Nitpick: Are you sure that your father couldn’t be held exempt from that prohibition because he’d already fathered two kids? I would think it might be argued that he can’t any longer become “incapable of procreation”, at least without access to a time machine, because his procreation capability became permanently activated when he procreated.
I am not entirely sure. However, IIRC the commandment is not nullified regardless of how many children you have already had.
As with many aspects of Jewish law, there are varying interpretations.
613 commandments! I’m glad I’m not religious, it sounds like hard work.
Back in the 2000s, I used to take part in online debates against religious people - mostly Christians - about the existence of god, souls etc, as well as creationism vs evolution. It was common to mock religious views with silly analogies, call believers dumb etc. I remember some famous atheist desecrated a host(?) as a stunt. In retrospect, we were pretty assholish to the religious believers, and it wasn’t necessary. So, I kind of regret that.
I also used to believe the world would be better if there was no religion and everyone became an atheist. Now I think I was naive: religion isn’t the cause of humans doing bad things, merely the justification; without religion, they will quickly find a new justification, whether that is science or some kind of ideology.
I no longer think it is necessarily good to convince someone their religious beliefs are incorrect, though I still believe they are incorrect. Is that contradictory? It’s probably a whole other thread, at any rate…
I consider myself a militant atheist - but only in self defence. I don’t care what anyone’s religious beliefs or disbeliefs are, I just do not accept proselytizing.
As for transphobia, as the bible says, “Jesus wept”.
If he was real, and as good as alleged, he’d be A-OK with trans people. The bible doesn’t mention trans people but Jesus healed lepers, and hung out with prostitutes, so he was alright with marginalised groups.
Yep. I concur. But of course- He was real.
I find your complete faith interesting.
Most historians agree that Jesus was a real person. They just don’t think he had supernatural powers.
I’m hardly an expert, but that seems correct.
My major issue with the trans rights movement is exactly what the OP describes as ‘bad religion’: their belief that “My religious beliefs on the subject are objectively correct, and I therefore have the right and obligation to coerce others into acting in accordance with them.”
I keep trying to interpet this in a way that is not transphobic. I can’t. If that is not what you meant, you really should restate things in different words or with more words, details and nuances.
I’m referring to people getting fired and/or blackballed from their profession for expressing disagreement with these ideas, even outside of work. Attempts to prevent the publication and/or inhibit sales of books disagreeing with them. Attempts (sometimes successful, sometimes not) to prevent people from meeting to critically discuss proposed changes in the law. Legal threats and harassment based on social media posts (remember I live in a country with no 1st Amendment, it’s a genuine threat).
I assume you think it is good and right to support and campaign for trans rights, and I don’t have a problem with that. Do you believe you have the right and obligation to coerce others into acting in accordance with your beliefs, in the ways outlined above?
That sounds just horrible. Do you have any specific examples to support this?
Right, and so does Cecil Adams.
Essentially, there are three questions as to how “real” he was. Is the myth based on a real person, how much was the human being like the myth, and did he have magic powers? The answers being “Probably”, “Who knows but likely not much”, and “No”.
Couldn’t this be said about every civil rights movement?
Moderating:
Let’s drop the “Jesus was real” debate in this thread. There’s enough to chew on here without complicating the discussion further. If you wish to debate “Jesus was real” in a different thread. You all should know by now how to do that:
How to Reply as a linked Topic
Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.
Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.
That is actually the best method.
Thanks.
Yes, because the people using that rhetoric define anyone preventing them from persecuting other people as being “oppressed”.
Fwiw, the Talmud discusses men who used to be women and women who used to be men (and some other unusual categories) and many Orthodox Jews today interpret that as including trans people. The initial parts of the Talmud were compiled around 175CE (that’s meant to be an approximate number) and it was really codified more like 600CE, but it was intended as a written version of the oral law that was known and transmitted at the time of Jesus. (And everything before that, i suppose.)
Anyway, i think it’s likely that sages in Jesus’s time were familiar with the idea of people not having the gender they were given at birth. And believed that it was a real phenomenon.
People, at least, American Christians, sometimes try to cast all religions, or all conservative/traditional religions, as supporting the same positions. But that’s often not true.
Probably not every, but some of them. This is why I don’t think the OP’s distinction between good and bad religion is a good one: if someone’s religion told them slavery was a terrible sin, and they had the obligation to abolish it - by force if necessary - I don’t believe the OP would think that a bad thing.
(In reality, Quakers did believe slavery was wrong, but AFAIK don’t believe in using force and wouldn’t have been able to anyway, so they campaigned against it peacefully.)
You are ignoring the key difference that slavery is something done unwillingly to someone else. And that slavery is about as blatantly evil as it gets.
Equating it and people being transgender of all things is absurd at best.