You are out of line.

[dnephi]

What you are doing is far worse than any annoyances that Pianistimo's done. Leave her alone. 

Honestly.  What you're all doing is ganging up on a poor  old lady.  It's just ... preposterous. (Forgive me for calling you old...)  I've said more offensive things.  But I would have supposed you would be above that.  You all need to shape up and stop acting like 6 year old bullies on a playground.

On the other hand,  who wants to read my 26-page paper on the Liszt Sonata?

Dan

[pianistimo]

whew.  for a minute there - i thought it was me.  well, since you've been so kind - i will now publicly apologize for any misunderstandings between me and soliloquy and anyone else i might have been too brazenly biblical to.  i do understand the difference between going too far - and i probably 'crossed the line.'  the thing is for me - i never see the line until i am way past it.  perhaps it IS age.  anyways.  let's move on to this liszt sonata.

tell us about it.  where can we find this paper?

[dnephi]

If you would care to read and make a couple of comments by 3 PM tomorrow (hahaha...) that'd be helpful .
First, the paper itself is here:
Edit: removed

My appendix (in progress - see the notes in red at the end of the paper35):
Edit: removed.

Works Cited I am finishing tomorrow before it's due.

Dan

(Files saved as read-only.)

[pianistimo]

ok. denephi.  considering the time we have here - i'll mostly focus on the grammatical stuff.  i learned some things from a professor at west chester about writing - and despite not capitalizing here - i have a few ideas for you.

first of all, personally i think it is not enough to title the paper with the piece you are studying - but you have to explain what you are doing with it.  ie:  'The Theoretical Problem of Form in the B-minor Sonata of Franz Liszt'

i could be off on the exact way to phrase this title - but in essence you are stating not just the title  of the piece but what type of research you are doing.  the other choice might be something with the words 'analytical study of...'

ps also - and this is nitpicky- i think you are not supposed to use apostrophe's if you can help it.  so, to minimize this - use Franz Liszt's name fully the first time in the title and the first time in your paper.  after that, you can use the last name only.  (also, it is most helpful to include life dates upon first reference, although 'this varies according to the significance of that individual within your paper.')

[blintz]

Ooh....if we're talking about papers, I have a paper on the Berg Sonata that I wrote.  It's 185 pages long.  No kidding.  But you can't see it.  It's mine, all mine, my precious......

[pianistimo]

you must be helping me brush up on things - because i see some very common errors.  first of all - you need a title page.  it is not numbered (as you know already)  - but the rest of the pages should be numbered about 1" from the top or bottom of the page.

the title page should have the title of the paper centered in the middle of the page, followed by the word 'By' on a line by itself (two spaces below the title), then your name (two spaces below that).

at the bottom of the title page you should include the following information at the left-hand margin:  name of instructor,  name of course (with number), date of paper.

[pianistimo]

regarding the paper itself - i would not use the form words 'introduction, body, conclusion' - but rather let the paper come naturally together by itself.  now, something that doesn't seem quite natural is that you begin your paper explaining how popular the piece is.  it doesn't matter a whit if it is popular or not.  you have to get right to the point here (which i often had a hard time doing in papers, too, so don't feel badly).

start right in on something about liszt's composition style.  i have a book here by alfred einstein with a few quotes you might be able to use. 

but, before we get into quotations - we need to establish the use of footnotes.  are you supposed to write the last name of author and page within the paper?  it seems odd when you can use numbers.  perhaps i am old fashioned - but it is very distracting to me to be reading a sentence and suddenly see (White, 257)

[pianistimo]

hope i'm not being too critical.  is this a path through the woods - i mean - to keep me busy all night doing this and not writing about the bible?

ok.  i see through this little trick of yours.  in any case, i am addicted to doing things like this - so it is a good one.

next problem.  the very first sentence.  always the hardest to come up with.

WAIT - there's another blaring problem here - WHAT IS 'e Lamento, Trionfo' doing in the title.  that is a symphonic transcription of liszt's for four hands.  hmmm.  this is a trick paper, alright.

[pianistimo]

i'm tired.  can i fall asleep now?  i came upon (Source?) and i started to laugh and cry.  this paper is also referring me to the appendix?  what am i supposed to do - flip around the paper like a bird on a wire?  i should have known when i read 'like a child born without parents.'  it sort of jumped out at me like a fairly strange thing to say when reading about liszt's b minor sonata.  now, it is also in an orphan state?

tell me you are a professor and need help grading papers?!  and i thought i was mixed up.  seriously, if you need help (professional help) - i'll be here in a few hours after some sleep. 

[ahinton]

whew.  for a minute there - i thought it was me.  well, since you've been so kind - i will now publicly apologize for any misunderstandings between me and soliloquy and anyone else i might have been too brazenly biblical to.  i do understand the difference between going too far - and i probably 'crossed the line.'  the thing is for me - i never see the line until i am way past it.  perhaps it IS age.

Appreciated!

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Her religion has taught her to be intolerant and ignorant.

Religion turned her into a nice person saying cruel things.

[nicco]

Very nice work Dnephi! I like how you compare it to Dante.

[ahinton]

Her religion has taught her to be intolerant and ignorant.

Religion turned her into a nice person saying cruel things.

Perhaps now the latter may change; I don't think that she ever intended to be unpleasant but she did let herself be led by certain religion-driven notions to make some observations which let her down seriously and for which she has now to a large extent apologised. I'm sure that we all detest intolerance and ignorance wherever we find it; religious fundamentalism is certainly one significant source of it but it is by no means the only one. I don't seek to deny Susan her religious beliefs (although I would naturally prefer that they do not lead her to turn a blind eye to truths, especially when they should ideally do the opposite), but, like yourself and many others here, I did and do take exception to anyone constantly pushing and plugging narrow-minded ideas of any kind when this forum ought ideally to enhance, rather than cramp, its members' knowledge and understanding. Let us now hope that this kind of thing will disperse appropriately.

Right! Back to Liszt! - an at times deeply religious man who quite obviously did not let any of his religious leanings cramp his style, personally or musically!

Best,

Alistair

[elspeth]

Her religion has taught her to be intolerant and ignorant.

Religion turned her into a nice person saying cruel things.

That's as may be but she has also just apologised for any offence given. If you don't accept that apology then to my mind that smacks of intolerance and ignorance too. Let's all grow up and move on...

Anyway, Liszt. I don't really know much about him so can't really comment much... I spent most of my studious career (which may be starting again, I have a college interview tonight! yay!) writing scientific papers where there were prescribed ways of setting it out... but you really should have a title page.

[dnephi]

Ooh....if we're talking about papers, I have a paper on the Berg Sonata that I wrote. It's 185 pages long. No kidding. But you can't see it. It's mine, all mine, my precious......

Well isn't that interesting.  Your doctoral dissertation?  Or just your master's thesis?

Anyhow, thanks everyone for reading.  Prometheus, that statement is untrue and quite decidedly prejudiced.  Her statement that the act of homosexuality is wrong is the equivalent to the statement that the act of fornication is wrong.  They are both "grievious sins," according to the Christian faith.  This should help your perspective, and help you understand why she said what she said. 

Best wishes,

Daniel Baker

[prometheus]

Maybe you don't understand what she actually meant because you have never read the bible. And on top of that you have a False analogy fallacy.

A sin in the bible is an act against god. This means you ashould receive punishment. Either from those that follow the way of god of from god himself. Now Christians do have the idea of 'salvation'. But still homosexuals are 'evil people'. Homosexuality is an important example of moral decay, etc etc.

There are two powers in the universe; god and satan. Homosexuals are on the side of satan according to Christianity.

This goes as far as punishing homosexuals with death, as was done in the past and is stll done in the muslim world for the same reasons.

If this is not hateful against homosexuals I don't know what is.

As for comparing fornication with homosexuality. This is the false analogy. Homosexuality should be compared with other sexual preferences. For example prefering a partner with green eyes, etc. Homosexuals prefer a partner of the same sex. It's merely a sexual preference.

In the case of fornication someone cheats on her partner by having sex with someone else, and thus breaking the vow two people made to each other. It's clear to see that this is harmful behavior.

Homosexuality harms no one.


elspeth, did she say that homosexual people are perfectly normal and neither ill or sinners? Or did she merely say that she is sorry that her views offend people?

What if someone said: "The holocaust never happened. It is all a jewish lie. Hitler was a sensitive man. " and then "Ooh, I am sorry my views offend so many people. That is regrettable. But you can't change reality. It's just the way it is. Someday they will understand."

[term]

Don't exaggerate, prometheus.

Pianistimo has apologized. As a christian and generally, she has the right to keep her opinion and btw, many people have prejudices against homosexuality; and by far not only christians. In my opinion and as far as i have observed this forum, enough people have been unfair to pianistimo many times more than she has posted something offensive or ignorant.

Just leave it.

[prometheus]

Don't exaggerate? What do you mean?


Are you people all homophobic or something? This is just as bad as racism.

Because other people have been unfair to pianistimo she can say these things? I don't understand. How has that any relevance?

[dnephi]

You are mistaking adultery for fornication-both serious, but different.  Adultery is unfaithfulness to one's spouse.  Fornication is intercourse before marriage. 
Now you see how appropriate the comparison is.

You misunderstand what you're saying.  Christianity even says that the natural man is an enemy to God and will always be until he repents.  That's everyone:  it's not just homosexuals.  

I strongly recommend understanding doctrines before trying to use them against people.

Best wishes,

Dan

[term]

Because other people have been unfair to pianistimo she can say these things? I don't understand. How has that any relevance?

No, I just think that it's enough with these comments, especially after someone apologized there's no need for this.
Elspeth already said enough:

If you don't accept that apology then to my mind that smacks of intolerance and ignorance too. LET'S ALL GROW UP AND MOVE ON...

[ahinton]

Now Christians do have the idea of 'salvation'. But still homosexuals are 'evil people'. Homosexuality is an important example of moral decay, etc etc.

Not every Christian believes this. Certainly no Christian homosexual believes it! I would add that it is clear that far fewer Christians believe this nowadays than used to be the case.

There are two powers in the universe; god and satan. Homosexuals are on the side of satan according to Christianity.

No; only according to those Christians who hold such a view.

This goes as far as punishing homosexuals with death, as was done in the past and is stll done in the muslim world for the same reasons.

The past is the past, we mustn't forget it, of course, but how many homosexuals are executed under the orders of the governments of Christian countries today? You then mention Muslims; your argument here may be sound in itself, but you move the goalposts in it to the point that, however execrable it is, it does not feature as part of a Christian analysis of this matter.

If this is not hateful against homosexuals I don't know what is.

I agree entirely, but I temper this by the knowledge that such "legalised" persection of homosexuals is thankfully becoming increasingly rarer.

As for comparing fornication with homosexuality. This is the false analogy. Homosexuality should be compared with other sexual preferences. For example prefering a partner with green eyes, etc. Homosexuals prefer a partner of the same sex. It's merely a sexual preference.

In the case of fornication someone cheats on her partner by having sex with someone else, and thus breaking the vow two people made to each other. It's clear to see that this is harmful behavior.

I agree with what you write here (except that, in the second paragraph, "her" should really read "his/her"!).

Homosexuality harms no one.

Not in and of itself, no.

elspeth, did she say that homosexual people are perfectly normal and neither ill or sinners? Or did she merely say that she is sorry that her views offend people?

What if someone said: "The holocaust never happened. It is all a jewish lie. Hitler was a sensitive man. " and then "Ooh, I am sorry my views offend so many people. That is regrettable. But you can't change reality. It's just the way it is. Someday they will understand."

I think that you are being abit nit-picking here, although abit more clarification from Susan on these points would not come especially amiss. What you are hoping for is that Susan not only states, as she has, that people's sexual behaviour in private is none of her business and the she accordingly does not seek to judge it but also that she climbs down specifically from the stance of homosexuality being an offence against God's law as well as a disease; I wouldn't mind seeing that myself, actually, but I think that she has already gone some way towards this and, in any case, your Hitler analogy is flawed to the extent that anyone suggesting (as indeed they have tried to do) that the holocaust was a mere myth is denying facts, whereas anyone claiming that homosexuality is a sin against God is expressing a belief, thinly supported (or not) in literary texts that are some two thousand years old. Not the same thing. Susan may still end up feeling that homosexuality is not a "normal" practice, but whilst I do not agree with such a view, I would find this more acceptable and understandable than claiming that it is "sinful" and "evil"; after all, some people probably think that practising the piano for four or more hours per day isn't "normal, either, but no one in his/her right mind would suggest that it's "sinful" or "evil"...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear dan,

those are exactly my sentiments - but i can understand how it seems offensive to others to call what they may or may not do sin.  i choose to now just let it go and hope that anyone offended will find it in their hearts to forgive.  after all, if we forgive then others will forgive us (also God).  it's really not my intention to judge anyone else.  i have a lot of sins of my own that probably need repenting.  sin can be anything down to just being angry with your brother without cause.

when the disciples asked who would be first in the kingdom - i think Jesus replied that the first will be last.  if this is the case - many of us who think we are righteous might be surprised where we end up.  but, being a doorkeeper in the house of the Lord is said to be better (in the psalms) than 'a thousand days without.'

back to the liszt.  i'm in a better mood this morning.  more sleep.  i'll read it more carefully now - although i'm not sure how much time you have to rewrite it today. 

[term]

after all, some people probably think that practising the piano for four or more hours per day isn't "normal, either, but no one in his/her right mind would suggest that it's "sinful" or "evil"...

I do think that.
 

[ahinton]

You are mistaking adultery for fornication-both serious, but different.  Adultery is unfaithfulness to one's spouse.  Fornication is intercourse before marriage. 
Now you see how appropriate the comparison is.

I must admit that I overlooked this fact in my response to this; that said, "prometheus" used the wrong word and you have rightly corrected this, but if the correct word is indeed substituted, it becomes credible.

You misunderstand what you're saying.  Christianity even says that the natural man is an enemy to God and will always be until he repents.  That's everyone:  it's not just homosexuals.  

I strongly recommend understanding doctrines before trying to use them against people.

You are, of course, correct here also; that said, just as far more Christians now accept homosexuality (and some also practise it) than was once the case, so the acceptance of this to the letter is simply not as widespread as it used to be and it is now found principally among the Christian fundamentalist fraternity.

Many Christians accept that, if their religion is to survive and prosper, it has to move with and be relevant to the times, albeit without undue compromise. Religions were started by human beings, after all and, like their creators themselves, they are living entities; I have no doubt at all that, were Jesus Christ to "come a second time" - or, to put it in more sensible terms, were Jesus Christ alive and working today - He would take upon Himself (as far as He could) the woes and the joys of human society as He finds them now and work with those, rather than try to drag people back many centuries and encourage them to behave according to codes of practice that may have been acceptable in Biblical times. The Muslim world has, I think, so far woken up to this approach less effectively or extensively than the Christian world, but this is largely because fundamentalism within it remains rather more widespread and accepted than is the case among Christians; I imagine that the more that Western influences infiltrate Muslim countries and the more that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries respond to such influences, the more such fundamentalism will likely be weakened.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i can understand how it seems offensive to others to call what they may or may not do sin.

I think that it was the fact of your having damned homosexuality as "evil" that caused the majority of the consternation; I'm sure everyone will forgive you (or certainly should do so) if you refute that claim, but I'm not telling you what to do, so that's up to you, of course (and, after all, it would presumably be somewhat presumptuous of a childless sinner to expect to tell you what to do in any case!)...

it's really not my intention to judge anyone else.  i have a lot of sins of my own that probably need repenting.  sin can be anything down to just being angry with your brother without cause.

I think that we all accept that you are no longer being judgemental here. I don't have a brother (or a sister), so that let's me out of that one!

back to the liszt.

Good idea!

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Not every Christian believes this. Certainly no Christian homosexual believes it! I would add that it is clear that far fewer Christians believe this nowadays than used to be the case.

Every Christian has to wrestle with this. And yes, there are many homosexual Christians that think homosexuality is a sin and/or something of the devil. Even in the relative liberal the Netherlands this happens. I only have to refer to Ted Haggard.

It is actually the other way around. The fanaticism against homosexuality displayed by some religious people may come from their own 'fight' with their own homosexual nature.

It is true that Christianity has become more liberal on this issue. But only thanks to nonbelievers and hostility towards Christianity because of their old position. Just look at the difference between the muslims in the middle east and the christians. The difference is made by agnostics, deists, pantheists, pagans and atheists, etc.

No; only according to those Christians who hold such a view.

Almost all, if not all, denominations of major Christianity share it.

The past is the past, we mustn't forget it, of course, but how many homosexuals are executed under the orders of the governments of Christian countries today?

My argument was clear. I said that homosexuality was punished in the name of Christianity in the past and presently is punished by Islam which has the same god, same prophets, same story and the exact same reasoning. It's exactly the same problem with Islam.

And today there are still christians that call for excecutions of homosexuals. The only reason this does not happen is because religious dogma has been questioned.

I agree with what you write here (except that, in the second paragraph, "her" should really read "his/her"!).

Wow, amazing that I wrote this without giving it a though. I usually try to be very conscious of the usage of 'her' and 'his' but for some reason in this very significant place I forgot it all together.

Shows that even I am not infallible to patriarchal influence, which is also supported by the main religions.

your Hitler analogy is flawed...

That part of the analogy is irrelevant. It is about if apologizing for offending someone makes it okay to be a racist, a bigot, a holocaust denier, a promoter of hatred, etc.

If the holocaust is a fact or not and if the non-existance of sin is a fact or not is not relevant for the analogy.

Anyway, the lack of sin is as much a fact as it ever will be.

[prometheus]

You are mistaking adultery for fornication-both serious, but different.  Adultery is unfaithfulness to one's spouse.  Fornication is intercourse before marriage. 
Now you see how appropriate the comparison is.

Then your version of seeing fornication as a sin is just as stupid and non-nonsensical as saying homosexuality is a sin.

For example, I will never marry because I am an atheist. This means that when I have sex this is influenced by satan and against god's law. Do you agree?

You misunderstand what you're saying.  Christianity even says that the natural man is an enemy to God and will always be until he repents.  That's everyone:  it's not just homosexuals. 

Then why do Christians allow normal people to marry but not homosexuals? Why do Christians discriminate against homosexuals. Why is homosexuality a sigh of moral decay and the influence of satan but people in general aren't?

Maybe you think these Christians have bad theology but these people have this theology nonetheless. And Pianistimo seems to be one of them.

You can say whatever you want from your perspective but the fact remains homosexuals are viewed differently. Now you may think god hates all humans as much as Christianity in general thinks god hates homosexuals. But if that is your position you are an even bigger extremist. You just stopped discriminating.

I strongly recommend understanding doctrines before trying to use them against people.

The writers of the bible teach you to kill homosexuals: Lev.20:13

It also claims homosexuality is an abomination and that it is unnatural. Something which contradicts reality. But that's the biblical teaching.

[gilad]

Some people truly have to much time on their hands.
These are issues that are personal opinions.
Just keep them to yourselves and learn that what is right for you is not right for another.
Stop trying to convince others you're right, because you're not. You're only right in your own mind.
It just gets so annoying to see people going on and on.
Start a debate club or something.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

today's laws do not include the biblical prescriptions for any law.  why are you so worried about it?  i'm surprised that you take the bible far literally than anyone else - and yet - there is noone going around killing homosexuals, witches, or adulterers.  or sabbath breakers. 

but, there is a warning - and warnings can warn of God's own punishments.  take romans 1:26 'for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural functions for that which is unnatural, and in the same wayalso the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.'

now, if you read this literally - they are not penalized with death in the new testament because 'they receive in THEIR OWN BODY...'  the penalty.  now, what could God mean by that?  you figure.  God is God.  He does what He likes.  these are His laws.  if you break them - you may end up dead for another reason.  a natural result o f a natural law.  it is a literal statement in a literal bible with a literal interpretation.

that's all i'm saying.

btw, the anti-christ will be 'gay.'  how do i know this?  look in daniel 11:37 'and he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers OR FOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN...'

so, you don't have any 'saints' - excepting paul -who forsook possibly his  homosexual tendencies to be a part of the saints and the kingdom of God.  why else would he call it  a 'thorn in the flesh.'  otherwise he would have embraced it and told others to.  but, he did not.  PAUL WROTE ROMANS - to the romans- who also had many homosexual tendencies (even though some wanted to be christian).  paul was telling them that they must give up 'fleshly desires' like this to be WITH CHRIST in the kingdom of heaven.

[ahinton]

dear prometheus,

today's laws do not include the biblical prescriptions for any law.  why are you so worried about it?  i'm surprised that you take the bible far literally than anyone else - and yet - there is noone going around killing homosexuals, witches, or adulterers.  or sabbath breakers. 

but, there is a warning - and warnings can warn of God's own punishments.  take romans 1:26 'for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their women exchanged the natural functions for that which is unnatural, and in the same wayalso the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.'

now, if you read this literally - they are not penalized with death in the new testament because 'they receive in THEIR OWN BODY...'  the penalty.  now, what could God mean by that?  you figure.  God is God.  He does what He likes.  these are His laws.  if you break them - you may end up dead for another reason.  a natural result o f a natural law.  it is a literal statement in a literal bible with a literal interpretation.

that's all i'm saying.

btw, the anti-christ will be 'gay.'  how do i know this?  look in daniel 11:37 'and he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers OR FOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN...'

so, you don't have any 'saints' - excepting paul -who forsook possibly his  homosexual tendencies to be a part of the saints and the kingdom of God.  why else would he call it  a 'thorn in the flesh.'  otherwise he would have embraced it and told others to.  but, he did not.  PAUL WROTE ROMANS - to the romans- who also had many homosexual tendencies (even though some wanted to be christian).  paul was telling them that they must give up 'fleshly desires' like this to be WITH CHRIST in the kingdom of heaven.

I am not "prometheus". But please, Susan, STOP this stuff. You are returning to where you were previously, it seems to me. Please - you are a human being - a woman who is a heterosexual (and don't talk to me about "choice" in such matters!). Just go and have some good and fulfilling sex with your husband - tenderness, passion, whatever it takes and wherever it takes you - and then remember that the pleasures of the flesh are NOT by definition evil, degrading or any of that kind of nonsense but they are whatever you can make of them. And please do not behave like a fundamentalist Christian when you do this, for that would certainly detract from the pleasures and intensities that you might otherwise experience. It will do you far more good than going on about all this Biblical, sin, penalising, anti-Christ stuff about which you still seem intent on obsessing. We'll accept things far more easily from you if you just back off from all this stuff. I'm sorry - I've intruded on personal things here - but I just don't know how else to express this to you. I would almost say that it is "for your own good" but for the fact that to do so would sound horribly patronising and self-righteous - and I don't do either of those, as surely you know well!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,

i just want to be understood straight.  i am not apologizing for the bible - for that would be apologizing for God.  who can do that? 

i apologize if people think the what the bible says means that christians should antagonize people of other beliefs.  this is certainly not my 'doctrine.'  in fact, i don't even think that way about abortion or anything else.  i think that if a person chooses to do something different than i would - it is their personal decision.  however, if i am legally able to vote or if a person ASKS me what my opinion is about the matter...i vote or answer.

respectfully - you give a good answer for moderating this thread and making it fair and square alistair.  i respect you for that.  and, many other things.  you have a good eye for detail and would make a much better lawyer than me - excepting the dishonest part.  (?) not sure if my grammar is understandable.  what i mean is that neither of us really want to be lawyers anyways - so what does it matter.  conceding a bit here and there is usually how people get along.  much better idea than taking someone to court.

[thalbergmad]

i just want to be understood straight. 

I don't think there is much chance of that happening.

Thal

[pianistimo]

and just what do you mean by that?  you are being very vague now. 

[ahinton]

dear alistair,

i just want to be understood straight.  i am not apologizing for the bible - for that would be apologizing for God.  who can do that? 

i apologize if people think the what the bible says means that christians should antagonize people of other beliefs.  this is certainly not my 'doctrine.'  in fact, i don't even think that way about abortion or anything else.  i think that if a person chooses to do something different than i would - it is their personal decision.  however, if i am legally able to vote or if a person ASKS me what my opinion is about the matter...i vote or answer.

Dear Susan,

That's not the whole point. Do you not understand that there are times when the best thing to say about something is nothing? - especially when you've already said what you think so many times over? You talk about when people ASK you something - yet so much of your Biblically obsessed writing is not necessarily because anyone has actually asked you anything specifically. Go think about that - please - and, since you mention the idea, the Bible doesn't ask anyone to antagonize anyone else for any reason, as far as I am aware.

respectfully - you give a good answer for moderating this thread and making it fair and square alistair.  i respect you for that.  and, many other things.  you have a good eye for detail and would make a much better lawyer than me - excepting the dishonest part.  (?) not sure if my grammar is understandable.  what i mean is that neither of us really want to be lawyers anyways - so what does it matter.  conceding a bit here and there is usually how people get along.  much better idea than taking someone to court.

Who's talking about taking anyone to court? Yes, I'd make the most terrible lawyer. Don't know about you. Well, actually, you might make a terrible lawyer as well, but for the different reason that you'd keep turning everything around to the laws of Biblical times. I do try to be pragmatic but do not see this as any reason to cover up or draw veils over what I think and feel about the things to which I endeavour to respond. Anyway, why not listen to abit of my music and then do as I suggested a little earlier? - you'd almost certainly need to do the latter after having done the former, but let's not get into that...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

you mean i'd have to go to court after listening to your music.  alistair, you are more vague than thal.  i may not be a lawyer - but it would be very hard to want to be judgemental.  i'd rather just listen and enjoy.  believe it or not, i  have a high tolerance for unusual music and sounds and instruments.  i consider new instruments quite facinating.  and, in several music departments i have followed around people who search out indigenous music from cultures that passed it down by rote.  basically folk music.  i find these researchers indefatigably interesting.  first of all - HOW they write the music down is quite interesting.  and, then also - the obvious ability to record a certain bit of history that would otherwise be forgotten. 

liszt and brahms and so many people took these little 'gems' of folk or gypsy music and really made them come alive.  kodaly and bartok took it even farther and actually recorded the entire tunes and they worked them farther - as you know - to be a way to transmit to us today what was popular back then to the villiage violinist or whatever.

now, we also have the ability to transmit sounds that noone in history would have yet heard (we think) so - it's like working from the opposite end of sound.  to push it to limits that can be more 'compressed' or 'uncompressed.'  no need for exact bars and measures.  perhaps this is indicative of what early music WAS.  improvisation and really no limits of a certain 'theory' to follow when composing music - unless of course you belonged to a church.  that might have hindered some composers for a few millenia.  but, don't hold it against me, personally, ok.

[prometheus]

I tend to agree with Pianistimo on what the bible says about homosexuality. But doesn't it matter.


It was written by primitive bronze age goatfucking sheep herders with moral standards below that of the Taliban[/b]

Of course they think that homosexuals should be killed. They were primitive bronze age goatfucking sheep herders with moral standards below that of the Taliban.[/b]

What do you expect? That they have true moral and ethical teachings to offer?

If god existed then their teaching on homosexuality contradicts the properties of homosexuality observed in god's creation. They didn't know enough about God's creation, apparently. Because homosexuality is clearly part of gods plan. God created all species of animals to display homosexuality. It is gods will. But these primitive bronze age goatfucking sheep herders with moral standards below that of the Taliban.[/b] were too ignorant and stupid to realise this.

As for daniel 11:37 'and he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers OR FOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN...'

Of course the whole anti-Christ is a false prophecy. All this stuff should have happened 1900 years ago.

But your logic here is non equator. If one does not desire for females it doesn't follow that one desires for males. One in ten people are asexual. They lack all forms of sexuality.

But it's not going to happen. You don't need to hate people and act primitive in fear of God. So stop it.

And if you truly like this way of thinking then move to Afghanistan. Join the Taliban. They are the closest thing to the biblical people on earth today.

[living_stradivarius]

The first 9 or so posts really look like ass-kissing to me. Just being objective here.

I'm all for lowering hostility levels, but those posts sound so artificially gay (no pun intended) they are just asking for a bashing. Since the topic was about paper-editing, does anyone want to read my 20 page treatise on religion?

btw, the anti-christ will be 'gay.'  how do i know this?  look in daniel 11:37 'and he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers OR FOR THE DESIRE OF WOMEN...'

Oh, you know? Btw, your priests have no desire for women either.
Showing no regard doesn't mean they have no regard. It's called humility. Celibacy is when you SHOW regard for women but can't have any


In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (vv. 33-35).

I'm really tempted to say, "know your role..." Sorry, other ladies in the forum, but I certainly can't apologize for the bible.

[ahinton]

you mean i'd have to go to court after listening to your music.  alistair, you are more vague than thal.

No, Susan, I mean nothing of the sort. I am not being at all vague, except to the extent of testing your memory of what I suggested in another thread that you go and do but which it seems you haven't done!

Best,

Alistair

[elspeth]

It was written by primitive bronze age goatf**king sheep herders with moral standards below that of the Taliban

Prometheus, I know you're angry and offended, and with good reason. But you are rapidly becoming very offensive yourself and, just as much as I wish Susan would shush about this, I wish you would too.

One, this is supposed to be a family-friendly forum. Please mind your language. I for one don't want to read it just because you've found variations on words that will get past the filters.

Two, I would argue that, whatever misguided things to the modern mind there are in the bible - of which I think there are many - you have to bear in mind that, in other parts it teaches lessons like 'do not kill' and 'do not steal' - implying that the various authors were not entirely devoid of any moral standards. Also, any book is written in the context of society at the time and location, and at the time the bible was written the repression of both women and homosexuality was the norm. Just because something is wrong in context NOW doesn't mean it was then. Any historian will tell you that's the problem with interpreting contemporary sources about any period or subject. You have to take it in context of the society and politics of the time it was written. The problem with that of course comes with people who will insist on taking every word of the bible literally, of which you are just as guilty as Pianistimo. She uses it to back up her belief that homosexuality is in some way wrong, and you use it to back up yours that all religious people are ignorant bigots.

As a Christian who prefers to interpret the bible in terms of its age and context and therefore do not in any way build my faith or my life on its undiluted or uninterpreted content, I find both of your points of view offensive and I wish you'd both STOP making this forum such a poisonous place to be. I really hoped we'd got past that after the Pianistimo/Thal spat at new year.

Now please. I know you're angry but you've had your say. Let it go.

[ahinton]

Prometheus, I know you're angry and offended, and with good reason. But you are rapidly becoming very offensive yourself and, just as much as I wish Susan would shush about this, I wish you would too.

One, this is supposed to be a family-friendly forum. Please mind your language. I for one don't want to read it just because you've found variations on words that will get past the filters.

Two, I would argue that, whatever misguided things to the modern mind there are in the bible - of which I think there are many - you have to bear in mind that, in other parts it teaches lessons like 'do not kill' and 'do not steal' - implying that the various authors were not entirely devoid of any moral standards. Also, any book is written in the context of society at the time and location, and at the time the bible was written the repression of both women and homosexuality was the norm. Just because something is wrong in context NOW doesn't mean it was then. Any historian will tell you that's the problem with interpreting contemporary sources about any period or subject. You have to take it in context of the society and politics of the time it was written. The problem with that of course comes with people who will insist on taking every word of the bible literally, of which you are just as guilty as Pianistimo. She uses it to back up her belief that homosexuality is in some way wrong, and you use it to back up yours that all religious people are ignorant bigots.

As a Christian who prefers to interpret the bible in terms of its age and context and therefore do not in any way build my faith or my life on its undiluted or uninterpreted content, I find both of your points of view offensive and I wish you'd both STOP making this forum such a poisonous place to be. I really hoped we'd got past that after the Pianistimo/Thal spat at new year.

Now please. I know you're angry but you've had your say. Let it go.

Thank God (that's assuming I'm allowed to write "God" without spawning another brace of argumentative posts) for the voice of reason, as expressed by you and a little earlier by "cmg" on the same subject in another thead. Much of what you write is about things of which I've tried to persuade Susan on many previous occasions; I have even given lists of problems about the Bible and how we can approach it today, which include but are not limited to those which you mention here. It seems perfect common sense to you and I and "cmg" and some others that it is just plain daft to interpret literally - let alone hold up as an infallible and complete article of faith under the umbrella "The Word of God" - a book that is incomplete and which was written in the Middle East over quite a long period some two thousand years ago by a bunch of authors not all of whom knew one another and without any overall editorial control and which has been translated over and over from what would now in any case be a language recognisable only to certain scholarly linguists and which will have itslf changed as all languages have done over that lengthy period; society, politics, scientific discovery, climate, communication and travel, health and diet, law and - yes - religion have all undergone massive metamorphoses over those two millennia and, whilst I understand and accept that a religious faith must by definition embrace certain constancies, it is utter folly to seek to make everything a constant and force it under something called "God's law" as though nothing changes and nothing should ever change. It is the attitude that nevertheless does promote this inflexibility of approach that strikes me as being at the very core of what we understand as religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or otherwise. As a non-Christian, I don't want to have anything to do with it beyond recognising its existence and rejecting it, simply because it is impractical, unrealistic and, frankly, inhuman; if I were a Christian, however, my attitude to this would be no different.

Let's for God's sake - and for our own - get away from all this, lest we end up finding that the pianos, piano repertoire, pianists and all other matters pianistic disappear from this forum which then becomes a place where only religious and anti-religious wrangling may be found.

God forbid!

Yes, Susan - that's three times in one post that I've called upon God! If you'd done it instead of me, He'd have heard you, apparently. The best I can hope for is that other forum members hear it when it's me writing it...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

The bible does not say: "Thou shalt not kill."

It says: "Thou shalt not murder."

Big difference.

[term]

Yes, today. But since you can't read/speak hebrew...
And as ahinton said, it has been translated so often...I wonder how much is lost and how much added.
There are translations directly from the original text, but of course the difference between hebrew and english is bigger than the difference between any languages still spoken today.

I don't know how it is in english, in german it is "Du sollst nicht töten"; with töten meaning to kill. To murder would be "morden". In german it's clear.

[dnephi]

https://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/20/13a

Verse in context: https://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/20

[prometheus]

לא תרצח

or

לא תהרג


The bible wasn't written in English or German.

If the bible said: "Thou shalt not kill" then there is a big problem. By dogma no form of killing any human is allowed. Not in war, not in self-defense, etc.

The bible says that god orders people to kill pagans, homosexuals, sabbath-breakers, disobedient children, the list goes on. Surely it can't be:  לא תהרג

And it isn't...


Yes, Christians have traditionally been mistranslating this text structurally. Also, is has received criticism from Jewish theologians ever since the dark ages.

[elspeth]

PLEASE reread previous posts from myself and others which say that the bible is a work which has to be interpreted, not taken literally.

You are splitting hairs about semantics and once again trying, by reading the text literally, to imply that all religious beliefs are unreasonable, inflexible and bigoted. I would point out to you that what I might call your atheist fundamentalism is just as damaging and unreasonable as the religious variety, and every bit as offensive to the majority of the rest of us, whichever belief camp we fall into.

[living_stradivarius]

PLEASE reread previous posts from myself and others which say that the bible is a work which has to be interpreted, not taken literally.

You are splitting hairs about semantics and once again trying, by reading the text literally, to imply that all religious beliefs are unreasonable, inflexible and bigoted. I would point out to you that what I might call your atheist fundamentalism is just as damaging and unreasonable as the religious variety, and every bit as offensive to the majority of the rest of us, whichever belief camp we fall into.

Prometheus points our attention towards  "interpretations" of text that are based solely on hearsay, used by religious institutions to indoctrinate youths, which force upon them a false understanding of the flexibility of the text. I don't see how showing that the text is written one way but being taught in another is "offensive" in any way.

[ahinton]

Prometheus points our attention towards  "interpretations" of text that are based solely on hearsay, used by religious institutions to indoctrinate youths, which force upon them a false understanding of the flexibility of the text. I don't see how showing that the text is written one way but being taught in another is "offensive" in any way.

I don't believe that this is precisely what "elspeth" is saying here. What she does is to note that "prometheus" seeks to use literal interpretation of certain Biblical texts as justification for claiming that they represent bigoted and otherwise unacceptable ideas and practices and, as a corollary of this, religious doctrine is therefore unacceptable. I think that where "elspeth" is in agreement with "prometheus" is in the unnacceptability of the practice of indoctrination by means of such literal Biblical interpretation, in that this is itself bigoted and leads to bigotry in those indoctrinated; where they disagree in in that, whereas "prometheus" holds literal Biblical interpretations up to the light and states that religions based on them are unacceptable, "elspeth" realises that, even if these particular texts are taken literally in terms of the time in which they were written, they need to be reinterpreted for our own time in order to demonstrate that the religion concerned has moved with the times to a point of acceptability.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i wish , i really wish i could 'let it go.'  religion is a big part of my life - so when someone says - 'do you want to read my 20 page paper on religion' - i'd say 'sure.'  so, here it goes again.  but, just pm me with it - so noone else will be bothered.

and, prometheus, i understand where you are coming from - believe it or not.  and, yet - don't you think the NEW testament is much more 'relaxed.'  the only people getting killed in roman times were christians.  it was many many years after that - that there were inssurrections and finally a church that would have crusades against the muslims, etc.  i'm not sure that you follow me on 'manifest destiny' because i don't mean that it is 'meant to be' to kill people of other beliefs.  what i mean by manifest destiny is that God meant for the bible and the gospel to spread to the whole entire world and then 'the end shall come.'  what does he mean by 'the end?'

well, none of us will know until it happens.  but, what if you knew from bible prophecy that certain things would happen a certain way.  wouldn't you want to then be prepared for whatever is going to happen?  Christ said in matthew that there would be 'great tribulation' (matt 24: 9) after wars and rumors of wars.  the people being persecuted here are not homosexuals.  they are christians.  how can God know the future?  i don't know.  but, i believe this to be true. 

'and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations ON ACCOUNT OF MY NAME.'

so - we see that if we don't cause any sort of stirring - people can't hate us.  we are told not to hide our light under a bushel.  so - as a soldier of Christ - i march forward and wait for him to be my shield and sword.  it really doesn't matter if someone kills us.  death is not the end.  that is what is so mysterious about life.  that it doesn't end here.  we were meant to live eternally with God and be a part of a huge family that loves and does not want to hate or kill.

ps  living_stradivarius, i agree totally with what you say 'within context.'  a woman is told not to speak in church and teach a man.  that is the man's role - to preach.  but, a woman has a lot of freedom in speaking the Words of God if someone asks her a reason for the faith that lies within her.  i don't claim to have all faith - but i do feel pressured to speak when someone says something that is incorrect about the bible or God.  it is like seeing an urtext and someone saying 'that isn't right.'  of course, you defend what you believe to be TRUE.  i believe the bible is the inerrant Word of God and i take it literally.  so, you see, it is offensive to me if someone says it's all a lie - and we should take it figuratively.  if you take one thing figuratively, why not take it all (unless we're talking about parables - or dreams - but the dreams usually have interpretations from God). 

[prometheus]

Ok, let me first point out that I am not angry in any way. 

and, prometheus, i understand where you are coming from - believe it or not.  and, yet - don't you think the NEW testament is much more 'relaxed.'

Yes it is. And I have told you this before. But what I don't understand is why Christians don't edit the bible. Why don't you get rid of the genocide in the old testament? Why don't you get rid of the passages that say that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexuals should be killed?

I see very much that religious people today in the west are very different from what is described in the old testament. But you have defended the acts of large scale child and baby slaughter as described in the bible. And you use old testament to support hate speech against homosexuals.


Why don't you Christians get rid of all those teachings of people more violent then the Taliban.

Don't you realise that if the bible was not a religious text is would be banned in many places because of its content?

And all those liberal Christians out there. Why don't you rewrite the bible? Surely you modern liberal Christians have way better teachings to offer than the people that actually wrote the bible.
If you all recognise that the old testament is cruel but that the new testament turns it around then why don't you just throw out the whole OT.

It's not so hard to do. No. As far as I know all Christians embrace the bible. And this makes it possible for hate speech against homosexuals and nonbelievers, etc. Because it is in this book embraced by so many.

Now there are 40,000 different versions of Christianity. If there is one that actually does have a edited version of the bible that can stand up to modern morality then please tell me.

...the only people getting killed in roman times were christians.

What? I am not even going to refute this.

that there were insurrections and finally a church that would have crusades against the muslims, etc.  i'm not sure that you follow me on 'manifest destiny' because i don't mean that it is 'meant to be' to kill people of other beliefs.

The pope told people that killing a muslim was a free ticket to heaven.

Christ said in matthew that there would be 'great tribulation' (matt 24: 9)

Christ also said in Matthew that he would return within a generation at least three times. If Christ were to return tomorrow the bible teaches you to kill Christ. You are to kill false prophets.

Christ is 1950 years late. Thats a 3900% error margin.

[pianistimo]

?  to kill our Savior again?  prometheus - you rewrite the bible and then we'll be the ones laughing.

look - if there is no law there is no punishment.  you say there is no punishment therefore there is no law.  but, it doesn't work that way.  God is God - no matter who thinks they already are.

btw,  what i meant earlier to stradivarius is that prophecy usually deals two-fold - now and later.  Jesus said 'i come to do my Father's will.'  and yet, He died and was ressurrected and must wait to return at the time that His FATHER says is the right time to end the world's affairs.  now, if we KNEW the day and the hour - then the bible would be errant.  but, we don't know.  therefore the bible is TRUE.

just as we have a week - showing us a plan for six days of work and one day of rest...so i believe that some christians believe that 'a thousand days are as one' to God.  if this scripture proves true in a duality - then we have a week with a day of rest - and we have six thousand years - with a millenial rest (1000 years) with Jesus.  that means- we are getting pretty close to the return of our Savior.  we don't know the day or hour - but it could be now or later or much later (after we die) - but in any case - we are told to be ready.  He is like a bridegroom returning for his bride.  we don't want to rewrite the bible because that would be turning a bride to a ***.  if every Word of God is true -then we can't change it or it would be FALSE.  that is the anti-Christ - false words, false doctrine - to make humans happy.  who said life was supposed to be easy?  it is not.  it is actually a very difficult thing to live according to the Words of God - but easy after it becomes a habit.  you have to practice piano.  you have to practice living a way that is different than the ways of 'natural man.' 

why?  because there is a reward waiting for those who do.  and, our Savior loves us and wants to share 'all things.'  what are all these things?  i do not know.  but, we are given a glimpse of it in the places of the bible that speak of 'turning swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks' and that 'nation will not lift up sword against nation - neither shall their be war anymore.'  if you love peace - you love God.  it is a false assumption that people that speak peaceful words ARE actually peaceful.