[POLITICS] Religious Discrimination

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Fieldy409:
Snip.

I caught this just checking the forums before bed, so I'll give you the ELI5/TLDR. To the best of my memory, I'm not doing heavy research for this right now, so not everything may be perfectly accurate.

First, you have the synoptic gospels -- Mark, Matthew, and Luke -- then you have John. John is distinct in content and style, and bears more semblance to the other Johannine epistles than the other gospels, so it's considered separate. Meanwhile, the three synoptic gospels are all very similar in style, content, wording, and sequence, which strongly indicate they synopsize (hence synoptic) other gospels. Mark was the first gospel, having been written around 60-70; Matthew and Luke came after, in the 70-90 period if I remember right; John was the last, around 80-100.

There's a misconception they're called the synoptic gospels because they synopsize Jesus' life, but that's not actually the case even if it's an accurate assessment of the three. They're called synoptic because of the relationship between the three.

So, that brings up the synoptic problem. Passages from Mark are found in both Matthew and Luke, meaning Mark was a source for the two, but there are passages in both Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark, meaning there had to be another common source that was lost or destroyed. What we can infer based upon the information at hand, is that it was a sayings gospel (a record of Jesus' sayings and sermons) contemporary to Mark that, by the time of the first Nicene Council was lost due to no mention of a potential candidate as apocrypha or heretical. The inferred source, for lack of a proper name, is called Q -- short for the German word quelle.

We can actually check the veracity of this inference. There was a sayings gospel, specifically mentioned by name during the first Nicene Council as heretical, that was lost. That was the Gospel of Thomas, and for 1,600 years nobody knew what the fuck that was about except that it was a gnostic gospel...until a copy was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library in 1945. Except, Thomas wasn't Q; different sayings, different authorship, different time. The recovery of Thomas proves that an entire gospel could just up and disappear from the historical record for no other reason than the Church wanted it suppressed as heresy.

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

Now, as far as "Jesus". Yes, Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person, there's no longer dispute about that. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming, and the authentication of the James Ossuary engraving was the final nail in that coffin. He existed, done and done. However, nothing is known for certain other than he lived in Judea, he was baptized, and he was executed by crucifixion. That's where the mythology takes over.

Eacaraxe:

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

Satinavian:

Eacaraxe:

But here's the 64-trillion-dollar question: what if Q was a gnostic gospel? What can be inferred from Matthew and Luke, and comparison between the two and other gnostic gospels, strongly implies yes. Literally all of Christianity as we know it would be a lie; gnosticism would have been the "original" Christianity.

But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

Gnosticism only becomes apparent when it starts significantly diverging from Paul's or Peter's version of Christianity, so that it can be persecuted against. Paul continued his Saul ways after conversion, persecuting anyone who deviated from his stance. Thus, any alternate ideas were hidden until he died. Gnostics had to hid for a long time.

I dont know whether Q was Gnostic, I do know some of the gospels were written to coincide with Jewish traditions and when the Torah was read. Stories like the walking on water coincides with Moses parting the Red Sea

Satinavian:
But that is pure speculation.

While a gospel Q might have existed, we know nothing about its content beside what can be guessed from Matthew and Luke. We don't even know if they had one other source or more. And we certainly don't know how or why it has been lost.

However Gnosticism only really takes off at the end of the first century, so it seems unlikely that this far older Q source as well as the original Chrristianity would have been based on it.

Yes, it is speculation -- but it is very real, very strong speculation that gnosticism emerged up to a century earlier than it was commonly believed to have. That is to say, parallel to proto-Orthodoxy as opposed to a rejection and response to it. And if it did, that has major ramifications on how we understand the early church to have developed.

As far as Q, there's not really much "might have"; a source that we know as Q had to have existed. The question and subject for debate is, as you pointed out, Q's content. The only hypothesis that has traction which doesn't name Q specifically is the three-source hypothesis, and three-source lacks substantial advocacy for a reason -- all it does is excise M and L, rename Q, and doesn't provide explanation for M- and L-sourced passages. Q+ has the same structural issues and then some, and really holds utility insofar as its implication Q+ was the source of the gnostic gospels, but that's just my take on the newer hypothesis.

The strongest argument against a written Q is the oral Q hypothesis, especially given M and L were likely to have also been oral traditions, but the core of that hypothesis remains the existence of the Q source as a gospel.

Abomination:

Satinavian:

Abomination:
In context, though, the person in the article believes in the "eternal torment and damnation" version of hell. How theologically accurate they are is irrelevant, they are still spouting hate speech based on what they believe.

The statement still does not include that the speaker wishes them to go to hell or is happy with that. And it also does not include any encouragement to treat them bad in this life.

So while the speaker is probably wrong theologically (can't be sure without knowing his particular sect, but getting "drunks go to hell" out of the bible is questionable at least. But some protestants are strange). And i would guess that he is a homophobe bigot considering there are so many other sins more important to choose from. But it is not hate speech.

The speaker offers nothing more other than stating that homosexuals go to hell. Long and short, the speaker believes that the higher power they hold to be the moral authority in all things deems that homosexuals go to hell. Homosexuals, in the speaker's opinion, DESERVE to go to hell.

This isn't a matter of theological debate either, this is what the speaker believes. Homosexuals deserve eternal torment for their homosexuality. Homosexuals deserve a fate worse than death. How is that not hate speech?

I agree with Abomination on this.

To be Christian is to believe Christianity is true, to believe God is real, Jesus is real, Hell is real. If Christians are right, then Hell is literally the worst place in all existence, a place of unending torment beyond human understanding. As far as any devout Christian should be concerned, 'Go to Hell' is the most offensive thing imaginable.

As somebody who aspires to advocate free speech well above and beyond any religious proscriptions or priviliges, I actually don't think either side did anything wrong here.

The football fella was stating an earnestly held opinion which his personal moral compass compelled him to broadcast publicly. I don't believe it even skirted being an incitement to violence, no matter how little you like the message or its perceived intent.

Likewise Twitter is a private platform and they can remove or ban content they don't like (or pragmatically, that the advertisers don't like) and his soccer/hand-egg/whatever association is a private body that is similarly allowed to put limitations on its representatives speech that is more restrictive than the law of the land. "I didn't do anything illegal" is no defence here, if that's been attempted. Doesn't matter. Their house, their rules.

I think trying to invoke special pleading here is misguided: religiously motivated speech and actions can't be considered a separate category from everyday speech and actions. For a true believer, the two would be synonymous, surely? Whatever your motivation to do or say something - religious, political, revenge, altruism, whatever - the context always matters.

Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

Batou667:
As somebody who aspires to advocate free speech well above and beyond any religious proscriptions or priviliges, I actually don't think either side did anything wrong here.

The football fella was stating an earnestly held opinion which his personal moral compass compelled him to broadcast publicly. I don't believe it even skirted being an incitement to violence, no matter how little you like the message or its perceived intent.

Likewise Twitter is a private platform and they can remove or ban content they don't like (or pragmatically, that the advertisers don't like) and his soccer/hand-egg/whatever association is a private body that is similarly allowed to put limitations on its representatives speech that is more restrictive than the law of the land. "I didn't do anything illegal" is no defence here, if that's been attempted. Doesn't matter. Their house, their rules.

I think trying to invoke special pleading here is misguided: religiously motivated speech and actions can't be considered a separate category from everyday speech and actions. For a true believer, the two would be synonymous, surely? Whatever your motivation to do or say something - religious, political, revenge, altruism, whatever - the context always matters.

Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

Saelune:
If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Hexes? Curses? The Evil Eye?

If not, then you have nothing to fear from mere words. (Free speech)

Unless those words are "Platoon... fire!" in which case, duck. (Clear and present incitement to violence)

Batou667:

Saelune:
If someone tries to kill you, does it matter if they do a bad job of it? Even if they try to kill you by tickling you to death, they are still trying to kill you. Intent matters.

Do you believe in witchcraft? Hexes? Curses? The Evil Eye?

If not, then you have nothing to fear from mere words. (Free speech)

Unless those words are "Platoon... fire!" in which case, duck. (Clear and present incitement to violence)

I believe that I would be concerned if someone was making voodoo dolls of me.

Also Christians are in power, Witches are not.

Batou667:
Just to play devils advocate, why is it so offensive for a Christian to say certain groups are going to hell? As an atheist I have the firm belief that no Christians are going to heaven (because it doesn't exist). Surely that offends them more than their belief offends me?

In the context of this case, the individual was punished for publicly stating that a particular demographic deserves a fate worse than death. This wasn't someone just believing it, people are free to believe whatever they want. This also wasn't the government stepping in to punish the individual either as, quite rightly, no call to action was made. However, it is most certainly a bigoted and offensive remark and not something any company wants a representative, or a well known employee, announcing on public media.

His announcement, that he is free to believe, put the company in a position where if it took no action it would be seen as having no stance on the issue. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people in the western world are not anti-homosexual/trans/queer. So for the company to just let those comments slide would be a slight on their reputation and paint the company as being tolerant of anti-queer rhetoric. The only solution, a public condemnation and punishment of the employee for their offensive post.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here