And the most evangelical, preachy, in your face, “my views are the right ones,” individuals I have ever come across are atheists. Most of the evangelical christians I have met don’t start talking about their faith unless it gets brought up. Atheists though, are very quick to bring up their hatred and intolerance of religion, and how they are right and people that might actually believe in something are ignorant stooges.
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve gone through this exercise here before.
Actually religion is still the realm of the masses. Africa, Central and South America, North America, most of Europe (though gratly decreased), Russia, Middle East, India, China. Where is it not? And when you use works like “always” be prepared to have people expect that the word has meaning beyond your limited existence and scope.
Sorry, but singling out Christianity for a minute, I find it difficult to believe that the majority in so called Christian countries really believe that a big fish swallowed a man, or someone walked on water, raised dead people and floated up to the sky after he died. If you read the bible, I think you will find a lot of it demands blind aquiesence, which was my original argument.
It’s called ‘faith’, Red Star. Try this on for size. It takes more ‘faith’ to believe there is no Creator and the ridiculous concept of time going infinitely into the past than it does for me to believe in an all powerful God of creation for whom miracles are not a problem. Atheism is utterly ridiculous.
And I disagree. However, by disagreeing I don’t pretend that Diogenes does not exist. The faith aspect comes into play because it provides a narrative that helps some explain the nature of existence. Thomas Paine explained where the problems begin in his brilliant “The Age of Reason.” It really doesn’t take more faith to disbelieve in an involved, loving (or not) creator deity(ies) than to believe that there are natural explanations even if we don’t yet know them definitively or will ever understand them completely.
However, Red, notice that I fall short of calling Diogenes a deluded ignoramus even though I doubt he and I could possibly disagree more on these matters. I understand that it is his viewpoint that is in the stream of human continuity and history and that mine is the revolutionary, radical change. Even so, I think that humanity, even enlightened, scientific humanity needs a spiritual fulfillment and draws a great deal of benefit from religious ritual and tradition. Again, even with that said I am sure Diogenes and I would widely be separated by how much influence that should be and how much benefit can be drawn and indeed the nature of that benefit.
To give you an idea of the spectrum that is out there I will use myself as example. I am a heithinn (sometimes modernly called Asatru) who wanders into Deism, Atheism and Pantheism depending on mood and frame of mind. I observe and practice essentially dead rituals and holidays because I think they ought not die and even if I rarely (and even then very weakly) have any faith in the Gods described by those myths. I find them intellectually defensible and representative of the kind of life I think is admirable and I also think they are valuable and shouldn’t die. Even in the modern world they have much to offer, in some cases a very great deal to offer. Perhaps the largest gulf between people like Diogenes and me is that he believes all those revelations are right and true because they come from a deity and are found only through the deity while I think they can be found without the deity but that the rituals and myths illustrate and bind and teach in ways that are still infinitely valuable.
A loving compassionate God made the mess we live in now,? and you say atheism is ridiculous?Maybe He needs to pull out a few more miracles.
No, God didn’t make the mess. He made mankind and gave us free will. Mankind made the mess. Regardless of what religion you choose, they all make more sense than atheism.
The original sin doctrine, accepted widely as a fundamental belief goes something like this, God made man with a free will, God is all knowing, He knew man would sin, and that the world would become a hell hole. He also knew that millions would suffer eternal punishment because of Adam, knowing that He went right ahead and did it anyway, yeah, makes sense to me.
Someone needs to learn to not mix theological theories together to claim a point.
And the most evangelical, preachy, in your face, “my views are the right ones,” individuals I have ever come across are atheists. Most of the evangelical christians I have met don’t start talking about their faith unless it gets brought up. Atheists though, are very quick to bring up their hatred and intolerance of religion, and how they are right and people that might actually believe in something are ignorant stooges.
And the most evangelical, preachy, in your face, “my views are the right ones,” individuals I have ever come across are atheists. Most of the evangelical christians I have met don’t start talking about their faith unless it gets brought up. Atheists though, are very quick to bring up their hatred and intolerance of religion, and how they are right and people that might actually believe in something are ignorant stooges.
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve gone through this exercise here before.
Seems like you have gone through every “exercise” here, so why the fuck don’t you just have a little club that agrees with each other and excludes everyone else?....wait a minute, you do, sorry.
Actually religion is still the realm of the masses. Africa, Central and South America, North America, most of Europe (though gratly decreased), Russia, Middle East, India, China. Where is it not? And when you use works like “always” be prepared to have people expect that the word has meaning beyond your limited existence and scope.
Sorry, but singling out Christianity for a minute, I find it difficult to believe that the majority in so called Christian countries really believe that a big fish swallowed a man, or someone walked on water, raised dead people and floated up to the sky after he died. If you read the bible, I think you will find a lot of it demands blind aquiesence, which was my original argument.
It’s called ‘faith’, Red Star. Try this on for size. It takes more ‘faith’ to believe there is no Creator and the ridiculous concept of time going infinitely into the past than it does for me to believe in an all powerful God of creation for whom miracles are not a problem. Atheism is utterly ridiculous.
And I disagree. However, by disagreeing I don’t pretend that Diogenes does not exist. The faith aspect comes into play because it provides a narrative that helps some explain the nature of existence. Thomas Paine explained where the problems begin in his brilliant “The Age of Reason.” It really doesn’t take more faith to disbelieve in an involved, loving (or not) creator deity(ies) than to believe that there are natural explanations even if we don’t yet know them definitively or will ever understand them completely.
However, Red, notice that I fall short of calling Diogenes a deluded ignoramus even though I doubt he and I could possibly disagree more on these matters. I understand that it is his viewpoint that is in the stream of human continuity and history and that mine is the revolutionary, radical change. Even so, I think that humanity, even enlightened, scientific humanity needs a spiritual fulfillment and draws a great deal of benefit from religious ritual and tradition. Again, even with that said I am sure Diogenes and I would widely be separated by how much influence that should be and how much benefit can be drawn and indeed the nature of that benefit.
To give you an idea of the spectrum that is out there I will use myself as example. I am a heithinn (sometimes modernly called Asatru) who wanders into Deism, Atheism and Pantheism depending on mood and frame of mind. I observe and practice essentially dead rituals and holidays because I think they ought not die and even if I rarely (and even then very weakly) have any faith in the Gods described by those myths. I find them intellectually defensible and representative of the kind of life I think is admirable and I also think they are valuable and shouldn’t die. Even in the modern world they have much to offer, in some cases a very great deal to offer. Perhaps the largest gulf between people like Diogenes and me is that he believes all those revelations are right and true because they come from a deity and are found only through the deity while I think they can be found without the deity but that the rituals and myths illustrate and bind and teach in ways that are still infinitely valuable.
I believe spirituality is of great importance, I am not an atheist, I do however believe that a blind faith that remains unquestioned is ignorance in the extreme.
Redstar, I can agree in so much that the monotheistic religions especially are revelatory in nature and even though I spent my first 14 years in one Christian church or another, ultimately it failed to meet my requirements, answer my questions, and I couldn’t resolve the contradictions that bothered me in its “word of god.” I guess it helps if you have faith. Once I was old enough to think independently and have confidence in my right to question I didn’t have the comfort of faith to fill in the gaps. So I went looking for something else.
And the most evangelical, preachy, in your face, “my views are the right ones,” individuals I have ever come across are atheists. Most of the evangelical christians I have met don’t start talking about their faith unless it gets brought up. Atheists though, are very quick to bring up their hatred and intolerance of religion, and how they are right and people that might actually believe in something are ignorant stooges.
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve gone through this exercise here before.
Seems like you have gone through every “exercise” here, so why the fuck don’t you just have a little club that agrees with each other and excludes everyone else?....wait a minute, you do, sorry.
Wah. I’m not stopping you from ranting irrationally about religion. I’m just agreeing with Buzzion that you’re doing so, and expressing my general disinterest in participating in it again.
Since you’ve given up trying to understand my simple question, I’ll reveal. The topic of conversation was about religious attitudes regarding homosexuality, and whether or not letting them marry was morally equivalent to denying they exist and/or hanging them. Then you barge in like a drunken frat boy at a chess tournament and start spouting off about the idiocy of biblical literalism as a foundation for society. In short: you’re threadjacking. You now qualify to start new threads here (how exclusive are we, really?), and so you should do that. Otherwise, you are acting like the preachy, “in your face” Atheists that Buzzion was talking about, even if you’re not an Atheist. Good work.
Redstar, I can agree in so much that the monotheistic religions especially are revelatory in nature and even though I spent my first 14 years in one Christian church or another, ultimately it failed to meet my requirements, answer my questions, and I couldn’t resolve the contradictions that bothered me in its “word of god.” I guess it helps if you have faith. Once I was old enough to think independently and have confidence in my right to question I didn’t have the comfort of faith to fill in the gaps. So I went looking for something else.
My experiences with Christian churches have been similar, in fact I have heard so much maniacal rhetoric coming from behind some pulpits I am amazed at how the congregation didn’t burst out in spontaneous laughter. I respect the beliefs of individuals, but when those beliefs become entrenched dogma to be followed blindly, my stomach starts churning, and that is simply what I am questioning here, the dogmatic beliefs imposed on some Western Societies, especially those beliefs that divide and exclude.
And the most evangelical, preachy, in your face, “my views are the right ones,” individuals I have ever come across are atheists. Most of the evangelical christians I have met don’t start talking about their faith unless it gets brought up. Atheists though, are very quick to bring up their hatred and intolerance of religion, and how they are right and people that might actually believe in something are ignorant stooges.
I couldn’t agree more. We’ve gone through this exercise here before.
Seems like you have gone through every “exercise” here, so why the fuck don’t you just have a little club that agrees with each other and excludes everyone else?....wait a minute, you do, sorry.
Wah. I’m not stopping you from ranting irrationally about religion. I’m just agreeing with Buzzion that you’re doing so, and expressing my general disinterest in participating in it again.
Since you’ve given up trying to understand my simple question, I’ll reveal. The topic of conversation was about religious attitudes regarding homosexuality, and whether or not letting them marry was morally equivalent to denying they exist and/or hanging them. Then you barge in like a drunken frat boy at a chess tournament and start spouting off about the idiocy of biblical literalism as a foundation for society. In short: you’re threadjacking. You now qualify to start new threads here (how exclusive are we, really?), and so you should do that. Otherwise, you are acting like the preachy, “in your face” Atheists that Buzzion was talking about, even if you’re not an Atheist. Good work.[/quote
You still didn’t answer my question, which I thought was quite rational, however since you’ve lost interest I guess the answer wont be forthcoming. The thinking on homosexuality is largely a direct result of Christian stupidity, so my question is as relevant as any other argument put forth here. If in Western countries people no longer hold to Christian dogma, where is the argument for excluding gay marriage,? is that simple enough for you.?
You still didn’t answer my question, which I thought was quite rational, however since you’ve lost interest I guess the answer wont be forthcoming. (Continued...)
This was your question:
Red Star - 04 October 2007 11:44 AM
Again, are you trying to tell me the majority of those in supposedly Christian countries believe in the bible?
I pointed out already that I haven’t said anything to imply what your question suggests, and you weren’t able to quote anything from me otherwise. Because of that, your question was irrelevant. I don’t know what the majority of people in supposedly Christian countries believe about the Bible, and have never claimed to. Knowing that, if you would like to restate your question to me so it’s not irrelevant, feel free. It’s still off-topic, but that ship sank long ago.
Red Star - 04 October 2007 12:42 PM
(...continued) The thinking on homosexuality is largely a direct result of Christian stupidity, so my question is as relevant as any other argument put forth here. If in Western countries people no longer hold to Christian dogma, where is the argument for excluding gay marriage,? is that simple enough for you.?
You actually ask a decent question here:
If in Western countries people no longer hold to Christian dogma, where is the argument for excluding gay marriage,?
I don’t have the answer, but I can say that there are many people in the US who do not hold on to Christian dogma, but who would still exclude gays from the institute of marriage. So what is their argument? That was part of my dissection of Juan Cole’s piece, quoted on Page 3 of this thread. He, as you, wants to vilify the Christian Right for denying gay marriage, but the Christian Right are far from the only people doing so.
So no, it’s not a simple question. But that’s good, because the more complicated questions are more fun to debate.
You still didn’t answer my question, which I thought was quite rational, however since you’ve lost interest I guess the answer wont be forthcoming. (Continued...)
This was your question:
Red Star - 04 October 2007 11:44 AM
Again, are you trying to tell me the majority of those in supposedly Christian countries believe in the bible?
I pointed out already that I haven’t said anything to imply what your question suggests, and you weren’t able to quote anything from me otherwise. Because of that, your question was irrelevant. I don’t know what the majority of people in supposedly Christian countries believe about the Bible, and have never claimed to. Knowing that, if you would like to restate your question to me so it’s not irrelevant, feel free. It’s still off-topic, but that ship sank long ago.
Red Star - 04 October 2007 12:42 PM
(...continued) The thinking on homosexuality is largely a direct result of Christian stupidity, so my question is as relevant as any other argument put forth here. If in Western countries people no longer hold to Christian dogma, where is the argument for excluding gay marriage,? is that simple enough for you.?
You actually ask a decent question here:
If in Western countries people no longer hold to Christian dogma, where is the argument for excluding gay marriage,?
I don’t have the answer, but I can say that there are many people in the US who do not hold on to Christian dogma, but who would still exclude gays from the institute of marriage. So what is their argument? That was part of my dissection of Juan Cole’s piece, quoted on Page 3 of this thread. He, as you, wants to vilify the Christian Right for denying gay marriage, but the Christian Right are far from the only people doing so.
So no, it’s not a simple question. But that’s good, because the more complicated questions are more fun to debate.
Ok, I would say however that it is the Christian Right who are the most vocal, if not most bigoted minority on this particular issue. Bigotry is not an exclusive trait of the Christian Right however, and I think the Gay community can testify to that. There are probably reasonable arguments for the illegality of Gay marriage, but the lunatic Christian fringe are yet to produce a rational one, apart from quoting scripture like bleating sheep. Apart from mainline lunatics like the late Jerry Falwell, this is the type of shit the Gay and Lesbian community confront
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Ok, I would say however that it is the Christian Right who are the most vocal, if not most bigoted minority on this particular issue. Bigotry is not an exclusive trait of the Christian Right however, and I think the Gay community can testify to that.
I would agree that the Christian Right is the most vocal on the issue, but if a Christian minister and a Democratic presidential candidate both tell you that you that marriage is only between one man and one woman, who is more bigoted and why?
There are probably reasonable arguments for the illegality of Gay marriage, but the lunatic Christian fringe are yet to produce a rational one, apart from quoting scripture like bleating sheep. Apart from mainline lunatics like the late Jerry Falwell, this is the type of shit the Gay and Lesbian community confront
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Again, I don’t think anybody, Christian or otherwise, has produced an argument against gay marriage that you would find rational. That’s not meant to be an insult. Personally, I’m torn on the issue and I haven’t heard very rational arguments either for or against gay marriage. But I have to wonder why you are only demanding a rational argument from the Christian Right, and not from other groups who are similarly against gay marriage?
And the “church” whose website you posted is alongside the Klan and neo-Nazis in terms of being one of the most marginalized groups in the country. I’ve read they have about 150 members, so nobody really has to fear them. They get press coverage because their antics are so sensational, but even Republicans and conservatives denigrate them. They’re a hateful group for sure, but they’re no real obstacle to the gay and lesbian community in the US.
I would agree that the Christian Right is the most vocal on the issue, but if a Christian minister and a Democratic presidential candidate both tell you that you that marriage is only between one man and one woman, who is more bigoted and why?
It would depend on their motives for holding that view I guess, I couldn’t answer that.
Again, I don’t think anybody, Christian or otherwise, has produced an argument against gay marriage that you would find rational. That’s not meant to be an insult. Personally, I’m torn on the issue and I haven’t heard very rational arguments either for or against gay marriage. But I have to wonder why you are only demanding a rational argument from the Christian Right, and not from other groups who are similarly against gay marriage?
I guess because I have witnessed more stupidity, bigotry and hatred from Christians on this particular issue than anyone else, so I am biased.
My problem with that statement is that it’s too ambiguous to be a “theory”, yet Cole was using it to demonstrate moral equivalence. First of all, certainly not all self-described Christians think homosexuality to be immoral, so we need to avoid a stereotyping problem. Cole was referring to the “Christian Right”, which I’m assuming means evangelicals. (Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. I consider myself Christian and “Right”, but wouldn’t likely be placed in the Christian Right.)
That’s fine.
I said earlier that I’m talking about the fundamentalist Christians here. Because obviously any comparison to people who don’t have any religious issue with homosexuality are not in any way shape or form relevant.
With this specification, I can’t object to the statement that their (evangelicals) belief that homosexuality is immoral is based on religious grounds. I also won’t object to the claim that the Iranian government’s beliefs about homosexuality are also based on religious grounds. But how does Cole justify establishing a moral equivalence between the two bodies when their exhibited repressions against homosexuals are so radically different?
Because the ‘exhibited repressions against homosexuality’ would be the end result, not the entirety of the situation.
I would agree that the Christian Right is the most vocal on the issue, but if a Christian minister and a Democratic presidential candidate both tell you that you that marriage is only between one man and one woman, who is more bigoted and why?
It would depend on their motives for holding that view I guess, I couldn’t answer that.
It’s a tough question, which is why I like it. At one level, their views should be considered equally bigoted, since they would have equal impact. Analyzing their motives, however, is much more difficult than analyzing their stated views.
Again, I don’t think anybody, Christian or otherwise, has produced an argument against gay marriage that you would find rational. That’s not meant to be an insult. Personally, I’m torn on the issue and I haven’t heard very rational arguments either for or against gay marriage. But I have to wonder why you are only demanding a rational argument from the Christian Right, and not from other groups who are similarly against gay marriage?
I guess because I have witnessed more stupidity, bigotry and hatred from Christians on this particular issue than anyone else, so I am biased.
We all have our biases. The trick is to avoid applying them to people unfairly. That’s something I learned more from the Christian part of my upbringing than any other part.
Actually much of Juan’s blog is fact-based (numbers, dates), or quotes from links, or just links with a little explanation of what they are. Is that what Red Star is doing? Or are you generalising, in a thread that’s about the silliness of generalising?!
We all have our biases. The trick is to avoid applying them to people unfairly. That’s something I learned more from the Christian part of my upbringing than any other part.
My problem with that statement is that it’s too ambiguous to be a “theory”, yet Cole was using it to demonstrate moral equivalence. First of all, certainly not all self-described Christians think homosexuality to be immoral, so we need to avoid a stereotyping problem. Cole was referring to the “Christian Right”, which I’m assuming means evangelicals. (Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. I consider myself Christian and “Right”, but wouldn’t likely be placed in the Christian Right.)
That’s fine.
I said earlier that I’m talking about the fundamentalist Christians here. Because obviously any comparison to people who don’t have any religious issue with homosexuality are not in any way shape or form relevant.
Well, except that if your concern is about fundamentalist Christians’ objection to gay marriage, there are non-religious people who hold a similar objection (albeit, probably not based on religion), as I mentioned in the paragraph following the one you quoted. It’d wouldn’t be right to judge only the Christians for having that objection, would it?
With this specification, I can’t object to the statement that their (evangelicals) belief that homosexuality is immoral is based on religious grounds. I also won’t object to the claim that the Iranian government’s beliefs about homosexuality are also based on religious grounds. But how does Cole justify establishing a moral equivalence between the two bodies when their exhibited repressions against homosexuals are so radically different?
Because the ‘exhibited repressions against homosexuality’ would be the end result, not the entirety of the situation.
That still doesn’t make the case for moral equivalence. It only states that the end results (non-marrigae vs. death) are not the only things to consider. I might disagree with even that much, since it’s only the end result that actually impacts other peoples’ lives. It’s almost like judging people more for their thoughts than their actions. Yech.
Actually much of Juan’s blog is fact-based (numbers, dates), or quotes from links, or just links with a little explanation of what they are. Is that what Red Star is doing? Or are you generalising, in a thread that’s about the silliness of generalising?!
Man, you’re selective about what you quote from me! The context you left out was enough to know what I meant by it. It was actually a throwaway line, and I would take it back now if I could, considering how the conversation between Red Star and I evolved in the subsequent hours.
We all have our biases. The trick is to avoid applying them to people unfairly. That’s something I learned more from the Christian part of my upbringing than any other part.
Juan Cole used gay marriage as an example of how ‘the Christian Right’ deny people their existence. I don’t buy into the whole ‘deny people their existence’ thing. I can totally recognise that being put to death is not even in the same ballpark as not being able to marry.
The part I took from Cole’s rant is that there is a shared moral belief concerning homosexuals, and that the fundamental belief was shared.
What you appear to be saying is it’s too much of an intellectual exercise to do anything other than consider the whole subject in its entirety.
