Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Luckily there is a priority system.

Interpretations differ wildly though

[Frumple]

Yeah... wasn't matthew the bit where it said better to cut off your hands and gouge out your eyes than to sin? "Love your neighbor as yourself" can very easily be taken to the point where you're mutilating people out of what you see as love -- better a tortured, mangled, wreck than a damned soul, and praise be unto god if others do the same to you to save your soul from sin.

Which has actually, y'know, occurred in christianity's history. Was one of the theological justifications for the inquisition BS, iirc. Some people have some pretty incredibly screwed up conceptions of love.

[Bohandas]

Are you saying that you have never done anything wrong? Because unless you have, you are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.

if everyone is equaly guilty wouldn't morality be meaningless? or are you saying that when people are taken by an "act of god" they're being punished for their sins?
tbh, if god does really exist, then yes, i never did nothing wrong, he did all of it. I only took the choices he permited me to take with the information he alowed me to have, and under the influence of the emotions he built into my personality.

Can you blame a psychopath for being selfish if his brain is malformed and he is missing the structure that allows him to feel empathy?
Do you think that it's his soul that is flawed and the brain has a different biological function, taking no part in decision makin'?
Who made his soul\brain so flawed?


Also, i've always felt annoyed by the teaching god theory, as i think the flaws in it are quite obvious. A "good" parent punishes its child to teach him how to live in a cruel world he took no part in designing and can't realistically expect to protect him from, god designed humans imperfectly to maneuvre the death maze he set up for them. An eternal and all powerful loving parent would have no reason to teach it's children to stant up in two legs, cope with pain and loss, or overcome obstacles, he could simply *make him know* what he needs to learn and build him a good house where he needen't fear anything. This would interfere with free will though, maximizing it.


FakeEd: i haven't read the last 6 replies, sorry if the conversation moved on or i'm repeating somming

Seconded

[Orange Wizard]

Yeah... wasn't matthew the bit where it said better to cut off your hands and gouge out your eyes than to sin? "Love your neighbor as yourself" can very easily be taken to the point where you're mutilating people out of what you see as love -- better a tortured, mangled, wreck than a damned soul, and praise be unto god if others do the same to you to save your soul from sin.

Which has actually, y'know, occurred in christianity's history. Was one of the theological justifications for the inquisition BS, iirc. Some people have some pretty incredibly screwed up conceptions of love.

He said it was better to cut off your hand or gouge out your eyes than to cause another person to sin IIRC.

[Arx]

The particular delightful piece of imagery on causing others to sin is actually tying a millstone around your neck and jumping into the sea.

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  People interpret that as "Don't throw stones."  But if you think about it, it means "I'll deal with her myself."  And sure enough he forgave her, this time, but he also told her "Don't sin anymore."  And, wow, went on to say this:

8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

"I don't judge people.  But when I do judge people, I'm right because God is with me."

That kinda sets a precedent for certain types of Christians, thinking they're being guided by God, to judge people.  If God is with you, you can judge sinners...  But it's not really you judging them, it's God, just like Jesus didn't judge.

You know the bit where I said they can do it if they're literally the Second Coming of Jesus? And since we're quoting the King James (I'd prefer the NIV, but eh)

"Judge not, lest ye be judged; for as ye judge so shall ye be judged, and as ye mete it out shall it be meted to ye."

Jesus says twice not to judge others, compared to the approximately zero times (to my knowledge) he tells us to kill and deprive homosexuals.

Besides that, the people who want to protect children from sinful influences like non-traditional relationships, or women who are more than slaves to their men, are Biblically *in the right*.  Just because all sin is equally 100% deadly doesn't mean it's ever okay, or that you should let young people believe it's okay. 

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there is no Biblical justification for oppressing anyone. Teaching your children that gay people should be celibate is completely different to lynching gay people, preventing gay people from receiving the same service as others, and otherwise discriminating.

But those fundamental tenets are completely open to interpretation, which means they're hardly fundamental at all, as evidenced by all the people who believe differently. Indeed, on this matter, I'm pretty sure that you're in a minority, albeit a quickly growing one.

"Do not resist an evil doer."
"If any man considers himself religious but does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Do nothing to others that you would not have done to you."
"For we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, that no one can boast."

I can't personally see a way to justify oppression against those quotes. I can't see a way to interpret them such that they'd allow it, either.

As incredibly nice as it would be to no-true-scotsman away the troublesome members of the belief system, it really doesn't work like that. Especially when significant portions of said belief system are such people. When it comes to things like holy texts, you just... can't really say someone else's interpretation of it is wrong.

Even when they're ignoring direct quotes from their God? Even when they're using certain quotes from the old Law and ignoring others? It's admittedly a little finicky, but ultimately I think there are parts of the Bible where you can look at peoples' interpretations and say "No, that can't be right."

[Grek]

Due to how human psychology works, if you tell your children that gay people ought to be celibate, they will take it as sanction to mistreat gay people. Not just gays who aren't celibate, or gays who are flamboyant about it, all gay people. Once someone is identified as Other, they become Enemy. Its the natural instinct, and children are very bad about ignoring instinct in favour of more nuanced morality.

If God wants you to not oppress others, and to teach your children not to oppress others, there is a moral duty to not to show your children the passages about how gays, liberated women, adulterers and non-christians are sinful until they've become an adult with the moral rectitude to understand that even though someone is a sinner, it is wrong to harass them about, even as part of an attempt to help them reform.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

My whole family has been taught from birth that homosexuality is a sin and that ridiculing people is a sin and all the other sins are sins and none of us have had a problem with ridiculing or treating homosexuals differently. Maybe we are just the outliers.

[TD1]

Imagine someone saying this:

Having sex with your wife is a sin. A horrendous act. It is terrible, terrible. Eternal punishment awaits you for what you do.

This is what is called repression. Repressing desires is never good.

I'm not commenting on the whole "Telling children gays are bad early is bad" thing. I'm saying saying it at all is very...well, unchristian.

[Orange Wizard]

The logic here is that repressing desires is better than the outcome of indulging them, i.e. Hell. It's the same logic behind the decision to not punch a douchebag in the face even though you really want to: there are consequences to your decision.
For most people, the consequences of being gay are that you might be ostracised by your society. For (some? most?) Christians, the consequences are much, much worse.

I suppose that I should also clarify that I'm using "being gay" in the sense of "homosexual activity". If you don't indulge in it there's no problem. Other than repressed desires, of course.

[Angle]

Well, personally, I don't punch douchebags in the face because I know that they have reasons for their douchebaggery, however stupid they might seem to me, and because I know it won't improve their behaviour.

[Orange Wizard]

... probably a poor example. But you get the idea. I hope.

[TD1]

The logic here is that repressing desires is better than the outcome of indulging them, i.e. Hell. It's the same logic behind the decision to not punch a douchebag in the face even though you really want to: there are consequences to your decision.
For most people, the consequences of being gay are that you might be ostracised by your society. For (some? most?) Christians, the consequences are much, much worse.

I suppose that I should also clarify that I'm using "being gay" in the sense of "homosexual activity". If you don't indulge in it there's no problem. Other than repressed desires, of course.

Let's not forget that the Bible is full of things people generally ignore.
So, put a piece of scripture which has been translated half a dozen times into many different versions against the obvious moral problem associated with making somebody's life miserable and full of urges which, though natural to him, he has been made to fear. Even to loathe himself.

And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.

[origamiscienceguy]

And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.

Because he made sex as a way of glorifying him. He also gave it to us as a pleasure. But he created guidelines around how to use it. Only in marriage between a man and a woman. That is why he despises adulterers and gays.

[MonkeyHead]

And, to put it bluntly, why the hell would God care where you put you cock? The entire thing whiffs of cultural prejudice rather than divine law.

Because he made sex as a way of glorifying him. He also gave it to us as a pleasure. But he created guidelines around how to use it. Only in marriage between a man and a woman. That is why he despises adulterers and gays.

I am not going to construct an argument against that (horribly flawed as it is), as it is based on faith, and faith alone. There is no arguing with faith. However, I do feel compelled to report it, as it is a downright evil attitude to hold.

[origamiscienceguy]

I was just pointing out what the Bible says.