AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Just call it marriage (because that's what it is) and be careful before you say "Mr. and Mrs.".

Just call them a nice couple.

"The Smeagols"

"The Smeagol Family"

"You two"

I usually never call people by their names anyways.

I guess my biggest beef with the "marriage is a religious thing" argument is that we don't force people of non-christian denominations to call their unions something different, nor do we prohibit athiests or agnostics from being married under the law. In some states minors are allowed to marry, and while I have nothing against divorce, from the standpoint of marriage being meant to be about commitment, divorce is both common and largely unregulated in terms of the "requirements" for it. People make an argument about homosexual persons being promiscuous or undevoted, but I feel it would be hard to make that argument accurately when we specifically prohibit them from entering into registered, monogamous unions, especially when more people argue against allowing same-sex marriage than against divorce. It rubs me, accurately in my opinion, as an in-group trying to keep the out-group "out".

TheStranger wrote:

Cori wrote:

TheStranger wrote:I never got that though. Either it is Gods words or it isnt. If it IS, then Im guessing youre supposed to follow it literaally. If its NOT, why follow it at all? People spend their whole lives studying the daisies thing, and everyone comes to different conclusions. Isnt this thing supposed to guide you? Its a pretty bad one in that case.

The Bible is a collection of books written by men and INSPIRED by God's word. God didn't sit down and actually write the Bible himself. I feel like no matter how unbiased the writers might have tried to be, it's possible their personal opinions could have wormed their way into the text.

Not only that, but the Bible has been translated MULTIPLE times. Each time it's re-written offers more opportunities for the meaning of the passages to change. The word 'homosexual' didn't exist in the Hebrew language when the books in the Bible were being written, yet we can find that word in modern copies of the Bible now.

Plus, when Jesus was alive he denounced several of the old books and the old laws in the Bible, including all of Leviticus (which had rules in it like people could not eat shellfish, get divorced, shave, or wear clothes made of two different materials. It also has a passage barring homosexuality in the most recent publications).

So, yes, the Bible is a guide for Christians that is also open to interpretation in several places. Some believe the story of Adam and Eve was metaphorical, while others believe it was literal. I don't believe the fact that it can be interpreted multiple ways makes it a bad guide. It's still a basic code for Christian morals and principles. I'm sure other religious texts have had things in them that were lost in translation too.

It makes it a bad guide if you want to use it as an argument. Creationism, Christian "Scientists" and their ilk especially seems to think that it somehow still applies. If a divine guide is THAT subjective, its not only bad, its directly unsuitable, since two people will end up with different ideas of what the text means, and will still think that their interpretation is the correct one. I get that religion and faith is a pretty big helping of subjectivity, but for something that important, subjectivity is a REALLY bad thing, something we see proof of everyday, but are still apparently supposed to ignore.

Why should anyone listen to its morality if there is no consensus on what said morality is?

Continued from the Text Comments thread

They can belive anything they want, but if they cant back it up properly, dont expect me to take it seriously. Even in context of the faith itself, it falls apart if the Book most people base their faith on can be interpetated so many different ways that any real argument cant be formed.

The whole thing is a giant collection of metaphor up until the new testament, upon which it becomes something of a historical document type of read, but from different view points
Of course people are going to interpret it differently

Jonah was not bodaciously swallowed by a whale
Jacob did not bodaciously wrestle God to the ground
Noah didn't bodaciously build an ark with every freaking animal on earth onboard

it's all metaphor for lessons and such

Then you do get into the New Testament, and that's been so heavily altered over so long that you basically pick the version of the Bible you like best.

That's not a problem that the bible alone has, it's a problem shared by every form of story that has existed for such a long time.

there's not a lot for people to go on that hasn't been interpreted a different way already, that's why there's such a large split

And on the topic of if it's "God's word", the idea isn't that God himself wrote this, but that people who were close to God did because he either related these stories to them or they were passed down through the religion as it grew.

This subjectivity is the point, some people use it like it's concrete evidence but "some people" do a lot of things. The majority of sane religious men and women would freely admit that there's not much else to go on but faith, but faith means a lot to people. Faith is what can keep people going, it's what can bring them happiness. If they can believe it, who are you, or anyone else, to say they're wrong?

There's nothing in the Bible you can really disprove. You, nor anyone else, really has authority or even the right to claim something is false unless you can prove so.
There's also not a lot you can prove either, but that's where the faith comes in.

Now don't get me wrong, there are bad uses for religion. We see them every day, sadly. The key is that those people are at such a harsh minority it makes no sense to treat them as anything more. People like Westboro, or Al Qaeda.

But, these people are, actually, not following their religious texts. They're taking things out of context, and then twisting the remains. This is not, and should not be, representative of the religion at all. It should only serve to show the lengths at which insane men and women will try and prove they are sane.

Even in context of the faith itself, it falls apart if the Book most people base their faith on can be interpetated so many different ways that any real argument cant be formed.

this bit is actually interesting

As you seem to have forgotten that conflicting theory and explanations for all sorts of things shows up in science constantly, before a fact is reached. Then, even the fact can be put into question. Science is just as constant and creatively interpreted as religion.

The only things you can back up completely by your own logic are unflinching, cold, hard truths. So, should we ignore your beliefs because they're not totally static?

No. We shouldn't. Just as you shouldn't ignore what other people believe because someone might think differently.

But what makes any one interpretation more valid than any other? Obviously Westboro and Al Quaida and the countless others who sympathize with them are the scum of the Earth, but they interpreted their holy text in this fashion, and its as valid as any other, since no true version exists. Either all versions are valid as long as they have some basis in the text itself, or none of it is. You cant have it both ways. We'd all love it if only the nice parts of the bible were followed, but theyre not, and there's plenty of basis for violence in the book itself. That people NEED their faith to get up in the morning is their problem, not mine, the burden of evidence is still on them if they expect to get proper consideraation for their arguments.

TheStranger wrote:But what makes any one interpretation more valid than any other? Obviously Westboro and Al Quaida and the countless others who sympathize with them are the scum of the Earth, but they interpreted their holy text in this fashion, and its as valid as any other, since no true version exists. Either all versions are valid as long as they have some basis in the text itself, or none of it is. You cant have it both ways. We'd all love it if only the nice parts of the bible were followed, but theyre not, and there's plenty of basis for violence in the book itself.

so yeah i already covered that

But, these people are, actually, not following their religious texts. They're taking things out of context, and then twisting the remains. This is not, and should not be, representative of the religion at all. It should only serve to show the lengths at which insane men and women will try and prove they are sane.

Al Qaeda constantly subverts the Quran, and completely ignores the parts the contradict. Westboro does the same. You cannot even start to pretend that they're at all reading the same book, because they haven't read the book at all.

that's what makes them invalid

That people NEED their faith to get up in the morning is their problem, not mine, the burden of evidence is still on them if they expect to get proper consideraation for their arguments.

i've yet to see any of your evidence that they're wrong, so once again, by your logic i should just ignore you and say you're wrong straight out right

Also, it's not a matter of validity. If the bible didn't exist it would be something else, some other text. People will find something to worship, something they can glean 'rules' out of. Something that creates order in what otherwise seems like chaos.

Essentially a coping mechanism.
Just because you don't believe that teddy bear protects the kid from closet monsters doesn't mean the kid will sleep any better if you take the bear away.

And what is the context? From what I understood of the passages these groups base their actions on, while certainly contradicting other passages, still hold ground as basis. Yeah, we have the Ten Commandments which specificaally say that you arent allowed to kill, but people still do, in the Bible, under Gods orders, and presumably, thats what these guys think theyre doing. They obviously HAVE read the book, and drawn conclusions based on that. That they dont correspond to the nice stuff only means that the result of THEIR picking and choosing got a lot of nastier results than usual. People spend their lives picking apart and interpreting the Bible, and arrive at wildly different conclusions, which either means that the work itself is flawed, since getting the correct message is so incredibly difficult, or that ALL the interpretations are right.

Everyone picks and chooses from their holy text, the only difference is if what they choose ends up negatively affecting the rest of us.

As for your last argument, thats a flawed comparison. The burden of evidence is on the people who say that something exists, not the people who say it doesnt, since the lack of evidence is the basis of disbelief.

Dire@ Itd be fine if thats all it was, but people demand that their bullshit gets to decide social policy, and they can go fuck themselves if they think Im going to obey the laws their imaginary friend sets up.

You know plenty of people base acts of kindness around the bible too.

And what does it matter if someone has evidence or not for believing if those people aren't hurting anyone. You don't have to provide evidence for living your life in peace.

Dire wrote:You know plenty of people base acts of kindness around the bible too.

And what does it matter if someone has evidence or not for believing if those people aren't hurting anyone. You don't have to provide evidence for living your life in peace.

Thats the thing though, Ive had people state that theyre ONLY good because they think that God will reward them for it. If your only reason for not being a murdering rapist is because a book told you youd get set on fire if you did, you were never a good person in the first place. If someone proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no afterlife, how many people do you think wouldnt go insane and descent into violent hedonism?

hah, it's lucky we have religion then.

If it wasnt religion, itd be something else. My point is that if you only act like a civilized person because you think there's an incentive to do so, then there's an underlying issue that needs to be adressed.

Well people created religion, so really they'd just give themselves another excuse to do good. I'm not too worried.