Re: virus: Why religious?
Thu, 7 Nov 96 09:49:00 GMT


> > [this was me:]
> > Let me cite an example to support what I have said. Some of you might have
> > heard of two famous cities: Sodom, and Gommorah (sp?). Both of these
> > cities were supposedly destroyed by the wrath of God, because they refused
> > to follow his moral code. Now in my books, morality is something that an
> > individual can do what he likes with, because then maximum freedom for the
> > maximum number can be attained. Wiping the people out who make a stand for
> > their freedom is slightly reminiscent of various Fascist and Communist
> > dictatorships which litter this world's history.
> [this was Ken:]
> I wouldn't call what Sodom and Gomorrah were doing "maximizing freedom".
> For mythological/mythohistorical purposes, keep in mind that Abraham
> "plea-bargained" God down to "ten righteous men is sufficient to spare
> these cities." And the definition of "righteous" must be pretty weak
> here, since Lot was "righteous" according to whoever wrote Peter I or II [Lot
> was willing to offer his daughter for (?)rape(?) to keep the crowd at
> his door off his guests....] I will not speculate on how forceful the
> attempt by the crowd to enter against Lot's will was. It DIDN'T stop
> after the crowd was blinded.

So what you're saying is that the Bible has a pretty fucked-up idea of what
is righteous? Yep, I'll agree with that. My point about the two cities is
that they were doing stuff which God disagreed with, and that to save the cities
from destruction, these 10 righteous men must be found, but that is righteous
by definition be God. Therefore, it was necessary to find 10 people who were
followers of God to prevent him wiping everyone out! Due to the nature of the
cities, this was not possible. And I'd hardly call ending the lives of all these
people a "righteous" act anyway. Did that make sense, it felt as though I
were rambling incoherently!

> The following 3 paragraphs are invoking the Old Testament Law. There are
> MAJOR technicalities which I would rather discuss after the 3 paragraphs.
> > Another example, which I have posted before is that the Bible also advocates
> > the putting to death of Homosexuals. Personally, I'm not gay, but a couple of
> > my friends are, and strangely, they're not Christians. I know that the
> > modern Christian faith would not support such actions now, but the fact
> > remains that it was still stated in the Bible as the "word of God"!
> >
> > How about this one: Despite the fact that I don't agree with most religions,
> > I will not prevent anyone believing something, because it is their own
> > free will to believe what they want. Therefore, I would say that preventing
> > someone from believing in something is a curtailment of their freedom!
> > So perhaps saying that any man who has a genital disfigurement may not
> > join the followers of Christianity is pretty unfree as far as I can see.
> > That's in the Bible too by the way, and admittedly probably not practiced
> > today - the point is though, it's still there.
> >
> > Here's a good one: Did you know that if a woman who is having her period
> > sits on any of your furniture, then you have to take it out and burn it?
> > That, I believe, is in Leviticus somewhere, it might be chapter 13, but
> > I can't remember.
> Chapter 15 is even more fun: if the act of sex you just had COULD result
> in children, the participants are automatically unclean!
> =====
> Another way of thinking about Old and New Testaments is Old and New
> *Covenants*. While the New Testament imports many definitions from the
> Old Testament, it cannot be presumed that the actual rules are copied
> verbatim.
> [Flopping into Emotionally Fry UltraConservative Christian Mode]
> For instance, Mark 7:15 explicitly contradicts all of the rules about
> clean/unclean foods. [Whether such things exist is fairly basic!] This
> is augmented somewhere in Acts, and Galatians.
> Another major kicker: Barring details about punctuation and 1980+
> translations that don't follow the known Greek, it is demonstratable from
> the attributed-to-Paul NT [I Cor 6:12, 10:23; Romans 14:somewhere after 14]
> that no physical object has the primitive trait 'sinful'. This
> contradicts oh-how-many OT references?

One problem about this is that the Bible has been translated and re-translated,
and modernised, and fuck-knows what else that it's original meaning may
well have been lost. I know this sounds like I'm shooting my own arguments in
the foot, but it's a fact that cannot be denied.

> In general, it is pointless to claim that Christianity directly imports
> every single civil and/or religious law documented in the Pentateuch.
> The continual attempts to do so is censured by the major branches of the
> Church, and is one of the main reasons for the existence of Galatians.
> I *do* understand Drakir's point about freedom, at least on short-term
> scales. He isn't going far enough!

How far do I have to go?

> In general, the moral code specified in the OT is not meant to be
> possible to keep.

Then if we're all going to Hell, why not all make pacts with the Devil. At
least then we might get a lighter sentence :)

Richard Jones
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."