Religion: The Drug They Aren't Warning You About

[Rikurzhen]

Also I agree that there are examples of communities that benefit from religion such as the one you live in but I would ask the question "Are these communities safer and more wholesome because of religion or is it because they are smaller more tight knit communities and the religious portion is just a coincidence?"

What knits communities together? Commonality. Something has to act as the thread which weaves individuals together into a community. Religious belief is a perfect vehicle because it guides so much of how one lives one's life. They're all following the 10 Commandments, they're all doing X and then doing Y.

Let me take a different tack. Do you have any friends with whom you share NOTHING in common and whose every damn position is opposite to yours? For instance, you're a non-racist, he's a racist; you're OK with smoking a dube, he's opposed; you're OK with breaking the law if it helps people, he's a stickler for law and order. Most people don't have such relationships. Friendships are based on sharing common traits or outlooks. Well, that's how communities form. We see from the social science literature that as multiculturalism in a neighborhood or city grows, the sense of belonging and the degree of community involvement declines. Differences drive people apart. Similarities bring them together. Religion brings those within the flock together.

In short, smaller and tight knit communities don't exist independent of some mechanism which fosters tight knittedness.

I just want them to leave minorities that do not adhere to their beliefs (such as homosexuals) alone to do live the life they choose to live so long as it causes not harm to the community or anyone in it.

Here's the problem. If you know that eating a particular shrub will prevent heart attacks don't you want to go out and save people from having needless heart attacks? Don't you want to spread the message? The same with people who see God as offering a path to salvation or whatever. They've seen the light and they want to help others to grab onto the good that comes with that choice.

If God says homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are sinners. When you know that you're right, then trying to save homosexuals is a good thing. Why would you want them to burn in hell instead of saving them? What you're doing is imposing a leftist relativist framework on this issue - "It's true for you but it's not true for me." That relativism doesn't work with what is thought of as universal truth. God said homosexuality is a sin. Period. End of discussion. There's no relativist wiggle room in that belief.

Your philosophy leads to a leftist relativist hell on earth - everyone doing as they please because it suits their own interests. That's San Francisco for you. There are no community standards other than the Golden Rule of - Don't Judge Anyone for Anything. I see this rule manifest in Liberals like it's the Prime Directive for them - To judge is to sin. One must never judge. To judge is to show a character flaw.

Here's the upshot - if you don't judge then you don't believe strongly enough in what you believe and so you don't defend what you believe. If you don't judge other cultures for female genital mutilation, then you don't believe strongly enough in your culture to know, without question, that your position that mutilation is wrong and evil is the correct one. The British in India knew that Suttee was wrong and they treated it like murder. British standards were correct and Suttee was wrong. No apologies, no sensitivity, no cultural relativism.

 

[sealybobo]

That's right folks, I said it. Religion is a drug just as addictive and habit forming as any other and I posit that religious individuals behave very similarly to drug addicts when their addiction is threatened. Because it's their security blanket. The world is a harsh place and it's more so for some then it is for others. Some choose to dull the pain with drugs, because when they're high, life isn't so painful or scary. The same is true of religion. Take away the belief in a God or an afterlife and what do you have. Doubt, uncertainty and the gnawing, nagging question of what happens after you bite the dust. The idea that once you die, that it's just lights out and that your consciousness just abruptly ends forever is terrifying. I'll admit to wishing that there was an afterlife and I'll also freely admit that neither I nor anyone else really knows for sure, but my rational mind tells me it's all just wishful thinking.

But I digress. Needing a security blanket is fine. We're all allowed to believe whatever we want in order to get through the day and there's nothing wrong with that. It's when religion comes in that there becomes a problem. Just as the drug dealer approaches the addict with the wonder drug that will make all his worries and troubles go away, so to does the preacher or priest come to you with his religion promising that it will take away your fear of death and the unknown. What he doesn't tell you is that the price for this peace is your freedom of choice and your freedom to think for yourself. From then on the church will use fear to keep you thinking and acting as they choose. Fear of God's wrath. Fear of being judged by your peers. Fear of being cast out. We are social animals and naturally seek the acceptance and companion ship of a group and it is this part of human psychology that religion uses against us. Religion uses our fear to rule our thoughts and actions and what makes it the most dangerous drug of all is that it has the best PR. Society looks at religion and sees a force for good and that is why it is the most dangerous drug there is.

I don't think a lie is good to tell even if it does some good for some people. People can handle the truth.

To be honest, I am not afraid of death. I'm only afraid of DYING! Hope it doesn't hurt. But I am not worried one bit about when I'm dead, because I'll be dead.

I am blessed to have lived this life this long. I feel sorry for the 8 year old who dies of cancer or hit by a car. I am/was soooo lucky knock on wood.

When my mom got sick my brother said, "we had a blessed life for over 40 years and never once asked god why, so why now 40 years later when something goes wrong would we ask him why now? Right? We didn't ask why when we had it so good so don't cry to god when things go bad. We're all going to die. Get over it. When it is your time no one will care as much as you and your love ones. And when I die I'm sure you guys won't miss one minute of sleep, right? So boo fucking hoo when you die, big babies.

 

[sealybobo]

I think when people finally realize there is no god they will stop praying to an imaginary man to improve their life and they'll start demanding their government represent and protect them from predators both domestic and abroad.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Pretty funny coming from a guy that claims to be a Buddhist, which is a religion.

-_- my name is just supposed to be a kind of play on words. Also I admire Buddha. It does not serve as an indicator of my religious belief. Additionally, many people view Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion in the traditional sense. Honestly, is this the only response you could come up with?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have family members who are definitely assimilated by cults. I find it confusing because one or two of them are actually brilliant. However, they simply are incapable with coping with the reality of life, death, and the random nature of the life experience, so they are full bore cultists, where everything is explained to them, and they substitute dogma for rationality.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think when people finally realize there is no god they will stop praying to an imaginary man to improve their life and they'll start demanding their government represent and protect them from predators both domestic and abroad.

Maybe you're being subtle or well, I don't know what, but this is kind of funny.

To paraphrase, the sooner people stop believing in God as an entity which can help them the sooner they can worship government as an entity which can help them.

Same worship, different god, same outcome.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Also I agree that there are examples of communities that benefit from religion such as the one you live in but I would ask the question "Are these communities safer and more wholesome because of religion or is it because they are smaller more tight knit communities and the religious portion is just a coincidence?"

What knits communities together? Commonality. Something has to act as the thread which weaves individuals together into a community. Religious belief is a perfect vehicle because it guides so much of how one lives one's life. They're all following the 10 Commandments, they're all doing X and then doing Y.

Let me take a different tack. Do you have any friends with whom you share NOTHING in common and whose every damn position is opposite to yours? For instance, you're a non-racist, he's a racist; you're OK with smoking a dube, he's opposed; you're OK with breaking the law if it helps people, he's a stickler for law and order. Most people don't have such relationships. Friendships are based on sharing common traits or outlooks. Well, that's how communities form. We see from the social science literature that as multiculturalism in a neighborhood or city grows, the sense of belonging and the degree of community involvement declines. Differences drive people apart. Similarities bring them together. Religion brings those within the flock together.

In short, smaller and tight knit communities don't exist independent of some mechanism which fosters tight knittedness.

I just want them to leave minorities that do not adhere to their beliefs (such as homosexuals) alone to do live the life they choose to live so long as it causes not harm to the community or anyone in it.

Here's the problem. If you know that eating a particular shrub will prevent heart attacks don't you want to go out and save people from having needless heart attacks? Don't you want to spread the message? The same with people who see God as offering a path to salvation or whatever. They've seen the light and they want to help others to grab onto the good that comes with that choice.

If God says homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are sinners. When you know that you're right, then trying to save homosexuals is a good thing. Why would you want them to burn in hell instead of saving them? What you're doing is imposing a leftist relativist framework on this issue - "It's true for you but it's not true for me." That relativism doesn't work with what is thought of as universal truth. God said homosexuality is a sin. Period. End of discussion. There's no relativist wiggle room in that belief.

Your philosophy leads to a leftist relativist hell on earth - everyone doing as they please because it suits their own interests. That's San Francisco for you. There are no community standards other than the Golden Rule of - Don't Judge Anyone for Anything. I see this rule manifest in Liberals like it's the Prime Directive for them - To judge is to sin. One must never judge. To judge is to show a character flaw.

Here's the upshot - if you don't judge then you don't believe strongly enough in what you believe and so you don't defend what you believe. If you don't judge other cultures for female genital mutilation, then you don't believe strongly enough in your culture to know, without question, that your position that mutilation is wrong and evil is the correct one. The British in India knew that Suttee was wrong and they treated it like murder. British standards were correct and Suttee was wrong. No apologies, no sensitivity, no cultural relativism.

Alright I'm going to focus on your second response because the first one was pretty logical and you made a good point.

Now your second response about me wanting gays and other minorities to be left in peace is flawed for several main reasons. Firstly, your comparison between God's word on gays and a shrub that prevents heart attacks is a bad one because heart attacks are quantifiable and observable. Therefore the risks of not eating this shrub are quite clear and not really open to doubt. The risk of going to hell for being gay is open to doubt because you can't quantify or observe the existence of hell. Also you don't see scientists pushing Congress to make vaccines or any other medicine mandatory. Doctors and drug companies strongly support the use of these medicines but if you choose to not take them and roll the dice then that's on you. There is an exception when it comes to schools but that is because having a non vaccinated child in a classroom with other children puts them at risk because of a choice that someone else's parents made. Which brings me to another point. I strongly refute the assertion that I am of the leftist viewpoint that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want and that judgement of any kind is wrong. I simply have a different standard of what is and is not acceptable. A standard that I think is very reasonable. It is thus: If an action or statement does not cause measurable physical or psychological harm to other persons or property then the law should not prohibit such actions or statements. (Ie: someone running up the street naked is unacceptable, but two consenting homosexuals having sex in private is not)
And no I don't think that people should be allowed to do whatever manner of drugs they want because it "only affects them" Being high on hard drugs creates a situation where violence can easily occur so yes my earlier statement applies.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I think when people finally realize there is no god they will stop praying to an imaginary man to improve their life and they'll start demanding their government represent and protect them from predators both domestic and abroad.

Maybe you're being subtle or well, I don't know what, but this is kind of funny.

To paraphrase, the sooner people stop believing in God as an entity which can help them the sooner they can worship government as an entity which can help them.

Same worship, different god, same outcome.

That logic also doesn't work because he was not implying that people start worshiping the government but that they start making more demands of the government. Demand that it be more effective at doing it's job which is maintaining a safe and orderly society where we all have the opportunity to flourish.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's right folks, I said it. Religion is a drug just as addictive and habit forming as any other and I posit that religious individuals behave very similarly to drug addicts when their addiction is threatened. Because it's their security blanket. The world is a harsh place and it's more so for some then it is for others. Some choose to dull the pain with drugs, because when they're high, life isn't so painful or scary. The same is true of religion. Take away the belief in a God or an afterlife and what do you have. Doubt, uncertainty and the gnawing, nagging question of what happens after you bite the dust. The idea that once you die, that it's just lights out and that your consciousness just abruptly ends forever is terrifying. I'll admit to wishing that there was an afterlife and I'll also freely admit that neither I nor anyone else really knows for sure, but my rational mind tells me it's all just wishful thinking.

But I digress. Needing a security blanket is fine. We're all allowed to believe whatever we want in order to get through the day and there's nothing wrong with that. It's when religion comes in that there becomes a problem. Just as the drug dealer approaches the addict with the wonder drug that will make all his worries and troubles go away, so to does the preacher or priest come to you with his religion promising that it will take away your fear of death and the unknown. What he doesn't tell you is that the price for this peace is your freedom of choice and your freedom to think for yourself. From then on the church will use fear to keep you thinking and acting as they choose. Fear of God's wrath. Fear of being judged by your peers. Fear of being cast out. We are social animals and naturally seek the acceptance and companion ship of a group and it is this part of human psychology that religion uses against us. Religion uses our fear to rule our thoughts and actions and what makes it the most dangerous drug of all is that it has the best PR. Society looks at religion and sees a force for good and that is why it is the most dangerous drug there is.

Your understanding of religion is extremely limited and woefully incomplete. Try employing that rational mind rather than allowing your personal beliefs to control you.

It isn't my personal beliefs that come into play here it's my unbiased observation of religious history. I used to be a Christian and unlike many atheists who left the church because they felt ostracized or unaccepted, I loved my church and felt very close to my fellow believers. But first and foremost I have always been a student of history and I'm thankful for that fact because it led me to eventually open my eyes to the truth about religion. You see as I studied other religions and mythologies it became apparent that these religious doctrines were manufactured as a way to create law and order through fear and superstition and it was the day I realized that this applied to my own religion that I became an atheist. I accept that in many cases early religion played an important role in taking us from nomadic hunter gatherers to the first civilizations and I accept that if helped to establish societal order by making early man think that their would be dire consequences in the afterlife for unacceptable actions. But we are steadily outgrowing religion and have come to a point where it does more harm than good and has been abused by the powers that be for too long.

So, you're basically a Christian pissed off with God. I can only repeat, rather than allow your beliefs to control you, you should employ that rational brain you spoke of.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Now your second response about me wanting gays and other minorities to be left in peace is flawed for several main reasons. Firstly, your comparison between God's word on gays and a shrub that prevents heart attacks is a bad one because heart attacks are quantifiable and observable. Therefore the risks of not eating this shrub are quite clear and not really open to doubt. The risk of going to hell for being gay is open to doubt because you can't quantify or observe the existence of hell.

Go out and measure and then rank order how much one mother loves her child compared to how much another mother loves her child. Good luck with that.

Because you can't measure a mother's love does that mean it doesn't exist and that it doesn't dominate the mother's existence?

Now go and find a true believer in anything. In God, in environmentalism, any faith-based viewpoint. Their beliefs are real to them. A person who feels that God's spirit animates them sees God as objectively in their life as you see a hammer than you're going to pick up off a table. The fact that you can't see the presence of God is YOUR PROBLEM, not theirs.

Look, I get the frustration that this causes. I deal with liberals all the damn time. Religion is religion and it's not falsifiable through empiricism. That's why normal people have such trouble dealing with liberals when they use reason and evidence. The same with religious people. Faith operates orthogonal to reason.

This is an age-old problem. Empiricism and faith operate on different planes. I can't give you an empirical metric about how much my mother loves me but I can tell you that I KNOW that she does. When I was little she cared for me physically. Is that an objective metric? Well, when I was in the hospital a nurse did the same thing for me. The nurse duplicated the objective metric of physical care. Does that mean that the nurse loved me like my mother loved me?

I strongly refute the assertion that I am of the leftist viewpoint that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want and that judgement of any kind is wrong. I simply have a different standard of what is and is not acceptable. A standard that I think is very reasonable. It is thus: If an action or statement does not cause measurable physical or psychological harm to other persons or property then the law should not prohibit such actions or statements. (Ie: someone running up the street naked is unacceptable, but two consenting homosexuals having sex in private is not)

Try an experiment for a few weeks/month. When amongst your friends begin expressing judgment to others but make it a point not to direct that judgment at permissible targets, like conservatives, religious people, white men, etc. Start judging women, minorities, transgendered people. Remember, you're not the subject of the experiment here - the subjects are the people of your acquaintance. You want to observe how they react to you being judgmental.

Now to your standard. I don't get the sense that your standard is different in kind from what most people hold, it's just different in degree. Let's push your standard to some limits but still within your definition. Let's say that you know that two men are bringing live animals into their house to have sex. No person or property is being harmed. How about dead animals. Same thing. How about human corpses. Same thing, no one is being harmed.

The problem that arises as we push the limits is that at some point the actions taking place within that house become a direct assault on what it means to be human. The actions become a direct assault on how you see your role as a human. They become profane. You don't want to be in the same room nor universe with the guy who screws dead goats to get himself off. To accept him means that you allow that screwing dead goats is part of the human condition and so you share your humanity with a dead goat sex fiend. He's not making you share in his activity. He's doing it privately but he tells you about it.

The laws against bestiality are not there to protect animals from human depradation, they're in place to safeguard what it means to be human. To have sex with animals means that you lower humanity to that of being an animal.

Let me back up and take a different tack here. You say that so long as no one is physically or psychologically harmed then society has no business judging nor interfering. Adult consensual incest is a great example to use here. You know that the old guy and his adult daughter are getting it one and that their relationship started when she was an adult. This means that you shouldn't judge them at all.

By refraining from judging you remove social sanction from the act. This makes the act more socially permissible. There are a whole slew of toxic after effects which arise downstream in a society where adults having sex with family members is deemed socially permissible. Do I really need to spell out the details of the negative consequences to all of society?

Look, I've argued with liberals about this before. They've so internalized the new mantras of consent and tolerance that they can't bring themselves to condemn that type of relationship so long as both father and daughter are consenting adults. Because the consent box has been checked they believe that they must tolerate that relationship as the equal of a married couple. Showing tolerance is a higher value than maintaining a moral code which punishes incest.

Consent, tolerance, non-judgmentalism are the new moral benchmarks. I've even had some liberals explain to me that bestiality is wrong because the animal cannot consent to the sex act. That was what made screwing a goat a bad thing.

Frankly I don't really see what was so problematic about the old standard - you tolerate people trying to fix you and save you from your sins. You allow them to be judgmental and you simply don't heed their well-intentioned advice. That's worked for millennia. It seems kind of crazy to make well-intentioned people trying to help you to be some sort of bad guy and elevate the person who keeps his mouth shut to be the good guy.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think when people finally realize there is no god they will stop praying to an imaginary man to improve their life and they'll start demanding their government represent and protect them from predators both domestic and abroad.

and I think, before then, you will die and get to find out if you were right or not.....

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Your understanding of religion is extremely limited and woefully incomplete. Try employing that rational mind rather than allowing your personal beliefs to control you.

It isn't my personal beliefs that come into play here it's my unbiased observation of religious history. I used to be a Christian and unlike many atheists who left the church because they felt ostracized or unaccepted, I loved my church and felt very close to my fellow believers. But first and foremost I have always been a student of history and I'm thankful for that fact because it led me to eventually open my eyes to the truth about religion. You see as I studied other religions and mythologies it became apparent that these religious doctrines were manufactured as a way to create law and order through fear and superstition and it was the day I realized that this applied to my own religion that I became an atheist. I accept that in many cases early religion played an important role in taking us from nomadic hunter gatherers to the first civilizations and I accept that if helped to establish societal order by making early man think that their would be dire consequences in the afterlife for unacceptable actions. But we are steadily outgrowing religion and have come to a point where it does more harm than good and has been abused by the powers that be for too long.

So, you're basically a Christian pissed off with God. I can only repeat, rather than allow your beliefs to control you, you should employ that rational brain you spoke of.

You make me want to facepalm so hard right now. No I am not pissed off at God. God does not exist. I'm pissed off at the individuals that misuse religion to trample on the rights of others. I'm perfectly fine with religious people that don't try to force their beliefs on others.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Now your second response about me wanting gays and other minorities to be left in peace is flawed for several main reasons. Firstly, your comparison between God's word on gays and a shrub that prevents heart attacks is a bad one because heart attacks are quantifiable and observable. Therefore the risks of not eating this shrub are quite clear and not really open to doubt. The risk of going to hell for being gay is open to doubt because you can't quantify or observe the existence of hell.

Go out and measure and then rank order how much one mother loves her child compared to how much another mother loves her child. Good luck with that.

Because you can't measure a mother's love does that mean it doesn't exist and that it doesn't dominate the mother's existence?

Now go and find a true believer in anything. In God, in environmentalism, any faith-based viewpoint. Their beliefs are real to them. A person who feels that God's spirit animates them sees God as objectively in their life as you see a hammer than you're going to pick up off a table. The fact that you can't see the presence of God is YOUR PROBLEM, not theirs.

Look, I get the frustration that this causes. I deal with liberals all the damn time. Religion is religion and it's not falsifiable through empiricism. That's why normal people have such trouble dealing with liberals when they use reason and evidence. The same with religious people. Faith operates orthogonal to reason.

This is an age-old problem. Empiricism and faith operate on different planes. I can't give you an empirical metric about how much my mother loves me but I can tell you that I KNOW that she does. When I was little she cared for me physically. Is that an objective metric? Well, when I was in the hospital a nurse did the same thing for me. The nurse duplicated the objective metric of physical care. Does that mean that the nurse loved me like my mother loved me?

I strongly refute the assertion that I am of the leftist viewpoint that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want and that judgement of any kind is wrong. I simply have a different standard of what is and is not acceptable. A standard that I think is very reasonable. It is thus: If an action or statement does not cause measurable physical or psychological harm to other persons or property then the law should not prohibit such actions or statements. (Ie: someone running up the street naked is unacceptable, but two consenting homosexuals having sex in private is not)

Try an experiment for a few weeks/month. When amongst your friends begin expressing judgment to others but make it a point not to direct that judgment at permissible targets, like conservatives, religious people, white men, etc. Start judging women, minorities, transgendered people. Remember, you're not the subject of the experiment here - the subjects are the people of your acquaintance. You want to observe how they react to you being judgmental.

Now to your standard. I don't get the sense that your standard is different in kind from what most people hold, it's just different in degree. Let's push your standard to some limits but still within your definition. Let's say that you know that two men are bringing live animals into their house to have sex. No person or property is being harmed. How about dead animals. Same thing. How about human corpses. Same thing, no one is being harmed.

The problem that arises as we push the limits is that at some point the actions taking place within that house become a direct assault on what it means to be human. The actions become a direct assault on how you see your role as a human. They become profane. You don't want to be in the same room nor universe with the guy who screws dead goats to get himself off. To accept him means that you allow that screwing dead goats is part of the human condition and so you share your humanity with a dead goat sex fiend. He's not making you share in his activity. He's doing it privately but he tells you about it.

The laws against bestiality are not there to protect animals from human depradation, they're in place to safeguard what it means to be human. To have sex with animals means that you lower humanity to that of being an animal.

Let me back up and take a different tack here. You say that so long as no one is physically or psychologically harmed then society has no business judging nor interfering. Adult consensual incest is a great example to use here. You know that the old guy and his adult daughter are getting it one and that their relationship started when she was an adult. This means that you shouldn't judge them at all.

By refraining from judging you remove social sanction from the act. This makes the act more socially permissible. There are a whole slew of toxic after effects which arise downstream in a society where adults having sex with family members is deemed socially permissible. Do I really need to spell out the details of the negative consequences to all of society?

Look, I've argued with liberals about this before. They've so internalized the new mantras of consent and tolerance that they can't bring themselves to condemn that type of relationship so long as both father and daughter are consenting adults. Because the consent box has been checked they believe that they must tolerate that relationship as the equal of a married couple. Showing tolerance is a higher value than maintaining a moral code which punishes incest.

Consent, tolerance, non-judgmentalism are the new moral benchmarks. I've even had some liberals explain to me that bestiality is wrong because the animal cannot consent to the sex act. That was what made screwing a goat a bad thing.

Frankly I don't really see what was so problematic about the old standard - you tolerate people trying to fix you and save you from your sins. You allow them to be judgmental and you simply don't heed their well-intentioned advice. That's worked for millennia. It seems kind of crazy to make well-intentioned people trying to help you to be some sort of bad guy and elevate the person who keeps his mouth shut to be the good guy.

Ok I have several problems with what you're saying here.
First: I'm going to agree to disagree on the existence of an afterlife because if I don't this conversation will just go in circles. However the fact still remains that two gay people having sex and getting married hurts no one. Stating your disapproval is fine. Telling them your heartfelt belief that they are in danger of hell is also fine. But when they tell you that they appreciate your concern but don't share your beliefs that is where the conversation should end. And you made it seem in your closing statement that giving "well-intentioned advice" was all Christians were doing to gays. That statement is either naive or blatantly dishonest because it sure isn't true. Christians pass laws against gays, radical groups like the Westborough church protest funerals and make vulgar signs and some people go so far as to resort to violence. If "well-intentioned" advice was all Christians were handing out, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Second: No I obviously don't think bestiality is acceptable. I don't condone animal cruelty of any sort. But I do disagree with your assertion that it defames what it means to be human by lowering us to the level of animals because WE ARE animals. We just evolved differently than other animals. We are capable of speech, complex thought, and self awareness whereas not all living things are. That does not make us a whole different kind of being though. We are still mammals and part of the animal kingdom.

Third: I have never heard of a case of incest between two immediate family members (Ie: Mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister,) that started when both individuals were adults. Such relationships happen when the child is exactly that. A child. And these relationships are obviously detrimental to the psychological health of the child. However to humor you I will answer your question. No, I would not condemn that father and daughter as long as they didn't produce children because such children would almost always be deformed. That's why sexual relationships with 1st cousins are no longer legal or acceptable when they used to be a hundred years or so ago. Many notable figures in American history married their 1st cousins and it was acceptable because in almost every case the two had never met or at the most had met at the occasional family reunion and were not raised together. It wasn't until we realized that procreating with someone that closely related to you ran serious risks of producing children with debilitating defects that it became illegal and anything that has been illegal for long enough eventually developed a social stigma to it.

Third: Yes you do need to spell out all the negative consequences to society because where I'm from if you make a claim, you back it up.

Four: Yes the old system of bigotry and violence worked so well. I sure do miss the days when people with non Christian beliefs knew their place.

 

[MaxGrit]

B high school paper at best.

 

[MaxGrit]

"Religion is a drug" is quote from a lazy man who doesn't want to put in any effort to learn about his Creator.

I searched for years to learn about my creator and the only thing I learned is the unfortunate truth that there is no creator.

You failed in your quest, to find God with your works, because it's impossible to do so.

 

[Rikurzhen]

First: I'm going to agree to disagree on the existence of an afterlife because if I don't this conversation will just go in circles.

Are you talking to me? I don't believe in an afterlife. We're not disagreeing and I'm not seeing where we even dosey-doed around the circle once.

However the fact still remains that two gay people having sex and getting married hurts no one. Stating your disapproval is fine. Telling them your heartfelt belief that they are in danger of hell is also fine. But when they tell you that they appreciate your concern but don't share your beliefs that is where the conversation should end.

It's always about homosexuals. Damn, this mindvirus is pervasive. For a group which constitutes only 1-2% of humanity, their drama consumes 80% of the public dialog.

Here we go again. Yes, homosexual marriage has effects which permeate society outside of the participants of the marriage. It's a losing argument to declare that no effects exist. The action is on whether the effects are harmful enough to warrant action. The debate should be focused on thresholds or even on principles. To base it on sociological influence opens your side up to having to recant and repudiate when it is shown that effect is created for you've assured everyone that no effects exist.

Your position is refreshing in one respect. You declare that it is actually fine for people to act on their concern and try to save homosexuals from hellfire. Most non-religious and most liberals and even some conservatives don't go that far, likely because this introduces awkwardness into the situation and modern life seems to be focused on reducing awkwardness and never appearing as judgmental. This change in mores is a victory for liberal values.

And you made it seem in your closing statement that giving "well-intentioned advice" was all Christians were doing to gays.

Societies pass all sorts of laws. If I'm an employer I can't forthrightly declare "I will never hire blacks or women." That's a direct infringement on my right to free association. I would be forced to work alongside blacks and women when my preference is to avoid those associations. Society discriminates against high income earners by charging them a higher rate of income tax, what we know as progressive taxation. This sure isn't equal treatment.

Christians pass laws against gays, radical groups like the Westborough church protest funerals and make vulgar signs and some people go so far as to resort to violence. If "well-intentioned" advice was all Christians were handing out, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Christians don't pass laws, that's the job of legislators. Aversion to homosexuality is not a Christian invention, it predates Christianity. It likely even predates recorded history. The fact is that homosexuality is a dangerous practice from a health standpoint. In eras which predate modern medicine, there were no pharmaceutical remedies for the consequences which arise from engaging in homosexual sex. This would make homosexuals walking disease factories. Aversion to homosexuality would give significant health benefits to people.

As for Westboro, why is that up to Christians to defend? Westboro was run by Fred Phelps, a mover and shaker in the Democratic Party, and a renowned civil rights leader, so why aren't Democrats and the black community hung with that albatross?

As for violence, again why is it the community which is held responsible for the actions of the individuals? Since when is it just to punish the son for the crimes of the father? This community punishment logic is what liberals use all the time with respect to gun violence. One criminal uses a gun to kill someone and all gun owners are deemed responsible.

These seem like incoherent arguments to me, at this stage at least. If you want to advance them you'd probably do well to flesh them out some more.

Second: No I obviously don't think bestiality is acceptable. I don't condone animal cruelty of any sort.

By chance are you a vegetarian?

But I do disagree with your assertion that it defames what it means to be human by lowering us to the level of animals because WE ARE animals. We just evolved differently than other animals. We are capable of speech, complex thought, and self awareness whereas not all living things are. That does not make us a whole different kind of being though. We are still mammals and part of the animal kingdom.

So if I understand your position bestiality would be peachy keen if we could just eliminate the cruelty to animals aspects, like say screwing DEAD goats. They're dead, so what does it matter. Am I on the right track?

Third: I have never heard of a case of incest between two immediate family members (Ie: Mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister,) that started when both individuals were adults.

You realize that you're dodging the issue by trying to define it away. Secondly, you're employing the gambit of "I've never heard of that so therefore it can't exist."

Let me help you out:

''I BELIEVE severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said at Allen and Pat's sentencing in November 1997. ''I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future."

Allen and Pat were lovers, but a Wisconsin statute enacted in 1849 made their sexual relationship a felony. The law was sometimes used to nail predators who had molested children, but using it to prosecute consenting adults -- Allen was 45; Pat, 30 -- was virtually unheard of. That didn't deter Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher. Nor did the fact that the couple didn't understand why their relationship should be a crime. Allen and Pat didn't ''have to be bright," the judge growled, to know that having sex with each other was wrong.

He threw the book at them: eight years for Allen, five for Pat, served in separate maximum-security prisons, 25 miles apart.

If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered.

But Allen and Patricia Muth are not gay. They were convicted of incest. Although they didn't meet until Patricia was 18 -- she had been raised from infancy in foster care -- they were brother and sister, children of the same biological parents. They were also strongly attracted to each other, emotionally and physically. And so, disregarding the taboo against incest, they became a couple and had four children.

When Wisconsin officials learned of the Muths' relationship, they moved to strip them of their parental rights. The state's position, upheld in court, was that their ''fundamentally disordered" lifestyle made them unfit for parenthood by definition. Allen and Patricia's children were taken from them. Then they were prosecuted for incest and sent to prison.

I wrote about the Muths' case shortly after their conviction, asking why social liberals were not up in arms over it. Where were the people who always insist that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms? That what goes on between consenting adults is nobody's business but their own? That a family is defined by love, not conventional morality? Patricia and Allen Muth were one ''nontraditional" family it seemed no one cared to defend.

But then came Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 that the Constitution protects the freedom of Americans to engage in ''the most private human conduct, sexual behavior," when it is part of a willing relationship between adults.

''The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down the Texas law under which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner had been convicted of homosexual sodomy. ''The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Armed with Lawrence's sweeping language, Allen Muth appealed his conviction.

The taboo against incest may be ancient, and most Americans may sincerely regard it as immoral or repugnant. But Lawrence was clear: ''The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." If the Supreme Court meant what it said, Muth argued, his and his sister's convictions for incest were every bit as unconstitutional as the Texas men's convictions for sodomy.​

No, I would not condemn that father and daughter as long as they didn't produce children because such children would almost always be deformed.

This is illustrative. It establishes a hierarchy of principles. At the top of the heap is consent. So long as adult consent is present, everything is permissible. Fathers screwing their daughters. No problem.

Those who oppose you have a different hierarchy of principles. They see that there is a lot of harm arising from fathers screwing their daughters and no matter whether that is a consensual act they're prepared to bring the hammer down on father and daughter in order to police the moral underpinnings of society. They see the harm that ripples outwards from individual couples to other families. These types of people are not afraid to appear judgmental, for they're serving a higher goal than that of projecting an image of self-enlightenment to their peers.

Third: Yes you do need to spell out all the negative consequences to society because where I'm from if you make a claim, you back it up.

Let's start with fathers grooming their daughters for a future relationship. Waiting until she is of legal age to strike.

Next, even absent grooming, we're still dealing with the dynamic of family break-up but now with the added complication of the mother competing with her daughter to be the mate of the father. When families break-up due to divorce, the children are always bystanders - the father is never choosing the daughter as the other woman.

Next, we get the liberal effort to normalize this behavior. Once we can't criticize and ostracize in order to police moral boundaries, then the boundaries become meaningless. Look at what happened after liberals got their hooks into single motherhood. The shaming and ostracism these women endured for having children out of wedlock worked to control behavior in young women, and men too. This resulted in a fairly low rate of bastard children. But this was so mean said the liberals. Now came the sympathy brigade offering up all sorts of goodies. Now we tolerated out of wedlock birth. It now became declasse to criticize and ostracize and lo and behold, the bastardization rate began to increase. Presently 73% of all black children born in America are born to single-mothers. The consequences of this are staggering, for the mothers and for the children. Other racial groups are seeing increases too. This is destablizing to society,.

Four: Yes the old system of bigotry and violence worked so well. I sure do miss the days when people with non Christian beliefs knew their place.

You say tomatoe, I say tomato, you say bigotry, I say moral standards. Policing moral standards is never pleasant work. Liberals like to project a self-image of being pleasant and tolerant and the best way to do this is to not engage in policing moral standards. Without moral standards, all bets are off and human wreckage follows, ie, black bastard rate.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Your thread reminded me of something Katherine Kuhlman said in a sermon once. She said, Men are free to do as they want and I am free to do as I ought. This a very profound statement because what she is saying is all men have a free will and if Christians decide to use their free will to do as they "ought" ( realizing God's Authority ) then this too should be respected.

Surrendering ones life to Jesus Christ and becoming a christian is not a drug. It is what delivers one "from" drugs and many other addictions. A life surrendered to Jesus Christ is where Victory abides. No surrendered life to Christ? No victory.

Sin may be fun for a season but in the end it brings for death. Drinking champagne on a tv commercial may look glamorous but it isn't glamorous ten years later when the same person is vomiting over a toilet in a jail cell after being arrested for a DUI.

Premarital sex may seem acceptable to the cool mom and dad but when your daughter dies from the complication of an abortion she didn't tell you she was having - you'll wish you had been parents instead of her friend / buddy.

Buying beer for your sons keg party may make you a hit with him and his friends tonight but tomorrow morning when you are identifying his body at a morgue from hitting a telephone pole head on at 100 mph you'll be grieving your heart out for every having done such a stupid thing...

Ignoring God and mocking Him tonight might seem the hip thing to do in front of your buddies here but when this nation comes under attack and you wonder why God does not answer your cries to save your life - you'll be thinking back on this night. ( in hell )

Something to consider and a good reason to have a change of heart while you still have the breath in you to do it.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

"Religion is a drug" is quote from a lazy man who doesn't want to put in any effort to learn about his Creator.

I searched for years to learn about my creator and the only thing I learned is the unfortunate truth that there is no creator.

You failed in your quest, to find God with your works, because it's impossible to do so.

I failed because there was nothing to find.

 

[MaxGrit]

Marx said it first. "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Have you ever read the full phrase?

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Karl Marx: Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?

What we have is a critique of society that has become heartless rather than of religion which tries to provide a bit of solace. One can argue that Marx offers a partial validation of religion in that it tries to become the heart of a heartless world. For all its problems, religion doesn’t matter so much — it is not the real problem. Religion is a set of ideas, and ideas are expressions of material realities. Religion is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.

Marx is an idiot.

 

[MaxGrit]

I searched for years to learn about my creator and the only thing I learned is the unfortunate truth that there is no creator.

You failed in your quest, to find God with your works, because it's impossible to do so.

I failed because there was nothing to find.

You only know that you failed to find God.