Ignore this

Disqus

Home

Notifications

kcolled

The Role-playing Scientists

Following

Ignore this

20 Comments

Anchestor

Anchestor

@anchestor 3 years ago

Nothing to see here. Move along.

You're still here?

Well. The thing is, Tammy and I got a little sidetracked when discussing shipping, and we wanted to finish our debate. We lurked in the comment section, but since the commenting is cut off after a week, we had to find a new place to continue our discussion. This is said new place. Sorry for the clutter (again...), but this is rather important to both of us, and we'll bring this to it's end. And this is pretty much the only forum we have. We won't make a habit out of this, promise.

I understand that this is a public space, but we'd rather keep this between ourselves in order to avoid causing a scene, since the topic can be somewhat controversial, or people can have quite unpopular opinions. So if you choose to spectate, no butting in, and no bullying. Everyone has a right to their own opinions. Remember to imagine everyone complexly, and be respectful.

What is this controversy I'm talking about? Justification, or lack thereof, of homosexuality from a biblical and christian point of view. If you don't like religious discussion, please leave now.

Recommend 4  Share

Best

Newest

Oldest

Back to Top

Comments

The Role-playing Scientists

Sort by Oldest

Avatar

Anchestor • 3 years ago

Tammy, you there?

I believe it was your turn to reply.

•Share ›

Avatar

This comment was deleted.

Avatar

Anchestor  Guest • 3 years ago • edited

You seemed to care quite a bit about the word being specifically "abominable" last time we conversed, but that might just be the effect debating through a literal media. And if the law is abolished, why should the words used to describe the thing the law speaks about not be abolished?

And the argument that it's unfair that homosexuals are "handicapped" really only works within a framework that views homosexual intimacy as bad. And that's not really the framework I'm operating under. Also the hygiene issue really becomes an issue only in some cases, but we don't need to get into the specifics of gay intercourse here.

And as I was doing research, there came up one thing about Leviticus: the passage we have been discussing might not refer to homosexuality. According to some scholars, it's about temple prostitution (which happened between men).

So, a word for female prostitute in ancient hebrew is 'kedeshah', which literally means 'consecrated', which already puts emphasis to prostitution being a part of worship. The male word for a temple prostitute is 'kadesh', which, as language evolved, came to mean 'sodomite'. 'A man who lies with a man'.

And this actually completely lines up with the specific use of the word 'abomination': the other Bible passages that I found earlier using the exact word were talking about "an abomination in the temple": a false god being worshipped.

And it fit's in with the previous line, Leviticus 18:21: "You shall not give any of your children to sacrifice to Molech; [...]", an odd thing to point out among rules about sexual behaviour. But it opens up the topic of false god worship, which Leviticus 18:22 continues.

So the problem here would not be that people of the same gender are having sex, it's the prostitution and the worship of false gods.

And who the "they" Paul talks about matters quite a bit. It's called source criticism. Simply stating a something as fact is not as credible as stating something with evidence, even if it's just anecdotal.

Ah, the 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I'm surprised this didn't come up earlier. First of all, once again, this is Paul making a claim. Paul.

Secondly, Jesus seemed pretty fine with the adulterous woman in John 8:4-11. And the prostitute in Luke 7:36-50.

Granted, both of these stories are about women being forgiven their past mistakes. But there is another interpretation, this, once again, referring not as much to homosexuality, but to prostitution, and this time, pederasty which was the most common expression of homosexuality in the local time period.

Also a thing I saw somewhere but can't find the source for, so take it for what it is: Apparently, during the time period it wasn't uncommon for older men to provide young, poor boys with education in exchange for their bodies, i.e. putting up with child rape. And I'm all for Paul condemning this kind of practice. I'm all for everyone condemning this kind of practice.

This story of your past experiences regarding your own sexuality is quite interesting. And I won't say I know what goes on in your head. We haven't even met face to face. But I will say this: there is a difference between being something and expressing something. Someone who is attracted to both genders choosing to only pursue one is a possible choice. It still leaves options. Choosing to be attracted to a gender one is not attracted to isn't a choice, since it's an emotion. And, once again, I don't really know you as a person, but saying that "[You] couldn't change it because [you] had a moral obligation" doesn't really sound like being true to your heart. If you feel like you don't have a choice, is it really a choice at all?

One last thing about your personal story: I don't know how young you were at the time, or how old you are now. But sexuality DOES fluctuate during puberty, and doesn't really become anything fixed until the twenties. So it is possible for a teenager to "have a phase", and feel differently once they mature.

And you bring up a decent good point, actually: Why homosexuality is different from incest or pedophilia. The answer: Nobody get's hurt with homosexuality.

An incestuos relationship will not be healthy due to the already existing dynamics of the family. The parents are authority figures, as are older siblings, although to a different extent. But even with siblings, there are already roles set up. And you can't get rid of siblings the way you can an unpleasant ex, since you meet you family constantly. (And there are the genetical problems incestuos offspring is bound to have.)

A child is not able to give legitimate consent.

Alcohol abuse hurts the addict and those who care about them.

But a homosexual couple consisting of two consenting adults is just as healthy and functioning as a heterosexual couple consisting of two consenting adults. Which is one of the reasons it's really hard for me to see homosexuality as a sin: over half of the ten commandments, it's about someone getting hurt. Killing and violence hurts people. Theft hurts people. Lying and adultery are a betrayal of trust.

But in a healthy, normal homosexual relationship nobody gets hurt. Nothing bad happens. So why should it itself be bad?

And if I may go on a tangent here, what's wrong with the scientific method? The fact that I'm sitting in an warm and cozy room right now is thanks to the scientific method. The fact that my mom didn't die at childbirth is thanks to the scientific method. Heck, the fact that we are even able to have this conversation is thanks to the scientific method.

So in what way, exactly, is it supposed to be flawed?

And about having to resort to reading the original of the original, even that wouldn't help. Language evolves constantly, and words begin to be added, dropped, and assigned new meaning. So the meaning of passages would only be understandable after years of schooling, honestly. Or we can use our own minds to ponder a bit, and then decide what makes sense.

And there is a point about reading the Bible literally I'd like to make: The Bible contradicts itself a fair bit and even states things that are blatantly wrong.

I already mentioned Paul shunning prostitutes and adulterers, whom Jesus apparently had no problem forgiving. In Matthew 14:26-31 it's described how Peter briefly walks on the water. No other gospel mentions this. Did Matthew add this bit, did he remember wrong, or did everyone else forget, or did they deem this not worthy of mentioning?

And those examples are just off the top of my head.

In Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus makes a parable about the mustard seed, how it is really tiny, but grows into a large tree. And it is tiny, its even smaller than rice.

But it doesn't grow into a tree. White mustard grows 70 cm tall. 1.5 m at best.

And I get what the point of this parable is: something really tiny becomes something much bigger. And the seed-to-plant ratio is still huge. And saying "[the mustard seed], which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and it becomes a mighty bush" doesn't really sound as good. And Jesus was a carpenter after all, not a farmer. I get why this passage is like it is.

But it still doesn't mean that muster grows in trees.

That's doesn't mean we should disregard the Bible completely. It's the closest thing we have to God's direct word. But God did give you a brain. You are allowed to use it.

So. You brought up the issue that if God is all-powerful why does he allow bad things to happen. I know that I'm not wise enough to know for sure, but I will provide my take on this: First of all, there is no good without evil. Without darkness the light is just the standard state of being, nothing special. One can't appreciate the good things if one never experiences the bad.

Secondly, I believe it is a part of some grand plan that I myself am too small to comprehend. I can even share an anecdote about this kind of thing happening to me in a small scope if you want, but it's getting late and I want to wrap this up for now.

And as you describe how you see God, I start to see how differently we have been taught and how differently we believe. I've never been told that I'm a "filthy, corrupt creature". Imperfect, bad, a sinner, yes. But never has the relationship between humans and God been described to me as harsh as you describe it. It seems like a rather miserable environment to me. Maybe to you my way of believing seems like a weak, happy-go-lucky, cherry-picky environment, who knows. But I'm still not convinced that a God who loves his children enough to sacrifice his only son so that we can be saved would be some kind of vicious smiter. So how could a God be a God of love if he asks us to hate people to no fault of their own.

And I looked up Matthew 22:34-40, and the Pharisees only asked about the law, Ten Commandments wasn't explicitly mentioned. And considering how tightly the Pharisees were about the old law in general, I doubt it's different here.

And so I can't really see a definition on law that is based on following a ruleset. And don't get me wrong on this, but defining love as following a ruleset sounds a lot like an abusive relationship. That probably wasn't what you meant, but it sounded so similar that I had to mention it.

And about accepting people being easy. It's really not as easy as you claim it to be. Otherwise wouldn't people of different ethnicities and people with mental health problems or disabilities be more accepted? Humans have always viewed The Other as something bad. so whenever something is different, it's hard to be accepting. That's probably where homophobia spawns.

Adultery and harassment having the same punishment, huh. Well. I won't repeat myself. But rape still is leagues above adultery when it comes to hurting people. And shouldn't the worse crime have the worse punishment?

What is love, then? Once again, I know I'm not wise enough to know for sure. But I'll give you my take on things. There are different kinds of love, of course. Love between parent and child is very different than love between lovers. But I see love as wanting the happiness and well-being of others in the long run. And God's love is not something we deserve, it's not something anyone could ever deserve, but we get it anyways.

All my sources for the historical claims, if you're interested (the links are corrupted so Disqus doesn't eat them):

rictornorton. co.uk/homopho1.htm

en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution#In_the_Hebrew_Bible

https://biblicalstudies. org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_co...

1

•Share ›

Avatar

This comment was deleted.

Avatar

Anchestor  Guest • 3 years ago

Uh. Did Disqus glitch? You wrote very little, and you didn't really give me much to respond to. But I will give my piece about the things that are here.

How can we know that Jesus wasn't a myth? To a believer it's a matter of faith. But we can even view the Bible as a historical document, and judge it as that. An so we have a text, that is mostly consistent, and that was written by several separate people. A historian could probably go deeper than that, but I'd say that we can safely say that Jesus existed. And I believe he existed, so that's good enough for me.

And the greek stories acknowledge themselves as stories. And, again, a historian could explain this deeper, but we can trace where and when the stories started, and what events influenced them. I'm not super familiar with the greek history regarding mythology, but if you want, I can tell you how it went down with the viking religion.

Why would God give us such a flawed book? Well, the set up of the question implies that God handed the Bible over to us as it is. And that's not how it happened. The Bible was written over centuries, and then the texts it consists of were collected, and re-written and translated and retranslated. It has gone through people, and people are flawed. And flawed people produce flawed text. Which is why it's so important to exercise source criticism, and not take things blindly, but thinking about what they mean, and wether it makes sense.

The flaws are shown with the inconsistencies of the narrative. I gave you three examples. I'm sure I can find more if I try. If you can solve these contradictions, please do.

And if you feel like contradictions can't be solved before it's established that they are a problem, then establish.

And while you're at it, explain the mustard tree to me.

Sidenote: my family and I are going on vacation after Christmas, so my internet access will be varied, at best. And for Christmas I'll be busy with, well, Christmas. So my responses will probably slow down again. Sorry.

•Share ›

Avatar

This comment was deleted.

Avatar

Anchestor  Guest • 3 years ago

Well, of course. Absolute truth is always consistent. (At least in practical terms, but we're not discussing mathematics at the moment.)

But that does have rather grave implications about the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, considering the aforementioned inconsistencies.

But I will point out that there is a difference between absolutely true, true, mostly true, mostly false, false and absolutely false. Something not being absolutely true doesn't necessarily mean it's absolutely false. It can exist within a spectrum. Especially if we are not working with a single statement, but a group of statements.

•Share ›

Avatar

Starry Eyed • 3 years ago • edited

(Well as a Christian I do believe I must have an opinion on this an hopefully others might see this and maybe change their mind as well but I can't say, humans tend to be extremely stubborn.

But here's the thing do you know what they say more in the Bible than 'plizz don't gay'? Yeah that's right LOVE ERIBODY. LOVE THAT GUY. LOVE THAT GIRL. LOVE THAT GENDERFLUID PERSON. LOVE THAT GENDERLESS PERSON. LOVE YOUR FAM. LOVE YOUR FRIENDS. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOURS. LOVE YOUR ENEMY. LOVE THAT GAY, BI, ACE AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. LOVE ERIBODY.

I'm actually super proud of how civil you two are being, this is how all religious controversy should be talked about. Keep it up ^^)

3

•Share ›

Avatar

Anchestor  Starry Eyed • 3 years ago

To the love point: well duh :) But it's also important to hear out other points of view on the subject as a whole. But thank you for you input.

About being civil: WELL DUH! All conversation should be conducted in a civil manner.

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Starry Eyed  Anchestor • 3 years ago

(I agree with that, everyone deserves a voice and opinion and there are no wrong answers, I just needed to throw that in there

Now that I think about it this wasn't really my place to speak about it aaand now I feel kinda like a butt I don't know I never really get to voice my opinions irl just because this is a pretty touchy subject. BUT YES I SORRY IF THAT LAST COMMENT CAME OUT A LITTLE STRONG BUT I FEEL LIKE A BUTT NOW SO IT MAKES UP?

YES yes it SHOULD so many people just devolve into shouts and grunts when real conversation NEEDS to be happening. This is important stuff you can't just 'im saying it louder so im right'

Also I think you should tag her, she might be busy with other channels and may not have seen this discussion in her feed.)

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Anchestor  Starry Eyed • 3 years ago

Don't feel bad, it's okay. The whole discussion started because we wanted to share our views, as you have shared yours. ^^

And people who aren't in the conversation can't be tagged :/

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Starry Eyed  Anchestor • 3 years ago

(Ehhhhhhhhhh okay but .... opinions are fickle things

Really? Huh that might explain a few things. Welp they're here now, still writing their response but here.

•Share ›

Avatar

Red • 3 years ago

(soo who shipping whom?)

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago

Hi there! I noticed you guys are having a very interesting discussion here. I don't want to be a buttinsky; I just wanted to offer my expertise to you if you want it. My graduate degrees are in history, political science, and diplomacy/international studies. My undergrad degree was a double-major in multicultural studies/religion. I leave individual faith to the individual, but am able to approach religions (not just the Judeo-Christian tradition) from the perspectives of history and archaeology, as well as writings of the various faiths themselves. Feel free to make use of me as you see fit. :-)

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Anchestor  Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago

Thank you so much for offering you knowledge! ^^ As my schooling on the field is mostly what I've been taught in a churchly setting, I appreciate the academic angle a lot.

If you're okay with it, I'll throw questions here once I come up with them, and I actually have one already!

So, earlier I mentioned that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 could be referring to a practice where olden men provided education and shelter to younger boys as a part of sexual coercion. I recall seeing that somewhere, but I couldn't find the source with quick googling.

Have you seen any studies stating anything along these lines, or does it seem even plausible from a historical perspective?

(Also, my apologies if I misunderstood what your degrees include and this question doesn't match your field at all and is therefore dumb and/or rude. I study on the STEM field myself, so I'm not all that sure what multicultural studies/religion means in practice.)

2

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886  Anchestor • 3 years ago

Okay, so the thing about that passage (and some of those which follow) is that you need to know the wider context in which Paul was writing:

Followers of Jesus during Paul's time (and Paul in particular) advocated celibacy, because they wanted to purify themselves because they thought God's Kingdom was coming REALLY, REALLY SOON. So, kind of a la the Essenes (another sect at the time), purity of all kinds was very important. Just the way one would offer a pure animal as sacrifice to God at the Temple in Jerusalem (remember that Paul was originally "Saul", a Jew), so it was believed they ought to make themselves pure in order to be worthy of God and God's coming Kingdom. Therefore, Paul admonished them, sex in general was off-limits.

As far as education/shelter being traded for sex, a similar practice did exist, but to phrase it thusly is a VAST oversimplification. Again, some larger context:

In the Greco-Roman world, more specifically the Greek-speaking half of the Empire, it was not uncommon among the pagans (who were, after all, 99% of society at this point) for an older man--a patron or mentor, of sorts--to introduce a younger man (13 or 14, a minor by TODAY'S standards but not ancient ones) to sexuality. They would spend time together, in some cases as lovers, in others with the older fellow simply taking the younger to the local brothel to buy him a whore. All as part of a rite of passage. A patron would do many things, including providing education and/or shelter IF NECESSARY, but more often furnishing political/vocational connections or the like. In turn, the young man would lend his own support to the older in whatever way he could.

However, I don't think that's what the passage in question refers to. Male prostitutes were just that. Keep in mind that Paul also goes on to condemn having sex with female prostitutes. He doesn't think men should take wives, either (and any version that says otherwise has been mistranslated), but may be accompanied by fellow believers who happen to be female. The point is, sex is (to Paul's way of thinking) not a "pure" thing, and the goal is to become pure in order to get ready for God.

I hope this helps. :-)

see more

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886  Anchestor • 3 years ago

Okay, so the thing about that passage (and some of those which follow) is that you need to know the wider context in which Paul was writing:

Followers of Jesus during Paul's time (and Paul in particular) advocated celibacy, because they wanted to purify themselves because they thought God's Kingdom was coming REALLY, REALLY SOON. So, kind of a la the Essenes (another sect at the time), purity of all kinds was very important. Just the way one would offer a pure animal as sacrifice to God at the Temple in Jerusalem (remember that Paul was originally "Saul", a Jew), so it was believed they ought to make themselves pure in order to be worthy of God and God's coming Kingdom. Therefore, Paul admonished them, sex in general was off-limits.

As far as education/shelter being traded for sex, a similar practice did exist, but to phrase it thusly is a VAST oversimplification. Again, some larger context:

In the Greco-Roman world, more specifically the Greek-speaking half of the Empire, it was not uncommon among the pagans (who were, after all, 99% of society at this point) for an older man--a patron or mentor, of sorts--to introduce a younger man (13 or 14, a minor by TODAY'S standards but not ancient ones) to sexuality. They would spend time together, in some cases as lovers, in others with the older fellow simply taking the younger to the local brothel to buy him a whore. All as part of a rite of passage. A patron would do many things, including providing education and/or shelter IF NECESSARY, but more often furnishing political/vocational connections or the like. In turn, the young man would lend his own support to the older in whatever way he could.

However, I don't think that's what the passage in question refers to. Male prostitutes were just that. Keep in mind that Paul also goes on to condemn having sex with female prostitutes. He doesn't think men should take wives, either (and any version that says otherwise has been mistranslated), but may be accompanied by fellow believers who happen to be female. The point is, sex is (to Paul's way of thinking) not a "pure" thing, and the goal is to become pure in order to get ready for God.

I hope this helps. :-)

see more

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886  Anchestor • 3 years ago

Hey, I've tried replying a couple of times, but Disqus gives me a "Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Role-playing Scientists" message and then (when I come back hours later) my reply hasn't posted. Not sure what's going wrong here...

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Anchestor  Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago

Might the reply include some words that could be considered rude, or links? Disqus forbids by default some words to avoid being used by pornbots. Keep in mind that "rude" words may include official physiological terminology. Because in that case you can check here mediacdn.disqus. com/1362527340/sample-badwords.txt for the forbidden words, and then work around them.

And links can be posted if they are a little bit broken, like above. Or with embedded HTML, but that sometimes works or it doesn't.

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886  Anchestor • 3 years ago

Thanks! It did include a couple of those words, which I've now changed. Here's the altered reply. 'Hope it posts.

Okay, so the thing about that passage (and some of those which follow) is that you need to know the wider context in which Paul was writing:

Followers of Jesus during Paul's time (and Paul in particular) advocated celibacy, because they wanted to purify themselves because they thought God's Kingdom was coming REALLY, REALLY SOON. So, kind of a la the Essenes (another sect at the time), purity of all kinds was very important. Just the way one would offer a pure animal as sacrifice to God at the Temple in Jerusalem (remember that Paul was originally "Saul", a Jew), so it was believed they ought to make themselves pure in order to be worthy of God and God's coming Kingdom. Therefore, Paul admonished them, sexual relations were off-limits.

As far as education/shelter being traded for sexual favors, a similar practice did exist, but to phrase it thusly is a VAST oversimplification. Again, some larger context:

In the Greco-Roman world, more specifically the Greek-speaking half of the Empire, it was not uncommon among the pagans (who were, after all, 99% of society at this point) for an older man--a patron or mentor, of sorts--to introduce a younger man (13 or 14, a minor by TODAY'S standards but not ancient ones) to sexuality. They would spend time together, in some cases as lovers, in others with the older fellow simply taking the younger to the local brothel to buy him a prostitute. All as part of a rite of passage. A patron would do many things, including providing education and/or shelter IF NECESSARY, but more often furnishing political/vocational connections or the like. In turn, the young man would lend his own support to the older in whatever way he could.

However, I don't think that's what the passage in question refers to. Male prostitutes were just that. Keep in mind that Paul also goes on to condemn having sexual relations with female prostitutes. He doesn't think men should take wives, either (and any version that says otherwise has been mistranslated), but may be accompanied by fellow believers who happen to be female without there being scandal, so long as both parties are celibate.

The point is, sexual intercourse of any variety is (to Paul's way of thinking) not a "pure" thing, and the goal is to become pure in order to get ready for God.

I hope this helps. :-)

see more

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Anchestor  Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago

Fascinating!

This does help, I'm glad to have a more reliable source than "saw somewhere". Thank you so much! ^^

The purity and refrain from intercourse makes sense with what I recall from the letters in general. But what about 1 Corinthians 7:1-16, verses 8-9 particularly? In that except Paul tell those who are married to remain married, and widows & unmarried to (re)marry if they can't, well, keep it in their pants so to speak. This seems a little contradictory? Although I acknowledge that 7:6 says that this all is a concession.

Also, do you have a take on Leviticus 18:22?

1

•Share ›

Avatar

Jekyll1886  Anchestor • 3 years ago

Ah, it is definitely a concession. To Paul's mind, a celibate state is best, but passion within marriage is still better than flat-out adultery. Levels of purity, if you will. Also trying not to upset people's lives if they're already married. Paul was dealing with real people and realized not everyone was going to live up to the highest of high standards in that regard. But the ideal was still celibacy.

Re: Leviticus: Let's first say a word about "abomination". Although it has taken on some rather horrendous connotations in English, the original word (in Hebrew) simply meant "not the way of our people". All the practices listed, which the Hebrews are admonished not to do, are in fact abominations, whether directly called so or not. It's a list of things other peoples may do, which devout Hebrews should not do.

Note that I say Hebrews, not Jews. The Hebrews at this point were henotheistic (meaning they believed in other gods but were to worship only their own, thinking their deity the best/most important). That's one reason for the Molech reference; it was something other, neighboring people did/had done, and the fact that the author had to tell Hebrews not to tells you they were doing a little Molech worship and/or child sacrifice themselves. Same with the next line. Many peoples in the ancient world were perfectly comfortable with bisexuality or homosexuality as far as men were concerned; others were not. It simply depended on culture.

The author is trying to keep the Hebrews "pure" in the sense of not getting assimilated into the cultures around them/losing their identity as a people. Anything not "the Hebrew way" (to put it bluntly) was therefore an "abomination": not the way of the Hebrews.

Keep in mind the Hebrews thought of their god as a jealous/vengeful god, someone you really didn't want to make angry. After all, if their god got angry, he might punish the Hebrew people as a whole, which the author most certainly did not want.

see more

1

•Share ›

−

Avatar

Anchestor  Jekyll1886 • 3 years ago

Continuously really fascinating! Thank you!

One last thing, if you have the time: I came across a claim that in Matthew 8:5-13 (the story about a Centurion and his sick servant), the specific word used for the sick servant means "male love servant", "pais" in the original greek. And the other servants the Centurion mentions commanding are "dolos", just regular slaves. Which would mean that the servant and the Centurion were lovers.

But my sources are once again unreliable, so, thoughts?

(If this discussion expires before you can reply, could you maybe write your answer on the Christmas RP page, and tag me? Or any other place where I can see it, and tag me. I'm really curious about this, and like I said, I really appreciate the academic angle and having more reliable sources.)

•Share ›

Powered by Disqus

Subscribe

Add Disqus to your siteDisqus' Privacy Policy