Why Bishop Nizar-Ali is an idiot, #32,472

[Kai]

damn. fuck the bible and fuck Paul.

[Requia ☣]

damn. fuck the bible and fuck Paul.

TITCM

Preferably, use a big purple strapon to do it.

[Cain]

The Marxist philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek actually has quite a good defence of Paul, his social views aside.

Here we go:

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200407/?read=interview_zizek

Today, spirituality is fashionable. Either some pagan spirituality of tolerance, feminine principle, holistic approach against phallocentric Western imperialist logic or, within the Western tradition, we have a certain kind of rehabilitation of Judaism, respect for otherness, and so on. Or you are allowed to do Christianity, but you must do a couple of things which are permitted. One is to be for these repressed traditions, the early Gnostic gospels or some mystical sects where a different nonhegemonic/patriarchal line was discernible. Or you return to the original Christ, which is against St. Paul. The idea is that St. Paul was really bad, he changed Christianity into this patriarchal state, but Jesus, himself, was something different.

What I like is to see the emancipatory potential in institutionalized Christianity. Of course, I don't mean state religion, but I mean the moment of St. Paul. I find a couple of things in it. The idea of the Gospel, or good news, was a totally different logic of emancipation, of justice, of freedom. For example, within a pagan attitude, injustice means a disturbance of the natural order. In ancient Hinduism, or even with Plato, justice was defined in what today we would call almost fascistic terms, each in his or her place in a just order. Man is the benevolent father of the family, women do their job taking care of the family, worker does his work and so on. Each at his post; then injustice means this hubris when one of the elements wants to be born, i.e. instead of in a paternal way, taking care of his population, the king just thinks about his power and how to exploit it. And then in a violent way, balance should be reestablished, or to put it in more abstract cosmological terms, you have cosmic principles like yin and yang. Again, it is the imbalance that needs to establish organic unities. Connected with this is the idea of justice as paying the price as the preexisting established order is balanced.

But the message that the Gospel sends is precisely the radical abandonment of this idea of some kind of natural balance; the idea of Gospels and the part of sins is that freedom is zero. We begin from the zero point, which is at least originally the point of radical equality. Look at what St. Paul is writing and the metaphors he used. It is messianic, the end of time, differences are suspended. It's a totally different world whose formal structure is that of radical revolution. Even in ancient Greece, you don't find that—this idea that the world can be turned on its head, that we are not irreducibly bound by the chains of our past. The past can be erased; we can start from the zero point and establish radical justice, so this logic is basically the logic of emancipation. Which is again why I find any flirting with so-called new-age spiritualities extremely dangerous. It is good to know the other side of the story, at least, when you speak about Buddhism and all of these spiritualities. I am sorry, but Nazis did it all. For Hitler, the Bhagavad Gita was a sacred book; he carried it in his pocket all the time. In Nazi Germany there were three institutes for Tibetan studies and five for the study of different sects of Buddhism.

So despite the damage he has done, perhaps he wasn't a complete jerk.

[Kai]

Maybe.



The first sentence sounds like something out of MW that we might put in our news.

[Requia ☣]

One is to be for these repressed traditions, the early Gnostic gospels or some mystical sects where a different nonhegemonic/patriarchal line was discernible.

I think he's attacking my religion here.  I'll refrain from commenting on anything else he says since I don't think I can give him a fair hearing after that.

[Thurnez Isa]

Now In regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman." but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband... A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body.. This is by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am... Now to the unmarried and to the widows I say: It is good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband - if she does she must either remain single or come reconciled to her husband... To the rest I say(not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy...
If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman if she marries... I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, he he may please his wife, and he is divided...
If anyone things he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical movement has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who strands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and as made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing better. So than, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

Corinthians 7 - Marriage and Virginity

Ok if Paul was the great teacher that he's said to be then let them follow this commandment on marriage.

Yes some apologists say he was talking about evangelism, but that is putting words into the text that ain't there. He is specifically talking to Christians on marriage and sexuality, and by my reading he is saying, "Listen there's a lot of you condemning marriage. It's not a sin, and if you feel your passions will lead to sin its a good alternative. But those who do not marry, or do not give their daughters in marriage will do better, because they are not concerned with earthly matters but spiritual.
I say let them follow this as well.

My two things are 1) most Christians actually don't follow the bible but follow some interpretation of it, ie. putting words into the text that aren't there
2) Most never read from cover to cover, instead just bits of it to keep their interpretation coherent
3) and I said this in IRC when I was reading it, Why are Christians so taken by this book if they are going to import whatever they want into the actual text?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Now In regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman." but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband... A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body.. This is by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am... Now to the unmarried and to the widows I say: It is good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband - if she does she must either remain single or come reconciled to her husband... To the rest I say(not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy...
If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman if she marries... I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, he he may please his wife, and he is divided...
If anyone things he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical movement has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. The one who strands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and as made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing better. So than, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

Corinthians 7 - Marriage and Virginity

Ok if Paul was the great teacher that he's said to be then let them follow this commandment on marriage.

Yes some apologists say he was talking about evangelism, but that is putting words into the text that ain't there. He is specifically talking to Christians on marriage and sexuality, and by my reading he is saying, "Listen there's a lot of you condemning marriage. It's not a sin, and if you feel your passions will lead to sin its a good alternative. But those who do not marry, or do not give their daughters in marriage will do better, because they are not concerned with earthly matters but spiritual.
I say let them follow this as well.

My two things are 1) most Christians actually don't follow the bible but follow some interpretation of it, ie. putting words into the text that aren't there
2) Most never read from cover to cover, instead just bits of it to keep their interpretation coherent
3) and I said this in IRC when I was reading it, Why are Christians so taken by this book if they are going to import whatever they want into the actual text?

[BabylonHoruv]

Who mentioned censoring him?

I'm merely pointing out, with the help of the press, that he's a bigot.

Again.

Only if you also accept that the translation is accurate and that the cultural context at the time of the writing is irrelevant.

If you believe that God never changes, the cultural context is irrelevant. As for the translation I have seen an alternate explanation proposed, but it's pretty iffy at best. It seems reasonable to conclude (based on the society as we know it) that homosexuality, just like any other sort of 'fornication' was a capitol offense for people that worshipped YHVH. Of course, the main error I find in the thinking of Christians... is that the Bible doesn't mark homosexuality as worse than any other sort of fornication... pretty much any cock play outside of the marriage bed was a big no-no.

Cognitive Dissonance, ITR (In This Religion)

Also any sort of sexual activity which could not lead to childbirth was sodomy.