The gruesome world of a Bible literalist

[dontsnitch]

Thanks, and sure you can. I'm not strongly affiliated with any church; any Christian is my brother or sister when gathered with me in Christ's name. I tend to call myself merely a Christian, a bit like C. S. Lewis did. I believe pretty much all main churches have some good congregations and some bad, some more than others.

Some of us join the church that we need, others join the church that needs us. My case is the latter, I've learned (an evangelical-Lutheran denomination).

I feel the same way, all churches have some good and some bad, or more aptly said, have strengths and weaknesses. I've attended many churches and I like trying to recognize them.

 

[Uchi Mata]

The problem I have with this is that everyone holds their beliefs to a certain degree of universality. Proponents of gay marriage are just as vehement as their opponents. It may not be rooted in dogma, but that doesn't make it less stubborn.

The way I see it, proponents of SSM believe that it is not harmful and that individual rights trumps all else. They believe this just as a Christian believes (or a simple opponent believes) that it is in fact harmful.

I am on the fence in this particular debate, so I find it especially interesting seeing both sides argue. I think both sides have merit, and I think both sides are wrong.

You don't see any difference between my stating a general principle (people should be able to do as they like in general if they're not hurting others) and your stating that God himself opposes it?

The problem with that is that religion provides too much intellectual cover. You don't have to think about the issue (not you specifically, you know what I mean), because the church already has an answer for you. And there's no room for argument, because it's God's judgment. Is what it is. The more contentious the issue, the more dangerous that mindset is. Think about abortion clinic bombers: they feel totally justified in what they do and have no moral doubt because abortion is against the will of God. When your morality is that reductionist you don't have to worry about empathy or reason or compassion, all you have to do is cite the bible and then there's essentially no action you can't justify. Religion absolves you of taking responsibility for your own moral decision making. That's what I hate most about it.

 

[Thurisaz]

Why would I have to know that?

Because the Bible promises superplusungood punishment for those who lead people astray. Getting said punishment doesn't sound pleasant. To do what you do one would have to be sure the punishment isn't coming.

All the evidence seems to point in that direction, as such it's reasonable to base action on the high likelihood that Christianity is bunk rather than the very low likelihood that it's true.

...if you discount the evidence in the Bible and some historians of the day. I, for one, have a hard time trying to believe that people who died painful deaths and had materially nothing to gain would die for something they knew to be a lie. This means that the disciples truly were sincere, and then their statements appear in a very different light.

How do you know other religions you haven't chosen to follow aren't true?

The truths I find in them appear half-truths at best. They don't make sense of the world, people and their state in the way Christianity does.

What do you base that on?

Copious reading of history.

Christianity and Judaism are both pretty old, which one is the lie?

There's no simple answer for that. Christianity is what judaism should be these days, with the exception of jewish people, who are still under the law. What judaism is today... well, one can judge the tree by the fruit it bears.

 

[dontsnitch]

You don't see any difference between my stating a general principle (people should be able to do as they like in general if they're not hurting others) and your stating that God himself opposes it?

The problem with that is that religion provides too much intellectual cover. You don't have to think about the issue (not you specifically, you know what I mean), because the church already has an answer for you. And there's no room for argument, because it's God's judgment. Is what it is. The more contentious the issue, the more dangerous that mindset is. Think about abortion clinic bombers: they feel totally justified in what they do and have no moral doubt because abortion is against the will of God. When your morality is that reductionist you don't have to worry about empathy or reason or compassion, all you have to do is cite the bible and then there's essentially no action you can't justify. Religion absolves you of taking responsibility for your own moral decision making. That's what I hate most about it.

If the argument is about the universality of a belief, then there is no difference. If the argument is about the logic behind the belief, then we make progress, and not to get too philosophical, but at the end of the day, our morality is not based on anything concrete. Harming people is bad because it is bad. Don't get me wrong, I agree it is wrong, but it's a universal principle that is based on a tautology.

As for religious beliefs that oppose certain behaviours, I've yet to see one that isn't accepted by others who simply believe in the morality behind it. That is, I can't think of a nonsensical rule, like the color blue is bad. This should make sense to you more than me, if you are an atheist and believe that men wrote this book. The rules are all based on men's morals, so they should have some universality to them that are not simply arbitrary like the color blue.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Because the Bible promises superplusungood punishment for those who lead people astray. Getting said punishment doesn't sound pleasant. To do what you do one would have to be sure the punishment isn't coming.

Meh. Pascal's wager is pretty old hat. I am quite comfortable that the punishment is not coming.

...if you discount the evidence in the Bible and some historians of the day. I, for one, have a hard time trying to believe that people who died painful deaths and had materially nothing to gain would die for something they knew to be a lie. This means that the disciples truly were sincere, and then their statements appear in a very different light.

I don't think they were lying. Far from it. I just think they were wrong. Again, all religions have had martyrs, does that make them all equally true? People die for all manner of beliefs. There are beliefs I'd die for that have nothing to do with religion.

There's no simple answer for that. Christianity is what judaism should be these days, with the exception of jewish people, who are still under the law. What judaism is today... well, one can judge the tree by the fruit it bears.

I like the Jews for the most part. Frankly, as a group they've done pretty well for themselves. Maybe you should rethink your particular brand of monotheism.

 

[Uchi Mata]

If the argument is about the universality of a belief, then there is no difference. If the argument is about the logic behind the belief, then we make progress, and not to get too philosophical, but at the end of the day, our morality is not based on anything concrete. Harming people is bad because it is bad. Don't get me wrong, I agree it is wrong, but it's a universal principle that is based on a tautology.

As for religious beliefs that oppose certain behaviours, I've yet to see one that isn't accepted by others who simply believe in the morality behind it. That is, I can't think of a nonsensical rule, like the color blue is bad. This should make sense to you more than me, if you are an atheist and believe that men wrote this book. The rules are all based on men's morals, so they should have some universality to them that are not simply arbitrary like the color blue.

I think most moral rules in most religions are derived from behaviors needed to make society function effectively. So yeah, there is a lot of crossover between secular morality and religious morality. I think the main difference is that secular morality shifts whereas religious morality has to be dragged kicking and screaming. Gay marriage is a good example of something that is thought immoral for almost purely religious reasons. There are certainly atheists who think gay sex is icky, but I've never met one who thinks it's immoral as without the religious proscription there's really no obvious basis for thinking so.

If you want to get really obvious, what about dietary laws? Find me an atheist who thinks it's immoral to eat pork (specifically, not meat in general). I'll wait.

 

[colby25]

I think most moral rules in most religions are derived from behaviors needed to make society function effectively. So yeah, there is a lot of crossover between secular morality and religious morality. I think the main difference is that secular morality shifts whereas religious morality has to be dragged kicking and screaming. Gay marriage is a good example of something that is thought immoral for almost purely religious reasons. There are certainly atheists who think gay sex is icky, but I've never met one who thinks it's immoral as without the religious proscription there's really no obvious basis for thinking so.

If you want to get really obvious, what about dietary laws? Find me an atheist who thinks it's immoral to eat pork (specifically, not meat in general). I'll wait.

So from an atheists standpoint what's stopping you from cheating, killing, stealing your way to the top. You have nothing to lose right? When you die, you die might as well get the most out of it for yourself.

Why don't atheists think this is acceptable behavior since according to them they are not held responsible for any of their actions besides the 5-0

 

[dontsnitch]

I think most moral rules in most religions are derived from behaviors needed to make society function effectively. So yeah, there is a lot of crossover between secular morality and religious morality. I think the main difference is that secular morality shifts whereas religious morality has to be dragged kicking and screaming. Gay marriage is a good example of something that is thought immoral for almost purely religious reasons. There are certainly atheists who think gay sex is icky, but I've never met one who thinks it's immoral as without the religious proscription there's really no obvious basis for thinking so.

If you want to get really obvious, what about dietary laws? Find me an atheist who thinks it's immoral to eat pork (specifically, not meat in general). I'll wait.

"I don't dig on swine", Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.

Seriously though, Dietary laws are bizarre, but those laws served their purpose in the old covenant. They were more about vows keeping Israel separate, just as marriage is symbolized by a ceremony, the actual act of standing there exchanging vows is not as important as the commitment. It's also quite obvious that people were ignorant back then, and those rules served to keep people safe. If you look at the cleanliness laws, they basically served to keep people alive. Don't play with dead things is something we don't need to be told today.

Returning to SSM, I can concede that someone being ignorant as to why it's bad and simply parroting the bible can be annoying, it is not the only perspective. Most people do have a moral foundation that agrees with the rule beyond simply that the text says so. I have a friend who is an atheist that is a stronger proponent against SSM than I am. I find him telling me that I am too lax.

 

[Uchi Mata]

"I don't dig on swine", Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.

Seriously though, Dietary laws are bizarre, but those laws served their purpose in the old covenant. They were more about vows keeping Israel separate, just as marriage is symbolized by a ceremony, the actual act of standing there exchanging vows is not as important as the commitment. It's also quite obvious that people were ignorant back then, and those rules served to keep people safe. If you look at the cleanliness laws, they basically served to keep people alive. Don't play with dead things is something we don't need to be told today.

Returning to SSM, I can concede that someone being ignorant as to why it's bad and simply parroting the bible can be annoying, it is not the only perspective. Most people do have a moral foundation that agrees with the rule beyond simply that the text says so. I have a friend who is an atheist that is a stronger proponent against SSM than I am. I find him telling me that I am too lax.

What's the basis of his opposition?

Also, I tend to think dietary laws were probably based on food safety. Pork spoils easily without salt and can make you very sick, I always assumed that's why it was forbidden.

 

[dontsnitch]

What's the basis of his opposition?

Also, I tend to think dietary laws were probably based on food safety. Pork spoils easily without salt and can make you very sick, I always assumed that's why it was forbidden.

I think the purpose of those laws had several meanings, the obvious one was that people thousands of years ago didn't understand what made you ill.

The basis of his opposition is the same as you've heard. That homosexuality is a paraphilia and normalizing it is detrimental to society as a whole. That we infringe on the rights of individuals all the time for the greater good of society.

 

[Uchi Mata]

So from an atheists standpoint what's stopping you from cheating, killing, stealing your way to the top. You have nothing to lose right? When you die, you die might as well get the most out of it for yourself.

Why don't atheists think this is acceptable behavior since according to them they are not held responsible for any of their actions besides the 5-0

So you only don't kill people because you're worried about hell? If you could get away with murdering someone and there were no god you'd do it?

The roots of morality are different for every atheist. For most of them I imagine it's more of a habit than anything else, as well as the power of social norms. For me personally, it's an outgrowth of my primary value, which is human happiness. I recognize that this is an arbitrary value, but it's one I personally hold very dear and it forms the basis of my ethics. I value the happiness of myself and others so I refrain from actions that clearly cause a net increase in unhappiness. Murder, theft, lying, etc. all fall into that category. I do believe that I could do many of those things and probably get away with it, certainly in a cosmic sense I would get away with it at the time of my death when my consciousness ceased to be, but I have no reason to do those things and I'm pretty sure that it would make the world a worse place if I did them. In general I don't want to live in a world where murder, theft, rape, or other crimes are common so I refrain from them myself. There's a dash of existentialist angst in there too. While I don't feel as strongly about it as Sartre I do think that to a certain extent my choices define what I believe to be good for every man, so I try to choose carefully.

Important point: don't confuse atheists with nihilists. There are plenty of nihilistic atheists and I imagine most nihilists are atheists, but most atheists are decidedly not nihilists.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I think the purpose of those laws had several meanings, the obvious one was that people thousands of years ago didn't understand what made you ill.

The basis of his opposition is the same as you've heard. That homosexuality is a paraphilia and normalizing it is detrimental to society as a whole. That we infringe on the rights of individuals all the time for the greater good of society.

Do you think he's open to argument on the subject of how harmful homosexuality is?

 

[dontsnitch]

Do you think he's open to argument on the subject of how harmful homosexuality is?

He's the smartest person I've ever met, so yeah. Or maybe he's so smart that he's not willing to change his mind once he's decided on it. Not sure.

I share his sentiments, I just happen to be willing to overlook the harm, but I agree with him in theory.

My theory is that marriage consists of two contracts. One with God and one with the State. Since God does not recognize SSM, gay couples are simply signing a contract with the State, and it's none of my business.

 

[dontsnitch]

Great talk, Uchi, this is how all these conversations should be, I do appreciate your demeanor, even if I disagree with you. I got a little too caught up here and neglected my duties, talk to you later.

 

[Uchi Mata]

He's the smartest person I've ever met, so yeah. Or maybe he's so smart that he's not willing to change his mind once he's decided on it. Not sure.

I share his sentiments, I just happen to be willing to overlook the harm, but I agree with him in theory.

My theory is that marriage consists of two contracts. One with God and one with the State. Since God does not recognize SSM, gay couples are simply signing a contract with the State, and it's none of my business.

I ask because if the perceived harm to society is the reason he's against it, and he's open to influence on how harmful homosexuality actually is to society, then you could change his mind on it by demonstrating that such harm is minimal to non-existent. That's not an option with religious belief, since God (in theory) doesn't change his mind. Which is my problem with religiously based arguments.

 

[colby25]

So you only don't kill people because you're worried about hell? If you could get away with murdering someone and there were no god you'd do it?

The roots of morality are different for every atheist. For most of them I imagine it's more of a habit than anything else, as well as the power of social norms. For me personally, it's an outgrowth of my primary value, which is human happiness. I recognize that this is an arbitrary value, but it's one I personally hold very dear and it forms the basis of my ethics. I value the happiness of myself and others so I refrain from actions that clearly cause a net increase in unhappiness. Murder, theft, lying, etc. all fall into that category. I do believe that I could do many of those things and probably get away with it, certainly in a cosmic sense I would get away with it at the time of my death when my consciousness ceased to be, but I have no reason to do those things and I'm pretty sure that it would make the world a worse place if I did them. In general I don't want to live in a world where murder, theft, rape, or other crimes are common so I refrain from them myself. There's a dash of existentialist angst in there too. While I don't feel as strongly about it as Sartre I do think that to a certain extent my choices define what I believe to be good for every man, so I try to choose carefully.

Important point: don't confuse atheists with nihilists. There are plenty of nihilistic atheists and I imagine most nihilists are atheists, but most atheists are decidedly not nihilists.

Well the reason i don't do those things will be very different than why you claim you don't do those things. I think there is a universal law of good and evil. People inherently know shooting someone in the face is stealing their belongings is wrong. You don't have to be taught that. It's just wrong.

There's a universal law of good and bad. If there's a universal law, someone must have created that law. I believe God did.

You can say it's out of habitat or social norms, because if we do everything for the well of human society why aren't we killing all the old people? They are of of no use and use a bunch of space. Why don't we just kill off people with sickness and illness? We don't do this because its wrong, we're not animals as much as Atheists try to compare the human species to animals.

Our job on earth isn't just to procreate. We have compassion, we feel sympathy for the sick, the weak, the old. We don't just kill them off because they are of no use to us. That would be barbaric. We have a moral conscious and guide to help one another and to have compassion... This is given from God I believe. This is what makes humans unique and when God said He created man in His image.

And I'm not sure what type of life you have lead but what goes around comes around. You reap what you sow. This is also taught in the bible. There's a universal law that I've experience first hand. You do something bad to someone else you're going to get it one way or another. Might not be right then and there but your time is coming.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind there's a universal law and that law was created by God. My life was absolute crap when i lived for myself and only myself. No matter how hard i tried to get out from the mess i was in i was just spinning my wheels... but i realized my way obviously wasn't working and I started to try and do it God's way and my life has taken a complete 180.

I still mess up and am not yet where I want to be but I'm glad I'm not where I use to be.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Great talk, Uchi, this is how all these conversations should be, I do appreciate your demeanor, even if I disagree with you. I got a little too caught up here and neglected my duties, talk to you later.

 

[colby25]

Do you think he's open to argument on the subject of how harmful homosexuality is?

I use to fight and have to get blood tested before i compete.

Everytime i went in there to get an HIV test the first thing they asked me was if i was a homosexual.

After the 5th or 6th time i finally asked, "why do you guys always ask that? Is it because the homosexual community is smaller so diseases get recycled more often and passed around easier?"

She goes, "well, there is that but homosexuals tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals."

This is a doctor telling me this. The gay community is filled with diseases and serial fornicators. I'm not making this up.

I'm not personally saying ALL are or have something but this is the consensus from the lady at the clinic.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I use to fight and have to get blood tested before i compete.

Everytime i went in there to get an HIV test the first thing they asked me was if i was a homosexual.

After the 5th or 6th time i finally asked, "why do you guys always ask that? Is it because the homosexual community is smaller so diseases get recycled more often and passed around easier?"

She goes, "well, there is that but homosexuals tend to be much more promiscuous than heterosexuals."

This is a doctor telling me this. The gay community is filled with diseases and serial fornicators. I'm not making this up.

I'm not personally saying ALL are or have something but this is the consensus from the lady at the clinic.

There's definitely a culture of promiscuity in the gay male community (not so much with lesbians). Drug use as well. But I don't think that's a function of homosexuality so much as a social norm among young, urban, gay men. To say that homosexuality is inherently bad because many gay men are promiscuous is no different than saying that being black is inherently bad because many black people are poor. That is to say, there's a reason for it but it's probably not necessarily endemic to gayness.

 

[colby25]

There's definitely a culture of promiscuity in the gay male community (not so much with lesbians). Drug use as well. But I don't think that's a function of homosexuality so much as a social norm among young, urban, gay men. To say that homosexuality is inherently bad because many gay men are promiscuous is no different than saying that being black is inherently bad because many black people are poor. That is to say, there's a reason for it but it's probably not necessarily endemic to gayness.

ehhhh...You can't compare being black to being gay...no matter how hard the gay community is trying. Two totally different things.

I'm just giving you the facts man, take for what it is. You asked what's so dangerous about being, I'm telling you what the doctor told me and what is widely known that Gay community is filled with diseases.

Counter it however you want. I see it as no coincidence that God condemns the act of homosexuality and homosexuals having all these problems with diseases.

We are God's children and He tells us what's in our best interest. When you tell your son not to chase after that ball into the road, it's not because you don't want him to have the ball it's cause you don't want him getting run over...