[an0n]

Seriously.

They're both basically ancient versions of Good Housekeeping.

I mean, not eating pork. You might think there's some religious significance to it, but there really isn't. It's just that back in the day eating pork was likely to kill you. Pigs roll around in ****, for **** sake. So the Bible doesn't tell you not to eat unclean animals because it will offend God, but because at the time of it's writing there was no Board Of Health And Hygiene around to knock out health certificates to make sure your butcher wasn't ****ing the mince in the back room while you waited for him to fill your order (ba-dum-tsh). So eating unclean animals would probably have resulted in your catching typhoid or cholera and ****ing dying.

Same with the Kama Sutra. It's all about eating leaves to freshen your breath and keep your teeth nice.

The only difference between the two is that while the Kama Sutra is going "Dude, just pull her leg up and to the right, then kind slide the police baton into her while sucking on her toes" the Bible goes "Don't have sex - kill queers instead. Use rocks."

Discuss.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Except the punishment for eating these animals was death. 

[an0n]

Yeah, because you could start a ****ing plague of cholera.

[Flipside]

Well, I wouldn't have phrased it quite so....colourfully, but yes, the restriction on eating pork is related more to hygeine than religion. If you read the Iliad by Homer, there's a lot of repetition about how offerings are made to Gods etc, in it's own way it's an instruction manual for the masses on how religion was supposed to be practised at the time, cleverly wrapped up into a story. The Bible is very similar in a lot of ways, and just as Zeus smote people who offended him and rewarded those who pleased him, a similar 'stick and carrot' method is used in the Bible.

I wouldn't say that it's an instruction book on how to kill people but, once again, just as the Iliad used common prejudice to get a message across to the public (witches chopping up babies etc.) the Bible also was a reflection of public opinion. Releasing a book called 'Worship God, he likes man-sex' would not have been a good political move at the time, people like to hear their own prejudices confirmed from a higher source. The Bible, in reality is no more in favour of wholesale slaughter than just about every book around at the time.

[NGTM-1R]

Your argument's a little schizoid here. On the one hand you're making the point it was about how to keep people alive, on the other you're saying it's not that.

Matter of fact you bother with much more support for the Public Hygenie Manual than the Killing People Manual. So it's really more of a "not killing people" manual?

[aldo_14]

A killing people manual would tend to focus more on methodology rather than reason/justification, methinks.

[an0n]

I know it's not a killing-people-manual.

I just wanted a catchy thread title.

But the main point was that they're both Good Housekeeping Guides, but then the Kama Sutra has Good Housewife ****ing sections, and the Bible has Good Neighbour-Stoning sections.

[Polpolion]

If you read closely, there is this one part that God tells this guy to eat a so-called unclean pig. It goes a little like this, IIRC:

God: Hey you, go preach

Person: I need food though!

God: *POOF* (food appears)

Person: ACK!! UNCLEAN!!!!11!!

God: made by me = clean. EAT!!!!

Person: okay fine *eats food

As you can see, I don't remember it very well.


And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.

[Goober5000]

I mean, not eating pork. You might think there's some religious significance to it, but there really isn't. It's just that back in the day eating pork was likely to kill you. Pigs roll around in ****, for **** sake. So the Bible doesn't tell you not to eat unclean animals because it will offend God, but because at the time of it's writing there was no Board Of Health And Hygiene around to knock out health certificates to make sure your butcher wasn't ****ing the mince in the back room while you waited for him to fill your order (ba-dum-tsh). So eating unclean animals would probably have resulted in your catching typhoid or cholera and ****ing dying.

Exactly.  Which rule is more understandable -- "Don't eat pork, because there's this whole system of biology that increases your risk of food-borne illness; but you won't learn about that for a few thousand years" -- or -- "Don't eat pork because God says not to"?

Yes, it's condescending, but 1) this is God talking; and 2) people are morons.  If you tell people that something shouldn't be done because it's bad for them, the first thing they try to do is prove you right.  Heck, God made his master plan about as plain as he could -- "Follow me, go to heaven; don't follow me, go to hell" -- and people still manage to screw it up.

And the penalty for violating dietary restrictions was ceremonial uncleanness (which was basically quarantine), not death.

The only difference between the two is that while the Kama Sutra is going "Dude, just pull her leg up and to the right, then kind slide the police baton into her while sucking on her toes" the Bible goes "Don't have sex - kill queers instead. Use rocks."

Biblical rules on sex are all about economics.  Sex is valuable, and God wants to keep it that way.  Sleeping around is a good way to devalue sex until it's worth practically nothing.

[Goober5000]

If you read closely, there is this one part that God tells this guy to eat a so-called unclean pig. It goes a little like this, IIRC:

...

As you can see, I don't remember it very well.

You remembered it well enough. The full story is in Acts 10.

There are a bunch of different interpretations of that vision.  The interpretation implied in the text says that Gentiles (who had been historically regarded as "unclean" or "savage" from the Jewish perspective) were just as clean, or just as "human", as any Jew.  The literal interpretation simply declares all foods clean, freeing Jews from the constraints of Old Testament dietary law.

And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.

Perhaps when he ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples of the land of Canaan:

Deuteronomy 9:1-6

Hear, O Israel. You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?" But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the LORD has promised you.

After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.

But see that he prefaced the entire military campaign by a stern warning that the Canaanites were being destroyed on account of their wickedness.

[Polpolion]

And where in the Bible does it tell you to kill people? I know where it says not to kill people, but that is kind of the exact opposite of killing people.

Perhaps when he ordered the Israelites to wipe out the peoples of the land of Canaan:

Deuteronomy 9:1-6

*snip*

But see that he prefaced the entire military campaign by a stern warning that the Canaanites were being destroyed on account of their wickedness.

Ok, I thought an0n meant stuff like "I LIKE KILLING POEPLE!!! YAY=KILLING!!!"

[an0n]

It also tells you to stone witches and homosexuals to death.

Somewhere in Leviticus, IIRC.

[wtf_cl0vvn]

Frankly, I would rather read the Kama Sutra than the bible.

Which is evidenced by the fact that I have read the former, and barely touched the latter 


Stoning people and annihilating civilizations on moral grounds isnt quite as fun as sex. 

[Polpolion]

It also tells you to stone witches and homosexuals to death.

Somewhere in Leviticus, IIRC.

Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan) but I'm not quite sure about the homos, because IIRC, it's not bad be a homo, it's just bad if you have gay sex and other gay stuff like that.

[Flipside]

Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan)

I can't quite believe you actually said that...

Most witches were guilty of nothing more than being old widows who lived on their own, if a farmers cow died, of course it was down to the wierd old woman.

As for the second half of that post. Not going near it.

[Polpolion]

Witches, duh, (they are not really people anyway; more of spawns of satan)

I can't quite believe you actually said that...

Most witches were guilty of nothing more than being old widows who lived on their own, if a farmers cow died, of course it was down to the wierd old woman.

As for the second half of that post. Not going near it.

GEEZ!! Do you honestly think those were real witches? :

Of course not! For the exact reason you said!

I don't mean the Salem witch thing (Wasn't that just because a whole bunch of people had epilepsy, and the people thought they were doing magic, but were just having spasms of some sort?).

I mean the kind that don't really exist. When was the last time that there was a real witch? I was simply emphasizing the fact that if they did exist, that it would be less bad to kill them.

[Ford Prefect]

Wait-- You're not joking?

[Polpolion]

Sigh... YES I AM JOKING!! [not sarcasm]

witches = not exist :

sheesh... I thought it was kinda obvious...

Except the Salem witch part. IIRC the rye they had made them sick and stuff because of some fungus, then they had seizures, but when that happened the people tending to them thought they were really cursing people and stuff.

EDIT: I'll put in some smileys into that one post to make it more obvious.

[Flipside]

Heh, that's ok then, just remember those smileys

I did a fair bit of studying on the persecution of witches during the Middle Ages, and I was utterly disgusted at what was done in the name of 'Christianity' at the time. Basically, the Church not only decided that only God could heal people, but that women, to quote the Malleus Maleficarum, were more likely to be witches...

'Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.'

Basically, it was barely disguised Fundamentalism with a lot of blatant chauvenism and gender insecurity.

Anyway, I digress

[Polpolion]

Heh, that's ok then, just remember those smileys

I did a fair bit of studying on the persecution of witches during the Middle Ages, and I was utterly disgusted at what was done in the name of 'Christianity' at the time. Basically, the Church not only decided that only God could heal people, but that women, to quote the Malleus Maleficarum, were more likely to be witches...

'Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men;' because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked' whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.'

Basically, it was barely disguised Fundamentalism with a lot of blatant chauvenism and gender insecurity.

Anyway, I digress

Yeah, the christian church had a lot of problems during the middle ages.