Shakran, this is becoming a waste of time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
I'm not sure why. I specifically said at the end of that paragraph that it's stupid to use the bible to justify *or condemn* anything.
|
So when you said that you think that the mere existence of a part of the bible that is open to intepretation effectively negates all of christianity all you were really saying is that using the bible to justify the denial of gay marriage is wrong?
Okay, i guess i see how that could've been confusing for me.
Quote:
|
People have the right to do whatever they want regarding religion, provided that what they want to do does not trample the rights of others. If you want to only read every 3rd word in the bible and call THAT the truth, that's OK by me. I really don't care. If you start trying to force ME to acknowledge it as the truth, or start trying to pass laws limiting MY freedom based on this truth that YOU believe, that's where we start having issues.
|
In an ideal world, probably. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. The world we do live in is full of people who disagree about different things for reasons that somebody, somewhere thinks are stupid. Most people are not open to changing their deeply held beliefs based unless the shit seriously hits the fan. Some people are willing to question their beliefs if given the right information in the right way.
If you want people of the biblical persuasion to think thoughtfully about what you're saying (provided they are in the minority of humanity that is open to questioning their fundamental beliefs) you must first come up with something more compelling than, "Your holy book contains information of questionable veracity therefore everything in it is unreliable and insufficient for any sort of proper decisionmaking." Why? Because it is a pretty obvious critique of the bible for anyone who would be open to the thought of questioning their beliefs. Probably they've already thought of it and asked their pastor and have been told either a)that the bible is the word of god and that questioning it's accuracy means going to hell, or b) that the bible is a historical document and, as with all historical documents, requires a certain knowledge of context to make proper sense of it. A pastor giving answer b might also make the questioner aware of the idea that there is some stuff in the bible (like genesis) that most likely didn't actually happen.
I think answer a often ends up bringing about the watershed moment where a person either becomes a blind follower or an athiest. Answer b is more compelling, and also more honest. It's also a good reason why your critique of the bible is pretty much useless as a means of changing the mind of a christian.
Quote:
|
It's not the only thing, but it's a very big thing.
|
Do you have two independent sources to back up that claim? I've never seen statistics concerning the justifications given for opposing gay marriage by percentage.
Quote:
|
That's fine because an honest debate can ensue from an argument based on those branches of thought. Additionally if you think the majority of those opposed to gay marriage feel that way for anything BUT religious convictions, you are mistaken.
|
Honest debate can ensue from arguments based on religion just as easily as it can ensue from arguments based on vague notions of what science says. All honest debate requires is that the people involved must share mutual respect and must have open minds; these things are often nowhere to be found when the subject of religion comes up.
Quote:
|
No. You seem to be trying to get me to admit that I feel that anything which is the opposite of what I want is automatically unfounded. That isn't true, however.
|
Well, i've known you a while through this board and i must say that you generally seem to come across like you're pretty convinced that any idea opposite yours is unfounded.
Quote:
|
What I AM saying is that if you want to ban gay marriage, you'd better have a damn good reason for it, and you'd better be able to back it up. Even a selfish and morally bankrupt reason such as "well I don't want gays to have the same tax advantages as everyone else does when they marry" is better than "the invisible man in the sky told me not to do it."
|
What i'm saying is that just because the bible isn't necessarily a completely consistent and coherent piece of work doesn't mean that it is automatically a worthless source of information and motivation. See how we aren't really even talking about the same thing?
All this debate about gay marriage is irrelevant to my role in this thread and i won't talk about it anymore. I could frankly care less about your standards for what does and does not constitute a sufficient reason to ban gay marriage. Unless you're on the supreme court it doesn't matter to me.
I'm still trying to figure out why i am arguing about christianity and gay marriage with you when the only reason i said anything in this thread was to point out that will was making inaccurate assumptions about the role of the bible in christianity.