Opinion My issue with religion is...

[Idea]

Forgive me, those were weasel words. I meant, in essence, that there may be other factors I wasn't considering, but that those would still fall under the law of cause and effect. I'm firmly convinced that your "will" (If you mean what I think you mean by that) is as governed by the laws of cause and effect as anything else, and that everything happens because of something else that we don't have control over. As for the bit questioning what "you" or "I" am, I fail to see how that's relevant. Nor do I know what sense you mean "you" in. Do you mean my immutable essence (which doesn't exist) or my occupation (for the record, I'm a bit of a dilettante) or my qualifications to make such sweeping statements? Or something else?

Well, because what is oneself is the essence of the argument. You cannot say if there is or isn't free will if you cannot tell apart what is you and what is something that is just part or exterior to yourself.

Though I think that you ended up answering my question regardless. You appear to believe in a very restricted self (whose logical consequences you probably ignore but that's an issue for another day), of the kind which changes and is, I assume, bound entirely by the physical world. I would still argue that even assuming this, free will is not out of the question, but you don't seem to have the willingess to put your ideas to the test, so I won't try you.

However, before I go, I would like to point an example of what i am referring to. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are your brain. This means that all of the processes in your brain are your processes. Free will does not demand a particular form of decision-making. So the hormones, the sinapses, the sensory interpretation even if all of that is arranged in a certain way, because it is you, all of that is just a form of free will. If you are your brain , the only way to not have free will is for your body to make all it's decisions without your brain once interviening.

 

[CargoCultist]

Well, because what is oneself is the essence of the argument. You cannot say if there is or isn't free will if you cannot tell apart what is you and what is something that is just part or exterior to yourself.

Though I think that you ended up answering my question regardless. You appear to believe in a very restricted self (whose logical consequences you probably ignore but that's an issue for another day), of the kind which changes and is, I assume, bound entirely by the physical world. I would still argue that even assuming this, free will is not out of the question, but you don't seem to have the willingess to put your ideas to the test, so I won't try you.

However, before I go, I would like to point an example of what i am referring to. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are your brain. This means that all of the processes in your brain are your processes. Free will does not demand a particular form of decision-making. So the hormones, the sinapses, the sensory interpretation even if all of that is arranged in a certain way, because it is you, all of that is just a form of free will. If you are your brain , the only way to not have free will is for your body to make all it's decisions without your brain once interviening.

I am perfectly willing to put my ideas to the test. I don't know how you got a different impression. Also, the brain isn't separate from the body, my friend. It is not independent of physical reality either. Assuming that my brain is/contains me, It is still affected by things that preceded it.

Also, it would appear to me that you are the one who is not willing to jabber with me about metaphysics and other assorted things. I could set here all day, and defeat every test you throw at me. I'm Sorry to see you go, regardless.

 

[Idea]

I am perfectly willing to put my ideas to the test. I don't know how you got a different impression.

I'm firmly convinced that your "will" (If you mean what I think you mean by that) is as governed by the laws of cause and effect as anything else, and that everything happens because of something else that we don't have control over.

After I questioned this you didn't bother giving any reasons for your assumption despite it being the topic of debate. Hence my conclusion that you would be unwilling to question said words.

Also, the brain isn't separate from the body, my friend. It is not independent of physical reality either. Assuming that my brain is/contains me, It is still affected by things that preceded it.

ou appear to believe in a very restricted self (whose logical consequences you probably ignore but that's an issue for another day), of the kind which changes and is, I assume, bound entirely by the physical world. I would still argue that even assuming this, free will is not out of the question

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are your brain.

As you can see, I never once said the brain was separated. Quite on the contrary, what i said was that even being part of the physical world, so long as your actions are decided by you- whether you are a bunch of sinapses, a mind, an immortal soul or whatever else- then you have free will.

You also seem to have a big misconception about free will, as you have confused conditioning with influencing. Having an influence upon something is not the same as making it do something, it's simply being a factor among many in the decision. Again, so long as any other option could have been available did the agent of the decision done something different internally then there is free will. Because there was a decision.

Also, it would appear to me that you are the one who is not willing to jabber with me about metaphysics and other assorted things. I could set here all day, and defeat every test you throw at me. I'm Sorry to see you go, regardless.

I am more than willing to, and I appreciate a good intelligent discussion. Simply a good intelligent discussion involves both parties being willing to listen to the arguments and reasoning of the other and responding appropriately, something which your previous response as I pointed out above, seemed to suggest you were not going to do.

 

[CargoCultist]

After I questioned this you didn't bother giving any reasons for your assumption despite it being the topic of debate. Hence my conclusion that you would be unwilling to question said words.

My friend, you have me pegged all wrong! I am always willing and able to revise my opinion. Provided, of course, that it makes sense to me.

As you can see, I never once said the brain was separated. Quite on the contrary, what i said was that even being part of the physical world, so long as your actions are decided by you- whether you are a bunch of sinapses, a mind, an immortal soul or whatever else- then you have free will.

The way you phrased it struck me intially as having an element of the mystical about it. My apologies. If by free will, you mean simply "choice-making", we are in agreement...

You also seem to have a big misconception about free will, as you have confused conditioning with influencing. Having an influence upon something is not the same as making it do something, it's simply being a factor among many in the decision. Again, so long as any other option could have been available did the agent of the decision done something different internally then there is free will. Because there was a decision.

..however, when does influence become compulsion? I'd say that being born has an effect on the decision-making process regardless of where you place the line between influence and "conditioning". Let's go back further. Does your genetic makeup influence your decisions? Absolutely. What about the basic nature of reality after you're born? Like, a meteorite could wipe out all life on Earth, and you're powerless to stop it. Or what if you're born with a cognitive defect? All of these things (which are just A FEW) examples, mind you, influence your decision-making, ultimately adding up to the fact that our reasoning capabilities, prior experiences, neuro-chemistry, our existence, all that, are beyond our control. Simply put, if we can't be said to control the way in which we think, do we have any real control over the decisions we make?

 

[Idea]

..however, when does influence become compulsion? I'd say that being born has an effect on the decision-making process regardless of where you place the line between influence and "conditioning". Let's go back further. Does your genetic makeup influence your decisions? Absolutely. What about the basic nature of reality after you're born? Like, a meteorite could wipe out all life on Earth, and you're powerless to stop it. Or what if you're born with a cognitive defect? All of these things (which are just A FEW) examples, mind you, influence your decision-making, ultimately adding up to the fact that our reasoning capabilities, prior experiences, neuro-chemistry, our existence, all that, are beyond our control. Simply put, if we can't be said to control the way in which we think, do we have any real control over the decisions we make?

Well, the answer to this is in two things I already stated:
1. As far as I am arguing here, free-will is having the possibility of making any of the available choices. Not being able to fly has no influence in whether I am free or not because that was never an available option. The whole debate is centered around whether when say, I go buy a gun to commit a crime, that choice was mine or it just happened, as in I did not actually weigh in on it.
As you can see the word "I" came up a lot there and it was not by coicidence because...

2. The threshold of "influence" and "conditioning" is in whether or not the decision was ultimately yours. A puppet has no free will because it doesn't choose to be lifted and move when I touch the strings and has no other decision either. The factors that controlled what happened where all independent of the subject. had it been that puppet or a rock, the result would be the same. When it comes to people though, there are two levels: the things which have weight on your decision and the level in which the decision is made by us.
Now in regards to your arguments they fail because by your own logic, if everything is bound by cause and effect, then somehting causes the way we think. In other words controlling it would be possible. So, one of two must be true:
1. Our way of thinking is uncontrollable and is therefore free.
2. There is no exact cause that always points to the same results. In other words, any factors don't affect our thinking. AKA option 1.

But let's assume that yes, we somehow find a way to control how people think. here, my previous question comes into play. Is your way of thinking not an integral part of your being? Cause if it is, then saying "i can't control my way of thinking" is like saying "I can't fly". It's not relevant to the matter because it was never an option in the first place.

 

[CargoCultist]

"1. As far as I am arguing here, free-will is having the possibility of making any of the available choices."
A thing I disagree with. If cause and effect works as it appears to me, then no matter what choice you would have made, it was predetermined. By the factors outside of our control, as I have mentioned.

2."Now in regards to your arguments they fail because by your own logic, if everything is bound by cause and effect, then somehting causes the way we think. In other words controlling it would be possible." Yes. I fail to see how that's relevant. Everything is controlled by what happens before it. It does not have to be a thing that acts to control something. It could be something like a tree falling down on you while your wits are occupied, and breaking your legs. Or maybe addling your brains. Either way, control is something that nobody ultimately has in a way that we understand it. At least, not any humans.

"When it comes to people though, there are two levels: the things which have weight on your decision and the level in which the decision is made by us." I don't understand what that has to do with anything, but ok. Both of those things are still subject to the same thing, unless you think the second level isn't part of the chain of causality.

"When it comes to people though, there are two levels: the things which have weight on your decision and the level in which the decision is made by us."

"But let's assume that yes, we somehow find a way to control how people think. here, my previous question comes into play. Is your way of thinking not an integral part of your being? Cause if it is, then saying "i can't control my way of thinking" is like saying "I can't fly". It's not relevant to the matter because it was never an option in the first place."

I'd say the matter of "Do I control the way I think/do things" is integral to the matter of "Do I have control over the things I think/do". Because that's what this argument is about, right?

 

[Idea]

I'd say the matter of "Do I control the way I think/do things" is integral to the matter of "Do I have control over the things I think/do". Because that's what this argument is about, right?

The second question is what the argument's about yes. The first question is irrelevant, because as I explained before it's the same as asking why you can't fly. A decision is not being forced on you, there just wasn't a question to begin with. The reason I say this is because the way you think is part of your being. And as part of your being nomatter how it is it is YOU. Any decision made based on how you think, any influence coming from there , it's influence coming from yourself, AKA not actually influence, just another part of the same thing, your will.

 

[CargoCultist]

The second question is what the argument's about yes. The first question is irrelevant, because as I explained before it's the same as asking why you can't fly. A decision is not being forced on you, there just wasn't a question to begin with. The reason I say this is because the way you think is part of your being. And as part of your being nomatter how it is it is YOU. Any decision made based on how you think, any influence coming from there , it's influence coming from yourself, AKA not actually influence, just another part of the same thing, your will.

I will respond to this tomorrow. I've a lot of work to be done. If you want, we can continue this debate over PM. Right now, I've really got to get this done. So I'm sorry for leaving this inconclusive, but this happens sometimes. I'm really sorry.

 

[Idea]

I will respond to this tomorrow. I've a lot of work to be done. If you want, we can continue this debate over PM. Right now, I've really got to get this done. So I'm sorry for leaving this inconclusive, but this happens sometimes. I'm really sorry.

No worries, I'm overstepping myself. We can continue this some other time, send me a PM whenever ya feel like

 

[The Gunrunner]

All legit questions IMO. Would you cut off your arm for the glory of god? I wouldn't.

"29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
"30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell"
Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

Something I still remember from when I tried to read the bible. I don't see this quote much elsewhere, so there you go.

 

[ApfelSeine]

I find the concept of free will inherently fascinating. To draw it back around to the subject of religion, I want to propose an interesting theological question for those who believe in God/gods. For the non-religions folk, it may still be fun to think about in a philosophical sense.

Let's say you are playing "The Sims", and set them to autonomous mode. What this does lets the sims do actions without your direct control. Do your sims now have free will?

One might say that they are programmed to behave a certain way, and therefore they do not have free will. However, their programming is not as simple as "when autonomous mode turns on, sim does XYZ". Rather, they are programmed to meet their needs (hunger, energy, social, etc.), and will do actions which meet those needs. The way they do this is to select the closest object which will meet these needs, which in a sense is a "choice" but it is preprogrammed.

Let's make it even more complex and say that all their needs are met, or set to never deplete. Even with this, sims do not simply stand there motionless. They will do something, possibly at random, possibly out of a small set of programmed responses, we don't know. Either of these choices is not a conscious decision though. Doing something at random has to be preprogrammed, and doing something out of a set of responses is preprogrammed. Hence, it was not their choice and not their will to do it.

Our choices, as humans, are influenced by our surroundings, and through our inherent traits. Those inherent traits are genetic (genotype) and many traits are a predisposition brought out through the context of the environment (phenotype). This is related to the earlier example of the sims in that we have a select number of choices we are able to make. We are born into the world with a genetic predisposition to behave and take in information in a certain way, at which point our environment sets up the choices we are able to make (and with it, creates a narrow set of options to choose from). Growing up, those influences contribute to our later decision-making process (for example, I learned to enjoy reading from my parents, and therefore read a lot as a child).

At this point, we have to determine what makes a choice truly free. Is it just the fact that we choose one option from a selection of 2 or more possible choices? But the option we decide to choose, and our logical thought process, is determined by prior life experience, something we had no say in. And what if we decide to define free will as the ability to choose any feasible option available to us. Technically speaking, I could buy a plane ticket and be off to Hawaii right now. I have the funds and knowledge available to find a way to do that. I have that choice available to me, but do I really? I mean, I would never choose that option because I value my education over having an impulsive sense of adventure. Life experience taught me to be like that, so it is not that I chose to have that limitation, but rather I learned to put that limitation on myself. The choice available, but is an available choice that you'd never choose really a viable choice? And again, the option we go with is one that our life experience (the reasoning ability we have learned to have, and the values we have learned to have) leads us to choose. At which point, there's only one real viable choice available.

If we say that God (or the gods) gave humans free will, but that they also set the ball rolling. They set up the rules by which the world is governed, thereby setting up the limitations that we operate under. They are the original programmer, predetermining the limitations and rules by which we operate. Thus, if God/gods exist, can we really have free will? Our programming is more complex than sims, but as earlier explained, if the environmental influences are set up so that we evolve a certain set of values and a limited amount of options to choose from (and at that point, our life experience dictates the single choice we end up choosing). At this point, this leads to several possible conclusions that I can think of:

1) God/the gods created the world, fully knowing what that creation would lead to, and thus we do not have free will because our circumstances (and therefore our learning and responses) are predetermined.
2) God/the gods set up the rules and limitations of the world, but with no future knowledge of where that would specifically lead, and therefore They do not have the quality of omniscience (being all knowing).
3) God/the gods did not intentionally create the world or its rules/limitations, and simply pops in now and then to coerce people into believing that They did, which means that They may well have omniscience, but no genuine claim over humanity other than in the sense that they have stopped in to mess with people for reasons unknown.

I'd very much like to hear what other people think, as well as what implications that has towards your religions/non-religious beliefs. Or rather, please try to keep it on the subject of religion so that we don't stray off topic (though if it gets off topic, I might create a new thread about free will vs predestination).

*Just as a side note, since I really hate to create unchallenged hypotheticals, I would like to create an opposing (or at least potentially contrary) hypothetical. Presuming free will does not exist, where did the concept come from? It must either be an existing phenomenon which we are describing, or it must be something that we dreamed up purely on the power of human imagination. If it is an existing phenomenon, it exists. If it is not an existing phenomenon, that means that we are describing something that we invented. Words are not inherently meaningful. We ascribe meaning to them, and therefore we determine what they mean. If we invented a word for a made up concept, that means that we are able to describe the idea of that concept. since we are in charge of describing what it means, that implies that we are setting up the parameters for which the word is applicable. Thus, if we point out its existence within those parameters, we have demonstrated it to exist because it is entirely by our determination what it is we mean when we use the term "free will". Thus, we can create the existence of "free will" simply by making the word apply to something which exists under the criteria we have specified.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I saw a moderator had posted and I thought the thread had been locked.
Lol nope
back to my bubble of security
\(<.<)\

 

[Project Naiad]

"29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
"30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell"
Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages

Something I still remember from when I tried to read the bible. I don't see this quote much elsewhere, so there you go.

Alright, so this once again leads me to ask, what kind of God requires self mutilation (physical or psychical) of his creations?
I'd also like to point out that sin is a choice, while homosexuality is not.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Alright, so this once again leads me to ask, what kind of God requires self mutilation (physical or psychical) of his creations?
I'd also like to point out that sin is a choice, while homosexuality is not.

Didn't say I agree with it.
I ain't saying anything.
Nope
nope nope nope nope
But you asked someone a question on how they feel about something, so there's a quote regarding the question you asked.

 

[Project Naiad]

Didn't say I agree with it.
I ain't saying anything.
Nope
nope nope nope nope
But you asked someone a question on how they feel about something, so there's a quote regarding the question you asked.

And I didn't say you did. Nor was my question directed specifically at you.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Alright, so this once again leads me to ask, what kind of God requires self mutilation (physical or psychical) of his creations?
I'd also like to point out that sin is a choice, while homosexuality is not.

Honestly, I think the example brought up is a very good one of where the religion itself differs from it's sacred text. One might very well choose to read that passage literally, in which case they will reach the logical conclusion of "that's way too extreme, Christians are crazy!", but in truth you'll probably be hard pressed to find a Christian who reads that passage literally. You're much more likely to get the response of "that's a hyperbole", which in fairness isn't an unreasonable position to take. It's not like hyperbole is a modern invention, and if course they'll call it hyperbole because they recognize that there's no reasonable way to expect people to adhere to that command literally.

Instead, they interpret the instruction to gouge out their eye as meaning they should be prepared to make major sacrifices in order to stop oneself from sinful behavior. Perhaps not so far as self mutilation, but at least as difficult to give up as an actual limb might be. Humans are creatures of habit after all, there's a lot of sacrifice that needs to be made to change behavior, so it's essentially what is being described, but not literally. Some might call that cherry picking or interpreting the Bible to suit an agenda. That's not won't, but that's what religion is. Religion cannot be defined by the book alone, you have to factor in what people choose to do with it. And don't get me wrong, many choose to do some pretty awful things, but religion is a phenomenon that had the potential to be whatever people make it to be. As such, the people who utilize it are the key factor. While scriptures and sacred texts are meaningful in that it is a commission various branches of a religion share, the people are more important because they can choose how they respond and act.

---

To the second point, you are absolutely right that homosexuality is not a choice, and willful choice tends to be one of the caveats of sinful behavior. My understanding is that in the modern days (where churches have to accept that many young people know it to be nature rather than choice) the teaching tends to be that acts of homosexuality are sinful, but being homosexual is not. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that homosexual acts are considered a sin because they fall under the classification of "sodomy", and they can't allow non procreative sex in the church. They likely figure that "allowing" acts of homosexuality will mean less Christian babies and will mean the further deterioration of church membership. Tbh I think they're better off just adapting with the times, but that risks alienating their existing base, so that's tricky.

Personally, I think rules about sodomy are massively outdated. Particularly given the fact that similar so called "abominations" are deemed acceptable, at least as far as Christianity goes. I get the practical reasons various religions try to insist upon it, but I think it's far too narrow-minded and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what homosexuality is. And frankly, I think quite a few Christians agree with me. At the very least, the ones I tend to be close friends with believe that there is nothing sinful about acting upon one's natural attraction to a particular gender/sex (typically these younger adults, many of whom I've grown up with, but we'll see which branches decide to make accommodations for this shift in societal acceptance).

 

[Project Naiad]

Honestly, I think the example brought up is a very good one of where the religion itself differs from it's sacred text. One might very well choose to read that passage literally, in which case they will reach the logical conclusion of "that's way too extreme, Christians are crazy!", but in truth you'll probably be hard pressed to find a Christian who reads that passage literally. You're much more likely to get the response of "that's a hyperbole", which in fairness isn't an unreasonable position to take. It's not like hyperbole is a modern invention, and if course they'll call it hyperbole because they recognize that there's no reasonable way to expect people to adhere to that command literally.

Instead, they interpret the instruction to gouge out their eye as meaning they should be prepared to make major sacrifices in order to stop oneself from sinful behavior. Perhaps not so far as self mutilation, but at least as difficult to give up as an actual limb might be. Humans are creatures of habit after all, there's a lot of sacrifice that needs to be made to change behavior, so it's essentially what is being described, but not literally. Some might call that cherry picking or interpreting the Bible to suit an agenda. That's not won't, but that's what religion is. Religion cannot be defined by the book alone, you have to factor in what people choose to do with it. And don't get me wrong, many choose to do some pretty awful things, but religion is a phenomenon that had the potential to be whatever people make it to be. As such, the people who utilize it are the key factor. While scriptures and sacred texts are meaningful in that it is a commission various branches of a religion share, the people are more important because they can choose how they respond and act.

---

To the second point, you are absolutely right that homosexuality is not a choice, and willful choice tends to be one of the caveats of sinful behavior. My understanding is that in the modern days (where churches have to accept that many young people know it to be nature rather than choice) the teaching tends to be that acts of homosexuality are sinful, but being homosexual is not. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that homosexual acts are considered a sin because they fall under the classification of "sodomy", and they can't allow non procreative sex in the church. They likely figure that "allowing" acts of homosexuality will mean less Christian babies and will mean the further deterioration of church membership. Tbh I think they're better off just adapting with the times, but that risks alienating their existing base, so that's tricky.

Personally, I think rules about sodomy are massively outdated. Particularly given the fact that similar so called "abominations" are deemed acceptable, at least as far as Christianity goes. I get the practical reasons various religions try to insist upon it, but I think it's far too narrow-minded and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what homosexuality is. And frankly, I think quite a few Christians agree with me. At the very least, the ones I tend to be close friends with believe that there is nothing sinful about acting upon one's natural attraction to a particular gender/sex (typically these younger adults, many of whom I've grown up with, but we'll see which branches decide to make accommodations for this shift in societal acceptance).

This calls for a longer response, but I don't have the time atm, I'll send one when I get back from school if that's okay.

 

[Project Naiad]

Honestly, I think the example brought up is a very good one of where the religion itself differs from it's sacred text. One might very well choose to read that passage literally, in which case they will reach the logical conclusion of "that's way too extreme, Christians are crazy!", but in truth you'll probably be hard pressed to find a Christian who reads that passage literally. You're much more likely to get the response of "that's a hyperbole", which in fairness isn't an unreasonable position to take. It's not like hyperbole is a modern invention, and if course they'll call it hyperbole because they recognize that there's no reasonable way to expect people to adhere to that command literally.

Yeah I imagined it was meant to be interpreted metaphorically, however, as I mentioned earlier, I also had some experience with Jeovah's Witnesses, who, as you may know, interpret the bible literally, therefore I didn't want to rule out that kind of interpretation entirely.

Instead, they interpret the instruction to gouge out their eye as meaning they should be prepared to make major sacrifices in order to stop oneself from sinful behavior. Perhaps not so far as self mutilation, but at least as difficult to give up as an actual limb might be. Humans are creatures of habit after all, there's a lot of sacrifice that needs to be made to change behavior, so it's essentially what is being described, but not literally.

Sure, I can understand sacrifices like 'stop smoking', or 'don't lie', but these are meant to make your life ultimately better, by removing a habit that is bad for the person.
But homosexuality isn't harmful (especially in these times, with the issue of overpopulation getting bigger), on the contrary, living life denying who we are is what will ultimately make us suffer.

Some might call that cherry picking or interpreting the Bible to suit an agenda. That's not won't, but that's what religion is. Religion cannot be defined by the book alone, you have to factor in what people choose to do with it. And don't get me wrong, many choose to do some pretty awful things, but religion is a phenomenon that had the potential to be whatever people make it to be. As such, the people who utilize it are the key factor. While scriptures and sacred texts are meaningful in that it is a commission various branches of a religion share, the people are more important because they can choose how they respond and act.

I get this, but consider this: if a passage is open to interpretation by the readers, then different readers will get different interpretations out of it (more or less similar to each other, depending on the passage). Then how does one know they're doing 'the right thing' and not misinterpreting everything?

To the second point, you are absolutely right that homosexuality is not a choice, and willful choice tends to be one of the caveats of sinful behavior. My understanding is that in the modern days (where churches have to accept that many young people know it to be nature rather than choice) the teaching tends to be that acts of homosexuality are sinful, but being homosexual is not. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that homosexual acts are considered a sin because they fall under the classification of "sodomy", and they can't allow non procreative sex in the church. They likely figure that "allowing" acts of homosexuality will mean less Christian babies and will mean the further deterioration of church membership. Tbh I think they're better off just adapting with the times, but that risks alienating their existing base, so that's tricky.

Personally, I think rules about sodomy are massively outdated. Particularly given the fact that similar so called "abominations" are deemed acceptable, at least as far as Christianity goes. I get the practical reasons various religions try to insist upon it, but I think it's far too narrow-minded and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what homosexuality is. And frankly, I think quite a few Christians agree with me. At the very least, the ones I tend to be close friends with believe that there is nothing sinful about acting upon one's natural attraction to a particular gender/sex (typically these younger adults, many of whom I've grown up with, but we'll see which branches decide to make accommodations for this shift in societal acceptance).

Nothing to say on this, other than I completely agree.

(Sorry for further delay btw)

 

[southkovenz]

some don't let you smoke weed

 

[Lorsh]

why do you give a shit about what christians think about gays when islamists are literally throwing them off of buildings

 

[Gradous13]

I think religion was an invintion of a high intelligent group of individuals who needed something to control the populous and drive humanity in what ever direction they saw fit, unfortunately it got way out of hand and is now uncontrolable.

P.s. Im Nihilist, a "Cheereful Nihilist"

 

[Jabroni]

There's the whole "something cannot come from nothing" theory that throws a fly in the ointment. It defies science (or science defies divinity) by its very premise. We also have the fact men wrote the Bible, so anything we gain from that is subjective at best. I think these two issues really keep me from buying what my local pastors are selling.

I could see Deism before traditional Christianity as we all know uncountable attrocities have occurred under His supposed watch. But then it goes back to those first two questions. How can God come from nothing? Was He already there? If so, then the Universe must also have been there, not one or the other. Second, how do you verify an account made by mortals who by their very nature are imperfect and sinful? They could very well have lied for some purpose or misinterpreted their life events as being signs from God.

 

[Hige]

why do you give a shit about what christians think about gays when islamists are literally throwing them off of buildings

Just because one group is treating another more badly than another, does not prohibit the discussion. There are still accounts of gay-hate crime in America, tolerance for homosexuals is still a problem.

 

[Vammy]

1. Technically god cannot sin which is a whole debate in itself (so god is perfect but he also can't sin no matter what so him being perfect is a mute point) kinda like saying I'm undefeated in fights versus Mike Tyson

2. TBH the Old Testament was filled with God doing fucked up shit, keep in mind he flooded the earth, tortured dudes and assaulted children with grizzley bears. I'm uncultured was wild af

I'm mildly religious there's probably some god out there doing shit in my opinion. The god described in the Bible or any holy book? Probably not but some God fucking around and creating planets for the lulz

 

[CastoffCaptain]

*cough*

UNCOMMON SENSE MINISTRIES

And that's me posting as a non-Wiccan pagan.