LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Starship, I think the divide here is that we consider viewing someone as less of a person to be a big problem, eleven if they never in any way act on that belief. While you appear to see it as no problem as long as the person does not treat people different even if they view them as inferior. Now does that sidestep the entire debate of if you can view someone as inferior without treating them differently, but I’d rather avoid that debate for now. This entire argument reminds me of while a bit ago where you made the point that you actually wouldn't have a problem with someone holding the view that blacks are inferior as long as they never acted upon it or treated black people differently (as far as I can remember).

Edit: Also, what the hell does the Bible's position on woman have to do with Homosexuality and Religion? Are we getting off topic here?

edited 26th Oct '12 8:59:08 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Now Silasw, that I can answer.

One, I've actually been saying that the words on the page are that "Man is the glory of God, and that women are the glory of men." Everyone ran that all the way to "Women are inferior second-class second-rate citizens who need men to have any worth. I've been calmly trying to suggest that perhaps since it doesn't say "women are inferior", then maybe it doesn't mean that.

And it seems for daring to suggest that, I'm an "evil Christian misogynist." Especially since I dare ask "how?"

It was an honor

It sounds like it places men as servants of God and women as servants of men. So women are subordinate to men in that system. That's the problem people have with it.

Personally, I also have a problem with men or any person being servants of God due to the totalitarian nature of God worship, but that's another discussion entirely.

edited 26th Oct '12 9:23:09 AM by Talby

Not to be funny but reading that quote would the logical conclusion to be that woman are the glory of God? After all if they are the glory of men and men are the glory of God then the glory scale appear to go: Woman > Men > God. Right?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Not necessarily: not all properties are transitive, after all. I am the son of my dad and my dad is the son of my grandpa, but I am not the son of my grandpa

More seriously, even according to that perspective we would have that women are the "glory of God" (to use that expression, although I think that it may lead to misunderstandings) only through men. Many people, myself included, would consider this perspective paternalistic, unacceptable, and in blatant contradiction to the statement — made at the beginning of the Book of Genesis — that men and women are in the image of God.

edited 26th Oct '12 9:30:02 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yes, you do. You're appeasing the part of yourself that is too intellectually lazy to engage a religious text in any way other than to interpret it in the best possible light. And it's depressing to see you, and many other intelligent and kind Christians do so.

This, for the record, is why the "angry activist atheists" get a following. For all his supposed anger and vitriol, I have never heard PZ Myers directly or indirectly support or endorse any position that even indicates an inferior class of humans.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Hm, an interesting idea. Here's another, my logic is the result of a lifetime of careful thought and asking questions, and crunching the data.

Maybe it is you who's too lazy, too arrogant, or too entrenched in your line of thinking to consider that maybe there are other ways to read the Bible than just yours.

And yet for all of my supposed anger or vitriol, the sum total of proof anyone has posited that I support an inferior class of humans is me saying "Guys, I understand how this might come across this way, but maybe it doesn't mean that."

For the record, this is why "Christians (no...people) who are reasonable get fed up with the abject arrogance of the so-called enlightened and lose patience discussing things with them," is a thing.

That could very well be the correct rendering. I could very well be wrong in saying women are only the glory of God through men. I don't think I am, but still, if the words don't say otherwise, it's a possibility.

edited 26th Oct '12 10:04:08 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

The problem with that statement maxima, is its kind of coming off as "I've convinced myself the words I say say something different than they do"

I have no issue with someone thinking I've deluded myself. I don't think I have, but I expect no one to just agree with me on my say so.

To repeat, I expect that I'm given the benefit of the doubt, and when I say I believe something don't tell me some shit like "you're too lazy to think otherwise". Assume I'm as smart and as dedicated to the truth as you are and I have a benevolent reason for thinking what I think.

Then, examine those reasons, and then say "Yes, I see it," or "Nope, still makes no sense."

I do it for everybody else, I don't know when I became a second-class troper who didn't deserve the same.

It was an honor

@Previous few pages

Pff. Typical men!

edited 26th Oct '12 10:11:48 AM by kay4today

You might not have a problem with it, but that statement would be sexist.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I do believe men are inferior to us women.

Because women's intuition.

/Joking Mode

This is reminding me very much of what I was told in Sunday School as a young teen, which was that single women cannot even get into heaven, because the way a woman gets into heaven is, her husband goes there first and then calls her up.

Anyone notice the other implications of this view? Specifically, the one where a married woman can't get into heaven either, if her husband doesn't merit it?

Yeah...things like that are a big part of why I left Christianity. My thought process went something like "If there's a good God who loves us, this shit can't be true. And if this shit is true, there's no point in me trying anyway, because I'm just a woman and it's not on me, but on my (eventual) husband."

Which I still don't have one of, by the way.

Stuff what I do.

Well, according to many Christians where I live, the fact that I kissed girls in the past is a ticket straight to hell anyway, so why still bother?! XD

edited 26th Oct '12 11:17:24 AM by kay4today

Forgive me for saying so, but it appears to me that you yourself are not willing to entertain this possibility vis a vis homosexuality.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I was skimming the latest pages of this thread and came accross this bit, so I thought I might post a small aside here for those who are interested. Scholars such as Barth Ehrman have noted that the story of the woman "taken in adultery" was not present in any of the earliest known Greek or Latin manuscripts, but that this story was in circulation at least a century later and was added to the Gospel of John, which is the only Gospel that contains it. After the addition, there is a growing frequency of this story appearing in surviving manuscripts, so the scribes copying/translating the copies they had must have decided to add it in, assuming that it wasn't meant to be missing from the Gospel since some newer copies did include it.

So there's a growing concensus among biblical scholars that this story was not originally in the Bible, but was added for some reason some time after the first editions of the Gospel of John. (Perhaps it was originally invented as a sort of "what would Jesus do" story and inserted into new translations and copies because it sounded "plausible" that the story was actually true and omitted by accident; this is my hypothesis about how that story got inserted into the Bible.)

This of course ties into the broader discussion of who wrote which part of the Bible and when; as all of you probably know, scholars tend to agree (though there is no actual concensus that I know of) that none of the canonical Gospels were written or dictated by the people whose names have later been attached to them, and that they were probably all written at least decades after the death of all of the original 12 Apostles.

I don't want to start a derail; I just thought that this might be an interesting titbit for those who hadn't heard it before. If you want to know more about how scholars go about figuring out who wrote which passage and where and when it was written, I recommend that you read Bart Ehrman's books or watch his lectures on You Tube.

edited 26th Oct '12 12:09:41 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

As a Roman citizen, that's entirely possible seeing how they institutionalized it.

It was being used as an example as to how we can't consider the Bible to be taken as a hard and fast law, using an example that was typical for its day but today is in practice rejected by nearly everyone, even among its own adherents.

I say this with total sincerity, it breaks my heart that people would be driven from something as beautiful as Christianity because of things that aren't true. Look, I get it, there are parts of the Bible I can't deny are there, and I can understand someone rejecting the Bible based on those unpleasant things that are in it. But I would like to say that I see many here rejecting it based on things that aren't there, and that's unfortunate.

I see how one can get a conclusion like the one quoted above, but in fact the Bible is emphatic that each person's Salvation and the judgment of their lives is between them and their Creator only. Your husband's 'merits' can no more save or damn you than your parents, your barber's, or your dog's.

Now, I'm going to take L Mage's suggestion and step away from this discussion for a bit; but I simply want to put out some questions to the general thread.

There have been many people declaring that they've read the Bible through and through and would seem to deem themselves experts. I don't question anyone's intelligence here but I ask

...how many of you as gone up to other pastors, preachers, Church leaders and asked them whether the Bible supports misogyny or homophobia? Have any of you Googled the articles that discuss the alleged translation drift of the Scriptures? And I don't mean one that says this or that, I mean checked a few of them? I'm not the only Christian who reads the Scripture and believes it's true down to the last apostrophe, there are several of us; have any of you asked them to share their views on why they believe what they believe? Have you asked them how they read it and come away not endorsing bigotry, but rather fighting against it?

If you have and you still deem it wrong, well, okay. If you haven't; then maybe that suggests there's an opportunity. The choice is entirely yours.

edited 26th Oct '12 1:48:12 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Frankly, Maxima. Its not that I think they actively support misogyny or sexism or the like. Its that I think theyve been indoctrinated since birth into a worldview where they dont even realize theyre doing it when they do do it.

The fact I dont believe the bible is literal truth (or even subjective truth) does not help me, because it means I cant even begin to comprehend their worldview.

edited 26th Oct '12 1:51:00 PM by Midgetsnowman

And maybe that's why you ask.

I mean, you all ask, no...demand...that we be willing to let go our assumptions and learn that you (not you, but LGBTQ and other groups that haven't historically gotten on with the American Christian Church) aren't evil, or sick, or psychologically damaged, or too lazy to think differently. No, you demand to be treated with the respect and courtesy you've earned as law-abiding citizens.

I find no crime in saying I think we're entitled to the same.

It was an honor

I have a question that's preliminary to discussing one of the points: If God says you "should" do something, that means He will at least be disappointed (or think less of you) if you don't at least try, right?

edited 26th Oct '12 2:20:23 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

This is a testable assertion that I can compare to how your logic stands up. It also stands to reason that if your careful thoughts and questions contained unchallenged and/or unconscious premises, your later conclusions could be flawed. This is entirely possible. I won't deny it, and must entertain the possibility. I acknowledge there are many ways to read the Bible. Then I look at the reasoning of our respective positions and have to conclude that you way is ridiculous.

Remember, my way to read the Bible is to treat it as the fiction evidence indicates it to be. I'm happy to advocate that, but I'm not allowed to do so here as this thread is not Homosexuality and Atheism. The way I'm recommending to you is the way I see many sensible Christians reading the Bible: they conclude that it contains the word of god along with a bunch of other crap extremely fallible humans have inserted. They have good reason to conclude so; some of its passages advocate morally reprehensible acts, and if you're a Bronze Age asshole and you want people to listen to you, what better way to do so than sneak a bit of your own propaganda in with the word of god? Accordingly, the Christians who adopt this position use their own moral judgment, informed by what they consider to be their relationship with god, to filter the Bible and separate the wheat of divine insight from the chaff of mortal propaganda. This results in ethical, well-adjusted Christians who can distinguish between doctrine and deity. They are not doing anything you are not doing: if you accept the Bible in the current form, then you accept the decisions of the Council of Niceas, who did exactly the kind of gospel filtering I describe.

I am not an expert on the Bible. I am an expert on human reasoning; it's my educational background. I can tell the difference between sound and unsound reasoning when I see them.

You're not showing anger or vitriol and I never claimed that you were. You are being polite, kind, attentive, and courteous, and while you are doing so, you're endorsing the most heinous of positions, positions that predators and bigots use to hide themselves behind well-meaning Christians. Reasonable people may not be reasonable all the time, and it is not uncommon for people to suspend their reason in the defence of the silly. By their deeds do I know them. I have to come to certain conclusions when the Catholic priest who baptized me, a man who formed peace chains to protect Pride marchers from angry mobs in rural Pennsylvania, is slanderously insulted in public and via letters to the local paper before the diocese ships him out of my Catholic school and off to a remote missionary position in Latin America. Um, I'm the guy talking about the Council of Nicea. Others have been discussing the actual linguistic changes. And what's this about "alleged" translation drift? You speak Aramaic or Greek? Usually they give an answer about their interpretation of the Bible similar to that big paragraph I wrote above. You're entitled to all of those things. You are not entitled to people pretending your logic is sound when it's not. People are enormously irrational for the most part. I don't need to assume I'm arguing with a senseless fundy to conclude that they're wrong; otherwise reasonable theists can be wrong too.

I respect your willingness to step away from the discussion, I apologize for hanging on, and I don't want desperately fight for the last word. I'm coming to this discussion as an LGBTQ ally with a background in cognitive science, and I really want to find a way to uproot irrational thinking as it regards gender and sexuality, because if we can find out how to do that it'll help a lot of people, including people like you Starship. I honestly think these positions limit you.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

That whole post was just one massive . But, this bit especially. Thanks, RT: you nailed my feelings on this, as well, with that.

Well said, except it has nothing to do with your original statement or my retort. You said I interpret a text in the best possible light in order to appease the part of myself that's too intellectually lazy to see it as otherwise. For all your intelligence and education, I don't know how you know how I came to the knowledge I have unless you asked.

You assumed, and you assumed wrongly. And as you said to me, it's depressing to see you, and so many other kind and intelligent people do that.

Again, well written, and making much sense. But let's check some of the facts herein. As with many things you conflate "There's a ton of info that would suggest that this is false" with "This is false". They're not the same thing, and I know it's not popular to point that out.

While you might be an expert on human reasoning, and I don't doubt you are, I've dealt with how people make logical leaps, exclude evidence that doesn't support their claims, and voila! they're right.

Shima is fond of saying this, so is Irene. You're saying it. It's still misleading, if not flat-out wrong. You and Klansmen may both agree the sky is blue. You don't share anything remotely approaching, the same position.

Nor do I with bigots and predators.

Reasonable people can also succumb to the Echo Chamber as well their past dealings and might not always be reasonable. Which is my point.

So...you in fact, 'didn't' ask them....

Hm, interesting. Some of them also give answers identical to the ones I've gone blue writing for 15 pages now.

I've never asked for such dispensation. I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't need people to agree with me. I realize I'm taking the shorter pile of evidence over the bigger pile. I know I don't speak Aramaic or Greek.

But what I do demand is that somebody actually address the counterpoints I make and then dismiss them. I do demand someone not ascribe thoughts or feelings to me I don't have. I do demand someone admit when they've clearly misread something.

I see no reason I'm not entitled to it since everyone else is.

It was an honor

When people with a modicum of cognitive training tell you you're blocking, Starship... maybe you shouldn't dance around the possibility you are, eh?

However, when it comes to looped thought... it's a truism: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". <hugs> I can understand the whys, I just worry, is all.