gmalivuk wrote: Tyndmyr wrote: gmalivuk wrote:
One I have only seen here
suggests that it's a bad translation resulting from a grammatical error in the original, and that the verse only prohibits lying with a man in the bed of a woman
. I don't know enough about Hebrew to evaluate the argument, but it does seem to be the case that the word that gets translated to "as with" in most English versions of Leviticus gets translated to "bed" back in Genesis.
Context dependent translation. Lying in the bed of a woman is *also* a euphemism for sex. The specific English chosen is only to properly convey the meaning.
How is "lying with a man in the bed of a woman" a coherent euphemism for "fucking a man in the ass"?
The euphemism obviously refers to having sex with a woman. Forbidding doing that with a man is...fairly obviously talking about the act, not the mere location in which it takes place.
Shit, it's a little antiquated but "bedding" someone is still recognizably a euphemism for sex.
Also, if we're looking at context, it's definitely talking about sex. It's right between two other sex bans, and the exact same word is used elsewhere to explicitly describe sex. Additionally, it is never used to describe a bed as an object, it's merely describing lying/sleeping. Sure, many of those are ACTUALLY sleeping, but...cmon, this is not referring to naptime. That's what the "as with a woman" is clarifying.
I didn't say Muslims are disproportionately peaceful according to the data, I said they're disproportionately averse to mass shootings, as mass shootings are what leady made a claim about.
In the US, perhaps. Methodology changing, perhaps. However, I believe the general thrust of this argument was discussing overall violence, not a mere methodology change. So, we have examples like this...http://econbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/homegrownterrorism.png
, which, while clearly trying to support a "muslims are not especially violent" narrative, are in fact indicating the opposite.
I note that Fort Hood shooting and stuff also provides a similar methodology, albeit with a different target. And we've certainly seen shootings in France, so even the methodology doesn't seem to be changing all that much, when considering trends elsewhere.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote: Tyndmyr wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:My argument isn't that there are some Muslims who aren't homophobic, and therefore Islam doesn't cause homophobia. Rather, my argument is that it's a conceptual confusion to treat a religion as a monolith or ascribe causal powers to it.
Why is a religion unable to cause anything?
Is it special among power structures and beliefs? Do you believe that NO bad events(or indeed events at all) have been caused by belief in a religion?
Precisely the mistake I have been criticizing is the idea that Islam is "a belief," rather than something constituted by evolving/diverging standards of interpretation, practice, etc. that are compatible with a myriad of different beliefs.
Call it whatever the hell you want, it's still killing people, and it still has a pretty horrible history when it comes to homophobia.
Yes, it may one day go through a similar evolution to Christianity, which has gotten somewhat better about killing people in the streets. Sometimes. In some places.
Greaaaat. That's no reason not to call it like it is. For either religion.
Tyndmyr wrote:None of us give a crap what is "real", theologically. That's utterly irrelevant.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, it is utterly relevant. Lucrece has repeatedly appealed to the idea that Islam really
teaches that people should be homophobic, despite the fact that many Muslims accept no such doctrine. He's practically taken on the mantle of an imam, telling us how the scriptures ought to be interpreted by any Real Boy Quran-thumping Muslim.
Once you do away with the idea that there's One True Way of interpreting the Quran, or One True Teaching of Islam on homosexuality, this business about Islam being "overridden" by some un-Islamic view on homosexuality is rightly seen as nonsense.
Your use of the word "many" boils down to a special pleading for avoiding actual statistics.
It is possible, I suppose, that someone might also be in the KKK without themselves being a racist, but I shall lose no sleep over calling the organization racist. When describing vast communities of people, we are necessarily speaking in statistics. Not every member of the faith may be homophobic, but if the vast majority are, the faith still has a problem.
Tyndmyr wrote:Old timey marriage required consummation. That whole "one flesh" bit. And was big on marriage involving cranking out the kids.
Not going to get into the homophobic foundations in religion again, but what you wrote is absolutely false and unfounded in Judaism. Lack of sex can be justifiable reason for a divorce in Judaism. Also, having sex is one way to claim marriage (although as mentioned, the specific descriptions are usually "lying with"). However, a marriage ceremony doesn't require consummation at any point, nor is it a required or mandatory part of married Jewish life.
Please. What you just said supports my claim. Even with your modern viewpoint on the religion, it's *still* pretty biased towards "you marry a woman, you have sex and produce babies, who do the same".
You're extrapolating tolerance for gay marriage without ANY explicit text for it, or even mentioning it, because it's what you wish to believe. Where's the actual evidence? Do you have historical evidence that gay marriage was widely available in the bible? If it was, why is it never, ever mentioned? Why does every mention of marriage appear to assume a man and a woman?
What reasonable interpretation is there that men were allowed to marry one another, rather than the good ol' fashioned biblical interpretation of marriage existing between a man and his wives, with a few concubines and slaves on the side?
morriswalters wrote:I consider murder as a solution to any problem a defect of intellect, or crazy. I don't care what you call it. And being homophobic doesn't mean that you are murderous. Most people are constrained socially and never commit murder, or want to. The switch that should shunt the impulse to the side evidently doesn't work, or didn't in his case.
Murder is sort of different from mass murder. Mass murder of this sort is highly associated with some sort of basic instability. This isn't really the same as being mentally deficient. Someone can definitely have some sort of mental limitations without being unstable and dangerous in this fashion. I think maybe it's a language thing, where you're trying to express the instability thread that wends through these stories, and it's being read differently?
There's definitely a thread there, I think. Just...crazy isn't adequately precise. We end up using that word for many things, so it can be way too unclear for this.