I will spend time going into the nitty gritty of the Bible when it's followers are willing to admit much of it is up to interpretation, may be straight up made up for political purposes by people after when Jesus supposedly lived, and that half thier holy days are actually stolen 'pagan' holidays. Or when they can admit geological evidence is a more dependable historical record than their holy book.
I am not going to give the Bible or Christians special leeway to act as if thier scripture is the end all, be all of ethics and morality. Particularly not when they try to make it a basis for politics they want to force on everyone else as well.
Christmas being a stolen, reskinned version of Yule, that actually isn't even close to when Jesus was born (hint, we've backtracked star positions as described in the story of Jesus's birth, and he was born around when Easter is, not in December) is not anything related to politics, while All Saints Day/Halloween is a reskinned Celtic/Druid harvest festival.
Prorbabaly should move that discussion to a Christianity and Politics thread or something.
Isn't there this whole portion of the Bible where God literally nukes two cities for practicing homosexuality, bestiality, and incest?Disagree with me how?
TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED:
Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?
RESPONSE:
Negative.
Answer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the question about the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex | ROME REPORTS
TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED: Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex? RESPONSE: Negative. Explanatory Note...www.romereports.com
Isn't there this whole portion of the Bible where God literally nukes two cities for practicing homosexuality, bestiality, and incest?
Reasonable Christians do not try to make their religion the focus of their politics, or get upset when people point out the inaccuracies/contradictions in their holy book.
Isn't there this whole portion of the Bible where God literally nukes two cities for practicing homosexuality, bestiality, and incest?
As I said, I will spend the time to do a detailed study of the inaccuracies and such in the Bible, when the people who want to use for political purposes are willing to admit it is not a completely accurate retelling of events that is more about the politics of the writers than it is a historical record.You're mismashing the beliefs and claims of a bunch of different groups together there (IE, most Christians are not YECs), coupled with a lot of outright mistakes. Most Christians are aware that Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25th, and know that there's been some pagan influence on Christian traditions. I would, again, suggest that you take some time to actually learn about the groups you're criticizing before doing so, because right now you're really not making a good case for yourself.
The closest I have to an end all, be all for what I think and look to for guidance is the US Constitution.Everyone makes their personal philosophy the end all, be all of ethics and morality and thinks it's tenants should be applied elsewhere. If you don't think your philosophy is the most morally and ethically sound position you could hold, why do you hold it instead of whatever belief system you think is superior? And if your obviously correct and just moral system says something is morally wrong, why should people be allowed to do it?
The US Constitution is just a document for a proposed structure of government. There isn't even anything in the original document that pertains to an individual person at all, everything that does is an amendment.
I'm trying to think of a way that you could "look for guidance in the US Constitution" without that being a fancy way of saying a shallow fondness for American kisch.
As I said, I will spend the time to do a detailed study of the inaccuracies and such in the Bible, when the people who want to use for political purposes are willing to admit it is not a completely accurate retelling of events that is more a out the politics of the writers than it is a historical record.
The closest I have to an end all, be all for what I think and look to for guidance is the US Constitution.
Though I also put a lot of stock in Sun Tsu, because his teachings are apolitical and non-religious, yet are very much applicable to many areas outside military conflict.
I don't care about 'productive or useful', I care about pushing back against the people who want to shove me back in the closet and strip away same-sex marriage......You do realize that saying "I won't correct my inaccurate understand of your beliefs, until you admit to a bunch of incorrect things that I only believe because I don't understand your beliefs" is not a productive or useful way to approach others, correct? plenty of christians are willing to admit that parts of the bible are allegorical or cannot be proven as historically true (probably in great proportion to the number of atheists that are willing to admit that quite a few parts of it have been historically verified as authentic, actually), and as for it being "about the politics of the writers", I'm not even sure what that means. The bible, particularly the new testament, features a bunch of verses where Jesus clearly says he's not interested in worldly politics, and as for it being used justify the political opinions of people today, A) people do that all across the political spectrum, and B) you are assuming that people are trying to make the bible fit their politics rather than the reverse (which is certainly possible, but you need to actually prove that, you can't just assume it).
No, because unlike the Bible, the US Constitution is a living document for a living, evolving world.Do you not see the issue in saying "I reject the bible and Christianity as a source of moral guidance, instead I lean on this document written by a bunch of Christians that has, at best, extremely limited applicability in terms of moral philosophy and what bits it does have, such a system of checks and balances intended to limit the power of officials, exist because of the author's Christian beliefs in the fallibility and sinfulness of man?"
Yeah, you wanna know something? You are not a conservative. The Constitution is not a "living" document, that's just an excuse to erase the first and second amendment for starters. Fuck right off with that subversive shit.No, because unlike the Bible, the US Constitution is a living document for a living, evolving world.
Yeah, you wanna know something? You are not a conservative. The Constitution is not a "living" document, that's just an excuse to erase the first and second amendment for starters. Fuck right off with that subversive shit.
I don't care about 'productive or useful', I care about pushing back against the people who want to shove me back in the closet and strip away same-sex marriage.
No, because unlike the Bible, the US Constitution is a living document for a living, evolving world.
You are someone who still thinks the election wasn't stolen, so I'm not sure why you think I have any high opinion of your or care to convince you of things, so unless you want to start saying we should repeal same-sex marriage, it's no skin off my back.And how's that working? I can only speak for myself, but so far I've moved from "don't care about the issue" to "don't care about the issue, and don't intend to listen to Bacle's opinion on it if I do start caring"......which doesn't really sound like a net gain for you.
I trust a living document, and people who understand that society evolves and changes, more than I trust Bronze/Iron age prophets, for guidance in a changing and evolving world.That makes it even less useful, because the constitution, or any set of laws, move reactively as the world changes, they change once there's enough public pressure generated to make them move, rather than inspiring that public change in the first place. If you'd acted on that logic ten years ago, you'd be arguing against the same rights you're relying on the constitution to protect now, because ten years ago they didn't support you!
Secondly, a living, evolving document is fine as the basis for a government system, but awful if you're trying to use it a source of moral guidance. You mentioned before that you can construct a system of morality apart from the bible, which is true, but I've never heard of anyone saying they want to construct a flexible, constantly evolving set of moral principles. When people say someone else is "morally flexible", that's not meant as a positive statement.
This right here is not conservative. This is textbook liberalism. Lol in what way are you a conservative if the governing law of the land and your source of morality is flexible and open for interpretation? At that point it’s not even an opinion it’s just a fad.No, because unlike the Bible, the US Constitution is a living document for a living, evolving world.
You are someone who still thinks the election wasn't stolen, so I'm not sure why you think I have any high opinion of your or care to convince you of things, so unless you want to start saying we should repeal same-sex marriage, it's no skin off my back.
I trust a living document, and people who understand that society evolves and changes, more than I trust Bronze/Iron age prophets, for guidance in a changing and evolving world.
This right here is not conservative. This is textbook liberalism. Lol in what way are you a conservative if the governing law of the land and your source of morality is flexible and open for interpretation? At that point it’s not even an opinion it’s just a fad.
Except I said Yule, not the Roman holidays, even if it effectively stole those too.
Also, none of that changes the star positions calculations that show Jesus was born in the spring, not in December.