---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
C3: My point exactly. Religious institutions oppose change for gay rights, something you thought was a cheap shot at religion. S3: Jeez, Curtis, what am I missing. You stated that the majority of believers in God oppose gay rights. I said that was incorrect, as it is. It may be that the majority of clergy oppose gay rights. That may be a true statement. Please, stay in the right lane. C3: it is easy to google if you are interested. There is a direct correlation between gay rights rising in societies where religiosity is falling. This is my main point, religion is holding back civil rights. Always has. S3: I don't think I had any disagreement with this. C3: And I copped to my own development in this area. But we need to change concepts about heterosexuality as a norm I believe. Gay sex is the norm for gay people. S3: Great. Gay sex is norm for gay people. S&M is the norm for some people. Straight sex is the norm for other people. People are okay with that, as evidenced by the support for gay marriage. Your argument seems to be that the religions aren't on board with it, I guess. Well, there is some good news. You can choose your religion, but you don't have choice in the laws of the State. And the laws of the State are changing, at a rapid pace. C3: You have people you love who are gay as do I. That is the biggest force of change in society toward gay people. Religion should have been leading this change instead of resisting it to stay morally relevant IMO. S3: Absolutely. Look at the changes in just the last couple years. What are you expecting? That attitudes like that can change over night? C3: Yes it is the law that protects minorities. But the politicians pander to public sentiment so opinions have to change first. I think there are both differences and parallels in all civil rights movements. Transgender will be next. S3: Okay, I'm sure the changes will occur across the board. And it appears to me that public sentitment is changing either because fewer people are religious, or maybe because they are gaining more spiritual maturity because of other factors. C3: I thought religion was supposed to me more of a force of good in the world. That is their own PR. S3: I've not known religions to be on the forefront of change, in general. They may be a "lagging indicator" C3: Or maybe moderate believers should demand that their religion doesn't oppress people unfairly? S3: Sort of happening, don't you think? C3: It isn't just gay people who have a problem with these draconian ideas. The problem with religion is that they claim a special knowledge of the will of God so they cannot change concerning this kind of established doctrine. That is why I speak out against the special status of religious beliefs. They, unlike all other human ideas, demand to be above challenge because of their beliefs in their special knowledge. This is a medieval mindset. S3: Okay, I guess they will either change, or become irrelevant. It seems to me, religious beliefs have been in decline since the reformation. Change takes time. What can you say, or do? Bash people over the head? Kill them? You seem pretty impatient. We know what that has led to, right? C3: I am not sure what you are claiming here. We all deal with emotional difficulties and people who are oppressed do have outside pressures. I know plenty of gay people who are as much models of mental health as the rest of us. I can't draw any conclusions there. S3: I would say we all do. C3: But the effect of living in a society where he people who claim to speak for God say you have an evil orientation cannot be dismissed as not being a huge influence on them. S3: Yea, that would be a problem. Looks like things are getting better in that regard, I would say. Wouldn't you? C3: If moderates would speak out against the injustices in their religion instead of defending the religion across the board it might have an influence. Or perhaps you should do what you suggested for gay people, say that this belief system does not match your own and move on. I was a Catholic too growing up. The doctrine is clear. If you don't buy the teaching, all of it, you are living in mortal sin. There is nothing in the marriage agreement that requires total belief. In Catholicism there is. S3: Curtis, why don't you speak to some Catholic believers now, and ask them if they subscribe to all the tenants to which you think they subscribe. I don't think your picture matches the reality of the situation. I can cite my own wife as an example. C3: Are you aware that the phrase gay agenda is used more commonly in defense of homophobia? I accept that this was not your meaning but you used the buzz word for a particular POV on gay culture. S3: Then thank you for correcting me. I suspected I was using the wrong term when I first wrote it. C3: There has been no movement in this direction by the Catholic church among others. Zero. The doctrine remains anti gay. Some people object to that. Me included. S3: Then, what I've been reading on the internet, and a new direction indicated by this new Pope, must be false, and all the consternation it is causing in the Vatican, must not be the case. S3: But, if the State does not recognize that you want to leave your assets to your partner, then there are no other options. And I think society recognizes this, and therefore, as a matter of fairness, they support of changing of the laws to recognize this. C3: I am not "insisting" what would that even mean with regard other people's I am speaking out against what they believe because it is oppressive and morally repugnant to my modern sensibilities. What other human idea gets this kind of defense? Isn't it right to challenge ideas we find morally despicable? I do want people who oppress others to change. They will not do it, but it is still right for me to speak up against that behavior. You and I would agree with this stance in every other area of area of wrong thinking wouldn't we? Would we have this attitude about any other injustice? Do you think that black people would be where they are today with civil rights if we had this attitude back in the 60's? We all pick our battles. You are welcome to pick yours. But this idea that I shouldn't want them to change their ideas is part of the problem. You don't even agree with them, but you still provide cover for this way of thinking and instinctively push back on my criticism. That is unique to religious ideas. S3: How else will change take place, if you don't speak up for it? But, are you going to accomplish it by speaking out about it, or killing people who don't go along with it. I mean, change, by peaceable means, takes time. That's what I would say. C3: I am comparing the mindset of moderates who give cover to bad ideas in religion. That is what is the same in both religions. You are attempting to shift the focus to the results of that cover where there are obvious differences. Unless you are a gay person being dragged behind a pick up truck because the driver believes in his heart that "God hates fags. and his religion backs this idea" For that person, the similarities dominate. S3: Do I have this right? You are using an extreme example as some sort of standard for what people should not do? I must be getting mentally tired at this point. It is not laws that guarantee that society will be progressive, or fair. They are needed, are vitally important, of course. But it is the sense of fairness and goodwill of a society in general that is the best and final guarantor. Agitate for change, of course. But give people a chance to see there is a better way. Don't condemn them or judge them too harshly. And don't paint anyone who is undecided by the morality of a gay lifestyle as one who would condone, what you use an example above. The concept of shads of grey is useful in many contexts. Civil rights is not one of them. In the ideas that support civil rights the problem with people who claim to speak on behalf of what God wants is clear. I am speaking up for humans to realized that no one speaks for God even if they want to believe there is one. That is one of humanities worst ideas. And moderate Muslims do the same thing concerning the explicit teaching of violent jihad in their scriptures. And when they are called out on these views they attack the person criticizing them as being a religious bigot. Cuz, awe shucks, most Muslims don't really believe that we should kill infidels. Its is just that God says we should in our most holy of holy books that God or his messenger revealed to us. I find that POV icky. "3. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins. 4. Sins are acts involving the intellect (knowing) and the will (choosing). An orientation is not, in and of itself, an act or a sin. 5. The homosexual orientation itself is intrinsically evil, but is not itself a sin. 6. Since the homosexual orientation is intrinsically evil, any and all acts, whether sexual or not, by which a human person knowingly chooses to move toward, cooperate with, reinforce, or act upon, a homosexual orientation is itself a sin, either venial or mortal. 7. All human persons are children of God. No human person is intrinsically evil, even if he or she has an intrinsically evil sexual orientation. 8. All human persons inherently deserve just and merciful treatment. 9. The promotion and spread of homosexuality is offensive to God and is gravely harmful to families, the Church, and society in general. 10. Society has the right and the duty to make laws which discourage sinful acts that cause serious harm to society. The reason gay rights are advancing is because religion is waning. In every country where religion has a strong voice in government, gay people are oppressed. In countries where religion has a weak voice, gay people are treated like other human beings. This was my point which as not only not a cheap shot, I went easy on them. Now lets talk about how religious people who believe that their God book is absolute truth have effectively shut down abortions clinics around the country by enacting local laws making it impossible for them to operate, effectively reversing Roe V Wade in some areas because of religious beliefs... S: What you say is true, but there are plenty of non religious people who find abortion to be something very undesirable. I find it so, but neither am I ready to oppose what is the law of the land. I am not sure equating opposition to abortion as strictly a religious issue accurately portrays it. Does a person really have a good claim that the experience of unity consciousness is fundamentally different from being saved for example? No. But believing oneself "saved" or experiencing "unity consciousness" are very different from our everyday experiences which lead some to resign themselves to accepting they are nothing more than a jumped-up simian. C: I am not sure what lines you are drawing here. Again, my point was aimed at the charge that atheists objections to theism are intellectually seriousness. The issues concerning the reliability of subjective knowledge is a profound one and I appreciate your recognizing the issues with it. As far as our relationship to simians, we left that group 50 million years ago. We still share most of our genes with them. But the differences in our development are also profound in the last 2 percent or less that we deviate from them. I m very pro human and proud to be a member of the club. Our intellectual and artistic gifts are unmatched on the planet. But that doesn't mean that we have the ability to know everything about how reality functions or that we can live after we die any better than chimps can. We obviously have a self reflective quality that you and I appreciate. So I am not resigned to anything concerning my connection to other primates on the planet. I am a sad that we are completely wiping out their cultures and eating them! So what other distinctions are you referring to? Perhaps we would find different lines there. Is darshan from their master different from what people experienced around Sun Young Moon? How do they know? How, even in principle, can someone claim to make such distinctions? "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7: 20) C: Then Mao is the greatest person in history because by the numbers he was judged by his countrymen as having the most divine fruit. Judging fruits is subjective. That was my point. And it was next on my list of objections that are not simply dismissed with a catch phrase from the Bible. My points were aimed at Bentley but thanks for keeping it going. He is wrong about atheists objections to religious beliefs. They are not glib, superficial or stupid. Whether or not they are delivered in a shrill manor has no bearing on the content. I believe that his objections had all the qualities he tried to pawn off on atheists. Your responses were way more thoughtful. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Dr. David Bentley Hart criticizes the new atheist movement. He calls their arguments to be shrill, shallow, glib and stupid. <snip> C: Notice that none of those qualities actually address the content of the atheist objections to the claims of theists. It is a "you are a poopy pants" based argument. There is nothing shallow or glib about the epistemological objections to people claiming to know things about the nature of the universe that have poor supporting reasons. Here are a few atheist objections to theist claims: Why do you consider one book of human literature to be different in its source than others so that they are considered "scripture?" I get it that you may not feel this way about any book, but most theists do. Their reasons for assuming that their scripture should be taken more seriously than other literature are not solid. They do no KNOW that God had a hand in any human book. How do people distinguish the epistemological solidity of subjective experiences well enough to separate their reasons for believing in their own but to deny others? Does a person really have a good claim that the experience of unity consciousness is fundamentally different from being saved for example? Is darshon from their master different from what people experienced around Sun Young Moon? How do they know? How, even in principle, can someone claim to make such distinctions? These and many other questions lie at the root of atheist thought.They are not silenced or answered by making comments about atheists being too much of one thing and not enough of another personally. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Dr. David Bentley Hart criticizes the new atheist movement. He calls their arguments to be shrill, shallow, glib and stupid. However, he recognizes that Europe has entered the post-Christian era, which he believes, will not disappear anytime soon. On the other hand, he states Nietzsche is dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE
