Religious Discussion

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Absalom »

Greyhome, do you realize that this thread makes you look like an anti-religion bigot? Often in this thread you've pointed to various things (Crusades, slave trade, oppresion, etc.), but many of your claims are AT BEST relevant only to some particular sub-group.

The doctrine that blacks aren't human, which was used to justify slavery? You won't find this in the Bible, and by the time of the Civil War you wouldn't find this in Northern churches, either. This was a standard case of denial: the people in question didn't want to reexamine things, so they created a fiction to support their actions. Among other things, if they hadn't done this then they would have had to reconcile their treatment of their slaves with the behavior dictated by the Bible: because it didn't match.

Crusades: the Christianity spoken of in the Bible is quite frankly pacifist, the "war" is a metaphorical war, not a physical one. The "warrior" is supposed to go out and evangelize, not shed blood. So... how Christian were the Crusades? As with many things done by religious authorities during the Medieval period, the Crusades were more related to governmental power than to religious morality.

Transexuals are a bit different from those other two: that's a subject to avoid. After all, they are definitively (no, really, unless they undergo modification they are almost all fertile as their physical gender) of gender A, yet consider themselves to be an example of gender B. So, they're crazy in the same way that people who believe themselves to literally be tigers are crazy, right? But at the same time they aren't harmful to society, and are fully capable of recognizing the presence, origin, and nature of their physical reality/self identity dichotomy, so they aren't crazy, right? There simply is no good answer. Regardless, if you haven't explored the realms of psychology & such, the inherent dichotomy posed by transexuals is a perfectly understandable reason to find them disturbing, because they claim X, yet simple observation establishes Y (I actually suspect that the implementation of Christian opposition to both transexuals and homosexuals probably originated as a reaction to Roman persecution of Christianity, but that's another matter).

Some of your points are in some way or another in accordance with the Abrahimic religions, and against others more counters could be made, but I simply want you to think more on the subject, so I'll stop here.



As for the things you stated that actually have no tie to religion...

Are we in accordance that baboons probably don't have religion? And thus that baboon behavior could possibly shed some light on human behavior in the absence of religion? Here's a link: (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/scien ... lture.html). To summarize, the alphas died off (all of them), and the troop calmed down. New members have been trained to be calm ever since. How is this relevant? The worst human behaviors throughout history have almost always been manifested in "alpha behaviors"; with humans, the identity of the "alphas" varies constantly (one minute the baron, the next the serf), but "alphaness" is primarily testosteronal in nature, and thereby varies in accordance to current thoughts and behaviors.

Similarly, elephants display such societal adaptation, as demonstrated by the famous elephant slaughter of rhinos.

And finally, violence: we're starting to suspect that it's infectious, rather like memes from Orion's Arm.

So, for all of the things that are NOT related to the religion of those who performed them, and in fact for the origin and thereby ACTUAL nature of those that developed within a particular group but were not rooted in previously existing religious precepts, we have not religion to blame, but instead the existence of society. As has been stated to you, most of these things are NOT validly blamed on religion, and will just as likely happen in the absence of religion as in it's presence.



Incidentally, your point about prosperity vs religion? You got the relationship wrong. Religion falls after prosperity rises in most nations, NOT before. Rather than the two being mutually discouraging, or of religion preventing "advancement", the lack of prosperity causes a reduction of emotional investment in existence, and an increase of emotional investment in something else (religion, progress, science, whatever someone can find meaning in).

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Mr.Tucker »

Absalom wrote:
Similarly, elephants display such societal adaptation, as demonstrated by the famous elephant slaughter of rhinos.
Sociopathic elephant serial killers. The world seemed so normal yesterday...

Sweforce
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Sweforce »

Mr.Tucker wrote:
Absalom wrote:
Similarly, elephants display such societal adaptation, as demonstrated by the famous elephant slaughter of rhinos.
Sociopathic elephant serial killers. The world seemed so normal yesterday...
"However, the killings at Pilanesberg stopped when six adult elephant bulls were introduced to the park. The young ones' behaviour patterns returned to normal under their influence."

The lack of adult role models are at the heart of the problem. This goes for us humans as wells. Came to think of "lord of the flies".

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

The doctrine that blacks aren't human, which was used to justify slavery? You won't find this in the Bible, and by the time of the Civil War you wouldn't find this in Northern churches, either.
I read about this far and had to stop, I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. Racist interpretations of the Christian bible were (and still are) widespread throughout the entirety of the United States and the north was no exception to that. Neither were the northern churches, as the inferiority of the African American race was preached from the pulpit throughout the entirety of the nation. There are still many hate groups in both the north and south of the United States and have strong ties to religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
European/American slavery, 17th and 18th centuries

The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries.[58][59] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labour.
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Nemo »

Far from being him completely wrong, that assertion is tenuous, at best and being generous. The assertion of the doctrine clearly does not come from the scripture you indicated, but from the vested interests who wanted it to be true and read their own will into the gaps. Which means he was correct, that doctrine is not to be found within the work itself. Over extending your claims does you arguments an injustice.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Krulle »

Grayhome wrote:
The doctrine that blacks aren't human, which was used to justify slavery? You won't find this in the Bible, and by the time of the Civil War you wouldn't find this in Northern churches, either.
I read about this far and had to stop, I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. Racist interpretations of the Christian bible were (and still are) widespread throughout the entirety of the United States and the north was no exception to that. Neither were the northern churches, as the inferiority of the African American race was preached from the pulpit throughout the entirety of the nation. There are still many hate groups in both the north and south of the United States and have strong ties to religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham wrote:The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians, and Muslims as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery. Nevertheless, most Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations strongly disagree with such interpretations due to the fact that in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed and race or skin color is never mentioned.
You are right. Racist interpretation exists. And some may feel offended by your implications that it is a natural outcome just because of religions, which is in itself racism against religion.
Also, have you read the article? There are long passages about the theological discussion of meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham wrote:==Curse of Canaan==
*Genesis 9:25: "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren,"
It is noteworthy that the curse was made by Noah, not by God. Some biblical scholars claim that when a curse is made by a man, it could only have been effective if God supports it, unlike the curse of Ham and his descendants, which was not confirmed by God or, at least, it is not mentioned in the Bible that he had confirmed it.
yes, some assholes interpreted something into a story which had lost its validity long before.

Like it was pointed out by several participants in this discussion, context is very important.
The small exercise I gave you should point out that it is nearly impossible to interpret these old texts, as the context has dramatically changed.
The whole symbolism people use nowadays has changed. Even the use of flowers to say something is not recognised by anyone today. (Especially in France you could use flowers as a gift to insult someone.) And in those times symbols were very important. Like which hand you used to do something. In today's time, the hand you use to do something is totally irrelevant, but far into the 19th century it was necessary to use the right hand, due to missing hygienic accessories. Which lead to discrimination of left-handed persons, but if the bible says something about that, it's the direct result of protecting the health of the whole population. (context: the left hand was used to wipe your ass, therefore you did not use the left hand for ANYTHING when with other persons. And you had to make sure the left hand did not come into contact with the food on the table, as that was considered barbarism.)

Also: just because some egocentric and dumb people interpret "holy texts" in a very (for them) convenient fashion does not mean that the interpretation is right, or followed by a majority of that religion.
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by discord »

krulle: do you know the most common cause for christian religious 'defection'? Actually reading the bible, cover to cover.
there are reasons why in the olden days ordinary people were not allowed to actually read the bible, only listen to sermons.

http://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/0 ... -5-racism/ <--- nope, no racism in the bible, no'siree.

one point to remember, for ANY point of view espoused by christians, there is usually some passage of the bible that strongly claims the opposite....except for fear god maybe.
an ex christian buddy of mine started to put together a list of common beliefs and how(and where) the bible said 'nope, not true'.
I put it through google translate, which actually seems to have correctly translated bible notation...and tweaked it a bit because machine translation are usually not very good.

http://collabedit.com/f49nq <---- do note, this was basically a few hours work from the top of his head, not any exhaustive search, the previous link got many more examples.
however, after a while we came up with a simple fact.
"the only honest and neighborly friendly christian is one that does not follow the bible and knows it." the good thing here is that outside of the US these are quite common.

if you are a christian, do yourself a favor and read the bible, cover to cover, and every time you come across something that you do not like(genocide, rape, murder, racism or whatever) have a text document and note book, chapter and verse....if you actually get through the entire book before admitting you do not like this book anymore i will be surprised.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Krulle »

That were my discussions with my religion teacher... :p
Those discussions came long before the discussions with my history teacher.
But it did not go unremarked by my friends that I seemed to have turned 180° (from against bible to pro-belief).
I never had problems conciliating these two things, as I can belief without accepting the bible as "truth". I found those two things independent from each other. The third thing to keep separate is/are the church(es).
It is why I consider Atheists to be religious. They believe that God does not exist. There can be no proof either way. And without belief that certain things do exist, we stop searching for them, and things like bacteria, atoms, electrons, Higg's boson,... would still be unfound.*

Nope, while I do have some bibles at home, most are very old (published before 1800) copies which were once owned by people who wanted to show off their richdom by having extravagant bibles (handpainted illustrations, things like that), but are unsuitable to be read.
But I seldom read parts of the bible that were not passages that did form part of the religion lessons in school. Those were extensive enough and cover the "important" bits of the bible anyway.
Actually, I think I haven't read parts of the bible (except the ten commandments to refind a very specific wording) since at least a decade. (There are so many batter books around.) If I want to cite the bible I use online searching tools to find passages concerning a certain topic.
My belief never came from the bible anyway.

But reading the bible without knowing the historic backgrounds is like one of my favourite quotes:
Sukarno wrote:Learning without thinking is useless, but thinking without learning is very dangerous!
You're just making the wrong conclusions if you do...


* There is a "Sci-Fi" book by Peter F. Hamilton: Night's Dawn trilogy that touches this topic marginally. Humanity runs into an uncomprehensible problem, arising from something which science has dismissed long ago (no, not God, but the individual eternal Human soul).
This book is an interesting read if you're into SciFi anyway. Maybe our science isn't advanced enough to detect God or Soul? Maybe either or both don't exist? We will never know, but you can believe either way, it will not change anything.
(maybe this universe exists only in the lab of "God" to test what happens "if", so he's only observing and not manipulating... We are lab rats.)
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

Nemo

What do you mean? The story of Ham was in the bible and it was used to justify slavery. That it was twisted out of context to suit those purposes is totally irrelevant to any point either of us was making. However if you aren't convinced by that particular passage I can cite a few others that are a tad less open to debate, the following is from http://www.openbible.info/topics/slavery:
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

Titus 2:9-10 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Exodus 21:26-27 When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

Exodus 21:1-36 Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
That's just a few of them there are tons more where they came from. Here is the rational wiki page info on the Curse of Ham http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
The Canaanites, descended from Ham via his son Canaan, have historically been regarded as the ethnic ancestors of the black peoples of Africa. Although Genesis does not identify Ham's skin colour, some ancient Jewish writings, including part of the Talmud, state that either Ham or Canaan had his faced "blackened" by God as part of curse, in punishment for Ham seeing Noah's nakedness and not covering him, or, in some variations, for copulating while aboard the Ark.

This idea became more widespread in Europe during Colonialism, as an argument for the inferiority of the black race, whose dark skin was believed to be an outward sign of the curse, and to sanction some instances of slavery. The belief was at its most popular during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to justify the Atlantic slave trade and plantation slavery in the British sugar islands and American South.[3] Noah's decree that Canaan should be the slave of Shem was seen as God's command that Africans should be the slaves to white Christians.

Although overwhelming discredited and largely forgotten, racial arguments based on the Curse of Ham are still clung to by some white supremacists, including blogger Alan O'Reilly and some members of Stormfront. During 2008, various ultra-conservative and racist blogs and websites invoked the Curse of Ham as an argument against Barack Obama's campaign for the United States Presidency. Apparently white supremacists can't think any better than the Bronze Age herders who wrote that part of the Bible; nor do they see the irony in using a Jewish text to justify their racism.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Nemo »

That it was twisted out of context to suit those purposes is totally irrelevant to any point either of us was making.
That is in fact central to the point he was making. You missed it.
http://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/0 ... -5-racism/ <--- nope, no racism in the bible, no'siree.
Ah the sword verses. You do realize this is making the same mistake those preaching the curse of ham did hundreds of years ago? You are reading race into passages that deal with a different topic because it suits your need.

Interesting to note, the sword verses there are narrow in scope, both in time and place. In fact, I'll allow Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun to speak on that:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, Caliphate and Royal Authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength of both of them at the same time.

The other religious groups (here the Jews and Christians - people of the book) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs in other religious groups is not concerned with power politics at all. Among them, Royal Authority comes to those who have it-by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority for about four hundred years. Their only concern was to establish their religion
.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FlNZ5 ... g=PA183&dq




Aside from the sword verses it also makes note of the separation between Jew and Gentile. Should point out that the Jews wind up with all manner of restrictions and, as Khaldun noted, no imperative to impose them on others. Unlike Muhammad.
I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax. If they do so, their blood and property are protected.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

Krulle
You are right. Racist interpretation exists. And some may feel offended by your implications that it is a natural outcome just because of religions, which is in itself racism against religion.
Also, have you read the article? There are long passages about the theological discussion of meaning.
Krulle, I have no interest in insulting anyone. There is simply no tactful way to tell a religious person that going to Africa and preaching about LBGT's being demons and witches is harmful. Or that standing in the ruins of a church in Haiti which collapsed due to an earthquake and telling the assembled faithful that the earthquake is punishment for allowing LBGT to exist is not the way to go. But I see it as having to be done due to the overwhelming number of religious fanatics that have been taken power in the United States political system, and completely control the Republican Party. Speaking of which, Republican primaries everyone! Guess how many don't believe in evolution and think dinosaurs walked alongside mankind! Win a prize! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPJpLfDlMhc

As to your second point Krulle I do not see how that has any bearing any on my points. The philosophical musings of theologians are not going to erase the event from history, nor will reinterpretations of those texts bring back the dead. These biblical passages were used as justification of the African slave trade. This is a verified historical fact.
yes, some assholes interpreted something into a story which had lost its validity long before.
How did the bible (or the story itself) lose it's validity before the African slave trade came into existence? The very fact that it was used to such great effect in validating the African Slave trade proves that it was very valid in influencing the thoughts and actions of millions. The slaves didn't kidnap and drag themselves over here to be slaves. They were kidnapped and dragged here by white slavers who were convinced they were doing their god's bidding.
Like it was pointed out by several participants in this discussion, context is very important.
The small exercise I gave you should point out that it is nearly impossible to interpret these old texts, as the context has dramatically changed.
Krulle, people can and do interpret these holy texts every single day of the week. Then they start mega churches and sends millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the election campaigns of politicians who agree with their religious agenda and upon being elected fight against LBGT rights, women's rights, try to get creationist teachings put into science classrooms, try to teach that slavery in the United States was just a big conspiracy and that it didn't happen, etc. I consider such people to be extremely dangerous to the future prosperity of United States and I will continue to oppose them however I can.
Also: just because some egocentric and dumb people interpret "holy texts" in a very (for them) convenient fashion does not mean that the interpretation is right, or followed by a majority of that religion.
Krulle the United States fought one of it's most violent wars over the slavery. The scars of that conflict are still prevalent today and I still see quite a few confederate battle flags in my home state in the north. This is not a "some people" event that can be waved away, this was and is a very important historical event and it continues to influence the United States to this day.
Last edited by Grayhome on Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

Discord
krulle: do you know the most common cause for christian religious 'defection'? Actually reading the bible, cover to cover.
there are reasons why in the olden days ordinary people were not allowed to actually read the bible, only listen to sermons.
Yes, that's why I had to give it up as well. There was simply too much horror in the bible that upon further study and reaching adulthood I could no longer ignore. Well that and detailed studies of the history of Christianity and other religions which I continue to this day.

Krulle
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Krulle »

@Grayhome: it is good that you fight against forgetting previous crimes. Thank you.
But the slave mentality always existed and still exists in Africa. It existed before we whities came and rediscovered Africa.
Those who wanted to get rich saw an opportunity.
And when someone opposed them, they looked for and found some kind of legitimitation.
Just like the ancient Israeli wrote into "the book" to have a reason why they are allowed to subjugate Canaanites.
At least the church became very careful when amending the New Testament. But it has been amended to serve purposes.
That's another reason why I don't trust "the book" to deliver "truth". It delivers the "truth" someone long ago needed to serve his personal truth.

Fight against those who use religion and/or religious texts to justify political ends.
But don't fight believers who argue with other arguments.

I can get behind the fight against forgetting. Germany, my passport country, has some groups with selective amnesia too. And I fight this forgetting too.
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123, after the battle page 195

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

Nemo
That is in fact central to the point he was making. You missed it.

Ah the sword verses. You do realize this is making the same mistake those preaching the curse of ham did hundreds of years ago? You are reading race into passages that deal with a different topic because it suits your need.

Interesting to note, the sword verses there are narrow in scope, both in time and place. In fact, I'll allow Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun to speak on that:

Aside from the sword verses it also makes note of the separation between Jew and Gentile. Should point out that the Jews wind up with all manner of restrictions and, as Khaldun noted, no imperative to impose them on others. Unlike Muhammad.
I apologize for misunderstanding his point, let me clarify my position upon interpretations, reinterpretations or even basic readings of the bible.
The Christian bible has massive amounts of data that are inaccurate, false, and immoral. Historic figures, events, cities, etc are mentioned that never existed, existed geographically elsewhere they are claimed to have existed, existed and were never mentioned in the bible, existed at different times they were claimed to have existed, were edited out in later editions, etc.

The bible makes grand claims which fall under the purview of astronomy, geology, biology, psychology, law, etc. To my knowledge most if not all of these claims have been proven to have little evidence supporting them or have been proven to be false.

The bible is, and there is no tactful way to communicate this I mean no offense to anyone when I say this, a very bad book all around. It is a book that condones or outright commands slavery, genocide, rape, murder, lying, cheating, stealing etc. It is a book in which the only possible way a person can get positive morality from it is to ignore the vast majority of it and not examine it’s contents critically.

To be as clear and honest as possible, I do not give much credence (or interest) to interpretations or reinterpretations of the bible. Anyone can read the bible and easily find many verses which they can then use to claim they possess god’s blessing for whatever action they could name.

My concern is not for the interpretations of those who read the bible, or any other holy text, but for how those individuals interact with others upon reading them. In the United States, those who oppose LBGT rights, contraceptives, climate change legislation, or are inserting religious dogma into school curriculum's, etc do so for purely religious reasons. They loudly and proudly proclaim this on national television, the internet, radios, in newspapers, door to door preachers that they are carrying out their god’s holy work (it is important to emphasize they have a lot of money). When their actions are scrutinized (a scrutiny we have for all other aspects of life, be they scientific, historical, technological, political, etc) they claim they are being discriminated against and that anyone who opposes them are racists, bigots, worshipers of Satan, baby eaters, reptilian aliens who can shape shift and mimic the human form, you get the idea. Examples of this behavior are the growing attempts in many southern states to pass legislation which would allow those with “deeply held religious beliefs” to legally discriminate against anyone they suspect of being a member of the LBGT community.

I hope I have made my stance on this topic clear.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Nemo »

It is a book that condones or outright commands slavery, genocide, rape, murder, lying, cheating, stealing etc.

Examples of this behavior are the growing attempts in many southern states to pass legislation which would allow those with “deeply held religious beliefs” to legally discriminate against anyone they suspect of being a member of the LBGT community.
You picked some poor examples. You seem unable to separate historical context, which as you say is often inaccurate, from theological imperatives. Take genocide. Like Khaldun noted nearly a thousand years ago, the Jews waged a war to establish themselves. In this sense, there is nothing extraordinary going on. Its the norm in human history. The worst you can reasonably say is they were no better than others. Not that they were in any way worse. And then only when viewed through modern philosophy on the morality of war. Which, in Western Civilization is ultimately based on the Just War reasoning hammered out over time by men like Augustine and Aquinas as they tried to reconcile war with Christian philosophy. That is to say, Christian philosophy has influenced the moral spectrum by which you currently judge ancient Jewish actions. If Islamic Jihad philosophy had shaped your moral spectrum, the view of such ancient events would be drastically different.

Turn the other check, if a slave, be a good one. Do not seek violence and confrontation. The slavery directive does not command you to take on slaves of other races peoples or religions, but to treat both master and slave with the utmost care. Recall that slavery was the norm throughout human history, it is a modern adaptation of Enlightenment thinking that brought about its end. These were the words of men who sought to change the hearts of men without the use of force. Not by sword, but by word and example. What a terrible thing that is? Rather than incite the world to flames and revolution and force change through bitter loss or Pyrrhic victory. You would do better to say that slavery lasted longer than it otherwise may have during and after the Enlightenment because it was not rejected forthrightly by the Bible, especially the New Testament. You would then have to question how long the Roman government, or indeed any other government of the age, would have permitted Christianity to exist had it done so. And without the influence of New Testament Christianity, what shape would the Enlightenment have taken, if it would have taken shape at all? So much of that modern "Tolerance" school of thought owes its roots to the diverse number of Protestant ideologies which sprung up through the abusive practices of the old Roman Catholic Church/Government apparatus. As the Roman influenced governments waged so many wars to bring the herd back into line, thinking spread as to live and let live. As has been said, there is no control group for this.


Lets move to more modern times. We all know what sparks the example you gave, gay marriage. First lets handle the marriage aspect. Is marriage a state institution which has been recognized by religion, or a religious institution that has been recognized by the state? Any honest examination can offer only one answer, it is a social arrangement formalized through religious tradition and recognized by the state for purpose of property law and inheritance etc. Equal law protection was rejected, what was desired was "Marriage". The intent here is not to acquire equal rights before the government, but to force acceptance on those who dissent.

Let us test that idea. Government should keep its guns out of the bedroom. Done. Government should offer gay couplings the same lawful privileges of married couples, permitted. Government should step into church and dictate who must be married at the point of a gun. Hrm. Cake is to be served at the reception (not a lie!). I decline to bake that cake, on the grounds I do not condone your actions. You go get guns (government) and force compliance. Repeat after me, "Its a free country" (⌐■_■)–︻╦╤─ now bake that cake.


To say nothing of the poor thought which has gone into the LGBT community. There are two modes of thought here. One is that it is a choice, something you can pick up or drop as a habit. Other is that is a biological imperative, just born that way! If it is true that it is a choice, it is a choice which others must be free to support OR criticize at will. If it is not a choice, but a fault of biology, then science will eventually discover the fault. Be it randomly mismatched DNA or a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy it matters not, eventually it will be known and after that, will be treatable. In the meantime that would make it a disease or perhaps more accurately a syndrome of unknown cause. Yet it is illegal to try to treat it as such in two states, California and New York, owing to questionable past practices (electroshock therapy) attempting to treat it as such.

Curiously, the only modern research I know of in that line is Oregon State University research into ram sexuality. PETA tried to stop that research by saying the results could lead to medical research into changing the sexuality of humans. The researchers then took flak from LGBT supporters for daring to inquire into the medical basis of homosexuality. Interesting that a group which insists it suffers greatly not by its own choosing but as a consequence of biology does not want nor encourage medical research into finding answers or possible treatments or cures. Groups waving flags and wearing ribbons for curing this disease or that cancer, but not in this case. My question becomes where does the biology end and the choice begin?

User avatar
Razor One
Moderator
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:38 pm

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Razor One »

Nemo wrote:
Lets move to more modern times. We all know what sparks the example you gave, gay marriage. First lets handle the marriage aspect. Is marriage a state institution which has been recognized by religion, or a religious institution that has been recognized by the state? Any honest examination can offer only one answer, it is a social arrangement formalized through religious tradition and recognized by the state for purpose of property law and inheritance etc. Equal law protection was rejected, what was desired was "Marriage". The intent here is not to acquire equal rights before the government, but to force acceptance on those who dissent.
Marriage does have its roots in religious institutions, but you don't need a religious institution in this day and age in order be married. You need only go to a court, fill in some documents, and bam, you are married in the eyes of the law. It is the state that recognises and authorises marriages, they set the rules and laws under which marriage works, not religious institutions.

Historical forms of marriage differ from the modern view of marriage, which is when two people love each other enough. The definition of marriage changes with the times. We today have a very different view of marriage than people of five hundred years ago had.

The legalisation of gay marriage is a further recognition that in todays society that love is the foundation of a good and healthy marriage. You mention that equal protection under the law was rejected, but you have you ever stopped to examine why that was rejected? Consider the following.

"I'm Bill!"
"I'm Jane!"
"We're married!"

--

"I'm Jim!"
"I'm James!"
"We have a civil union!"

As you yourself said, there is a social aspect to arrangement that is marriage. Marriage carries a heavy social significance. It represents a bond of love between two people willing to commit to each other. A civil union does not, would not, and could never carry that same social significance. Civil unions would always be seen as a 'lesser' form of marriage. The Diet Coke of marriage. That **whit** just not marriage enough.

If you're giving civil unions the same legal weighting as marriage, but restricting one to heterosexual couples and one to homosexual couples, it becomes a lot less of a headache to fold the one into the other rather than having to replicate an entirely different paper trail for effectively the same job. The courts recently chose to legalise marriage for same sex couples instead of developing an entirely new, identical, and ultimately superfluous system just so that some people could feel comfortable that the gays were being kept away from their marriages.

At the end of the day, same sex marriages being legal in no way oppresses those that dissent it. If you can find a single example of same sex marriage oppressing people that won't immediately make me burst into tears of mirth, I'd like to see it.

Let us test that idea. Government should keep its guns out of the bedroom. Done. Government should offer gay couplings the same lawful privileges of married couples, permitted. Government should step into church and dictate who must be married at the point of a gun. Hrm. Cake is to be served at the reception (not a lie!). I decline to bake that cake, on the grounds I do not condone your actions. You go get guns (government) and force compliance. Repeat after me, "Its a free country" (⌐■_■)–︻╦╤─ now bake that cake.
Let us test your statements here.

Government should keep its guns out of the bedroom. Done.
Non-sequitur.

Government should offer gay couplings the same lawful privileges of married couples, permitted.
Pass.

Government should step into church and dictate who must be married at the point of a gun.
Strawman. The government only made it lawful for same sex couples to be legally married. Religious institutions are in no way forced to marry off gay couples, nor would it at all be constitutional to do so. The one's that are fine with gay marriage may see an uptick in people getting married in their churches though.

I decline to bake that cake, on the grounds I do not condone your actions. You go get guns (government) and force compliance. Repeat after me, "Its a free country" (⌐■_■)–︻╦╤─ now bake that cake.
Ah yes, the infamous cake incident. Please examine the following statements.

Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is gay?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is black?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is muslim?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is french?

Those last three are flat out illegal. That first statement is still a rather emergent phenomenon legally, and so varies state by state. The flipside of freedom is responsibility. Freedom is also a two way street. One of the cornerstones of freedom, democracy, and the sheer success that the US is built on is the fact that anyone can do business with anyone within certain legal restrictions. You can't be refused service just because you're black. Or french. Or muslim. Buy you can be refused service in some areas because you're gay, or you're promoting a pro-gay message.

I feel that for the same reason that businesses must serve black people, muslims, and frenchmen, businesses have absolutely no right to refuse service to gay people. If you're fine with businesses discriminating against gay people then you also must be fine with businesses discriminating against just about anyone else for any reason. It's a free country, right? Or does this right to discriminate only apply when it's against a group that you find distasteful?
Nemo wrote:
To say nothing of the poor thought which has gone into the LGBT community. There are two modes of thought here. One is that it is a choice, something you can pick up or drop as a habit.
There is literally nobody in the LGBT community who advocates that their sexuality is ever a choice.

Other is that is a biological imperative, just born that way! If it is true that it is a choice, it is a choice which others must be free to support OR criticize at will. If it is not a choice, but a fault of biology, then science will eventually discover the fault. Be it randomly mismatched DNA or a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy it matters not, eventually it will be known and after that, will be treatable. In the meantime that would make it a disease or perhaps more accurately a syndrome of unknown cause. Yet it is illegal to try to treat it as such in two states, California and New York, owing to questionable past practices (electroshock therapy) attempting to treat it as such.

Curiously, the only modern research I know of in that line is Oregon State University research into ram sexuality. PETA tried to stop that research by saying the results could lead to medical research into changing the sexuality of humans. The researchers then took flak from LGBT supporters for daring to inquire into the medical basis of homosexuality. Interesting that a group which insists it suffers greatly not by its own choosing but as a consequence of biology does not want nor encourage medical research into finding answers or possible treatments or cures. Groups waving flags and wearing ribbons for curing this disease or that cancer, but not in this case. My question becomes where does the biology end and the choice begin?
I find it rather disturbing that the moment we accept that homosexuality has a biological basis that we must then immediately move towards identifying and 'fixing' it as though it is problem. It also disturbs me that the way you phrase it coming into being mandates that it be a mistake and the attempt to relegate it as a disease. Exactly what is wrong with being a homosexual that requires fixing? If your answer is that they face societal pressure and persecution, then I would argue that it is society that needs to change and not the other way around.

That being said, they have found some genetic factors that increase the rate of homosexuality. It's linked to fertility. Assuming that the factors that give rise to homosexuality are solely genetic, you'd also need to effectively nuke fertility across certain cross-sections of society in order to 'fix' the 'problem'.

That being said, genetics is certainly not the sole factor. There are cases of twins where one is homosexual and the other not. You can't really argue that genetics are a factor there, and since a lot of those cases have the twins growing up in identical environments and frequently together, sociological factors become difficult to underpin as well.

There are a lot of factors, known and unknown that go into shaping ones sexuality. Finding what these factors are is certainly a scientific endeavour worth pursuing. Taking that knowledge and using it to determine a good and correct sexuality and labelling all other sexualities that do not conform to that standard as things to be fixed, as a disease to be cured, is beyond repugnant and for reasons I would hope are readily apparent and obvious.

There's also no stopping a group you dislike from rising to power and declaring your way of life as a disease to be cured and then persecuting you in turn. How we treat our minorities reflects upon us as a society. I prefer to live in a society that is just, fair, and tolerant if not inclusive. The society that opts to 'cure' the gay is, in my view, none of those things and on a very dark path indeed.
Image
SpoilerShow
This is my Mod voice. If you see this in a thread, it means that the time for gentle reminders has passed.

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Grayhome »

Wow Nemo, that was a horrifying post. However I thank you for your honesty so that we can hash out what's true from what's false. The first issue I have is with the idea that LGBT is a choice, according to this page (and other scientific research I have studied) LBGT's have been observed in 1,500 different species, to my knowledge discrimination against LBGT occurs in only one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

The second URL is from Dragon Age Inquisition, a homosexual mage meets his estranged father, turns out the reason the mage left his home was because Daddy tried to "fix" his embarrassing little quirk. Your comment on "fixing" LGBT's reminded me of it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Ode-rqc2w

The third and fourth are from George Takei, one of the most eloquent and famous advocates for LGBT rights that I know if.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMZKd6s4Pdg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giopNCqqUkw

Fifth is by TYT concerning government legislated discrimination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBcogCzihvo

My sister is bisexual, it deeply disturbs me whenever anyone suggests that she is sick and needs to be "fixed" because of who she loves.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Absalom »

Grayhome wrote:Speaking of which, Republican primaries everyone! Guess how many don't believe in evolution and think dinosaurs walked alongside mankind! Win a prize! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPJpLfDlMhc
I can't be bothered to review the primaries at this point (My voting rating is Bush>=Hillary>Fiorina>>>>Cruze=?=Sanders, and I refuse to decide on the rest for a while, Trump included), so I'll just say "less disbelief than they claim". What, did you think Republicans were wholly pure and honest? The only one I assess to be so pure is Cruz, who I simply will not vote for (my state allows leaving any combination of races blank).
Grayhome wrote:As to your second point Krulle I do not see how that has any bearing any on my points. The philosophical musings of theologians are not going to erase the event from history, nor will reinterpretations of those texts bring back the dead. These biblical passages were used as justification of the African slave trade. This is a verified historical fact.
Neither do the unfounded claims of manipulators dictate the nature of things which they do not have the grounds to define. Your own point stands against you.
Grayhome wrote:The very fact that it was used to such great effect in validating the African Slave trade proves that it was very valid in influencing the thoughts and actions of millions.
Here's a modified form of this sentence:
The very fact that it was used to such great effect in accelerating and sustaining the African Slave Trade proves that it was very successful in influencing the thoughts and actions of millions.
You used the word "valid" quite a number of times in the original, but how exactly did you determine that "valid" belonged in those particular positions?

At any rate, the Bible wasn't what produced that magnitude of effect: money was. The South discovered that cotton was very valuable, and thus started importing slaves to increase the amount that they could produce. However, slaves could honestly only work coastal cotton, because because inland cotton seeds are and always were too small to pick by hand. By the late 1700s, it was becoming clear to the southern plantation owners that slavery was not the font of money that they had once considered it: plantation slavery was largely doomed, and all that could therefor remain were a few household servants: slavery was going to drop to the levels seen in the old Roman Empire (where it was never common, despite the fame of Sparticus: the Romans were afraid of revolt, and thus kept them few). Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, and it made financial sense again, because his gin could work with inland cotton, and thus increased possible production. This last-minute reprieve is what the civil war interrupted. Except that rather than interrupt slavery, it just reduced the severity of the system: sharecropping was arguably not as bad as slavery, but it was still pretty far down the spectrum, and it didn't end (or rather the mass-misery aspects ended: if you're just starting out, farming is still very low-profit in America; rich farmers are either capitalists instead of farmers, or have been in the game for decades) until mechanical harvesters became reliable enough in the 1950s.

And if you look at e.g. the coal-mining or textile industry about the same time, you see the same or similar without all the slavery (labor unions didn't come out of nowhere): and I have never heard of a religious reason for that misery.
Grayhome wrote:
Like it was pointed out by several participants in this discussion, context is very important.
The small exercise I gave you should point out that it is nearly impossible to interpret these old texts, as the context has dramatically changed.
Krulle, people can and do interpret these holy texts every single day of the week.
And when they cannot interpret, they invent. In fact, when Washington was made President, we invented. America does not simply have a history, it has a mythology, and for a reason: it's useful. Lincoln is now part of it, FDR is part of it, Reagan is part of it. JFK is part of it, but he seems to be getting somewhat undermined as of late, and LBJ and Nixon rehabilitated (in so much as a chronic paranoid can be rehabilitated by revealing the truth). Others as well, of course, but you need a certain sense of "magic" to make the list. None of the presidents since Reagan, Bush Jr & Obama included, seem to have that certain touch (Bill Clinton might make it, but if so then he'll be rather ignominious among the list).
Grayhome wrote:Then they start mega churches and sends millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the election campaigns of politicians who agree with their religious agenda and upon being elected fight against LBGT rights, women's rights, try to get creationist teachings put into science classrooms, try to teach that slavery in the United States was just a big conspiracy and that it didn't happen, etc.
And corporations do it as well, and so do labor unions; and in case you forgot, one of the most vociferous anti-slavery factions was precisely such for religious reasons.
Grayhome wrote:
Also: just because some egocentric and dumb people interpret "holy texts" in a very (for them) convenient fashion does not mean that the interpretation is right, or followed by a majority of that religion.
Krulle the United States fought one of it's most violent wars over the slavery. The scars of that conflict are still prevalent today and I still see quite a few confederate battle flags in my home state in the north. This is not a "some people" event that can be waved away, this was and is a very important historical event and it continues to influence the United States to this day.
The Civil War was also fought over a (accurate) perception that the South was losing political power to the north (there really were that many immigrants at the time, and they shunned the South... because of the slavery, and what I consider an accurately perceived similarity between Southern plantation owners and English lords of the manor). The South could have (and arguable should have) tried to diversify into industry, but because of their opposition to debt they never did: the delay of the Inter-Continental Railroad until after the Civil War is at least partly a result of this.

The scars of the conflict are, in fact, not just over the war itself, but in fact over differing cultures (though certainly more similar than at the time):

When someone from a red state hears someone from a blue state talking about the environment, they hear a desire of one faction within the United States to impose it's vision of the future upon the rest (Obama is unfortunately not a good enough orator... or maybe it the speech writer? to avoid this. He actually managed to sound like an Ayn Rand villain one or twice when addressing a liberal audience :| ). Fortunately, as long as we don't get one of the fringe-wingers among the Republicans as the next President the excesses of this administration will likely get rolled to something more reasonable (we can leave their excesses to whoever comes after that, and there's always some... Enhanced Interrogations, anyone?).

Meanwhile, when a blue stater hears a red stater talking about abortion, they hear a desire of one faction within the United States to impose it's vision of the future upon the rest (I actually might have heard worse than you, since I actually live in a red state). These laws tend to get overturned fortunately, and that's if they even survive the legislative sniff test in the first place (politics tends to draw money-hunters and TvTropes Fundamentalists though, so they do tend to pass... then again, NYC Soda laws, so it applies on all sides).
Razor One wrote:

I decline to bake that cake, on the grounds I do not condone your actions. You go get guns (government) and force compliance. Repeat after me, "Its a free country" (⌐■_■)–︻╦╤─ now bake that cake.
Ah yes, the infamous cake incident. Please examine the following statements.

Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is gay?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is black?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is muslim?
Would you agree that it is good and correct for a business to refuse service to someone who is french?

Those last three are flat out illegal.
If the Hobby Lobby case is carried forward, then depending on the respective groundings of the decisions (I don't even remember if I heard why the court ruled the way it did), eventually all of those refusals may actually be legal... with caveats. The Hobby Lobby health-care case established that certain corporations can be legitimately ascribed specific moralities, but also established that forcing action against those morals is indeed against the law. The later of which is certainly reasonable when applied to groups that genuinely have some form of morality, since otherwise a Neo-Nazi could legitimately sue the Anti-Defamation League for not being hired if the successful applicant was verifiably the vastly inferior candidate. No, seriously, if you take that last, uncomfortable step back then you do find that if a group's morality is not allowed to play a role in business decisions, then the Neo-Nazi is the correct hire, because the organization's hiring procedures are capable of calculating that in the absence of the moral-horror of that particular hiring decision the Neo-Nazi is the superior choice, and any decision to the contrary is a violation of legal non-discrimination rules.

And if morality is a valid factor in business choices for groups (whether corporations, labor unions, social lodges, etc.), as the Supreme Court has itself de-facto ruled to be the case, then it is virtually impossible to not apply that rule to individuals. Which is where a bit of irony comes in, because while you can usually tell if someone is black from looking at them, you can't reliably determine that with homosexuality: I expect that either the laws will be changed, or we will discover what the Supreme Court thinks about requiring business decisions to all be enforceable :lol: (if they say "yes, it must be enforceable", then all business rules against serving gays and Muslims will instantly be invalid, rendering the whole point of those laws moot: because that plaid-wearning grizzled slightly smelly white male trucker that you serve at the lunch counter might say if asked that he is both gay and Islamic, yet you were fine with feeding him for years).

This is one of the reasons why the BSA allowing gays is actually major within their ranks: it makes the BSA itself (not necessarily the individual troops) subject to discrimination rules in a way that they previously were not (it's a less extreme equivalent to the Vatican deciding that homosexuals can serve as clergy).
Razor One wrote:That first statement is still a rather emergent phenomenon legally, and so varies state by state. The flipside of freedom is responsibility. Freedom is also a two way street. One of the cornerstones of freedom, democracy, and the sheer success that the US is built on is the fact that anyone can do business with anyone within certain legal restrictions. You can't be refused service just because you're black. Or french. Or muslim. Buy you can be refused service in some areas because you're gay, or you're promoting a pro-gay message.
And customers can refuse to buy from you because you sound Texan, or you have a christian bumper-sticker, or you promote a anti-gay message. Freedom is a two-way street all right, but bear in mind that there is always some dark implication of this or that which can bring the whole thing tumbling into chaos or tyranny, and that all of us customers in some sense depend on those rules being applied only to the "merchants", and never to the "peasants".
Razor One wrote:I feel that for the same reason that businesses must serve black people, muslims, and frenchmen, businesses have absolutely no right to refuse service to gay people. If you're fine with businesses discriminating against gay people then you also must be fine with businesses discriminating against just about anyone else for any reason. It's a free country, right? Or does this right to discriminate only apply when it's against a group that you find distasteful?
It's a free country, right? Let California boycott Arizona.

Seriously, no happiness lies down this road, only scale can even hope to keep this train of logic from rampaging while rabid.
Razor One wrote:
Nemo wrote:
To say nothing of the poor thought which has gone into the LGBT community. There are two modes of thought here. One is that it is a choice, something you can pick up or drop as a habit.
There is literally nobody in the LGBT community who advocates that their sexuality is ever a choice.
I've actually heard it before, though it was years ago.
Razor One wrote:

Other is that is a biological imperative, just born that way! If it is true that it is a choice, it is a choice which others must be free to support OR criticize at will. If it is not a choice, but a fault of biology, then science will eventually discover the fault. Be it randomly mismatched DNA or a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy it matters not, eventually it will be known and after that, will be treatable. In the meantime that would make it a disease or perhaps more accurately a syndrome of unknown cause. Yet it is illegal to try to treat it as such in two states, California and New York, owing to questionable past practices (electroshock therapy) attempting to treat it as such.

Curiously, the only modern research I know of in that line is Oregon State University research into ram sexuality. PETA tried to stop that research by saying the results could lead to medical research into changing the sexuality of humans. The researchers then took flak from LGBT supporters for daring to inquire into the medical basis of homosexuality. Interesting that a group which insists it suffers greatly not by its own choosing but as a consequence of biology does not want nor encourage medical research into finding answers or possible treatments or cures. Groups waving flags and wearing ribbons for curing this disease or that cancer, but not in this case. My question becomes where does the biology end and the choice begin?
I find it rather disturbing that the moment we accept that homosexuality has a biological basis that we must then immediately move towards identifying and 'fixing' it as though it is problem. It also disturbs me that the way you phrase it coming into being mandates that it be a mistake and the attempt to relegate it as a disease. Exactly what is wrong with being a homosexual that requires fixing? If your answer is that they face societal pressure and persecution, then I would argue that it is society that needs to change and not the other way around.
This particular perspective actually arises out of taking a very mechanical view of the biological aspects behind it, rather than anything sociological. My point earlier about transsexuals was actually much the same: if you actually think about the biological subjects in question, rather than any other influencing factors, then asexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality don't make a lot of sense, because you have limited resources (sperm and eggs.. and time, I suppose) with which to achieve something that theoretically the biological processes in question should be attempting to achieve (reproduction). From a low-level perspective he is actually perfectly right.

It's much like transsexuality, where it would only make sense for society to touch the subject if some sort of societal gain could be reached via that intervention, but none the less, when you're just considering the biological concepts it's a perfectly sensible question to ask.
Razor One wrote:That being said, they have found some genetic factors that increase the rate of homosexuality. It's linked to fertility. Assuming that the factors that give rise to homosexuality are solely genetic, you'd also need to effectively nuke fertility across certain cross-sections of society in order to 'fix' the 'problem'.
And this is where you start to move beyond low-level biological matters. It doesn't change the low-level biological reasoning, but within an individualistic society (like our own), it should be enough.
Razor One wrote:That being said, genetics is certainly not the sole factor. There are cases of twins where one is homosexual and the other not. You can't really argue that genetics are a factor there, and since a lot of those cases have the twins growing up in identical environments and frequently together, sociological factors become difficult to underpin as well.
It was years ago, but some study gave me the impression that around 80% of the human population is probably genetically bisexual, with the minorities being homosexuals, heterosexuals, and asexuals (apparently a genuine category: they enjoy sex, but they don't experience sexual attraction like most people).
Razor One wrote:There are a lot of factors, known and unknown that go into shaping ones sexuality. Finding what these factors are is certainly a scientific endeavour worth pursuing. Taking that knowledge and using it to determine a good and correct sexuality and labelling all other sexualities that do not conform to that standard as things to be fixed, as a disease to be cured, is beyond repugnant and for reasons I would hope are readily apparent and obvious.

There's also no stopping a group you dislike from rising to power and declaring your way of life as a disease to be cured and then persecuting you in turn. How we treat our minorities reflects upon us as a society. I prefer to live in a society that is just, fair, and tolerant if not inclusive. The society that opts to 'cure' the gay is, in my view, none of those things and on a very dark path indeed.
Agreed, but when I was a child I was interested in living in isolation on a mountain, so I am fully aware of why: I prefer individuality, whereas those actions are rooted in social tilts, where communism and fascism eventually manifest (Fascism is economically the "conservative" counterpart to Communism). We actually see some level of manifestation of this darkness, such as the Shining Path's opposition to the concept of human rights. The monster is ever on the other side of the mirror, and we cannot outrun it, but instead merely not become it.

User avatar
dragoongfa
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by dragoongfa »

Absalom wrote:It was years ago, but some study gave me the impression that around 80% of the human population is probably genetically bisexual, with the minorities being homosexuals, heterosexuals, and asexuals (apparently a genuine category: they enjoy sex, but they don't experience sexual attraction like most people).
Iirc that study was proven false after a period of time, the ones questioned had such inclinations due to personal histories and the researchers even put people who had a single homosexual encounter in the bisexual category (to be considered bisexual one has to pursue sexual encounters with both sexes).

Later studies that tried to emulate the above with a broader and more diverse sample size failed to reproduce that result, ending in an overwhelming heterosexual majority and a very small homosexual one.

Sweforce
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Religious Discussion

Post by Sweforce »

dragoongfa wrote:Later studies that tried to emulate the above with a broader and more diverse sample size failed to reproduce that result, ending in an overwhelming heterosexual majority and a very small homosexual one.
Not that it makes homo/bi/other sexuality wrong in any way but we need to realize that they are not the norm.

Post Reply