Christian Voice Rides Again (more Christian Bashing)

[Wong]

If you mean the "insane fundamentalist" variety, they're more often than not deserving of being offended.

[hr]No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves

[exnihilo]

Naughty indeed, but you do see the point, surely? If I said "I take pleasure in offending [insert any group here]" then i would be in the wrong. Why should it be acceptable to put Christians in? And if it is only certain ones, they should be specified or it's as bad as saying "I hate black people" when what you mean is "I hate him, and he happens to be black".

And it seems odd to me that you can switch from being personally delighted in doing it to a few posts later saying you don't enjoy it yourself. Which is it?

Oh, and a facetious aside: the way you're "made"? But by whom?

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 00:44, 24th Dec 2004:
No, I prefer not to get drawn into that debate. I'm happy to say, however, that religion is quite simply stupid. If nothing else, that anyone can believe in the assertions of any religion in this day and age is mystifying. God is no more plausible than astrology, and ghosts, and santa, and prior to the moral questions it strikes me that those who believe in god and engage in all the ritual and pomp are making fools of themselves before a growing audience of rational athiests.


That offends me, as a Christian. Do you take pleasure in that fact?
[hr]I got my BBC

[Rob Hearn]

A little bit, yes. Sorry. I'll put the point to rest now. I enjoy offending christians, a bit, because I strongly dislike religion. I have friends who are christians, and I enjoy offending them too. I am not, however, a particularly aggressive or confrontational person.

Also exnihilo, if you put the BNP or someone like that between the [insert any group here] backets I think it would not only be okay, but laudable. It can be a great thing to offend people.

[JAK]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 20:34, 10th Jan 2005:
A little bit, yes. Sorry. I'll put the point to rest now. I enjoy offending christians, a bit, because I strongly dislike religion. I have friends who are christians, and I enjoy offending them too. I am not, however, a particularly aggressive or confrontational person.

Also exnihilo, if you put the BNP or someone like that between the [insert any group here] backets I think it would not only be okay, but laudable. It can be a great thing to offend people.


And how does that fit with the Terms and conditions of the site, precisely?

[hr]
I got my BBC

[Rob Hearn]

I haven't read them. If I get banned, then I suppose good manners will have won the day, and I'd be able to get on with my revision without distraction. Let's all cross our fingers.

[exnihilo]

I think possibly offending may be the wrong word here. Sounds to me more like you enjoy challenging the preconceptions that your friends hold - that certainly is laudable and I'm all for it. but deliberately setting out to cause offence to someone I'm not in favour of.

Incidentally, can I make one more plea that when people say 'the church' they specify what they mean? Because I think you'll find that most Christian groups now don't condemn homosexuality as a sin. If you mean the Catholic church, say so.

[Rob Hearn]

I generally have in mind the church of england when I talk about church opposition to homosexuality, although the catholic church does share that unfortunate prejudice. The church of england of course refines its prejudice to homosexual sex, rather than just homosexual feelings, but I don't regard that as being much less abhorrent.

[exnihilo]

Righto. Good to have that cleared up. I have literally no idea what the official position of the Church of England is on the matter, save that they're not wild about gay bishops. Perhaps they should all try reading Leviticus in Hebrew and see what 18:22 actually says - not to mention vast swathes of ther rest of the bible which people are so wont to quote complete with the moral baggage of 16th and 17th century translators.

(Aaargh - you edited while I was replying!)

[Rob Hearn]

Sorry, I do that a lot

[LonelyPilgrim]

exnihilo,

Leviticus 18:22

King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

New International Version: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

So, what exactly is your point? This seems to be a condemnation of homosexual acts, in standing with the policies of the Church and the CoE. Especially since it's only several verses later that Leviticus makes it clear that to commit these acts is to be reviled by the earth and to have one's soul cut off from the people forever.

Now I do realise that the KJV is crap for translation, and the NIV only slightly better. However, they are the only two paper Bibles I have with me (the KJV is mine for sentimental reasons, not accuracy, and the NIV is courtesy of those annoying Gideons...) and I can't be bothered to find a good translation online just now. If you have a better translation, I'd like to hear it. I'm not trying to attack your point, I'm just confused over what exactly you were wanting to say.

Midget,

No, there is a difference. I suppose what I was trying to say is that good satire is subtle and does not offend people to the point that they are incapable of seeing the message it is trying to make. Whereas, with this show, the target of it's satire was Jerry Springer and similar shows, bringing in Christian figures seems to have only served to induce shock and in now way serves any purpose towards advancing it's legitimate central message. It's incredibly bad taste, and that the BBC justified their airing of this show as 'an important piece of modern culture' is simply lamentable.

Rob, et al,

I do not deny the right of the writers to make this show, nor do I object to it's being aired. Believe me there is worse on TV in the States every night. However, not on PBS, our equivalent to the BBC. Government does not exist to provide entertainment to it's citizens, unless you like the idea of bread and circuses. And no, it's not advocating censorship to say this should not have been shown on the BBC. There are plenty of other channels for it to air on. To claim that not showing this on the BBC is tantamount to censoring it is nothing more than inflammatory polemic. Something that my grandfather would call 'hogswash'.

The furor over this was predictable, and it's something that a government run television station should not be inciting. As the old saying goes, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." However, that does not rob me of the right to say that this was incredibly bad taste, and in no way beneficial to state or society. Therefore, it was a bad idea. My opinion.

Don't worry, I have negative thoughts and harsh words for the wacko's making threats against the BBC as well, and a blasphemy lawsuit is laughable.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[exnihilo]

My point is that no translation is any good as they all carry the translator's assumptions. The Hebrew, transliterated, reads: v-et (and with) zachar (a man) lo' (shall not, applies to the next word) tishkav (lie down - euphemistically have sex) mishk'vey (plural 'beds of') 'ishshah (a woman or wife) toe'vah hee (it is a great crime).

So we have "and with a man you shall not lie in beds of a woman". Even before we go any further we can see that if the usual English translation as a prohibition of homosexuality cannot be correct. If it were, the mishk'vey ishshah "in the beds of women" would not be necesary as the phrase "and with a man you shall not lie" would convey that meaning emphatically. For comparison "you shall not lie with beasts" carries no such qualifier.

The "in the beds of a woman" must be taken as being a conditional circumstance, it is therefore the where that you shall not lie with a man that matters and that is being proscribed. In Biblical times, a woman's bed was a private place for her alone and her husband, and there are rules concerning when even he would be allowed in there - so for him to take his male lover there would be quite unforgivable.

There is strong historical evidence to suggest that young unmarried men were often no strangers to homosexuality. Deuteronomy does also make explicit mention of homosexuality when it forbids the giving of money raised from homosexual prostitution to the Temple (Deuteronomy 23:17) and it is worth stressing here that visiting the prostitute is not the crime (toe'vah), but giving the monies involved to God very much is.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Thank you, exnihilo, that is very very interesting. You'll forgive me if your own argument of translator's bias prevents me from taking yours at 100% face value, but it certainly makes sense and definately casts the translations I'm familiar with into doubt. Certainly something to think about. Especially since I'd heard similar claims in the past but never actually seen a translation.

Would you perchance happen to know which version of the Christian Bible is currently considered the best translation?

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[exnihilo]

Of course, you are correct, that carries my bias, but at least I show you how it was arrived at! The point of confuision is actually that nobody seems to know what it says (the lying part most directly translates as "lay lyings" which is meaningless and must, therefore, be interpreted). However, it isn't until the Septuagint appears on the scene and a Greek translation is made that the word syngenometha appears - and that's what translates as homosexual acts, but there is no such word in Hebrew.

Apologies for all the transliterating, but this doesn't support Greek or Hebrew characters (sort that out at once, Oli!). I think the best translation of the Bible is the one you like best. In terms of accuracy, I don't know, but the King James has always seemed to me to have better flow (even if it is a less literal translation - that is so often the way). I would recommend the new English translation of the Torah published by the OUP as it comes with extensive commentary and explanatory notes on its translation.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Yes, I greatly appreciate your explaining your conclusions. It adds immensely to the credibility of your translation. Another question, Torah = Old Testament (or is roughly equivalent to), yes?

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln

[Midget]

I've often found Leviticus 18 funny as if you read it a certain way it only condemns bi's, after all a through and through homosexual wouldn't lie with a woman in the same way as a man. Only a bisexual would lie with a man in same way as with a woman.

It certainly one interpretation, maybe God likes things black or white.

[novium]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 21:05, 10th Jan 2005:
I generally have in mind the church of england when I talk about church opposition to homosexuality, although the catholic church does share that unfortunate prejudice. The church of england of course refines its prejudice to homosexual sex, rather than just homosexual feelings, but I don't regard that as being much less abhorrent.




the catholic church has nothing against homosexuals.

it is against sex outside of marriage.

[novium]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 23:17, 10th Jan 2005:


I do not deny the right of the writers to make this show, nor do I object to it's being aired. Believe me there is worse on TV in the States every night. However, not on PBS, our equivalent to the BBC.

[hr]---Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.--- Abraham Lincoln


I found the idea of PBS broadcasting something like this very amusing. Can you imagine? "Next on Great Performances..."
Or "Next on Nova: The genetics of marrying your cousins when your parents and aunt and uncle were all identical twins who married each other"



seriously though: I think your comment about bread and circuses was apt

[exnihilo]

I've never really thought of it like that, certainly it could look like that from the KJV. Unfortunately it doesn't work in Hebrew, there's no confusion between a specific man and 'man', so it's the latter (any man) and not a man that isn't allowed to lie with man as with (i.e. in the same manner) woman.

Another interpretation that has been suggested is that the "as with" refers to temple prostitutes in the service of Molech who would dress as women for certain rituals with male worshippers. In this instance "as with" is interpreted as being "in the semblance of". Looked at in that light, it's transvestites God's not up for.

Torah (Hebrew for 'the law') is used interchangeably these days, properly it's only the Pentateuch but it has come to be used for all the books you call the OT.

Technically it should be:

Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, NUmbers and Deuteronomy or Bereishith, Shemoth, Vayiqra, Bamidbar and Devarim in Hebrew)

Nevi'im - Prophets (Joshua to Malakhi)

Kethuvim - Writings (Psalms to Chronicles)

Collectively they should be known as Tanakh which is made up from the initial letters of each section.

Bear in mind, however, that the only 'sacred' part is the Pentateuch and that all the rest, and much else, is glossed and updated and amended over centuries in the Talmud.

PS Starting to feel guilty about answering these questions at length and effectively hijacking BOTH Christianity threads. Sorry!

[exnihilo]

[s]novium wrote on 10:41, 11th Jan 2005:
the catholic church has nothing against homosexuals.

I'm sorry? What??