Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[...]What do you take literally in the Bible, what is legitimate teaching and what is just a fairy tale?

It depends really. The book of Job, for example, is not taken to be literal, but rather a poetic text that attempts to answer the question of theodicy. On the flip side, the book of Joshua is a historical text (sometimes called a 'Deuteronomistic' historical text) that tells the story of the campaigns of the Israelites in central, southern and northern Canaan, the destruction of their enemies, and the division of the land among the Twelve Tribes.

[Bakery Hill]

Sorry, but you and your source have been misled.

What a cop out.

I can't believe you're convincing yourself when you resort to calling someone and their sources 'misled'.

You're two people making opposing value judgments. You're just going to end up calling each other evil repeatedly.

[Socialista Mozambique]

You're two people making opposing value judgments. You're just going to end up calling each other evil repeatedly.

Except I've quoted some sort of evidence, they did not.

[Bakery Hill]

You're two people making opposing value judgments. You're just going to end up calling each other evil repeatedly.

Except I've quoted some sort of evidence, they did not.

This is an issue of morality and so you're making normative claims. "We should be accepting of other people's lifestyles if they cause us no harm" vs "we shouldn't condone homosexuality because it is a sin mandated by God through the Bible" Neither of these things rely on evidence.

[War Gears]

Except I've quoted some sort of evidence, they did not.

This is an issue of morality and so you're making normative claims. "We should be accepting of other people's lifestyles if they cause us no harm" vs "we shouldn't condone homosexuality because it is a sin mandated by God through the Bible" Neither of these things rely on evidence.

Except they're discussing the Bible, a physical book, not just values.

[Alsheb]

Is anyone here actively organized or organizing? Was wondering because I'm genuinely curious whether everyone on Nationstates is an armchair activist or not. I'm actually part of a strongly socdem party myself, me and my buds went in trying to radicalize, but I'm pessimistic about it.

Member of the Workers' Party of Belgium here.

[Bakery Hill]

This is an issue of morality and so you're making normative claims. "We should be accepting of other people's lifestyles if they cause us no harm" vs "we shouldn't condone homosexuality because it is a sin mandated by God through the Bible" Neither of these things rely on evidence.

Except they're discussing the Bible, a physical book, not just values.

I cbf reading all the way back through the chain, but the validity of the Bible notwithstanding it all comes to values in the end.

[Socialista Mozambique]

I cbf reading all the way back through the chain, but the validity of the Bible notwithstanding it all comes to values in the end.

We're discussing whether homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, not whether it's a bad lifestyle or good one.

[Bakery Hill]

I cbf reading all the way back through the chain, but the validity of the Bible notwithstanding it all comes to values in the end.

We're discussing whether homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, not whether it's a bad lifestyle or good one.

The part of the chain I read didn't indicate that, my bad fam.

[Socialista Mozambique]

The part of the chain I read didn't indicate that, my bad fam.

It's all good. Personally, I don't think homosexual attractions or non-sexual relationships are bad. But homosexual... sex is certainly a sin.

[The Snazzylands]

Before this continues, wouldn't this conversation be better suited for the CDT?

It fits pretty well here too, considering Jesus was a socialist. :^)

[Asherahan]

I cbf reading all the way back through the chain, but the validity of the Bible notwithstanding it all comes to values in the end.

We're discussing whether homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, not whether it's a bad lifestyle or good one.

That is an easy question to answer.

Did the Romans practice it? Yes*

Then it definitely is a sin. Christianity was birthed as a counterculture to the mainstream hedonism of the roman pantheon so you can bet your ass anything that the romans did in excess is a sin.

[Asherahan]

Before this continues, wouldn't this conversation be better suited for the CDT?

It fits pretty well here too, considering Jesus was a socialist. :^)

No he wasn't.

He did have elements of proto-communalism but his main stay was that he wanted everyone to become a jew christian.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Before this continues, wouldn't this conversation be better suited for the CDT?

It fits pretty well here too, considering Jesus was a socialist. :^)

Was going to reply seriously, then I saw the ':^)'. That made me chuckle.

[Pilarcraft]

It fits pretty well here too, considering Jesus was a socialist. :^)

No he wasn't.

He did have elements of proto-communalism but his main stay was that he wanted everyone to become a jew christian.

it's really funny how important religious characters are always pretended to be "socialist" or "Capitalist" by some of those ideology's followers.
personally, I see this as an appeal to Authority, and one that is problematic at best. The same happened in Iran (when the Tudeh party and the People's Mujaheddin party started saying Muhammad was a socialist), and in Middle East as a whole (see Baathism and their use of Islam as a 'unifying concept for arabs to gather around', as it were)
And don't even get me started with the US and their mixing of Christ with authoritarianism, racial nationalism, and occasionally capitalism.

[Socialista Mozambique]

it's really funny how important religious characters are always pretended to be "socialist" or "Capitalist" by some of those ideology's followers.
personally, I see this as an appeal to Authority, and one that is problematic at best. The same happened in Iran (when the Tudeh party and the People's Mujaheddin party started saying Muhammad was a socialist), and in Middle East as a whole (see Baathism and their use of Islam as a 'unifying concept for arabs to gather around', as it were)
And don't even get me started with the US and their mixing of Christ with authoritarianism, racial nationalism, and occasionally capitalism.

Ba'athism is secular, and was made by a Christian. Islam was seen as culturally important for Arabs, but ultimately Ba'athists used culture and ethnicity as a unifying force. Although I agree with pretty much everything else.

[Asherahan]

No he wasn't.

He did have elements of proto-communalism but his main stay was that he wanted everyone to become a jew christian.

it's really funny how important religious characters are always pretended to be "socialist" or "Capitalist" by some of those ideology's followers.
personally, I see this as an appeal to Authority, and one that is problematic at best. The same happened in Iran (when the Tudeh party and the People's Mujaheddin party started saying Muhammad was a socialist), and in Middle East as a whole (see Baathism and their use of Islam as a 'unifying concept for arabs to gather around', as it were)
And don't even get me started with the US and their mixing of Christ with authoritarianism, racial nationalism, and occasionally capitalism.

It is my firm belief that it is utterly stupid to attach "modern" concepts to people that have been dead for thousands of years.

The freaking economics reasons of the creation of socialism and capitalism didn't even exist back then. Those people could have exhibited elements of said ideologies but if you think about it they don't.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not a socialist at best he exhibited some ideas of proto-communalism.

[Pilarcraft]

it's really funny how important religious characters are always pretended to be "socialist" or "Capitalist" by some of those ideology's followers.
personally, I see this as an appeal to Authority, and one that is problematic at best. The same happened in Iran (when the Tudeh party and the People's Mujaheddin party started saying Muhammad was a socialist), and in Middle East as a whole (see Baathism and their use of Islam as a 'unifying concept for arabs to gather around', as it were)
And don't even get me started with the US and their mixing of Christ with authoritarianism, racial nationalism, and occasionally capitalism.

It is my firm belief that it is utterly stupid to attach "modern" concepts to people that have been dead for thousands of years.

The freaking economics reasons of the creation of socialism and capitalism didn't even exist back then.

Which is why I find it an Appeal to Authority. It's almost like "see! THIS GUY YOU RESPECT also believed in my ideology! it's the best!" which is not, at least as far as I'm concerned, a valid logical argument.

[Asherahan]

It is my firm belief that it is utterly stupid to attach "modern" concepts to people that have been dead for thousands of years.

The freaking economics reasons of the creation of socialism and capitalism didn't even exist back then.

Which is why I find it an Appeal to Authority. It's almost like "see! THIS GUY YOU RESPECT also believed in my ideology! it's the best!" which is not, at least as far as I'm concerned, a valid logical argument.

The only Authority I tend to respect is fact, violence and sometimes popular will...sometimes.

[The Snazzylands]

The part of the chain I read didn't indicate that, my bad fam.

It's all good. PersonallyI don't think homosexual attractions or non-sexual relationships are bad. But homosexual... sex is certainly a sin.

But according to Matthew 5:28, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," so being attracted to people of the same sex by itself is just as bad as engaging in homosexual intercourse, which is a sin. More than a sin, Leviticus 18:22 describes it as an abomination, and repeats this again in 20:13, which also adds that they are to be be put to death.

We're discussing whether homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, not whether it's a bad lifestyle or good one.

That is an easy question to answer.

Did the Romans practice it? Yes*

Then it definitely is a sin. Christianity was birthed as a counterculture to the mainstream hedonism of the roman pantheon so you can bet your ass anything that the romans did in excess is a sin.

To be fair, the Romans probably had straight sex in excess too.

[Asherahan]

It's all good. PersonallyI don't think homosexual attractions or non-sexual relationships are bad. But homosexual... sex is certainly a sin.

But according to Matthew 5:28, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," so being attracted to people of the same sex by itself is just as bad as engaging in homosexual intercourse, which is a sin. More than a sin, Leviticus 18:22 describes it as an abomination, and repeats this again in 20:13, which also adds that they are to be be put to death.

That is an easy question to answer.

Did the Romans practice it? Yes*

Then it definitely is a sin. Christianity was birthed as a counterculture to the mainstream hedonism of the roman pantheon so you can bet your ass anything that the romans did in excess is a sin.

To be fair, the Romans probably had straight sex in excess too.

And the Church of our lord and savior clamped down on that too if you remember.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[...] which also adds that they are to be be put to death.[...]

I feel obligated to say, considering that this was mentioned, that we (the Catholic Church as it stands) don't consider that as binding any longer.

[The Snazzylands]

But according to Matthew 5:28, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," so being attracted to people of the same sex by itself is just as bad as engaging in homosexual intercourse, which is a sin. More than a sin, Leviticus 18:22 describes it as an abomination, and repeats this again in 20:13, which also adds that they are to be be put to death.


To be fair, the Romans probably had straight sex in excess too.

And the Church of our lord and savior clamped down on that too if you remember.

Or clamped open, if you're familiar with the pear of anguish.

[Asherahan]

And the Church of our lord and savior clamped down on that too if you remember.

Or clamped open, if you're familiar with the pear of anguish.

I know what that is and ask why the fuck did you make me remember what that is? I know why! YOU ARE EVIL

[Mattopilos II]

> Walks into LWDT
> Talking about religion
... remember when leftism was, you know, more anti-religious or at least secular? Pepperidge farm remembers.