Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
No. Not being perfect doesn't mean there's suddenly no point to trying to be better. That way lies nihilism, and fuck that.
Also no, though it is lazily taken to mean that in modern parlance. There were several Hebrew words translated as "abomination" in modern versions, and none of them necessarily have moral implications. I mean, between the two most frequent root words that got lumped together that way, one was used a few times to refer to hygenic uncleanliness (unclean animals etc.), and the other was used to describe the Hebrews from the Egyptians' point of view (specifically, their having shepherds).
edited 11th Jan '13 5:17:39 PM by Pykrete
Um... we've had this talk before (but, it's after 1 am, and I am too tired —and tiddely, to be honest— to actively dig through the thread to find the chunk of the posts with any degree of sense...).
Encapsulated version: "abomination" has a number of possible translations, and is the (biased) one chosen by them what translated in the first place... plus, the meaning has warped a touch in the intervening centuries to become worse.
Then, major argument over semantics, the context of the whole set of passages that contain the same original word (transgression against cultural norms vs core commandments, the works)... etc., etc.
Anybody else remember this?
edited 11th Jan '13 5:16:41 PM by Euodiachloris
Ah, but I'm an atheist remember? So I think the entire "sin" thing is a load of rubbish.
That means that I think it is possible to lead a completely virtuous life, which I define as "never hurting anyone". Any more elaborate definition is pointless moralizing, and this is where I think religions go wrong. You bogged down in trying to live up to unrealistic ideals.
Yes, Humans are flawed. It's what makes us interesting. My philosophy is to sit back, stop worrying and just try not to be a dick.
edited 12th Jan '13 3:07:03 AM by Elfive
...Well, no. That way doesn't lie nihilism. Saying as such misunderstands nihilism. Nihilism is merely the belief that there is no inherent purpose, meaning, or value to life. As a nihilist myself, I can say that does not mean that there is no purpose, meaning, or value to life, just that said purpose, meaning, and value is ascribed by us, often arbitrarily. And that's ok. "There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don't have to! We care! There is light in the world, and it is us!" That's nihilism. 'I am alone. I look at the heavens and think them empty. And if not empty, I find the idea of worshiping whatever dwells there obscene. It doesn't change what is right. If there is nothing in this world but what we make, brothers...let us make good.' That's nihilism too. "If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed." As is that. Nihilism is purpose we make. Nihilism is value we find. Nihilism is meaning we ascribe. Nihilism is awesome!
...Anyway, putting aside the misunderstanding of nihilism, I don't disagree with the point you were trying to make. Not being perfect (or being able to be perfect) is no excuse for giving up or not trying to be better. (Ironically, that's a very nihilistic way of looking at it, though not a view that is exclusive to nihilism.)
edited 12th Jan '13 8:50:09 AM by deathpigeon
This too. Well said.
My point was that in order for there to be any point in trying to be a better person, it has to be possible to be a better person.
From the christian viewpoint, no matter what you do you are a sinner, and no matter what you do you can be forgiven by god by sucking up to him. This renders the difference between a saint and a serial killer meaningless, on a cosmic scale. Any difference we perceive is due to human perspectives and values, and you don't need a god for that.
Which brings us neatly back to the issue of homosexuality. Following god's rules for the sake of it is pointless. He clearly doesn't give a shit.
edited 12th Jan '13 5:46:50 AM by Elfive
It sure is convenient when you can excuse fucked up morality and view points by pretending there is a valid reason for it. Somehow.
I find it no more or less convenient than holding up science of inconclusive basis and labelling it "conclusive proof"; or using the fact that something "might, probably, maybe" have been translated wrong as proof that it was; or taking quotes out context or in some cases flat out misreading them and then accusing those who call you (pr.) on it of "semantics."
So no Kay, I don't see the problem. Like I said, I'm not meeting burdens of proof nobody else has to. Everyone here is allowed to hold their beliefs; to the point of calling people assholes who dare point out the blatant fallacies and as Ninja put it "logic failures" on which their beliefs are based.
If anything, I'm honest enough to admit when my opinions are based on things I know for an empirical fact; and when I'm taking them on faith. A faith that, while you see it as covering for "fucked up morality and viewpoints", actually drives me to make sure you and your girlfriend get the rights you deserve.
edited 12th Jan '13 9:17:03 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYour big issue with science seems to be that you don't actually understand what scientific proof is. Science doesn't prove things for 100% of the time. That's not it's goal. You're attempting to hold science to things that by it's nature it's not supposed to do. Science has proven a lot of things that you are complaining about. But the nature of scientific minds means they will never state it in the terms that you demand.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
I wasn't even saying anything about science, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
All I'm saying is that believing that there surely must be a good reason why homosexuality is wicked "because God" is weak. And yes, it sure must be convenient too.
And what if the bible said being black was wicked? Would you talk about them becoming white like you do about homosexuals becoming hetero? xD
edited 12th Jan '13 9:32:54 AM by kay4today
Maxima, the whole point to science is to keep doubt. After all, the next paradigm shift might happen and pull some carpet out from under you.
Null hypothesis: the acme of doubt used as a tool.
Faith? "Doubt not." — Well, for quite a few people. <_< St Augustine would have a few words for them about that, though. And a few others.
edited 12th Jan '13 9:35:29 AM by Euodiachloris
Shima, please don't try to obfuscate the issue. I'm quite aware of how science works. It is you who fails to see, or more accurately, refuses to accept the rather elementary logic that conflating facts with the conclusions you draw from them isn't science. It's just assuming with a fancier name. And like I said, anybody with any basic grasp of reason doesn't buy that.
Besides that, we're not talking science. You yourself have totally misrespresented quotes and accounts and when I say "Shima, you're lying" you say "Well, that's just semantics."
This didn't require a scientific study. It only required an honest reading of the facts. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
It was an honorAnd what if the bible said being black was wicked? Would you talk about them becoming white like you do about homosexuals becoming hetero? xD
Bad analogy. You mean, "Starship what if the Bible says pre-marital sex is wrong, even though there's no real reason it's a problem. Would you talk about people who do it restraining themselves like you do about homosexuals becoming hetero?"
Yes.
And I can tell you, as someone that's become Christian twice; it is any BUT convenient.
Null hypothesis: the acme of doubt used as a tool.
But why then Euo is it a crime to be honest and say "The science in this case hasn't actually eliminated all doubt. Or even any doubt."?? If the point of science is to maintain doubt, then why are doubters cast as enemies of the oppressed??
edited 12th Jan '13 9:44:50 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorThere be a difference between honest doubt and mule-headedness, mate.
And, in that difference lies some fantastic scientific rivalries.
You choose which as to which is which, as both sides paint the other as a mule.
And, heck, that's basic human interaction right there.
"You're wrong." "No, you are." "Says who?" "Me." "Well, you're wrong."
edited 12th Jan '13 9:46:06 AM by Euodiachloris
![]()
![]()
Actually, it is very convenient. It just proves that instead of "Because God says so" you might as well cover your ears with your hands and go LALALALALALALA. It's too easy.
Do you ever question what's written in the bible? I assume yes, but you can't be too sure. :P
edited 12th Jan '13 9:50:11 AM by kay4today
Nothing. But you have to take your moral authority from somewhere. You can follow the values of Buddha, of Marx, of Cicero, of the Carphone Warehouse, of the law, of nihilism, of Christopher Hitchens, of Keir Hardie - you can take moral authority from any one of the conflicting viewpoints modern life and philosophy thrusts at you. Most religious people have either chosen to follow that of their parents, probably because they feel they have been raised well, or they have examined the record of religion and found it both intellectually consistent with their experience of reality and beneficial to society at large. Whether or not that is the right conclusion is another matter, and one that is largely outwith the remit of this thread.
edited 12th Jan '13 9:54:18 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAssuming I stand there before God and he would tell me that I have sinned by being a lesbian. How would this conversation go?
Me: "But why is being a lesbian a sin?"
God: "Because I say so."
Me: "But why do you say so?"
God: "Why not?"
Me: "Well, I didn't hurt anyone or anything by being like this, did I?"
God: "You didn't."
Me: "Then why-"
God: "I can do this all day, you know? Just shut up, admit you've sinned and enter my paradise!"
Me: "But why-"
God: "Gaaah!"
![]()
![]()
Kay, you and Qeise are the only people I know who take what would be blatant blasphemy in anyone else's hands and turn it into high-grade win!
Mo FW for you, my dear.
Edit: Amended to reflect Lawyerdude getting in on the act.
edited 12th Jan '13 10:10:48 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorLet's not forget this part:
Kay: But you made me this way.
God: I sure did. So just admit that the natural urges I gave you that made you happy and didn't hurt anybody were wrong.
Kay: But why did you make me this way?
God: Don't ask questions. Just admit that who you are is wrong. I made you a sinner, so you need to ask my forgiveness.
edited 12th Jan '13 10:06:55 AM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."Look, buddy, I've lived for billions of years now. You telling me that our opinions have the same worth is like telling the same to a Zombie survivalist while you're just a newbie punk. In other words, agree with me or you're going to get eaten by Zombies."
edited 12th Jan '13 10:15:29 AM by kay4today

Oh, here we have the excuse of "I'm not God" again.
It sure is convenient when you can excuse fucked up morality and view points by pretending there is a valid reason for it. Somehow.
edited 11th Jan '13 4:35:48 PM by kay4today