LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I know, the first part was just a joke about how much I seemed to know about The Bible.

O, I thought you were implying that Starship had terrible Bible research skills.

Short answer: No. (The long answer is basically no with a lot of expletives added for emphasis). Two reasons for this.

The first is that neither popularity of a belief nor the sincerity with which those beliefs are held provide any guarantee against those beliefs being 'silly'. (Though silly is not the word I'd choose. I favour absurd and on occasions, farcical). Actually I would argue that greater the number of believers and/or the greater the sincerity actually increases the inherent absurdity of the situation.

The second is that by attempting to put belief beyond criticism (or even just certain types of criticism and mockery is a form of criticism), it is a de facto attempt to privilege those beliefs. Either a specific belief in particular or just belief over non-belief in general.

And speaking as a non-believer, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at silly. Silly is tame compared to some of the other stuff that gets bandied about. Worst case, I'd embrace the silliness to get a cheap shot in.

You do realise that you just called God a liar don't you? (Basically, by implying that Earth/the Universe was created with the appearance of age in an attempt to reconcile the account in Genesis with the scientific evidence, that in turn implies that the act of creation itself was one big deception, which in turn destroys the entire basis of all three Abrahamic faiths, since if God has deceived humanity once, there's no reason to assume that he's telling the truth in the Torah/Bible/Koran).

Wow. I never said you can't disagree and debate with parts of Christianity or anything even close to that, calling it "absurd" or "silly" is different. It's INCREDIBLY pointless to go out and call people's beliefs absurd, especially since nobody can prove it one way or the other. It's like me saying that liking a purple is silly, when there is no objective proof or anything even close to a reason to NOT like purple except for my own subjective reasons. You can be Athiestic all you want, but thats not an excuse just to insult followers.

With the "billions of followers" point, that was me saying that several people could be offended by somebody calling their beliefs silly. You're not reading that right if you took it as" We are the majority, your opinion is irrelevent."

I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing with religion and debating it, but it's a whole 'nother idea to call the idea of believing in a God silly. I don't call Democrats silly for being Democrats, after all, and nobody should.

"You do realise that you just called God a liar don't you? (Basically, by implying that Earth/the Universe was created with the appearance of age in an attempt to reconcile the account in Genesis with the scientific evidence, that in turn implies that the act of creation itself was one big deception, which in turn destroys the entire basis of all three Abrahamic faiths, since if God has deceived humanity once, there's no reason to assume that he's telling the truth in the Torah/Bible/Koran)."

I wasn't even being serious. Point was that he COULD have done it.

This is sort of off-topic >.>

edited 27th Jun '13 5:02:49 PM by Ringsea

We have a theology thread, maybe take it there?

I'll post here because it I believe that the general principles I am discussing have a direct impact on how LGBT rights and religion intersect and I will attempt to use illustrate how to keep it at least partly on topic.

No it's not. Functionally what it's doing is placing artificial and arbitrary limits on the discourse. As a thought exercise instead of a religion, pick another sort of philosophical or ethical system. Would you say that Stoicism, Epicurianism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Juche or what have you can't be called absurd or silly (if you think so)? Or what about the more fringe religious beliefs that are generally considered Acceptable Targets like the Raelians or Scientology? Was South Park wrong for mocking them? And if not, what sets mainstream religious beliefs apart from them that renders them immune to similar treatment.

I can only disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. One of the key weapons used against groups like the Westboro Baptist Church is pointing out the absurdity of their position. God hates Shrimp was a popular counter to their extreme focus on the parts of Leviticus that are commonly read as condemning homosexuality.

Also, as a more general rule, calling the Song of Solomon ancient Hebrew porn, or Ecclesiastes ancient Hebrew emo, generally raises few hackles than calling out the more troubling passages of Judges and Kings and is a valuable tool to making a further point about how the Bible (or Torah and Tanakh if you're Jewish) are perhaps not the best guides to life in the 21st Century.

Okay, that's just a stinking, steaming pile of bovine excrement. There are dozens of religious beliefs that have been proven wrong over the centuries. A young earth (the best you can hope for is creation with the appearance of age), geocentrism and others. To loop this back on topic, the increasing prevalence of legal, same sex marriages proves that there is nothing inherently wrong with same-sex relations and any religiously based prohibitions against it are purely arbitrary (or at best based on extremely outdated concepts).

Except that there have been many cases where religious beliefs have been proved objectively wrong. Silly or absurd might be somewhat subjective reactions (everyone's sense of humour is different after all), but by your own logic, that makes them just as a valid a reaction.

No, I took it as an argumentum ad populum. Just saying that a lot of people believe something (and might be offended) does not in of itself grant those beliefs validity.

It also illustrates a major problem with religious beliefs in general. It encourages people to make their beliefs part of their identity. I'm not insulting them, I'm insulting the belief system that they adhere to, but because people treat those beliefs as part of their self-identity they get all worked up because they perceive it as an attack on them. It's part of why people get so worked up about marriage equality when ultimately it has no effect on them whatsoever.

And again, no. For one thing, it's a prime example of confusing ideology and identity like I mentioned before. And being a Democrat just for being a Democrat is in fact silly and I have no compunctions about saying so. If you have a reason for being a Democrat, then it stops being silly, at least inherently. It could still be silly depending on the exact reason.

And I'm pointing out that it's bad arguement because it's works on a superficial argument and Fridge Logic results in it undermining the point it was trying to defend in the first place.

edited 27th Jun '13 9:46:36 PM by KnightofLsama

Can we take this to Theology or P Ms?'I don't think this is on topic. It is religious, but that is not alone enough to be relevent. Neither of us would be taking about LGBT stuff if we kept arguing this here.

edited 27th Jun '13 11:28:47 PM by Ringsea

If you can find it, you can resurrect the theology thread to continue if you want. Though as I said, a lot of these issues intersect with LGBT Rights, at least tangentially.

No way YHWH is omnipotent because it can be stopped by iron chariots. Just saying.

This one??

It lives.

Thank you K of L. Nothing is sacred and everything can be silly. I would much rather believers be free to call my atheism silly than for anyone to think that any belief must be taken seriously at all times. To bring it back on topic, how far would the LGBT rights movement have gotten without humour? (George Takei, I'm looking at you.)

May he truly live long and prosper!

He became my favorite Star Trek actor after Sulu went bonkers in one ep and ran around with rapier.

Ah, the good old days.

How old are you that you can refer to the 1960s as "The Good Old days"?

Reruns bro.

So your not in your fifties eh?

The various Not Always sites have some awesome stories.

My hope for the future generation is restored.

Kind of a pity that Not Always is at least 75% shitthatdidn'thappen.txt, with that anecdote looking like a prime example.

Still, at least people know what to do.

Archbishop of Canterbury plans to introduce anti-gay bullying campaign in Church of England schools, does not back down from claims that same-sex relationships are doubleplusungood.

What do you guys think? Mixed message or no?

edited 5th Jul '13 6:00:43 PM by Morgikit

He's the head of the CofE... it's practically in the job description to be the Master of the Mixed Message.