished Numbers).

One thing I always found nonsensical is that there are "Recommended reading orders" for the Bible. Personally, I never used them, and saw the correct way to read it as being from front to back; no other way allows everything to rest in its own historical context, as the future does not ever provide context for the past.

Your reasoning would make sense... if the books themselves were placed in chronological order. They are not, and which sections were written when is often a matter of dispute rather than certainty.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hey, wait.
God didn't say 'For this reason a man..' etc. That was Adam who said that.



So is Jesus contradicting the OT?
Half-Life, why do you quote someone who doesn't know the Bible?

I suspect that HL doesn't themselves know the Bible.

Granted, I would say that reading with a critical mind is necessary to pick up on things like this. You don't see contradictions, after all, when you believe there are not, cannot, must not be any in your book. It takes 2-3 solid readings of the Bible to really find it unmistakably contradictory (well, every book but Numbers... I NEVER finished Numbers).

One thing I always found nonsensical is that there are "Recommended reading orders" for the Bible. Personally, I never used them, and saw the correct way to read it as being from front to back; no other way allows everything to rest in its own historical context, as the future does not ever provide context for the past.

Your reasoning would make sense... if the books themselves were placed in chronological order. They are not, and which sections were written when is often a matter of dispute rather than certainty.

They are "chronological enough" for it to mostly apply, especially with regards to the old->new->Paul(throwsupinmouth)->Revelations

In a reasonable reading, I would say most books of the old testament should be written in order, but Leviticus and Numbers are pretty much entirely optional, and when you get to the NT, all the books by Paul are straight up toilet paper.

 

[Elixir]

Think about that. Are you “proud” to be able to walk and speak? No, not really.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Most trumpsuckers SHOULD be proud if they can walk and speak, walk and chew gum, or tie their own shoes. That would put them far above the average of their peers.
Asking them to understand what it might be like to deal with an actual threat to their lives, rather than chanting against made-up threats, such as militant caravans of brown people... that's way too much to expect.

Unless you’re a douchebag, in which case you may not get it.

Ya think?

 

[Politesse]

They are "chronological enough" for it to mostly apply, especially with regards to the old->new->Paul(throwsupinmouth)->Revelations

That really depends on how you think about it. Should you read something in largely fictive order of events, or in plausible order of composition? You get a really different - and more accurate - idea of how the two faiths evolved if you read things in the latter order. In many ways, the arrangement of the Hebrew Scriptures, and their subsequent re-ordering by the Christians, were politically motivated acts, and I personally do not think a naive or uncritical approach to the bias inherent in the creation of religious literature is wise. This is getting a bit off topic though, ironic since it is already a derail; perhaps a new thread would be in order if anyone is interested in the subject.

In a reasonable reading, I would say most books of the old testament should be written in order, but Leviticus and Numbers are pretty much entirely optional, and when you get to the NT, all the books by Paul are straight up toilet paper.

Leviticus and Numbers are boring, and Paul is grating, but I would not describe either as irrelevant. Paul's letters especially are our only convincing window into the first generation of the church, and his influence on modern Protestantism is incalculable. Beyond mere Christianity, I would say that European and American history as a whole cannot be understood without having read the core of Paul's letters, at the very least Romans and Galatians which arguably formed the philosophical nucleus of the Reformation.

 

[Jarhyn]

They are "chronological enough" for it to mostly apply, especially with regards to the old->new->Paul(throwsupinmouth)->Revelations

That really depends on how you think about it. Should you read something in largely fictive order of events, or in plausible order of composition? You get a really different - and more accurate - idea of how the two faiths evolved if you read things in the latter order. In many ways, the arrangement of the Hebrew Scriptures, and their subsequent re-ordering by the Christians, were politically motivated acts, and I personally do not think a naive or uncritical approach to the bias inherent in the creation of religious literature is wise. This is getting a bit off topic though, ironic since it is already a derail; perhaps a new thread would be in order if anyone is interested in the subject.

In a reasonable reading, I would say most books of the old testament should be written in order, but Leviticus and Numbers are pretty much entirely optional, and when you get to the NT, all the books by Paul are straight up toilet paper.

Leviticus and Numbers are boring, and Paul is grating, but I would not describe either as irrelevant. Paul's letters especially are our only convincing window into the first generation of the church, and his influence on modern Protestantism is incalculable. Beyond mere Christianity, I would say that European and American history as a whole cannot be understood without having read the core of Paul's letters, at the very least Romans and Galatians which arguably formed the philosophical nucleus of the Reformation.

My thought is that it was an abysmally bad influence. He took the church from a consideration on a fairly philosophical leader and made it about tradition, rules, and conformity. He didn't merely influence the church, he piped a tune that led it right off a cliff into exactly the thing that Jesus was depicted as trying to save them from.

Edit: if this gets derailed to its own thread, I personally vote that the name be "proof that Atheists understand more about the Bible than Half-Life derail from LGBTQ Derail.

 

[Politesse]

My thought is that it was an abysmally bad influence. He took the church from a consideration on a fairly philosophical leader and made it about tradition, rules, and conformity. He didn't merely influence the church, he piped a tune that led it right off a cliff into exactly the thing that Jesus was depicted as trying to save them from.

Perhaps! But it's sort of hard to know, as the genuine Pauline letters are by at least two decades the earliest Christian writings we possess in totality. I definitely blame Paul for the kind of brainless fundamentalism and ritualism that so attracts folks like Half-Life into overly simplistic and bigoted sociopolitical views.

 

[SimpleDon]

LGBTQ Derail Discussion From Do Democrats Realize

https://time.com/5613276/glaad-acceptance-index-lgbtq-survey/

A downtick in the level of LGBT acceptance among young people?

Is there an issue of "we get it, LGBT people are fine, just leave me alone I have a lot of real problems in my life already I don't have room to be worried about this stuff"? So in a sense, the increasingly cutthroat nature of the USA leading to compassion fatigue?

I take it in your reality that the downtick couldn't possibly be because stridently anti-gay, anti-trans fascists are in control of the government right now?

Yeah, I never saw a sign of a converse issue in the previous 70 years. The churches spent years upon years saying TEH GEYS ARE TEH EVIL and there was no plateau. No one saying 'Okay, fine, we get it, perverts are from Satan, leave me alone.' Young people drank it up, took it on board as their problem, passed it on to the next generation. No fatigue in programmed disgust.

For the most part, they didn't reject this line of EVIL until the gays came out of the closet, became known, and the propaganda identified as such.

It isn't "compassion fatigue" as much as it is a measure of how much they have been accepted into society. They don't need our compassion if they have our acceptance.

Americans are on a slow march to fulfilling the enlightenment's promise in Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal." We have slowly and in most cases, have only partially added those excluded in 1776; men without property, the Irish, the Italians, women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, non-Christians, atheists, gays, transexuals, etc. In all of these cases, the progress to equality was won by the people being oppressed. It wasn't handed to them.

The degree of success that the groups have had is to be celebrated with pride. The distance that they still have to go is the determining factor in the amount of pride they have to have to keep on working toward the goal of full equality. It would be considered to be out of place for men who don't own land to have a pride parade to demand equal treatment with the men who do own land. Likewise, the same is true of the various immigrant groups, the Irish and the Italians, the Chinese and the Japanese, for example, who were discriminated against but who now are accepted.

They have to demand equality because it disrupts the prevailing social order. It threatens the winners in the existing order who are afraid that these groups reaching equality will diminish their position. This is irrational. This attitude comes from the widespread belief that the economy is a zero-sum game, that for one group to do better another group has to be disadvantaged. This isn't true and has never been true. The economy expands and we all do better as people in the economy do better.

 

[Jarhyn]

LGBTQ Derail Discussion From Do Democrats Realize

Yeah, I never saw a sign of a converse issue in the previous 70 years. The churches spent years upon years saying TEH GEYS ARE TEH EVIL and there was no plateau. No one saying 'Okay, fine, we get it, perverts are from Satan, leave me alone.' Young people drank it up, took it on board as their problem, passed it on to the next generation. No fatigue in programmed disgust.

For the most part, they didn't reject this line of EVIL until the gays came out of the closet, became known, and the propaganda identified as such.

It isn't "compassion fatigue" as much as it is a measure of how much they have been accepted into society. They don't need our compassion if they have our acceptance.

Americans are on a slow march to fulfilling the enlightenment's promise in Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal." We have slowly and in most cases, have only partially added those excluded in 1776; men without property, the Irish, the Italians, women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, non-Christians, atheists, gays, transexuals, etc. In all of these cases, the progress to equality was won by the people being oppressed. It wasn't handed to them.

The degree of success that the groups have had is to be celebrated with pride. The distance that they still have to go is the determining factor in the amount of pride they have to have to keep on working toward the goal of full equality. It would be considered to be out of place for men who don't own land to have a pride parade to demand equal treatment with the men who do own land. Likewise, the same is true of the various immigrant groups, the Irish and the Italians, the Chinese and the Japanese, for example, who were discriminated against but who now are accepted.

They have to demand equality because it disrupts the prevailing social order. It threatens the winners in the existing order who are afraid that these groups reaching equality will diminish their position. This is irrational. This attitude comes from the widespread belief that the economy is a zero-sum game, that for one group to do better another group has to be disadvantaged. This isn't true and has never been true. The economy expands and we all do better as people in the economy do better.

And after this many iterations, I can't help but look at the problem with an eye to the future: to figure out what the common factor is between all these classes that have slowly seen their rights respected and just figure out the principle which justifies those rights being respected and apply that, rather than making "incremental" change, which is really just a concession to people who still want someone to be shitty to.

 

[SimpleDon]

LGBTQ Derail Discussion From Do Democrats Realize

Yeah, I never saw a sign of a converse issue in the previous 70 years. The churches spent years upon years saying TEH GEYS ARE TEH EVIL and there was no plateau. No one saying 'Okay, fine, we get it, perverts are from Satan, leave me alone.' Young people drank it up, took it on board as their problem, passed it on to the next generation. No fatigue in programmed disgust.

For the most part, they didn't reject this line of EVIL until the gays came out of the closet, became known, and the propaganda identified as such.

It isn't "compassion fatigue" as much as it is a measure of how much they have been accepted into society. They don't need our compassion if they have our acceptance.

Americans are on a slow march to fulfilling the enlightenment's promise in Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal." We have slowly and in most cases, have only partially added those excluded in 1776; men without property, the Irish, the Italians, women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, non-Christians, atheists, gays, transexuals, etc. In all of these cases, the progress to equality was won by the people being oppressed. It wasn't handed to them.

The degree of success that the groups have had is to be celebrated with pride. The distance that they still have to go is the determining factor in the amount of pride they have to have to keep on working toward the goal of full equality. It would be considered to be out of place for men who don't own land to have a pride parade to demand equal treatment with the men who do own land. Likewise, the same is true of the various immigrant groups, the Irish and the Italians, the Chinese and the Japanese, for example, who were discriminated against but who now are accepted.

They have to demand equality because it disrupts the prevailing social order. It threatens the winners in the existing order who are afraid that these groups reaching equality will diminish their position. This is irrational. This attitude comes from the widespread belief that the economy is a zero-sum game, that for one group to do better another group has to be disadvantaged. This isn't true and has never been true. The economy expands and we all do better as people in the economy do better.

And after this many iterations, I can't help but look at the problem with an eye to the future: to figure out what the common factor is between all these classes that have slowly seen their rights respected and just figure out the principle which justifies those rights being respected and apply that, rather than making "incremental" change, which is really just a concession to people who still want someone to be shitty to.

I don't know the whole answer. In part it is that the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, etc. came to be viewed as Americans by marrying each other, not as chained to their country of origin. Gays did it by coming out. They are our children and our neighbors. It is hard to hate them when they are real people and more than an abstraction.

The tough one is obviously race. As long as we accept the concept of race, that a few milligrams of melanin in our skin make us fundamentally different people on any scale, I think that we are going to have racism. As long as some feel that they gain some advantage from the divisions that racism still creates in American society, we are going to have racism.

I have some hope that this generation of millennials will go further in ending this absurdity of the concept of race than any generation before them. It seems like here in Atlanta that every fourth marriage is what would be defined as interracial by those obsessed with these things. There are few so dedicated to racism to hate their own grandchildren.