Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
Define Immoral.
Edit: Define God.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 09:10:46 PM
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
Define Immoral.
Edit: Define God.
This is question for theists, so you should answer my reference to your god and your belief as to what is right and wrong/ moral and I moral.
Quote from: En_Route on May 24, 2012, 12:20:16 AM
This is question for theists, so you should answer my reference to your god and your belief as to what is right and wrong/ moral and I moral.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 08:24:45 PM
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.
Then my answer is much the same as Bruce's.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 08:24:45 PM
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.
How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?
Quote from: Stevil on May 29, 2012, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 08:24:45 PM
Quote from: En_Route on May 23, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
Is it possible that any of the laws laid down by God are immoral?
From my perspective, by definition, no. It is possible that some or many of the laws claimed by man to be laid down by God are immoral, however.
How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?
One good way is those laws claimed to have been written by God's own hand. Know the god in question.
If the theists are right and there is a god, and he created the universe, then he owns it. He can bend the laws of physics, he can make the rules, and morality also belongs to him. In other words, whatever god chooses to do or not do is moral. If we do not agree, then that is just our short-sightedness in his great plan. It is foolish that we even try to explain or justify the happenings of the world or the people in it.
If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.
Quote from: fester30 on May 29, 2012, 10:42:06 PM
If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.
Or, we could simply ditch the concept/belief of morality. Live our own lives rather than worry about how others live their lives.
Focus on a functional society and create rules (laws) to make us safe from ourselves, e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
Don't create laws against things that don't make society unsafe e.g. working on national holidays, prostitution, gay sex, polygamy, abortion.
Don't worry about the morality of our own actions, e.g. is it moral to eat meat? is it moral to manipulate DNA.
If these things present dangers on society then create laws, but if your only argument is whether it is moral or not then who cares?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 29, 2012, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 29, 2012, 10:02:23 PM
How would one know the difference between the god's law and laws claimed by man to be laid down by god?
One good way is those laws claimed to have been written by God's own hand. Know the god in question.
Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
A few weeks back I got involved in a thread with Stevil concerning morality, he basically saying no absolute morality exists, I arguing the opposite. He convinced me. There for, the original question of this thread would be moot. Gods law can't be immoral if morality is all relative.
QuoteI'm not saying that right and wrong must come from a god. I was merely pointing to a belief in god and god's law as an analogy.
What I am saying is that right and wrong are beliefs and hence morality is a belief.
If you start trying to objectively measure other people or other animals against a specific morality then your measurements are fundamentally flawed. Whose moral believe system are you going to use to measure behaviours against?
There was once an article claiming that a survey proved atheists were more likely to be immoral than theists. And of course the moral standard was a religious belief in morality hence actions such as viewing pornography was classified as immoral behaviour.
Well if an atheists was allowed to set the moral standard for the survey then the atheists would likely have fared better, with theists failing on actions such as respecting homosexuals.
If we humans try to observe animals with regards to adherance of a moral standard, then whose moral standard are we to use? If we use a theistic standard then animals will be deemed as amoral, given that theists belief animals are amoral. I too would provide a moral standard containing a blank sheet thus the animal observations would produce amoral results. Now depending on which atheist you choose to define the moral standard, the results will all be different. The idea of measuring morality is ridiculous.
Morality doesn't even exist.
Quote from: Stevil on May 29, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
Quote from: fester30 on May 29, 2012, 10:42:06 PM
If the theists are wrong and there is no god, then morality belongs to us as a species, I suppose.
Or, we could simply ditch the concept/belief of morality. Live our own lives rather than worry about how others live their lives.
Focus on a functional society and create rules (laws) to make us safe from ourselves, e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
Don't create laws against things that don't make society unsafe e.g. working on national holidays, prostitution, gay sex, polygamy, abortion.
Don't worry about the morality of our own actions, e.g. is it moral to eat meat? is it moral to manipulate DNA.
If these things present dangers on society then create laws, but if your only argument is whether it is moral or not then who cares?
I agree in principle, though protection against danger should include curbing economic exploitation and preventing the perpetuation of social inequalities.
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 30, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?
Hmmm...interpret...such a tricky word. :-\
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 30, 2012, 05:16:31 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 30, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?
Hmmm...interpret...such a tricky word. :-\
Yes it can be. A more accurate interpretation of a work takes into account all the available information of that work.
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
(Hint: think "Charlton Heston.")
Quote..and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?
When I lived in Arkansas my best friend was a Methodist Minister. He was a "true beleiver" in the best sense. Yet, he used to play a game, what whever quote you used to make a point from the bible, he could quote a contridictory one. The bible says what ever you wish it to. Thats why so many people can find the "truth" it. Its there. No matter what you believe.
Quote from: En_Route on May 30, 2012, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 29, 2012, 11:14:14 PM
Or, we could simply ditch the concept/belief of morality. Live our own lives rather than worry about how others live their lives.
Focus on a functional society and create rules (laws) to make us safe from ourselves, e.g. laws against murder, rape, theft etc.
Don't create laws against things that don't make society unsafe e.g. working on national holidays, prostitution, gay sex, polygamy, abortion.
Don't worry about the morality of our own actions, e.g. is it moral to eat meat? is it moral to manipulate DNA.
If these things present dangers on society then create laws, but if your only argument is whether it is moral or not then who cares?
I agree in principle, though protection against danger should include curbing economic exploitation and preventing the perpetuation of social inequalities.
Absolutely,
Poor people need to survive, when they become desperate they steal and even kill.
When their numbers are great, they need to change society in order to survive, riots and revolution.
A society that is to survive and thrive needs to cater for social inequalities.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 30, 2012, 03:39:50 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Let's say we are talking about the Christian god, let's call him YHWH (that's what the bible calls him)
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
...and you claim to have read, understand and interpret the bible?
Of reading your posts I feel your epistemology is based on claims, these don't need to be verified by evidence so if you are consistent then you will assert what I claim as truth.
I have not read the bible.
I have read the first 5-10 pages, I have also read a few pages of the New Testament.
Enough to get the gist.
I don't interpret.
I read the word as written.
If Jesus tells a person not to worry about food, water or clothing then that is exactly what Jesus is saying.
Poor advice, yes. People whom follow this advice will die young, their family will be in danger of suffering the same fate.
It goes on to state that the god will provide the necessities for those whom prioritise on seeking the kingdom of god.
That is what the bible states, it requires no interpretation to read it and to understand what is being said.
In reality we know that baskets of food, bottles of water and parcels of clothes do not magically appear in front of a believer whom prioritises on seeking the kingdom of god. If the bible were true and applies to our reality, then this god is failing to deliver on this promise. No interpretation required.
I claim, that I can read the bible, without interpretation, to understand the message as it has been written, I claim to have the ability to understand that the message does not fit reality and that the advice given is not conducive to life. I claim to therefore have knowledge that the Jesus described by the bible cannot be an all knowing perfect god and hence is not an all knowing perfect god.
I claim that if AD reads the bible, without first asserting Jesus is god, Jesus is perfect and Jesus is wise. AD will also have the ability to read the words as written, will have the ability to see how poor the advice is, and will also see that Jesus cannot possibly be god.
The problem isn't the bible, the problem is AD's unwillingness to read it as written, to read it without the assertions. AD will not risk his eternal future for the sake of open mindedness, for the sake of truth. Is a faithful person a person whom closes their mind off to alternatives in order to be pure and untempted, or is a faithful person a person whom is unafraid of testing their own faith, of challenging their own beliefs, their own assertions?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 30, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 30, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Which laws were claimed to be written by YHWH's own hand?
(Hint: think "Charlton Heston.")
The 10 commandments, written with nobody watching other than child rape protagonist Moses.
Written using rudimentary technology, such as that used by humans at the time.
Where are these tablets? Are they in a museum somewhere?
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
If there are either no gods or only one god then it is impossible to have other gods before "me".
How does this serve humanity?
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
No models of planets, starts, meteors, no models of moles, worms, ground hogs, no models of fish, whales. No serving animals? No bowing?
How does this serve humanity?
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
What's his name? YHWH, Omega, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu?????
How does this serve humanity?
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Is this Saturday or Sunday? Was the universe created in 6 days or billions of years? Does the sabbath represent 1 earth day or a billion years?
How does this serve humanity?
Four wasted commandments so far.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
Pfft, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them", Some people don't know both parents, some people are raped and mistreated by their parents, some people are sold off by their parents...
How does this serve humanity?
6. Thou shalt not kill/murder
We need to eat, we kill vegetables and animals so we can survive.
We need to protect ourselves, we sometimes are forced to kill to survive.
Compassion sometimes enables us to kill animals or people whom are suffering.
Very ambiguous.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
It seems natural thoughts of lust are defined as adultery. Sex with a non virgin woman is considered adultery, even if the woman's sexual encounter was due to a rape.
The vast majority of animals are not monogamous, lives change, situations change, people die, people turn out to be wife beaters, child rapers.
This is a very shortsighted, black and white rule.
8. Thou shalt not steal
Even if a person is dying of starvation, Oh right, god will provide, yeah right.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Or any other person right? even against someone whom isn't your neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Again why is this restricted to neighbour?
Why not covet his maservant or maidservant? They are people too, can one not fall in love with and marry a manservant, or maidservant?
What is wrong with competition, if the maservant or maidservant are doing a great job, why cannot one offer them money to be your own maservant or maidservant?
Poor advice all around.
Maybe 9 is OK, but needs to be extended to all people, not just neighbors.
Excellent post stevil!!
Sort of fixed it for you.
The problem isn't the bible, the problem is
Christians unwillingness to read it as written, to read it without the assertions. A
Christian will not risk his eternal future for the sake of open mindedness,
because they are afraid.QuoteIs a faithful person a person whom closes their mind off to alternatives in order to be pure and untempted, or is a faithful person a person whom is unafraid of testing their own faith, of challenging their own beliefs, their own assertions?
An excellent question. The answer, of course, depends upon whom or what the person is being faithful to. Themselves? Fear and superstition? Invisible Gods?
Here we go again about the 10 vs the other 603 commandments; of which the two added together make 613 commandments given BY God. A question then, why did God write only the first 10 C's and nothing else in the Bible? Of course, one would need a freight train to carry ALL of the commandments as they would have been written on stone. Gotta keep that papyrus away from that burning bush!!
At any rate, Christians love to separate the first ten because they are allegedly written by God himself. How they love to revere those first 10 commandments, lovingly written on stone by the finger of God and given to ancient Hebrews. Never mind that Jesus never wrote anything at all...with his finger or a stylus.
Christians have borrowed from the Jews - Peshat - one of four classical methods of Jewish biblical exegesis. I would suspect this is how Bruce and AD interpret their Bibles.
A summary of Peshat:
1) The simple, literal meaning of the text.
2) The hinted and unstated truths that, they say, logically and necessarily follow from a plain meaning but are not explicitly mentioned in the text.
3) The allegoric (parable like) understanding which reveals certain truths to those who are diligent to seek and ask the Spirit of Wisdom (Proverbs: 8 ), and/or to conceal truths (Matthew 13:10-11).
4) The hidden truths by God which are only understood by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. They are beyond the powers of human intellect or reason, however, they are discovered to be absolutely logical and in complete agreement with Scripture.
What's with all this borrowing? Even so, I can understand why Christians only "borrow" from Scripture what they "like". Seems plain to me that they "like" the first 10 C's because they were written by the hand of God. What they cannot seem to understand is that they were written for ancient Hebrews!
Never mind there were 613 of them, only the first ten count.
Never mind Jesus said he wasn't doing away with God's commandments, only the first ten count.
Never mind God himself said the commandments were binding forever to his chosen people, only the first ten count.
Let's just listen to megalomaniac Paul.
If you cannot follow Mosaic Law, you are not one of Gods chosen.
If you cannot follow the Sermon on the Mount, stevil (and myself) have shown you why you cannot be even one of Jesus' chosen.
Quote from: Stevil on May 31, 2012, 11:14:45 PM
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
No models of planets, starts, meteors, no models of moles, worms, ground hogs, no models of fish, whales. No serving animals? No bowing?
How does this serve humanity?
I don't really know, but I think this actually refers to graven idols and not astronomical bodies or explanatory models, such as Jesus on a cross, and religious items. It's one of the beefs Protestants had with Catholics...
Now that Stevil and Gawen have proven beyond in irrefutable doubt (at least to a bunch of Atheists) that the bible can't possibly be true, can anyone explain to me why so many people believe so deeply in it, or other religions. This is the question which confounds me, not "what" they believe, but that they believe at all. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, etc. etc., its all the same to me.
As a group believers aren't stupid or idiots. (I mean, some might be but most aren't).
Is it a question of tribe mentality? Wanting to belong to the group?
Is it a question of conditioning? Hear the same thing over and over and it becomes the Truth?
Is it a mental health pain avoidance thing?
Fear driven?
Somebody please explain.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediafire.com%2Fconvkey%2Fdab5%2Fyiarnd3rciyyg3d5g.jpg&hash=1e377f28e8338a083510769afe42a24c4a1b0eed)
You might want to check out this thread
Why God? (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8210.0)
Be great if you could post any other theories on it.
Quote from: technolud on June 01, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
Now that Stevil and Gawen have proven beyond in irrefutable doubt (at least to a bunch of Atheists) that the bible can't possibly be true, can anyone explain to me why so many people believe so deeply in it, or other religions. This is the question which confounds me, not "what" they believe, but that they believe at all. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, etc. etc., its all the same to me.
As a group believers aren't stupid or idiots. (I mean, some might be but most aren't).
Is it a question of tribe mentality? Wanting to belong to the group?
Is it a question of conditioning? Hear the same thing over and over and it becomes the Truth?
Is it a mental health pain avoidance thing?
Fear driven?
Somebody please explain.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediafire.com%2Fconvkey%2Fdab5%2Fyiarnd3rciyyg3d5g.jpg&hash=1e377f28e8338a083510769afe42a24c4a1b0eed)
That's a good comic :D
I also find it fascinating why some otherwise intelligent people believe in their religions. One good vid on the evolutionary tendency, in which the presenter explains how religion hijacks normal human mental processes, can be found on YouTube, if you're interested. In my uneducated opinion, this is more relevant than the god virus idea.
Why We Believe in Gods (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg)
This is some thread. Going to take a little bit to digest the whole thing.
QuoteYou might want to check out this thread
Why God?
Be great if you could post any other theories on it.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
Here we go again about the 10 vs the other 603 commandments; of which the two added together make 613 commandments given BY God. A question then, why did God write only the first 10 C's and nothing else in the Bible? Of course, one would need a freight train to carry ALL of the commandments as they would have been written on stone. Gotta keep that papyrus away from that burning bush!!
From my perspective, it doesn't matter how many God actually wrote. That was all part of the first covenant, which was fulfilled and made obsolete by the new covenant. None of them apply to me.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
At any rate, Christians love to separate the first ten because they are allegedly written by God himself. How they love to revere those first 10 commandments, lovingly written on stone by the finger of God and given to ancient Hebrews. Never mind that Jesus never wrote anything at all...with his finger or a stylus.
Actually, Jesus wrote something on the ground in John 8. We just don't know what it was. My suspicion is that he was writing the 10 Commandments, to show the Jews who were watching that they had violated at least one of them.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
Christians have borrowed from the Jews - Peshat - one of four classical methods of Jewish biblical exegesis. I would suspect this is how Bruce and AD interpret their Bibles.
A summary of Peshat:
1) The simple, literal meaning of the text.
2) The hinted and unstated truths that, they say, logically and necessarily follow from a plain meaning but are not explicitly mentioned in the text.
3) The allegoric (parable like) understanding which reveals certain truths to those who are diligent to seek and ask the Spirit of Wisdom (Proverbs: 8 ), and/or to conceal truths (Matthew 13:10-11).
4) The hidden truths by God which are only understood by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. They are beyond the powers of human intellect or reason, however, they are discovered to be absolutely logical and in complete agreement with Scripture.
Can't speak for AD. I have not adopted this system. I am aware of it, however.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
What's with all this borrowing? Even so, I can understand why Christians only "borrow" from Scripture what they "like". Seems plain to me that they "like" the first 10 C's because they were written by the hand of God. What they cannot seem to understand is that they were written for ancient Hebrews!
Never mind there were 613 of them, only the first ten count.
Never mind Jesus said he wasn't doing away with God's commandments, only the first ten count.
Never mind God himself said the commandments were binding forever to his chosen people, only the first ten count.
Jesus fulfilled the torah and the prophets, so they passed away. A new covenant supersedes an older covenant. It's Contracts 101. They don't apply anymore.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 02, 2012, 10:35:29 PM
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
Here we go again about the 10 vs the other 603 commandments; of which the two added together make 613 commandments given BY God. A question then, why did God write only the first 10 C's and nothing else in the Bible? Of course, one would need a freight train to carry ALL of the commandments as they would have been written on stone. Gotta keep that papyrus away from that burning bush!!
From my perspective, it doesn't matter how many God actually wrote. That was all part of the first covenant, which was fulfilled and made obsolete by the new covenant. None of them apply to me.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
At any rate, Christians love to separate the first ten because they are allegedly written by God himself. How they love to revere those first 10 commandments, lovingly written on stone by the finger of God and given to ancient Hebrews. Never mind that Jesus never wrote anything at all...with his finger or a stylus.
Actually, Jesus wrote something on the ground in John 8. We just don't know what it was. My suspicion is that he was writing the 10 Commandments, to show the Jews who were watching that they had violated at least one of them.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
Christians have borrowed from the Jews - Peshat - one of four classical methods of Jewish biblical exegesis. I would suspect this is how Bruce and AD interpret their Bibles.
A summary of Peshat:
1) The simple, literal meaning of the text.
2) The hinted and unstated truths that, they say, logically and necessarily follow from a plain meaning but are not explicitly mentioned in the text.
3) The allegoric (parable like) understanding which reveals certain truths to those who are diligent to seek and ask the Spirit of Wisdom (Proverbs: 8 ), and/or to conceal truths (Matthew 13:10-11).
4) The hidden truths by God which are only understood by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. They are beyond the powers of human intellect or reason, however, they are discovered to be absolutely logical and in complete agreement with Scripture.
Can't speak for AD. I have not adopted this system. I am aware of it, however.
Quote from: Gawen on June 01, 2012, 07:05:52 AM
What's with all this borrowing? Even so, I can understand why Christians only "borrow" from Scripture what they "like". Seems plain to me that they "like" the first 10 C's because they were written by the hand of God. What they cannot seem to understand is that they were written for ancient Hebrews!
Never mind there were 613 of them, only the first ten count.
Never mind Jesus said he wasn't doing away with God's commandments, only the first ten count.
Never mind God himself said the commandments were binding forever to his chosen people, only the first ten count.
Jesus fulfilled the torah and the prophets, so they passed away. A new covenant supersedes an older covenant. It's Contracts 101. They don't apply anymore.
Sure, one apparently doesn't get to heaven by works alone. However, faith without works is dead according to John chapter 2.
Okay, so basically you should do your very best to not sin. However, since nobody is perfect and sinless, you have this Jesus sacrifice that covers you. However, the existence of the new covenant doesn't dismiss entirely the old covenant. It just changes the sacrifice that absolves sin from a lamb every year to a one-time-good God-suicide.
As for the reason why Christians seem to cherry-pick some of the law and leave the rest of it... it's possible they are separating moral laws from ceremonial and community laws, even though the Bible makes no distinction. A law like homosexuality is viewed by many as a moral law, while a law about wearing clothing made of multiple fibers, or about eating pork, or how to plant your crops, or how to sacrifice animals, might be community or ceremonial, which means beyond their usefulness since communities now are different than in old testament times, and since Jesus' sacrifice made ceremonial law obsolete (no longer sacrificing that lamb).
It makes little sense to me, an ex Christian, and I could understand why it would make even less sense to someone who never believed in any gods.
Quote from: fester30 on June 02, 2012, 11:08:21 PM
As for the reason why Christians seem to cherry-pick some of the law and leave the rest of it... it's possible they are separating moral laws from ceremonial and community laws, even though the Bible makes no distinction. A law like homosexuality is viewed by many as a moral law, while a law about wearing clothing made of multiple fibers, or about eating pork, or how to plant your crops, or how to sacrifice animals, might be community or ceremonial, which means beyond their usefulness since communities now are different than in old testament times, and since Jesus' sacrifice made ceremonial law obsolete (no longer sacrificing that lamb).
I don't have this particular problem since I don't think the torah applies to Christians at all - ceremonial or moral. Jesus' new covenant made the whole thing obsolete.
Ugh...this thread disgusts me.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 03, 2012, 07:04:52 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:50:15 AM
Ugh...this thread disgusts me.
Why?
He probably hates any religious theme. But the OP asked a question of theists, so anyone coming to this thread should expect responses from the theistic position. The title of the thread gives you fair warning.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 03, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 03, 2012, 07:04:52 AM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on June 03, 2012, 12:50:15 AM
Ugh...this thread disgusts me.
Why?
He probably hates any religious theme. But the OP asked a question of theists, so anyone coming to this thread should expect responses from the theistic position. The title of the thread gives you fair warning.
I don't know.
He was very recently a theist and in some ways I feel he still thinks like a theist. He probably has great sympathy for your position. Maybe he doesn't like the way we are grilling you?
I like RenegeReversi and his contributions on this forum, but I never know what he is going to say. Will be interesting to hear why he doesn't like this thread.
Or he could be remembering and pondering his own life as a theist, Idk. I don't want to generalise...
Quote from: Stevil on May 31, 2012, 11:14:45 PM
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
If there are either no gods or only one god then it is impossible to have other gods before "me".
How does this serve humanity?
I think the "interpretation" of this is so elementary that it speaks for itself in regards to...
Quote from: technolud on June 01, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
Now that Stevil and Gawen have proven beyond in irrefutable doubt (at least to a bunch of Atheists)...
It becomes evident that while it may be evidence to "a bunch of Atheists" ( I didn't insert that capital 'A', Recusant. ;) ) it certainly speaks to the surface reading and cherry-picking being done. One can disagree on points, but don't fake insight on the bible when you admit to having read a few pages here and there.
Quote from: Stevil on May 31, 2012, 10:43:17 PM
I have not read the bible.
I have read the first 5-10 pages, I have also read a few pages of the New Testament.
Enough to get the gist.
I don't interpret.
I read the word as written.
To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.
Quote from: fester30 on June 02, 2012, 11:08:21 PM
Sure, one apparently doesn't get to heaven by works alone. However, faith without works is dead according to John chapter 2.
Okay, so basically you should do your very best to not sin. However, since nobody is perfect and sinless, you have this Jesus sacrifice that covers you. However, the existence of the new covenant doesn't dismiss entirely the old covenant. It just changes the sacrifice that absolves sin from a lamb every year to a one-time-good God-suicide.
This is one of the most intelligent points made from an atheist. While there is disagreement or no understanding, at least the issues are laid out correctly. Bruce and I may disagree on what is or isn't still in effect in regards to the OT and the NT or the old covenant and the new on the believer, but we both still hold some core beliefs in common.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: fester30 on June 02, 2012, 11:08:21 PM
Sure, one apparently doesn't get to heaven by works alone. However, faith without works is dead according to John chapter 2.
Okay, so basically you should do your very best to not sin. However, since nobody is perfect and sinless, you have this Jesus sacrifice that covers you. However, the existence of the new covenant doesn't dismiss entirely the old covenant. It just changes the sacrifice that absolves sin from a lamb every year to a one-time-good God-suicide.
This is one of the most intelligent points made from an atheist. While there is disagreement or no understanding, at least the issues are laid out correctly. Bruce and I may disagree on what is or isn't still in effect in regards to the OT and the NT or the old covenant and the new on the believer, but we both still hold some core beliefs in common.
While I appreciate the compliment, I want to caution that my point was not made from a position of intelligence, but rather from having spent nearly my entire life a Christian, in fact one with extensive knowledge of multiple denominations, having never found one specific congregational membership that satisfied my needs, values, and doubts. Coming from that position, I can understand the thinking of theists (well, at least Christian theists) better than most people who have never held a belief in a higher power. It's like someone who moved from France to Germany three years ago. They grew up speaking the French language, and still are fluent in the French language, even though for three years they've mostly been speaking German. I am still very fluent in various dialects of Christian, from sit/stand/kneel Roman Catholicism and Lutheran Missouri Synod, to born-again, baptized in the Holy Spirit, forever trying to avoid backsliding Southern Baptist. While I no longer share beliefs of theists, I don't generally consider them to be idiots as a group, because I'd have to put 30 years of my life into that idiot category if that was the case. I do hope my contributions can help my fellow non-believers gain a more appreciative understanding of our religious neighbors, just as I hope my work in my community can open up some Southern evangelical minds that non-believers aren't completely evil Devil-worshippers.
So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought. It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.
Quote from: fester30 on June 04, 2012, 07:40:35 PM
So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought. It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.
Definitely not babbling drivel. It may not be intelligence as you define it, however it shows a working knowledge in the least. What Stevil has shown is the ability to read a couple of pages and the ability to interpret cherry-picked words to his own satisfaction. What you've shown is the ability to take into account the WHOLE of the "story" and put an overall theme ( of our context here ) of it in a few words.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: fester30 on June 04, 2012, 07:40:35 PM
So to sum up a long point... don't confuse the books I write in this forum for intelligent thought. It's just babbling drivel from a man often driven to boredom by nothing to do in my off time in a very hot foreign country away from my lovely, still-vaguely religious wife for six months.
Definitely not babbling drivel. It may not be intelligence as you define it, however it shows a working knowledge in the least. What Stevil has shown is the ability to read a couple of pages and the ability to interpret cherry-picked words to his own satisfaction. What you've shown is the ability to take into account the WHOLE of the "story" and put an overall theme ( of our context here ) of it in a few words.
Which is why I would encourage any non-believer who truly wishes to gain at least a basic understanding of the thought processes of the theists to read as much of the actual scripture as they can stomach (I've read the entire Bible more than once), and to try out a few church services from a few different denominations, preferably with a friend who is a member. On the other hand, I encourage theists who truly wish to gain the same basic understanding of the non-theist though process to actually befriend one instead of keeping them at a temptation-avoidance distance. That's difficult in many cases because of some of the churches teaching how dangerous it is to be around the unsaved for too much time, playing with fire and all that. I see a lot of mental games between atheists and theists trying to best each other with scripture or philosophy. I find that rather ironic because theists often try to convince people who don't believe in scripture... using scripture. Atheists often try to convince theists... using that same scripture. Philosophy and metaphysics is about the only place I see the two sides could really have meaningful discussions, because both sides tend to cherry-pick scripture. I have done it myself as a member of both sides. It is simple... God exists in faith, not in evidence. If a person's faith can convince them of a god, then so be it. It just doesn't work that way for me.
Quote from: fester30 on June 04, 2012, 08:03:42 PM
Which is why I would encourage any non-believer who truly wishes to gain at least a basic understanding of the thought processes of the theists to read as much of the actual scripture as they can stomach (I've read the entire Bible more than once), and to try out a few church services from a few different denominations, preferably with a friend who is a member. On the other hand, I encourage theists who truly wish to gain the same basic understanding of the non-theist though process to actually befriend one instead of keeping them at a temptation-avoidance distance. That's difficult in many cases because of some of the churches teaching how dangerous it is to be around the unsaved for too much time, playing with fire and all that. I see a lot of mental games between atheists and theists trying to best each other with scripture or philosophy. I find that rather ironic because theists often try to convince people who don't believe in scripture... using scripture. Atheists often try to convince theists... using that same scripture. Philosophy and metaphysics is about the only place I see the two sides could really have meaningful discussions, because both sides tend to cherry-pick scripture. I have done it myself as a member of both sides. It is simple... God exists in faith, not in evidence. If a person's faith can convince them of a god, then so be it. It just doesn't work that way for me.
And I would agree...God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God, but a question of philosophical proportion and/or a personal test(s) of God as Bruce continually "argues" for and it seems you agree. ( in which is the bold above. )
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God...
Lately, I've been thinking about the term "supernatural". If something exists, it exists within nature. If something exists within nature, it is natural for it to exist. Science
is the study of nature. These claims of supernatural beings are not outside of science. The inability to disprove something does not discredit it as a scientific claim.
Quote from: Genericguy on June 04, 2012, 10:48:16 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 08:55:03 PM
God is not a science question as there is no empirical proof of God nor a test of God...
Lately, I've been thinking about the term "supernatural". If something exists, it exists within nature. If something exists within nature, it is natural for it to exist. Science is the study of nature. These claims of supernatural beings are not outside of science. The inability to disprove something does not discredit it as a scientific claim.
If it did exist and was measurable and testable by science then it would move from supernatural to natural, so far there is nothing to measure therefore its supernatural not natural, and in pretty much all cases be explained as something else that is actually natural. It cant be part of science if it doesn't exist or there is nothing to measure.
What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 04:39:28 PM
To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.
I certainly have an outsider's view of Christianity. I do try to understand you AD, thus I ask lots of questions.
I am often left in disbelief with regards to your mental positions, such as when you argue that the 47 mauled by Bears sent by god where not children but were young adults, or when you keep saying that the bible claims..., Jesus claims... therefore it must be true.
Thus I make some claims, but instead of accepting my claims to be true you come back with a counter claim that I have the wrong interpretation.
So obviously you base knowledge off more that mere claims, maybe claims need to be written in your bible for them to be true. I don't know, or maybe claims on forums don't count, maybe I need to write my claims on rice paper.
It baffles me as to when a claim can be considered by you as true.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 04:39:28 PM( I didn't insert that capital 'A', Recusant. ;) )
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) I know. I do mention the point on occasion, but generally it's in a context where it seems apparent that the person doing the capitalizing doesn't know any better. Personal style quirks displayed by atheists who do know better, I long since have chosen to ignore; I know you don't capitalize "atheist," anyway. I do appreciate your concern for my sensibilities though, dear sir. :D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 04, 2012, 11:38:07 PM
What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???
Depends on the usage. Metaphysics is abstract philosophy (such as time) or abstract theory that can be similar to the aforementioned. Metaphysical basically is the above but applied to a larger usage. (hope that makes sense).
Quote from: Crow on June 05, 2012, 12:56:02 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 04, 2012, 11:38:07 PM
What's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical? ???
Depends on the usage. Metaphysics is abstract philosophy (such as time) or abstract theory that can be similar to the aforementioned. Metaphysical basically is the above but applied to a larger usage. (hope that makes sense).
Oh I see. I didn't really thing it was anything much different from supernatural, as in 'beyond reality' sort of thing.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 04, 2012, 11:38:07 PM
Oh I see. I didn't really thing it was anything much different from supernatural, as in 'beyond reality' sort of thing.
Well there is certainly a crossover point between the two especially in Catholic theology. If we take death for example, an afterlife would be supernatural, but if we look at the abstract concept that no one ever really dies as the memory of that person is carried with others in their memories and the impact they make upon the world, that is metaphysics.
Quote from: Crow on June 04, 2012, 11:03:20 PM
If it did exist and was measurable and testable by science then it would move from supernatural to natural, so far there is nothing to measure therefore its supernatural not natural...
I agree completely. Things that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.
Quote from: Stevil on June 05, 2012, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 04, 2012, 04:39:28 PM
To read is to interpret...and your whole post from the above exerpt is an interpretation...a wrong interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless.
I certainly have an outsider's view of Christianity. I do try to understand you AD, thus I ask lots of questions.
I am often left in disbelief with regards to your mental positions, such as when you argue that the 47 mauled by Bears sent by god where not children but were young adults, or when you keep saying that the bible claims..., Jesus claims... therefore it must be true.
I'm not certain I have ever claimed something is true because the bible says so. From my beginnings here at HAF, I've tried to EXPLAIN situations IN LIGHT of the bible and IN CONTEXT of the "fairytale". If I have claimed something true because the bible says, it may be that you missed it being in that context or even that I failed to make that clear. Again, taking into account the original language, the words translated to "children" could also mean a gang of youths and not preschool kids as you guess to mean from the exact wording in English. And in context of the WHOLE bible (also taking into account that it teaches that kids up to a certain age are not necessarily accountable for their actions) it would be a better interpretation that these "children" mauled were
at least teens if not young adults. But again, full knowledge on the matter eludes you by your own admission.
Quote from: StevilThus I make some claims, but instead of accepting my claims to be true you come back with a counter claim that I have the wrong interpretation.
When there is much more information to use in making a more precise interpretation, it should be done. But since you've already admitted to only reading 10 pages into Genesis and a few pages of the NT "to get the gist"...you claim to have the correct interpretation of the whole. I respect your intelligence and thinking on your position as an atheist, however the same feelings of respect do not follow in these situations when clearly you are not speaking or interpreting from a position of knowledge.
Quote from: StevilSo obviously you base knowledge off more that mere claims, maybe claims need to be written in your bible for them to be true. I don't know, or maybe claims on forums don't count, maybe I need to write my claims on rice paper.
It baffles me as to when a claim can be considered by you as true.
What should baffle you more is that you are quite keen to make haphazard interpretations of a text having read maybe 1% of. Apparently that's ok to do here. I'll take note of that next time I make outstanding claims about something I know next to nothing about.
You admit to having an outsiders view, but make claims as though you are a biblical scholar. You say you try and ask questions to try and understand. What you are doing is making claims based on no knowledge of the bible or its claims. But again, since the majority of the people on this forum are of disbelief, you go unchecked on the matter. You SAY you want to understand, but your actions are not one of wanting understanding, but rather of one only wanting to extract and claim that which makes you feel better about your disbelief. I don't blame you for lashing out in ignorance to something that threatens your stance. We all do the same to one degree or another. Your attitude of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "la, la, la, la, la..." also shows that you really aren't wanting to understand, but just out to build your wall. That's ok too...but don't make the claim of wanting to understand when clearly you don't want to understand. I don't fault you for your disbelief, in fact I support your ability to think and choose for yourself what you will or will not believe. My only role here, as I see it, is to bring more understanding to those that wish for it and to clarify the misunderstandings that people like you make on a regular basis with no real knowledge of the basics of the fairytale...yet are emphatic about discussing and debunking a "fake" story. On the flip side, I've grown to like many of the HAF regulars...you included. We butt heads on these things, but on other things I see we think alike.
I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so." The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another. Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages. But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think. I've never really encountered it. A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 05, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so." The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another. Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages. But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think. I've never really encountered it. A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.
What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage. I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so. Do they have other reasons?
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 05:25:34 PM
What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage. I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so. Do they have other reasons?
It seems unnatural to them, it may be viscerally disgusting to some of them, they think it's a choice or excuse to live a profligate lifestyle, etc. The fact that they can find some verses in the Bible that condemn it gives added support to their position. A man desiring another man sexually seems strange to me, but I try to separate my personal feelings from policy issues in a secular society. The idea of separation of church and state is not appealing to many Christians, and that's where the problem starts.
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 05:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 05, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so." The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another. Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages. But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think. I've never really encountered it. A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.
What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage. I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so. Do they have other reasons?
I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads. Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right". The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.
Having said that...
If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign. This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim. Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects. In that context the believer sees it as wrong.
However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God. If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 05:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 05, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so." The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another. Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages. But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think. I've never really encountered it. A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.
What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage. I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so. Do they have other reasons?
I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads. Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right". The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.
Having said that...
If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign. This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim. Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects. In that context the believer sees it as wrong.
However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God. If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.
Exactly. I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible. Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion." I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong. Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people? Proof 2: There are lots of things that I do find gross, but very few of them that I want to make against the law, because I don't care what other people do as long as they aren't hurting each other. If Christians were merely grossed out, I doubt they would care about it being against the law either.
Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing. I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.
I agree. There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes. I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing. I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.
I agree. There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes. I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.
To your first, while it may be true that people generally dislike public displays of affection, I am likely to be able to quickly kiss my husband or hold his hand in public without raising much ire. Depending on where they are, a gay couple that does same could find themselves in danger of name calling, confrontations, and worse.
To your bolded, I agree. I would say that a more accurate statement is "
Most people who are 'anti-homosexual' are
religious." Not neccessarily Christian, and certainly not "all".
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
First, I don't think it has anything to do with kissing. I'm equally turned off at witnessing public displays of affection ( i.e. kissing and groping ) by heterosexual couples.
I agree. There is no other place other than the bible for this thinking other than personal moral codes. I wouldn't go as far as to say that EVERY person that is "anti homosexual" is Christian though.
To your first, while it may be true that people generally dislike public displays of affection, I am likely to be able to quickly kiss my husband or hold his hand in public without raising much ire. Depending on where they are, a gay couple that does same could find themselves in danger of name calling, confrontations, and worse.
To your bolded, I agree. I would say that a more accurate statement is "Most people who are 'anti-homosexual' are religious." Not neccessarily Christian, and certainly not "all".
Agreed. On PDA, I meant making-out etc. as teens tend to do. Simple kisses hello and goodbye or the like are not turn offs though...just to clarify. :)
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Exactly. I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible. Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion." I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong. Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people? ...... Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
I disagree. Somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation, imagining yourself doing that. Having sex with a man would be in that category for me. Yuck. The Bible has nothing to do with it. I don't oppose gay marriage. People should generally be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others, which gay marriage doesn't. But it's still weird to me, and I don't think that really has anything to do with the Bible.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 05, 2012, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 07:31:44 PM
Exactly. I don't buy the whole "viscerally disgusting" argument as proof that believers are taking their belief about homosexuality from anywhere but the bible. Proof 1: I know of very few atheists that feel that homosexuality is "viscerally disgusting" because we aren't coming at it from the standpoint of someone who already beliefs that it is a "perversion." I think in order for it to be "viscerally disgusting" you need to already have the bias that it is wrong. Otherwise, why would two men kissing or two women kissing be any more "disgusting" than any other people? ...... Ergo, I believe that Christians take their anti-homosexual views directly from the bible.
I disagree. Somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation, imagining yourself doing that. Having sex with a man would be in that category for me. Yuck. The Bible has nothing to do with it. I don't oppose gay marriage. People should generally be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others, which gay marriage doesn't. But it's still weird to me, and I don't think that really has anything to do with the Bible.
I agree that somethings can be found disgusting by putting yourself in that situation. Maybe it's just me (I'm having a Margaret Cho moment here*) but I typically find
actions disgusting, but
people not so much. Like, the idea of letting someone pee on me totally grosses me out. I don't want to make peeing on consenting adults illegal, because to each their own, but I find it gross. However, that action is gross to me no matter who is doing it. Man peeing on me, or woman, it's gross. When it comes to a sex act that I don't find gross (I won't go into specifics, but I'm sure you can think of some) it doesn't suddenly become gross because it's a woman vs a man, or vice cersa. Certain specific people gross me out, sure. Like, I wouldn't want to do that with a family member, or Mitt Romney, or somebody like that, but in general, man, woman, whatever. It's either a gross act, or it's not. That's not to say that I would *do* that act with just anyone. Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right? But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right? That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman. It's not gross unless the act itself is gross. Does that make sense?
Margaret Cho: "Am I gaaaay? Am I straaaaight?" And then I realized: I'm just slutty. Where's my parade?"
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 05:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 05, 2012, 05:23:43 PM
I don't know any Christian who believes something "just because the bible says so." The ones I know have reasons for believing the bible, to one degree or another. Often it relates to their own personal experiences or from their perceived benefit from following particular teachings/passages. But just believing with no other reason is actually pretty rare, I think. I've never really encountered it. A person might say "I believe the Bible, everything in it," but then if you dig deeper and ask "why do you believe it," they always have some reason, whether you think the reason is valid or not.
What about people who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage. I've never heard any compelling secular arguments why homosexuality or gay marriage is "wrong" so I have always assumed that Christians believe it is wrong because the bible says so. Do they have other reasons?
I think I've made my stance on homosexuality clear in other threads. Even in light of Christianity, in short, there is no degree of sin where homosexuality is any more worse a sin than my own heterosexual desires outside of what is "right". The ONLY sin deemed unpardonable is the sin of continual and eventual complete rejection of God.
Having said that...
If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign. This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim. Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects. In that context the believer sees it as wrong.
However, I agree, there is no compelling secular argument why homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong if there is no God. If there is no God, then there is no perversion of any sort other than the subjective morals of a given society.
So God, the creator of the universe, created gay people. What was he thinking? He also created other gay animals. Sheesh what gives? I think I know the answer to the gay... force straight people to stop having sex. No more babies means no more gay children born into the world.
Quote from: fester30 on June 05, 2012, 10:51:13 PM
the answer to the gay...
The phrase "the answer to the gay" made me laugh.
Quote from: fester30 on June 05, 2012, 10:51:13 PM
So God, the creator of the universe, created gay people. What was he thinking? He also created other gay animals. Sheesh what gives? I think I know the answer to the gay... force straight people to stop having sex. No more babies means no more gay children born into the world.
No. This goes back to the context of the bible. God created man perfectly. Man was tempted and sinned. Once man sinned, his offspring was also sinful. Sin is what has created, if you will, that which was not by design...in a nutshell.
Who tempted, why was he allowed to tempt...why is the offspring sinful...lots of indepth questions on this for sure.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 04:45:08 PM
I'm not certain I have ever claimed something is true because the bible says so. From my beginnings here at HAF, I've tried to EXPLAIN situations IN LIGHT of the bible and IN CONTEXT of the "fairytale".
OK, sorry, my bad.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 04:45:08 PM
Again, taking into account the original language, the words translated to "children" could also mean a gang of youths and not preschool kids as you guess to mean from the exact wording in English. And in context of the WHOLE bible (also taking into account that it teaches that kids up to a certain age are not necessarily accountable for their actions) it would be a better interpretation that these "children" mauled were at least teens if not young adults. But again, full knowledge on the matter eludes you by your own admission.
My confusion with this is not whether they were children, young adults, mature adults or elderly.
My confusion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
In NZ I can shout out obscenities at my prime minister and I would not get punished at all.
If the prime minister set two bears to maul me to death then the country would be in shock, there would be calls for the prime minister to get sent to prison.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 05, 2012, 06:48:42 PM
If God is the Creator of the universe as is claimed in the bible, He is The Creator and therefore Sovereign. This God created humanity in a certain manner...or his design is a certain way as is His claim. Therefore any perversion of that design and/or His sovereignity is wrong as we are His subjects. In that context the believer sees it as wrong.
Ahh but what if his design was suppose to have multiple uses and the believer has miss interpreted that design, its not like the designer wasn't a fan of having multiple uses for body parts. Also why would the sphincter have the second highest concentration of nerve endings after the bell end/clitoris and when stimulated can cause orgasms in both sexes.
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right? But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right? That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman. It's not gross unless the act itself is gross. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense, but for me any sex act with a man would gross me out. I don't find gays gross in and of themselves - they're just people. It's only in the context of the act of two men having sex that I get yucked out. Two women having sex is not disgusting, although it is kinky. Two men is a different thing. Again, that's just me. That has nothing to do with political policy or law. It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 12:12:45 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 05, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Just as you probably wouldn't sleep with just any woman, right? But the idea of a random faceless woman doing act X probably isn't gross to you, right? That's how I feel about act X, whether it's a man or a woman. It's not gross unless the act itself is gross. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense, but for me any sex act with a man would gross me out. I don't find gays gross in and of themselves - they're just people. It's only in the context of the act of two men having sex that I get yucked out. Two women having sex is not disgusting, although it is kinky. Two men is a different thing. Again, that's just me. That has nothing to do with political policy or law. It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.
I have never been sure why heterosexual men tend to squirm at the notion of gay men getting down to business, but many are positively turned on by girl- on- girl action. Clearly , further research is called for on the latter phenomenon .
Quote from: En_Route on June 06, 2012, 12:30:22 AM
I have never been sure why heterosexual men tend to squirm at the notion of gay men getting down to business, but many are positively turned on by girl- on- girl action. Cleatly , further research is called for on the latter phenomenon .
It is a phenomenon. This is me speaking personally - submission in the form of being penetrated (orally or anally) seems antithetical to the masculine nature, to me. I can't help feeling that a man submitting himself to the advances of another man is, in some sense, degrading and debasing himself, and denying his true nature. That idea does not come into play in the case of women, who by their natures are more open and nurturing, and whose love making (absent prosthetic devices) does not involve penetration to the same degree as males. I'm just trying to focus in on what it is that revolts me, and this is sort of a summary of it. Again, people should be able to do what they want without government interference. The description above is just my own personal reaction to man-on-man sex.
Oh Ecurb. The heyday I could have with your idea that penetration is degrading....Asmo, my psych degree wants to come out and play!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 12:12:45 AMIt grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.
It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka
berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.
Quote from: Recusant on June 06, 2012, 01:40:20 AM
It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.
I'm sure it is culturally biased to some degree, as most things are. We are all, to some extent, products of our culture. But it is not necessarily based solely upon the Bible, which was one point being discussed. I know atheists who have the same aversion to male homosexuality that many Christians do.
Quote from: Ali on June 06, 2012, 01:25:01 AM
Oh Ecurb. The heyday I could have with your idea that penetration is degrading....Asmo, my psych degree wants to come out and play!
Well, we are here to discuss things. Have at it. I'm interested in it, as well. I only see it as degrading when it relates to a male being penetrated by another male, as that seems contrary to the essence of masculinity to me.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 04:25:23 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 06, 2012, 01:40:20 AM
It seems rather likely that the "eeew-factor" associated with male homosexual activity is just as culturally based as the "eeew-factor" associated with eating dogs. There is good evidence for this in the fact that the two-spirit (aka berdache) in Amerindian cultures was, far from being vilified or reviled (let alone considered to participate in disgusting practices), often a powerful and highly respected member of the tribe.
I'm sure it is culturally biased to some degree, as most things are. We are all, to some extent, products of our culture. But it is not necessarily based solely upon the Bible, which was one point being discussed. I know atheists who have the same aversion to male homosexuality that many Christians do.
I think that it's culturally based to a large degree. As I pointed out, it appears that there was at least a large percentage of a branch of human culture in which aversion to male homosexuality would have been the aberration, rather than the norm. In pre-Christian Europe it seems there was a whole spectrum of ways that male homosexuals integrated themselves in societies, but I don't deny that there is evidence of an element of aversion (greater or lesser) in some of those cultures.
In modern western culture, however, there is no way to deny that the anti-homosexual theme is strongly influenced by Christianity, and it doesn't matter whether one is atheist or not: Western culture has been under the influence, nay, the domination of Christianity for well over a thousand years. Even if someone is never indoctrinated into one of the Christian churches, merely growing up in a western society means that they're steeped in a Judeo-Christian milieu even to this day, though it is starting to become diluted.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 12:12:45 AM
It grosses me out to think of eating dogs, but certain cultures do it.
I was at a Korean restaurant once and overheard a customer discussing with the owner that he misses eating dog.
I wouldn't do it, well, not with a dog I knew. They do may wonderful companions. But if a dog was already dead, and I wasn't paying for it, I might take a bite to see what it was like.
I get grossed out by the thought of eating offal or animal heads or ears, tail, tongue.
I used to even be grossed out by the thought of eating tofu, but i eat that no problems now.
With regards to sex, or porn, I don't think of woman on woman as kinky at all, kinky would be fetish type stuff. I've watched porn before, woman on woman is fine, I have never brought myself to watch man on man, not even for curiosities sake. I guess I do have some homophobia issues myself.
I totally respect homosexuals, total agree that there is nothing wrong with it.
I really do think I need to make myself more familiar with it, maybe just hang out at a gay bar one day, just to see men getting friendly with men, so that I can be desensitised, maybe watch gay porn at least once. I'm sure after 1 minute or so I won't have any gross out feelings whatsoever. I am actually embarrassed and ashamed to say that the thought of watching it does scare me a little.
This is my problem, not the problem of gay people.
I was probably grossed out the first time I ever saw heterosexual sex too. It was so long ago, hard to remember.
I don't watch heterosexual anal porn, I have seen it before, but it is not my cup of tea.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 04:28:23 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 06, 2012, 01:25:01 AM
Oh Ecurb. The heyday I could have with your idea that penetration is degrading....Asmo, my psych degree wants to come out and play!
Well, we are here to discuss things. Have at it. I'm interested in it, as well. I only see it as degrading when it relates to a male being penetrated by another male, as that seems contrary to the essence of masculinity to me.
I will leave this here. Steve Hughes: the "straightness" of gay men, and the "gayness" of straight men (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9SiDtJLaU). But each to there own really, personally I don't have a problem with the idea of male on male penetration, though I can understand why some might, I actually have a gay friend who finds the very thought of anal sex disgusting. But degrading, really? I don't get what's degrading about the act unless it isn't consensual, then it would be very degrading.
Quote from: Crow on June 06, 2012, 12:46:20 PM
But degrading, really? I don't get what's degrading about the act unless it isn't consensual, then it would be very degrading.
As I said, that's just my own particular way of seeing it - I'm not suggesting that this is any objective or universal standard. It appears to relate to my own concept of masculinity - men being more aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented. They "penetrate" the wilderness, explore, go to war. Women are more nurturing, caring, accepting - they take people into themselves, metaphorically, so to speak. Accepting penetration seems natural for them, but contrary to the masculine nature.
Again, this is just me - certainly not a basis for public policy or law.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: Crow on June 06, 2012, 12:46:20 PM
But degrading, really? I don't get what's degrading about the act unless it isn't consensual, then it would be very degrading.
As I said, that's just my own particular way of seeing it - I'm not suggesting that this is any objective or universal standard. It appears to relate to my own concept of masculinity - men being more aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented. They "penetrate" the wilderness, explore, go to war. Women are more nurturing, caring, accepting - they take people into themselves, metaphorically, so to speak. Accepting penetration seems natural for them, but contrary to the masculine nature.
Again, this is just me - certainly not a basis for public policy or law.
Heh, actually the most aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented wilderness-penetrating few people I know are mostly women. Repeat that to a matriarch and see what happens ::)
Quote from: Stevil on June 05, 2012, 11:10:19 PM
My confusion with this is not whether they were children, young adults, mature adults or elderly.
My confusion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
In NZ I can shout out obscenities at my prime minister and I would not get punished at all.
If the prime minister set two bears to maul me to death then the country would be in shock, there would be calls for the prime minister to get sent to prison.
Again...in context ( culture, time, God as Creator, Sovereign... ) are all things to be considered when interpreting the things that have gone on AND RECORDED in the bible as truth. Nothing is hidden. The punishment is harsh but the lesson is clear. Sometimes a lesson needs to be established and one that every person hears. I can't pretend to know God's mind and why it was bears and a mauling to make the lesson, but the lesson, again, is clear. What I do know, in context, is that God is Sovereign and Justice is served. This goes all the way back to the basics of sin and the wages thereof. If God
is Righteousness, and so sin cannot exist in His presence, then the wages of sin being death is not a choice, but a natural consequence and the reason He cannot simply just "forgive and forget" the sinner...and more so the LEGAL reason the plan of salvation works. Much like putting one's finger in a flame will always result in burning...it's the nature of fire which cannot be changed.
You disagree and only see the punishment as not fitting the crime. I respect that, but at the same time there is a reason it is recorded and that is for a lesson. There are no bears roaming today's world expressly for the reason to maul those that go against God's Law...
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 06, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Heh, actually the most aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented wilderness-penetrating few people I know are mostly women. Repeat that to a matriarch and see what happens ::)
This is why I like the old religions view of femininity which was always the givers and takers of life and the true power which I have found to be more apt. I have never met a male who was married that wasn't under their wifes thumb, and any man who thinks they are not are pretty delusional. I personally don't see women in the same way the bible portrays them as the examples just aren't true. Maybe its because I have grown up in a culture where we have mythological figures such as Boudica and Britannia, and have had some very powerful female leaders throughout history.
There aren't any or many of such mythological and historical figures that are women (at least none that quickly spring to mind) where I live, though our first female president was just elected. Most people who had a problem with that are of the older generation, but it's a non issue. Brazil isn't an explicitly chauvinist country like some other are, especially under the grip of theocracy.
Meh, some men just really like their phallic symbols and are too preoccupied with them to really notice that other women are just letting them think they run things. ;)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 06, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Heh, actually the most aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented wilderness-penetrating few people I know are mostly women. Repeat that to a matriarch and see what happens ::)
And I acknowledge that the boundaries between the masculine and the feminine are blurring more and more these days. I grew up at the end of the age of masculine domination, and that was a different world. Perhaps this is one reason why young people today have fewer issues with homosexuality. As the Kinks sang in
Lola, "girls will be boys and boys will be girls"
I like the old saying "The man may be the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head whichever direction she wants."
The phrase "Accepting penetration seems natural for them" made me quark a little. I'm not sure why, but I think it's the "accepting" piece of it, like it is something that she is allowing and tolerating (maybe because she's so accepting and nurturing) rather than something that she wants or would initiate. Ecurb, you definitely seem to view women as passive, people that things are done to and things happen to, and translate that to sexuality. I don't think I have to tell you that I disagree, and see myself as a woman as a dynamic force that makes things happen. Penetration is not a metaphor for ownership, passitivity, or degradation. It's just what happens when slot A likes tab B.
Quote from: Ali on June 06, 2012, 06:47:53 PM
I like the old saying "The man may be the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head whichever direction she wants."
The phrase "Accepting penetration seems natural for them" made me quark a little. I'm not sure why, but I think it's the "accepting" piece of it, like it is something that she is allowing and tolerating (maybe because she's so accepting and nurturing) rather than something that she wants or would initiate. Ecurb, you definitely seem to view women as passive, people that things are done to and things happen to, and translate that to sexuality. I don't think I have to tell you that I disagree, and see myself as a woman as a dynamic force that makes things happen. Penetration is not a metaphor for ownership, passitivity, or degradation. It's just what happens when slot A likes tab B.
Generally, up until the time that the "sexual revolution" and feminist movement starting taking hold in the 60's and 70's, women
were more passive sexually. That was my experience growing up in Texas. So my general outlook, which was formed before the modern era of liberation and equality, reflected my experience. Yes, things have changed, and now women are basically just as likely to initiate sexual encounters as men. But that does not change how I personally developed. The aggressive woman is a rarity among the females that I grew up with.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 06, 2012, 05:42:39 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 06, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
Heh, actually the most aggressive, linear, assertive, forward-oriented wilderness-penetrating few people I know are mostly women. Repeat that to a matriarch and see what happens ::)
And I acknowledge that the boundaries between the masculine and the feminine are blurring more and more these days. I grew up at the end of the age of masculine domination, and that was a different world. Perhaps this is one reason why young people today have fewer issues with homosexuality. As the Kinks sang in Lola, "girls will be boys and boys will be girls"
But that's just the thing, I don't see those characteristics as being intrinsically masculine. The idea of the hunter man and gatherer woman for instance is an antiquated one and nowadays what's left really are phallic symbols.
But times change...for instance maybe a few centuries back it would've been inconcievable to have someone of African descent holding high office jobs in a white man dominanted environment. It's a non issue now, or at least it's supposed to be.
Quote from: Ali on June 06, 2012, 06:47:53 PM
I like the old saying "The man may be the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head whichever direction she wants."
The phrase "Accepting penetration seems natural for them" made me quark a little. I'm not sure why, but I think it's the "accepting" piece of it, like it is something that she is allowing and tolerating (maybe because she's so accepting and nurturing) rather than something that she wants or would initiate. Ecurb, you definitely seem to view women as passive, people that things are done to and things happen to, and translate that to sexuality. I don't think I have to tell you that I disagree, and see myself as a woman as a dynamic force that makes things happen. Penetration is not a metaphor for ownership, passitivity, or degradation. It's just what happens when slot A likes tab B.
I just managed to save my keyboard by turning my head just as the milk was escaping through my nose. That was funny.