Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

[Delphinus]

But as much as we like ragging on religious people here, there are forms of religion which are compatible with science. I like Spinoza's epistemic theory of miracles. I mean, the revisionist accounts of religion do reek of 'god of the gaps' but at least they're sane and intelligent. Likewise Kierkegaarde's idea that attempting to rationally explain religious things removes their entire point.

Really, anything where it's clear that some thought and intelligence has been put into the believer's religious ideas rather than "gods plan" or whatever is okay by me. And there are many good points to religion when it decides to stay in its place. Community, spiritual guidance, etc. etc.

So I guess I'm a religious apologist.

[Delphinus]

From the LGBTQWTFBBQ thread (that acronym is as long as Jormungandr):

The Bible is fairly consistent on homosexuality being evil FWIW. It's one of the few consistent messages in the Bible. Jesus said only two things on it, and both were fairly incomprehensible. The OT is consistent on it that it is an abomination, and Jesus did say that not a single word of the OT was to be ignored.

Most Western Christians, it's important to remember, don't take the word of the Bible at face value. Homosexuality being evil is more or less a minor message of the Bible, while Jesus's gospel of brotherly love is a major one and one of the core beliefs of most Christian denominations. Homophobia, even of the particularly patronising "it's not your fault son you can be cured, hate the sin not the sinner" variety, goes against a message of unconditional brotherly love. There are a few tricky ways you can try and work around this contradiction, but they all rely on homosexuality being a choice or an illness, which it's not.

So surely a Christian who focuses on the major parts of their religion rather than the minor details ought to be fine with LGBTQ people? Homosexuality seems like a more minor prohibition than, say, eating pork, yet Christians will merrily scoff bacon.

[corastaur]

Heck yes Delph that is pretty accurate. I have had several conversations on what the bible's stance is on homosexuality with my pastor(aka. my father). What we've decided is that you can't really sugar coat the bible's stance (esp the OT) on it, which is basically (and feel free to correct me if anything sounds wrong) that God's intent was for men and women to be together. Homosexuality wasn't really a part of his plan, my father used the words it isn't "whole" I think. BUT a lot of things that go on now weren't really a part of the original plan. Like even things that we think of as natural, if you go way back to Genesis and the fall, seem to not have been part of the plan. (painful childbirth anyone?) But the main point is that it doesn't make them a bad or sinful person. They are who they are and you're supposed to, christians are really CALLED, to love pretty much everyone unconditionally. Love your neighbor as yourself - its not love your neighbor as yourself so long as they aren't LGBTQ.

Fun stuff that I remember from the convo: 1. Jesus never (pretty sure) said anything about homosexuality being wrong... 2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah that a lot of people argue for being against homosexuality was more likely about them not showing proper hospitality - something that was very important in the ancient world.

So yeah... I think I basically just seconded what you said Delph, as a christian who focuses more on the main points of my religion I have nothing against LGBTQ people. Plus bacon is delicious!

[corastaur]

Why do you think some christians get so upset when someone says they believe in evolution and not in God? When I say upset I mean they begin to basically attack the person's beliefs, implying in the process that the other’s opinions are worthless and theirs are obviously the correct ones. I mean I guess it makes sense in some ways. The normal christian belief system is essentially Jesus. Like he’s the one way and therefore everything else is obviously completely wrong and anyone who believes otherwise must be saved. Because obviously talking down to a person and disregarding their opinions is going to make them side with you… Its just so counteractive!!! The more a person is pressed in one direction the more they dig their feet in and resist. It’s human nature, we hate being forced to do or believe in anything. They’re doing more harm for their cause than good and it frustrates me to no end. WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DUMB? What happened to respecting the opinions of others? Am I doing the same thing now? Am I disrespecting these people’s opinions? Ugh I DONT EVEN KNOW ANYMORE!!! My brain is flailing. (also doesn't this sometimes go in both directions? Ugh ugh urgh)

(also sorry for double posting... I wanted to ask/talk about this and felt that posting here made more sense than creating a whole new thread...)

[Arashi500]

Why do you think some christians get so upset when someone says they believe in evolution and not in God? When I say upset I mean they begin to basically attack the person's beliefs, implying in the process that the other’s opinions are worthless and theirs are obviously the correct ones. I mean I guess it makes sense in some ways. The normal christian belief system is essentially Jesus. Like he’s the one way and therefore everything else is obviously completely wrong and anyone who believes otherwise must be saved. Because obviously talking down to a person and disregarding their opinions is going to make them side with you… Its just so counteractive!!! The more a person is pressed in one direction the more they dig their feet in and resist. It’s human nature, we hate being forced to do or believe in anything. They’re doing more harm for their cause than good and it frustrates me to no end. WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DUMB? What happened to respecting the opinions of others? Am I doing the same thing now? Am I disrespecting these people’s opinions? Ugh I DONT EVEN KNOW ANYMORE!!! My brain is flailing. (also doesn't this sometimes go in both directions? Ugh ugh urgh)

(also sorry for double posting... I wanted to ask/talk about this and felt that posting here made more sense than creating a whole new thread...)

I think it's a similar mindset as many aggressive athiests. They see it not only as a personal choice, but something that affects the way the person sees the world and acts upon what they see. They then fear how that person's actions based on their beliefs would affect those with different beliefs. An example would be (anti)religiously rooted laws. A christian might push for a law that forces everyone to attend church, because they believe it is simply wrong not too. On the flip side, an athiest might try to ban religious lifestyle topics from being equally represented in schools because they believe religion is counteractive to progressive learning and shouldn't be supported by presenting it as equal to a non-religious lifestyle.

[Kodos]

Heck yes Delph that is pretty accurate. I have had several conversations on what the bible's stance is on homosexuality with my pastor(aka. my father). What we've decided is that you can't really sugar coat the bible's stance (esp the OT) on it, which is basically (and feel free to correct me if anything sounds wrong) that God's intent was for men and women to be together. Homosexuality wasn't really a part of his plan, my father used the words it isn't "whole" I think. BUT a lot of things that go on now weren't really a part of the original plan. Like even things that we think of as natural, if you go way back to Genesis and the fall, seem to not have been part of the plan. (painful childbirth anyone?) But the main point is that it doesn't make them a bad or sinful person. They are who they are and you're supposed to, christians are really CALLED, to love pretty much everyone unconditionally. Love your neighbor as yourself - its not love your neighbor as yourself so long as they aren't LGBTQ.

Most human beings who do not have mental deficiencies are capable of altering plans on the fly in reaction to changing circumstances. It is one of our great strengths as a species, really. Most of us can alter a plan almost immediately. Are you expecting us to believe, then, that an omnipotent, omniscient being - who as a result of these two qualities we can KNOW with 100% certainty that if he exists than EVERYTHING that happens, without exception, happens ONLY with his approval - cannot alter a plan over the course of literally thousands of years? Becasue that's what you're asking us to accept.

As for Christians being called to love unconditionally - bullshit, again. Jesus himself said that not a single line of the OT was to be ignored (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17). Furthermore God does not love everyone (Leviticus 20:23, Pasalm 5:5 and 11:5, Proverbs 6,16 and 19 Hosea 9:15, Malachi 1:3, and Romans 9:13) and I don't think I need to - or can - list all the instances of God commanding his followers to mistreat or murder their fellow men.

Fun stuff that I remember from the convo: 1. Jesus never (pretty sure) said anything about homosexuality being wrong...

He never says that it is right, either, and says that the OT should never be ignored or rewritten. So it's like saying "The guy is a huge fan of Hitler, and thinks we should listen to what Hitler had to say, but I don't think he ever said anything bad about the Jews." Furthermore, let me put it to you this way, if Jesus was okay with the gay, don't you think he'd say something? Don't you think he'd maybe realise the Bible literally says to murder them, and that if he cared, maybe he might take the two seconds to say "Oh, by the way, listen to everything in the OT EXCEPT that awful bit about the killing of the gays. That shit ain't cool, guys."
For evil to triumph, good men need only stay silent.

2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah that a lot of people argue for being against homosexuality was more likely about them not showing proper hospitality - something that was very important in the ancient world.

This is debatable. We cannot, obviously, know with certainty the intent of the authors of the Bible. Which, of course, is funny. You would think the vitally important instructions of how to live your life dictated to man by a literally all-knowing and understanding being would be easy to understand, but instead the Bible is pretty much one of the most poorly written, vague, and obtuse guides to anything, ever. But I digress. What is important is that for literally centuries the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah has been understood as homosexuality, among other things, and the Bible implies as much in Genesis and Jude.

So yeah... I think I basically just seconded what you said Delph, as a christian who focuses more on the main points of my religion I have nothing against LGBTQ people. Plus bacon is delicious!

Those aren't the main points of your religion, though, and that's the thing. They are the points of *your* religion, personally, but not of your religion in canon or doctrine. You have cherry picked the elements of a philosophy that appealed to you, while ignoring the vast majority of the text which does not. It's like claiming to have enjoyed a salad when all you actually ate from it was the tomatoes, and then saying everyone should eat salad when really you mean everyone should eat tomatoes, and there are plenty of ways to eat tomatoes besides a salad.

Fuck, now I want a salad.

What happened to respecting the opinions of others?

"Jews are sub-human filth worthy only of slavery and/or extermination." is an opinion. Is it worth respecting? Everyone has the right to an opinion, and the right to voice that opinion, but they do not have the right to have their opinion shielded from criticism. You do not have the right to say stupid or offensive shit and not be called out on it.

I think it's a similar mindset as many aggressive athiests. They see it not only as a personal choice, but something that affects the way the person sees the world and acts upon what they see. They then fear how that person's actions based on their beliefs would affect those with different beliefs. An example would be (anti)religiously rooted laws. A christian might push for a law that forces everyone to attend church, because they believe it is simply wrong not too. On the flip side, an athiest might try to ban religious lifestyle topics from being equally represented in schools because they believe religion is counteractive to progressive learning and shouldn't be supported by presenting it as equal to a non-religious lifestyle.

I am too tired to break this down point by point, but I'll just say this much - religion has no place in school outside of myth, history and social studies classes. Period. Religion is the enemy of learning because it is predicated on the idea that faith is a valid epistemology, and it is not, and the idea that there are certain ideas (there is a God) which are beyond criticism.

EDIT: Wouldn't let me double-post, but apparently had no problem editing this all into one post. Forums, WTF. Get your shit together.

[Arashi500]

I am too tired to break this down point by point, but I'll just say this much - religion has no place in school outside of myth, history and social studies classes. Period. Religion is the enemy of learning because it is predicated on the idea that faith is a valid epistemology, and it is not, and the idea that there are certain ideas (there is a God) which are beyond criticism.

I agree. I simply added the point to emphasize that both sides feel threatened by the mere existence of the other. To explain the difficulty, if not impossibility of them coexsisting entirely peacefully.

[Slurpee]

Who was Jesus' Grandpa?