Church abducts and beats a gay man to exorcise him of his demons

[1sikbITCH]

Make a comparison of scale. Religions are different.

Well the Christians jumped out ahead at 1.7 million dead when they spent 200 years slaughtering Muslims because their dickhead leader got pissed and wanted the Muslim land. Really spiritual fellows there.

There may be a God somewhere but you won't find him or here in any religion. Religions are created and administered by men. They warp and twist the meanings to get what they want. God has no say in the matter. Answer this: If the Bible explicitly orders its followers to kill gay folks, why are you not doing so? Rather burn in Hell for your sins? Or do you think that someone twisted the words a bit and the Bible is NOT the Word of God?

The whole thing is BS. I go out of my way to help people, I donate when I can and I look out for my neighbors and strangers alike. I know inside when I am doing something I shouldn't be. It's called a moral compass and you don't need to be led around like a sheep to get one. You already possess it.

 

[MajinCry]

Its funny how people just pick and choose what they want to follow and what they don't . Doesn't the Bible say all sorts of stuff about eating shrimp lobster and pork? Where is the rampant religious dogma on that? "Well I like pork so it's ok...."

Hell, the Bible does lay out that the OT, the part with all the nasty stuff, will be invalidated. But that's future tense, and the conditions are plainly stated.

Yet we have Puff N Stuff claiming that the seventh covenant is already in effect. If you read Jeremiah 31:31-34, it's obvious that it isn't, nor will it ever be.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it ton their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

But even if that came into place, the whole "God is love" is still bullshit. It's like saying Josef Fritzl is a loving father because he gave his sex slave daughter a bed to sleep on.

 

[Younigue]

Hell, the Bible does lay out that the OT, the part with all the nasty stuff, will be invalidated. But that's future tense, and the conditions are plainly stated.

Yet we have Puff N Stuff claiming that the seventh covenant is already in effect. If you read Jeremiah 31:31-34, it's obvious that it isn't, nor will it ever be.



But even if that came into place, the whole "God is love" is still bullshit. It's like saying Josef Fritzl is a loving father because he gave his sex slave daughter a bed to sleep on.

Well, I believe God is love but it's nothing we experience on earth. We only mimic it here on earth and we get it so very twisted. I'm not extremely religious or even a daily follower but I know what I know for me. Harming someone because that person is gay is wrong and certainly nothing anyone should ever feel good or accomplished for.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Well, I believe God is love but it's nothing we experience on earth. We only mimic it here on earth and we get it so very twisted. I'm not extremely religious or even a daily follower but I know what I know for me. Harming someone because that person is gay is wrong and certainly nothing anyone should ever feel good or accomplished for.

Eggxactly.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It's called a moral compass and you don't need to be led around like a sheep to get one. You already possess it.

Do we really? A person that allows his morality to be dictated by a book of violent fairy tales is clearly lacking a moral compass to begin with. Anyone that truly possessed a functioning moral compass would soundly and emphatically reject the bible at first reading. You simply cannot reconcile that level of atrocity with any moral compass, they're completely incompatible.

 

[bshole]

Do we really? A person that allows his morality to be dictated by a book of violent fairy tales is clearly lacking a moral compass to begin with. Anyone that truly possessed a functioning moral compass would soundly and emphatically reject the bible at first reading. You simply cannot reconcile that level of atrocity with any moral compass, they're completely incompatible.

Context matters. It is immoral now. In the context of civilizations where the available resources were only enough to feed your tribe, was it immoral to wipe out the other tribe to ensure the survival of your own? Give a society back then our morality and it would most likely have gone extinct in a generation or two.

 

[ElFenix]

Context matters. It is immoral now. In the context of civilizations where the available resources were only enough to feed your tribe, was it immoral to wipe out the other tribe to ensure the survival of your own? Give a society back then our morality and it would most likely have gone extinct in a generation or two.

i wouldn't be looking to desert dwelling hill people from today for instruction on how to interact with each other, let alone those from 1400, 2000, or 3000 years ago.

 

[bshole]

i wouldn't be looking to desert dwelling hill people from today for instruction on how to interact with each other, let alone those from 1400, 2000, or 3000 years ago.

Agree with you there. If civilization falls, man's morality will probably shift back in a heartbeat. I think religion more closely models how our brains are hard-wired, that is why it is so easy. The scientific method does not and that is why it is so damn hard.

 

[Younigue]

Do we really? A person that allows his morality to be dictated by a book of violent fairy tales is clearly lacking a moral compass to begin with. Anyone that truly possessed a functioning moral compass would soundly and emphatically reject the bible at first reading. You simply cannot reconcile that level of atrocity with any moral compass, they're completely incompatible.

I agree 100%. If it's written in a book written by humans and taught and/or enforced by humans it's bias in a way I can not rectify. I have read a lot over the years and educated myself on several religions and I find them to be suspect. Any self-help book encouraging self-loathing, segregation, superiority, judgement of any human, fear... Is not in tune with your soul and in fact damages it which in turn damages your mind. God don't do me like that.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Context matters. It is immoral now. In the context of civilizations where the available resources were only enough to feed your tribe, was it immoral to wipe out the other tribe to ensure the survival of your own? Give a society back then our morality and it would most likely have gone extinct in a generation or two.

Okay, fine, but that was not the environment that spawned the bible. The bible was pieced together around 325 AD in Italy at the behest of Constantine who demanded that Christianity come together and believe one single set of fairy tales. And while Italy of that era is not exactly modern they were far beyond the tribal stage. They were agrarian, they farmed crops and livestock and had a trading network that spanned across Europe and northern Africa. They had the rule of law and a civilized society. For Romans anyway. They knew right from wrong, they were safe from enemies and relatively safe from famine. Life was fairly secure and not at all dependent on wiping out other tribes to survive. And yet that orderly, semi-enlightened society not only wrote the bible, backed the bible, believed the bible and practiced the bible, they forced every one of their satellite states and conquered enemies to believe that shit too, spreading it across their sphere of influence like the disease it is. They can't play the "necessary to survive" card.The immorality mandated by the bible was immoral to that society by that time.

 

[sandorski]

Okay, fine, but that was not the environment that spawned the bible. The bible was pieced together around 325 AD in Italy at the behest of Constantine who demanded that Christianity come together and believe one single set of fairy tales. And while Italy of that era is not exactly modern they were far beyond the tribal stage. They were agrarian, they farmed crops and livestock and had a trading network that spanned across Europe and northern Africa. They had the rule of law and a civilized society. For Romans anyway. They knew right from wrong, they were safe from enemies and relatively safe from famine. Life was fairly secure and not at all dependent on wiping out other tribes to survive. And yet that modern, semi-enlightened society not only wrote the bible, backed the bible, believed the bible and practiced the bible, they forced every one of their satellite states and conquered enemies to believe that shit too. They can't play the "necessary to survive" card.

They didn't write it, they chose which books would be included within it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

They didn't write it, they chose which books would be included within it.

Yes and no. They chose which books they would choose to believe and pass along to their followers as the word of god. And some of the bible actually dates from that period, particularly the new testament. The gospels were written way after non-existent Jesus supposedly lived. And some of what was included was indeed written by the Council itself. They wrote and re-wrote parts to make it read like they wanted it to read. It's not a verbatim translation of 3500 year old scrolls, it's those stories retold in the Council's own words.

That however is completely irrelevant. If we as a society decided to pass along information saying that the Earth is flat and you can sail off the edge then we're responsible for it even if we didn't write the first draft. Rome circa 325 or whatever year the Council of Nicea was knew better. They were a lawful, orderly society who had at least some semblance of morality and they both wrote andcompiled the most immoral book ever written. And then they forced much of the world to believe it or be killed.

 

[Puffnstuff]

What makes you think certain words can not be spoken? They are just words.

Then go to the nearest mirror right now and while looking at yourself in it try to speak those words out loud and see what happens. Why don't you film is and provide us with the YouTube link to it.

 

[sandorski]

Then go to the nearest mirror right now and while looking at yourself in it try to speak those words out loud and see what happens. Why don't you film is and provide us with the YouTube link to it.

Don't have a camera, but Jesus is God in the flesh!!! I even said it out loud......What happened is I said some words.

 

[disappoint]

Is it not also just to shame/deride behaviors that are not compatible with civilized society?

If not, why not?

Absolutely not. There are a number of reasons why not. The short answer is it's not beneficial to anyone. It only serves to make the person doing the shaming feel better in the short term. Here is a short article on 11 reasons never to shame anyone: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201506/11-reasons-never-shame-anyone

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

There is a much more important and larger point being missed here: Divine Command Theory (the technical term for "God says what's right") is empty. It cannot and does not ground any system of morality, for the following reasons:

1) We do not have necessary access to the mind/will of God, i.e., problem of conflicting, changing, and imperfect revelation.

2) DCT is unable to provide any obligation or duty to be moral. In other words, it can say "God says so" when someone asks "Why is X (im)moral?" but can't handle the followup "Okay then, why should we be moral?"

3) DCT tautologically reduces down to "might makes right." All attempts to dodge the Euthyphro Dilemma ("does God command what is right because it is of itself right, or is a thing right solely because God commands it?") are empty tautologies.

For example, some apologists will say "God's very nature is the standard of what is good, and as God cannot act against his own nature, whatever he commands is therefore good." Oooookay...so, how did you determine, and by what standard, that God's nature is good? And, if this is the case, what command could God possibly issue that is against his nature? And how would we know whether or not he had issued such a command?

The takeaway here is that DCT is actually the semantic equivalent of one of those impossible-object illusions. It looks workable enough until you examine it a little closer and realize you're looking at the drawn equivalent of a circular argument.

Morality is intersubjective and emergent. It supervenes on the existence of intelligent, social beings and the properties of the natural world. The very idea of a top-down, Platonic realm of moral ideas is therefore absurd. Note that this does not imply the error theory of morality, or that moral facts do not exist as such; it simply means they don't exist sui generis and, for example, if there were no sentient beings, there would be no actual morality (though there might be potential morality...).

 

[WelshBloke]

Then go to the nearest mirror right now and while looking at yourself in it try to speak those words out loud and see what happens. Why don't you film is and provide us with the YouTube link to it.

What are you expecting to happen if he does that?
Apart from him feeling a little bit silly obviously.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well you guys can play around with your iterations of it but one day you will be forced to your knees at your judgement and you won't be laughing about it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well you guys can play around with your iterations of it but one day you will be forced to your knees at your judgement and you won't be laughing about it.

That all sounds a bit ISIS!

 

[jackstar7]

Absolutely not. There are a number of reasons why not. The short answer is it's not beneficial to anyone. It only serves to make the person doing the shaming feel better in the short term. Here is a short article on 11 reasons never to shame anyone: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201506/11-reasons-never-shame-anyone

Okay, so how do we guilt people and not shame them?

To be clear, I'm happy not to use shame if it's not a valid learning tool. It's pretty gross as a thing, but much like the article mentions, I was raised with shame as a thing... but balanced against other things that shaped my behavior.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Shaming is a pervasive type of punishment in our society.

Just look at how we criminalize sex and drug use.

Sex is innate, but paying currency for it is frowned upon, demonized, and criminalized.

The drive to alter perception is also innate (although I suspect many don't agree). Yet people who choose drugs to alter their perception are treated as lesser life forms. Again demonized, criminalized, etc...Except, of course, those drugs that we accept as a society, as detrimental as they are.

Shaming is nothing new, and while it may not be the best way, it's the way that is easiest for people to do....so it persists.

 

[Blue_Max]

Well the Christians jumped out ahead at 1.7 million dead when they spent 200 years slaughtering Muslims because their dickhead leader got pissed and wanted the Muslim land. Really spiritual fellows there.

um.... not even close to reality.
This short vid shows what went on over those hundreds of years, jump to 1:15 to go straight to the action:

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well you guys can play around with your iterations of it but one day you will be forced to your knees at your judgement and you won't be laughing about it.

Oh dear!! Is your fairy tale going to kick our ass? Well one day Old Mother Hubbard is going to snap and it'll be you who won't be laughing then.

 

[jackstar7]

Or there's reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...60b1144cbc1_story.html?utm_term=.10a4f1b86a20

Sorry it's not a video, I know some people have a tough time reading.

 

[sandorski]

Well you guys can play around with your iterations of it but one day you will be forced to your knees at your judgement and you won't be laughing about it.

I said it, so now I'm legit. You said so.