This blog is having an
existential crisis

While I tinker with a new design, I’m also pondering how, what, and why I write here. I don’t know how long that will take, but you’re welcome to email me and see how things are progressing.

Stress-testing the
mind of Christ

Where a recovering ex-atheist rams the Bible into other worldviews to see what breaks (note: Scripture cannot be broken)


exchanges
A showcase of Christian hatred and secular tolerance

A continuation of an exchange on homosexuality, reposted from Facebook.

Davidgot any reasons why homosexuality is vile and despicable that dont rely on the circular logic of a book of ancient jewish mythology?

Got any reasons why pedophilia is vile and despicable that don’t rely on the circular logic of your own opinion?

Davidreally? thats too easy.

So…no?

Davidyoure actually going to make me explain a concept even children understand? thats your argument? once again youre just avoiding my questions. my rant might have been snarky, and the thread may have been getting derailed by trolls, but i genuinely tried to engage your argument several times before that, and each time you either backed away from previous points or avoided me, by busting out the dictionary to needlessly debate the meaning of discrimination for example.

are you even aware how offensive your repeated implied comparisons between homosexuality and a whole range of criminal acts is likely to be to actual gay people?

but how about you just answer my first question. got any reasons why youre a homophobe that dont rely on the bible?

MikeI still stand by my point that your god died a long time ago and your disgusting attitude is being slowly weeded out of society,
xtianity is vile and despicable, and maybe that does rely on the circular logic of my own opinion. but the more people that share that opinion, the closer that opinion is to becoming part of the social contract.

When will we finally start taxing the god damn churches? That’s what i want to know.

Sorry David, you don’t get to ask questions which imply that you are in an epistemically superior position to me, when in fact you are not. If your moral beliefs are grounded in nothing but your own opinion, then you have absolutely no foundation for critiquing my moral beliefs. *At best* it is simply your opinion versus mine.

Suppose I don’t have any reason to believe homosexual behavior is immoral besides the Bible. So what? What’s your justification for rejecting the Bible’s teaching on morality? Your personal opinion?

Btw, as I said before, I don’t have a phobia of homosexuals; I’d appreciate it if you’d stop imputing irrational fear to me, given how concerned about you appear to be about being offensive to people.

xtianity is vile and despicable

What is freely asserted can be freely denied.

Mike especially when you have faith i suppose. would you like me to back it up with the history of whole world or something?

I don’t think faith is what you think faith is.

Mike i think that was the least poignant part of my last post

Sorry Bnonn, you don’t get to make statements which imply that you are in an epistemically superior position to me, when in fact you are not.

David I’m almost glad to see you say your objection is entirely religious. At least you’re not claiming to have, like, empirical evidence to support your position (though I feel that’s likely to send you scurrying away to some conservative blog for some stats about aids or something). I think a post was deleted? I’m not worried about offending people particularly, that’s probably obvious, nor am I really personally offended by anything you’re saying, but I did want to check if you realise how ridiculous it sounds when you try and equate gayness, a love shared between consenting adults, and raping a child, or hard drug use, or bestiality…. But then hey, you’re a catholic right? I hardly need to tell you about unfortunate references to pedophilia. And seeing as you love definitions, homophobia is a dislike or prejudice against homosexuality, you don’t have to actually fear them like the boggieman or something. Where you like it or not, you’re literally the dictionary definition of a homophobe.

David, perhaps you could explain what empirical evidence for homosexuality being moral or immoral would look like, and how it would avoid the naturalistic fallacy.

The term “homophobia” is simply a case of scurrilous use of language. It is akin to saying that if you disapprove of Obama you’re a racist. Or the McCarthy era government labeling people communists to silence them. A phobia is primarily understood as a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phobia). Thus, homophobia carries that connotation *regardless* of what you say the denotation is. However, even on that point you are mistaken, since homophobia is actually fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobia). I do not fear or hate homosexuals, and I don’t mistrust them any more than I mistrust heterosexuals. So on this point you are empirically wrong.

And no, I’m not a Catholic.

Tom Yeah, Interpretations is certainly one of the things I find the biggest absurdities of religion.

For instance if I read the bible and interpret morality as requiring me to stand on one leg every morning while decapitating 3 rabid kittens or I’d go to hell, then apparently that’s equally as valid a view as anyone else because I can always point at passages in a book and claim that’s the way I personally read it. That’s the thing – it’s just my personal interpretation representing nothing more than whatever whacky way I choose to read it.

Keywords being “choose to read it”

And in this case it’s pretty clear to any reasonable person that Bnonn feels quite uncomfortable with the idea of gays so has found it quite convenient to choose to interpret obscure passages in the bible in the most extremist manner because it fits his comfortable bigoted world view.

Probably doesn’t even realise he’s doing it, the poor, simple lad

Tom, any reading of a text whatsoever is “apparently” as valid as any other? According to whom? That’s certainly not the Christian view. Sounds like you’re constructing a strawman.

I wonder if you could you illustrate for us what the “moderate” (as opposed to my “extremist”) manner is in which to interpret the following four passages:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Lev 20:13; cf http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-13.htm for parallel translations and original Hebrew.)

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev 18:22; cf http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm)

“God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Rom 1:26-28; cf http://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10; cf http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm)

I wait with bated breath.

For the record, here are a few of the other kinds of people I am “uncomfortable” with, and so find it “convenient” to interpret “obscure” passages (that most Christians are unaware of?) in the most “extremist” manner in order to fit my comfortable, bigoted worldview:

* People who have sex before marriage (I’m sure Peter will attest how uncomfortable I am in his presence, and how bigoted I have been to him).

* Liars (I am very uncomfortable right now, what with people like Tom making up shit about me continually, so I have had to really dig into the Bible and engage in some extreme interpretations to bolster my bigoted worldview!)

* Drunkards. Boy, I hope none of you guys ever get drunk. That would just push me over the edge. I can’t even go out into town on Friday nights because I am SOOOOOO uncomfortable. And don’t even get me started on those horrifying people who smoke pot. I’ve never been friends with any of them. NEVER. I wouldn’t go NEAR them. Also, did you know that some people even take HARD drugs? I know. Harder than pot. Can you even believe such a thing exists?!

Tom Interperet it however you like mate, it’s just a book to me with absolutlety no special significance and does not equate a moral argument

I dunno man, why don’t you put the same weight into wearing clothes woven from several fabrics or eating shellfish, which are also sins according to your favourite book.

I reckon it’s cause the gays bother you anyways and it suits the way you feel anyway to really give a shit about these parts of your special book

But that’s just the way I interpret it

Tom, you’re not keeping up. You claimed that I interpret passages in the most extreme manner possible to fit with my pre-existing bigoted worldview. So I’m calling you on your bullshit. Since my interpretation of those passages is so extreme, I’d like to know what the moderate interpretation is.

We already covered this Tom. I explained quite clearly the distinction between ceremonial, judicial, and moral laws, and why the former two do not apply to Christians any longer.

Tom A moderate interpretation realises that it’s a book written in ancient, uncivilized times from the viewpoints of uncivilised people with very little bearing on modern society

No Tom, that’s an *unbelieving* interpretation. What the text *actually says* is quite clear. In fact, according to the text, an interpretation which takes it as anything less than the word of God is extreme.

Tom You’re right, I guess the most extreme manner possible would be killing all the people the bible tells you to kill. Such the pinnacle of moral principle.

Draw the line wherever you feel comfortable, that’s totally on you. But to most civilised peoples it’s still just a book written by brutal precivilisation trogolodites and you’re still just a bigot severely lacking the most central value of your stated faith: compassion. the end\

Tom, again I simply have to reiterate, according to the definition of a bigot, it is you and others here, who have repeatedly and venomously attacked me personally, who fit that definition.

Mike again, not representing the other posting here, i think that you are a disgusting piece of shit, and you should exit existence via the closest opportunity. I am openly bigoted against your shithouse, oldfashioned, imaginary nonsense.

i would love txianity to be a piece of my life. but people like you make me want to work against it. to the best of my abilities. you are the fuckup, good sir. you are the disease that sickens the good name of jesus chrust, and you will be eradicated
-Me.

Tom woah.

Mike bro, please explain his hatred so he can argue good. else he will feel bad. even though his book said do unto others. don’t matter. this child of god got wound up somehow and decided that hatred is the goal of xtians. him being a representative and all. tell us more Bnonn. tell us about who hurt you? You poor, poor child of god.

Mike, I can only assume you’re projecting, since I haven’t expressed hated toward anyone at any point in this thread.

David bnonn not everyone finds it so easy to separate a person and their beliefs and their actions. in my view, what a person thinks and does are the characteristics that define them, and the basis for forming judgements about them.

David, maybe so, but if someone has an inability to distinguish between people and beliefs and behaviors, that is *their* issue; not mine. They don’t get to impute their inability to *me* and then say that *I* am being hateful.

1 comment

  1. Kirk Skeptic

    Inability, unwillingness, or both? The universality of kind of mindless, scripted screed explains why we have Zero and may end up with Hillary.

  I don’t post ill-considered articles and I don’t sponsor ill-considered comments. Take a moment to review what you’ve written…