Jump to content
Hunter Stern

Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:
16 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Ever wondered why the descriptions in Scripture of which parts of a sacrificed ox, that you burn as offerings to the skydaddy, are the bits nobody wants to eat....

I probably go through periods of thinking too much, but I have to say I have never thought of this....;0

Not sure which "bits" Klytyna means. Surely someone would want these (oxtail, fat from chitterlings, kidneys and liver). From Leviticus 9:18 - 18 He slaughtered the ox and the ram as a sacrifice of well-being for the people. Aaron’s sons brought him the blood, which he dashed against all sides of the altar, 19 and the fat of the ox and of the ram—the broad tail, the fat that covers the entrails, the two kidneys and the fat on them,[a]and the appendage of the liver. 20 They first laid the fat on the breasts, and the fat was turned into smoke on the altar; 21 and the breasts and the right thigh Aaron raised as an elevation offering before the Lord, as Moses had commanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not sure which "bits" Klytyna means. Surely someone would want these (oxtail, fat from chitterlings, kidneys and liver). From Leviticus 9:18 - 18 He slaughtered the ox and the ram as a sacrifice of well-being for the people. Aaron’s sons brought him the blood, which he dashed against all sides of the altar, 19 and the fat of the ox and of the ram—the broad tail, the fat that covers the entrails, the two kidneys and the fat on them,[a]and the appendage of the liver. 20 They first laid the fat on the breasts, and the fat was turned into smoke on the altar; 21 and the breasts and the right thigh Aaron raised as an elevation offering before the Lord, as Moses had commanded.

Ever see that movie Apocalypto?

If you did,do you remember the child that was up there when they were doing the sacrifices?

When he was tugging on his mothers skirt all I could think of at the time was,Mom can we go already, I'm so booored, I wanna go home!

Anytime someone talks about sacrifices after seeing that movie,I see that kid doing that..hehehehe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ever see that movie Apocalypto?

If you did,do you remember the child that was up there when they were doing the sacrifices?

When he was tugging on his mothers skirt all I could think of at the time was,Mom can we go already, I'm so booored, I wanna go home!

Anytime someone talks about sacrifices after seeing that movie,I see that kid doing that..hehehehe

I've heard people say that attending church is a transcendent experience.

When I went as a child, I was so bored by the nonsense emanating from the pulpit that I would start watching the chandeliers for Foucault pendulum motion, then I'd watch the stained glass windows for light reflected off cars in the parking lot. I'd then measure the time it took for parishioners to enter the rear doors of the church. I could tell if they'd been running or just shuffling along, and then I'd watch their faces for signs of embarrassment over arriving late. My body was in the pew, but my mind was elsewhere, and very active.

Attending church is a transcendent experience.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ever see that movie Apocalypto?

If you did,do you remember the child that was up there when they were doing the sacrifices?

When he was tugging on his mothers skirt all I could think of at the time was,Mom can we go already, I'm so booored, I wanna go home!

Anytime someone talks about sacrifices after seeing that movie,I see that kid doing that..hehehehe

 

Also, she missed the part where the burnt offerings are divvied up for eating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

What about the very beginnings of Christianity?

You mean where a 40+ year old petty aristocrat from the Tribe of Judah, a member of an extreme and somewhat violent Jewish splinter sect called the Nazoreans,  marries a girl from a wealthy House of Benjamin family, and funded by his brother-in-laws money recruits a small band of followers and goes around preaching insurrection, culminating in a political rally on a hill outside the provincial capital, to 5000 people, with free fish sandwiches, sponsored by the Popular Peoples Judean Popular Front of Judea.

Then he makes such peaceful and loving statements to his followers as "I come not to bring peace but the sword" and "sell your cloak and buy a sword", but gets arrested , tried and executed for being an insurectionist?

Or...

Were you referring to a later period when the Church authorities, in a bid to exterminate the first 'heresy cult', the Carpocratians, who tended towards 'free love', decided it was ok to inform on their fellow believers so the Romans could execute the 'heretics' for civil offences, without the Church getting it's hands dirty?

Or...

But never mind, I'm sure you are starting to get the picture.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

You mean where a 40+ year old petty aristocrat from the Tribe of Judah, a member of an extreme and somewhat violent Jewish splinter sect called the Nazoreans,  marries a girl from a wealthy House of Benjamin family, and funded by his brother-in-laws money recruits a small band of followers and goes around preaching insurrection, culminating in a political rally on a hill outside the provincial capital, to 5000 people, with free fish sandwiches, sponsored by the Popular Peoples Judean Popular Front of Judea.

Then he makes such peaceful and loving statements to his followers as "I come not to bring peace but the sword" and "sell your cloak and buy a sword", but gets arrested , tried and executed for being an insurectionist?

Or...

Were you referring to a later period when the Church authorities, in a bid to exterminate the first 'heresy cult', the Carpocratians, who tended towards 'free love', decided it was ok to inform on their fellow believers so the Romans could execute the 'heretics' for civil offences, without the Church getting it's hands dirty?

Or...

But never mind, I'm sure you are starting to get the picture.
 

Not at all, all I see that you wrote is satire and sarcasm. If anything you wrote was close to what “the book says” or what “is taught” or even “modern scholarly interpretation”, then  perhaps I’d give your response some kudos. But, your response just utter BS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not at all, all I see that you wrote is satire and sarcasm. If anything you wrote was close to what “the book says” or what “is taught” or even “modern scholarly interpretation”, then  perhaps I’d give your response some kudos. But, your response just utter BS.

Really? Maybe you should research some of the early history of the religion, in the first century, boring stuff like when the gospels were written and who by, or check up on early splinter cults like, the Carpocratians.

Gnostic sect, believed Cheesus was a MAN not a god, according to Clement of Alexandria, one of the founding fathers of the Church, they had some dreadful habits such as believing properly and women should be held  "in common"  and that their weekly religious services included group sex. A splinter sect supposedly founded by a young priest who read a copy of the Second Gospel of Mark, the one Clement subsequently ordered destroyed.

Or maybe you are ignoring the culture of the 1st century Jews in Judea, the strong influence of well known prophecies, such as a future king of Israel arriving at the capital on a Donkey just before Passover, so well known that over a period of 20-30 years, just about every would be anti Roman terrorist or opportunistic bandit stopped off at a branch of Hertz-Rent-An-Ass on the way.

You probably don't know that for example the "young rabbi" referred to in those scriptures, to be called a rabbi at all, would have had to be 40 and married. Or that the only reason anyone at the wedding at Cana would expect Cheesus to be responsible for providing more wine would be if he was... THE BRIDEGROOM.

You probably don't know that the accepted belief was that the Jews were the "Children of God", and that Judea was "God's Land", and that that nice scriptual quote "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, Render unto God that which is Gods" basically translates into modern English as

"Judea for the Judeans! Romans go home and take your blasphemous money with pictures on it with you! PS. We're keeping the aqueducts!"

You probably don't know that Judea was a Civil province not a Military province, and that Pilate, the governor, a man notorious for corruption, had already had problems with insurrectionists and religious fanatics, and had NO Roman Legions at his disposal, his military forces probably amounting to no more that 3500 men, mostly greeks and syrians recruited in Caesarea and the Cities of the Dekapolis. On one occasion he actually had to flee to Damascus and beg the loan of some troops from the Military ProConsul there.

You probably also don't know that during Passover, the population of Jerusalem mushroomed with pilgrims from about 30,000 to something like 200,000, and that with only 3500 2nd rate troops, some local chieftain/holyman rabble rousing on a hill out side the city to 5000 members of a religion that hated the Governor, would be seen as a direct challenge to Civil authority.


 

29 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If anything you wrote was close to what “the book says”

You apparently missed the two "quotes" from scripture,  I can only assume that as a Part-Time-Christian, you only read the bits of "The Book" that you like, the warm fuzzy, cuddly bits...

Speaking of "The Book", I assume you don't know that most of it is factually suspect?

Parents going to some small village for a Roman Census? Born in a stable, on 24/12/-0001? Chased out of town by troops belonging to Herod the Great?

Closest Roman Census date is 8 bce, it wouldn't have applied in Judea, as it wasn't a Roman province anyway at that time, nor did the Census require anyone to travel to their birthplace to be counted, the Roman Census was designed to count people WHERE they were to work out approximate tax revenue estimates before offering the job of collecting taxes to Tax Farmers.

And Herod is unlikely to have sent troops anywhere on xmas day 1 bce, because... He had been dead for FOUR YEARS.

Like most Christians, more than 95% of what you THINK you know about your Religion's origins was made up between 60 ce and the early middle ages.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not at all, all I see that you wrote is satire and sarcasm. If anything you wrote was close to what “the book says” or what “is taught” or even “modern scholarly interpretation”, then  perhaps I’d give your response some kudos. But, your response just utter BS.

I don't think I've ever seen a post by Klytyna that wasn't pure BS. It's the reason why she's the only one in the forum that I have set to ignore. I only see bits that she writes when people quote them, and those bits only ever confirm why it was right for me to set her on ignore.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Really? Maybe you should research some of the early history of the religion, in the first century, boring stuff like when the gospels were written and who by, or check up on early splinter cults like, the Carpocratians.

Gnostic sect, believed Cheesus was a MAN not a god, according to Clement of Alexandria, one of the founding fathers of the Church, they had some dreadful habits such as believing properly and women should be held  "in common"  and that their weekly religious services included group sex. A splinter sect supposedly founded by a young priest who read a copy of the Second Gospel of Mark, the one Clement subsequently ordered destroyed.

 

You probably don't know that for example the "young rabbi" referred to in those scriptures, to be called a rabbi at all, would have had to be 40 and married. Or that the only reason anyone at the wedding at Cana would expect Cheesus to be responsible for providing more wine would be if he was... THE BRIDEGROOM.

 

If they do check up on the Carpocratians as you suggest, they would find you in just a handful of sentences are doing a hatchet job of a hatchet job. Clement of Alexandria and the Carpocratians are second century. The two main sources of information on the sect Clement of Alexandria and Ireneus were writers on heresies at a time when there was no christian orthodoxy. Their accounts have to be treated with plenty of the scepticism and cynicism for negative bias.

I checked out the other point quoted too about having to be over 40 and married to be called a "young rabbi". This is just simply untrue. At the time there was a wide variety in judaism whilst it would be normal to be married, it was not unknown for people not to be married, John the Bapatist was celibate, the Essenes encouraged celibacy.

You previously prided yourself on cynicism but don't appear to practice it when you find salacious sources to back up an entertaining rant.

 

 

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Born in a stable, on 24/12/-0001?

The Bible says nothing about the date of the birth of Jesus. In the fourth century the celebration of the winter solstice was replaced by a celebration of the birth of Jesus. 

It is as mistake to hold the gospels to the historical standards of today. The writers did not have the resources or the training to write the kind of history that we aspire to today.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

It is as mistake to hold the gospels to the historical standards of today.

It's a mistake to hold them to any historical standards of any time. They are not really history. More a selection of 4 out of many unofficial recruitment pamphlets from a spreading cult with little or no cohesive central authority, 4 selected when the authority finally got it's act together and started rooting out the versions of the stories they didn't like.

The  3 synoptic gospels, so called because they "see eye to eye", and seem therefore to be largely copies of either one of them or of some other lost work.

Mark was, apparently written around 60 ce-70 ce, probably in Rome. The material linking the 'dramatic scenes' appears largely fictional filler, and the work gives the impression of being a theological pamphlet, rather than any attempt to write a 'history'.

There is also the whole thing about the "2nd Gospel of Mark" in a letter attributed to Clement, where it's claimed that Mark 1 was a populist pamphlet, and Mark 2 was the real deal, intended for senior clergy, hence it's destruction after Carpocrates read it and went off to found his Gnostic splinter sect.

It doesn't include a heart warming nativity story, and originally ended with an empty tomb and the claim that the occupant had gone to Galilee.

It's the synoptic gospel with the greatest apparent understanding that the events supposedly took place in Judea and involved Jews, a place and people the 'readers ' would know nothing of, written in Greek for an all gentile audience, it explains Jewish terms & customs for that audience.

Mathew appears to be from around 80 ce - 90 ce.  Appears to draw heavily on Mark, but then places this in a more Jewish cultural context, may have been written by an actual Jew, albeit a Christianised Jew. This seems to be a gospel written by somebody worried that Christianity v 1.0 - Judaism Lite, was being drowned by new improved Post-Sauline Christianity v 2.0 Gentile Friendly Edition, worried that the people who invented the religion were being squeezed out of it.

Luke...  Author appears to have been well educated, Middle or Upper Middle class in todays terms, and aiming at a similar audience, draws heavily on Mark, he refers to it as a 'narative' and appears to have intended it to be read aloud at meetings, it's again, not 'history' so much as lecture notes for a pr speech. It dates from somewhere between 80 ce - 110 ce, but may well have been still a work in progress.

The main thing about all 3 of these gospels is that the actual identities of the authors is unknown, they are all works written 30 or more years after the events by people who were not there, for reasons having nothing to do with the purpose of "recording history".

John, dates around 90 ce - 110 ce, seems to have been written by a member of a Christianised Jewish community actively hostile to the mainstream Jewish community, probably by somebody who had actually been to Judea, unlike the other 3 authors, contains details they omitted or more likely never knew, but drawn from other Jewish sources, rather than personal eyewitness experience.

However, it appears to use material that is older than the synoptic 3, and more historical, this seems to be inline with a Judean origin, and its emphasis on personal interaction with the theological message rather than "join the club" found in the synoptics.

...

Biggest problem however with the "historical accuracy" of any of the 4 gospels is... Eusebius & Irenaeus.

Eusebius, described by one later reviewer as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Eusebius who is basically our main source for the alleged authors of the gospels, a man who once wrote "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity".

Then you have Irenaeus, a man who hated the whole Gnostic side of Christianity, and did much to suppress it, he's the main source of the "Canon List" that was eventually used to select which Christian scriptures went into "The Book" and which... Didn't.

So, your "it's history sort of maybe" isn't history, its propaganda, lies, mistakes, all edited by men who thought their interests came ahead of such trivial concerns as factual reality.

I wouldn't hold the gospels to ANY standards of historical accuracy. They are at best politically motivated Docu-Drama, and at worst, "Alternate Reality Fiction", the kind where real locations and events are used as a framework for a story about vampires, or witches, or pixies who live under the floorboards.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

the work gives the impression of being a theological pamphlet, rather than any attempt to write a 'history'.

 

Right. The purpose of the gospels was primarily theological / spiritual. That’s not the same as making up lies for political gain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

Their accounts have to be treated with plenty of the scepticism and cynicism for negative bias.

Absolutely, the point wasn't how "dreadful" the Carpocratians were, if they were, it was that Clement and friends didn't just do a critical hatchet job on their rep, they tried to eradicate the sect, including burning their OWN scriptures to prevent them being "misinterpreted" by anyone else who might then start an "un-authorised splinter sect". The point was, the founding fathers of the Religion were anything but peaceful people spreading love.

4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

the Essenes encouraged celibacy

Pliny the Elder, a Roman author, who was unlikely to have ever MET an Essene says they were celibate. Josephus, a Jew who met many, doesn't agree however. Who would you trust, a Roman who never met one, based on hearsay from travelers, or, a Jew who lived and fought alongside many of them.

4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

At the time there was a wide variety in judaism

Josephus again, states there were 4 schools of thought, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, to name three of them. The authorities of the religion, the Priests went to considerable effort to ensure Judaism remained unsplintered.

4 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

You previously prided yourself on cynicism but don't appear to practice it when you find salacious sources to back up an entertaining rant.

Oh and FYI, do you REALLY think an Atheist like my self would trust accusations made by people like Clement, or for that matter, care even if the allegations of bisexual gangbangs were true? The fact that they were a Gnostic sect "The message is more important than the MAN delivering it", as opposed to Clement's crew "Stuff the Message, WE are representatives of a GOD, respect our authority", is more than enough for my sympathies to lie with the Carpocratians.

PS. Your sarcasm detector seems broken, please have it replaced.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Right. The purpose of the gospels was primarily theological / spiritual.

Power, authority, the right to walk down the street in fancy robes with guards to push the rabble out of the way.

 

4 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

That’s not the same as making up lies for political gain.

Matter of opinion. Mine is writing untruths to gain power for your cult through increased membership and increased member loyalty IS Political Lying at it's finest.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Pliny the Elder, a Roman author, who was unlikely to have ever MET an Essene says they were celibate. Josephus, a Jew who met many, doesn't agree however. Who would you trust, a Roman who never met one, based on hearsay from travelers, or, a Jew who lived and fought alongside many of them.

 The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Power, authority, the right to walk down the street in fancy robes with guards to push the rabble out of the way.

 


 

Christians were the rabble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

 The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes.

Did they?

We know some people wrote some things at Qumran, because they have found inkwells, we know that at least some of the inhabitants of Qumran were practicing jews, because there are miqvah there.

But were they the Essenes? And did THEY write the scrolls. Pliny, that far away Roman says Essenes lived near the dead sea, but we already know he's not the most accurate source of info on Essenes, right?

Theres a theory, based on the variety of the writings and on the various different handwritings, that suggests the scrolls are from various libraries in Jerusalem, hidden by refugees.

Then there's the "copper scroll". Popular claims are that it's a list of the massive amounts of Jewish treasure from the Temple, literary scholarship of the sort you'll find on the wikipedia page suggests a 1st century date for it.

But, metalurgical analysis suggests its a lot older, and examination by an Metalurgist, resulted in him stating that one of the "untranslatable characters" was in fact an egyptian unit of weight, and that some of the directions on how to find certain treasures matched finds in Egypt at a specific temple, the one built by the Heretic Pharaoh AkhenAten.

There was a documentary on BBC2, which made interesting viewing, this link gives a brief summary of the contents from a newspaper article of the time

http://rense.com/general21/my.htm

Did the Essenes write the Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe, some of them, others, certainly not.

Does this matter with regard to who knew more about Essenes, Pliny or Josephus, not in the slightest.


 

Edited by Klytyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Christians were the rabble.

Be sure to say that to the mother of the Emperor Constantine, when you meet her in the Post-Mortem Party Palace in the sky, I'm sure she will be sympathetic to your opinions...

Oh, and "rabble" have NEVER lied to gain political power, wealth and authority, right?

 

Edited by Klytyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

the right thigh Aaron raised as an elevation offering before the Lord

Aaron raised his right thigh in offering, or the ox's? 

Edited by Callum Meriman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I don't think I've ever seen a post by Klytyna that wasn't pure BS. It's the reason why she's the only one in the forum that I have set to ignore. I only see bits that she writes when people quote them, and those bits only ever confirm why it was right for me to set her on ignore.

I tried to ignore her and BilliJo, but for some reason couldn’t do it. I’ve done it before. Could you refresh me on the procedure so I can try again today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Callum Meriman said:

Aaron raised his right thigh in offering, or the ox's? 

Pretty sure it’s the Ox, otherwise he’d be offering his Ass (and possibly farting).

Edited by Love Zhaoying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I tried to ignore her and BilliJo, but for some reason couldn’t do it. I’ve done it before. Could you refresh me on the procedure so I can try again today?

In a page of posts, such as this one, mouse over the name or pic of the person you want to ignore. A box opens. In the middle of the bottom, there's an option to ignore the user.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 10:34 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I'm talking about private business. Government services should be equally available to everything.

I think forced segregation was wrong, but,  I think forced integration is equally wrong.

It's all about this (quoted).

People who bring up the whole discrimination subject have the subject wrong half the time.

If it is a shared place or entity: meaning we ALL contribute in some way; for the government, it's the paying of taxes, for example, there should be zero discrimination. In the case of a publicly-accessible commercial venture, then the laws against discrimination apply and in the U.S. sexual orientation is not among those criteria (gender and skin color is, but nothing regarding behavior and sexual orientation is a behavior).

However, when it comes to private entities, locations, etc: the one who owns it has every right to "discriminate" in any way they see fit, including those criteria the law forbid in public places. So here is my hypothetical: If I pay for a sim and I say you may not come into it because your nose is too big and you have green eyes then get lost.

@OP: You have it right that my private home or property is mine to control. It is the same in SL: Linden Lab is the government. If I rent a sim from them then I have full ownership control over it. It's the same thing if you rent an apartment in RL, the landlord has no say over your access control. Even if you own your home: you do not. Stop paying the taxes on it and see what happens.

SL is no different from this;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Qa Boa said:

However, when it comes to private entities, locations, etc: the one who owns it has every right to "discriminate" in any way they see fit, including those criteria the law forbid in public places.

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own?  Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Be sure to say that to the mother of the Emperor Constantine, when you meet her in the Post-Mortem Party Palace in the sky, I'm sure she will be sympathetic to your opinions...

Oh, and "rabble" have NEVER lied to gain political power, wealth and authority, right?

 

What does Constantine have to do with the writers of the Gospels, who you said were lying for political gain?

I appreciate that you have gone to all this trouble to learn bits of Christian history, but it is a vast subject and you are confused about a lot of stuff, and not just the things I have responded to. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...