I think focusing on someone believing in a deity as the point of conflict is a bit stupid.
You must really cringe at some of my posts then.
You can't force someone to become an atheist and hounding them into submission is just wrong. And making this the focal point or central issue of the conflict trivialises issues that are actually worth fighting for.
I see merit in that as far as the tactical plan (of the culture war). From a strategic POV though I think the arguments I prefer to raise (God does not exist) offer the potential of a long term solution. Namely, if enough people began insisting that this is true, then some of the folks walking around with bad logic might snap to it. The scales might fall from their eyes.
If you attack their faith or belief in their deity in trying to push and encourage equal rights, for example, then their reaction will be to dig in to defend their belief in their deity of choice first and foremost.
That's the tactical POV. I see the logic. quinn related this recently, as a matter of her own personal experience.
One of the main things to remember is that religious text is written by man. It's not divine.
You realize in saying that, you've effectively stated their deity does not exist. (This idea was developed in the recent documentary
Questioning Darwin. To the hardcore fundamentalists, anything that challenges the literal Word of God implies that God does not exist, and is therefore an abhorrent abomination.)
The main issue with this is that it hasn't changed or altered in a few hundred years. Certain aspects of texts still remains in the veritable dark ages, and it applies to the time in which it was written. After all, the men who wrote these books could only apply their own experiences and what they knew and understood or believed as per their time. What needs to be encouraged is a modernisation of said text to suit society as society evolves. At the very least, it's interpretation needs to evolve along with society instead of still holding on to the literal interpretation which would have been fine 2000 years ago, but hardly apply in today's society and the numerous cultures that exist today.
Once you even suggest touching the text, you've wiped out all of fundamentalism. They don't realize it, but they've made the text their deity.
I found Jan's comments that only someone ordained can stone someone for sinning to be abhorrent.
That was an eye opener! It was like a major breakthrough just to get Jan to say such a thing. In all my life I have never heard any fundie explain the rationale for projecting hatred onto others as a matter of divine right. While my skin crawled like yours--it sounds like a a justification for a cult-based horror flick--in a sense I was relieved that finally someone let the cat out of the bag.
It's barbaric and it applies the literal interpretation to a religious text that would have been right at home 2000 years ago, but society and human beings have moved well past that level of barbarism. Is it based on faith? Or a literal interpretation?
Exactly. Literal interpretation of some sadistic practice which today would put people behind bars for life, or get them the death penalty.
My parents are strict Catholics. Go to Church every week, don't eat meat on Friday's during lent, the whole nine yards.
That fits with a lot of the human rights subjects you are always advocating for. My observations of Catholicism are that it's very strongly motivated by the commandment by Jesus to tend to the serve the needy. Now if they will only recognize that there is a huge segment of the population who are "needy" for equality, then they will have broken through the barrier of the older taboos.
However they are strong supporters and advocates for gay marriage and believe that priests and nuns should be allowed to marry and that women should be priests. It goes against their religious teachings and literature. But their beliefs stem from their belief in God and the whole Christian ethos that is often lost - that all human beings are created equal and that they should not judge (even me, their very atheist daughter).. But most importantly, that God loves all he creates and would love cast such stones and hatred because someone was different? That is the central basis of their belief and their faith. Their religion is just somewhere they feel they can go, pray, do something for others and hopefully be part of a religious community that encompasses their faith.. Amazingly enough, their parish is overly progressive to the point where their priest quietly blesses gay unions and their gay members give out communion and read in Church sometimes. Heaven help the Catholic Church if they try to do to my parents parish what they did to a parish in my State, by dismissing the priest for similar reasons - the whole parish supported the priest and all were happily expelled.. My parents would not take such actions against their parish lying down.
Wow. You know there was a similar schism in . . . the Methodist church, I believe? . . . for ordaining a female. As I recall, it was followed by a reconciliation, in which the long standing rule was overturned. It's inconceivable that this (blessing gay unions) would happen in the Catholic Church today, but who knows? Maybe the next pope? In any case it can't go on forever. Something eventually has to give, and it won't be society.
Religion needs to move forward with the time. It needs to adapt to a changing society. Not society adapt to religion.
How about that. I arrived at the same conclusion just at the same time.
The correct answer Jan should have given is that people should not be stoning others because stoning others harms the other person and they should take a lesson from Christ... The central basis of Christianity... Which is ironic really.. Because the very things religious Christian conservatives advocate for and would support are the very things Christ would not have done or supported.. He did not place conditions on how or whether someone could be or should be accepted. Which is why to me, Jan does not quality as a real Christian. Hater's who call themselves Christians kind of don't really do as Christ would have done.
As I recall Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and they all realized none of them were sinless so they left. The shocker is that there are a branch of Christians who believer they are sinless. That's nothing more than lack of remorse. It's really a strong indication of a psychopath. Hence you see how it might be easy to imagine murdering someone without a sense of guilt. Geez. What's up with that? :bugeye:
