Pride Week in My Little Town, and Why I Won't be Going

[Kyriakos]

No English Bible (and there are many versions) contains the exact words of Jesus. And it is likely that no Bible at all contains his exact words. The Gospels were written decades after he died and oral tradition is not particularly reliable. BTW, Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and not English or Latin or Greek.

A better preface would be: The Bible says in Matt 5:17....

The entire allure of the bible is supposed to be that it is "the word of god". Otherwise it becomes another text on some hybrid of ethical philosophy with a proselytizing movement.
You may also want to ask yourself how the disciples of Jesus actually learned greek, given most of them were working-class jews of lowly profession. Once again the explanation in religious/theological circles is that "the divine spirit" allowed them to instantly learn foreign languages (like you see in movies with possessed people speaking greek and latin etc).
That said, the original text of the New Testament is indeed in greek. It can be noted that it is a very simple greek, which is why it is one of those cases where a 2000 year old greek text can actually be read with ease by someone who only knows current greek (it isn't the same with Plato).
I have to suppose that it was written in a simple form of the language because it was targeted at a larger audience, largely of downtrodden people. Not that this by itself explains the phenomenal success christianity had in the region... One has to keep in mind that thousands were martyred just to keep that faith, which certainly is impressive and remains something quite difficult to explain.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The entire allure of the bible is supposed to be that it is "the word of god". Otherwise it becomes another text on some hybrid of ethical philosophy with a proselytizing movement.

but that's the Quran, not the bible. The bible is a text written by holy men paraphrasing the words of god, while the Quran is literally god's word.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The entire allure of the bible is supposed to be that it is "the word of god". Otherwise it becomes another text on some hybrid of ethical philosophy with a proselytizing movement.
You may also want to ask yourself how the disciples of Jesus actually learned greek, given most of them were working-class jews of lowly profession. Once again the explanation in religious/theological circles is that "the divine spirit" allowed them to instantly learn foreign languages (like you see in movies with possessed people speaking greek and latin etc).
That said, the original text of the New Testament is indeed in greek. It can be noted that it is a very simple greek, which is why it is one of those cases where a 2000 year old greek text can actually be read with ease by someone who only knows current greek (it isn't the same with Plato).
I have to suppose that it was written in a simple form of the language because it was targeted at a larger audience, largely of downtrodden people. Not that this by itself explains the phenomenal success christianity had in the region... One has to keep in mind that thousands were martyred just to keep that faith, which certainly is impressive and remains something quite difficult to explain.

@Plotinus would be better than me at explaining the success of Christianity during its first few hundred years.

A couple of points though. Many uneducated people are bi or multi lingual if they live in a multicultural environment. They know enough to communicate so I would not be surprised if Jews in Judea knew some Greek or Latin. Paul was a tax collector and probably was multi lingual as part of his job. Believers have their own stories to tell in the same manner that non believers spin things their way.

Martyrs are a strange group. At one end you have those who die rather than renounce their faith (in something). They choose. At the other end you have those who are killed because of their faith (Christians killed by ISIS?) and had no choice. Are they all martyrs? Are Uighurs killed by China martyrs for Islam? Were the Jews killed by Nazis martyrs? I'm not sure they choose anything. Depending upon how one defines a "martyr", the body count will change.

 

[Yeekim]

You don't see straight people having straight parades.

"Straight people don't have Pride parades for the same reason the UK does not celebrate an Independence Day". - the Internet.

 

[Hrothbern]

@Plotinus would be better than me at explaining the success of Christianity during its first few hundred years.

A couple of points though. Many uneducated people are bi or multi lingual if they live in a multicultural environment. They know enough to communicate so I would not be surprised if Jews in Judea knew some Greek or Latin. Paul was a tax collector and probably was multi lingual as part of his job. Believers have their own stories to tell in the same manner that non believers spin things their way.

Martyrs are a strange group. At one end you have those who die rather than renounce their faith (in something). They choose. At the other end you have those who are killed because of their faith (Christians killed by ISIS?) and had no choice. Are they all martyrs? Are Uighurs killed by China martyrs for Islam? Were the Jews killed by Nazis martyrs? I'm not sure they choose anything. Depending upon how one defines a "martyr", the body count will change.

We have the words "Martyr" and "Victim"

Both are powerfull concepts to advance your cause.

For Trump the US is a victim of "all the other countries".
Works pretty well for his domestic purposes.

 

[Victoria]

Am I wrong to feel this way?

It is the way you feel, any use of wrong associated with it would be wrong.

I remember gay pride weeks and things were so much more simple. A choice between A&B caused polarisation in the population that may have not been the best but was at least simple.

My children now talk with much merriment about the multiple sex choices at school and the children encouraged by their parents. To be GLBT now seems so old hat, certainly much more accepted.

What has becomes apparent is the rising number of groups that are just disruptive or destructive. My niece in NZ will never work and now should she due to the worst childhood one could imagine but she now is grown with an immature view on the world and is a member of multiple online groups that go around wrecking careers for what seems to be a bit of fun or some vague uneducated justification. It is these groups that are what you are really discussing.

Not sure if a parade is necessary to be proud personally but that is my view. It was useful to place things in the face of the bigots but it seems more normal to be abnormal nowadays and maybe thats why people will now stamp on the wasps

 

[Zardnaar]

It is the way you feel, any use of wrong associated with it would be wrong.

I remember gay pride weeks and things were so much more simple. A choice between A&B caused polarisation in the population that may have not been the best but was at least simple.

My children now talk with much merriment about the multiple sex choices at school and the children encouraged by their parents. To be GLBT now seems so old hat, certainly much more accepted.

What has becomes apparent is the rising number of groups that are just disruptive or destructive. My niece in NZ will never work and now should she due to the worst childhood one could imagine but she now is grown with an immature view on the world and is a member of multiple online groups that go around wrecking careers for what seems to be a bit of fun or some vague uneducated justification. It is these groups that are what you are really discussing.

Not sure if a parade is necessary to be proud personally but that is my view. It was useful to place things in the face of the bigots but it seems more normal to be abnormal nowadays and maybe thats why people will now stamp on the wasps

NZ full of useless young people who can't hold down jobs at McDonalds. Useless parents plus useless schools.

 

[Victoria]

NZ full of useless young people who can't hold down jobs at McDonalds. Useless parents plus useless schools.

... Apart from those in the far south?
Kiwi's have a great rep here in the UK and I reckon its because all the hard workers leave home because there is only so many times you can go to queenstown
My Niece had childhood arthritis or the worst type and was on opiates for her entire teenage life and just did not attend school. Not an NZ thing, more an utter crap try to kill yourself lots type of life. Puts things in perspective for the rest of us.

 

[Plotinus]

Ooh, Birdjaguar summoned me.

The entire allure of the bible is supposed to be that it is "the word of god". Otherwise it becomes another text on some hybrid of ethical philosophy with a proselytizing movement.

The problem with that view is that neither the Bible itself nor any of the early Christians, to my knowledge, ever call the Bible "the Word of God". On the contrary, the Bible says that's what Jesus is. There is no standard view among Christians of exactly what the Bible is or how it should be interpreted or what authority it has, though in practice they all think it has some kind of authority. You will not find any guidance on the matter in the Nicene Creed or any of the authoritative councils.

You may also want to ask yourself how the disciples of Jesus actually learned greek, given most of them were working-class jews of lowly profession. Once again the explanation in religious/theological circles is that "the divine spirit" allowed them to instantly learn foreign languages (like you see in movies with possessed people speaking greek and latin etc).

I've never heard anyone claim that. On the contrary, koine Greek was the most common language in the ancient eastern Mediterranean, so it's perfectly natural that Christians spoke it, especially given that - according to Acts, at least - Antioch was one of the major centres of the religion. Whether Jesus himself or his immediate disciples spoke Greek is a moot point, but it doesn't really matter as there's no reason to think that any of them wrote any part of the New Testament. But there's certainly no reason other than snobbery to suppose that "working class Jews of lowly profession" couldn't speak Greek. Paul was a tent maker and he seems to have got by.

I have to suppose that it was written in a simple form of the language because it was targeted at a larger audience, largely of downtrodden people. Not that this by itself explains the phenomenal success christianity had in the region... One has to keep in mind that thousands were martyred just to keep that faith, which certainly is impressive and remains something quite difficult to explain.

That depends on when and where you're talking about, of course. As far as I know there's no evidence for really substantial numbers of Christians being executed, in the way you're describing, until the fourth and fifth centuries, and that was in the Sassanian Empire, not any Greek-speaking region. No-one knows how many Christians were executed for their faith in the Roman empire but it probably wasn't a great number, and certainly not in the first century or so anywhere.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Plotinus , you can be summoned, but do not speak koine greek. Rather incongruous in a (vade) retro way ^_^

 

[Mouthwash]

or one could just utterly ignore marriage and look towards newer, better, more open and inclusive forms of partnership that don't shun everyone who isn't christian, or pretending to be, or going along with the game. honestly, the partnership me and my girlfriend have is more beautiful than almost any marriage I've witnessed, and I've never felt the need to marry her, neither did she.

marriage, as in an official monogamous relationship, exists and existed in just about every culture on earth, you're completely right. but they're all different concepts, different traditions, meaningfully different.

Do you really not see how post #2 undermines #1?

you even say "marriage is what you make of it", okay, so why not make marriage into something actually good, why hold onto the monogamy, the christian roots, the official and bureaucratic bullcrap, when really it should be all about love, understanding, trust and partnership?

Because it shouldn't be about those things. Ritual is the foundation of human society; if you reject it, you reject humanity itself.

I think Pride is in a weird place these days, caught between the (generally younger) LGBT+ who want more radical action and those (generally older) who are slightly amazed at how much things have changed since they were younger.

One behavior I've noticed is that for them failure is never a cause for doubt - if, say, trans people are still miserable, that only makes them more convinced that bigotry and oppression are ubiquitous in society. Like a Bolshevik who can't figure out why forced collectivization hasn't produced a glorious new world yet; it must be the fault of the Kulaks or the church.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Maybe trans people are miserable because, and here's a massive shock, being the opposite gender of what your brain and instincts tell you is profoundly uncomfortable?

Trans people are still regarded as a joke and at best a curiousity to gawk at, even in supposedly liberal societies, nevermind the worry of triggering someone into violence with their mere existence.

 

[Lexicus]

Because it shouldn't be about those things. Ritual is the foundation of human society; if you reject it, you reject humanity itself.

Love, understanding, trust and partnership are actually the foundation of human society and rejecting them is what makes you inhuman.

 

[red_elk]

One behavior I've noticed is that for them failure is never a cause for doubt - if, say, trans people are still miserable, that only makes them more convinced that bigotry and oppression are ubiquitous in society.

People usually know what makes them miserable. For trans people, bigotry and oppression might be among the reasons why they feel so.

Like a Bolshevik who can't figure out why forced collectivization hasn't produced a glorious new world yet; it must be the fault of the Kulaks or the church.

It never supposed to produce a glorious new world. Collectivization was needed to rapidly industrialize the country and prepare for war in less than a decade.

 

[rah]

Except for the legal aspects (which are nice to have) the main reason for marriage is that you can't get out of it easily. No partnership is perfect. There will be good days and some really crappy days. Being married forces you to not quit the second you have a bad experience. I've seen couples that said they didn't need marriage break up over silly stuff. Maybe if they were married they'd still be together. Yeah there are examples that go the other way too. But my point is that if it isn't easy, maybe people will put a little extra effort into it.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's kinda the point of the part that involves telling and including a substantial number of the most important people in your lives about the thing. That and the older members that have accumulated some useful stuff can be prompted to ritually provide some to a new union that may be lacking stuff and the capacity to acquire it if they're younger.

You can kinda rough guess how things are going to go in the first couple years by watching a newly married couple at a wedding reception. If they're off getting messed with their separate circles of friends and not interacting much with each other in front of the crowd, it's sort of a warning. If their friends are jammed together and comingling because the couple has joined is(and they're the party on this occassion), it's better. If they're socializing through each other's friends and families and support networks as a couple, more promising yet.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Do you really not see how post #2 undermines #1?

Because it shouldn't be about those things. Ritual is the foundation of human society; if you reject it, you reject humanity itself.

Instead of saying that my posts contradict each other, show how those posts contradict each other. "No u!" is not an argument.

I don't reject marriage as a ritual, quite the opposite actually. I love rituals, both as a concept and as a part of my day to day life. No idea how you misread me in that way. Do you take offense at the idea of changing established rituals? Because that's literally what human culture has been doing for the last thousands of years.

What I'm saying is that the church shouldn't be an authority on legal partnerships, and that legal partnerships don't need the Christian element in a secular country.

Love, understanding, trust and partnership are actually the foundation of human society and rejecting them is what makes you inhuman.

boom

Except for the legal aspects (which are nice to have) the main reason for marriage is that you can't get out of it easily. No partnership is perfect. There will be good days and some really crappy days. Being married forces you to not quit the second you have a bad experience. I've seen couples that said they didn't need marriage break up over silly stuff. Maybe if they were married they'd still be together. Yeah there are examples that go the other way too. But my point is that if it isn't easy, maybe people will put a little extra effort into it.

I don't need marriage for that, I have integrity, perseverance, mental fortitude and sound judgement. I don't need an institution to chain me to my partner, I can make the decision to stay (or leave) independent of any outside parties.

also the way you're narrating this kinda sounds like "mentally weak people need marriage because otherwise they break up for dumb petty reasons", which sadly is a fact I can't deny, but on the flipside you're also looking down on people.

 

[Farm Boy]

I doubt Rah is looking down on people when he indirectly admits, as I will expressly admit, relationships are really stressful and hard and I am not perfect. My wife flat out asked me several times during our early marriage, "Did you expect it would be this hard?" To which I could only reply that I had no idea, but all the older married couples that offered advice said it would be.

 

[rah]

I don't need marriage for that, I have integrity, perseverance, mental fortitude and sound judgement. I don't need an institution to chain me to my partner, I can make the decision to stay (or leave) independent of any outside parties.

If you ever have children, they need to be protected.
And No, I'm not looking down at anybody, just saying it isn't easy or always great.

 

[Mouthwash]

Maybe trans people are miserable because, and here's a massive shock, being the opposite gender of what your brain and instincts tell you is profoundly uncomfortable?

Trans people are still regarded as a joke and at best a curiousity to gawk at, even in supposedly liberal societies, nevermind the worry of triggering someone into violence with their mere existence.

This is not what I'm hearing from the social justice crowd. They want to go all in and eliminate even the concepts of femininity and masculinity, since those are restrictive (thus, the logic goes, oppressive). At the end of this great revolution there'll just be a uniform blob of 'people' with varying sexual appetites and characteristics, no expectations at all.

Love, understanding, trust and partnership are actually the foundation of human society and rejecting them is what makes you inhuman.

I rejected nothing but the view that feelings are all that's needed for society to work.

People usually know what makes them miserable.

This hasn't been true for at least half a century, probably much longer. For most of my life I was dead wrong about what I needed, and getting my way on the matter would have made everything far worse for me.

Instead of saying that my posts contradict each other, show how those posts contradict each other. "No u!" is not an argument.

You claim that what you and your girlfriend have, which I take to be undefined interactions and emotions that you share, is better than any marriage 'you've seen' and therefore serves as evidence that marriage shouldn't be a requirement for a permanent relationship. In the second post you go on to say that institutional marriage has been a part of every culture that has ever existed, which, as far as I can see, is extremely strong evidence for marriage's necessity. (Your pointing out that they are all different doesn't weaken that in the slightest, it only shows that such an institution may take many forms, some of which may be less moral or healthy than others.)

I don't reject marriage as a ritual, quite the opposite actually. I love rituals, both as a concept and as a part of my day to day life. No idea how you misread me in that way. Do you take offense at the idea of changing established rituals? Because that's literally what human culture has been doing for the last thousands of years.

No, what you explicitly said was that you wanted to leave room for more 'open, inclusive' relationships. Not to define the ritual in a new way, not to change it, but to render it a completely open-ended, irreligious commitment to being with another person. Sacredness, monogamy, and cultural continuity (i.e. doing the same thing as your ancestors and descendants) are stripped away entirely. If you truly see the value in ritual, you must understand how that is pure destruction.

What I'm saying is that the church shouldn't be an authority on legal partnerships, and that legal partnerships don't need the Christian element in a secular country.

Okay, first, ask your local Rabbi if that sort of marriage is exclusively Christian. Secondly, the model is indisputably more ethical than what the vast majority of cultures did (polygamy, bride-purchasing, old men with preteens). Thirdly, the societies that created the modern world, where you now live, uniformly practiced this type of marriage - which should suggest that exchanging it for another type might nit be as easy as it appears. Finally, marriage is an essential institution for poor and violent areas, which I wouldn't expect someone who travels the world to understand.

Think it is restrictive? Exclusionary? That's the point. It roots people in a tangible part of society. I don't want to live in a world without grandmothers or surnames or family trees. The nuclear family definitely isn't perfect, as it lacks an extended kinship group, but that's not marriage's fault.

I don't need marriage for that, I have integrity, perseverance, mental fortitude and sound judgement. I don't need an institution to chain me to my partner,

I disagree. It is supremely obvious that human beings do not know what is good for themselves. They might think they do, but always end up bitten for it, however long that takes.