Yeeecchhhhh, I'm gonna avoid the topic of sexually repressive beliefs and go back to responding to Starship.
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.
I did not assume, I inferred. I looked at your conclusion, and found it incorrect. Correspondingly, I have to conclude that, if you've spent a lifetime thinking about this as you say, your premises or your reasoning are flawed. That, or you haven't spent so much of a lifetime thinking about it and haven't had the chance to properly reason it through, though this last possibility seems farfetched to me - you've shown evidence of arguing in good faith
The point is, if I find your position wrong, I have to understand why you are wrong, and there are a limited number of explanations available to me. You are either not making the effort to challenge the position that your particular version of the Bible is indeed infallible, or you're not making the effort to challenge the assumption that a good Christian must hold the Bible to be infallible, or you're not making the effort to go through the arguments and findings we've raised that point out all the linguistic drift and political meddling that would have compromised any divine message the Bible held (nevermind the points that are flat-out scientifically wrong and need to be interpreted symbolically, or the myths that were clearly cribbed from other myths of the period). I cannot eliminate all the possibilities in which you aren't showing some form of cognitive laziness at some point in your reasoning unless I accept your position, and I've already found your position lacking.
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.
Are you denying that political meddling as evidenced in the Councils of Nicea happened? Are you denying that there was translation drift in the Bible, and conflict between its multiple authors? If I see a ton of info suggesting something is false, and I don't see a ton of info contradicting that, then I have to make an inference to the best explanation.
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.
You don't have to. Bigots and predators are good at social camouflage, and as the Internet shines the bright lights of exposure into the damp little hiding holes, they're only going to get better.
Am I making the self-policing argument? Maybe. I was absolutely outraged when I heard about the obscene levels of sexism
hiding in certain corners of the atheist and skeptic communities, and am in full support of the Atheism+ movement to bring in more social justice awareness
and smoke the bigots out of their hiding places. I live in that house, it's my responsibility to clean it.
But I'm not going to ask for everyone to go on a crusade to purify their social groups; it's not realistic to demand it. I will ask for people to realize whom they cover when they endorse a position, and what kind of scumbags can try to hide behind your position and pretend to be discussing in good faith while dumping the most toxic nonsense into the discourse. It's a tough request; you have to think suspiciously and imagine the worst of people who think like you and endorse the positions you endorse. But it's worth it, just to deny the predators and bigots their hiding places.
Reasonable people can also succumb to the Echo Chamber
as well their past dealings and might not always be reasonable. Which is my point.
Valid and granted. Whether or not a given area is an echo chamber is a testable assertion, as is whether or not an individual's reasoning is being influenced by such an echo.
So...you in fact, 'didn't' ask them....
Okay. You got me. I can't deny it. I didn't ask them.
I'm curious, admittedly, as to what answer they could possibly
give that would justify pushing out one of the best priests and teachers the local Catholic school had ever known, an upright man who contributed to his community and admired even by atheists like my parents, just so a bunch of small-minded thugs would have an easier time throwing bricks and pipes at Pride marchers. Really. What eloquent response to my questions would make sense of that?
Hm, interesting. Some of them also give answers identical to the ones I've gone blue writing for 15 pages now.
I happen to think they're wrong too.
Biblical infallibility is silly.
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.
Well...that doesn't seem to be what you were expecting before.
I've been arguing, as I usually do, about the consequences of holding given positions rather than just the positions themselves. Beliefs are cheap; you can fill your head with them. Consequences for other people in this life - the only one I have reason to believe we're given, mind you - are of considerably greater interest to me. I can try to read your posts as positively as possible and still see some awful consequences emerging from the resulting positions.
So far, the counterpoints you've raised are that the Bible commands Christians to love, and that it establishes a precedent of nonjudgment in regards to the sins of others. I'll grant them as fairly valid, certainly more valid than other interpretations of the Bible. Am I on base in my quick summary of your counterpoints? I don't want to misrepresent you.