principal culprit
I’m trying to wrap my head round this comment because I can see in a science fiction novel how it may be the case, but I’m struggling to get how anyone believes it’s a potential real-life scenario.
There’s a problem with the whole argument (if you wish to follow the quote link) in that lumping lesbians, bisexuals, gay men and transgender people into one group and making conclusions about all of them based on the practices of some of them, is clearly wrong. Then, I don’t get the leap from alleged physical damage during sexual activity leading to anyone being genetically unnatural. However, my main interest is the idea that anyone would consider forced ‘treatment’ in any of these cases.
An atheist argument goes that if any one religion was in fact the real deal, then an actual god would have the ability to communicate it to more than one place. Christians learn their faith from other Christians, Buddhists from other Buddhists – they don’t pop up independently. Every religion has very distinct beliefs that reflect something of the culture they evolved in. That’s why no religion is natural. Lesbians, gay men and transgender people have popped up in isolation in every culture and society in the history of the world. They are clearly natural.
So, is it part of the brain acting up that needs to be sorted? I think if any individual feels genuinely unhappy within themselves about their innate impulses then they have the right to attempt to change their own behaviour. I think the idea of forced treatment only comes into play with someone who is a potential harm to themselves or others. Does the existence of gay men, lesbians and transgender people pose a threat in terms of harming themselves or anyone else in society? As far as I can tell, harm raises its ugly head as a direct result of the discriminatory reactions of other people.
People feel rubbish about themselves, even depressed and suicidal, when their friends tell them they are ‘sinning’, when their family disowns them or when random strangers are constantly spreading insane notions like “God holds special contempt for homosexuality, calling the act and the impulse not only an abomination before Him, but also placing, in His view, the homosexual outside of the human race.” In terms of ‘harm’, Christians, brandishing their god of love, seem to be the principal culprit in most western societies. So this ‘benevolent’ god God created homosexual penguins and dragonflies but he hates the homosexual nature of the homosexual humans he created? Heterosexual Hitler can stay on the Christian god’s official human race list, but all the gays are off. This clever deity also created man and woman as two distinct genders, although, rather inconveniently, hermaphrodites have snuck into his intelligent design. Maybe they’re just a sinful lifestyle choice too.
As another post pointed out recently, potential psychological disorders are all over the place. When you believe something that you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch exists, and you have no evidence for its existence other than an old book of dubious origin and a funny feeling, you are so very clearly a stone’s throw away from having a psychological disorder yourself. Who’s wanting forced treatment now?
Human experience and indeed, human sexuality, is not defined by a black and white set of guidelines or rules. As you point out, if we are to say there is but one narrow range of ‘normal’ and further that all humans should be made normal… well, just who is going to be trusted to say what ‘normal’ is. The correct answer is that human experience and thus sexuality is a range of values and not simply this way or the wrong way. There is no wrong, only things that do not work for you personally. Sure, there is genetic guarantee that many or most of a species will find a narrow set of values most appealing yet this does not define life for a species or for life itself. Nature has given us not one or two species of apes nor one or two species of ant. No, nature has given us a large and diverse set of possibiliites. This large diversity is celebrated by many for most of life yet when it comes to some particular that we find unappealing, we call it wrong. It’s not wrong, just not for us. We don’t destroy flowers that are not appealing to us… oh, we do in our own yards. We destroy what we don’t like with abandon but we also know that doing so in someone else’s yard is not okay. It’s okay to be homophobic in your bedroom even if it’s not advisable, but it is not okay to be so in public or at work etc. The problem is not that human sexuality provides us many orientations. No, the problem is in the ability of many to accept that they are merely one orientation in a large experiement by nature to keep the species going. At that, it is not guaranteed that any one orientation is necessary nor that they are correct or best. All that is known is that there are many and some produce more offspring than others. The success of a species is a value judgement which has not been well defined. It might just be that success is defined not by reproduction, but by sustainable life cycles and being positive toward other species.
LikeLike
“the problem is in the ability of many to accept that they are merely one orientation in a large experiment by nature to keep the species going” – nicely put! I think it’s useful to think about sexuality and sexual identity in terms of nature and evolution, as with everything in life. But I don’t think any conclusions that we draw can affect how we treat individuals or groups of people. It’s a standard case of the majority thinking their way must be ‘correct’, which is ridiculous. By the way, is it okay to be homophobic in your bedroom?
LikeLike
Yes, I do not pretend to be the thought police. It is okay but in my opinion ill advised. When you bring such thoughts out of your bedroom you run the danger of being offensive, wrong, or caustic to others. This is not the best state of being. It may not be right, but I don’t have place to say what you do in your own bedroom.
LikeLike
Love it. Great post. Awesome.
Just today I went to an animal fair. It’s run by a rescue group we support and is essentially an adoption day for abandoned animals. Wonderful people run it, they deserve every bit of support they can get, and we do what we can. Whilst there my wife and I met a simply wonderful couple who’d brought their adopted dog back for a visit to her one-time temporary family. A gay couple, so caring, so nice, so balanced I wanted to put them on a pedestal. They weren’t young, obviously been together for years, and I couldn’t help but imagine two finer people to raise children. Any person who’d find objection in these two (or for that in the many, many, many gay people I’ve known through the years) is borderline psychotic in my books.
And you’re spot on: gay is natural. It’s not thought through, nor is a choice made.
LikeLike
Thank you! I thought about putting some equations in it to back my words up, but was put off by the lack of praise I received when I took that route. 🙂
One of the biggest problems with the Christians who rant about homosexuality (well, apart from their silly book) is that they don’t know any homosexuals! It’s just a big, scary, imaginary ‘bad’ for them. The ones that do meet nice couples like you met today are thrown into a right state of confusion. Then they slowly work their way to re-interpreting or ignoring those pesky passages, because they really do want their god to be benevolent.
LikeLike
Oh, the couple we met today were as camp as a row of tents; gay as a rainbow. I think most silly Christians (not all, of course) would have serious trouble with them simply because they were just sooooo gay. Me, i love it. the more gay the better. I love people being people, whoever the fuck they are. It made me sad though to know these two couldn’t marry. They can adopt children here in Brazil but they have to jump through hoops to do so. It’s ridiculous… hating someone because they love? Madness.
LikeLike
You and your equations! By all means throw in some math… just as long as you agree to acknowledge my Errrrruuuuuuuummmmmm reaction 😉
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
People with synaesthesia are clearly disordered. There is something wrong with a brain which produces visual information not related to light entering the eyes but to sounds entering the ears. My own feeling about synaesthesia ranges from envy to pity- wonderful to experience briefly, difficult to have all the time. If some cure were available, many would not take it, and who would force them? Authorities would only seek to force them if they found the sufferers disgusting or threatening.
LikeLike
Nobody wants a world where everyone is the same because that would be too boring but there’s a big parnoia dose of fear deep in our psche of anything that’s different from our current established norm. Maybe light is more correctly and precisely expressed as sound. Maybe being born physically one gender and mentally another gives you a deeper understanding of the human race. Must be an interesting yet very difficult experience and it’s up to each individual how they want to handle it. The idea of forcible treating people who aren’t hurting anyone is insane. My sister (a font of wisdom) once told me that she didn’t want to go on the pill because it flat-lined her hormones and she didn’t get her natural monthly rhythms of plunges and highs. Normal flat life just isn’t inspiring.
LikeLike
What you consider normal is to you normal because that is how you have always experienced life. Those that have synaesthesia have their own normal. Your reaction to it is startlingly sad. You seem to assert that your normal is the ONLY normal and that anything else is just broken. I have to tell you that by the standards you have set here, I think your brain is broken because it thinks is seriously misguided ways. You should have it fixed.
LikeLike
Your stupidity is demonstrated by your imagining you know me from your misinterpretation of the words of this comment. I was so surprised by your response that I looked at my comment again, to see how you might read the opposite of what I clearly intended. “Disorder” here is used in an objective rather than moral sense. As I clearly say, many synaesthetes do not see it as a problem and would not have it “fixed”, and there is no point in giving a cure which is not wanted.
LikeLike
You continue to assert that they are broken by referring to a cure and they are disordered. By such standards you can say the same of people who are 7ft tall or any attribute that is not normal by your standards of normal. Contortionists are clearly not normal. Other races are clearly not normal by your standards. Just because someone is different does not mean they are not normal or are disordered. To even use the word implicitly requires a definition of ‘ordered’ … So exactly what is a normal human being then?
LikeLike
I think you’ve completely misunderstood what was being discussed here. Clare was making reference to one aspect of the wonderful variety of experiences that differently formed human beings have, but yet how much if it seen as problematic – by either the person who feels they aren’t ‘normal’ or by other people’s judgemental views of differences. There are clearly biological norms that most of the human race fit within. Most people on some level want to fit within the ‘norm’ for sheer acceptance and ease of living, even when most of us acknowledge that the diversity of experience is an invaluable, fascinating and often beautiful thing.
Your example of a 7ft tall person is perfect! I love seeing massively tall people, it’s very cool! But when you talk to really tall people, you find that many just wish they were normal sized so that clothes fit, beds fit and people didn’t stare at them all the time and ask ‘what’s the weather like up there’ every day. Some of them love it, of course, and enjoy the advantages it brings. And there is voluntary and medically recommended treatment for adolescents who seem to be going that way, to avoid medical problems and discomfort in later life. But if someone were to suggest forced treatment because ‘it’s just not natural’, it would seem ridiculous. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
Indeed, and I made an overly confrontational response, though I have not used the word “broken”. To put it another way, we move from an ideal of “normal and healthy” and medical treatment to move closer to that ideal- eg, genital surgery for infants with Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD is a term some in that community use)- to an idea of diversity, and medical treatment for those things which the person treated perceives as a problem.
There are still issues with this. Does someone have breast implants because she is tyrannised by the concept of beauty as an ideal?
LikeLike
Stated this way, it does make sense.
LikeLike
Apology accepted 🙂
LikeLike
I think that homosexuality is not only natural, but is much needed right now! After going from 2 billion to 7 billion people in the last 90 years???
LikeLike
Once we add sterility from all the chemicals we’re spraying around I’m sure the global population will be back under control within a generation. Well, if it wasn’t for those pesky scientists and their test tubes …
LikeLike
The highly miscegenated Jewish community in Germany also did not see the Holocaust coming. I have nowhere stated that LGBTIs are wrong or unnatural because of the actions of a few. The crux of my argument is that poor arguments on behalf of the LGBTI community may be harmful. I have also not argued that physical damage due to anal sex means that LGBTIs are genetically unnatural. As for forced treatment, it depends on the social context. In China, the needs of the majority trump the rights of the minority even if the minority number in the hundreds of millions. Thus, I don’t think envisioning forced treatment is far-fetched. Something can be natural but not be naturally selected i.e. a feature can be found naturally but not be beneficial.
LikeLike
Hi Chazlng, thanks for reading the post. I know that the main point of your post was that poor arguments aren’t helpful, which I agree with. I wasn’t arguing with you specifically in my post but with some the ideas that are clearly out there, which you had alluded to and obviously don’t completely disregard. I’m very interested that you bring up China – are there examples of large groups of people undergoing forced treatment? I’m aware of religious persecution and murder so I suppose it’s not a big surprise. You’ve made me realise how my thinking tends to stay locked in the western world these days.
One other comment has made the point that perhaps people who are less likely to breed, at this point in time, are probably beneficial for the human race.
LikeLike
Specifically, I don’t know of any forced treatment programs in China but if your rights are trampled to please the state, then it can happen to anyone if they fall afoul of said state. I am thus arguing more on trends than on actuality. Many things have selective benefits but the entire context is crucial. Frankly, we do not know the full implications of more LGBTIs and never will until it occurs. As you know, there is stratification even in the LGBTI community so that this may become even more pronounced if LGBTIs increase too fast. In engineering (if I recall correctly), every benefit brings a limitation.
LikeLike
“if LGBTIs increase too fast” You keep saying you are on neither side but your language suggests otherwise. They’re not going to increase ‘too fast’. Their proportion of the global population may increase or decrease, or we could all suddenly realise we’re one of them. What does it matter? The world will chug on somehow. They are just people trying to live their lives like everyone else. This kind of over-analysing random, potential scenarios, and feeding the hateful prejudices that unfortunately are still floating around, serves absolutely no-one.
LikeLike
Many groups that quickly increase in size tend to deteriorate in their initial resolve (e.g. Pentecostalism). This was only an example of a possibility and nothing more. I understand that you may be sore about this topic especially if it has personal repercussions. However, in my experience, it doesn’t matter if the unsavory is out in the open or not, the effects will be the same. For example, my site has many posts about race realism which is probably the worst in hate and prejudice. The effects of race realism do not change whether I discuss, analyze or complain to journal editors, but discussing such topics arms individuals with information so they can defend themselves and/or change what they think. At least, that’s the intent and hope.
LikeLike
You misunderstand, I’m not sore about this topic at all and it has no personal repercussions. I think I understand what you’re trying to do, and I agree that we do have a tendency to shy away from facts and statistics that do not support our way of thinking, especially when they can be used by people with a hateful or prejudiced outlook in a negative way. My concern here is that I think you may be one of those of prejudiced people, and you are using your very odd and boring posts to ‘help’ the arguments of racist and homophobic people. On the other hand, you may be slightly as you claim, and ambivalent about the topics, but the fact that you’ve revealed you believe the Bible to be the word of a god suggests otherwise. Even if you are not strongly prejudiced yourself, you definitely come from that slant culturally. I’ll go back to your blog later this afternoon to find some of the things you say that indicate this. I hope we can continue this aspect of the discussion independently of the undoubtedly rude and ranty strand the Ark is currently conducting with you.
LikeLike
You are wise to suspect but I don’t think that you will ever find an answer that’s factual. It’s hard to know the secret intents of anyone. Culturally slanted? Sure, I would think we all are. Don’t worry about Ark, their posts are actually mildly amusing.
LikeLike
”Don’t worry about Ark, their posts are actually mildly amusing.”
THEIR posts!!!
Hmmm.
Definitely not right. You truly are an odd duck. The archetypal blog troll, me is beginning to think.
LikeLike
Rude and ranty…RUDE AND RANTY.
That’s IT The engagement is definitely OFF. Send back the ring, dammit!
LikeLike
The ‘atheist argument’ is factually incorrect and philosophically untenable. The Jews have worshiped a single supreme deity and so have the ancient Chinese who worshiped Tian or Shang-di. There are no unarguable truths in an atheistic worldview.
Here is how a nice fundamentalist might respond to your theology: The God of Christianity is not only a God of love, homosexual animals are not God’s original intent, Christianity does not care about lists but about who is sinful and who is not, hermaphrodites are not God’s original intent. No Christian only believes in God due to an old book and funny feelings. The bible is an ancient book and all ancient books are of dubious origin. No one wants forced treatment.
LikeLike
Well, if you want to fly in the face of science (I’m doubting this, based on your posts) and believe that the god God created the world in seven days, put Adam and Eve in that nice garden, and then the official list of ‘Jewish’ people that follow from then on – I suppose it’s possible to believe that the Jews always existed worshiping their supreme deity. I tend to think that there were a few stages in between that are embarrassingly missing from the Bible’s history of the world. And in theses missing stages I’m quite sure there was no god God being worshipped. I also don’t get how it’s philosophically untenable to argue that if a single deity of supreme power actually existed,there’s no way it couldn’t manage to communicate the same message to two separate places. What we have at the moment is religions building on religions that built on superstitions. All completely different because they evolved through man. Not divinely communicated.
Are you a fundamentalist? I can’t be bothered arguing with the rest of it if your position is all supposition … 🙂
LikeLike
I am not convinced that science can answer the question of a recent or long creation. I thus try to hold off on taking sides since there are evidences and problems on both worldviews. Engineering, philosophy and math seem to argue IMO for a recent creation, some of the natural sciences (biology and geology) seem to argue for a long one.
The bible contains many stories which are embarrassing to the Hebrews unlike other religious texts. If there were moments of atheism, they would have listed it. Rather, the Hebrews are always being chastised for polytheism. Also, I don’t recall any atheistic ethnic group ever being found in anthropology. Most groups had some sort of spiritual belief so it is a hard sell that there were temporal atheist Hebrews.
The argument is that there is evidence that people worldwide worshiped a single creator unlike what is proposed by the linked pictured text. It is philosophically untenable because atheism has no foundation for truth claims. Thus an atheist cannot state that something is an “unarguable truth.” Only some engineers would claim that in respect of what can be engineered and even then they would be philosophically incorrect.
I am not a fundamentalist. I view their fundamentals as correct and their execution as incorrect. Well, all of knowledge is pre-suppositional or axiomatic so I agree with you there. However, these are the “nice” fundy arguments so while I suspect that you are not in the mood to argue theology, I hope you can do so if and when a situation arises.
LikeLike
“it is a hard sell that there were temporal atheist Hebrews” – nobody has suggested that anywhere. Every society has had some sort of superstition – theism specifically is not the default, and certainly not one brand of theism.
“I suspect that you are not in the mood to argue theology, I hope you can do so if and when a situation arises.” Not really, my knowledge of the Bible is patchy these days. I tend to rely on common sense when I’m arguing. So you think the Bible is the actual word of a deity? If you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to have an incredibly unusual outlook on the world and way of processing information. I had a quick look at some of your ethnic condom size posts, and it’s all rather bizarre. But adding all this obsession with figures, research and science, your strange comments about racism and gay people, and now your declaration that you view the fundamentals of fundamentalists as correct, is a very unusual picture. Care to share for the psychologically inquisitive?
LikeLike
I do believe that the bible represents the words of the creator to man. Where people fight is usually over the interpretation. My site deals a lot with race realism as stated in a previous post. This topic is sad and quite nasty to the ordinary mind as well it should be. I found that absolutely no one had scientifically analyzed certain race realist claims. Thus, to challenge their views, I have to resort to science which leads to the long boring posts with figures and peer-reviewed source listings. I’m not sure what you mean “about racism and gay people.” Could you give an example? I doubt that I’m as unusual as you think but that’s a possibility.
LikeLike
”I do believe that the bible represents the words of the creator to man. Where people fight is usually over the interpretation.”
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear…here we go. A fringe groupie for William Lane Craig
Took a while didn’t it? All the philosophy sort of got in the way for a while and even I was confused as to where you were coming from.
It should be mandatory for religious people – especially those like you who would try the covert approach – to announce themselves up front. You know, like lepers used to have to do? Ring a bell, or something?
So, you believe you have the correct interpretation do you? Or at least something approaching your god’s original words, or intent? Pffft!
Got a hot line to your god have you?
Then maybe you could pose this question to him? (while you are on your knees praying or something)
“Hey, Dickhead, how come you didn’t get it right from the off, you absolute prat.”
LikeLike
Your entire post seems to be the following: I have a big problem with something I believe does not exist and I’m angry about it. Am I right Arkenaten?
LikeLike
Ah…here we go the condescending passing shot. What next, Freudian analysis?
Having perused your rather effusive blog I am, for some odd reason, left with a bad taste in my mouth. My instincts tell me you are not on the level, by I am damned if i can put my finger on why that is? But I shall.
I don’t have ANY problem with something that does not exist, only smarmy individuals who try to baffle people with bullshit.
Oooh , just like you in fact.
I am merely annoyed with myself that I was obliged to wade through all your trite posts before the truth oozed out.
.
I prefer people to be upfront and honest. Not to wallow in subtext.
LikeLike
I’m still trying to figure out exactly what truth you found on my blog. If you care to point out the BS as you view it, I have an open comment policy.
LikeLike
Smile…Truth?
The posts I was referring to are, of course, your comments here on Violetwisp’s blog, and even she is struggling a bit to fathom your responses, which come across as slightly patronizing.
While she most definitely doesn’t need me , or anyone else to help, I believe she may rely on good old woman’s intuition (much underrated) in a short while and call your bluff.
LikeLike
I have updated my “About” page, so thank you. I’m working on the patronizing part but would argue that many blog posts by nature needs to be patronizing or at least can be interpreted as such even if the intent is otherwise.
LikeLike
I will add this. As I found it on a comment you made on your own blog: Evolution 101 for Afrocentrists
http://ethnicmuse.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/evolution-101/#comments
”I do believe that the bible represents the words of the creator to man.
”The burden of proof falls on he who asserts first”.
So. Go ahead…prove it.
LikeLike
I used the word ‘believe’ not that I can show or prove that a creator exists. Context is important. If you have heard Craig, his kalam is all the proof you need IMO. If you want to discuss the kalam, I’m all for it (on my blog though so that this blog post doesn’t veer off topic). Just say the word. I am not religious, not covert and not out to convert anyone to Christianity (not on a blog anyway, how silly would that be?).
LikeLike
Context is not important if you refer to the bible as the source you claim your belief stems.
That you say you are not religious is another disingenuous statement as you are obviously a christian.
Thus this will influence everything you write.
Maybe your Christianity was clear to others and I was just a tad slow on the uptake. Not the first time, and I have had a hectic weekend as well.
But at least it clears the path as to how your worldview will influence your thinking and writing and how you should be approached.
Yes you used the word believe, with the tacit implication that this is truth…or at least the warped christian view of truth, right?
I will quote you once more.
”The burden of proof falls on he who asserts first”.’
Go ahead…prove it.
LikeLike
I am trying very hard to be charitable here but you have a poor grasp of logic, sentence structure interpretation and practical Christianity. Again, if you have issues with anything, post on my site and we can discuss and/or mud-sling to your hearts desire.
LikeLike
”I am trying very hard to be charitable here but you have a poor grasp of logic, sentence structure interpretation and practical Christianity.”
Big Smile…..
Clever…but not very intelligent. Bit of an oxymoron to use condescension and then include the word charitable in the same sentence.
But then asinine comments from those who attest to a make believe man-god is nothing new.
”…….interpretation and practical Christianity.”
Christian interpretation is the problem, and there is nothing practical about Christianity.
If you care to open up a relevant post, I will be more than happy to.pop over and comment.
I am sure there are plenty of folk who would be more than willing to discuss this with you, now that you have ”come out” of the metaphorical closet as it were.
P.S. You will have to excuse my Neanderthal nature. It was the way I was drug up.
LikeLike
“This may be where racists go wrong in that they think that because there are physical attributes which can identify an individual’s group accurately, that said features indicate strongly fixed original groups instead of genetic and anthropological similarity due to separateness …. Sadly, we have to wait on genetics to provide more data; though, it doesn’t look promising for those who think they’re for the most part, racially “pure.””
This final paragraph in one of your recent posts suggests that you think it’s in some way disappointing people can’t prove they’re racially pure. It also suggests that you think that racists would have a point in their hateful discrimination if they could prove they were racially pure. From the discussions we’ve had till now you seem blind to sarcasm, so I think we can rule that out.
You have some really useful posts in there, buried among condom studies and ethnic penis size posts (why is this so interesting?), and I still love that picture, even with the slight wonky-ness in the wall. I would, however, be interested to know how much of it is a genuine search for useful facts and how much of it is looking for irrelevant facts to support discriminatory points of view.
LikeLike
Oh, I (finally) see what you’re getting at. My intent was to say that sadly genetics is not at the stage to provide data on racial origins, content and mixing and thus this is sad because in the meanwhile, race realists will have a field day. Presently, genetics uses the terminology and framework of racists so much so that there are race realists who are specialists on genetics and ‘human biodiversity.’ If you were to argue with one of these self-learned ‘specialists,’ you would most likely get beaten bloody as they are well versed in their views. I try to stay away from that though.
Ethnic penis sizes is one of the saltier areas in race realism with posits that Africans (males and females) have large genitals and are thus more promiscuous and likely to get STDs, not care enough for their babies, have high testosterone and be intellectual dull and that East Asians are the opposite end but that Europeans are the right mix and thus the best. The idea actually has peer-reviewed ‘support’ which I have been trying to refute.
You can get an idea of race realism views and reasoning from this shortened book (the actual book is worse): http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf
The links on this post should be helpful as well: http://ethnicmuse.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/richard-lynn-race-realism/
LikeLike
Thanks for the links. The whole area of research to support prejudiced views like racism and homophobia was previously unknown to me, so I’m intrigued. I’ll hopefully do a post on it some time soon, it’s something I’d like to think about more. It’s such a ridiculous waste of time – the equivalent of doing research to prove that men are stronger than women. Yes, generally they are. But it doesn’t make men better in any way or women genetically flawed, bad or naturally unselected. Maybe to keep men genderly pure they shouldn’t breed with women.
LikeLike
Hahaha, your last point is quite a zinger.
LikeLike
You have some facts wrong, I believe. Atheism makes no argument. It is the rejection of belief in gods or the supernatural. It is not a world view, but the rejection of an assertion by theists.
“The Jews have worshiped a single supreme deity..” So what are those first four commandments all about? They have not always worshipped a single supreme diety any more than the Hidus do. That one of a pantheon is held superior does not equate to monotheism.
“homosexual animals are not God’s original intent”
How the $#%$@# do you know what the original intent of the god of Abraham was? Does he talk to you? Visit hallucinations on you?
“…Christianity does not care about lists but about who is sinful and who is not..”
And this is precisely the problem with Christians. They are all to concerned about who is sinful and all the ways they can prohibit sin in the world. It is Christians and not their Christ that proclaim others as sinful. If Christians would just read their damnable book and do what it says they’d leave judging sin to their god and go mind their own damn business. But no, Christians are here to speak for their god and tell everyone else how wrong they are and enact laws to prohibit what they personally feel is a sin against their god. A TRUE Christian would not do these things, at least according to their book.
LikeLike
Ah…I was hoping you would make a return, being much more erudite that I. Ta…good one.
Chazing’s blog make interesting…albeit somewhat weird reading..
LikeLike
A worldview is just a way of interpreting the world so to an atheist this would mean a world through a non-supernatural lens (most likely a strong evolutionist view). Monotheism can be found in many forms. Christians would claim that a pantheon like that of pagan Greece would represent a debasement of the original monotheism. That could also be said with respect to the spirits worshiped along with Shang-di. Also, there is only one god in Hinduism, this is sadly a common misconception thanks to Indologists. The original intent would be that which was stated and derived by interpretation from scripture. Even laws prohibit sin (murder, rape) so its uncharitable to call out Christians for doing what any society desiring stability would naturally do. I’m drawing a blank in terms of where the bible paint a picture of the true Christian you mentioned.
LikeLike
There is a difference between ‘non-supernatural lens’ and without belief in supernatural beings. Lens implies a narrow view and is more appropriate to the theist who views everything through the lens of theism. The unnecessary structure of the phrase implies limitation that is not there.
== According to Christian tradition, monotheism was the original religion of humanity but was generally lost after the so-called fall of man. This theory was largely abandoned in the 19th century in favour of an evolutionary progression from Animism via Polytheism to Monotheism as the last link in a long chain; but, by 1974 this later theory was less widely held.[2] Austrian anthropologist Wilhelm Schmidt had postulated an Urmonotheismus, “original” or “primitive monotheism.” in the 1910s.[9] It was objected that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had grown up in opposition to polytheism as had Greek philosophical monotheism.[2] Furthermore, while belief in a “high god” is not universal, it is found in many parts of Africa and numerous other areas of the world. ==
What is NOT known is what the first religion or religious belief was. You seem to want to define god in differing ways. Is Vishnu the only god in Hinduism? Hindus don’t seem to think so. Odd that you would define god for them.
==The original intent would be that which was stated and derived by interpretation from scripture. ==
Except that there was no scripture originally. It came after the ideology of theism, long after. Isn’t it nice that you get to interpret the scripture to say as you think? Again you go on with the ‘intent’ assertions. You have no solid or credible facts to back up any claim of original intent with regard to the god of Abraham.
If by laws you refer to my comment about the commandments, do you know what the first four say? They are all about not worshiping other gods, which the Jewish people were all too eager to do.
Where Christianity claims morality that is otherwise commonsense was given to them by their god, they deserve to be called out on it. The Babylonians and many others had moral laws well before the Jewish people. Moses immitated Hammurabi by chiseling down his top ten on tables of stone. Don’t you think god of Abraham waited a bit long before actually making laws? He knew they would be needed but waited around for everything to get fucked up then got all pissy about it. Nice!
LikeLike
I disagree with your view of worldview but that’s minor. Your quote does not preclude the view that polytheism is devolved monotheism. The average Hindu does not know much about Hinduism or any religion for that matter. Hinduism has one god Brahman, two other manifestations (Shiva, masculine, destroyer) and Vishnu (feminine, preserver) and all the other minor gods and everything we think is the universe are vivid manifestations of his dream. Scripture would have to be after some form of belief otherwise it would not be properly understood. I have only given an interpretation and invite you to give yours. The scholarly method of biblical interpretation can be used by you to offer alternatives. By law I mean that which comes naturally to nation states e.g. British common law. The fact that the Jews were polytheists and had to be scolded and threatened with curses for their actions means that they were theists of sorts and not atheists which was a claim previously made by violetwisp. The claim is that innate moral law was codified by the 10 commandments. Again, this would not preclude the Babylonians from having the same or similar laws. Additionally, the 10 commandments would be the permissive will of God who really desired his laws to be written on their hearts.
LikeLike
“they were theists of sorts and not atheists which was a claim previously made by violetwisp” I never made that claim and I clarified your misunderstanding in a later comment.
LikeLike
“And in theses missing stages I’m quite sure there was no god God being worshipped.” – This to me means that you think that there was a time where the Hebrews did not worship any god. Am I correct in this interpretation?
LikeLike
I have no idea what they worshiped, but as every primitive society has worshiped in some sense some spirit being or beings, I would imagine they superstitiously acknowledged something, which would mean they were not atheists. Maybe golden bulls or whatever whoever made up the god God was annoyed with. And anything else that came before the golden bull – dead people, plants, animals, hills etc. – not a deity as we now understand it, but supernatural beings with supernatural powers.
LikeLike
Your assertion that monotheism is the first theology is unfounded, without evidence, and this negates any value you placed on such.
So you define god again… What is the definition of a god if you think that the Hindus and others do not know what a god is? Then explain why you are right and all the others are wrong. No waffling, full explanation with details and theology etc. You continue to define god to fit your comment. Lets hear the full definition of what you think a god is.
You twist again. I did not claim the Jews were atheists. If you want to answer everyone else’s statements in a reply to mine, there is no way to make sense of your thoughts. I think you are a troll. Why not just admit it up front.
LikeLike
How quickly discussion devolved into this. So I will repeat with emphasis:
“I have ONLY given AN interpretation and invite you to give YOURS. The scholarly method of biblical interpretation can be used by YOU to OFFER ALTERNATIVES.”
LikeLike
Still trolling. Start with your definition of what a god is. Lets get a beginning point to work from.
LikeLike
Christianity is largely based on two major non-negotiable points. That The NT and thus Jesus is the -fulfillment of prophecy – notably – that Jesus was the product of impregnation of a 12-14 year old girl by a deity and that said offspring’s his divinity is largely confirmed through the resurrection.
None of the above is either correct or can be verified.
The Virgin Birth prophecy is hogwash and the passage in question in Isiah, does not even refer to Yashua. As I am sure you well know.
Better folk than I have argued against the plausibly of the Resurrection so I will not bother entering
such crappy waters at this point.
LikeLike
One must be careful with the nature of evidence. The virgin birth seems to be naturalistic hogwash. However, the big bang cosmological model also seems to be naturalistic hogwash as we have no evidence of nothing ever exploding and creating vast spatial complexity. Frankly, the audacity of a virgin birth and/or resurrection is paled by that of the big bang. Yet I believe that you are a big banger evolutionist, am I correct? At least with the virgin birth you have a virgin and the resurrection has a corpse. The big bang starts with nothing or not anything (and no quantum fluctuations either). If you are a big banger, please explain how that can occur. If not a big banger, what postulate/hypothesis/theory do you hold on the origin of matter?
LikeLike
You need to defend your position … the statement about the big bang is a misdirection. You’ve not answered the questions put to you and you continue to behave like a troll. You clearly do not underestand the theory of the singularity commonly called the big bang. You need to stop trolling. It makes you look stupid.
LikeLike
Supernaturally, many things which seem impossible can be possible. Created realms like the Laplacian domain are routinely used in engineering and math with no problems. It actually makes life easier. If you want to discuss the singularity I’m all for that as well. The singularity is also absurd, much more than a virgin birth. I would love to be enlightened on the compression algorithm of the singularity though I doubt you can assist.
LikeLike
Except there is no credible reason to think that there is anything that is supernatural. You’re starting to sound like a computer chat bot. Let’s start with your definition of what a god is. That will give us a framework or starting point to continue discussion.
LikeLike
@ myatheistlife
He wont come to the party. You have now pushed him into a corner where he is obliged to put up or piss off. I’ll lay money on the latter ( maybe with a bit more bullshit before he chuffs off)
LikeLike
I think it’s a chatbot – with a fair library of conversation. Pulling out Laplace in that context was clever, but chatbot-ish. You can see how the search engine found a link and used it… at least that comes to my mind.
LikeLike
You seem to have the prophetic qualities of a god. Perhaps like your avatar, you fashion yourself as one.
LikeLike
Could be. But something about him her it is not on the level, whatever it he she is.
LikeLike
It looks like link hoping replies and continued assertion that “I’m only offering opinion, what is yours” kind of thing. This is required for chatbots. They often go quiet when you only ask they do something and make no statements of your own.
LikeLike
There is no reason to believe in anything for an atheist. On atheism, we cannot ever be sure that reality is even real since our minds and perception ability would be products of mindless evolution. I fail to see how a definition of God is relevant but I’ll play. God is the initial uncaused cause of all of creation (the usual kalam).
LikeLike
The usual Kalam has been soundly refuted time and again. Why continue to use it? It does not support your god or any particular god or any god at all being the creator of the universe. The universe is not shown to have a beginning, only the form we see it in now. The cause does not have to be a god and finally the notion that anything and everything that begins to exist requires a cause is refuted by raindrops, sea spray, and snowflakes with regard to an intelligent agent as the cause. To top that off, even if we grant the supposition that the universe has a intelligent agent as a cause, that cause can be a malevolent and malicious being.
Atheist have every reason to believe and know that theists do, we simply do not believe in incredible claims of the supernatural. Evolution is not mindless, as this infers that creator god again, it does not have a goal and is not a process, it is an explanation of why there is diversity of life on the planet and the mechanisms which helped produce it.
William of Occam posits that we should not infer more complexity than is needed to answer the question. A creator god as the answer does not answer the questions: 1-why are we here? why is there existence? 2-What is the purpose of life?
In the case of #2, if the purpose is to get into heaven, the theist must answer the question of why this god didn’t just fix things that way in the first place. In the case of #1 the answer ‘because god did it’ still gives no meaningful answer, and certainly no answer that is more useful than ‘shit happens’.
LikeLike
The kalam has been refuted? Poor Craig hasn’t got the message. How did you determine that the refutation was the final word? Scientifically, no one really knows if time had a beginning but logic demands that it does. Time is one dimension we exist in and every dimension has a starting point. I’ll leave you to find out why your raindrop argument is really bad. Craig has also dealt with the nature of the initial cause which would exclude your “malevolent and malicious being.”
Atheists believe that life came from non-life without any scientific validation. I am open to you presenting any evidence to that end. Evolution is a natural process which by definition is mindless unless you think that nature has a mind of sorts. Yes evolution is an explanation and a mechanism (and sometimes quite a good one) but it is not the only one.
Occam’s razor is simplistic. As I see it, granting Occam leads to the easier explanation of God is the initial cause. It is far saner to believe that something (God) created something else (the universe) since we have examples of this in nature than to believe that nothing/singularity created the universe. Godless evolution does not answer any of your questions. As for your questions, Google be thy name:
http://carm.org/why-are-we-here-or-why-did-god-make-us and
http://www.apologeticscanada.com/2012/05/09/the-meaning-of-life-in-600-words-or-less/
I’m curious though, what are the answers to your three questions in an atheistic view?
LikeLike
As I suspected. A Bullshitter of the first degree, and now you resort to the theological two step, the default position of your ilk, without directly addressing the issue at hand, specifically the origin of the ‘false ”prophecy” and the crap of the Resurrection.
You presume I am a ”big banger.” Hmm. Well it might surprise you and many others that I take a non-committal stance on this issue, and there is no need, or any way to fully answer this question. YET. But I sure as shit will not posit any deity into the blank space, which only idiots are wont to do because on no intellectual alternative. Even an ”I don’t know” is at least more honest than the crap you peddle, my friend.
Furthermore, unlike my erstwhile fellow bloggers, who have demonstrated, decorum and a lot of tolerance, I refuse to pussy foot around folk like you and prefer to be more direct. It avoids any future misunderstanding to show our cards, don”t you think?
You come across as a fundamentalist dickhead, and something about the tone of your posts, here and on your blog, is shouting something at me in a very odd fashion. I’m damned if I can put my finger on it but there is something not right.
You are a fraud.
LikeLike
If you are a consistent atheist, then you simply cannot have a non-committal stance on the big bang. Even if you could have said stance, you would then need to explain why you can’t take a similar stance on something less miraculous like the virgin birth and the resurrection. Your flair for language is exactly what sustains fundy stereotypes of atheists. Since you insist on your two initial assertions (i.e. specifically the origin of the ‘false ”prophecy” and the crap of the Resurrection), here’s my view on them. They cannot be proven but they should be viewed through standard scientific means. One cannot determine what a person today is doing exactly so we are unable to determine what actually occurred at the time of these events. That said, evidence from the scriptures could lead us to believe that Jesus was resurrected. You may have heard these already from WL Craig. We simply don’t know and it is not proper or scientific to ask someone to present hard evidence to that end. I already dealt with the virgin birth but not in a manner you think appropriate. If there are superb miraculous beliefs in cosmology (big bang out of nothing, singularity), it is not unreasonable to believe lesser miracles. Also, as far as I am aware, the virgin birth of Christ is not a prerequisite to be considered Christian. If you want to see different views compared, then the Christian Think Tank is the place to go.
LikeLike
Wrong. An atheist does not believe in gods, period. It says nothing else, and you can draw whatever conclusion you wish. It is of no matter to me.
And I will once more refer you to your own words. ”The burden of proof falls on he who asserts first”.’
So prove it…
I am not interested in your interpretation of the Virgin Birth simply because it is interpretation.
.
You are interpreting this doctrine for your own ends. Read: Making it up as you go along.
The Isaiah passage does not refer to Yashua. End of story. It was plagiarized adapted by the gospel writer.
To apply it to Yashua is a lie.
And chucking in the big miracle, lessor miracle wont wash with me either, Sunny Jim. Go and pander that to some William Lane Craig Groupie where it might give you a rise.
Common sense is a wonderful and oft neglected part of these discussions, and common sense tells me that you are and will remain a Twit.
I am happy to leave you to your delusion; content that I have, at least in part, forced your hand, so those that read this and other posts you appear will know from whence you come.
T’ra, Dickhead.
LikeLike
It is of no matter to you hence your need to mention it. You give the term ‘simplicity’ new meaning. You don’t understand Christian theology, you don’t understand the burden of proof such that you need to quote me using it (LOL!) and you don’t realize that you have asserted something that you cannot prove, namely that the virgin birth was hijacked by a gospel writer. Why would I care what washes with you? You are free to disagree and make postulates of your own. Seems like you live in some sort of repressive country where people need to move lockstep with your views or they need to be smeared into submission. Common sense is not common and many times not scientific. And there I go again assuming you can process information logically. My bad. If I am delusional and you have called me out, then the readers of this post can make up their minds for themselves.
LikeLike
Smile…are you going to sulk now because I wont play any more. I’m sorry.
Growing up is painful. But you might get there, then you can play with the grown ups too. Wont that be nice?
LikeLike
Pingback: Come join the Fun…please! | A Tale Untold
Violetwisp.
I apologize if I have inadvertently commandeered you post. But arseholes like Chazing need to be exposed for what they are. There is something not right about this bloke, I am convinced ,and it seemed he was stringing you along.
LikeLike
No problem. I enjoy your little rants and am amused when people choose to take you up on it. I wasn’t very interested in his theological beliefs beyond establishing that he is a Christian of some sort. I don’t see that he was ‘stringing me along’ in any sense, I was trying to understand what his angle was, and he’s continued engaging in a pleasant manner, even if he doesn’t want to divulge all. I find that whole field of research rather interesting, in a bad way. I’m glad Clare found him, it’s an intriguing avenue.
LikeLike
Ah, fair enough. I did mention that your woman’s intuition would soon kick- in …in a non sexist way, of course!
His own blog leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason.
LikeLike