Hedges is the shit.... I need to read his books so I can evaluate his points. The issue of Jesus not having ANY historical evidence (constantine's 'Ta Biblio' as well' is intriguing and I wanna believe it
The story at 2:12 about him being told by his dad to set up a gay committee even though he wasn't actually gay is hilarious...
I wonder if he banged her? Let me tell you if that were me the guy with the 'faggot' attitude would be finding out if I did on graduation day... and he wouldn't be happy!
I like Hedges as he takes issue with ideological 'thinking'. However, I don't understand how the Bible had homophobic passages when homosexaulity didn't exist as a concept when the Bible was written.
You just contradicted your first comment by saying duh to my comment. What a fucking moron. When you are cleaning your ears don't push the cue tip too far inside.
Homosexuality is an invention of 19th century Victorian Britian. Until then, homosexuality didn't exist as concept or identity. Same sex acts weren't understood as homosexual, there simply lumped in with 'sins of the flesh' all with other acts. Its really just a surface level insight from reading Foucault (just thought I cite my work).
So there wasn't a contradiction but thanks for playing the cliche role of emotionally stunted alienated youtube commenter, flame on and better luck next time.
Homosexuality is same sex relations. It is as old as sex. No one invented the concept. In the past it might have been understood by societies differently but so what. At different times in history people have persecuted different groups of people. Pointing out that homosexuality wasn't a word has no relevance. Does the bible no condemn what we would call homosexual acts? It is irrelevant that they also thought threesomes or gimp masks were also sins of the flesh.
As for being an emotionally stunted alienated youtube commenter. You are the one who responded with a duh comment. If you had clarified your first comment I might not have had to respond.
Do you think that If I don't understand the concept of punch then I can't physically hit you in the face?
The term homosexuality (Homosexualität) was coined in 1868 by the German Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny. Do you think in 1867 that no one had same sex relations and other people didn't persecute them for it or were bigoted?
Yeah, thanks wikipedia, read Foucault if you're interested in actually understanding the original post. You're aggressively prattling on based off a post you didn't understand in the first place which basically amounts to 'Mjhavok mad, Mjhavok SMASH'
Making the basic distinction between a sexual act and sexuality would be a good place to start. Sexuality concerns more than simply sexual acts.
I'm sorry I called you stunted, you strike me as someone not at all completely certain of himself.
You mention a transient fact and its from reading Foucault. I mention one and it must have came from Wikipedia? Actually it is from Homophobia A history by Byrne Fone. I understood the original comment but thought it irrelevant.
In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.
I guess that isn't homophobic since the term wasn't invented yet?
An additional point, if you have to tell someone to go read something because you think they didn't understand what you wrote then that is a failure in your communication skills. If when you write something people have to go and read Foucault to understand you then you are an epic failure.
Actually you suck at reading and take ridiculous liberties with what others write. You're a dull myopic unspired literalist who is neither insightful, clever or interesting and given that you're trap in your autistic mindset of attacking anything that doesn't fit your shortsighted worldview, you're in no position to lecture others on their communication skills.
Have at your next Con, you atheist fanboy douche nozzle.
Here's an idea if you're hard up for something to do, try reading a book that wasn't written by either Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens. You might actually learn some edifying if you put aside that adolescent pop culture trite.
You are a clown. You aren't arguing against someone who reveres Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Unfortunately for you I am not that guy. I think Harris is an intellectual lightweight and both he and Hitchens are immoral ass hats concerning foreign policy. I think Dawkins writes well on evolution and TGD was amusing more than anything. Perhaps you should examine your own biases because the man you thought you were arguing against wasn't made of straw, he was made of vapour, and it wasn't me.
Yeah, you're avatar is of a shark eating a Jesus fish, calling me a 'clown' (clever, you sure cut deep) and absolute refusal to be self critical really begs to be taken seriously.
I could I possible confuse the guy that says 'epic fail' as a cliche.
Yes and an avatar totally sums up my personality. You got me with a fatal blow there. I thought that avatar was amusing about 2 years ago and haven't changed it since. If you had integrity you would just admit you were wrong about me. You tried to characterise me as some new atheist fan boy and you were totally off the mark.
Lol, its always so black and white for the reductionist. It wasn't a conclusion of you're entirity, more a reflection of your attitude.
Again I don't care about nerdy deathbow banter.
I sort of already made the concession of explaining how I could have the wrong impression of you but not without reason in my last post, do you need further reassurance?
In the interest of integrity (which isn't really something I look for on the youtubes) you can admit that I wasn't totally off the mark :)
Your characterisation of my "attitude" was fallacious. Try self reflection.
I don't know what deathbow is or means. After searching Google you seem to be making a reference to a comic which I haven't read and therefore don't fully understand.
Once you clarified your first remark I understood what you were saying which could be an interesting point but I didn't think it was relevant to the point Hedges was making.
Reduction can be useful, not always and everywhere. To approach all discourse through reduction is rather silly and end up in the pleasant exchange we've been enjoying.
To deliver a deatblow, pwndroning, etc...
The point is language can be co-opted and there are better and worse misreading of a text (texts like the Bible). Its a silly to take any text at face value or give a reductive reading. Its not clear that Biblical texts are homophobic, there are legitimate alternative readings.
I think I agree with almost all of that, however I do read some passages in the bible as homophobic no matter the depths of intellectual onanism one might delve to, to try and gleam an alternative meaning.
I hold no illusions that close reading of the Bible will leave one neurotic. I'm merely annoying at the vapid level of engagement that Bible which is a dynamic historical/philosophical/mythological text is treated with within these diatribes.
You're welcome to read it as such, and I don't necessarily dispute such a reading. Your reading like mine or anyone esle's however isn't objective.
I don't know who you were responding to, (the comment must have been removed) but Hedges is incredibly ignorant in his knowledge of Jesus and the New Testament. There is almost no contemporary biblical historian except for a few to be counted on one hand who say Jesus did not exist, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. It's sad to hear laymen say this, its telling how much they don't know what they're talking about and weakens their credibility.
Hedges is the shit.... I need to read his books so I can evaluate his points. The issue of Jesus not having ANY historical evidence (constantine's 'Ta Biblio' as well' is intriguing and I wanna believe it
donluchitti 9 months ago
The story at 2:12 about him being told by his dad to set up a gay committee even though he wasn't actually gay is hilarious...
I wonder if he banged her? Let me tell you if that were me the guy with the 'faggot' attitude would be finding out if I did on graduation day... and he wouldn't be happy!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Fact: Most atheist know more about the bible, and such things than Christians do
simsoy55 1 year ago
Comment removed
godsbrotherinlaw 2 years ago
I like Hedges as he takes issue with ideological 'thinking'. However, I don't understand how the Bible had homophobic passages when homosexaulity didn't exist as a concept when the Bible was written.
brokennarcissist 3 years ago
The word might not have existed but people still existed. Some of them had same sex relations.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
duh
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
You just contradicted your first comment by saying duh to my comment. What a fucking moron. When you are cleaning your ears don't push the cue tip too far inside.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Homosexuality is an invention of 19th century Victorian Britian. Until then, homosexuality didn't exist as concept or identity. Same sex acts weren't understood as homosexual, there simply lumped in with 'sins of the flesh' all with other acts. Its really just a surface level insight from reading Foucault (just thought I cite my work).
So there wasn't a contradiction but thanks for playing the cliche role of emotionally stunted alienated youtube commenter, flame on and better luck next time.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Homosexuality is same sex relations. It is as old as sex. No one invented the concept. In the past it might have been understood by societies differently but so what. At different times in history people have persecuted different groups of people. Pointing out that homosexuality wasn't a word has no relevance. Does the bible no condemn what we would call homosexual acts? It is irrelevant that they also thought threesomes or gimp masks were also sins of the flesh.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
As for being an emotionally stunted alienated youtube commenter. You are the one who responded with a duh comment. If you had clarified your first comment I might not have had to respond.
Do you think that If I don't understand the concept of punch then I can't physically hit you in the face?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
The term homosexuality (Homosexualität) was coined in 1868 by the German Hungarian journalist Karl Maria Kertbeny. Do you think in 1867 that no one had same sex relations and other people didn't persecute them for it or were bigoted?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Yeah, thanks wikipedia, read Foucault if you're interested in actually understanding the original post. You're aggressively prattling on based off a post you didn't understand in the first place which basically amounts to 'Mjhavok mad, Mjhavok SMASH'
Making the basic distinction between a sexual act and sexuality would be a good place to start. Sexuality concerns more than simply sexual acts.
I'm sorry I called you stunted, you strike me as someone not at all completely certain of himself.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
You mention a transient fact and its from reading Foucault. I mention one and it must have came from Wikipedia? Actually it is from Homophobia A history by Byrne Fone. I understood the original comment but thought it irrelevant.
In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.
I guess that isn't homophobic since the term wasn't invented yet?
Mjhavok 2 years ago 2
An additional point, if you have to tell someone to go read something because you think they didn't understand what you wrote then that is a failure in your communication skills. If when you write something people have to go and read Foucault to understand you then you are an epic failure.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
MJHAVOK SMASH!
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Comment removed
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Actually you suck at reading and take ridiculous liberties with what others write. You're a dull myopic unspired literalist who is neither insightful, clever or interesting and given that you're trap in your autistic mindset of attacking anything that doesn't fit your shortsighted worldview, you're in no position to lecture others on their communication skills.
Have at your next Con, you atheist fanboy douche nozzle.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Projection.
Bored now.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Here's an idea if you're hard up for something to do, try reading a book that wasn't written by either Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens. You might actually learn some edifying if you put aside that adolescent pop culture trite.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
You are a clown. You aren't arguing against someone who reveres Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Unfortunately for you I am not that guy. I think Harris is an intellectual lightweight and both he and Hitchens are immoral ass hats concerning foreign policy. I think Dawkins writes well on evolution and TGD was amusing more than anything. Perhaps you should examine your own biases because the man you thought you were arguing against wasn't made of straw, he was made of vapour, and it wasn't me.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 2
Yeah, you're avatar is of a shark eating a Jesus fish, calling me a 'clown' (clever, you sure cut deep) and absolute refusal to be self critical really begs to be taken seriously.
I could I possible confuse the guy that says 'epic fail' as a cliche.
I suuuure gotz me some soul searching to do.
I'll be careful with that q-tip in the future.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Yes and an avatar totally sums up my personality. You got me with a fatal blow there. I thought that avatar was amusing about 2 years ago and haven't changed it since. If you had integrity you would just admit you were wrong about me. You tried to characterise me as some new atheist fan boy and you were totally off the mark.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 3
Lol, its always so black and white for the reductionist. It wasn't a conclusion of you're entirity, more a reflection of your attitude.
Again I don't care about nerdy deathbow banter.
I sort of already made the concession of explaining how I could have the wrong impression of you but not without reason in my last post, do you need further reassurance?
In the interest of integrity (which isn't really something I look for on the youtubes) you can admit that I wasn't totally off the mark :)
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Your characterisation of my "attitude" was fallacious. Try self reflection.
I don't know what deathbow is or means. After searching Google you seem to be making a reference to a comic which I haven't read and therefore don't fully understand.
Once you clarified your first remark I understood what you were saying which could be an interesting point but I didn't think it was relevant to the point Hedges was making.
Reduction is very useful.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Reduction can be useful, not always and everywhere. To approach all discourse through reduction is rather silly and end up in the pleasant exchange we've been enjoying.
To deliver a deatblow, pwndroning, etc...
The point is language can be co-opted and there are better and worse misreading of a text (texts like the Bible). Its a silly to take any text at face value or give a reductive reading. Its not clear that Biblical texts are homophobic, there are legitimate alternative readings.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
I think I agree with almost all of that, however I do read some passages in the bible as homophobic no matter the depths of intellectual onanism one might delve to, to try and gleam an alternative meaning.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
I hold no illusions that close reading of the Bible will leave one neurotic. I'm merely annoying at the vapid level of engagement that Bible which is a dynamic historical/philosophical/mythological text is treated with within these diatribes.
You're welcome to read it as such, and I don't necessarily dispute such a reading. Your reading like mine or anyone esle's however isn't objective.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
I agree.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
If you agree with me does that make you an epic failure by extension?
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
No, the epic failure only applies to the bits I disagree with.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Ok, I get it now.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Uneducated? He is well spoken and very even-handed. Maybe making points and tying facts to them is moronic to you?
TILLEYJS 3 years ago 9
I don't know who you were responding to, (the comment must have been removed) but Hedges is incredibly ignorant in his knowledge of Jesus and the New Testament. There is almost no contemporary biblical historian except for a few to be counted on one hand who say Jesus did not exist, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever. It's sad to hear laymen say this, its telling how much they don't know what they're talking about and weakens their credibility.
shilohwillcome 2 years ago 2
@shilohwillcome
Thank you for your comment. Is Chris an anomaly or what?
Sad as I think he is so right about other topics. I think he thinks he is a better person than Jesus himself.
flashgm41 1 year ago