Drag performance resembling Last Supper at Olympic opening ceremony rankles conservatives
While some fans loved this unabashed display of French camp and kitsch, others — particularly those who espouse conservative or Christian beliefs — were not happy with it.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm a Christian for 13 years, I see this all the time Nowadays and it actually fortifies my beliefs even more, because our bible and particularly our Jesus, said would happen in the last days before he returns. If only you all had faith you could appreciate the magnitude of what's to come, heaven isn't a place in the sky, it's another world ruled by aliens thar have been around long enough to create us and this entire universe.
Hilarious comment from an article I read. Meanwhile,I thought Da Vinci was excommunicated.
I just wish these people had reading comprehension beyond a third grader so they could actually read that awful book (the Bible)
Even in you take everything in it at face value, it's not even a good story (overall), and all of the little stories are shit.
Christians need to: first, read the Bible, and the second, read a few pieces of classic literature. Your book is shit, most of it doesn't even make sense
There's actually a lot of interesting stuff in the text when you learn how to spot it between the lines of the revisionism. Both OT and NT.
The problem is you basically only have two camps.
One, that thinks the text as it exists today represents an unadulterated divine transmission.
And the other, that thinks anything to do with it is worthless nonsense.
So there's very few people actually looking at it in between those two extremes, with most engaged with the material clustering around the former, or at very least with an anchoring and survivorship bias around the former cluster.
We're left with audiences for the text that on both sides would be incredulous at the idea that, say, the Exodus narrative was in part an appropriation of the LBA/Early Iron Age sea peoples history when they were forcibly relocated into cohabitation with the Israelites, or say, that Jesus was taking about evolution with the sower parable.
Even though both those things have very compelling cases that can be made given emerging available evidence, the discussion is all about the acceptance or wholesale rejection of canon with little to no discussion of what actually exists in the absence of the BS.
It's most disappointing for the latter group though. While I kind of get the way the trauma of proselytizing and indoctrination turns minds off to anything connected with the material, it's very frustrating that what should be the healthy opposition cedes so many claims of authenticity to the faithfully blind.
I strongly, vehemently disagree. I could probably count the number of "good" stories. I.e.: actually make sense, aren't just complete idiocy, aren't in the Old Testament because everything that happens in that part is somehow simultaneously horrific, disgusting, incestuous, genocidal... And yet still so goddamn fucking boring... I can count those ones on one hand.
It's almost entirely complete nonsense. Even the parts that are meant to be historical records "x beget y blah blah" are bullshit. Dozens of pages of alleged family trees, and none of it adds up. Oh yeah and people lived well into their mid -100s because why not. What the fuck is that?
The entity that we're meant to want to worship after reading is described with such petty human emotions as jealously and rage. He is responsible for numerous genocides, child murder (large and small scale). The book of Job is an awful story of ruining the life of his most loyal follower (including murdering his family) just to prove to the devil that he'd remain faithful. So fucking stupid. Noah's Ark has to be one of the most nonsensical stories ever and so many fucking people think it's literally true.
Meanwhile, the "adversary," the ultimate evil killed how many in the Bible again? What did he do other then just tell Eve that she actually could eat a piece of fruit from a tree if she wanted (the fact that the forbidden fruit would allow humans to discern good from evil isn't sketchy at all). Who's the bad guy again?
And these are the "interesting" parts. The other 95% is just garbage.
And no, Jesus isn't any better. Unless you're cool with slavery I guess...
Actually, the book of Job is nearly verbatim a combination of the opening of the Canaanite A Tale of Aqhat where Anat petitions El to kill the son of Danel as the lead in to a near copy of the dialogue on suffering of the Babylonian Theodicy. With what appears a sloppy edit to make it monotheistic later on, changing Anat from being a different god to simply 'adversary' and spawning fanfiction for millennia.
Understanding the context helps a lot in meaningful analysis.
Without the context, yeah, a lot can go over your head and it just seem pointless.
Edit: And Noah's ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Edit 2: And the eating of the fruit by the first two people was probably adapted from the Phonecian creation myth around the first man and woman with the woman discovering the technology of eating fruit from the trees.
The interesting context, I appreciate. The subtle condescension, not so much... I'm well aware that Christianity was cobbled together like Frankenstein's Monster using various parts of existing religions and pagan traditions. I assure you that these stories have not gone over my head.
You seem to think that the main issues I have with these stories are: the questions of historical veracity; or whether they were original stories. It's really not. Sure, for stories like Noah's Ark, where we know for certain it didn't happen.
Or how we can say with near-certainty that Moses never parted the Red Sea, and crushed "Pharaoh's'" army (side note: it's funny to me how they always just call them that in the Bible. Just, "Pharaoh". And I guess we're supposed to pretend that we don't know they had names and histories known to us?).
How do we know? Because their remains would be all over the bottom of the sea. Also, I'm pretty sure that Egypt, during the times when Pharaohs ruled, was known for keeping pretty good records. No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there's no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
Anyway, I digress...
And Noah's ark was likely originally a famine story before being turned into an adaptation of the Babylonian flood mythos.
Throwing these claims out with zero sources or backup? Like c'mon guy (or gal, etc.) that's quite the stretch. Let's see the the sources.
I guess all of this was to say that I find the meanings and lessons of these stories to be downright appalling. Whether or not Job was a real bloke isn't really the point.
No historical record that the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt even exists. In fact, there's no record of these Hebrew slaves, period.
As I said in my earlier comment, this narrative was probably appropriated from the forced relocation of the sea peoples into the southern Levant. The Egyptians do have extensive records of conflict with them, who they note in that conflict were without foreskins (as opposed to the partial circumcision more common at the time), and there's an emerging picture of Aegean cohabitation with the Israelites in the early Iron Age along with Anatolian trade with an area where the Denyen were talking about their founding leader Mopsus.
Here's the source for the Noah's Ark as originally a famine narrative: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dershowitz/publications/man-land-unearthing-original-noah
You're welcome to find the material as you like, but I'm telling you that there's a lot more value to careful analysis of it within it's broader context than you (and many others) seem to think. Whether you find that stance condescending or not.
Why did you just focus in on that one part when I literally say that I don't really care about that? My issue isn't that the stories are borrowed or stolen. Read the rest of my comment maybe.
I have read the Bible and cried because of how beautiful it is but okay
The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”
Beautiful 🥲
That's like looking at a beautiful art piece and focusing on the tiny stain from the time when it was being painted that someone looking at it spilled coffee on it 🤣
Except that piece of art isn't guiding millions of people's beliefs. What a dumb statement.
And what if it did?
Then it should be condemned and called out for the hate and bigotry that it represents. Lol. Not a hard concept.
How were the passages you described calling for hate and/or bigotry? Also would be good to reference where the passages you got came from as well so you're not taking them out of context
I didn't describe any passages. Arguing with someone who doesn't believe in tangible reality is a waste of time. Thank you for the conversation.
Oh you meant the beautiful parts of the new testament where it tells women to cover their hair and says they're not allowed to speak in public if they're with their husbands! So beautiful
I think you're referring to the rules surrounding the church in Corinth as to maintain dignity and order, but feel free to take anything out of context 🤣
"dignity and order"
So you're not as stupid as you seem, but you are as bigoted.
So, in order to maintain dignity and order, you believe women should be covered up and silent, or what?
It was about the church in Corinth - they wanted to stand out from the pagans
why? pride? control? doesn’t sound like they would stand out for their common sense, compassion, or spirituality.
Considering they considered women as property to have sex with and they should be uncovered to please men, yeah, it would have been for their compassion.
what is undignified about women talking? please be specific.
Ask the ancient Corinthian pagans
Cool
I particularly like Revelation of St John when the good Lord smites degenerates with fire and brimstone.
