LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I don't mean to be rude but I literally have no idea what you are on about.

edited 21st Oct '13 7:27:44 AM by joeyjojo

Contrary to popular opinion, Aquinus was not entirely talking out of his arse.

Is the general gist.

edited 21st Oct '13 8:02:57 AM by Elfive

Sorry. Boiled-down (I hope) version: some people have made good, serious counter-arguments to Aquinas's natural-law arguments on morality (including those on homosexuality). As that suggests, reasonable people can disagree with his arguments, and have. However, no one's managed any slam-dunks against him, or fundamentally destroyed the arguments. Therefore, serious people are free to disagree with them ... but not to act as if serious, coherent arguments for Christian moral teachings just don't exist, or are all lying dismantled in the dust.

edited 21st Oct '13 8:04:27 AM by Jhimmibhob

K. Now I'm on the trolley.

I must admit I do behold the principle of double effect. Although all the cool kids now seem to be hocked on utilitarianism.

edited 21st Oct '13 8:08:14 AM by joeyjojo

@Jhimmibhob:

- So your answer to people pointing out why Thomist teleology is fundamentally flawed... is basially to not only ignore the arguments presented that showcase their fallacies, but also basically excuse them in an offhand matter, not even positting as to why they're supposedly "infalliable".

This is basically analogous to you writting an intricate essay as to why the Two Seed doctorine is bullshit, and then me both ignoring the essay and saying that "it's your POV, the doctorine is infalliable".

- Circular reasoning and argumentation.

- I am confused by your following statement:

"but not to act as if serious, coherent arguments for Christian moral teachings just don't exist, or are all lying dismantled in the dust."

You believe that Thomist rhetorics are the only christian moral teachings that matter? I could bring many people that disagree with that notion.

edited 21st Oct '13 9:28:48 AM by peryton

I don't remember saying that any philosophical or theological argument was "infallible." However, I do recall your saying that "all issues that could pass as intellectual arguments" have already been addressed. I was simply choosing an example that contradicted this—Thomist arguments are still very much a live bone of contention; no serious philosopher or theologian pretends that they needn't be contended with, or have been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm sure you could. However, Thomist arguments are simply the example that I happened to pick; that hardly implies that it's the only one that matters, and I'm really not sure how you infer that.

edited 21st Oct '13 9:57:36 AM by Jhimmibhob

Peryton, seriously tone down the hostility

I figured this is the best place to talk about this instead of making a new thread...

Are any of you familiar with the Queen James Bible? It's a gay-friendly version of the Bible that edits the homophobic verses. Most of you probably know about it.

Here's a list of all the verses they changed, and their methods.

Isn't it fabulous? (Well, I don't think so. Their hearts are in the right place, and I do like the idea of the sin of Sodom being similar to Prison Rape)

If Conservapedia can rewrite the Bible, why not? Then again, I try not to involve myself in the battle over proper biblical translations.

I suppose I prefer them to Conservapedia ... mostly because it's not MY side that the former are making look stupid.

Conservapedia are a sad little bunch of zealots whose only useful function is a tool by which everyone else can make themselves feel smugger and superior by comparison. That, incidentally, is why I brought them up earlier.

Actually engaging with them in any depth is pointless; if you wrestle with a chimney sweep, all you get is sootier.

I think the Queen James Bible did a pretty swell job. I don't agree with their OT translations, but overall they seem to have done research.

More so than the people who should have done it in this thread, anyways...

Actually rewriting holy texts is kind of a huge no-no. Annotate it with how views changed over time, the reasons we no longer hold to certain passages, the comparisons with Jewish texts, sure — that's all really important stuff that adherents need to know. But don't just quietly edit over stuff to fit your worldview. That's incredibly dishonest.

edited 28th Oct '13 2:16:16 PM by Pykrete

That can only go so far; certainly I'd agree you shouldn't edit the Bible and then claim to be Christian, but I see no reason people with no belief shouldn't make things like the Jefferson Bible.

The Compendium of Scripture Relevant to Modern Life is certainly something you could make. You just need to go through every holy text you can get and remove anything that doesn't sit well with modern sensibilities or is blatantly incorrect. Stick together whatever you have left (might be large enough that it needs to be an e-book, but probably not) and there you go.

Their approach doesn't seem that bad though. They took elements that are kind of ambiguous in the first place (in terms of cultural context and so on) and gave them a different interpretation that is actually equally valid from the evidence we have.

Apparently a lot of this is due to a verse in revelation that says you're not allowed to just chuck stuff out. Personally I'd just chuck that verse out and then deny that it ever existed.

Some say the verse in Revelation only applies to Revelation.

That line was a really common ending for books at the time and John of Patmos probably didn't expect the book to be added to all the others because that never happened at the time.

Before the early ecumenical councils, the Book of Revelation spent a century or two as a free-standing text, so the admonition almost certainly applies only to itself.

GOP senator claims ENDA violates religious freedom of anti-LGBT businesses.

Oh look, another idiot conservative who thinks being a Complete Monster is a "religious right". never seen one of those before.

and who also doesnt realize that sets hilarious precedents for me to claim my ateist "religious beliefs" mean I cant in good conscience serve christians.

Honestly? I'm not sure I'm opposed to business owners having that kind of liberty. For one thing, I'd just as soon know where the business stands.