GOP Failure Watch Part III

True enough, they said that the poor and sick were leeches on society, and that those 47% would never support Christianity.

 

Not according to a pretty large number of our politicians...

 

Imagine how much more intelligent our political conversations would sound if that weren't true.

 

I'm guessing that with all those Roman soldiers running around, punching the brown eye wasn't all that uncommon.

 

Good point.

Why do you always pop up whenever the conversation takes a buttsechsian turn?

 

Now now, I remember Yank writing rather vividly about what he would do to Sasha Grey, in front of grade-school students, and I'm pretty sure he was aiming elsewhere there.

 

IIRC, Jesus condemns homosexual behavior one time. Paul is more outspoken.

I wrote "behavior" very deliberately. My understanding is that through the first 6000 or so years of recorded human history, "homosexual" and all its translations in Western* languages was strictly an adjective. It described sexual acts. It was NOT a noun. Back then, you wouldn't say a person was a homosexual. It would be like describing the concept of "consent of the governed." The idea hadn't been invented yet. Instead, you'd say a person engaged in homosexual sex. (The fact that even now, it's not uncommon for a culture to consider the "top" as hetero with only the "bottom" being gay emphasizes that the whole question of sexual identity is very, ahem, fluid.)

I may have mentioned this, but I was on the council at my church when my denomination was discussing this, and so I had to vote on some resolutions. I did some research. The "pro-gay" interpretation aligns with what I wrote above, with the addendum that the biblical condemnations were of homosexual acts that took place during pagan rituals, that were promiscuous. The biblical story of Jesus healing the servant of a centurion is often interpreted as a quasi-blessing of a gay union, since the language used implies that the centurion and the other man were living together as partners.

*I have no clue if this is also true for India or China or anywhere else. I'm just talking about that line of civilizations that gets taught in high school history classes as Western Civ.

 

I was both a Boy Scout and Catholic educated.

And they'd have been better for it. I can't remember, did my post involve Icy Hot and an enema full of Cloraseptic?

 

Seeing is believing!

I received a rather vivid sex education course as a 12 year old. The course included video not only of heterosexual intercoruse, but also two guys in action. And what harm did that do me? I mean it's not as if ... ummm, well, OK. Point taken.

 

You should've complained to the school board about the neglect of girl-on-girl coverage in the curriculum.

 

They were confusing poor John enough already. You want him wondering if he was a lesbian too?

 

Had to wait until 18 for that.

Church, not school. Can't see any school showing those films to 12 year olds.

 

On"fiscal conservatism" -

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fiscal-conservatives--four-tricks-by-jeffrey-frankel

I actually care about the deficit, one of the few Americans who does. That is a big reason why I oppose Romney and his party.

 

I'd never been to that website. That is some pretty high quality thinking there, based on some quick skimming.

 

America's CEOs confirm my point - Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. An organization of CEOs yesterday called on Washington to address the budget deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. The group said that both are necessary to address the deficit, that one alone will not do.

President Obama is willing to do both. Republicans are not. They've all pledged away tax increases to Grover Norquist.

If you care about the budget deficit, don't vote Republican.

 

Well, yeah, but...

 

I think I missed that joke but I have no doubt it's a good one.

 

Colin Powell endorses Obama for a second term


Thats not the Colin Powell we knew. Wait, it is. Damn.

 

Well, the fellas got a magnificent beard and they're usually associated with...

Oh, nvm. You've gone and spoiled it now

Edit: Not sure why I think it's a joke... I've got a beard too, albeit not as good as that guy.

 

You're a wizard, Maximus.

 

Been called a few things in my time but not that, tbh

 

I don't think the younger generation of men realize that women have hair anywhere but on their heads.

 

Ben Stein went on Fox & friends and survived the vapidity storm and managed to stymie the collective 5th grade intellect of the hosts by saying we have to raise taxes

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-stein-stuns-fox-friends-all-due-respect-to-fox-but-taxes-are-too-low/

 

Last time Mr. Stein will be appearing on Fox I'd reckon.

Not a big fan, but props to him for standing up to the stupid.

 

You must have a different Bible than the original. In which passage is Jesus quoted as denouncing gays? You see, this is why competent and honest translation matters so greatly with the Bible. The fact is that in Corinthians, Timothy and Romans, Paul never says "homosexuals".

Ironically, the KJV (which is otherwise not terribly good as a translation), gets this more accurately than modern versions: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Leaving aside that the vast majority of "Christian" Americans are technically "fornicators" (and I say that only on the off chance that there's anyone left today who has actually never had sex outside of marriage), have most likely been drunk far more than once, and even "reviled" something, the problem with the translation you quoted is that it doesn't say "men who have sex with men" let alone "homosexuals". Since the KJV version is more accurate, I'll go with it to show why your translation is a really misleading translation.

So, what do "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" mean, then? The original Greek texts describe the two behaviors as "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" respectively. Although these are often translated by modern Bibles as "men who have sex with men" or "homosexuals", this is not what Saul meant. Say what you like about Saul (and there's plenty to say), the guy was no mealy-mouthed, namby pamby shrinking violent when it came to defining and denouncing behavior he did not like. Saul was fluent in Greek. It was likely his first language. If he'd meant "homosexual", there are more than one word he'd have used, the most obvious candidate being the Greek word "paiderasste" as that was the standard term for male homosexuals in Paul's day.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. Used on people, it denoted "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability, who do not work for the good of the whole. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. John Wesley, for example, defined "malakoi" as those "who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply to Saul's time. If you look at the context in which Saul wrote, it's obvious that the word "effeminate" is simply a mistranslation. The best translation is "shirker" or "backslider".

The translation you quoted don't have any better luck with "arsenokoitai" either. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in 1Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring strictly to "male temple prostitutes" who engaged in ritual sex in pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Scholars now think that it also means male prostitutes with female customers, not an uncommon practice in the Roman empire. Other writings of the period (Sibylline Oracles, Acts of John, Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum) use the term to mean "sex for money" but not necessarily gay sex. Finally, we have lots of ancient Greek homoerotic literature that survived and none of it contains the word aresenokoitai. The best translation is therefore still "temple prostitute" or maybe "pimp".

So, when you go back to the original, you see "shirkers" and "pimps" rather than "men who have sex with men" or "homosexuals".

The other major citing from haters is Romans 1:26-27. The problem here is one of deliberately reading out of context. When you read it from 1:18 on continuously, it is obvious that those with "unnatural passions" are not sexual deviants but infidels who worship gods other than Yahweh.

As a postscript, from Martin Luther's day until recently, "abusers of themselves with mankind" was universally taken to mean "masturbators", not gays. After all, no good Christians would dare disobey they Lord by committing the "sin of Onan" and thus we should actively and legally discriminate against anyone who whacks off just like we currently discriminate against gays. Right? And "swindlers" would eliminate most CEOs and politicians from heaven. But I digress...

Sadly for accurate translations of the Bible, by the 20th century, beating the bishop had become a more generally accepted behavior. So rather than alienate modern readers who overwhelmingly whack off, new English-language translations abandoned references to "masturbators" and switched the attack to "homosexuals". It's dishonest and misleading but it's also become so commonplace because people know so little about the religion they profess to espouse.