RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 7:43:25 PM)

DarkSteven

1. It absolutely endorses the practice of slavery, it even goes so far as to ok the practice of beating ones slave to death as long as it's done slowely. The passages are in there and they are pure fucking evil.

2. Which passages specifically could be applied to employees?



GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 7:59:47 PM)

belle

Welcome to the forums, looks like you've managed to stumble into the most argumentative part of collarme right off the bat. I hope that you'll enjoy yourself and not take things too seriously. I'm going to mention something to help put things in perspective. Rule thinks that unicorns are real.



Kirata -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 10:57:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

It absolutely endorses the practice of slavery...

Slavery has been many things in different times and different cultures, ranging from being bound to obligatory service, without pay but with rights, to its acknowledged more restrictive and objectionable forms.

Slavery in the Bible

the slavery of Judaism was not the cruel system of Greece, Rome, and later nations. The prime thought is service; the servant may render free service, the slave, obligatory, restricted service... We shall notice how slaves could be secured, sold and redeemed; also their rights and their masters' rights

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

it even goes so far as to ok the practice of beating ones slave to death as long as it's done slowely.

There's much worse stuff in the Bible than beating a slave. What's your point?

K.



kalikshama -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 2:46:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: belleunchained

I think this issue depends on whether one believes the Bible is A) the absolute word of God, B) some suggestions for leading a good life, C) a load of bull, or D) a work of literature.

If the answer's C, there's no point in arguing. If it's A, one would be offended that they changed a single blessed word.

Many Christians and others fall into B: the Bible is a set of helpful suggestions. In this case, you'd want these suggestions to be understood and appreciated by the masses. In that case, changes in wording matter less than getting the message and morals across. When I was a child, the use of "he/him" as a default pronoun confused me. The default "he/him" is growing rarer. I have a scientific degree and almost never see this usage in journal articles or textbooks for any field, whether it's medicine, psychology, sociology, or biology. "He/him" is also hard to find in the popular press, news, and novels. You're more likely to find it in documents written 20 or more years ago. So I'd say that if churches want to use a gender-neutral Bible for personal comfort or enhanced understanding (the way many use plain English Bibles), that should be fine under this logic.

Now, if you appreciate the Bible as literature (D), I'd go old-school. The antiquated language makes the words feel special and beautiful, even if I don't agree with them.

-Belle, feminist, agnostic, and sometimes over-thinker



Nice post Belle. Welcome to the forums.



kalikshama -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 3:01:05 AM)

Here's a truly modern version:

Wiki project that aims to translate the entire Bible into Kitty Pidgin English.



GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 5:21:11 AM)

[:D] Yay!!! I can has lolbible.

I'm so quoting from that thing.



tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 5:43:18 AM)

quote:

No, historical scientific documents were not integral to my education. Additionally, while these authors made amazing discoveries, many aspects of their research have been corrected, debunked, or elaborated upon. Sometimes they were just plain wrong, and that's part of the process.


So you are saying you no longer learn about these people. Wow, lets just toss out those men and their writings because, obviously, you have decided they are no longer germain to any education.

Interesting concept. Full of shit, but interesting.



GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 6:19:22 AM)

Tazzy, you're the one who as usual is full of shit. It's not belle's fault that you can't grasp the difference between a science and a history degree and that you can't grasp the difference between learn about and live by.



tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 7:08:36 AM)

I never mentioned the words.. living by.

quote:

historical scientific documents were not integral to my education


Physics, Biology, history... all integral parts to any education, especially a science one.



Elisabella -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 7:44:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
So you are saying you no longer learn about these people. Wow, lets just toss out those men and their writings because, obviously, you have decided they are no longer germain to any education.

Interesting concept. Full of shit, but interesting.


"dont you study translations related to Louis Pasteur, Aristotle, Paracelsus or even Democritus? "

I went to a pretty good Catholic high school and learned about Pasteur in passing ("he invented the pasteurization process") and Aristotle was only mentioned as a "great philosopher" until I got to university level philosophy class.

Paracelsus and Democritus never came up in any of my classes. Aside from Aristotle, I've never read any of the others' work, translated or not.



tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 7:58:06 AM)

Amazingly enough, I learned about all of them through the UNC system... and again in nursing.

And, you do notice I said..."dont you study translations related to Louis Pasteur, Aristotle, Paracelsus or even Democritus?"

In the course of everyone's education, at some point, on some level, we all get an education from science.

to make this claim...

quote:

historical scientific documents were not integral to my education


Is not accurate. Its from those documentations that our understanding of these men, and their works, came from.

Historical documentation is integral to every education.



Elisabella -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 9:22:26 AM)

I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that only two of them were briefly touched on in my general education.



Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 10:00:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Historical documentation is integral to every education.

Very true, but mostly as a context for the more recent research that's since replaced it, rather than as much of a foundation, surely?



Kirata -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 10:25:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

isn't most of the old testament a straight swipe of chunks of the talmud in the first place?

Excuse me? Christianity began as a Jewish sect. They didn't have to "swipe" the Torah, the histories, the major and minor Prophets, the Psalms, or anything. They were Jews.

Of course, then a fellow called Paul suffered a psychotic episode that left him with the maniacal conviction that he knew what Christ taught better than Christ did, and the rest is history. Judaism evolved into the rabbinic Judaism that we know today, and sacrificial Judaism put on pagan robes and became Christianity.

Now, as it happens there was another fellow involved, who reportedly said, "I and my Father are one," and who insisted, twice, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." According to him, as you simply forgive your fellows so also your Father will forgive you. But I can't remember his name.

K.



GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 10:41:02 AM)

Kirata, what's your point? You're not trying to claim that the system of slavery advocated by the bible lacks cruelty are you? Because any system that explains how it's ok to beat another human being to death because they are your property is cruel and objectionable.



tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 11:01:03 AM)

GS, have you seen anyone advocate anything beyond consensual slavery on these boards?




Kirata -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 11:43:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Kirata, what's your point? You're not trying to claim that the system of slavery advocated by the bible lacks cruelty are you?

What the fuck do you mean "trying"? If that was what I wanted to say, I have the language skills and the balls to say it. Why don't you respond to what people actually post for a change, instead of asking questions about these peculiar hallucinations you have?

So unh... if you don't mind, to say that the Bible "endorses" slavery is to what point?

The Bible, as a whole, doesn't endorse anything consistently, except perhaps that one should love God. It is a collection of texts, some written more than a thousand years ago, most more than two thousand, that say all sorts of things, some beautiful, some not. So what? In other news, the sky is still blue. What point are you trying to make?

K.



Rule -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 11:54:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Christianity began as a Jewish sect. They didn't have to "swipe" the Torah, the histories, the major and minor Prophets, the Psalms, or anything. They were Jews.

Quite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Of course, then a fellow called Paul suffered a psychotic episode that left him with the maniacal conviction that he knew what Christ taught better than Christ did, and the rest is history. Judaism evolved into the rabbinic Judaism that we know today, and sacrificial Judaism put on pagan robes and became Christianity.

Paul did not suffer a psychotic episode. He was miraculously touched by the Divine when he walked the road to Damascus. In my opinion because of that he was superior to Jesus - but unfortunately still a Jew.



tweakabelle -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 1:05:29 PM)


quote:

Rule
In my opinion because of that he was superior to Jesus - but unfortunately still a Jew.


Rule, comments such as the one I have bolded above are offensive and completely unnecessary. If you are stupid enough to hold racist prejudices please keep them to yourself. They are your problem. Deal with them.

Please do not insult the readers of these forums with this type of disgusting racist crap again.



Rule -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/21/2011 1:35:29 PM)

Are you claiming that Paul was and did not consider himself to be a Jew? Are you claiming that Paul did not have a mutilated penis? Are you claiming that Paul did not advocate against circumcision?

I dunno much about Paul, having read the Bible only once about 25 years ago, but I do seem to recall that Paul was a homophobic and a misogynist, which are typically Jewish characteristics? Please correct me if I am wrong.

And stop your mud-slinging, please. If there is no difference between Jews and European Christians, the former would have intact penises and not six times more inherited diseases as the latter, nor would they murder adulterous women, nor knife people in the back as described by Josephus. You are not helping the circumcised populations by ignoring their prevalent characteristics. Those can only be dealt with by acknowledging them and discerning their cause and addressing that cause.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875