Why are you not a Christian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I said sinful, not either of these, because it's a broader term. You will hurt others for your own gain at that age. Surprised you've never had to look after a younger brother or something Asher. Kids can be really vicious.

I have a younger brother, and I know what you mean about kids being vicious (bullies, etc). I just don't think they're born that way, and in fact I think it's absurd to think that.

To society corrupting the pure state of children. How can things improve?

As far as I can tell, Christianity is one of many things corrupting the pure state of Children.

For instance, you. Your Christianity is why you will seek to deny equal rights to millions of loving couples. Yet you think you're right in doing so.

So loving someone means you don't correct them when they do something wrong?

You can't separate your Christianity from anything you say on here. That's why it's futile to argue with you, you're a dyed-in-the-wool born-again Christian...

I don't consider being black wrong. I don't consider being gay wrong. I don't consider being transgendered wrong. I think telling your child that any of the above is wrong is not teaching them with love. Children need to be taught to love people who differ from themselves, not to shun them or "correct" them.

Christianity made the value judgement that "homosexuality is wrong". I don't think you realize it, but you're proving my point here with it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nah, I maybe exaggerated a bit

Though, I think that it's reasonable to say that christianity institutionalized the concept.

About relevance according to OP, I guess that I'm just as much OT as you were with your posting

Edit : While I'm quite aware of the egyptian mess, wich I see more like a civil war, than a hatred against what people outside egypt belived, I really can't find anything about greeks going to holy war before christianity. Can you provide a link ?

Akhenaton smashed all the idols of the old Egyptian gods, saying that the only god was Aton, the solar disc. It was a purely Egyptian affair, but I should think it qualifies as religious hatred. I got the bit on holy war from a book, the Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion, which states in its entry on "amphictiony" (a confederation of city-states based around the leadership of a major shrine): "They could punish those who offended against the sanctuary, and the Delphic Amphictiony could even declare a Sacred War against an offending state." Hmm, sounds a bit different from, say, the crusades, but it certainly qualifies as religious violence. Oh, under its Sacred War entry, the book says they were "Four wars declared by the Delphic Amphictiony against states allegedly guilty of sacrilege against Apollo." It seems the last occurred in 330 BC or so.

Dinnertime. I'll post more later.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have a younger brother, and I know what you mean about kids being vicious (bullies, etc). I just don't think they're born that way, and in fact I think it's absurd to think that.

I don't know. My observations match those of the others here that there seems to be something else going on here.

I'm a bit astonished that you would support the outmoded philosophy of tabula rasa. Infant's aren't blank slates by any means that you can mould and shape however you want.

As far as I can tell, Christianity is one of many things corrupting the pure state of Children.

So if we smash Christianity, things will improve? You were saying I was setting up a straw man, I hardly think that is the case.

For instance, you. Your Christianity is why you will seek to deny equal rights to millions of loving couples. Yet you think you're right in doing so.

Yes, because marriage isn't about equal rights. It isn't an individual right. I do not have the right to marry whomever I want, it must be done with the consent of both parties. If marriage were an individual right, then we would be able to force others to get married to us, because our right to get married would be a fundamental human right like life and liberty that we could not be deprived.

Asher, what would you consider behaviour to be wrong? You see the narrow case, I am looking at the larger, you are right that there are fundamental differences in our worldviews, that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are right that we are taught to love each other, but how a Christian sees love is that love also includes discipline. No parent who loves their children will keep them from being punished when they have strayed. That is what I was trying to get across to you. This is what true love is about.

Do you consider anything to be sinful Asher? I'm curious.

Christianity made the value judgement that "homosexuality is wrong". I don't think you realize it, but you're proving my point here with it.

How so? Saying that what you do is wrong is different then hating you. Let me give you another example. Is it wrong to steal money from someone? Do I no longer love you if I point it out to you that you are wrong to steal money? Hardly, unless you consider stealing to be an essential part of your identity which you cannot be separated from. Would I truly love you if I encouraged you to steal things and then you got sent off to jail?

[Ben Kenobi]

dp

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't know. My observations match those of the others here that there seems to be something else going on here.

I think you'll find that there's not many "others" out there that think people are born bullies or racists.

I'm a bit astonished that you would support the outmoded philosophy of tabula rasa. Infant's aren't blank slates by any means that you can mould and shape however you want.

In terms of social growth, this is not outmoded -- in fact, it's the generally accepted idea. There are biological constraints -- predisposition to aggressive behaviour genetically, chemical brain balance issues, etc but for the most part, the social growth of an infant is determined by their upbringing, surroundings, and experiences. This is not "outmoded", this is what most experts would agree is the case.

What you seem to be confusing it with is the "tabula rasa" philosophical idea from philosophers of old, and not the modern social psychology meaning.

So if we smash Christianity, things will improve? You were saying I was setting up a straw man, I hardly think that is the case.

I think things will improve for equal rights for gays. This is not the same as saying things will be "good" or perfect or fixed, or any other implication of your strawman.

Yes, because marriage isn't about equal rights.

The hell it's not. Any individual should be permitted to marry the person he or she is in love with, if that person is determined to be of sound mind and mature enough to make that decision. Any discrimination that would prevent one person from marrying another based purely on the gender of the people marrying is infringing on equal rights.

It isn't an individual right. I do not have the right to marry whomever I want, it must be done with the consent of both parties. If marriage were an individual right, then we would be able to force others to get married to us, because our right to get married would be a fundamental human right like life and liberty that we could not be deprived.

This is yet another strawman. Nobody is talking about individual rights in particular. It's the right of a person to marry the person they love, if they consent. I'm not advocating arranged marriages enforcable by law. I'm not advocating marrying children to adults.

Any law and any position that prevents two mentally competent adults from marrying eachother based on the genders of the people involved is discriminating, and is exactly the case where there is not equal rights.

This has been discused to death, and you simply do not choose to comprehend this situation in any reasonable matter so let's not discuss your theories of why gays are comparable to pedophiles, polygamists, and bestiality freaks...thanks.

Asher, what would you consider behaviour to be wrong? You see the narrow case, I am looking at the larger, you are right that there are fundamental differences in our worldviews, that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

What do I consider to be wrong? You getting in the way of two individuals who love eachother because of bigotry.

Others include murder, rape, theft, etc.

I don't consider what two consenting men or women do in the privacy of their own home to be "wrong". I do consider somebody trying to enforce their bigotry in law and social code to be wrong.

You are right that we are taught to love each other, but how a Christian sees love is that love also includes discipline.

That doesn't matter here at all. I'm not Christian, I'm not subject to your discipline, where do you get off legislating me to your insane belief system?

No parent who loves their children will keep them from being punished when they have strayed. That is what I was trying to get across to you. This is what true love is about.

I understand that, but you're not getting the point. Punishment and negative reinforcement are very much tools in loving somebody and guiding them as a parent. The problem is most Christians -- yourself VERY MUCH included -- have misguided definitions of "wrong" such that you "punish" people who have done nothing wrong but be related to such bigots.

Do you consider anything to be sinful Asher? I'm curious.

A pretty stupid question, isn't it? Sin is a religious concept.

How so? Saying that what you do is wrong is different then hating you.

Knock it off with all of the ****ing strawmen. The only person using "hate" here is you. Again.

Let me give you another example. Is it wrong to steal money from someone? Do I no longer love you if I point it out to you that you are wrong to steal money?

You keep on missing the point completely. Homosexuality is not wrong, you just believe it is and in your "love" you cause endless torment to people you supposedly love. Your belief system should be your own, but the fact of the matter is you and your ilk get off on forcing everybody else to abide by your wicked little religious code.

Something tells me if we started imprisoning people for practicing Christianity and preventing Christians from marrying, you'd change your tone on the subject matter.

Hypocrit.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Asher
That's fantastic. I suppose she's all for equal gay rights to marriage as well. If so, good on her, but that's irrelevant.

I meant it as a counterexample to your comments on indoctrination.

[Asher]

The fact that sometimes indoctrination fails doesn't disprove anything, and I'm also not sure that black people in Pennsylvania were the subject of religious persecution in the 1950s.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
I think your society is ****ed up if its children are inherently racist.

They aren't inherently racist, but they need to be taught that people aren't inferior because they are different. If their parents are racist or maybe ****ed up in some other way they may become racist. Church can be a part of that or it may not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, because marriage isn't about equal rights. It isn't an individual right. I do not have the right to marry whomever I want, it must be done with the consent of both parties. If marriage were an individual right, then we would be able to force others to get married to us, because our right to get married would be a fundamental human right like life and liberty that we could not be deprived.

So straight couples don't have the right to get married either?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


Akhenaton smashed all the idols of the old Egyptian gods, saying that the only god was Aton, the solar disc. It was a purely Egyptian affair, but I should think it qualifies as religious hatred.

I know it's fictional, but my first encounter with this was The Egyptian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egyptian but that made me curious, and while there are a lot of religious nuttery in what happened, I see it more like a power struggle. Btw, that book is actually pretty good.

I got the bit on holy war from a book, the Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion, which states in its entry on "amphictiony" (a confederation of city-states based around the leadership of a major shrine): "They could punish those who offended against the sanctuary, and the Delphic Amphictiony could even declare a Sacred War against an offending state." Hmm, sounds a bit different from, say, the crusades, but it certainly qualifies as religious violence. Oh, under its Sacred War entry, the book says they were "Four wars declared by the Delphic Amphictiony against states allegedly guilty of sacrilege against Apollo." It seems the last occurred in 330 BC or so.

Dinnertime. I'll post more later.

That helped a bit - though, it sounds more like a bunch of greek states that set up some rules about how wars was supposed to be fought and if someone broke those rules, the others could gang up against the offender - it sounds more like some ancient time geneva convention/UN construction than religious nuttery.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Asher
The fact that sometimes indoctrination fails doesn't disprove anything, and I'm also not sure that black people in Pennsylvania were the subject of religious persecution in the 1950s.

As Kid said, religious beliefs do not have a monopoly on indoctrination. But I think I've misunderstood you, reading over your posts again; you're talking about all opposition to gay marriage, not just virulent homophobia. That, I admit, could be inculcated by religious upbringing. I thought you were implying that the crazy SOBs who killed that Shephard kid in Wyoming (for example) were "made" crazy by religion.

BlackCat, if we're going to continue this discussion (not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about prechristian religious history), I'm going to need an operating definition of what you consider "religious hatred." Holy wars don't qualify, idol-smashing doesn't qualify, so what does?