I dunno. Is it really sexual incompatibility?The bolded part sounds like a timing issue. Timing of discovering yourself. Timing of maturing to be able to discuss needs/desires. Timing is a huge part of a relationship. Right person, wrong time is very much a real thing
The sexual incompatibility argument kind of rings hollow to me. Let's say you lose your virginity but you think you're not sexually compatible. So you break up with them. But now you're with other people and you might eventually come around to the fact that the first one was actually the person you were most compatible with. It's such a callous way to treat a relationship with a person and treats them like they have RPG stats.
The sexual compatibility thing is part of a larger problem of society placing sex as higher than other things. Surely people can learn to make it work? That's what love is. And yet for all the sex before marriage we've had since the sexual revolution, divorce is kind of considered a basic guaranteed thing. So the divorce argument doesn't make much sense because plenty of people who have sex before marriage end up in divorces.
The sexual compatibility argument is so, so awful and really needs to stop being used.
The more I think about it, the less I can justify the destiny of woman outside the family and the household. Between harlot or housewife, I see no halfway point.
I dunno. Is it really sexual incompatibility?I don't think I can sign up for this. People have needs and some of those are affection and physical too. You can't just ignore these because the nature of the need. I'm not talking about dude x is into bdsm and his wife isn't. I mean a guy's wife literally never wants to have sex. Should she have to force herself to have sex with him? Should he have to go without for the rest of his life? That's not fair to either. And yeah some people can work it out, but sometimes they can't. I see this all the time in mormondom a wife will be OK with sex every few months and the husband wants more and she feels he's a perv for wanting it more often and he feels like she's a prude. Are you saying one of them should feel used or the other feel resentful because they can't get their needs met? That's unfair to both. If they had been able to know what they were like sexually before they got married perhaps she would have chosen a guy with a lower sex drive and he a woman with a higher one. I've heard in mormon circles that marrying someone that has had pre-marital sex is like buying already chewed gum, but at the same time if I'm buying a pair of shoes that I'm going to wear for the rest of my life you'd better believe I'd try them on before I bought them.
The sexual incompatibility argument kind of rings hollow to me. Let's say you lose your virginity but you think you're not sexually compatible. So you break up with them. But now you're with other people and you might eventually come around to the fact that the first one was actually the person you were most compatible with. It's such a callous way to treat a relationship with a person and treats them like they have RPG stats and as if sex is the most important aspect of a relationship.
The sexual compatibility thing is part of a larger problem of society placing sex as higher than other things. Surely people can learn to make it work? That's what love is. And yet for all the sex before marriage we've had since the sexual revolution, divorce is kind of considered a basic guaranteed thing. So the divorce argument doesn't make much sense because plenty of people who have sex before marriage end up in divorces.
The sexual compatibility argument is so, so awful and really needs to stop being used.
Himu, is your newfound christianity the reason for believing all of this?
Himu, is your newfound christianity the reason for believing all of this?
Can we not speak of this?
I'm not shutting you down or anything, just saying it falls in line with said beliefs. I'll drop it now if it bothers you.
uhhh.....have you been married? Sexual needs are like emotional needs. If you ignored your spouses emotional needs you'd be a monster. Marriage isn't "Remember you're here forever!" It's "take care of each other forever, be there for each other forever."
I'm not saying toss people away because sex is bad. But what I am saying is that sex is part of relationships and when it's good it's 10% of the relationship, when it's bad it's 90% of the relationship. It's like any facet of the relationship, if it's left unattended and neglected it will seep into other parts of the relationship until love is replaced by resentment.
Capitalism hasn't really helped us "progress" as a species. Sure technologically it's done marvels. But we're not happier as a whole because we have an iPhone.
But we're not happier as a whole because we have an iPhone.Well until they showed up with the search warrant some people were.
Wait. You're right. I take it back.But we're not happier as a whole because we have an iPhone.Well until they showed up with the search warrant some people were.
No I haven't been married. I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying the importance of sex. My problem is the way you're framing the argument. You said that sexual compatibility is important - and it is - to find out your mate and justify marrying them. Which is reasonable. But you also mention things like your wife not having sex with you, thus not being sexually incompatible. Your argument for having sex before marriage is one of sexual compatibility. While it's true that your wife who you were abstinent with may not want to have sex with you after you get married, it's also true that this may happen even if you did have sex before marriage. Essentially, sexual compatibility isn't a state that constantly exists. It's something you continuously work on. And if it's something you continuously work on, using it as an argument for sex before marriage undoes your own argument because you can just as easily do this with abstinence until marriage. Even if you're sexually compatible before marriage doesn't guarantee that will be after, which negates the argument towards compatibility.I whole heartedly agree. Sexual compability does TOTALLY change over time. And I'm not saying pre-marital sex is a cure-all for sexual compatibility. But, gaining the skills to have a mature sexual relationship is difficult and in some ways the honeymoon phase can be the perfect time to gain those skills, and in others it's the worst. But here's where I come at it from, if there is a severe sexual incompatibility (Like maybe someone is really rough in sex and refuses to change, or somesuch) it would be better to find out before both parties are locked and loaded for life.
Quote from: Pierre-Joseph ProudhonThe more I think about it, the less I can justify the destiny of woman outside the family and the household. Between harlot or housewife, I see no halfway point.spoiler (click to show/hide)okay, so i may be stretching the actual topic just to have an excuse to share this Proudhon quote/piece i recently came across for the first time :doge[close]
One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers — by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion.
It is not astonishing, that in every country man has rendered himself the master of woman, dominion being founded on strength. He has ordinarily, too, a superiority in both body and mind.
Woman wants to become independent - and for that reason she is beginning to enlighten men about "woman as such" - that is among the most deleterious developments in the general process of making Europe ugly.Turns out a whole bunch of canonical thinkers had some choice things to say about women that today we find reprehensible.
People say,"religion has done bad things" but science has done awful things as well. But for some reason it gets a pass.
No I haven't been married. I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying the importance of sex. My problem is the way you're framing the argument. You said that sexual compatibility is important - and it is - to find out your mate and justify marrying them. Which is reasonable. But you also mention things like your wife not having sex with you, thus not being sexually incompatible. Your argument for having sex before marriage is one of sexual compatibility. While it's true that your wife who you were abstinent with may not want to have sex with you after you get married, it's also true that this may happen even if you did have sex before marriage. Essentially, sexual compatibility isn't a state that constantly exists. It's something you continuously work on. And if it's something you continuously work on, using it as an argument for sex before marriage undoes your own argument because you can just as easily do this with abstinence until marriage. Even if you're sexually compatible before marriage doesn't guarantee that will be after, which negates the argument towards compatibility.I whole heartedly agree. Sexual compability does TOTALLY change over time. And I'm not saying pre-marital sex is a cure-all for sexual compatibility. But, gaining the skills to have a mature sexual relationship is difficult and in some ways the honeymoon phase can be the perfect time to gain those skills, and in others it's the worst. But here's where I come at it from, if there is a severe sexual incompatibility (Like maybe someone is really rough in sex and refuses to change, or somesuch) it would be better to find out before both parties are locked and loaded for life.
QuotePeople say,"religion has done bad things" but science has done awful things as well. But for some reason it gets a pass.
I'm sorry, what?
Jesus, Himuro is going to be voting Republican by the time the midterms come around.
Science is a tool. It's like arguing that knives can do evil too because they can be used to stab people. There is nothing about science intrinsically potentially telling people to be pieces of shit. Also, it's universal, and as such, unbiased.
Religion, on the other hand, much like any other belief (political etc) can easily be the driver of disgusting shit. It also leads to division (us vs. them).
Science is a tool. It's like arguing that knives can do evil too because they can be used to stab people. There is nothing about science intrinsically potentially telling people to be pieces of shit. Also, it's universal, and as such, unbiased.
Religion, on the other hand, much like any other belief (political etc) can easily be the driver of disgusting shit. It also leads to division (us vs. them).
But you're asking people with no experience in anything to discuss said things maturely. It'd be like me talking about how I like to drive my F1 race car.No I haven't been married. I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying the importance of sex. My problem is the way you're framing the argument. You said that sexual compatibility is important - and it is - to find out your mate and justify marrying them. Which is reasonable. But you also mention things like your wife not having sex with you, thus not being sexually incompatible. Your argument for having sex before marriage is one of sexual compatibility. While it's true that your wife who you were abstinent with may not want to have sex with you after you get married, it's also true that this may happen even if you did have sex before marriage. Essentially, sexual compatibility isn't a state that constantly exists. It's something you continuously work on. And if it's something you continuously work on, using it as an argument for sex before marriage undoes your own argument because you can just as easily do this with abstinence until marriage. Even if you're sexually compatible before marriage doesn't guarantee that will be after, which negates the argument towards compatibility.I whole heartedly agree. Sexual compability does TOTALLY change over time. And I'm not saying pre-marital sex is a cure-all for sexual compatibility. But, gaining the skills to have a mature sexual relationship is difficult and in some ways the honeymoon phase can be the perfect time to gain those skills, and in others it's the worst. But here's where I come at it from, if there is a severe sexual incompatibility (Like maybe someone is really rough in sex and refuses to change, or somesuch) it would be better to find out before both parties are locked and loaded for life.
I'm not sure why you think this is impossible to achieve while being abstinent. No sex before marriage doesn't mean no sex talk before marriage. I think it's unrealistic to not talk about sex at all before marriage or what you like. I also think it's unreasonable in this case for a man with a micro penis to not his future wife this fact for instance.
But honestly I'm not sure what good sex marriage even does. Every time someone breaks up with me, who I had sex with, it feels gut wrenching. It's another person who I gave myself to, physically and emotionally and it ended up not being that special someone. I worry that if I do find that person, I'll have sex with them and it won't mean much because I've had sex with emotionally and physically with many people prior to them that I'll be numb towards it.
I understand that you think sexual compatibility can change. I respect that and agree with it. But that's not how it's often framed when arguing for a pro pre marriage position.
But you're asking people with no experience in anything to discuss said things maturely. It'd be like me talking about how I like to drive my F1 race car.No I haven't been married. I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying the importance of sex. My problem is the way you're framing the argument. You said that sexual compatibility is important - and it is - to find out your mate and justify marrying them. Which is reasonable. But you also mention things like your wife not having sex with you, thus not being sexually incompatible. Your argument for having sex before marriage is one of sexual compatibility. While it's true that your wife who you were abstinent with may not want to have sex with you after you get married, it's also true that this may happen even if you did have sex before marriage. Essentially, sexual compatibility isn't a state that constantly exists. It's something you continuously work on. And if it's something you continuously work on, using it as an argument for sex before marriage undoes your own argument because you can just as easily do this with abstinence until marriage. Even if you're sexually compatible before marriage doesn't guarantee that will be after, which negates the argument towards compatibility.I whole heartedly agree. Sexual compability does TOTALLY change over time. And I'm not saying pre-marital sex is a cure-all for sexual compatibility. But, gaining the skills to have a mature sexual relationship is difficult and in some ways the honeymoon phase can be the perfect time to gain those skills, and in others it's the worst. But here's where I come at it from, if there is a severe sexual incompatibility (Like maybe someone is really rough in sex and refuses to change, or somesuch) it would be better to find out before both parties are locked and loaded for life.
I'm not sure why you think this is impossible to achieve while being abstinent. No sex before marriage doesn't mean no sex talk before marriage. I think it's unrealistic to not talk about sex at all before marriage or what you like. I also think it's unreasonable in this case for a man with a micro penis to not his future wife this fact for instance.
But honestly I'm not sure what good sex marriage even does. Every time someone breaks up with me, who I had sex with, it feels gut wrenching. It's another person who I gave myself to, physically and emotionally and it ended up not being that special someone. I worry that if I do find that person, I'll have sex with them and it won't mean much because I've had sex with emotionally and physically with many people prior to them that I'll be numb towards it.
I understand that you think sexual compatibility can change. I respect that and agree with it. But that's not how it's often framed when arguing for a pro pre marriage position.
It makes me sad that you don't see what good sex in marriage does. It seems you only view it as a negative. That's a sad thing.
Human beings are not good at making decisions and when at all possible, we should let algorithms do so.Good point.
(This isn't just a "thing I think" but something that's been proven repeatedly.)
There's a facebook group that is some sort of Isn't Science Great! or something like that. I wish I could hijack it to put up something like "99% of species on earth propagate through seasonal rapings." See how that goes over with the wippersnappers.
It's just twee culture. Trying to make everything cute and happy fun. Science is a tool as in its a process. It doesn't need to be political or pop culture. It actually shouldn't be political.
I think your issue with it may be the authority science is given by people who do not even understand the science, so it essentially operates as faith on the larger public scale.
You always think what you don't have is better. I grew up in a abstinent until marriage society and I saw a lot of problems with it. Likewise people that grew up in areas of promiscuity do the same. :trumpsBut you're asking people with no experience in anything to discuss said things maturely. It'd be like me talking about how I like to drive my F1 race car.No I haven't been married. I'm not sure why you think I'm downplaying the importance of sex. My problem is the way you're framing the argument. You said that sexual compatibility is important - and it is - to find out your mate and justify marrying them. Which is reasonable. But you also mention things like your wife not having sex with you, thus not being sexually incompatible. Your argument for having sex before marriage is one of sexual compatibility. While it's true that your wife who you were abstinent with may not want to have sex with you after you get married, it's also true that this may happen even if you did have sex before marriage. Essentially, sexual compatibility isn't a state that constantly exists. It's something you continuously work on. And if it's something you continuously work on, using it as an argument for sex before marriage undoes your own argument because you can just as easily do this with abstinence until marriage. Even if you're sexually compatible before marriage doesn't guarantee that will be after, which negates the argument towards compatibility.I whole heartedly agree. Sexual compability does TOTALLY change over time. And I'm not saying pre-marital sex is a cure-all for sexual compatibility. But, gaining the skills to have a mature sexual relationship is difficult and in some ways the honeymoon phase can be the perfect time to gain those skills, and in others it's the worst. But here's where I come at it from, if there is a severe sexual incompatibility (Like maybe someone is really rough in sex and refuses to change, or somesuch) it would be better to find out before both parties are locked and loaded for life.
I'm not sure why you think this is impossible to achieve while being abstinent. No sex before marriage doesn't mean no sex talk before marriage. I think it's unrealistic to not talk about sex at all before marriage or what you like. I also think it's unreasonable in this case for a man with a micro penis to not his future wife this fact for instance.
But honestly I'm not sure what good sex marriage even does. Every time someone breaks up with me, who I had sex with, it feels gut wrenching. It's another person who I gave myself to, physically and emotionally and it ended up not being that special someone. I worry that if I do find that person, I'll have sex with them and it won't mean much because I've had sex with emotionally and physically with many people prior to them that I'll be numb towards it.
I understand that you think sexual compatibility can change. I respect that and agree with it. But that's not how it's often framed when arguing for a pro pre marriage position.
It makes me sad that you don't see what good sex in marriage does. It seems you only view it as a negative. That's a sad thing.
Er, you read that wrong and I wrote it on my phone so it was a typo. I mean, I'm obviously talking about sex before marriage. Not good sex marriage? It's obviously missing the word 'before'? I'm not sure why you think I view sex as a negative? I'm not sure what any good sex before marriage does. Seems to fuck things up more than it helps.
I'm sorry if not thinking science is a religion is 'distinguished mentally-challenged fetishism' now ::)There's a facebook group that is some sort of Isn't Science Great! or something like that. I wish I could hijack it to put up something like "99% of species on earth propagate through seasonal rapings." See how that goes over with the wippersnappers.
It's just twee culture. Trying to make everything cute and happy fun. Science is a tool as in its a process. It doesn't need to be political or pop culture. It actually shouldn't be political.
I think your issue with it may be the authority science is given by people who do not even understand the science, so it essentially operates as faith on the larger public scale.
It's really quite odd. Seagrams showed a great example of this distinguished mentally-challenged fetishism. They treat all science as 100% fact no matter your views on the subject. Critique science? "Why don't you jump off a cliff?" Science is great and all, but the "science can never do no wrong" is the shit I'm talking about. Like scientists don't have biases or their own beliefs and are fucking robots that don't have emotions. Scientists can never be wrong because of the scientific method and the nature of science is to be wrong, to find the truth. Thus it can never be critiqued.
Good. It's not like you responded to my posts anyways.
Good. It's not like you responded to my posts anyways.
I just did, and you replied with nonsense straight out of the young earth creationist playbook. I don't have time for this shit.
You can say religion, much like science and whatever else, is not inherently evil as much as it's used by people to gain power and do awful things. But science is an actual tool you can use to move the human species forward, while religion is a hindrance that holds us back.
Where's my fedora at?
It is common on Reddit when in debate, to see Redditors dip into what I like to call the 'scientific style'. When describing women's behaviour, for example, they go into (unfounded) talk about how evolution brought about the outcome. This is, of course, common pseudoscience, but I would propose that they are trying to imitate people who do science in order to add to the 'correctness' of their arguments. They can also be agitated is you propose a contrary theory, as if you do not see the 'logic and reason' of their arguments. Make note of this for the next section.
1. Feminism. I support women and women's rights. But feminism is also double edge. For example, instead of women's virginity being placed on a pedastal, now women are expected to put out.
My stance: religion can be bad, science can be bad; religion can be good, science can be good.
I'd say religion can be good for an individual with their place in life, but any sort of wide spread belief is ultimately damaging. Science, on the other hand, is a process that doesn't hide the fact that it is and is a lot more transparent in it's conclusions, while also done to push humanity forward.
Any attempt to conflate the two or merge them is doomed to fail. As all religion can be is an aid for a person's fear of death or the giant universe they're in; it's old laws to make people feel better at best and act horribly at worst. Science, no matter what, is a collection of facts as we know them, not what we want to believe out of them.
In World War II, the Catholic Church saved millions of Jews lives.Get the fuck out of here.
No amount of "religion is good for community" is ever going to work on me, himu. I understand that you found jesus and it brings you peace and shit, but as a dude who lived most of his life in the worst example of it I see it as meaningless horseshit people peddle because they're that afraid of death and can't handle their own lack of importance to the universe.
That's just me, though.
Anytime a nation tries to be atheist or heavily agnostic, something religious-like takes up the empty space.
Said nothing about placing virginity on a pedastal. I after all am not a virgin.
It's interesting that what you took from my posts is some binary party lines that only exists to divide. No, I am not conservative. Yes, we should fix healthcare, but that isn't an opinion that goes against societal expectations, it's mainstream. And for that reason has no place in this thread. But please go on, keep accusing of me being conservative and trying to fit me into a hole. :)
I don't think you can even vacate religion from society.
Anytime a nation tries to be atheist or heavily agnostic, something religious-like takes up the empty space.
I find there's a big difference between a nation operating under religious laws and a religion existing within a nation. I don't mind mosques being around but I hate that everything has to close during prayer times and women have to cover up because some bearded dudes said so centuries ago.
Also, PD. For consideration, I've talked to many a woman who have told me and I quote: "I don't want to have sex with him before we marry but I'm afraid he'll leave me." "The second I tell a man I want to wait until marriage, they disappear. I'll never find a man." This is feminisms legacy. An ideology that said that they value women's right to choose. Clearly, there's much work to be done.
Also, PD. For consideration, I've talked to many a woman who have told me and I quote: "I don't want to have sex with him before we marry but I'm afraid he'll leave me." "The second I tell a man I want to wait until marriage, they disappear. I'll never find a man." This is feminisms legacy. An ideology that said that they value women's right to choose. Clearly, there's much work to be done.
Sounds less like feminism's fault and more like men's, to be honest.
People had a lot of sex outside of marriage "back in the day" too.
I think it's corny to restrict your sexual growth as a person based on religious texts, but then again my views on Abrahamic religions are well known. If you're doing it for personal reasons though more power to you.
Bringing up white feminism to defend yourself seems like goal post moving, when black feminists are just as sexually free. I have problems with "white feminism" as well, but that was not the focus of your post.
As a born and raised Christian in a country of like 90% Christians, I kinda wanna say a few things, but this thread seems so toxic. Maybe I'll check back later. :doge
As a born and raised Christian in a country of like 90% Christians, I kinda wanna say a few things, but this thread seems so toxic. Maybe I'll check back later. :doge
Liking bigger women seems to be that way, I've received a lot of flack for it in the past. :-\
Cargo shorts should be illegal
Have you ever experienced hate? Like, actual hate? I'm not talking about "I hate broccoli" but "every time I see a white person I get nervous and I hate them" kind of hate. How do you go about ridding yourself of that? I don't know.Maybe this is why I'm so ignorant about everything but I can't for the life of me remember ever doing this. It sounds like putting in a lot of constantly exhausting effort to accomplish nothing.
Go jack off to science or whatever.
Have you ever experienced hate? Like, actual hate? I'm not talking about "I hate broccoli" but "every time I see a white person I get nervous and I hate them" kind of hate. How do you go about ridding yourself of that? I don't know.Maybe this is why I'm so ignorant about everything but I can't for the life of me remember ever doing this. It sounds like putting in a lot of constantly exhausting effort to accomplish nothing.
Go jack off to science or whatever.
I think I'll go fuck someone I'm not married to instead, thanks
Scientists will sometimes do things for the research regardless of the harm. The creation of the atom bomb is a great example.I think the people who made the atom bomb were pretty intent on creating something with hopefully highly destructive potential what with it being a bomb and all.
I like you just fine. Sorry for being a jerk.
the jews were the world's greatest evil, so in a way I was taught that as fact. I wasn't outwardly hateful and it was more views I held due to how casual the hatred was for the most part. But me giving up on it is mostly tied to growing up and realizing you're not always taught facts here, and it persisting was mostly what I've been told about Israel and propaganda relating to that.oh no, (((they))) got to you
I like you just fine. Sorry for being a jerk.
Sorry for being a bitch. Again, I'm a bad person. So I honestly don't blame you.
I like you just fine. Sorry for being a jerk.
Sorry for being a bitch. Again, I'm a bad person. So I honestly don't blame you.
You're really not. I just find a lot of what you're saying very frustrating. My brother is born again and that has lead to some difficult experiences in my family recently, so I have a hard time discussing the topic with aplomb
I didn't mean to imply you were, just offering why i get aggy when topics like abstinence and sex before marriage etc come up
Here's one that might ruffle some feathers:
I don't see why anyone is shocked that football, boxing, mma, prowrestling, etc. can cause concussions and isn't very healthy. I think there really shouldn't be any attempt to try to make it healthy, all it does is weaken some of the entertainment value to delay the inevitable issues. It should be common sense at this point that if you want to be a part of it it's a massive risk on your health and you probably won't live for too long.
ProWrestling is a weird one considering it's essentially voluntary masochism in the form of a violent ballet. It's a stuntman circus sometimes. Sure, it sucks that a lot of the stars die at a young age and shit, but that's part of the program.
I'm just making an assumption here but it sounds like you've never worked with people in science-based fields which may explain the reason you feel the need to jump to religion. Because at a very shallow level, people treat it like the opposite of science. Gonna come back to this...
But first, I have to bring up that the way you bring up Facebook groups and Bill Nye, it's fucking disgusting. There are scientists in this world who spend their entire lives actually doing research and trying to make the world a better place. They don't do that on Facebook or on TV. If I said Bruce Jenner is a fraud and deceptive, two horrible stereotypes that people attribute to transpeople, and I just politely asked you to respond, I wonder HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU FEEL? Is that a springboard for constructive, healthy conversation to use bad examples of a group to debate how worthwhile transpeople are in society?
Back on the topic of religion, I myself have a dozen relatives or family friends who are fucking physicists and still deeply religious. That's why I never got the people who think science is an ideology. Religion is something you have to justify like any other belief system. Science is something that's just true and you fit your religious beliefs on Adam & Eve or creation of the universe around whatever known facts there are.
Oh and as an antisocial opinion of mine, I fucking hate anybody who complains "politely" in public. So passive-aggressive. If you're gonna be mad don't be a pussy.
Here's one that might ruffle some feathers:
I don't see why anyone is shocked that football, boxing, mma, prowrestling, etc. can cause concussions and isn't very healthy. I think there really shouldn't be any attempt to try to make it healthy, all it does is weaken some of the entertainment value to delay the inevitable issues. It should be common sense at this point that if you want to be a part of it it's a massive risk on your health and you probably won't live for too long.
ProWrestling is a weird one considering it's essentially voluntary masochism in the form of a violent ballet. It's a stuntman circus sometimes. Sure, it sucks that a lot of the stars die at a young age and shit, but that's part of the program.
I just wanted to say that despite growing up a Christian and going through the typical Christian traditions like being baptized as a baby, confirmation, and such, we were never told by anyone to not have sex before marriage, probably because it isn't mentioned in the bible (I think). Religion can be so drastically different. Even the same religion in different countries or areas. It's not really a "lifestyle" in the sense of Buddism in Thailand to compare, but it is a small part of growing up. Although it's not really a common thing to visit church other than for events (like the ones I mentioned + sometimes Christmas etc). Actually I went to Sunday school in church as a child where we learned about Jesus through drawing, reading and singing (even that isn't common for kids there). Yet we never once were told to not have sex before marriage. We knew it was a "thing" but no one ever tried to enforce us about it, really. Honestly it was more of a thing we associated with other cultures. I think what I've seen on TV and such about Christianity in the US is far more "insane" and "more heavy/extreme" than where I was born (Norway). Not sure how else to put it, because I never talk about religion so my way of thinking isn't as easy to type out if that makes sense. It puts my English to test. lolAs a born and raised Christian in a country of like 90% Christians, I kinda wanna say a few things, but this thread seems so toxic. Maybe I'll check back later. :doge
We don't really hate christians, or at least I don't. All we're doing here is debating topics. I feel we can do that without calling someone an asshole.
I don't think Himu is an asshole, I just don't agree with her on some matters. And I have my own bias against religions(mostly islam) because of my own experiences with it. It is what it is.
Yes I get that you're saying there are people who believe science proves something without knowing yet what the empirical evidence is. But in real life, the only people who NEED to make large assumptions that they can't back up are economists (not a science) and high schoolers (old enough to be angry but not smart enough to understand anything).
Everybody else seems to be able to understand how basic things work if they are open minded about it. How a greenhouse gas causes climate change or how blood sugar burns out insulin receptor are things a person with no college education could understand the basics of in 5 minutes or less.
But your argument that there is a large, society wide battle between science and religion, that's just a victim complex. I've seen it in very religious people who are intimidated by science. And I've seen very religious scientists who just come up with weird, complex arguments that resolve everything like the finale of Lost.
The reality is, there's no threat of using science to disprove religion as that's all based on supernatural shit anyways. On the other hand some people would love for scientists to get a bad reputation when they show that oil companies are ruining the environment or that lead isn't so good for your kids. That's why I'm saying the whole science-warriors vs religion-warriors shit is shallow, most adults don't debate at that level.
My stance: religion can be bad, science can be bad; religion can be good, science can be good.
To me, anything else is a symptom of stanning for a team in a shitty ass culture war. Considering that almost half of scientists are believers, the case is made that any attempt to cast religion as "holding us back" through the lens that science is all we need through its observance of the material, as something that doesn't really exist in the real world.
To be fair, creationists and anti-science rhetoric brought forth by silly religious people created this mess. They were overly defensive towards things that actually help belief even easier (through science), cast laws teaching crony creationism and the Bible. This fuels creating atheists.
But the response is that you don't need religion. And if you're religious you're clearly evolution denying dumbass. So they make assumptions about your person and joke you're going to vote republican. Which funnily, fuels more theists because atheistic science nerds have sold us a hollow ideology based off of shitty Cosmos quotes.
Both are extremes and both don't reflect the actual world. They're symptoms of a crappy culture war and nothing more.
There is more peace knowing there is no god then in following some crazy writings from 2000 years ago
I live my life in perfect peace knowing this is all there is and when I die I will be cosmic dust again
And yet through the attempt of making sense of things, they all come to remarkably similar conclusions, just with different language. It's interesting noting the similarities between Taoism, and the essential theology of Christianity for example. All major religions find the ego a hindrance and yet cultivate different means for taming it. It's really fascinating and I don't think humans came to these similar conclusions by mere chance.
Or the fact that religions tend to plagiarize each other, especially abrahamic religions.
Muhammad for instance is essentially that fat dude writing about Captain Kirk and Spock making out.
I think it speaks volumes that all these religions where penned when science was dank
Would there really be place for a jesus or mohammed fairy tale in a world where man has split the atom and traveled into the stars?
I’m only here for the Amir0x jokes. I’m gone again once he’s in prison getting spit-roasted by Aryan Nations members.This is definitely sex before marriage that isn't good.
also im pretty sure the bible says to kill gays, dont you need to jump through some cray mental gymnastics to be able to worship a god that wants you dead?
I mean no offense but i dont get it. Why even bother trying to be a part of that nonsense.
also im pretty sure the bible says to kill gays, dont you need to jump through some cray mental gymnastics to be able to worship a god that wants you dead?
I mean no offense but i dont get it. Why even bother trying to be a part of that nonsense.
yeah but thats the old testament
and my church doesnt interpret gods word this way
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
also im pretty sure the bible says to kill gays, dont you need to jump through some cray mental gymnastics to be able to worship a god that wants you dead?
I mean no offense but i dont get it. Why even bother trying to be a part of that nonsense.
yeah but thats the old testament
and my church doesnt interpret gods word this way
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
This myth was created on incorrect information. It's really ignorant and amazing it still exists. It's really shows ignorance of the subject and an attempt to find facts without much verification, which is amusing in how this is presumed religious people are.
Good reading material:
https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/busting-the-dying-and-rising-gods-myths/
http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
Fair enough, christianity still plagiarizes the fuck out of judaism though.
or any christian holiday basicaly usurping some ancient pagan one
also im pretty sure the bible says to kill gays, dont you need to jump through some cray mental gymnastics to be able to worship a god that wants you dead?
I mean no offense but i dont get it. Why even bother trying to be a part of that nonsense.
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
also im pretty sure the bible says to kill gays, dont you need to jump through some cray mental gymnastics to be able to worship a god that wants you dead?
I mean no offense but i dont get it. Why even bother trying to be a part of that nonsense.
yeah but thats the old testament
and my church doesnt interpret gods word this way
i see so gods word is like a cheap buffet where you can pick and choose what you want
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
This myth was created on incorrect information. It's really ignorant and amazing it still exists. It's really shows ignorance of the subject and an attempt to find facts without much verification, which is amusing in how this is presumed religious people are.
Good reading material:
https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/busting-the-dying-and-rising-gods-myths/
http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
Fair enough, christianity still plagiarizes the fuck out of judaism though.
The Old Testament was written for the Jews. (Pauline portion of) New Testament was written for Gentiles.
common denominator: gays :piss2
told you Abrahamic religion was wack
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Over a decade ago I made a thread asserting that Phil Collins and Genesis were better than Michael Jackson: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113310
I still stand by my assertion
You're Wrath? I thought Kaffir was Wrath.
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? :)
I hope next time you will pick buddhism or something more original himu as arguining with christians is like a flash back to high school. I think that would actually fit you very well.
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? :)
I'm not sure what "evidence" means in the context of mythologies but... there's been a ton of stuff written about comparative studies of religions.
Enkidu, for instance, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, was a wild man created by gods from clay, who lived in the "edin", was friends with beasts and basically grazed just like them, ended up being tempted by Shamhat, had sex with her, and got initiated to the ways of the gods (in this context, eating bread and wearing clothes and shit - yes, Enkidu was roaming the edin butt-naked before this point). As a result, the beasts rejected him, he left the edin, he became pals with Gilgamesh.
I mean you could view these as incredible coincidences, but considering that this story was written in the same part of the world and predates the bible by several centuries, it's rather difficult to not see these as the basis for the story about Adam and Eve.
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? :)
I'm not sure what "evidence" means in the context of mythologies but... there's been a ton of stuff written about comparative studies of religions.
Enkidu, for instance, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, was a wild man created by gods from clay, who lived in the "edin", was friends with beasts and basically grazed just like them, ended up being tempted by Shamhat, had sex with her, and got initiated to the ways of the gods (in this context, eating bread and wearing clothes and shit - yes, Enkidu was roaming the edin butt-naked before this point). As a result, the beasts rejected him, he left the edin, he became pals with Gilgamesh.
I mean you could view these as incredible coincidences, but considering that this story was written in the same part of the world and predates the bible by several centuries, it's rather difficult to not see these as the basis for the story about Adam and Eve.
If that's fair then you will find my above dialogue with Lager even more interesting. You are demonstrating even greater ignorance than Lager. The original Christians were Jews. All of the original 12 were Jews. All of the books of the New Testament were written by Jews with the notable exception of Luke, St Paul's disciple, who was a Gentile. Christianity did not "usurp" Judaism. It split from it. The reason the OT is incorporated is because it's a good library of books with lots of poetry and wisdom deemed important by the original Church fathers - who were again, Jews. Jesus himself was a Jew and valued Judaism. He routinely quoted stories from Judaism, spoke in the language of the prophets through the tone of Psalms. Given that Jesus is a Jew and the original Christians were Jews, why would they discard their entire heritage. Before Christianity was, well, Christianity, Jews such as the future Saint, Saul, outright persecuted Christians as blasphemers to prevent the further growth of the religion for the Roman Empire. Please inform yourself. Using this argumentation against any informed Christian will make you scoffed at and (deservedly) made fun of. You can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
Umm you just proved my point.
Never said Jesus wasn't a Jew nor that Christianity wasn't started by Jews. Rebranding your argument as "Christianity split from Judaism, it didn't rip it off" is just a massive goal post move. Which takes your Islam plagiarism comment and makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Jesus is highly regarded in Islam and Islam itself paints Christianity as failing Christ, but I wouldn't go around calling it a sub genre made by old school christianity fans who felt like it got too commercialized, even though that's sorta accurate.
Hell, the main reason Islam even exists is Muhammad's disgust at the worship for what is essentially Arab versions of Pagan and Greek gods, vying to return to abrahamic religion like Judaism and Christianity. And the looooooooooooooooong beef between arabs and jews stems from arabs claiming they're the new direction for Abrahamic religion and the jews are dustheads who can't keep with the times, while the jews see them as blasphemous because it's their religion so they get to dictate where it goes.
I hope next time you will pick buddhism or something more original himu as arguining with christians is like a flash back to high school. I think that would actually fit you very well.
Not to mention how judaism/christianity got "influenced" by zoroastrianism.
source: my degree in history
If that's fair then you will find my above dialogue with Lager even more interesting. You are demonstrating even greater ignorance than Lager. The original Christians were Jews. All of the original 12 were Jews. All of the books of the New Testament were written by Jews with the notable exception of Luke, St Paul's disciple, who was a Gentile. Christianity did not "usurp" Judaism. It split from it. The reason the OT is incorporated is because it's a good library of books with lots of poetry and wisdom deemed important by the original Church fathers - who were again, Jews. Jesus himself was a Jew and valued Judaism. He routinely quoted stories from Judaism, spoke in the language of the prophets through the tone of Psalms. Given that Jesus is a Jew and the original Christians were Jews, why would they discard their entire heritage. Before Christianity was, well, Christianity, Jews such as the future Saint, Saul, outright persecuted Christians as blasphemers to prevent the further growth of the religion for the Roman Empire. Please inform yourself. Using this argumentation against any informed Christian will make you scoffed at and (deservedly) made fun of. You can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
Umm you just proved my point.
Never said Jesus wasn't a Jew nor that Christianity wasn't started by Jews. Rebranding your argument as "Christianity split from Judaism, it didn't rip it off" is just a massive goal post move. Which takes your Islam plagiarism comment and makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Jesus is highly regarded in Islam and Islam itself paints Christianity as failing Christ, but I wouldn't go around calling it a sub genre made by old school christianity fans who felt like it got too commercialized, even though that's sorta accurate.
Hell, the main reason Islam even exists is Muhammad's disgust at the worship for what is essentially Arab versions of Pagan and Greek gods, vying to return to abrahamic religion like Judaism and Christianity. And the looooooooooooooooong beef between arabs and jews stems from arabs claiming they're the new direction for Abrahamic religion and the jews are dustheads who can't keep with the times, while the jews see them as blasphemous because it's their religion so they get to dictate where it goes.
No. You literally argued that Christianity ripped off other religions. In the original case, you argued that Jesus is a rip off of Mithras. You were shown evidence that isn't true. Instead, you argued - like Lager - that Christians ripped off the Jews. I provided evidence that that wasn't the case; Christians couldn't rip off the Jews considering that the earliest Christians were Jews and observed Jewish tradition, just with Jesus added on top. Your original claim, that Christians usurped and ripped off the Jews, was proven false. Unless you actually meant by the use of the word "usurp" to overthrow. It is arguable this happened, as anti-Jew was a very real thing as Gentile Christianity grew. But this hold no water towards whether Christianity is true or not and is irrelevant to the current discussion. Either Christians ripped off the Jews, or they didn't. And since we know that original Christians were Jews, we are already know the answer to that.
Yeah, that they did rip off judaism. Glad you ignored the rest of my post though.
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? :)
I'm not sure what "evidence" means in the context of mythologies but... there's been a ton of stuff written about comparative studies of religions.
Enkidu, for instance, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, was a wild man created by gods from clay, who lived in the "edin", was friends with beasts and basically grazed just like them, ended up being tempted by Shamhat, had sex with her, and got initiated to the ways of the gods (in this context, eating bread and wearing clothes and shit - yes, Enkidu was roaming the edin butt-naked before this point). As a result, the beasts rejected him, he left the edin, he became pals with Gilgamesh.
I mean you could view these as incredible coincidences, but considering that this story was written in the same part of the world and predates the bible by several centuries, it's rather difficult to not see these as the basis for the story about Adam and Eve.
This only matters if you consider Adam and Eve and Noah to be literal.
I think you'll agree that these are religions in the same area. There is zero evidence of which story came first. And which story came first doesn't matter. You are also assuming that through similarities that these stories are actually telling the same story. These were stories that were told orally and since they happened to exist in the same region they were well known and were memes. These stories are often told in parables. They'll start off with how the story is usually told, but then warp it to change societal expectations. For instance, in Jesus' parable for the Prodigal Son. It was common in those times for Jews to revere their parents. When the prodigal son comes home to his father, and, for the sake of this experiment pretend you're 1st century Jew, it's expected for the son to run to his father for forgiveness. That is the societal expectation. But what happens? The father runs to the son - forgiving him in full and embracing him with love, and in doing so, flipping the expectation of the story. That is how a lot of Jewish parables and storytelling functioned: by taking previous knowledge and flipping it.
Speaking of Hebrew storytelling, you mentioned Noah but neglected that there are over 200 flood myths in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths Coming to the conclusion that Noah rips off Gilgamesh is a stretch. These stories spread wide and fast. Given the sheer amount, what evidence do you have that Noah rips off Gilgamesh?
Also, you mentioned Satan is Baal when Baal is mentioned in the Bible with both being mentioned as two separate figures. The people who worshipped Baal did not consider him bad so saying he's a rip off of Satan is also a stretch.
None of your points have much credence beyond an atheistic "gotcha". Which funnily, has a fundamentalist ring to it. Used in an example, you lash out at religious fundamentalists, but you are offering an argument that rests its laurels on fundamentalism being the only valid interpretation.
I asked for evidence of your claims and you provided none. You literally said that characters of the Torah are rip offs of other characters. Making such a claim, you should be able to provide evidence that the other stories came before the Torah. You didn't. Your only argument is that they are similar. But even with those similarities, they aren't even remotely the same stories nor are they arguing similar things. Your arguments against Christianity - and by further extension, Judaism - are weak. Can you prove that the Hebrew stories did not come first? And if they didn't, does it matter? And since you posit literalism, the only way make your argument credible is to prove - with evidence - that these other stories were imported to the Hebrews.
I always find it funny how atheists as fundamentalist as the religious people they critique.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia that is often regarded as the earliest surviving great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about 'Bilgamesh' (Sumerian for 'Gilgamesh'), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (circa 2100 BC).
yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? :)
I'm not sure what "evidence" means in the context of mythologies but... there's been a ton of stuff written about comparative studies of religions.
Enkidu, for instance, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, was a wild man created by gods from clay, who lived in the "edin", was friends with beasts and basically grazed just like them, ended up being tempted by Shamhat, had sex with her, and got initiated to the ways of the gods (in this context, eating bread and wearing clothes and shit - yes, Enkidu was roaming the edin butt-naked before this point). As a result, the beasts rejected him, he left the edin, he became pals with Gilgamesh.
I mean you could view these as incredible coincidences, but considering that this story was written in the same part of the world and predates the bible by several centuries, it's rather difficult to not see these as the basis for the story about Adam and Eve.
This only matters if you consider Adam and Eve and Noah to be literal.
I think you'll agree that these are religions in the same area. There is zero evidence of which story came first. And which story came first doesn't matter. You are also assuming that through similarities that these stories are actually telling the same story. These were stories that were told orally and since they happened to exist in the same region they were well known and were memes. These stories are often told in parables. They'll start off with how the story is usually told, but then warp it to change societal expectations. For instance, in Jesus' parable for the Prodigal Son. It was common in those times for Jews to revere their parents. When the prodigal son comes home to his father, and, for the sake of this experiment pretend you're 1st century Jew, it's expected for the son to run to his father for forgiveness. That is the societal expectation. But what happens? The father runs to the son - forgiving him in full and embracing him with love, and in doing so, flipping the expectation of the story. That is how a lot of Jewish parables and storytelling functioned: by taking previous knowledge and flipping it.
Speaking of Hebrew storytelling, you mentioned Noah but neglected that there are over 200 flood myths in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths Coming to the conclusion that Noah rips off Gilgamesh is a stretch. These stories spread wide and fast. Given the sheer amount, what evidence do you have that Noah rips off Gilgamesh?
Also, you mentioned Satan is Baal when Baal is mentioned in the Bible with both being mentioned as two separate figures. The people who worshipped Baal did not consider him bad so saying he's a rip off of Satan is also a stretch.
None of your points have much credence beyond an atheistic "gotcha". Which funnily, has a fundamentalist ring to it. Used in an example, you lash out at religious fundamentalists, but you are offering an argument that rests its laurels on fundamentalism being the only valid interpretation.
I asked for evidence of your claims and you provided none. You literally said that characters of the Torah are rip offs of other characters. Making such a claim, you should be able to provide evidence that the other stories came before the Torah. You didn't. Your only argument is that they are similar. But even with those similarities, they aren't even remotely the same stories nor are they arguing similar things. Your arguments against Christianity - and by further extension, Judaism - are weak. Can you prove that the Hebrew stories did not come first? And if they didn't, does it matter? And since you posit literalism, the only way make your argument credible is to prove - with evidence - that these other stories were imported to the Hebrews.
I always find it funny how atheists as fundamentalist as the religious people they critique.
Lovely moving of the goal posts!QuoteThe Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia that is often regarded as the earliest surviving great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about 'Bilgamesh' (Sumerian for 'Gilgamesh'), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (circa 2100 BC).
So you're telling me that the bible might have been first to tell that story? You could have taken 10s to check when the Epic of Gilgamesh was written.
It seems quite obvious that your knowledge of religions is incredibly lacking - not that I'm surprised, many studies have shown that atheists are actually generally more knowledgeable on the topic that religious folks. But please, by all means continue to pretend that maybe the hebrews predated the sumerians. The evidence is that we have sumerian texts dating CENTURIES earlier than any hebrew texts.
Satan, AKA Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies), is widely accepted to be a corruption of Ba'al Zebul (Lord of the Heavens). Like many things in religion, this was done for political reasons - mocking other gods, which are apparently not the real one true god. Or similarly, how Yawveh, the god of war of a pantheon with many gods, was over time turned into the Only One True God by people with an agenda - Extremist Yawhists. This was mostly started around the time Babylon conquered Judah, primarily by the prophet Jeremiah, and finalized when hebrews were exiled, by the prophet Isaiah (the second one).
You're asking for details and evidence, but then dismiss it, and preempt by saying "well even if you give me evidence it doesn't matter". Typical of strongly religious people, who will make claims, get debunked, and go on to say well it doesn't matter. You don't seem to be open to any sort of discussion and new knowledge. If you somehow still are a bit, I suggest "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, that's a good place to start.
The people of Uruk complain to the gods that their mighty king Gilgamesh is too harsh. The goddess Aruru forms Enkidu from water and clay as rival to Gilgamesh, as a countervailing force. Enkidu lived in the wild, roaming with the herds, and joining the game at the watering-hole. M.H. Henze notes in this an early Mesopotamian tradition of the wild man living apart and roaming the hinterland, who eats grass like the animals and like them, drinks from the watering places.[2] A hunter sees him and realizes that it is Enkidu who is freeing the animals from his traps. He reports this to Gilgamesh, who sends the temple prostitute, Shamhat, to deal with him.[3]
Enkidu spends six days and seven nights making love with Shamhat, after which, sensing her scent upon him, the animals flee from him, and he finds he cannot return to his old ways.[4] He returns to Shamhat, who teaches him the ways of civilized people. He now protects the shepherd's flock against predators, turning against his old life. Jastrow and Clay are of the opinion that the story of Enkidu was originally a separate tale to illustrate "man's career and destiny, how through intercourse with a woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, ..."[5]
Shamhat tells him of the city of Uruk and of its king Gilgamesh. He travels to Uruk and engages Gilgamesh in a wrestling match as a test of strength. Gilgamesh wins and the two become fast friends.
In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not mentioned (at least not mentioned by name). Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. They are innocent and unembarrassed about their nakedness. However, a serpent deceives Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts give them additional knowledge, but it gives them the ability to conjure negative and destructive concepts such as shame and evil. God later curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes them from the Garden of Eden.
I don't think I believe I said that Islam ripped off Christianity? If I did, you probably misunderstood me. My posts have barely touched Islam, if at all. You say I'm moving goal posts but I'm arguing literally the same thing: that Christianity did not "rip off" these religions.
In any case, you still have not provided historical evidence that Christianity ripped off Judaism. I have provided evidence that it didn't.
Your bringing up Islam is a straw man to divert from the subject at hand.
You're the one who brought up Islam as the only religion that you'd say plagiarized, when I pointed out christianity does the same, your response was that some jews became christian, that isn't evidence. Islam isn't a straw man when you were the one who brought it up. You basically said Christianity was new form of Judaism instead of a ripoff, I said by your logic that makes Islam a new form of Christianity. Do you really think most people don't know that Abrahamic religions are linked together? Only time anybody calls them evolutions of each other is when they believe in a later one, which conveniently stops at the religion they believe in, that's what you're doing.
Himu, you should learn to respond to the content of my posts more instead of falling back into trying to paint my argument as a different one once you moved the goal post. It's a tactic you employ too much, and I'm dumb enough to keep replying to you when you do so.
Of the Abrahamic religions only one I could think that is probably plagiarism is Islam.
There.
I clarified my position before. All religions take from each other and it is essentially plagiarism considering nobody who has faith in one sees the other as right as well. They all take myths, moral codes, ethics, etc. from each other and warp them in a way to see itself as the one true belief. I see believing in any of them as willful ignorance. While I do not hate people who have faith nor do I see them as inferior people, I don't exactly see it as something a person needs in their life either. While science is a collection of facts that I don't see why anybody shouldn't believe in it.
Yeah, some people are very dogmatic about science and can come off like religious zealots, I agree with that. The main difference between science and religion to me is that science is data, it's a tool. Something that can be used to push us forward. Religion's, on the other hand, only true application is to ease the fear of death and the unknown.
It's funny how two posts ago you argued that maybe the hebrew texts predated the Epic of Gilgamesh, and now presumably you're an expert on the topic.
And quit playing the poor misunderstood victim ::)
I replied reasonably several times while you jumped straight to your aggressive style of posting, namecalling included (what did your OP say again? Something about respect). Don't start crying now that I'm biting back.
Don't waste your time by the way, I'm done discussing with you on this topic. Intellectual dishonesty isn't my cup of tea.
I feel like we're at a point of agreeing to disagree. There's not much to be discussed anymore as we both feel extremely differently on the matter.
All I'll say is you do you and good luck with it. I'll go back to arguing about dumb shit instead.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f5ad907d4f9eb6da0994bd4ea5228a92)
beg forgiveness for your blasphemy
I feel like we're at a point of agreeing to disagree. There's not much to be discussed anymore as we both feel extremely differently on the matter.
All I'll say is you do you and good luck with it. I'll go back to arguing about dumb shit instead.
That's fine. I just can't help but find your opinion on religion to be a bit impoverished. But like I said, as a former Muslim in Saudi Arabia I don't blame you for holding this opinion. You live in a literal theocracy.
I feel like we're at a point of agreeing to disagree. There's not much to be discussed anymore as we both feel extremely differently on the matter.
All I'll say is you do you and good luck with it. I'll go back to arguing about dumb shit instead.
That's fine. I just can't help but find your opinion on religion to be a bit impoverished. But like I said, as a former Muslim in Saudi Arabia I don't blame you for holding this opinion. You live in a literal theocracy.
Jesus Christ, dude
"Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
Thread is gonna be great to read in X months.
Look Queen, Imma let you finish and I'm really glad you feel like you found way to a richer personal spirituality, but for what I have lazily glanced over, you're reading to a T like a Christian that's more here to "win" arguments than to operate in good faith down to specific arguments and mannerisms ("Atheists are the real fundamentalists argheubegleu") : There's a lot of them on the Internet and I've read more than my fair share of them.
To be honest, you come off across as incredibly insecure. Make of that what you will. :yeshrug
I don't see the point in arguing any further. I never said "atheists are the real fundamentalists" at all. I said "many atheists are as fundamentalist as the people they critique." I have a theory on that and I think it's because a lot of atheists come from fundamentalist interpretations of religions and then when they become atheist apply a fundamentalist thought to their atheism. People in the thread acted just like that: like a typical fundamental atheist. Where science makes religion outdated. Where science is the only means for understanding the natural world. That is a fundamentalist position in line with an evangelical, except the complete opposite. I said multiple times that I value science highly. I was shot down and accused of being anti-science. Fundamentalist atheist says the bible is invalid because of Genesis. You can say,"that's only if you believe in a literal interpretation" but then they'll ask why religions are always changing their dogma when the Catholic Church has believed it to allegorical pretty much its entire existence. But no. Only literalism is okay for a fundamental atheist because they act like fundamentalist and assume their opponents are fundamentalist. You didn't want discussions you want to state facts and belittle.
As for me wanting to win, you're right. I'm very aware that being Christian and religious in particular will make me hated. I will have to defend my religion. The only way learn how to defend it is to do battle, with words. I've gotten in debates with several atheists since coming back to Christianity to learn how to defend. It's definitely a process and I definitely can get emotional. But I'm learning each battle and licking my wounds to come back for more.
But the fact you deduced my "atheists are as fundamentalist as the people they hate" argument into "atheists are the real fundamentalists" shows to me that you have not considered a shred of my argument nor my words. No offense, but you seem set out to win and dismiss just as much as I am. But such is the Internet.
I truly do feel that the impoverished view many new atheists take towards religion and towards the philosophies will come to bite them in the ass. Humans thirst and I don't think atheists provide the necessary water.
One great thing about fighting atheists is they are only used to debating fundamentalists who deny evolution. I've found that for the most part they're easy to fight because of the fact that they group all Christians or religious people into the same category. This massive blind spot is their major failing. But the unfortunate thing is that atheists are right - the burden of proof is upon me, so it's also up to me to learn how dismantle r/atheism tier argumentation.
That's all.
you're reading to a T like a Christian that's more here to "win" arguments than to operate in good faithtbf, I'm not 100% convinced the posters she's been engaging with have been operating in good faith either
Who brought up religion in the first place? You did. I have the receipts and they're on page one.
Back to staying out of this thread.
You tried.you're reading to a T like a Christian that's more here to "win" arguments than to operate in good faithtbf, I'm not 100% convinced the posters she's been engaging with have been operating in good faith either
QuoteWho brought up religion in the first place? You did. I have the receipts and they're on page one.
:rofl
DEM RECEIPTS THO
(https://abload.de/img/lelzvpra7.jpg)
Please.
I'll take your word for it. The impression I've received from following this thread for the past few days however is that posters (on both sides) are willing to throw out either unsubstantiated or at least contentious claims as rhetorical ammunition to batter their opponent with, and seemingly unwilling to examine the presuppositions within their arguments (per the lack of a response to my previous post). Hence my lack of confidence in this thread having the ability to support constructive discussion.For the record, I was.you're reading to a T like a Christian that's more here to "win" arguments than to operate in good faithtbf, I'm not 100% convinced the posters she's been engaging with have been operating in good faith either
"Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
People shouldn't have reproductive organs.
"Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
its true though, and people that feel lost
People shouldn't have reproductive organs.
I don't feel it's such a surprising view of it for an non-religious person."Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
its true though, and people that feel lost
Why do you feel that way?
I understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
I understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
I understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
Why do you feel that way?
True change only comes from a change in thinking, and that change only comes from an active self-examination.I don't feel you've adequately explained why religion needs a part in this
NVC proposes that if people can identify their needs, the needs of others, and the feelings that surround these needs, harmony can be achieved.
If you think religion is just praying to a sun then you don't get religion.more like praying to a Son :bow2
lol that's the guy, I guess on topic:What about resource scarcity?Quote from: wikipediaNVC proposes that if people can identify their needs, the needs of others, and the feelings that surround these needs, harmony can be achieved.
I believe this
But then doesn't all this fall into the nostalgia bit? Religion gave us x before therefore the only way to get x is religion? As noted no one here is saying that religion didn't play a huge role in societal development. However, to someone that's not religious it's like saying you only pay on cash because it worked for thousands of years. Sure it did. Most people use cards now. It's a matter of perspective. To someone embroiled in religion it's crazy to not make it a center piece. To those that have found their way without religion it makes no sense to them to make it a center piece. To them they can now get the good of religion without the bad. As they say. What's good about religion is not unique and what is unique to religion is generally not goodI understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
Why do you feel that way?
Because of what I've read, learned, experienced and processed about the world. I'd say the first mistake in that view is how it doesn't really entertain the idea that religion may work on a complex and important level for human beings. It's just too simple a view of human beings in regard to our place as social creature and dominant creature. I'd argue that religion is an evolutionary adaptation of human beings that is not just a temporal phase but a toolset of survival and success.
I tried to explain some of this via my comment in reply to Wraith about the importance of faith to human society, and that the faith must be backed by healthy religion to have a good society. Nobody seemed interested in that though.
There is also debate about whether to have morals we must have had religion or whether religion is required still to have morality. You assume you can just have a sense of good and bad without religion as if those concepts weren't developed over thousands of years and rooted in the ways of religious thinking so that religious thinking may be required to create them. You also have to see the difference between morals and ethics, and the process that leads to both. Morals and ethics are not the same, at least not in my view. Morals can be handed out by a state. Laws are a type of moral, but it has been legal and illegal in the US to own slaves. I say that to point out that ones morals can be wrong. So morals change and are subject to the acceptance and adaptation of the populace. Ethics are less temporal if temporal at all. They don't change as much as they grow and refine. Ethics are principles that lead to finding good from bad. Ethics are doing whats right even when you could get away with doing wrong, even when people around tell you tell you its not wrong or even when the current morals disagree with your inner sense of right from wrong. Morals are a passive experience and ethics are the active experience.
Religion operates in an organized way as a passive moral experience, but religion on a personal sense should operate as an active habit.
I linked some Peterson videos. He is currently knee deep in exploring this stuff and has a series of 2 hour lectures online for free. I recommended Tolstoy's Confessions earlier in the thread to Queen. You have to understand that liberal values, the civil rights movement and all that is rooted in religious thinking. If you think you can completely divorce that and end up with the rules 'as we have known them now', and continue to be a good person then I would point to that as naive. Tolstoy's work influenced Ghandi and MLK, two big figures behind many of the more respected views we have today. In Tolstoy's work, one of the most vital things he does is pointing out how we look at the outside shell of a thing and think that is the thing itself, so that if we just change or litigate against that outer representation then we change the whole thing itself. This is especially true of how we treat ideas and morals. We then make the mistake of thinking if we just change the a rule then we change the person in violation of the rule. That's not how humans work. We get thoughts and act on thoughts. True change only comes from a change in thinking, and that change only comes from an active self-examination.
Maybe I'm getting off track, but let's just say this is my area of interest. I am watching video of German reporters take pictures of other reporters, calling them identitarians and fascists, and then sending that to ANTIFA. ANTIFA then goes to beat those people up and tell them not to return, but the journalists return, get beaten up and told if they return again they will be killed. ANTIFA is acting morally according to their morals and the police doesn't interfere. They are morals without a religion but with religion. Someone took healthy religion out of their lives and this nastiness replaced it because they are still religious in some nature. It's very hard to pry the nature of religion out of human. They just don't have anything healthy to tie it to.
I don't feel it's such a surprising view of it for an non-religious person."Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
its true though, and people that feel lost
Why do you feel that way?
Religion, at its best, does two things: 1) Gives hope 2) Teaches people morals and to do good.
Welp, plenty of people have found ways to do that without religion. So to them they view it as religion has
- Followers that follow for tradition (nostalgia)
- Followers that need some sort of structured hope (to someone that doesn't need it, this will be considered weak)
- Followers that follow for some "treasure in heaven"/fear of hell (greed/fear)
- Followers that believe you can only do good with religion (weak)
- Followers that hope for an afterlife (can't deal with an existential crisis/fear)
- Followers that want to belong (this in itself isn't a bad trait, though a non-religious person will view it as weakness)
Not to speak for Premium Lager, but I just don't see it as a surprising summation from someone that's not religious. Remember, to them a connection with a god is not something they see or need (or at least they don't need a paternal god as defined in most religions). So the above is how they view a religious person.
I understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
Why do you feel that way?
Because of what I've read, learned, experienced and processed about the world. I'd say the first mistake in that view is how it doesn't really entertain the idea that religion may work on a complex and important level for human beings. It's just too simple a view of human beings in regard to our place as social creature and dominant creature. I'd argue that religion is an evolutionary adaptation of human beings that is not just a temporal phase but a toolset of survival and success.
I tried to explain some of this via my comment in reply to Wraith about the importance of faith to human society, and that the faith must be backed by healthy religion to have a good society. Nobody seemed interested in that though.
There is also debate about whether to have morals we must have had religion or whether religion is required still to have morality. You assume you can just have a sense of good and bad without religion as if those concepts weren't developed over thousands of years and rooted in the ways of religious thinking so that religious thinking may be required to create them. You also have to see the difference between morals and ethics, and the process that leads to both. Morals and ethics are not the same, at least not in my view. Morals can be handed out by a state. Laws are a type of moral, but it has been legal and illegal in the US to own slaves. I say that to point out that ones morals can be wrong. So morals change and are subject to the acceptance and adaptation of the populace. Ethics are less temporal if temporal at all. They don't change as much as they grow and refine. Ethics are principles that lead to finding good from bad. Ethics are doing whats right even when you could get away with doing wrong, even when people around tell you tell you its not wrong or even when the current morals disagree with your inner sense of right from wrong. Morals are a passive experience and ethics are the active experience.
Religion operates in an organized way as a passive moral experience, but religion on a personal sense should operate as an active habit.
I linked some Peterson videos. He is currently knee deep in exploring this stuff and has a series of 2 hour lectures online for free. I recommended Tolstoy's Confessions earlier in the thread to Queen. You have to understand that liberal values, the civil rights movement and all that is rooted in religious thinking. If you think you can completely divorce that and end up with the rules 'as we have known them now', and continue to be a good person then I would point to that as naive. Tolstoy's work influenced Ghandi and MLK, two big figures behind many of the more respected views we have today. In Tolstoy's work, one of the most vital things he does is pointing out how we look at the outside shell of a thing and think that is the thing itself, so that if we just change or litigate against that outer representation then we change the whole thing itself. This is especially true of how we treat ideas and morals. We then make the mistake of thinking if we just change the a rule then we change the person in violation of the rule. That's not how humans work. We get thoughts and act on thoughts. True change only comes from a change in thinking, and that change only comes from an active self-examination.
Maybe I'm getting off track, but let's just say this is my area of interest. I am watching video of German reporters take pictures of other reporters, calling them identitarians and fascists, and then sending that to ANTIFA. ANTIFA then goes to beat those people up and tell them not to return, but the journalists return, get beaten up and told if they return again they will be killed. ANTIFA is acting morally according to their morals and the police doesn't interfere. They are morals without a religion but with religion. Someone took healthy religion out of their lives and this nastiness replaced it because they are still religious in some nature. It's very hard to pry the nature of religion out of human. They just don't have anything healthy to tie it to.
See, I can totally get behind and understand using Christianity as view point to understand humanity like what I just read in QoI's post. I truly believe every single person has goodness in them, and those who aren't showing it have turned in some way from a truth in themselves. Call that the Holy Spirit? Fine, I'm with you, it has many names :doge
You know, you really should read to comprehend first rather than read to reply. I said to a non religious person that is what they think. You asked why someone would think religious people act as they do from fear and weakness. I provided why.I don't feel it's such a surprising view of it for an non-religious person."Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
its true though, and people that feel lost
Why do you feel that way?
Religion, at its best, does two things: 1) Gives hope 2) Teaches people morals and to do good.
Welp, plenty of people have found ways to do that without religion. So to them they view it as religion has
- Followers that follow for tradition (nostalgia)
- Followers that need some sort of structured hope (to someone that doesn't need it, this will be considered weak)
- Followers that follow for some "treasure in heaven"/fear of hell (greed/fear)
- Followers that believe you can only do good with religion (weak)
- Followers that hope for an afterlife (can't deal with an existential crisis/fear)
- Followers that want to belong (this in itself isn't a bad trait, though a non-religious person will view it as weakness)
Not to speak for Premium Lager, but I just don't see it as a surprising summation from someone that's not religious. Remember, to them a connection with a god is not something they see or need (or at least they don't need a paternal god as defined in most religions). So the above is how they view a religious person.
Before I get into the real content of your post I'm going to offer up my own flip side to show how you come off as:
At its best, non-religion offers 1) a structured guide to exploring and dissecting the material world through science, and 2) open dialogue.
Here's why these two things are flawed. For one, neither one is unique to the non-religious life. One can do and appreciate both while being religious (I'm proving it right now). Newton, Leibniz, Mendel, Heisenberg, Godel, Da Vinci. They were all religious and scientific. Open dialogue has a long storied tradition (more on this later) with religion, and especially (surprisingly or not surprisingly depending on who you ask) Christianity. St Aquinas took lessons from the Greeks (many of whom were religious) to openly debate and exchange ideas helping form the building blocks of the university, something many non-religious today cherish. Heidegger, Aquinas, Maimonides, Godel all are involved in this long tradition.
With that out of the way, it's pretty good to assume the following about non-religious people:
- modern non-religious people think they're the first people to find rebuttals to these religions (arrogance and naďveté). They (the non-religious) think that they are using original arguments for these rebuttals. One such example is the Problem of Evil.
- they argue for emotional arguments as if they are rational arguments (problem of evil) (immaturity and overly emotional) - okay, this one is actually true :lol
- they just don't want to be told what to do (lack of conviction, rebellious)
- they just haven't earnestly sought out religion or God (passivity)
- have childish ideas of God an attribute God to being a sky daddy (childish stupidity)
- talk a lot about religious morality but have never volunteered in their life (hypocrisy)
- just don't want to get up for church on Sunday (laziness)
- have the understanding of religion from the pov of a 12 year old (stupidity)
- non-religious societies have a history of authoratarianism due to people who are non-religious lacking any moral guideline where anything goes. Why care? Every man or woman for themself.
In no way do I think these things. But that's what you sound like and that's what I mean by impoverished view on religion. It's really just close-minded, shallow stereotyping. That's "what there is to it." To think yourself better than others because of what they believe, even if it's perfectly valid, is futile arrogance.
Now, to address the meat of your post let's start with your initial point:
"You can be moral and have hope without religion."
Sure you can. But do you have the structure for it? Let's start with hope. While anecdotal, most of the non-religious people are absolutely losing their shit about Donald Trump while about everyone I know who is religious is dealing with it, as much as they can. Every time Donald Trump and his administration does soemthing the non-religious I know wets their pants, talking about a war against fascists, how we need to get armed (although I support this), how the government is going to start euthanizing Muslims in just a few months time. The religious I know are calling out injustice where they see and not letting it ruin their lives. Non-religious have hope. Certainly. But they have no structure for it. The other day, I prayed for sincere compassion and patience in adoration. I prayed for my enemies. I prayed for people I don't like, for the friends who need it, and for my country. When I left Church that day I had a smile on my face the rest of the day. All I could feel was absolute joy. Certainly, this gives me a structured way to have hope. I can keep fighting without losing my shit like the rest of the left and get outraged all. the. fucking. time. Speaking of which. Most Social Studies Warriors tend to be non-religious, but I have rarely seen hope brimming from that camp. It is outrage after outrage. What hope do you remotely have? Funnily, this also applies to the far right as well, who, while Christian, don't go to church (there is vast data for this). What hope do they have? None at all, because they don't go to church, lack community, and are without hope. This even includes modern activism. These people have no hope, just demands without action. Operation Wall Street. Black Lives Matter. Both secular activist movements, with not one ounce of the hope present in the religious-based Civil Rights Movement. Without religion these groups have nothin to fall back on but pure anger, which doesn't get things done unless you're willing to kill for it. Meanwhile, I have an obligation for adoration duty every Wednesday at night time. This means, we go there to pray and meditate on a weekly basis out of obligation and duty. Research shows that prayer and meditation leads to less stress (source: https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/03/21/spirituality-and-prayer-relieve-stress/). While you can easily do this without religion, what helped to make these things exist in the first place? Religion. What offers the ability to pray on a daily basis? Religion. Sure, you can meditate on your pillow every day, but zen centers are open every day of the week, multiples times a day. Structure. Muslims pray five times a day; structure. Catholic Churches are often open pretty much all day depending on the area. Mine is open from 8 to 9 pm every day. Guess who was open on July 4 this week? A holiday of all days. The Catholic Church. Guess who went? I did. That's structure. It gives you options to adopt it into your every day life ore easily. You can do this as an atheist but it'll be a fuck load much harder. You could definitely meditate or pray without religion, but religion makes it easier to access due to obligation. For free, without having to buy yoga pants or a yoga mat.
This taps into the spiritual but not religious thing and why it's an utter copout.
You said you can be moral without religion. Sure you can. But I think most people would agree that religion makes easier to do good because it has - again - structure. Religious groups volunteer all the time. Priests go to hospitals to help people. Most volunteer groups are full of religious people. Not too many atheists there. I wonder why. Not because religious people are more moral but because religious groups simply have far more community outreach and ease of access to it. But again, no structure. True religious observation forces self reflection. I'm very aware of my flaws. I even stress this in this very thread. Religion gives me an avenue to hopefully correct them and I hope you see the fruit of my effort in this thread and post. Religion requires sacrifice. I'm doing a daily self reflection on my actions, and how I can do better. I recognize that I have a tendency to fall into certain moods or habits. I can be judgemental, I can call people names, I can be a big bitch. Without religion I could perfectly tell myself,"hey, that's okay. We all have flaws" and that'd be the end of it. Mandark posited just that. But religion, or at least Christianity, is about trying to become perfect in Jesus' image. This is an impossible task, but that doesn't mean we can't try. This gives me a goal and an outlet. Being non-religious offers no such support system beyond maybe the philosophies, and even those are quite limited because they aren't moral guidelines.
Now I'll get into your claims.
1. Claim: tradition is nostalgia.
This a poor definition of what tradition is. Most tradition is done for a purpose. In America, as you know, we celebrate holidays such as Memorial Day. While certainly, many just use the tradition for a day off, for others, it means something. It means revering the dead lost in battle. It means grieving your loved one who didn't get to come home. It means respecting the sacrifices of people who laid their life on the line. It's tradition, but it isn't nostalgia. It is observed out of respect and love. On Martin Luther King Day, I have never taken a day off of work. I always work when I can. Why? Because Martin Luther King and others literally died for my right to work among white people, to be seen with dignity as a human being, to have basic fucking rights. That is my tradition. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, but everything to do with reverence, sacrifice, love, and honor.
So when you go to a Church that upholds tradition, you are doing the same thing. Confessing your sins is tradition. Before my first confession I felt I was going throw up from the sheer amount of guilt. I felt sick and after I confessed I truly felt forgiven. I truly value confession because it forces me to own up to my flaws through self observation to hopefully become a better, more whole person. Confessions are held during the week and usually has a long line of silent people looking towards the floor, deep in thought. That is tradition. And tradition serves a purpose. Tradition has many definitions. It can be something that your culture values, like scratching on a turn table in hip hop. Or it can be honoring the dead in a funeral to say that one final goodbye. Tradition is not inherently nostalgic. It depends on the context and reasoning. One of the many reasons I fell in love with Catholicism was its intellectual tradition. Art, philosophy, theology, apologetics. No other church comes remotely close. But to see that word that I value turned into an over simplification is vast injustice.
That, is what I mean by impoverished and it tells me you had a very shallow relationship with religion. I could be wrong, but that is what you're giving off and I am willing to be corrected.
2. You said that religious people are weak, in that we need community, or because we "need" to believe in God.
My ancestors were enslaved for hundreds of years and one of the biggest things that helped was religion. The civil rights movement was typified by its religion. You said structured hope is weak. Would you say Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were weak? Structured hope leads to gaining strength. Despite being LGBT, I've joined a church where I am not allowed to even be married within it. Am I considered weak? I'd think a lot of people would see having hope in soemthing, despite all opposition, to be strength. I could very easily go to an affirming church like the Episcopalian Church, and I've been to a few. But I decided on something else entire after months of search because I have faith and hope in it and I truly think it is the better place for me spiritually. Is this weak? I can agree that being religious just for a reward or because you're scared of hell is silly, but the way many atheists are framing it, that's why a lot of religious people believe. It's such a poor assumption and nothing more. How many of your points can be determined with evidence? How do you know so many people are doing these things? They're so generic and presumptuous that they're on equal standing with a theist accusing an atheist for not believing because they're "mad at God". Certainly, there are people like that that exist, but to use it as an argument against atheism isn't a rational argument. It's an assumption and doesn't cut into why they find atheism so poor. The same is true here. It isn't a legitimate case against religion. To many it just comes across as a projection.
It's a projection because as said, religion is supposed to be hard af. There's nothing weak about faith. Faith is not just taking something at face value and believing it whole sale. It's believing in soemthing despite the doubts. It's a choice. It's about action. There's many stories of the Saints who were fighting crippling atheism and still did their duty out of love and trust for God. This is not weakness. Why is hope considered weak? Hope is the ability to fight against all odd despite the uncertainty. I have hope that America will be healed of its division. We all had hope that Atramental would get laid.
That is what I mean by impoverished.
It's such a poor look at how religion operates to the point of being a caricature. This is without mentioning the sheer arrogance of thinking people are weak for being religious in the first place.
See, I can totally get behind and understand using Christianity as view point to understand humanity like what I just read in QoI's post. I truly believe every single person has goodness in them, and those who aren't showing it have turned in some way from a truth in themselves. Call that the Holy Spirit? Fine, I'm with you, it has many names :doge
Read Mere Christianity. Some of his ideas and stuff are old because it's such an old book, but very, very relevant. Basically, the idea is that this goodness comes from God. Which is why Christianity argues that God is love or all good. It makes the gospels even greater for it. Humanity recognizes how wrong it is. Peter betrays Jesus three times in one night and he was the most loyal of Apostles. Man is incomplete, because man is broken. And only God can help us achieve wholeness.
That is the Christian perspective.
Here are eight common factors that lead atheists to change their minds about God:
Reasonable atheists eventually become theists because they are reasonable; and furthermore, because they are honest. They are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads; and in many cases the evidence comes to the atheist most coherently and well-presented through the writings of believers in God.
Author Karen Edmisten admits on her blog:Quote“I once thought I’d be a lifelong atheist. Then I became desperately unhappy, read up on philosophy and various religions (while assiduously avoiding Christianity), and waited for something to make sense. I was initially appalled when Christianity began to look like the sensible thing, surprised when I wanted to be baptized, and stunned that I ended up a Catholic.”
Dr. Holly Ordway, author of Not God’s Type: An Atheist Academic Lays Down Her Arms, describes the consequences of reading great, intelligent Christian writers:Quote“I found that my favorite authors were men and women of deep Christian faith. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien above all; and then the poets: Gerard Manley Hopkins, George Herbert, John Donne, and others. Their work was unsettling to my atheist convictions…”
Similarly, renowned sci-fi author John C. Wright distinctly recalls a prayer he said as an adamant atheist:Quote“I prayed. ‘Dear God, I know… that you do not exist. Nonetheless, as a scholar, I am forced to entertain the hypothetical possibility that I am mistaken. So just in case I am mistaken, please reveal yourself to me in some fashion that will prove your case. If you do not answer, I can safely assume that either you do not care whether I believe in you, or that you have no power to produce evidence to persuade me…If you do not exist, this prayer is merely words in the air, and I lose nothing but a bit of my dignity. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation in this matter, John Wright.'”
Wright soon received the answer (and effect) he did not expect:Quote“Something from beyond the reach of time and space, more fundamental than reality, reached across the universe and broke into my soul and changed me…I was altered down to the root of my being…It was like falling in love.”Wright was welcomed into the Catholic Church at Easter in 2008.
Philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, in his article, The Road From Atheism, recounts the shocking effectof opening himself to the arguments for the existence of God:Quote“As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.” Eventually it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!”
Feser concludes:Quote“Speaking for myself, anyway, I can say this much. When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back. As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed. But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true.”
As Dr. Peter Kreeft has pointed out, no person would see a hut on a beach and conclude that it must have randomly assembled itself by some random natural process, void of an intelligent designer. Its order necessitates a designer. Thus if this “beach hut analogy” is true, how much more should we believe in an Intelligent Designer behind the vastly more complex and ordered universe and the precise physical laws that govern it (click here for William Lane Craig’s argument for the fine-tuning of the universe).
Flew continues in his exposition on why he changed his mind about God:Quote“The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint . . . The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.”
Parents often describe their experience of procreation as “a miracle,” regardless of their religious background or philosophical worldview. Intuitively, they seem to accept that there is something deeply mysterious and transcendent at work in the bringing forth (and sustenance) of new human life. Flew also was able to realize (after a lifetime of study and reflection) that there could be no merely natural explanation for life in the universe.
The great theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote:Quote“Beauty is the word that shall be our first. Beauty is the last thing which the thinking intellect dares to approach, since only it dances as an uncontained splendour around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another.”Father von Balthasar held strong to the notion that to lead non-believers to belief in God we must begin with the beautiful.
Dr. Peter Kreeft calls this the Argument from Aesthetic Experience. The Boston College philosopher testifies that he knows of several former atheists who came to a belief in God based on this argument (for more from Dr. Kreeft, see his Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God).
In classic Kreeftian fashion, he puts forward the argument in the following way:Quote“There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don’t.”
Matt holds a B.Ed from the University of Regina and a Doctor of Chiropractic degree from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto, Canada.Is...is...this man my arch-nemesis?
or some kind of salvation (from what?)from man's fallen state of nature, the problem of evil, suffering, and death; broadly speaking
I understand that's how they view religion and a religious person, but its an very naive view.
Why do you feel that way?
Because of what I've read, learned, experienced and processed about the world. I'd say the first mistake in that view is how it doesn't really entertain the idea that religion may work on a complex and important level for human beings. It's just too simple a view of human beings in regard to our place as social creature and dominant creature. I'd argue that religion is an evolutionary adaptation of human beings that is not just a temporal phase but a toolset of survival and success.
I tried to explain some of this via my comment in reply to Wraith about the importance of faith to human society, and that the faith must be backed by healthy religion to have a good society. Nobody seemed interested in that though.
There is also debate about whether to have morals we must have had religion or whether religion is required still to have morality. You assume you can just have a sense of good and bad without religion as if those concepts weren't developed over thousands of years and rooted in the ways of religious thinking so that religious thinking may be required to create them. You also have to see the difference between morals and ethics, and the process that leads to both. Morals and ethics are not the same, at least not in my view. Morals can be handed out by a state. Laws are a type of moral, but it has been legal and illegal in the US to own slaves. I say that to point out that ones morals can be wrong. So morals change and are subject to the acceptance and adaptation of the populace. Ethics are less temporal if temporal at all. They don't change as much as they grow and refine. Ethics are principles that lead to finding good from bad. Ethics are doing whats right even when you could get away with doing wrong, even when people around tell you tell you its not wrong or even when the current morals disagree with your inner sense of right from wrong. Morals are a passive experience and ethics are the active experience.
Religion operates in an organized way as a passive moral experience, but religion on a personal sense should operate as an active habit.
I linked some Peterson videos. He is currently knee deep in exploring this stuff and has a series of 2 hour lectures online for free. I recommended Tolstoy's Confessions earlier in the thread to Queen. You have to understand that liberal values, the civil rights movement and all that is rooted in religious thinking. If you think you can completely divorce that and end up with the rules 'as we have known them now', and continue to be a good person then I would point to that as naive. Tolstoy's work influenced Ghandi and MLK, two big figures behind many of the more respected views we have today. In Tolstoy's work, one of the most vital things he does is pointing out how we look at the outside shell of a thing and think that is the thing itself, so that if we just change or litigate against that outer representation then we change the whole thing itself. This is especially true of how we treat ideas and morals. We then make the mistake of thinking if we just change the a rule then we change the person in violation of the rule. That's not how humans work. We get thoughts and act on thoughts. True change only comes from a change in thinking, and that change only comes from an active self-examination.
Maybe I'm getting off track, but let's just say this is my area of interest. I am watching video of German reporters take pictures of other reporters, calling them identitarians and fascists, and then sending that to ANTIFA. ANTIFA then goes to beat those people up and tell them not to return, but the journalists return, get beaten up and told if they return again they will be killed. ANTIFA is acting morally according to their morals and the police doesn't interfere. They are morals without a religion but with religion. Someone took healthy religion out of their lives and this nastiness replaced it because they are still religious in some nature. It's very hard to pry the nature of religion out of human. They just don't have anything healthy to tie it to.
The first two of which seems like axioms that came with religion. In a selling you the disease before the medicine kind of way. Definitely the first one. Though I admit I'm ignorant on the details.or some kind of salvation (from what?)from man's fallen state of nature, the problem of evil, suffering, and death; broadly speaking
I think I may be misunderstanding your reason for linking as I didn't read that argument up above (which I probably should instead of just going off of this link since it's probably repeating things already said by multiple people), but I don't understand this article's thesis at all really, so some people changed their minds? This kind of stuff isn't exactly the strongest case making for converting is it? It's reads like he's arguing that these are signs of an appeal to authority but that's okay because the authority is correct.
Look Himu I understand that youve been through a lot and are in need of some handle to hold on to, and that thing is religion, thats why youve been through 3 already. Religion is a psychological coping mechanism.
The problem of evil is a philosophical point. It isn't an inherently religious point. It's the argument of,"if God exists why is there evil? Why is there cancer?" It isn't religious because religion generally explains why evil exists. Problem of evil isn't a problem for religion. It's arguable that the problem of evil came before religion. We don't know.I know about Epicurus, but not as an argument for god. At least not for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god. Hence my confusion.
If you read my large post above I tackle this briefly. Problem of evil has been argued by philosophers and great minds for thousands of years. It's a very good question and perhaps the best (IMO only) argument against a God. However, it isn't the rational question atheists think it is. It is purely emotional. It is the highlight of Epicurus' delemma.
For me, I can understand calling organized religion a crutch because to me a relationship with the greater forces of reality, the universe, Brahman, the Trinity, whatever name you want to apply to it -- is intensely personal and introspective and these massive organized groups being massively organized have the tendency to "one size fits all" spirituality and other aspects of them that seek to recruit to sustain themselves and these needs in my view distort themI think it's a hell of a lot more cynical than it is naive.
But the other side of the coin, I definitely can see how QoI looks at Lager's statement and sees someone dead to higher possibilities i.e. naive
Etoilet: We are getting to semantics. To me, all religion by definition is organized. When someone says unorganized religion I think that's more akin to spirituality. Which I think most people would be OK with.
Spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Clearly you are neither a reasonable nor honest atheist. I'll pray for you though.
I don't really know how to approach you in these conversations, Etiolate, your reasoning shows to me a rigidity in thought and I don't know how to adequately show it back to you or engage with it
I think I understand what he's saying.
Is this article a good summation, Etiolate?
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/QuoteSpirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Also a summation of my argument that spirituality without structure (religion) is probably not going to foster any lasting change.
Fun fact: I felt more "spiritual/closer to the divine aspect of the universe" after smoking weed than I ever did sitting in church and going to Christian schools during most of my childhood and my adolescence. :doge
Also when Christians go to heaven, what will replace their sense of purpose after having lost their moral superiority to drive them? Or do you think they will still just talk about how they tried to warn the Indian dude that delivered their lamb roti every Thursday night?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not confuse Lager's nihilism for anti-theism.Clearly you are neither a reasonable nor honest atheist. I'll pray for you though.
You are absolutely right. He isn't an honest or reasonable atheist because reasonable atheists understand there is value in religion, they just reject it. I know atheists who still go to church because they find value in it. Lager is more than an atheist; he is an anti-theist. And thus, unreasonable.
Also, you're taking benji's quote out of context. Benji neglected, perhaps on purpose, to include the italicized are. The author isn't saying they're former atheists, thus making them reasonable people. He's saying these atheists are just reasonable people and it isn't unreasonable to be religious.
What did you do when you went to a Catholic Church? Did you pray? Honestly, I don't suggest going to mass at first. Try going to the adoration room and praying/meditating. Ask for God to open your heart.Himu. I did all of that shit. It seems like you're not liking the answers I and others are giving you because they are too "base" and "simplistic". Because they don't fit the explanations of the theologians and apologists you've read and listened to.
Non denominational Protestant. *stares into the wind like an anime character* I'm so sorry.
Also when Christians go to heaven, what will replace their sense of purpose after having lost their moral superiority to drive them? Or do you think they will still just talk about how they tried to warn the Indian dude that delivered their lamb roti every Thursday night?
This is embarassing and I'm embarrassed for you.
This page. This is what the anti-theists of the bore have? "If I want community I'll watch a football game?"
Some atheists are fine. They came to their own conclusions. But anti-theists are on a whole different level and almost universally argue simplistic and utterly shallow critiques. It's really hard to respect, even when I was atheist. Then again, I was an agnostic atheist and therefore far more willing to accept or talk about different viewpoints. But gnostic atheists, girllllll I tell ya.
no that's fair, I'm specifically giving the account that you'd find in most branches in Christianity, I should've been more clear. the first ones often tied up with an Augustinian view of man as corruptible, weak, and inherently sinful; that's definitely not everyone's cup of tea nowadays. Historically, its most common to see evil defined as the privation of good, i.e., it doesn't hold any positive content in its own right. it's the result of the rupture between God and his creation and this rupture is the thing obscuring mankinds relationship with god -it renders infinite divinity incomprehensible. For a good take on it: David Bentley Hart. (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/01/tsunami-and-theodicy)The first two of which seems like axioms that came with religion. In a selling you the disease before the medicine kind of way. Definitely the first one. Though I admit I'm ignorant on the details.or some kind of salvation (from what?)from man's fallen state of nature, the problem of evil, suffering, and death; broadly speaking
What did you do when you went to a Catholic Church? Did you pray? Honestly, I don't suggest going to mass at first. Try going to the adoration room and praying/meditating. Ask for God to open your heart.Himu. I did all of that shit. It seems like you're not liking the answers I and others are giving you because they are too "base" and "simplistic". Because they don't fit the explanations of the theologians and apologists you've read and listened to.
Non denominational Protestant. *stares into the wind like an anime character* I'm so sorry.
People have a way of finding what it is they're actively looking for.
Ugh...
When people start accusing me of not "feeling/doing the right spiritual stuff" that's when I know it's my time to leave.
Only I and I alone can say what feels legitimate to me.
You're trying to cram every human "spiritual" experience into one singular experience (yours) and that is absolutely ridiculous to me.
You just need to git gud at god.
Yep.
Well I'm gonna smoke some weed and eat Vietnamese food. Ta-ta. :doge
I think there's a problem with applying motives to natural unthinking forces and then using as it an example to prove something regarding the actions of something capable of determining and deciding regarding both motive and morality.
no that's fair, I'm specifically giving the account that you'd find in most branches in Christianity, I should've been more clear. the first ones often tied up with an Augustinian view of man as corruptible, weak, and inherently sinful; that's definitely not everyone's cup of tea nowadays. Historically, its most common to see evil defined as the privation of good, i.e., it doesn't hold any positive content in its own right. it's the result of the rupture between God and his creation and this rupture is the thing obscuring mankinds relationship with god -it renders infinite divinity incomprehensible. For a good take on it: David Bentley Hart. (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/01/tsunami-and-theodicy)The first two of which seems like axioms that came with religion. In a selling you the disease before the medicine kind of way. Definitely the first one. Though I admit I'm ignorant on the details.or some kind of salvation (from what?)from man's fallen state of nature, the problem of evil, suffering, and death; broadly speaking
For why someone might find generic theism compelling: some arguments from contingency, and some objections to them (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/).
I really do not need religion to be whole, or some kind of salvation (from what?)
Also how is it arrogant to say and think religious people have a weakness, you say yourself man has a hole that only God can fill. That is a weakness.
Now that I'm on the outside looking in, there sure is a lot of implied homo-eroticism/sexual innuendo in Christian texts and teachings. :doge
Now that I'm on the outside looking in, there sure is a lot of implied homo-eroticism/sexual innuendo in Christian texts and teachings. :dogeI found the same, but not just in Christian texts, but all kinds of texts from different religions.
I don't really know how to approach you in these conversations, Etiolate, your reasoning shows to me a rigidity in thought and I don't know how to adequately show it back to you or engage with it
You keep using words like rigidity and nostalgia for reasons I cannot figure out.
Do you understand what I mean by the way social justice groups or cults behave in a religious manner? The puritanism of it? How much it relies on belief? I am just trying to explain what I am getting at with regards to the concept of religion. Why I said there's healthy religion and unhealthy religion.I think I understand what he's saying.
Is this article a good summation, Etiolate?
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/QuoteSpirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Also a summation of my argument that spirituality without structure (religion) is probably not going to foster any lasting change.
I think that gets to the nature of spirituality. First, there's very spiritual and gnostic forms of old religions. They are into the spirituality of the experience. The deprivation of certain monk traditions or the litany of poems and dancing in a Rumi inspired sect. Another way to state the difference is how inward focused the nature of the thing may be. I can be very spiritual, but that's very much an inward focused experience that can sometimes be an attempt to escape the outside factors.
Outside of religion: Hallucinogens are a spiritual experience for some. Meditation can be a part of spirituality, but that doesn't really connect the singular person to the rest of humanity or the world. Sometimes spirituality is a coping mechanism, and here you have people who think of religion as a coping mechanism and thus think spirituality is a good replacement.
So Spirituality is opposed to my atheist and agnostic examples of religion, Communist idealism, ethnic nationalism, or Social Studies Warriors, you see actions that deal with the rest of the world adn seek change. So that reflects the idea of religion being unhappy with the world.
I'd say healthy religion is inward and outward. Spirituality is so inward that it sometimes skips on its the issue of duality or just outright rejects it (which you can make the claim that someone like Marshall Rosenberg does), and that can be very destructive.
I don't really know how to approach you in these conversations, Etiolate, your reasoning shows to me a rigidity in thought and I don't know how to adequately show it back to you or engage with it
You keep using words like rigidity and nostalgia for reasons I cannot figure out.
Do you understand what I mean by the way social justice groups or cults behave in a religious manner? The puritanism of it? How much it relies on belief? I am just trying to explain what I am getting at with regards to the concept of religion. Why I said there's healthy religion and unhealthy religion.I think I understand what he's saying.
Is this article a good summation, Etiolate?
http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/QuoteSpirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Also a summation of my argument that spirituality without structure (religion) is probably not going to foster any lasting change.
I think that gets to the nature of spirituality. First, there's very spiritual and gnostic forms of old religions. They are into the spirituality of the experience. The deprivation of certain monk traditions or the litany of poems and dancing in a Rumi inspired sect. Another way to state the difference is how inward focused the nature of the thing may be. I can be very spiritual, but that's very much an inward focused experience that can sometimes be an attempt to escape the outside factors.
Outside of religion: Hallucinogens are a spiritual experience for some. Meditation can be a part of spirituality, but that doesn't really connect the singular person to the rest of humanity or the world. Sometimes spirituality is a coping mechanism, and here you have people who think of religion as a coping mechanism and thus think spirituality is a good replacement.
So Spirituality is opposed to my atheist and agnostic examples of religion, Communist idealism, ethnic nationalism, or Social Studies Warriors, you see actions that deal with the rest of the world adn seek change. So that reflects the idea of religion being unhappy with the world.
I'd say healthy religion is inward and outward. Spirituality is so inward that it sometimes skips on its the issue of duality or just outright rejects it (which you can make the claim that someone like Marshall Rosenberg does), and that can be very destructive.
I wasn't the one saying nostalgia. What I meant by rigidity is I see you coming from one perspective and would love to see you openly examining from others. And if you don't think mushrooms connect you to others / the world, I would argue you haven't done them lol but yes I see what you're getting at and how you're connecting social justice puritanism and belief/religion and how one could set criteria to judge a religion as healthy or unhealthy. I would tweak that a bit and instead of condemning certain religions or manner of thought, say how they are carried out or strategies for implementation can either suit the greater needs of community/people/society or not
Francis has personally officiated the marriages of multiple gay and trans people in the church.
"Your opinion sounds bit impoverished." You don't get how condescending that sounds?
The dude said religion is only for fear and people afraid of death.
its true though, and people that feel lost
Why do you feel that way?
I'm pretty sure most people here remember every religious phase you've had, and many likely feel the same way. It's not a diss. I just think it's corny that you jump around and feel comfortable declaring yourself an expert. I was indeed wrong about you being non-denom Christian now (because tbh I've only read a few sentences of the posts in this thread, after that first one about feminism). Ah, you're Catholic. Ok.
Does anyone really believe Pope Francis officiated a gay or trans wedding, and if he did does anyone believe it would be "private" and no one would hear about it...except trans and gay people who want to believe the Catholic church gives a fuck about them? You're once again attaching yourself to something and trying to find meaning based on that.
Francis definitely seems to do some good things in various areas, but I don't understand weighing the slight nods he's given to the gay community to equal anything that matters, agenda or policy wise, when the official policy is still "fuck you." This seems like a cynical trick to entice another group of sinners into the Catholic church. Not saying Francis himself is complicit, I'm referring to the segments of the church that target LGBT people. I can't fathom joining an organization that basically thinks I'm trash, a terrible sinner, or mentally ill, or whatever else these people still think in 2017. Even if I found an offshoot that was welcoming...nope. To quote Malcolm X, you're begging entry into a burning house.
Comparing living in America as a black man to being a catholic as an LGBT person is a stretch.
You turned away from the faux religious bullshit of much of Organized Christianity in search for a religious experience that felt genuine/real.
And I say that with all due respect. We've known each other and been friends for over a decade, I'm not shitting on you. Although TBH I'm upset that I sent you some bbc porn a few weeks ago and you told me you don't fuck with porn anymore. Another reason why religion is trash :piss2
And I say that with all due respect. We've known each other and been friends for over a decade, I'm not shitting on you. Although TBH I'm upset that I sent you some bbc porn a few weeks ago and you told me you don't fuck with porn anymore. Another reason why religion is trash :piss2
+1And I say that with all due respect. We've known each other and been friends for over a decade, I'm not shitting on you. Although TBH I'm upset that I sent you some bbc porn a few weeks ago and you told me you don't fuck with porn anymore. Another reason why religion is trash :piss2
WTF why am I not on the PD porn list? I love you PD. We need to talk more.
But the middleman creates structure. What structure do you have?But, why do I need structure? Take it from someone who grew up in a religion that had a ton of structure and rituals. When you have a religion that has a lot of those the religion inevitably BECOMES about the structure and rituals. I don't need that :piss2
This was what struck me as wrongheaded, especially the bolded part:I think there's a problem with applying motives to natural unthinking forces and then using as it an example to prove something regarding the actions of something capable of determining and deciding regarding both motive and morality.
That's fair. But it's also endemic to the religion. My favorite example is Jesus' crucifixion and perhaps the final 24 hours of his life. The fact that he prayed alone in the forest while the people closest to him couldn't stay awake and keep him company. Judas' betrayal. Peter's denial. The actions of the Romans. The behavior of the Pharisees. The murder of Jesus. Corruption. Jealousy. Murder. Power. Hate. All of human depravity is on display in the Gospel. From humanities worst (above examples) to its best (Roman soldier giving Jesus something to drink as he's on the cross, the traveling man who helps lift the cross for Jesus, John protecting Mary during the depravity). All I'm saying is that where there's evil, there's a capacity for good. I'm not sure what part of my post you specifically disagree with. I wish you could quote it.
If we can't choose, we are just dolls and no different from animals. And where there's badness, there's often goodness. For example, we have natural disasters that harm people. It sucks that a tornado landed, but without thermodynamics the tornado wouldn't exist. Without thermodynamics we wouldn't have jet engines for example. But we also wouldn't have things that kill people like tornadoes. But I think all of us agree that tornadoes are worth keeping around if we get things like jet propulsion out of it. God likely sees it similarly. Because there is evil, there must also be an infinite good. And this infinite good is God. Essentially, evil allows human not only a choice, but also an opportunity to grow.Because while I do have some agreement with the thrust of your point regarding free will and the value of choosing not-bad I think using an example of something that not only has no moral component or free will but entirely lacks agency does a disservice to your argument.
Whats this obsession with structure?
You've written a lot about it before already. You don't need someone elses structure to be a good person, someone elses walkthrough life.
All of us can understand institutional disenchantment. Institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial; they can both enable and shield wrongdoers. They frustrate our desires by asking us to submit to the will of others.
But institutions are also the only mechanism human beings know to perpetuate ideologies and actions. If books were enough, why have universities? If guns enough, why have a military? If self-governance enough, let’s get rid of Washington. The point is that if you want to do something lasting in this world, you will recall the wise words of French Catholic writer Charles Péguy: “Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” Got a vision? Get a blueprint.
Spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Aid organizations involve institutions as well, and bureaucracies, and — yes — committee meetings. There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a committee meeting. It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference. I have found too often that when people say, “I stay away from the synagogue — too much politics,” what they mean is that they did not get their way. Institutions enable but they also frustrate, as do families and every other organized sector of human life. If you want frictionless, do it alone.
To be spiritual but not religious confines your devotional life to feeling good. If we have learned one thing about human nature, however, it is that people’s internal sense of goodness does not always match their behavior. To know whether your actions are good, a window is a more effective tool than a mirror. Ask others. Be part of a community. In short, join. Being religious does not mean you have to agree with all the positions and practices of your own group; I don’t even hold with everything done in my own synagogue, and I’m the Rabbi. But it does mean testing yourself in the arena of others.
No one expects those without faith to obligate themselves to a religious community. But for one who has an intuition of something greater than ourselves to hold that this is a purely personal truth, that it demands no communal searching and struggle, no organization to realize its potential in this world, straddles the line between narcissistic and solipsistic. If the spirit moves you to goodness, that is wonderful. For too many, though, spirituality is a VIP card allowing them to breeze past all those wretched souls waiting in line or doing the work. Join in; together is harder, but together is better.
To go along with your analogy however, I had a teacher in college to teach me how to learn and how to teach. We had a very intense relationship where I learned so much. I learned how to make myself better, how to practice, how to find deficiencies and fix them, how to prepare for a performance and how to perform. Our teacher/student relationship was really intense in the beginning with him guiding my every action, but as I learned more and grew more, it went from intense tutelage to check ins that became less and less frequent. It went from "This is how you do it." to "You should do x technique" or "You know better than to make that mistake."Whats this obsession with structure?
You've written a lot about it before already. You don't need someone elses structure to be a good person, someone elses walkthrough life.
It isn't an obsession. I'm just articulating my reality.
The goal isn't to be good. The goal is become holy. It was shown and argued earlier than humans fail to honor our inherent goodness. So most people aren't good. People try. Today I committed a sin. I lashed out on Triumph's Facebook and said liberals are scum. I was emotional after reading the dehumanizing comments on the post and it was how I truly felt. But instead self censoring myself, I let it fly. Would a holy person do this? And, again, when I said this I don't mean perfect. Also, I under no inclinations believe that one must be religious to be good.
Ronito majored in music. So for the sake of dialogue, I consider him a fellow artist. Now, traditionally in the arts, there exists two camps: mentorship and self teaching. Self teaching can work. But it requires being without a teacher. A teacher provides that structure. They help soften your edges, they give generational advice. They share stories of their successes and failures and how you too can avoid them. In the spiritual life I learned very, very early that the spirit is to be cultivated like artistic skill. Both require on going effort, self awareness, and practice. One of the many (many) things Buddhism taught me was to cherish this. Without a teacher you can cultivate bad habits (just like in art). Meditation without a teacher is, I'm not going to say dangerous, but depriving. Without a teacher you convince yourself that through meditation you are "seeing an alternate reality/seeing outside of myself" or some other new age-y bullshit. But a teacher helps rein this in but saying,"no, you're just staring a singular object for too long without blinking. Please blink." A teacher helps you with what to do next. A teacher gives you assignments. How do you hope to become disciplined without the middleman? If that's the case, why did Ronito go to university to learn music? He could have just sat at home, learning by himself. While it's possible for him to become a great musician that way, it'd be far easier just to go to school. For school provides the structure to succeed learning new skills.
So, given the inportance of spiritual matters, one must admit that doing it alone can end in failure. Spirit life isn't something someone does alone. Ronito has of yet to describe what his spiritual practice even includes. Does he fast? Does he renunciate things? Does he still go through penance? Does he meditate? I don't know. There's a misconception in that I think spiritual matters is just experiencing something. I also consider it a discipline. Structure provides that discipline.
Now, again, I'm not sure of Ronito's history. Given his decades in Mormonism perhaps he has the background and structure to practice spiritual practices alone. I don't. I'm just getting starting. Like the Time article I posted last page said:Quote
All of us can understand institutional disenchantment. Institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial; they can both enable and shield wrongdoers. They frustrate our desires by asking us to submit to the will of others.
But institutions are also the only mechanism human beings know to perpetuate ideologies and actions. If books were enough, why have universities? If guns enough, why have a military? If self-governance enough, let’s get rid of Washington. The point is that if you want to do something lasting in this world, you will recall the wise words of French Catholic writer Charles Péguy: “Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” Got a vision? Get a blueprint.
Spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.
Aid organizations involve institutions as well, and bureaucracies, and — yes — committee meetings. There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a committee meeting. It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference. I have found too often that when people say, “I stay away from the synagogue — too much politics,” what they mean is that they did not get their way. Institutions enable but they also frustrate, as do families and every other organized sector of human life. If you want frictionless, do it alone.
To be spiritual but not religious confines your devotional life to feeling good. If we have learned one thing about human nature, however, it is that people’s internal sense of goodness does not always match their behavior. To know whether your actions are good, a window is a more effective tool than a mirror. Ask others. Be part of a community. In short, join. Being religious does not mean you have to agree with all the positions and practices of your own group; I don’t even hold with everything done in my own synagogue, and I’m the Rabbi. But it does mean testing yourself in the arena of others.
No one expects those without faith to obligate themselves to a religious community. But for one who has an intuition of something greater than ourselves to hold that this is a purely personal truth, that it demands no communal searching and struggle, no organization to realize its potential in this world, straddles the line between narcissistic and solipsistic. If the spirit moves you to goodness, that is wonderful. For too many, though, spirituality is a VIP card allowing them to breeze past all those wretched souls waiting in line or doing the work. Join in; together is harder, but together is better.
I have not seen any argument for how spiritual but not religious isn't a cop out. There's potential for something real, but often than not its just a selfish pursuit of sensual experiences and I've experienced enough of secular Buddhism to realize how much of a crock it truly is.
Well, like I said. You are already a master. You can do it by yourself. I can't. I'm not there yet. I have too many flaws. I'm not at that point.Ah, but the question is, "Are you really not?"
Well, like I said. You are already a master. You can do it by yourself. I can't. I'm not there yet. I have too many flaws. I'm not at that point.Ah, but the question is, "Are you really not?"
Nah, anecdotally people who are genuinely happy in life mostly don't involve religion as any central part of their life. There's maybe two people I can name that believe in that numerology/astrology-lite shit, but they aren't serious about it in any manor. Their lives revolve around art they produce and genuinely enjoy making.
What part of religion do you think completes you or what do you think it offers to you?
I'm sorry none of you see the value of religion.I'm not sure this is entirely fair. I think it's mainly pushback against the notion that you must need religion in order to do [whatever] or feel [whatever] and so on. For example, in that comic he laments that he was able to help people as a Christian but no longer knows how to. But that makes no sense, as he himself concedes you can operate through religious organizations without being part of that religion so there's nothing stopping him from continuing. There's nothing stopping him from finding non-religious avenues to do the same things. The supposed necessity of religion isn't one, it's an excuse.
how the Catholic church is largely founded on "tradition" that took place way after the Bible supposedly takes place in
I'm sorry none of you see the value of religion.I'm not sure this is entirely fair. I think it's mainly pushback against the notion that you must need religion in order to do [whatever] or feel [whatever] and so on. For example, in that comic he laments that he was able to help people as a Christian but no longer knows how to. But that makes no sense, as he himself concedes you can operate through religious organizations without being part of that religion so there's nothing stopping him from continuing. There's nothing stopping him from finding non-religious avenues to do the same things. The supposed necessity of religion isn't one, it's an excuse.
I was raised effectively irreligious. My mother believes in God and the Bible and such but I couldn't tell you what denomination or anything but I did have a like young adult version (came in pack along with other classics) to read as a kid that I read, my father is actually a mystery to me as it's never come up though even his 92 year old mother is not particularly religious. I've never been to a Church service that I remember. Other than weddings or using their basketball courts I never set foot in them, not on purpose though. The only religious people I talk to in real life about religion are the Jehovah's Witnesses and that's because I found that it gets you blacklisted so they stop coming.
Sure, I bet if you go back and somehow can pull up old long dead forums through the Wayback Machine I had some posts like in the 8th grade where I bashed Christians and God and crap if only because there's a stage of me fisking people. But at some point it swung around to where my irreligious status combined with my libertarian nature to lead another forum to believe I was a fundamentalist Christian because I had no issue with them protesting some movie as blasphemous or homeschooling their children with creationist textbooks. Also I argued with a bunch of neckbeard atheist types that the Bible is probably not intended to be literal but allegorical so people were talking past one another.
Now me, I personally don't care about people telling me how to live my life since I expect it and know I can always ask the unanswerable question of "but, why?" But Queen, come on, you have to see that it can be just as insulting to those who don't follow your religion to denigrate their beliefs and make all these assumptions and accusations as you feel they are doing to you. Saying "I wish you could see the value of religion" is a shot across the bow as much as "I wish you could see how useless religion is" would be from your perspective.
As another personal note, I always find the kind of religious/non-religious line drawing to be unhelpful as I consider it all philosophical and ideological as all belief systems and thus fair game. What differentiates some of what you're saying from The Golden Rule or the NAP, I mean other than all the supernatural stuff, I don't know, does it matter?
But then I'm rambling and I haven't really read this discussion much more than here and there. It just seems a bit insulting to assume that without religion, as you define it, people are missing something in their lives.
Queen, you seem to have fallen into the trap of falling into a stream and thinking it's the ocean. You talk about your love of the love and mystery of religion. What if the mystery goes deeper than you have imagined?
It took a lot of effort to not write an inflammatory reply and call you a name. I'm really progressing.
There's no dealing with someone who can only think of religion as something only gullible people believe and that it's all propaganda. They are either a New Atheist, like Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens, or someone who has just been hurt in the Church, though more likely the former. There isn't any rational argument that can be made against it. Like you could point out that about half of all LGBT identify as Christian, and that number has been increasing in recent years, and that the only denomination that's been growing in the percentage of LGBT is the one they see as most harmful and least welcoming: Catholicism.
You could tell them that but they aren't actually interested in hearing about that. Pick your battles; state the reality; move on if you see they aren't actually interested in learning or listening.
2013 report (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/#religion) showing that 42% of LGBT identify as Christian, with 14% being Catholic.
2015 report (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/26/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-americans-differ-from-general-public-in-their-religious-affiliations/) showing that 48% now identify as Christian, with 17% Catholic. Mainline churches, like UMC and TEC went from 12% to 11%, and black protestant went from 9% to 5%.
Also from the report, "About eight-in-ten LGBT respondents say the Muslim religion, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church are unfriendly toward them" and "Similarly, about three-quarters of LGBT adults (73%) say that evangelical churches are unfriendly toward them", with evangelicals also seeing a growth in the percentage of LGBT.
To get this topic back on track: PD, do you have any BBC videos with two dudes using a pighole fuckable buttplug? I can find vids of average non-BBC dudes using them, but I really want to see them put to the test. The circumference of the inner hole has me thinking they may not be BBC compatible.
To get this topic back on track: PD, do you have any BBC videos with two dudes using a pighole fuckable buttplug? I can find vids of average non-BBC dudes using them, but I really want to see them put to the test. The circumference of the inner hole has me thinking they may not be BBC compatible.
I'm guessing this isn't really feasible. However I'd imagine there's an amateur tumblr porn guy somewhere who takes requests.
To get this topic back on track: PD, do you have any BBC videos with two dudes using a pighole fuckable buttplug? I can find vids of average non-BBC dudes using them, but I really want to see them put to the test. The circumference of the inner hole has me thinking they may not be BBC compatible.
I'm guessing this isn't really feasible. However I'd imagine there's an amateur tumblr porn guy somewhere who takes requests.
To give you numbers, the smallest pighole fuckable buttplug has a fuckable diameter of 1.5 inches, and the largest I've seen is 2.5 inches. Do you think the 2.5 incher would be wide enough for at least the majority of BBCs?
To get this topic back on track: PD, do you have any BBC videos with two dudes using a pighole fuckable buttplug? I can find vids of average non-BBC dudes using them, but I really want to see them put to the test. The circumference of the inner hole has me thinking they may not be BBC compatible.
I'm guessing this isn't really feasible. However I'd imagine there's an amateur tumblr porn guy somewhere who takes requests.
To give you numbers, the smallest pighole fuckable buttplug has a fuckable diameter of 1.5 inches, and the largest I've seen is 2.5 inches. Do you think the 2.5 incher would be wide enough for at least the majority of BBCs?
To get this topic back on track: PD, do you have any BBC videos with two dudes using a pighole fuckable buttplug? I can find vids of average non-BBC dudes using them, but I really want to see them put to the test. The circumference of the inner hole has me thinking they may not be BBC compatible.
I'm guessing this isn't really feasible. However I'd imagine there's an amateur tumblr porn guy somewhere who takes requests.
To give you numbers, the smallest pighole fuckable buttplug has a fuckable diameter of 1.5 inches, and the largest I've seen is 2.5 inches. Do you think the 2.5 incher would be wide enough for at least the majority of BBCs?
I don't like generalizing BBCs. Like autism, it's a spectrum.
I'm sorry none of you see the value of religion.I'm not sure this is entirely fair. I think it's mainly pushback against the notion that you must need religion in order to do [whatever] or feel [whatever] and so on. For example, in that comic he laments that he was able to help people as a Christian but no longer knows how to. But that makes no sense, as he himself concedes you can operate through religious organizations without being part of that religion so there's nothing stopping him from continuing. There's nothing stopping him from finding non-religious avenues to do the same things. The supposed necessity of religion isn't one, it's an excuse.
I was raised effectively irreligious. My mother believes in God and the Bible and such but I couldn't tell you what denomination or anything but I did have a like young adult version (came in pack along with other classics) to read as a kid that I read, my father is actually a mystery to me as it's never come up though even his 92 year old mother is not particularly religious. I've never been to a Church service that I remember. Other than weddings or using their basketball courts I never set foot in them, not on purpose though. The only religious people I talk to in real life about religion are the Jehovah's Witnesses and that's because I found that it gets you blacklisted so they stop coming.
Sure, I bet if you go back and somehow can pull up old long dead forums through the Wayback Machine I had some posts like in the 8th grade where I bashed Christians and God and crap if only because there's a stage of me fisking people. But at some point it swung around to where my irreligious status combined with my libertarian nature to lead another forum to believe I was a fundamentalist Christian because I had no issue with them protesting some movie as blasphemous or homeschooling their children with creationist textbooks. Also I argued with a bunch of neckbeard atheist types that the Bible is probably not intended to be literal but allegorical so people were talking past one another.
Now me, I personally don't care about people telling me how to live my life since I expect it and know I can always ask the unanswerable question of "but, why?" But Queen, come on, you have to see that it can be just as insulting to those who don't follow your religion to denigrate their beliefs and make all these assumptions and accusations as you feel they are doing to you. Saying "I wish you could see the value of religion" is a shot across the bow as much as "I wish you could see how useless religion is" would be from your perspective.
As another personal note, I always find the kind of religious/non-religious line drawing to be unhelpful as I consider it all philosophical and ideological as all belief systems and thus fair game. What differentiates some of what you're saying from The Golden Rule or the NAP, I mean other than all the supernatural stuff, I don't know, does it matter?
But then I'm rambling and I haven't really read this discussion much more than here and there. It just seems a bit insulting to assume that without religion, as you define it, people are missing something in their lives.
I didn't mean that statement like that. I have no problem with atheists (although I pray for them). I do have a problem with anti-theism. There's a difference between the two groups. I respect being not religious but at the very least understanding religion. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I used to be in that camp. My problem stems from extremes. I'm not trying to convert anyone. But it feels like every non-religious person here is trying to convince me that I'm a moron for being religious even though it took me vast amount of literature for me to be able to believe in earnest again.
Be non-religious, that's fine. But when you try to convince people that they're better off without religion that's not cool. By the same token, be religious - that's fine. But don't say you need religion to live a good life. Both are extremes. I have no inherent problem with atheists but the "religion poisons all things" Hitchensian edge lord stuff is what I don't like. And to be fair, I don't know everyone's background. I don't blame Ronito, Wrath, or 21337, or even PD for their views. They grew up in extremely religious communities. I don't blame them one bit and I truly empathize, but that doesn't mean I gotta like it.
Hitchens isn't an edgelord. Religion by its nature cultivates a system of thinking based upon things you have to lie to yourself, ignore facts, and bend bibles to believe.
Hitchens isn't an edgelord. Religion by its nature cultivates a system of thinking based upon things you have to lie to yourself, ignore facts, and bend bibles to believe.
(http://i.imgur.com/Fpx5sKn.gif)
this thread is brazy whew
Hitchens isn't an edgelord. Religion by its nature cultivates a system of thinking based upon things you have to lie to yourself, ignore facts, and bend bibles to believe.
Those are edge lord opinions. Have you read the exegesis Hitchens lays on the table in God Is Not Great? Even as an atheist I knew how bad his arguments were. Great debater, but Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris' arguments are complete jokes once you think about them with real merit. The biggest objection being that their main critique was a specific kind of religion and not all religion.
I find it funny how the old atheist thinkers treat Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris like the jokes they are. Even atheists don't even like them. You could out maneuver and out argue most new atheist arguments with a year of philosophy 101 and theology 101.
Various quotes from philosophers and atheists trashing neo atheism talking head arguments for the crap they are (https://jamesbishopblog.com/2016/05/31/the-woeful-state-of-new-atheism/)
Hitchens was an edge lord.
Feminism does not champion the rights of women. Feminism abuses women and men both with false history and a false sense of “women as victims” that’s never truly been historically accurate (or theologically sound). Women are not oppressed victims; even in areas historically where they had fewer rights than men, they tended to have more PRIVILEGES to compensate for that, and most people even hundreds of years ago admitted women had it better in many ways. It’s evil to keep pretending women are permavictims who need Feminists to save them.
I agree 100%. One only has to question why, in the UK at least, feminist activists firmly and openly support Sharia Law, and the related Islamic subjugation of women in general, and will have nothing said against Islamic militants.
That remains a complete mystery to me.
By the way, I a very serious Christian, was in the anti-feminist film “Red Pill Movie.” I firmly believe all serious Christians should see that film.:dead
Unrelated side note: I recommend taking a look at the conversion stories collected on that blog. They all read like some crucial step is missing. Might just be due to the guy's editing, not sure, but the recurring theme is "and then I found Jesus", i.e. they changed their mind like a switch was flipped. Deeply unsatisfying for a heathen such a myself.
Also, these random comments below one of them:Quote from: Max KolbeFeminism does not champion the rights of women. Feminism abuses women and men both with false history and a false sense of “women as victims” that’s never truly been historically accurate (or theologically sound). Women are not oppressed victims; even in areas historically where they had fewer rights than men, they tended to have more PRIVILEGES to compensate for that, and most people even hundreds of years ago admitted women had it better in many ways. It’s evil to keep pretending women are permavictims who need Feminists to save them.Quote from: John ArgentI agree 100%. One only has to question why, in the UK at least, feminist activists firmly and openly support Sharia Law, and the related Islamic subjugation of women in general, and will have nothing said against Islamic militants.
That remains a complete mystery to me.Quote from: Max KolbeBy the way, I a very serious Christian, was in the anti-feminist film “Red Pill Movie.” I firmly believe all serious Christians should see that film.:dead
By the way, I a very serious Christian
I prefer edgy truth tellers over cushy falsehood spewers any day of the week. :dice
I've never seen somebody act as an encyclopedic authority from such wildly different positions with the gall to be so eagerly sanctimonious about it, much less in the few months I even got to know said person.Wait are you talking about etoliate or...?
Jesus Christ.
I've never seen somebody act as an encyclopedic authority from such wildly different positions with the gall to be so eagerly sanctimonious about it, much less in the few months I even got to know said person.
Jesus Christ.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/616/544/4e7.jpg)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/intelligent-atheists-still-read-bible-like-fundamentalists/"Why Do Intelligent Atheists Still Read The Bible Like Fundamentalists?"
:rejoice
Accompanied reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/6r4ow8/found_this_rather_thoughtprovoking_why_do/
:bow
It's almost as if when someone claims moral superiority based on their belief and following a book, that people will point out how if you're not following what the book says you're just picking and choosing. :trumps
Here's an article that goes into more depth about my concerns about Christian "dominionists":http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/intelligent-atheists-still-read-bible-like-fundamentalists/"Why Do Intelligent Atheists Still Read The Bible Like Fundamentalists?"
:rejoice
Accompanied reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/6r4ow8/found_this_rather_thoughtprovoking_why_do/
:bow
Because a good chunk of fundamentalists are wanting to change legislation in the US to fit their rigged & highly literal interpretations of scripture.
If some people at BJU had their way in this country, Himu, you would be thrown in jail for sodomy and cross-dressing.
Also, it's a waste of time to try and debate/argue with non-fundamentalists since they're interpretations of scripture are very subjective and highly allegorical.