Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

[Raasyvibe]

^^ That looks like a really good post, but I've way too much of a headache to grasp it, at all. Hopefully someone more sensible with their drug intake will have something to say on it.

They're all much, much closer to the source than Part I (or certainly the majority of it) is though so I was actually (semi-)agreeing with you.

Good. We'll leave it at that.

If you look at the Old Testament, or more accurately the stuff Jews were probably right about, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were supposed to be written by Moses some where between 16000-12000BC. Even then it wasn't written down for another 5000-10000 years yet. They were nothing more than stories told around a desert campfire to scare the little African kids to go to sleep. We still can't get an accurate copy of the Stonehenge plans so I doubt very much God's message hasn't been misinterpreted many times before King James got busy.

Psychiatry can't even explain homosexuals so they get lumped in with the religious quacks and doomsday preppers for me.

There is some truth in what you say - over time, copies and translations - the purportation of "God's word" has got a little mixed up in places. But your perception that it's "nothing more than stories told around a desert campfire to scare the little African kids to go to sleep" is completely off; totally misrepresents the truth in a typical ignorant, partial, religious opposing way.

---

Actually, homosexuality is pretty easy to explain. We're gregarious predators with a long lifespan, and DNA isn't the sole means of heredity. There is more to raising the next generation of humans than mere eggs and sperm. Which makes homosexuality a far less deleterious trait than one might naïvely expect if they thought it was all about sex: Raising the next generation involves plenty of work which being gay doesn't stop anyone from doing.

Psychiatry can't even explain homosexuals so they get lumped in with the religious quacks and doomsday preppers for me

So the thread was naked kiddies, SHM's infractions, weasels, Bible study and now the psychology of gays?

Er, what? How am I changing my story? The point I'm making is that documenting that stage of your child's development and allowing people to see it is in no way perverse. Whether it's a small number of people or a large number of people makes no difference. How is this ever going to harm the child in question?

No that wasn't your point. You've progressed it now to make it more fitting. Anyway, sorry for being a cunt last night. Night off, 2am, port time, you know the score.




Right that's it it, im done. taking a break from BL and from drinking. Going to get my Zen back and get into a better state of being to admonish you all.


Enjoy your chat on the psychology of homosexuality and SHM's latest infraction.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

I never realised port could deposit that much sand in a vagina.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Port is a girly drink though

 

[Allein]

Port is a girly drink though

I always view it as more 'Dickension' along with narrow mindedness, rickets, the work house and child labor.

This is a Stoat, not a weasel BTW

 

[One Thousand Words]

We had to Pass the Port during our Officers Dinner at school. Terrible tradition that was only made worse by a terrible drop.

 

[Shambles]

Port is a girly drink though

Not when you use vodka as a mixer it ain't

Incidentally, and now we've gotten to the traditional EADD All Threads Are Gibberings in Disguise stage, I was actually meaning there are complete copies of New Testament books in the Dead Sea Scrolls and one or two other properly Ye Olde libraries discovered. Old Testament stuff I wouldn't argue the toss over cos is clearly very old (by common ways of seeing history anyway - certainly not in the bigger picture but that really would be a digression) and was oral history/mythology/belief for a very long time indeed before ever being written down so I can't really see there being any argument for those being any form of "literal word" of any god. The New Testament writings don't claim to be literal words of anybody as far as I'm aware - they're acknowledged to be written by people after the "fact" so presumably self-accept that they cannot be anything other than interpretations by a number of people in a number of places at a number of times of various events which may or may not have happened which agree somewhat in places and disagree completely in other places just as you'd expect would be the case.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Don't let the Westboro a Baptist church hear such blasphemy. It states very clearly how we should treat our fellow man. Well at least the white folk. Them darkies and fags should be treated somewhat different.

 

[Shambles]

It could be argued they have a point (in their own terms anyway). One of many problems with religious texts taken as.. erm... gospel is that they tend to be completely contradictory and strongly reflect the time and culture they come from. Much like things written by people at particular times in particular places with particular agendas oddly enough. Bible = Big Book of Multiple Choice as they say.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Let's not forget large swaths of text was abandoned or completely rewritten throughout history. During the dark ages when written language was Latin and completely controlled by the church, successive popes would edit the few known copies to suit political agendas. At the time they also had wives and homosexual orgies, but what goes on behind closed doors is beyond the reach of The Lord I have heard.

 

[Shambles]

If memory serves there are around 30000 known changes from the earliest extant texts to current versions. The counterrargument generally goes that these are mostly minor errors - the odd word mistranslated here and there - but that does seem rather clumsy if you're also claiming it to be The Unchanging Word of a deity. Some of the alterations are also quite major - that whole bit about handling snakes is known to have been made-up in mediaeval times but apparently that news is still yet to make it over to certain parts of America. One of the gospels got a complete new ending involving a resurrection which does rather alter the story quite fundamentally for some too.

And I can only presume that being the Vicar of Christ on Earth means that you can do as you damn well please given you're essentially a supply deity only here standing in for a real one whilst they're off doing other stuff.

 

[spudgun]

At the time they also had wives and homosexual orgies, but what goes on behind closed doors is beyond the reach of The Lord I have heard.

The vow of celibacy is a relatively recent thing in Catholicism (only a few hundred years old) - they introduced it as a cost saving measure so the vatican wouldn't have to spend so much supporting the families of priests.

 

[One Thousand Words]

The earliest known complete copy of the current bible is from 900 AD. Up until then there were countless texts and chapters that were used as religious teachings, many did not make the final cut. Who decided on the final make up, I don't know, but it's safe to say the world would be a different place today if at least one chapter of the bible was written by a Nun. Or a lesbian nun.

Imagine 10 000 yr from now how our religious text will evolve. It's not to great a stretch to believe that large tracts of the US constitution would be added and their founding fathers considered prophets of Yeezuz.

And we haven't even discussed those extra chapters john smith so kindly translated added for the Book of Mormon

 

[Shambles]

And we haven't even discussed those extra chapters john smith so kindly translated added for the Book of Mormon

The ones that from descriptions sounded quite remarkably like a set of metal printing blocks that had been stolen from the printers that he worked at shortly before he discovered, translated then lost them you mean? You couldn't make it up... or could you

I do think that it's perhaps not entirely fair to compare but do take the point. I suspect the actual Biblical writings weren't quite so cynically produced (although I bet even Mr Smith made shit up with the best of intentions). I think of them (and all religious texts and mythologies (including oral histories)) as being a whole mixture of things. Part philosophical ponderings (often dressed up as "answers" cos people can be prone to arrogance and fear of unknowns - let alone unknowables) part actual history (albeit mangled by time and mythification - often mistranslation and misremeberings too no doubt) partly pure myth and fable used to pass down culture and tradition in times where literacy was relatively uncommon so memorable stories worked best. I think it's mostly once the Romans took over that it all became far more corporate and managed, used to abuse and create conformity. The Romans were quite big on such things by all accounts.

 

[One Thousand Words]

And the Egyptians weren't?

 

[Shambles]

They were but they weren't really much of a power by the time Christianity got off the ground. I know they get a few mentions in the Old Testament but they're kinda shaky historically as even Israeli archaelogists mostly agree there was no Exodus - certainly not anything like described in the book of the same name anyway. No (mass) exodus, no real evidence for widespread enslavement of Hebrews by Egyptians (very big on record keeping and seems convenient if every record pertaining to enslavement of the Jewish people just happens to be lost despite there being plenty other contemporaneous records with no mention of any of the things described in that particular aspect of Biblical text). That doesn't leave much left to hang the rest on in terms of historical accuracy so seems more likely to be mythologised history similar to many other cultures of that time in many ways - part actual history garbled over centuries of being passed down, part epic story to big up your own particular culture, part politics of the time when it was finally written down, part fairy story cos they're so memorable and handy for wrapping cultural meanings, morals and traditions in same as we still do today.

 

[One Thousand Words]

The Aztecs might argue the Spanish were quite militant in their religious views also

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Shambles]

(apologises in advance to anybody else who recently rewatched old episodes of qi)

They did actually cos the Spanish Inquisition gave a month's notice before arriving to inquisit folk.

OTW: It's when religion becomes militant that it becomes a problem and is surely why it has such a bad name amongst civilised folk these days. For a thing that supposedly enlightens folk it doesn't half turn out some unspeakable cuntery amongst its adherents - particularly at the more inflexible end of the religious spectrum.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Genuine question. Where's the flexible end of the religious spectrum then?

 

[Allein]

Genuine question. Where's the flexible end of the religious spectrum then?

Just to the right of ultraviolet ?