Christian and Homosexual Stereotypes

[Keleynal]

I was actually wondering when one of you two would ask this question. Though I didn't expect Baldo to just... quit.
And within bibles there are hundreds of conflicting passages. I feel like with all the evidence against religion and the bible, I'd be hard pushed to believe it. Perhaps that's the test, but you know what.. I don't care. I want real proof, I want something palpable for my trials and tribulations.

I went over several of the contradictions on the list referenced there. It's not even close to being intellectually honest. If one scripture says to baptise in the name of the Son, another says Jesus Christ, and another says Jesus the Messiah, guess what? All the same person. Semantic claptrap. The majority were over points of minutiae such as genealogy tables. If you find a supposed contradiction that actually challenges a point of doctrine, let me know. There was no attempt in that list to take a fair look, so I dismiss it out of hand.

Another favorite of mine: what color of robe did Jesus wear? Truly a pivotal point of faith he possessed more than one color.

Several things you mentioned, such as equating the resurrected Jesus with a zombie.. I hope you were being facetious.

 

[Corvus Rex]

I don't see it as a crutch, I'm just acknowledging that everything about me, including my morality came from somewhere. You could say it came from my environment. Ok, how did it get into my environment? I had Christian parents and grew up with this kind of stuff. So where did my parents get it? On back we go until we get to God, the ultimate source of anything and everything good.

It is kind of ridiculous that we need to be told. Secularly, we are told by our government and police officers not to murder people. Well, duh. I don't think that makes government a crutch though.

An explanation for morality, absent a diety, could be found in examining how social species evolve. Admittedly, animal behavior is a fluctuating field (thank you E.O. Wilson *killme*) but there is extensive research suggesting that these species evolve to favor balanced populations, leaning towards altruism. Ultimately you can't go too far one way or the other, if everyone is too altruistic the species dies off from everyone self-sacrificing, if everyone is too selfish the species dies off from not being able to support its whole. Generally speaking, social species have to display a set of social "rules" that its members conform to in order to maintain the population. A single human could survive in the wild, yes, but if every human led a solitary existence like this we would go extinct as we need to be able to interact peacefully to reproduce/raise young/etc.

As to where these rules come from; they're the products of evolution. Our brains evolved the capacity to sense the feelings of those around us and recognize our impact on them, the members of the species capable of acting upon this advantage survived and thrived. Over time, particularly violent and non-socially-conforming members were weeded out as they were either defeated by their altruistic rivals or came to be seen as undesirable mates.

Evidence to this end can also be seen in genetic mutations in the current population which are associated with hyper-aggression and personality "disorders" like psycopathy. While we are not a product solely of our genetics (see previous comments on the complexity of life) we are influenced heavily by our biology. Related to this thought, I'm curious, how does religion account for people who are physically incapable of perceiving right and wrong? Or who are so overcome by rage-producing hormones in their body that they are physically incapable of restraining themselves from doing horrible things?

 

[Dash]

Another favorite of mine: what color of robe did Jesus wear? Truly a pivotal point of faith he possessed more than one color.

LOL, I've never heard this one. I'm pretty certain I'd laugh if someone said it.

Bro...BRO...Jesus was all about fuchsia bro. True story.

 

[Keleynal]

An explanation for morality, absent a diety, could be found in examining how social species evolve. Admittedly, animal behavior is a fluctuating field (thank you E.O. Wilson *killme*) but there is extensive research suggesting that these species evolve to favor balanced populations, leaning towards altruism. Ultimately you can't go too far one way or the other, if everyone is too altruistic the species dies off from everyone self-sacrificing, if everyone is too selfish the species dies off from not being able to support its whole. Generally speaking, social species have to display a set of social "rules" that its members conform to in order to maintain the population. A single human could survive in the wild, yes, but if every human led a solitary existence like this we would go extinct as we need to be able to interact peacefully to reproduce/raise young/etc.

As to where these rules come from; they're the products of evolution. Our brains evolved the capacity to sense the feelings of those around us and recognize our impact on them, the members of the species capable of acting upon this advantage survived and thrived. Over time, particularly violent and non-socially-conforming members were weeded out as they were either defeated by their altruistic rivals or came to be seen as undesirable mates.

Evidence to this end can also be seen in genetic mutations in the current population which are associated with hyper-aggression and personality "disorders" like psycopathy. While we are not a product solely of our genetics (see previous comments on the complexity of life) we are influenced heavily by our biology. Related to this thought, I'm curious, how does religion account for people who are physically incapable of perceiving right and wrong? Or who are so overcome by rage-producing hormones in their body that they are physically incapable of restraining themselves from doing horrible things?

Definitely an interesting theory. But shouldn't society be getting more and more balanced and less violent and less altruistic? I know evolution acts slowly, so all of recorded history might not be enough time to prove or disprove.

Abusive, violent people may be unattractive mates, but their mates tend to have a very hard time leaving them. I don't think is a new phenomenon, evolution needs to get to work on that.

I think the model does a decent job of explaining how populations function in large numbers over a long period of time, but it also dehumanizes individuals and turns them into a cog on a giant wheel. I have to believe that my life has more meaning than that.

To your direct question about those incapable of perceiving right from wrong, or being overcome with a physiological, emotional response:

We live in a world that was initially created perfect, but then fell into the curse of sin. The addition of sin into the environment brought many consequences, among them disease and genetic malformities.

There's more than one school of thought on how they are, as you say, handled. What I have settled on is that God will judge them according to the amount of responsibility they had for what they did, on a case by case basis. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, this will not be a difficult task for Him. For a Biblical basis, I look to the passages of scripture that discuss the age of accountability, which I take to mean an ability to perceive right from wrong, not an arbitrary date on the calendar.

As to rage producing hormones that overpower an individual, I'm not a fan at all of the temporary insanity plea. Maybe they lost control at a point, but what were their actions and conscious decisions up to that point? In more cases than not, I think they have to take responsibility. In the end, God sorts it out, He's the only one qualified to make the final decision.

But these questions seem to be coming from the idea that God has some kind of tally board where he marks good and bad deeds, and if the good exceed the bad, you win. I think God is less interested in assigning blame than we think He is. I think God would be more concerned with how to redeem said individuals rather than dreaming of how to condemn them.

I've read some accounts that Jeffrey Dahmer and the Son of Sam killer came to Christ during their time in jail. If God can redeem them, I don't think anyone, sane or insane, is without hope.

 

[NeverMore]

I went over several of the contradictions on the list referenced there. It's not even close to being intellectually honest. If one scripture says to baptise in the name of the Son, another says Jesus Christ, and another says Jesus the Messiah, guess what? All the same person. Semantic claptrap. The majority were over points of minutiae such as genealogy tables. If you find a supposed contradiction that actually challenges a point of doctrine, let me know. There was no attempt in that list to take a fair look, so I dismiss it out of hand.

Another favorite of mine: what color of robe did Jesus wear? Truly a pivotal point of faith he possessed more than one color.

Who's to say how any of those writings should be interpreted. I've heard as many negative as I have positive things about that group and their poster. Even if 50% of them are bogus that's still hundreds. And there were a lot of items in there that weren't stupid things like how many lambs did so and so have(which admittedly, who the fuck cares how many lambs he had -brucebegone- . Unless of course I get to eat said lambs... then I'm okay with it).

 

[Red Omen]

Do you not look around you? Almost every country is in dept, ours is growing everyday. Its in the trillions. We are on the verge of being in another great depression. We are at war, we have been at war for years.

Of course there are still problems. The ones you've listed have existed for quite some time - we've been at war since this country was founded. But the issues we've tackled with science have largely dissipated, and we can't ignore (or condemn) our accomplishments just because the frontier remains unexplored.

Your argument might have been better if you'd brought up nuclear fission: it produces clean, cheap, safe power when used responsibly, and annihilates cities when used with malice. This is a more compelling issue that is solved through philosophy and ethics. The knowledge itself, however, is amoral. We don't ban cars because they crash, and we don't stop researching because we might not like what we find.

The Golden Rule is from the Bible- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Almost everyone agrees that this is a good rule. I know it is good because it comes to us straight from God.

But how does the secular world know that it's good? Why does it matter how we treat others? Why can't I shoot everyone in line in front of me at Starbucks to get my coffee quicker? In the vast universe, the loss of such an insignificant amount of life means next to nothing at all. Why should I value it? Why should I be punished for taking it?

Precepts similar to the Golden Rule have been around in cultures all over the world centuries before Christ was born. Confucius wrote it in the Analects in the sixth century BCE.

We are moral because of empathy, not the dogma of any one religion. Chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, demonstrate a variety of behaviors that indicate altruism and compassion. We don't generally shoot random people at coffee shops because societies that operate in that way cannot function, and we value human life because we value our own lives and (for evolutionary reasons) the lives of members of our own species. This isn't perfect, of course; our origins also make us prone to tribalism, which has manifested as nationalism and causes a great deal of war and suffering. Tribes of chimpanzees go to war against each other too.

And as Roasty asked: Is a single line in a book really the only thing stopping you from wanton murder? Are you compassionate only because you've been told to be compassionate? I don't think that's true. You're a good person because of who you are, not because of what's keeping you in line.

(Typed this up before seeing Corvus's reply, but damned if I'm deleting it.)

I just realized how much the discussion we're having here on the forums reminded me of the southpark episode with the united atheist alliance and what not.

Those episodes are predicated on a straw man argument - that atheists claim eradicating religion will solve all the world's problems. Obviously people would still find reasons to hate each other, like the tribalism I mentioned above. South Park often makes good points, but sometimes they'll ignore nuance for the sake of the joke.

Sorry, pet peeve. The only thing I like about Go God Go is the otters.

 

[Keleynal]

I also watched this video some time ago, and it explains how I've thought of the way people interpret god and use the belief if god to their advantage. It is also rather explanatory of why the religous people are so disgusted with atheists. I feel some of this has even been shown in this discussion

Pardon the bad post quotation, my iPad isn't ideal for this.

I watched the video, and it's a decent thought experiment, but far from airtight.

First of all, it proposes that God is introduced to an atheist solely through being talked to by a theist. Untrue, many have come to faith in Christ through their own, private study of scriptures. Some have, like Paul the Apostle, been actually confronted by God himself, an idea the video seemed to dismiss as impossible.

The video also takes the nonexistence of God as the most logical thing. One must be convinced that God exists. Also not true for many people. But the video was only about atheists, so we won't call that a mistake.

The video also made God impersonal. How can you reject some one that isn't there? According to the Bible, Jesus stands at the door and knocks. If some one is trying to get your attention and you purposefully ignore them, how is that not rejecting that person?

So why doesn't an omnipotent God just show up and settle all doubt? Because it wouldn't. People who looked Jesus in the eye, listened to his teachings, saw him raise Lazurus from the dead, how many signs did they need? They wanted to kill him.

Tell me, if a ginormous neon sign fell from heaven that lit up and said I'm God, I'm here! Would you and all mankind suddenly believe? Nope,not even all the ones that saw it fall with their own eyes. And 100 years from now when the sign was all rusted and gone, people would deny it was ever there to begin with.

I used to think there was a way to let all men see, to get everyone to believe, but there's not.

One thing the video got right- the truth exists independent of our feelings about it. Based on what I know about God, I feel compelled to believe in Him. The Bible agrees with the video maker in that regard as well, no one can come into the kingdom of God unless the Holy Spirit draws them. The problem isn't that the Holy Spirit doesn't draw, we just refuse to acknowledge it for what it is.

The video also purported that God only knows what we know, because He is actually us. So how does prophecy work? Oh, you don't believe in that? How convenient for you. But there are several hundred prophesies in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled, many of which wre outside of His control, such as where He was born or how He was killed. But that sign isn't enough either, maybe because it happened too long ago.

You want modern signs and miracles? God healed me of asthma when I was in 6th grade. He healed my son of ichthyosis. He healed a woman in my church who had a curved spine from a car accident. He healed another woman who was going deaf, completely restoring her hearing. But it isn't enough, it will all be discounted or explained away.

I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but from my perspective Jesus parades Himself in front of us every day and we still reject Hom.

 

[Keleynal]

Who's to say how any of those writings should be interpreted. I've heard as many negative as I have positive things about that group and their poster. Even if 50% of them are bogus that's still hundreds. And there were a lot of items in there that weren't stupid things like how many lambs did so and so have(which admittedly, who the fuck cares how many lambs he had -brucebegone- . Unless of course I get to eat said lambs... then I'm okay with it).

If you find even one in there that isn't bogus or just plain stupid, let me know, I'd be happy to address anything legitimate.

 

[tr1age]

My question is, when God was doubted, they made a big stink. They proved to the people he was real. Why hasn't this happened now when everyone is in their own religion and killing for it etc etc etc. You would think, NOW would be a damn good time to explain some shit

 

[tr1age]

If you find even one in there that isn't bogus or just plain stupid, let me know, I'd be happy to address anything legitimate.

The problem is, Mod will not be safe from the wrath of your religion. No matter if he finds the light or not, he is still gay.

 

[Keleynal]

Random cool fact about the Bible: There are dragons! The book of Job describes large, fire-breathing reptiles that live in the water!

Some translations have a reference to unicorns, so maybe the Koreans are on to something.

 

[Keleynal]

My question is, when God was doubted, they made a big stink. They proved to the people he was real. Why hasn't this happened now when everyone is in their own religion and killing for it etc etc etc. You would think, NOW would be a damn good time to explain some shit

He still does miracles today, how big do you need it to be to acknowledge that it's a miracle? Also, we've got this thing called the Bible, it's in our native language and it explains everything much more clearly than a pillar of fire. If you won't believe what's plainly written, how will you accept a random sign in the sky?

 

[Keleynal]

The problem is, Mod will not be safe from the wrath of your religion. No matter if he finds the light or not, he is still gay.

I'm not sure to which wrath you are referring. Haven't I made the point over and over that God loves him exactly the way he is today? I've certainly tried to. Jesus didn't die to make MoD straight, He died died to save MoD's soul.

Another interesting tidbit- in heaven, there is no marriage because there is no male or female. Maybe God isn't as hung up on this gender thing as we are.

 

[tr1age]

I'm not sure to which wrath you are referring. Haven't I made the point over and over that God loves him exactly the way he is today? I've certainly tried to. Jesus didn't die to make MoD straight, He died died to save MoD's soul.

Another interesting tidbit- in heaven, there is no marriage because there is no male or female. Maybe God isn't as hung up on this gender thing as we are.

So then shouldn't it be OK to be Gay then?

 

[tr1age]

He still does miracles today, how big do you need it to be to acknowledge that it's a miracle? Also, we've got this thing called the Bible, it's in our native language and it explains everything much more clearly than a pillar of fire. If you won't believe what's plainly written, how will you accept a random sign in the sky?

Dying and coming back to life was a HUGE gesture.

 

[Keleynal]

So then shouldn't it be OK to be Gay then?

If by OK you mean perfectly acceptable before God, no still not OK.

God hates sin because it separates us from Him and prevents us from reaching our true potential. You don't have to condone everything a person does to love that person. I can love MoD like a brother in spite of his faults, just as he could love me in spite of mine.

 

[tr1age]

If by OK you mean perfectly acceptable before God, no still not OK.

God hates sin because it separates us from Him and prevents us from reaching our true potential. You don't have to condone everything a person does to love that person. I can love MoD like a brother in spite of his faults, just as he could love me in spite of mine.

So God hates sin.

Which is being gay..

But...

Haven't I made the point over and over that God loves him exactly the way he is today?

Mind BLOWN =)

 

[Corvus Rex]

I was raised in a Roman Catholic family and through study of religious texts and teachings, as well as studying science, I came to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity.

Note This is my current opinion, and I do not inherently expect everyone to agree with it. I voice these opinions solely to have them challenged, in the hope of either strengthening my arguments or being convinced of any error in them.

This is not to say that I demand a clear-as-day sign indicating the presence of a deity. I will admit that if some person walked up to me and said "Hey, I'm God" I wouldn't believe them, and if they started performing "miracles" then I also admit that my first thought would not be "It's God" but rather "ok... maybe it's God... maybe there's something else going on here I don't understand yet." I wouldn't be resistant to the idea that a deity existed, and I'd like to think that if one did, it would be understanding that I would like to come to know it in my own, scientific way.

That being said, I don't see the evidence. A book, even if it does say great things about being nice to each other, isn't evidence enough on its own. It was written by men, edited, revised and translated by men, and the only thing saying it's "the word of God" are other men. Similarly those men who say it is "the word of God" also themselves have stated that it has been mistranslated. The new versions of the Bible being released by the Catholic Church, among other things replaces every mention of "virgin" in reference to Mary with "young unmarried woman."

Similarly, in my experience I find that a lot of the teachings said to be "from the mouth of God" are scientifically inaccurate and harmful. Even in relatively noncontroversial matters such as conception and pregnancy, the Church teaches a "proper" human sexuality that actually decreases the likelihood of conception and increases the risk of unsuccessful pregnancies.

It's difficult to believe an institution that tells you there is an all-powerful entity behind the universe and then goes on to tell you "absolute truth" about the universe that you can 1) see is incorrect, and 2) they sometimes admit was incorrect themselves.

Miracles unfortunately do not occur, this seems relatively clear to me at the moment. First off, the observable world is too constant for such disruptions to occur. Every miracle that has been subjected to scientific scrutiny has, to my knowledge, been explained. The examples you cite could easily be the result of misdiagnosis or the body successfully repairing itself. Particularly when young there is capacity for conditions such as asthma to lessen in severity and disappear. I myself was plagued by seizures as a child, but as I grew up and my brain developed, the disorder corrected itself. Secondly, if miracles do exist then they are incredibly selfish, as how could one possibly justify giving miracles to only a select few?

A relative of mine is a teacher who specializes in the education of the severely handicapped; so much so that it is not uncommon for a child to simply die in the chair in front of him. Where was that child's miracle?

Recently my (by marriage) aunt's sister's entire family got into a car accident. Of the 8 family members only the father and the youngest daughter (4) survived. The father is mildly brain damaged and can no longer care for the daughter, who herself is now brain damaged and will probably never regain full functionality. Where was their miracle?

When making these arguments in the past I've often heard the phrases like "God works in mysterious ways" and "He only gives us the burdens we can carry." I'm sorry but those kinds of arguments are hollow, and in my experience are said only to make those who haven't had to face these tragedies feel better. If you look at the whole of human experience on a case by case basis, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of life is wasted, a lot of people are born and die in suffering and horror and nothing comes of it. Claiming that minor turns of fortune are miracles only cheapens what they're going through.

(Sorry, it sounds a little heated at the end there, but that's always been a sore point for me and I'm a little passionate about it)

 

[Keleynal]

Precepts similar to the Golden Rule have been around in cultures all over the world centuries before Christ was born. Confucius wrote it in the Analects in the sixth century BCE.

Jesus was quoting from Leviticus, which predates Confucius.

 

[Corvus Rex]

Another example I just remembered: it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the eucharist actually, physically (not in any metaphorical way) becomes the flesh and blood of Christ during communion. I emphasize this because a lot of people (myself included for a while) when they hear that still default to thinking "its just symbolism." The teaching of the Church is not symbolism it is actually human flesh; skin muscle, etc. and blood, red blood cells and all. Having (in the Church's eyes) performed cannibalism in this manner, I can tell you they are wrong. Unless people taste like stale bread and watered-down wine. :S

 

[Keleynal]

I appreciate your honesty and your tough questions, Corvus. I've wrestled with those questions too, and I haven't found a simple answer yet. My son and I certainly didn't deserve healing any more than anyone else. Our faith wasn't necessarily stronger. We didn't necessarily ask more often or more sincerely.

I read a book recently that addresses this question at least in part. It's called The Visitation by Frank Peretti. It is a work of fiction, but it portrays what happens when a man claiming to be Jesus comes to a small town and begins doing miracles. He healed a man that was stuck in a wheelchair. That man promptly used his new ability to beat the crap out of everyone who had ever made fun of him. He healed a girl with a crippled hand; she began shop lifting. He healed a man that could barely see even with glasses; he began to lust after women and fell into adultery.

I am not suggesting that everyone that isn't healed is because they would become bad people if they were. But it does illustrate that God knows better than we do what we truly need. In the Bible, it is suggested that if your eye or hand causes you to sin, it would be better to enter heaven half blind or cripple than to go wholly into hell. I think that is to be taken more metaphorical than literal, but again it shows that God's priorities are different than ours.

It's not a complete answer by any means, but it's what I've got at the moment. There's a book called Letters to a Skeptic by Lee Strobel that addresses it better, but it's been too long since I've read it.