The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Gays and Religion: In Which We Learn That Rend != Rent
Posts
I don't think you're really asserting that if executing one urge isn't sinful, then executing any urge mustn't be sinful, right? Like, hetero sex being kosher doesn't require that murdering and eating people being okay.
Rent's response is unsatisfying, but your question was pretty easily parried.
I think the better question is why would God poo-poo acting on urges that cause no observable harm whatsoever. To which the easy answer is: "Man can't see the harm, but God can because he's super smart and stuff."
The best question I've seen in this thread is the one asking if it would be actively sinful to act on any aspect of Leviticus, given the common defense of "Well, the NT just made it so we didn't have to observe that anymore."
Ah I see what you're getting at.
Then I don't really have a good answer for you.
swooooon
Simply by saying you worship the God of the Bible is defining God. Though in your case, it's also being dishonest.
Metaphors for what exactly?
That's the Bible for you:
You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you. ... You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people!’ For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?
Matthew 5:17
Jesus says, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Also, did you just imply that forced slavery (as in Deuteronomy 20) was morally okay "for the times"?
The reason I get so agitated about religion is because religious people tend to be so dishonest.
What church? What do you believe, Rend?
I'm curious, what was the result of your "long hard look" regarding the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Samuel, wherein the God you claim to worship repeatedly orders the wholesale genocide of various tribes?
This isn't like some random verse of the Bible. We are talking about a plurality of the Old Testament, which largely defines the moral character of the God you supposedly believe in. So I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that this entire chunk of the Bible is worthless and can safely be ignored.
Who are you to say that Yahweh can't order genocides if he wants to?
I'm arguing that they are in fact worthless.
So far your argument that they're not worthless seems to rest on your unfounded assumption that the people who wrote it are "experts." Why do you believe this?
Would it be morally wrong to execute a bride who cannot prove her virginity on her wedding night?
Why or why not?
Yeah, I think I could pretty much guess at all the possible avenues this discussion could take, and I was taking my dialogue with Rent one step at a time.
Like I said previously, there's no secular or pragmatic justification for the religious prohibition on sodomy that holds water. It's all based on prejudice, tradition, neurosis, naturalistic fallacies, or warm fuzzy feelings about what God wants.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
...what...?
Heh. I'm not about to quote the entire bible and try to describe what it means to me. This question is ridiculous. The metaphors change on a story by story basis. Ugh.
No. No I did not, that would be you inferring what was not there. I am quite well aware of the things written about in the bible, and *shock and awe* not all of them are right! Thats PRECISELY why we have to look at the bible and decide for ourselves what's right and wrong.
My church is irrelevant, since we're referring to Christians in general. But my church is Catholic, if you actually want to know, as opposed to just looking for more stuff that's irrelevant to throw out there.
If he wants to, he gets to. Cause he's God. And those are all, just by the by, situations where my "long hard look" tells me that genocide is wrong! But wait, jesus told me that already, so I just learned what I already knew. You can pick apart the bible for its inconsistencies all you want, because they are numerous. You only strengthen the fact that you have to take from the bible what you believe to be worth it.
Then your argument is made! There's really not much left to say than: "Being gay isn't wrong because the bible say's it's wrong, because the bible is worthless."
Done. You really could have been more concise about it.
1) This somehow makes me not Catholic...again....different time period, different culture, different belief system. Over time societies get more traditionally liberal anyways. There are still people who believe women who have had sex before marriage are "unclean" in this day and age.
2) Just because I believe homosexuality to be a sin doesn't mean I support lynching gay people. Again, there are commonly accepted responses to acts you might consider sinful and in my book stoning a women to death just because she's not a virgin isn't one of them. It's why I, say, don't believe thieves should have their hands cut off. Simply put the punishment does not fit the crime in this day and age.
Much like God, I prefer to view all nodes of my dialogue trees in N-space at once.
Your brain is like a subway map of the universe.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Actually, the point is that you said the bible is worthless, since there's apparently nothing in there to which a person is required to adhere.
Really at this point I'm not seeing much of a difference between what you believe and just making stuff up. Where does the divinity come in, exactly?
I feel it.
Right here.
No, wait, a little lower.
Right here.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
:shock::shock:
Are You There, God? It's Me, Rent.
So even though Jesus taught all that love stuff, do you choose to go back to the old testament and choose homosexuality to be evil over, say, prohibitions against blended fabrics or tattoos? Why is it so worth it to?
You choose what you want from the bible, by your own words, so why do you choose to believe gay people are sinners?
I don't think it's worthless. I think it was inspired. I think it was written by people with the spirit of God in them. However, even the spirit of God does not make someone infallible. Thus, they could be wrong. That means you look at what they wrote thinking: "Well, they were divinely inspired. That means alot! But it's not a perfect system."
I never said it was worthless, that's a bifurcation. I just think it's fallible.
Uh, I don't... O.o
I think you're getting me confused with Rent.
Especially because it seems to get so much so spectacularly wrong?
Incidentally, why don't you think the Ramayana is "inspired"? You seem to believe as much from the Ramayana as you do from the Bible.
Rend != Rent
well... carry on then :oops:
If it's both fallible and untestable (as is the nature of all that is religious) then it's functionally useless. You can't claim that your religion is your moral guide, while also being fallible, but you've thought really hard about what it says.
At that point "The Bible says" and "I think" are equivalent statements, defensible only by falling back on "That's just my opinion" when challenged. You'd be as well not involving religion in the discussion at all.
Cultural relativism, then. There's nothing in the bible or Catholic teachings to indicate that this is moral and approved of by God. So, again, you are simply making your own decisions about what you consider right and wrong. Which is perfectly fine by me, but it's hardly Christian.
I won't go into my beliefs because they're complex and irrelevant. I look at the bible and see a wealth of good things among a time which was one of heavy tribulation. I take from it the good things and the hope and belief that God is there, etc, etc. Why I believe it's inspired is completely irrelevant, because that's not what we're talking about.
However, suffice it to say this. It's the message that's important. I can't remember who it was, but they said that religion is like a mountain, but people are all too busy trying to prove that their side of the mountain is the best to actually bother climbing to the top. It's just as likely that any religious text was inspired, from my point of view, as long as they too preach God's message of love. That's what I care about, I care about the religion producing people who are good-hearted, and I think that's what the heart of the religion is.
Thus, any religion with that at its heart is basically the same as far as I'm concerned, Christianity is the one I believe has it "the most right" (for complete lack of a better term, if you try and tear that phrase apart i will cut you). At this point this is off topic though, so if you want to discuss it with me, this is not the place.
So then...if they're worshiping society's morals...they're kind of worshiping their own society.
Sort of like the ancient greeks. So, what I want to know is...when can we get back to the orgies?
On the black screen
Fair enough, then. How about a different question: what evidence do you have that it is inspired?
Almost. If I consider it expert opinion (which I do) then it holds additional weight. Meaning I consider the bible's opinion generally superior to mine, due to the circumstances under which it was written. However, still not perfect.
Besides, who cares about function? It gives you someplace to start. And I think society would be a better place if every individual started someplace good and went from there as their own personal compass took them.
I've added a clause or two to make this an actual corollary. (and still not really, we're talking about one personality difference described in one book versus discarding vast swaths of material from the only source you have to construct an entity totally different from the one described in the material) Sure, secular intellectual endeavors are often guilty of this, but it doesn't make it less unreasonable. Of course, you're also comparing a situation in which there can be significant physical or historical evidence to help you along to one in which you simply have to ask yourself "does Deuteronomy 18 sit well with my gut feeling?" When engaging the Bible to attempt to determine which parts are reasonable and which parts aren't, you're exercising the same capacity for reason a secular philosopher or scientist does, just with less effort. I just don't understand why anyone would start with the Bible if they can do that on their own. It's not really dishonesty, per se, but it sounds an awful lot like laziness; relying on the veracity of certain parts of a text because of its "inspired" (read: prophetic) provenance as your argument for what you believe is true and only seeking to disprove the parts that don't sit well with your personal morals. You get an easy out when someone tries to argue the point by saying it's divinely inspired but when they ask if you believe this other part for the same reason you say "oh, of course not, that's ridiculous." You're really only relying on your personal moral compass instead of trying to reason out why adultery is wrong.
None, that's a question of faith, which is the point. You're not supposed to have proof and it's not supposed to be testable.
It's item six on the Homosexual Agenda. Right after fabulous hats.
Which is all well and good, so long as those who are satisfied with just faith don't expect those of us who require more to live by the standards of your belief.
OK, the bolded really threw me. Religion is a functional thing. A tool for understanding the world and applying order to it. If it's function is unimportant then it's basically just stories, and not even very nice stories most of the time.
Sigh...the one problem with the gays.
They've just never learned how to prioritize.
On the black screen
A wealth of good things?
Compared to what other texts? I mean shit, the Iliad seems to have a lot better things to say about warfare than the Bible does.
Here's where the dishonesty comes in.
The Bible's message, according to you, is wholly determined by your own moral whims.
You have said that you ignore all the parts that contradict your own personal views on morality.
I could say the same thing about Mein Kampf. It's the message that's important ... just as long as you ignore all the distasteful parts and focus on the few non-offensive parts of Mein Kampf. Just like how you ignore the multiple whole books of the Bible that are catalogues of God-ordered genocide and slavery and focus on John 3:16.
Then I would suggest finding a religion based on something other than the Bible, the only religious text to command genocide.
I think we meant different things by function. By your definition I still think that a fallible document (see: Anything written by science) can still be functional as a guide. What makes the bible's uncertainty different than any scientific journal? We know that both of them could be wrong on any given thing, and we also know that there are people who argue that each of those things are right no matter what end of argument
So what it comes down to is that you're waving you're own opinion around as if it's the word of god because you feel it is. I don't even know where to begin.
Godwin'd!
But just cause it was in mein kampf doesn't mean it was wrong. I've never read it but maybe he made some good points? Him being hitler doesn't damage his argument, that's argumentum ad hominem. Yes, some documents we don't like have messages that can be true! Even bad ones. Thats why we have brains that can sift through it.
Science has a much better batting record when it comes to how things work in the actual, real world, though. And it tends toward self-correction of errors, unlike Christianity, which is the opposite.
EDIT:oh dick wait a minute
When you say we have brains that can shift through it, you're implying rationality in determining a religious text's axiomatic moral value, when you yourself said that it can't be done; there is no evidence, it is not testable.
Which is sort of the point. Terrible people can have good ideas. But thankfully we don't ascribe a supernatural importance to their work.
On the black screen
Forgive me, but I thought this discussion was about religion, religious people, gay people, and the interactions between them and their organizations. To assume the bible is inspired for the sake of argument is basically just making it possible for one side of the argument to even participate. If it's that premise you have a problem with, then obviously every facet of any argument which has that as a premise is going to look ludicrous.
How about a compromise. Since it's the opinion of so many people, we can either dismiss all the arguments and end that disagreement there, or assume for the sake of argument that it is either true or that the opinions of those who think it are so strong that it may as well be?
It's just the premise of an argument, and I'm not really going to defend it. That's another topic.