[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 04:42:23PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:33, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:37:26PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > Tom, your statements don't frighten me.  I am merely pointing out that
> > > the vast majority of Christians will find them extremely offensive.  If
> > > you did not hate Christians so much then you would not be raising such
> > > issues on this list.
> > >
> > > PS  Why don't you sign your messages with your real name Tom Ballard?
> >
> > Speaking as a recovering Catholic, I don't think that Christians will find
> > the names "offensive", however they may give some people the wrong idea
> > about Debian (namely, that it is run by satanists or something).
> You appear to have confused the original discussion (using daemon names for 
> naming Debian/BSD projects) with the latest twist raised by Tom Ballard 
> (whether drinking Jesus' semen would be considered offensive to Christians).

A more substantial heresy which was settled at the Council of Nicea was 
the Gnostics, or what is described in the Gospel of Thomas.

The "Thomas" author said Jesus was a child of God, but not God himself, 
and that each of us can be the Messiah, through knowledge.

I think the show I saw which described early pseudo-Christian Jesus 
cults which sprang up in Greece, which involved bizarre sacrements with 
bathing and drinking semen, was presented intentionally to shock, and to 
illustrate the confusion and strange circumstances of the first few 
years of the Church.  I haven't read much more about it in other 
circles, but I recall the guy talking was a famous Biblical scholar.

The guys point was, in the culture of Greece, the notion that Jesus was 
gay was *not* what caused the Council to reject these texts, because it 
really was not a big deal back then.  They happened to be poorly written 
texts, and so they were rejected for literary reasons.

Then the dark ages came, and Greek and Roman mores were abolished.  
Western Europe only had the Bible to rebuild its morality on.  So, had 
history taken a different turn, homosexuality would be considered quite 
normal now, as it was then.  As it was the "homophobic" passages were 
what made it through the Council; many other texts with *MANY* other 
points of view were around at the time.

The Gospel of Thomas describes in less obviously inflammatory ways the 
struggle between the "Paul" doctrine and the "Thomas" doctrine.

Reply to: