Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2013, 01:35 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 01:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 12:58 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Nope. I have a problem with the same government bullshit too. They shouldn't have to pay for it. They should point to that and say they don't want the government forcing them to go against their beliefs, and also point to that and say we don't want to do the same to others. Oh, and it absolutely is an artifact of religion. To say otherwise is an outright lie. I know it. You know it. You know I know you know it. Don't bullshit me. You aren't that stupid.

If religion suddenly vanished, the phenomena would continue. It is an artifact of man's nature to impose his will and morality on others. Religion is often just the tool he uses.

Yes, but since the 'homosexuality is wrong' comes from religion, so would the notion that homosexuality is wrong. You know why people hate homosexuality? The following reasons - God hates it and the bible says so.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 01:42 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 01:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 12:58 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Nope. I have a problem with the same government bullshit too. They shouldn't have to pay for it. They should point to that and say they don't want the government forcing them to go against their beliefs, and also point to that and say we don't want to do the same to others. Oh, and it absolutely is an artifact of religion. To say otherwise is an outright lie. I know it. You know it. You know I know you know it. Don't bullshit me. You aren't that stupid.

If religion suddenly vanished, the phenomena would continue. It is an artifact of man's nature to impose his will and morality on others. Religion is often just the tool he uses.

Ah...NO.

Homophobia is largely a product of the Judaic religions. Native Africans, Americans, Australians and the Chinese never had a problem with homosexuality. Nor did the ancient Greeks or Romans. In fact I don't think any ancient civilisation had a problem with it... although I'm happy to stand corrected if someone knows more than I on this
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:50 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index...pic=4011.0

Here is the thread dedicated to bashing atheist. Hypocrites

I made in the first post!!

I'm so proud of myself..... Flex

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 02:02 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 01:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 01:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If religion suddenly vanished, the phenomena would continue. It is an artifact of man's nature to impose his will and morality on others. Religion is often just the tool he uses.

Ah...NO.

Homophobia is largely a product of the Judaic religions. Native Africans, Americans, Australians and the Chinese never had a problem with homosexuality. Nor did the ancient Greeks or Romans. In fact I don't think any ancient civilisation had a problem with it... although I'm happy to stand corrected if someone knows more than I on this

In my conversation with Dark Light I was speaking about the phenomena to legislate the behavior of others not homosexuality specifically.

But to your point, Obviously some ancient civilization had a problem with it otherwise it wouldn't have made it into the Judaic religions. Now if you insist that no ancients had a problem with it....there is another explanation. It could be true that it came into the Judaic religions because God exists and commanded as such.

Who knew that homophobia would be evidence of God's existence.Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 02:32 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
I still want to know why the debate about extending *rights* which should apply legally to all humans is centred around the commands of some hypothetical invisible being last seen (apparently) 2000 years ago. It's completely bizarre.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-10-2013, 02:50 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2013 03:01 AM by evenheathen.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 02:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But to your point, Obviously some ancient civilization had a problem with it otherwise it wouldn't have made it into the Judaic religions. Now if you insist that no ancients had a problem with it....there is another explanation.

This was posted earlier by Bucky. You seem to have missed it.

(18-10-2013 09:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century. There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight. There was also no notion of a continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality), as science recognizes today. Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.
The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.
The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".
There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.
#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture. The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around. There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.
The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 03:37 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:39 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Right on. But you would vote to see legislation put into affect that aline with the RCC's standards, even if it does not aline with the views of much of the population?
Well, such a vote would not have much effect if it is a minority view, right?

The thing is that one votes for a political party, a whole set of views and stances. If I were American, for example, I could not in good conscience vote for the Republican Party, even if certain moral views do overlap. Likewise, here in Belgium, the only political party that is somewhat morally conservative is also a nationalistic party with racist sentiments. I can not vote for that party either.

The Roman Catholic Church's standards are very broad, encompassing also economical views (which personally follow in the form of distributism, or more broadly Christian-Democracy). I'll always have to compromise when I vote for a party, make choices. Furthermore, the RCC does have certain moral standards, but there can be (and is) a lot of debate on how those would be translated into practical laws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 03:51 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 02:50 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  This was posted earlier by Bucky. You seem to have missed it.

No, I read it. I actually found it interesting which I found surprising since it came from Bucky. Even if his account is true it doesn't change anything.

The source of "homophobia" is either God or people....not religion. Even if a religion teaches "homophobia" the religion is either inspired by God, in which case God is the source of the "homophobia" or the religion is a construction of man, in which case men are the source of the "homophobia".

I find blaming religion for "homophobia" to be silly. One thing atheists and theists should agree upon is that religion is the creation of an intellect. It isn't responsible for anything anymore than a car is responsible for anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 06:09 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Instead of getting a marriage liscense, straight couples should just sign a contract which spells all that out.....just like homosexual couples....that's equality. You know the cool thing about contracts? Is the two parties get to draw up the terms of the marriage....not some asshat politician....that's freedom.

I agree. But that's not the way it is now, is it? Why is that? Because we've discriminated. Why? Because the bible said some BS about homosexuality. So ideal world aside, we're back to reality: there is legislation that denies rights to gays. It's based on religious doctrine. Is that moral?

(19-10-2013 12:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nobody is forced to adopt or use an adoption agency. Don't like the adoption agencies policies, don't adopt, or go to an adoption agency you do like and give em your money instead. Forcing adoption agencies to service gays is a violation of the individual freedoms of the operators of the adoption agency. What if the government said you couldn't open an adoption agency that served gays exclusively. Isn't that a violation of your rights? I think it is.

People who can't biologically have kids and want them (hetero or homosexual) are forced to adopt (or steal) a baby. If the service is made available, it should not be exclusive. Really, you need to read history and see how segregated societies act. If my choice is that or, as you say, forced service for all... I'll take forced service. There's nothing appealing about segregated societies. It simply caters to the petty fears of racism, sexism, etc.

(19-10-2013 12:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Give me school vouchers and I can send my kids anywhere I want.

Now you're pulling a PleaseJesus and sugar-coating the situation. You cannot send your kids anywhere you want. You can only send them to theist-friendly schools. The benefit to that is what, exactly?

(19-10-2013 12:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I wouldn't have a problem with a doctor that refused to do a vasectomy because the wife didn't agree to it on religious grounds. I wouldn't have a problem with a doctor that would do a vasectomy regardless of the wife's religious feelings. The doctor is free individual too.

Cute. A vasectomy. In your world, a doctor can also refuse to treat a heart attack. I mean, we can't force them to restart your heart. Besides, you believe in an afterlife. God's just calling you home.

There are certain things that I consider essential for a great society: healthcare, food, lodging, education, etc. I have yet to see a great society that denies these things to segments of its population. Your alternative is not appealing; history shows that. I don't give a shit if a Christian doesn't want to sell me a cake. I give a huge shit if they refuse to provide healthcare or educate someone. It's not as black and white as you want it to be.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
19-10-2013, 06:20 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2013 06:23 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 08:49 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If everyone on the planet suddenly became black, it wouldn't be catastrophic. If everyone on this planet suddenly became heterosexual, it wouldn't be catastrophic. However if everyone on the planet suddenly became homosexual, it would be catastrophic.

It is good for society if homosexuality isn't prevalent.

Are you implying that if everyone is homosexual, humanity would be doomed?


You do realize there is a thing as ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, right? So, your "argument" doesn't even make fucking sense.

Homosexuals can reproduce, they just don't want to do it via heterosexual intercouse. If everyone turned gay, I think humanity would still manage to survive.

When He tried that analogy on another thread, I explained to him that if everyone was black, it WOULD have negative consequences. Not because being black is bad, but because we cannot evolve without genetic diversity. There are genetic traits that can affect a single race - like sickle cell anemia.

So his argument is invalid. Completely. Utterly. Invalid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: