Vatican, gays, and lulz

[EternityEnd]

I've read quite a bit of the Bible, and have attended Church on many an occasion. Yet, I always seem to get batshit preachers who make me walk out. Maybe it's North Carolina.

Is there a more modern version of the Bible that I'm unaware of, that spreads love, acceptance and non-discriminatory thinking? The Bible was written by, from what I understand, people relatively far from Jesus' lifetime, who couldn't have possibly known him personally. Even if the first did-- The several other people who wrote the Bible didn't. It's preposturous. There's no proof Jesus even existed by what evidence they gave/we found.

Let's not forget the men who wrote the Bible lived in a time of extreme bias, treating women like dirt and already regarding homosexuality with certain disdain. Why can't we just accept the fact that humans' past ignorances bled their way into the Bible, and move on, accepting everyone?

And this is where atheists depart from the reasonable nature they portent to be universally subscribed to.

Presented with a contradictory experience, you launch into trying to factually debunk people's beliefs based on the behaviour of others when all you've been presented with is the idea that you are wrong in one facet of your argument that has very little reason to be debunked.

I'm sorry, I must be tired, what exactly are you refering to? Did you not read the first three sentences of what I said? And, since when have evangelists not countered with the ever-cliche notion of trying to fictionally scoff at one's arguments, saying the Bible trumps any possible answer anyone else could possibly concieve?

And.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you ridiculed that statement of mine. Is it so hard to believe someone, god forbid, put their own hateful sentiments into the Bible? It doesn't seem like a benevolent God would be so cutthroat on the issue.

Now we don't execute women if they talk back/refuse to have sex.

Sorry for the moar questions but, who do you mean by we lol?

I was refering to men of the era.. Not us.

[Alleya]

I'm sorry, I must be tired, what exactly are you refering to? Did you not read the first three sentences of what I said? And, since when have evangelists not countered with the ever-cliche notion of trying to fictionally scoff at one's arguments, saying the Bible trumps any possible answer anyone else could possibly concieve?

And.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you ridiculed that statement of mine. Is it so hard to believe someone, god forbid, put their own hateful sentiments into the Bible? It doesn't seem like a benevolent God would be so cutthroat on the issue.

Your first point is actually exactly my point, though maybe I'm not making it very clear. Where evangelists counter with fiction, atheists counter with non-fiction and they are equally useless in the context of religious debate (see my last post).

As for the second point, also see the last point of my previous post.

[Charla]

I've read quite a bit of the Bible, and have attended Church on many an occasion. Yet, I always seem to get batshit preachers who make me walk out. Maybe it's the Deep South.

Yeah, that sounds about right

[EternityEnd]

I'm sorry, I must be tired, what exactly are you refering to? Did you not read the first three sentences of what I said? And, since when have evangelists not countered with the ever-cliche notion of trying to fictionally scoff at one's arguments, saying the Bible trumps any possible answer anyone else could possibly concieve?

And.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you ridiculed that statement of mine. Is it so hard to believe someone, god forbid, put their own hateful sentiments into the Bible? It doesn't seem like a benevolent God would be so cutthroat on the issue.

Your first point is actually exactly my point, though maybe I'm not making it very clear. Where evangelists counter with fiction, atheists counter with non-fiction and they are equally useless in the context of religious debate (see my last post).

As for the second point, also see the last point of my previous post.

Well, exactly, that's my point. There's really no point arguing on the issue-- It's futile.

[Alleya]

I'm sorry, I must be tired, what exactly are you refering to? Did you not read the first three sentences of what I said? And, since when have evangelists not countered with the ever-cliche notion of trying to fictionally scoff at one's arguments, saying the Bible trumps any possible answer anyone else could possibly concieve?

And.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you ridiculed that statement of mine. Is it so hard to believe someone, god forbid, put their own hateful sentiments into the Bible? It doesn't seem like a benevolent God would be so cutthroat on the issue.

Your first point is actually exactly my point, though maybe I'm not making it very clear. Where evangelists counter with fiction, atheists counter with non-fiction and they are equally useless in the context of religious debate (see my last post).

As for the second point, also see the last point of my previous post.

Well, exactly, that's my point. There's really no point arguing on the issue-- It's futile.

Exactly. XD Co-existence is the answer. You have to accept the crazies along side the cool people and just not judge people based on what they believe.

[Blarg]

Wiping out one way of thought or another benefits no one and changes very little.

If no Muslims believed in Jihad there would be a very large, and very beneficial change. Consider the fact that the 72 virgins destined for martyrs in heaven could quite possibly be 72 grapes (or raisins I can't remember) which are/were a delicacy. This mistranslation has done 'wonders' for sex starved predominantly male martyrs. I'm pretty sure the rivers of milk in heaven aren't as enticing as 72 big breasted virgins. Now, assuming it is actually raisins/grapes and not virgins, would you say that it's just as beneficial to not inform others of this fact and just hope they come unto this knowledge on their own, or should those who know of the mistranslation be vocal about it because the implications of this knowledge would save many potential lives.

[Kuya]

I was refering to men of the era.. Not us.

I meant we still do those things, we as in us humans, remember the middle east?

And mistreatment towards women and hatred towards homosexuals were not founded on religious beliefs, they simply re-stated what they already believed in or what they wanted believe in. Since the moment mankind could use his imagination, he could also use it to feel fear. Men simply took the advantage of what they saw before them, they saw they were larger, they presumed women were weaker, they saw women could mate with many men, they felt threatend. They saw that men and women procreated to assure the survival of the species, they saw that men with men or women with women could not. I will agree religion helped maintain these ideas, but you don't really need religion to proceed with being a mysogynist or a homphobe. People will use any justification for these things. Fear is the root of the problem, fear of the unknown and fear of inferiority.

[Alleya]

Wiping out one way of thought or another benefits no one and changes very little.

If no Muslims believed in Jihad there would be a very large, and very beneficial change. Consider the fact that the 72 virgins destined for martyrs in heaven could quite possibly be 72 grapes (or raisins I can't remember) which are/were a delicacy. This mistranslation has done 'wonders' for sex starved predominantly male martyrs. I'm pretty sure the rivers of milk in heaven aren't as enticing as 72 big breasted virgins. Now, assuming it is actually raisins/grapes and not virgins, would you say that it's just as beneficial to not inform others of this fact and just hope they come unto this knowledge on their own, or should those who know of the mistranslation be vocal about it because the implications of this knowledge would save many potential lives.

You have a superficial point. Unfortunately, there is more to the problem of militant Islamic jihadists than simple doctrine. A lot of it has to do with inequity, especially socioeconomic, and an unwillingness to co-exist with others. There are many root causes that must be addressed before things like this are even a real concern for religious leaders.

[EternityEnd]

Well, specifically, I was refering to western civilazation.

[Charla]

Since the moment mankind could use his imagination, he could also use it to feel fear. Men simply took the advantage of what they saw before them, they saw they were larger, they presumed women were weaker, they saw women could mate with many men, they felt threatend. They saw that men and women procreated to assure the survival of the species, they saw that men with men or women with women could not. I will agree religion helped maintain these ideas, but you don't really need religion to proceed with being a mysogynist or a homphobe. People will use any justification for these things. Fear is the root of the problem, fear of the unknown and fear of inferiority.

Don't forget disgust (at the thought of "deviant" behavior). And jealousy (at seeing someone else having more sex than you). And avarice (deciding that you hate someone so you can get rid of him and take his stuff for instance).

[Kuya]

Yes but disgust, avarice and jealousy are more complex proceses. They have a elemental structure from which they are based off. So they really only came later through constant socialization, and can't really be considered root causes.

Disgust is merely a mechanism that is absorbed into a person from society in order for them to shun that which deviates from the rules, it is an internalized reaction of negativity to that which may possibly threaten the fabric of society. Avarice, was mostly based of survival instinct, you take that which you need, you're not really going to consider the other person's feelings. It merely became avarice as the human imagination warped it into an obsession, a pleasure which is gained from demostrating superiority to another, which in term means it was also stemed from fear of superiority, as avarice is the physical manifestation of one trying to take power from another, and the society's rejection of any individual attempt to ursurp power for himself. And as for jealousy, it is pretty clearly another branch of the fear caused by inferiority, you create a feeling of rejection for those who possess "power".

There, this all came out of my verbose ass.
edit: and when i say society's rejection of avarice i mean society giving it a perjorative connotation, which in hindsight, it might very well deserve after it's been created through the survival instinct, imagination used to internalize objects outside of the body as symbols of power, and then it's further exagerated by fear.

[Blarg]

especially socioeconomic, and an unwillingness to co-exist with others.

There are many poor classes of people, not so surprisingly they don't blow themselves up, the root cause is their belief in martyrdom found in their religion. It's true that if these muslims could afford better weapons there would be less suicide bombings, but there would still be martyrs because they actually believe what the koran tells them. Their ultimate glory is death in the name of Islam.

Why are they unwilling to co-exist with others? At its root its the religious differences. If their neighbors were of the same denomination/sect do you think they would have the same unwillingness to co-exist?

[Kuya]

especially socioeconomic, and an unwillingness to co-exist with others.

There are many poor classes of people, not so surprisingly they don't blow themselves up, the root cause is their belief in martyrdom found in their religion. It's true that if these muslims could afford better weapons there would be less suicide bombings, but there would still be martyrs because they actually believe what the koran tells them. Their ultimate glory is death in the name of Islam.

Why are they unwilling to co-exist with others? At its root its the religious differences. If their neighbors were of the same religion do you think they would have the same unwillingness to co-exist?

Did you just imply that there is no waring within islamic sects? Have you been watching Iraq lately?

[Blarg]

especially socioeconomic, and an unwillingness to co-exist with others.

There are many poor classes of people, not so surprisingly they don't blow themselves up, the root cause is their belief in martyrdom found in their religion. It's true that if these muslims could afford better weapons there would be less suicide bombings, but there would still be martyrs because they actually believe what the koran tells them. Their ultimate glory is death in the name of Islam.

Why are they unwilling to co-exist with others? At its root its the religious differences. If their neighbors were of the same religion do you think they would have the same unwillingness to co-exist?

Did you just imply that there is no waring within islamic sects? Have you been watching Iraq lately?

I should have said same denomination/sect instead of same religion.

[Kuya]

especially socioeconomic, and an unwillingness to co-exist with others.

There are many poor classes of people, not so surprisingly they don't blow themselves up, the root cause is their belief in martyrdom found in their religion. It's true that if these muslims could afford better weapons there would be less suicide bombings, but there would still be martyrs because they actually believe what the koran tells them. Their ultimate glory is death in the name of Islam.

Why are they unwilling to co-exist with others? At its root its the religious differences. If their neighbors were of the same religion do you think they would have the same unwillingness to co-exist?

Did you just imply that there is no waring within islamic sects? Have you been watching Iraq lately?

I should have said same denomination/sect instead of same religion.

Clearly their religius views are so different that they need to fight, even though them being religius sects imply that they branched off from an original matrix religion. And their fighting absolutly has nothing to do with them wanting political, economic, and social hegemony in Iraq, clearly.

[Blarg]

Clearly their religius views are so different that they need to fight, even though them being religius sects imply that they branched off from an original matrix religion. And their fighting absolutly has nothing to do with them wanting political, economic, and social hegemony in Iraq, clearly.

And they want this political, economic, and social hegemony for their own sect and not the other because? It's because their religious views are different from each other, it doesn't matter that the differences are so small and therefore should theoretically not be worth fighting over, the fact is it's happening.

The big 3 religions start with abraham but I wouldn't consider them very similar anymore. When small differences are what stops certain sects from getting to heaven and as a result, enduring eternal torture, the fact that they branch off the same matrix religion means little.

[Kuya]

Clearly their religius views are so different that they need to fight, even though them being religius sects imply that they branched off from an original matrix religion. And their fighting absolutly has nothing to do with them wanting political, economic, and social hegemony in Iraq, clearly.

And they want this political, economic, and social hegemony for their own sect and not the other because? It's because their religious views are different from each other, it doesn't matter that the differences are so small and therefore should theoretically not be worth fighting over, the fact is it's happening.

The big 3 religions start with abraham but I wouldn't consider them very similar anymore. When small differences are what stops certain sects from getting to heaven and as a result, enduring eternal torture, the fact that they branch off the same matrix religion means little.

No, my first sentence was made for the purpose of downplaying their miniscule differences and to therefore streghten my second setence's point. Which is, the religius reasons for small at best. Have you ever studied Marx or any other political theorists? They fight for social, economic, and political power, for themselves because their religius group is different from the others? How could you, someone who is arguing agaisnt religion use such shallow arguments for such? Did it never occur to you that their methods of political rule may vary? That their economical ideologies are not the same? That they have different ideas for social reforms? You have three reasons to consider for their fighting, and yet you choose to fixate on the religius aspect?

I thought it was known by most who aren't fans of any religion that, religion is most often used as motivator for the masses, when the social class with hegemonic control needed it's interests met, it would use religion to gather the other classes for sead goals. How did you manage to get entrapped into their munipulations? And what's more, these fighting sects/tribes within Iraq, haven't even stated religius reasons for their fighting, their reasons so far have varied from one sect supporting Saddam in the past and therefore needs to be destroyed, and that some other sect is helping the terrorist in Iraq and therefore it needs to be destroyed.

[Blarg]

religion is most often used as motivator for the masses

I know that the religious differences are not the only differences between these groups and the many different views on economy and politics as well as religion are making them continue to fight, but in most cases the initial division is a religious one, as a motivator.

What I'm trying to argue here was initially over the statement that 'its useless to try to change someones views and no good will come of trying', and that this isn't a good stance to take. I don't think that all this fighting is over purely religious reasons, but as I said above, its the first difference in opinion used to incite violence in many cases, and therefore without this first cause there would be less overall fighting.

I'm Canadian so I don't hear/read/see as much about the violence in the middle east as americans probably do, so this is foreign territory for me to argue about. What I will say is that even though the sects may fight over a variety of reasons, the fact that there is a religious disagreement is a negative factor rather than a positive one.

It's a shame I can't remember too well anymore the arguments I have read on this which states my point much better than I am able to.

[Beckwin]

So you're saying that popular religion is used as a tool by the bourgeoisie/aristocratic classes to exercise control over the masses for socioeconomic gains. I can agree with that. But that also means that the religion those masses believe in is certainly not the true religion of any real, benevolent god (or if it is, we should dislike that fucker anyway), so even if the masses are "right" about the existence of a god, they aren't truly right- in fact, they aren't any more right than Joe Atheist because neither know true faith in the "real" God- the atheists simply don't believe and the masses believe wholeheartedly in whatever warped version the controlling class feeds them. Thus it's not only prudent for atheists to question religion, but for the masses to do so as well. Problem is the religious masses can only question so far, as whatever true message might've existed has been corrupted many degrees over the generations.

You can talk about moderate Christians all you'd like, but moderate is a relative term and there are a lot of really fucking silly laws that affect all Americans, theist and atheist alike. There are still states?/counties where you can't buy booze on Sundays (and some dry counties)- yeah in practicality not a big deal so don't play that card, but it's just incredibly nonsensical. Sodomy is illegal in many states. Religion still defines what marriage is in this country. So stop getting in a hissy when religion enters the public realm and atheists want to question it publicly. It's one thing to stand outside a church and scream at people about their God being fake and their book a sham, but questioning religion and explaining your position on why it shouldn't have any effect on your life unless you choose for it to is completely reasonable and hardly something I'd call "militant". I know you want to be the quintessential moderate and lets all just get a long kind of guy and everything is equal no matter what kind of guy, but really, cut it out on this one.

edit: @ kuya

[EternityEnd]

You can talk about moderate Christians all you'd like, but moderate is a relative term and there are a lot of really fucking silly laws that affect all Americans, theist and atheist alike. There are still states?/counties where you can't buy booze on Sundays (and some dry counties)- yeah in practicality not a big deal so don't play that card, but it's just incredibly nonsensical. Sodomy is illegal in many states. Religion still defines what marriage is in this country. So stop getting in a hissy when religion enters the public realm and atheists want to question it publicly. It's one thing to stand outside a church and scream at people about their God being fake and their book a sham, but questioning religion and explaining your position on why it shouldn't have any effect on your life unless you choose for it to is completely reasonable and hardly something I'd call "militant". I know you want to be the quintessential moderate and lets all just get a long kind of guy and everything is equal no matter what kind of guy, but really, cut it out on this one.

edit: @ kuya

Will you marry me, sir?

Oh, wait, cockblocked by anti-gay marriage laws.