So... I'd like to talk about religion

[rconverse]

Raised Christian. Certainly not a practicing one. Generally speaking I think religion is okay unless you get too radical with it.

[barbogast]

Originally Posted by smb41

No, you don't need to believe in God to follow the Golden Rule. But here's my issue with that - why would one feel compelled to follow the Golden Rule if there is no God, or no source of objective morality? If one truly believes that we are alone in the universe (in that there is no higher being, thus no objective morality), what's stopping us from being violent, unprincipled people?

I can respect the "old atheist"/Sartre view: there is no God, we are alone in the universe, and the existence of humanity is merely a biological accident. There is no right or wrong, good or evil. Hate is no better than compassion and murder is no better than an act of kindness. "Love" is meaningless.

The "new atheist"/Hitchens view, however, also claims that there is no God and that we are alone in the universe, but asserts that we as humans still have an obligation to be nice. Why? What for?

I understand the argument some people will make that at some point in our evolution of humans, we came to a "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me" mutual agreement, thus creating the Golden Rule. But I have a problem with the notion that out entire human culture is based off of some non-binding joint compromise. There's no substance to that, and I personally can't justify being morally upstanding because of a compromise a few guys made thousands of years ago. Doesn't work for me.

I would strongly recommend reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, as he and his works have defined my religious beliefs and reinvigorated my faith.

To the bolded, it's called being nice and considerate. Why would one need religion or spirituality to participate in that?

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by FromTheMorning

No question. But you don't need religion for that. Boils down to empathy. The golden rule. No need to believe in any sort of God to be good to other people.

But I think this comes from the simplistic and incorrect thought pattern of "people are inherently good", which has been proven incorrect over and over again.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by barbogast

To the bolded, it's called being nice and considerate. Why would one need religion or spirituality to participate in that?

Because that's life. I would say that maybe 10% of the population is polite and considerate.

In which Utopias do some of you live? No one steals, grits, cheats, etc...

I've said it many times....People are not inherently good. That's literally a myth.

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Because that's life. I would say that maybe 10% of the population is polite and considerate.

In which Utopias do some of you live? No one steals, grits, cheats, etc...

I've said it many times....People are not inherently good. That's literally a myth.

I read this without the comma as "no one steals grits" and I was like, is that a thing?

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by scrock25

Roman Catholic, don't practice nearly enough but I talk to God/Jesus a good amount and definitely have the faith. I've received all sacraments up to and including marriage. Regardless of my religious beliefs I'm left leaning socially.

This really encapsulates my beliefs. I don't go to Church as much as I should, but when I go I really do get something out of it. Do I believe that the Bible is a historical account of what actually happened in real life? No. But the message behind the gospel is what counts and I actually feel really inspired to be a better person when I go to church and think about what I was taught as a child.

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I'm about to go junior on this answer. I was raised Southern Baptist but converted to Catholicism in 2010. I love the faith, love the ritual, love the beauty of it. When I was younger, church felt more like an obligation to me, now I enjoy going to Mass every week.

As far as personally, I'm not in line 100% with what most Christian/"Christian" religions say. I do not condemn homosexuality, in fact as an ordained minister I marry same sex couples here in Arkansas. I also don't demonize abortion. I recognize what the church says, but I also recognize that it's not my place to tell women what to do with their own bodies. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-woman, in that I respect the dignity of women and their right to make their own choices. I don't believe my religion should be mixed up with government, I don't believe laws should be passed that show preference to my religion, and I don't think that as a Christian/Catholic I should be given preferential treatment in society. I strongly believe in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and believe firmly that government should not show any preference to any religion and that all should be viewed and treated equally. I respect the beliefs of others, or non-beliefs, and do not attack them or say they're right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as they see fit.

I also believe in science. I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation. I follow the belief of theistic evolution in that God guided the evolutionary processes. I think there's much more evidence for that.

As far as matters of faith, my approach to religion has always been this. Christ said the two most important things are to love God and to love each other. That's what I mold my life by and how I practice my faith. It shames me to see all the horrible things "Christians" are doing and saying in the name of our faith. We are supposed to have a faith that transforms us and transforms the world to be a better place. Not one we use as a weapon, but one we use as a tool to help others. I view religion as inclusive - welcoming and loving of all people. I do not view religion as exclusive and I do not support showing love and support only to Christians/Catholics.

Long response, but that's my view of religion.

This is a really good post, Chad. I subscribe to a lot of what you said here

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Because that's life. I would say that maybe 10% of the population is polite and considerate.

In which Utopias do some of you live? No one steals, grits, cheats, etc...

I've said it many times....People are not inherently good. That's literally a myth.

No one steals cheese grits?

... tha fuck Rahj

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I read this without the comma as "no one steals grits" and I was like, is that a thing?

I assume it is in the south.

It was supposed to be "grifts."

Some dude tried to steal a half drank beer from me the other day. People are savages.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by scrock25

No one steals cheese grits?

... tha fuck Rahj

Replace "grits" with "garbage plates" and tell me your blood doesn't start boiling!

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Replace "grits" with "garbage plates" and tell me your blood doesn't start boiling!

Oh, yeah, right. Fuck that guy!

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I'm about to go junior on this answer. I was raised Southern Baptist but converted to Catholicism in 2010. I love the faith, love the ritual, love the beauty of it. When I was younger, church felt more like an obligation to me, now I enjoy going to Mass every week.

As far as personally, I'm not in line 100% with what most Christian/"Christian" religions say. I do not condemn homosexuality, in fact as an ordained minister I marry same sex couples here in Arkansas. I also don't demonize abortion. I recognize what the church says, but I also recognize that it's not my place to tell women what to do with their own bodies. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-woman, in that I respect the dignity of women and their right to make their own choices. I don't believe my religion should be mixed up with government, I don't believe laws should be passed that show preference to my religion, and I don't think that as a Christian/Catholic I should be given preferential treatment in society. I strongly believe in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and believe firmly that government should not show any preference to any religion and that all should be viewed and treated equally. I respect the beliefs of others, or non-beliefs, and do not attack them or say they're right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as they see fit.

I also believe in science. I do not believe in a literal 6 day creation. I follow the belief of theistic evolution in that God guided the evolutionary processes. I think there's much more evidence for that.

As far as matters of faith, my approach to religion has always been this. Christ said the two most important things are to love God and to love each other. That's what I mold my life by and how I practice my faith. It shames me to see all the horrible things "Christians" are doing and saying in the name of our faith. We are supposed to have a faith that transforms us and transforms the world to be a better place. Not one we use as a weapon, but one we use as a tool to help others. I view religion as inclusive - welcoming and loving of all people. I do not view religion as exclusive and I do not support showing love and support only to Christians/Catholics.

Long response, but that's my view of religion.

As a Christian myself, I agree with a lot of this. However, will never understand how any practicing Christian could support abortion rights. I respect your opinion, not trying to start a fight, question your faith or anything, just don't get it.

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

As a Christian myself, I agree with a lot of this. However, will never understand how any practicing Christian could support abortion rights. I respect your opinion, not trying to start a fight, question your faith or anything, just don't get it.

I don't support abortion. I don't like abortion. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm sure most who are "pro-choice" aren't "pro-abortion". Which is why I don't say I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I'm "pro-woman".

I respect they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies without my interference or government interference (isn't it funny, the party of small government wants government so small it can fit inside a woman's uterus?).

I don't want a woman telling me what I can and can't do, just like they don't want me telling me what they can and can't do - it's not my place. If I want a vasectomy I shouldn't have to get permission from a woman or the government, because it's my body and I should be able to do with it as I please.

[cazzie34]

OP how old are you? I'm guessing no older than 22.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I don't support abortion. I don't like abortion. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm sure most who are "pro-choice" aren't "pro-abortion". Which is why I don't say I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I'm "pro-woman".

I respect they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies without my interference or government interference (isn't it funny, the party of small government wants government so small it can fit inside a woman's uterus?).

I don't want a woman telling me what I can and can't do, just like they don't want me telling me what they can and can't do - it's not my place. If I want a vasectomy I shouldn't have to get permission from a woman or the government, because it's my body and I should be able to do with it as I please.

It has nothing to do with telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting the unborn and sanctity of human life. The bible makes it pretty clear that even in the womb we are a creation of God. There's no way abortion isn't a total affront to god if you subscribe to the God of the bible IMO.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the conversation. Just an issue that strikes a personal chord with me.

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

It has nothing to do with telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting the unborn and sanctity of human life. The bible makes it pretty clear that even in the womb we are a creation of God. There's no way abortion isn't a total affront to god if you subscribe to the God of the bible IMO.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the conversation. Just an issue that strikes a personal chord with me.

It does because it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their own body.

It's like me telling you that you can't have a BBQ pork sandwich because it's Lent and I've given up meat. It's like someone telling me I can't get a tattoo because of how they interpret the book of Leviticus and it's relevancy to modern times. How is it fair that my belief system should dictate your life and the decisions you make?

Regardless of what I believe about life, or what I think the Bible says about any given topic, it's not fair for me to force my beliefs or opinions about any topic on other people and use said beliefs to dictate their life.

[smb41]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I'm about to go junior on this answer. I was raised Southern Baptist but converted to Catholicism in 2010. I love the faith, love the ritual, love the beauty of it. When I was younger, church felt more like an obligation to me, now I enjoy going to Mass every week.

As far as personally, I'm not in line 100% with what most Christian/"Christian" religions say. I do not condemn homosexuality, in fact as an ordained minister I marry same sex couples here in Arkansas. I also don't demonize abortion. I recognize what the church says, but I also recognize that it's not my place to tell women what to do with their own bodies. I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-woman, in that I respect the dignity of women and their right to make their own choices. I don't believe my religion should be mixed up with government, I don't believe laws should be passed that show preference to my religion, and I don't think that as a Christian/Catholic I should be given preferential treatment in society. I strongly believe in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and believe firmly that government should not show any preference to any religion and that all should be viewed and treated equally. I respect the beliefs of others, or non-beliefs, and do not attack them or say they're right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to believe and worship as they see fit.

As far as matters of faith, my approach to religion has always been this. Christ said the two most important things are to love God and to love each other. That's what I mold my life by and how I practice my faith. It shames me to see all the horrible things "Christians" are doing and saying in the name of our faith. We are supposed to have a faith that transforms us and transforms the world to be a better place. Not one we use as a weapon, but one we use as a tool to help others. I view religion as inclusive - welcoming and loving of all people. I do not view religion as exclusive and I do not support showing love and support only to Christians/Catholics.

Long response, but that's my view of religion.

You're right; Jesus showed love, compassion, and tolerance to all those He encountered. But He was still still clear on what's right and wrong.

There is a fine line between agreeing with/condoning something and tolerating it. For instance, just because Jesus presented love and kindness to Mary Magdalene doesn't mean He thought prostitution was okay. Similarly, just because He would have been open and welcoming towards gay people doesn't mean He would have agreed with the gay lifestyle. Like Pope Francis said, even though he believes same-sex marriage is morally wrong: "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"

As a Catholic, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't condemn gay people for being who they are. I wouldn't treat a L/G/B person any differently than I'd treat anyone else, but at the same time I don't support the homosexual lifestyle. I live by a "love the sinner, hate the sin" These are not mutually exclusive. Again, tolerance and acceptance are not always the same thing. (To clarify my stance on same-sex marriage, I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between one man, one woman, and God. That being said, I would not be opposed to civil unions with the same rights and privileges that straight couples have.)

To add on, just because I have conservative values does not mean I am using my faith to mask bigotry. Of course there are people out there who claim to be "Christian" while they really use religion as a way to be outwardly ignorant and narrow-minded. But to claim that every religious conservative falls into that category is painting broad and oftentimes distant groups of people with the same brush.

Sorry for the long post, I think we started this conversation in a previous thread a while back but it got locked.

[kydmb99]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

It does because it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their own body.

It's like me telling you that you can't have a BBQ pork sandwich because it's Lent and I've given up meat. It's like someone telling me I can't get a tattoo because of how they interpret the book of Leviticus and it's relevancy to modern times. How is it fair that my belief system should dictate your life and the decisions you make?

Regardless of what I believe about life, or what I think the Bible says about any given topic, it's not fair for me to force my beliefs or opinions about any topic on other people and use said beliefs to dictate their life.

Pretty sure saying someone shouldn't be able to kill a human fetus is a little different than telling someone they can't have a tattoo. Either you believe it's a life as told in the bible or you don't. I don't see how you could believe the former and still support the right to it. At what point do your religious beliefs guide your belief on what type of society we should be? If not to protect the unborn, then when.

[smb41]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

It has nothing to do with telling a woman what to do with her body. It's about protecting the unborn and sanctity of human life. The bible makes it pretty clear that even in the womb we are a creation of God. There's no way abortion isn't a total affront to god if you subscribe to the God of the bible IMO.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the conversation. Just an issue that strikes a personal chord with me.

A living fetus is not a part of a woman's body. I don't care what a woman does with her appendix or her kidney. That is a living human and he/she has a right to live.

[Nick_United]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

OP how old are you? I'm guessing no older than 22.

29. Not sure why that matters. I was having this discussion with people at work and just wanted to discuss it further here. Again, not sure what age has to do with it as it's clear other people are interested in discussing it as well.

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by smb41

You're right; Jesus showed love, compassion, and tolerance to all those He encountered. But He was still still clear on what's right and wrong.

There is a fine line between agreeing with/condoning something and tolerating it. For instance, just because Jesus presented love and kindness to Mary Magdalene doesn't mean He thought prostitution was okay. Similarly, just because He would have been open and welcoming towards gay people doesn't mean He would have agreed with the gay lifestyle. Like Pope Francis said, even though he believes same-sex marriage is morally wrong: "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"

As a Catholic, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't condemn gay people for being who they are. I wouldn't treat a L/G/B person any differently than I'd treat anyone else, but at the same time I don't support the homosexual lifestyle. I live by a "love the sinner, hate the sin" These are not mutually exclusive. Again, tolerance and acceptance are not always the same thing. (To clarify my stance on same-sex marriage, I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between one man, one woman, and God. That being said, I would not be opposed to civil unions with the same rights and privileges that straight couples have.)

To add on, just because I have conservative values does not mean I am using my faith to mask bigotry. Of course there are people out there who claim to be "Christian" while they really use religion as a way to be outwardly ignorant and narrow-minded. But to claim that every religious conservative falls into that category is painting broad and oftentimes distant groups of people with the same brush.

Sorry for the long post, I think we started this conversation in a previous thread a while back but it got locked.

Unfortunately this one will too, although there's been some good dialogue in here so far.

[smb41]

Originally Posted by barbogast

To the bolded, it's called being nice and considerate. Why would one need religion or spirituality to participate in that?

You don't. But there's no innate driving factor to be nice and considerate if there's no moral standard deriving from a higher being ... that's what I tried to emphasize in my original post.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by Nick_United

29. Not sure why that matters. I was having this discussion with people at work and just wanted to discuss it further here. Again, not sure what age has to do with it as it's clear other people are interested in discussing it as well.

Just wondering. No worries

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by smb41

As a Catholic, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't condemn gay people for being who they are.

I respect your right to believe that, however I will respectfully disagree. The original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible do not oppose homosexuality. The Old Testament and The New Testament both mention homosexuality, but they cite it as a different culture - but nowhere is it mentioned to be wrong or a "sin". This is a common misconception. The 1611 King James Bible was pushed to have a more Conservative translation, so many words were mistranslated and changed to fit that agenda. Old Testament and New Testament scholars as well as experts in Hebrew and Greek both agree on this. So no, the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong at all. That just comes from mistranslations in the text. In fact, if you reference the Leningrad Codex (which is from as early as 1000 AD and is one of the earliest and most accurate and complete Hebrew texts of the Bible) or the Codex Sinaiticus (from as early as 330-360 AD, and one of the most complete and accurate early Greek texts of the Bible) they are vastly different from modern Biblical text. (From my article, here)

Originally Posted by smb41

I wouldn't treat a L/G/B person any differently than I'd treat anyone else, but at the same time I don't support the homosexual lifestyle.

Saying "homosexual lifestyle" implies that homosexuality is a choice, when that isn't entirely accurate. Through brain scans we've found that the brain symmetry of a homosexual resembles that of the opposite sex. We've also observed that a difference in hormonal balance in the womb can lead to homosexuality. Some studies have found it to be genetically influenced, that it's in the DNA. Some evidence have shown that it is also influenced by the hypothalamus in the brain. There are numerous explanations, but they all come to the same conclusion - that homosexuality is instilled from birth, and genetics have further been able to reinforce this. Also, studies have found genetic regions common to homosexuality (Xq28 and 8q12) in hundreds of gay males studied. They have also found three new SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that are common of gay males that have been studied - proving that homosexuality is indeed genetic. If this is a trait from conception, and we, as Christians, believe that God created man - who are we to question his creation? (From my article, here).

Originally Posted by smb41

I live by a "love the sinner, hate the sin" These are not mutually exclusive. Again, tolerance and acceptance are not always the same thing.

The phrase "Love the Sinner, Not The Sin" is not in the Bible, it's from St. Augustine. One of his letters, Letter 211 (c. 424), contains the Latin phrase "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum", which translates to "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." The phrase later appeared as "love the sinner but hate the sin" or "hate the sin and not the sinner" from Gandhi's 1929 autobiography. But this phrase never appeared in the Bible. (From my article, here)

Originally Posted by smb41

(To clarify my stance on same-sex marriage, I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between one man, one woman, and God. That being said, I would not be opposed to civil unions with the same rights and privileges that straight couples have.)

The term “traditional marriage according to the Bible” gets thrown around a lot. It’s important to look at how the Bible viewed and defined marriage. When it comes to marriage, the Bible doesn’t simply define marriage as one man one woman. To look at this topic honestly and historically, monogamy wasn’t adopted by the Jewish and Christian faith until around the 7th to the 10th century. The “one man one woman” belief when it comes to marriage didn’t even appear until the 19th and 20th centuries. Let’s look at the definition of marriage according to the Bible.

Man & Woman - Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Man & Wives/Concubines - 1 Kings 11:3
Man & Woman & Woman’s Property - Genesis 16
Man & Many Women (Polygamy) - Genesis 29:15-30
Rapist & Victim - Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Male Solider & Prisoner of War - Numbers 31:1-18
Male Soldier & Captive Virgin - Numbers 31:18
Male Slave & Female Slave - Exodus 21:4
Celibacy - Matthew 19:12

The definition of marriage has changed pretty drastically since those days, and now should be embraced as the union between two people who love each other.

(From my article, here)

Originally Posted by smb41

Sorry for the long post, I think we started this conversation in a previous thread a while back but it got locked.

I'm not sure why that thread got locked, I was enjoying the discussion!

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I don't support abortion. I don't like abortion. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm sure most who are "pro-choice" aren't "pro-abortion". Which is why I don't say I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I'm "pro-woman".

I respect they have the right to do what they want with their own bodies without my interference or government interference (isn't it funny, the party of small government wants government so small it can fit inside a woman's uterus?).

This is where people lose me on abortion. It's not just a woman thing and I don't give one heck what anyone else tries to convince themselves of. A girl does not get pregnant on her own. Assuming I impregnated a female, half of that DNA is mine. Furthermore, the current laws are 100% against men. I get no say I the next 10 months of a woman's life but she gets a say in my next 18 years. Fuck that.

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything that doesn't involve my DNA. That said, it's bullshit that men have allowed themselves to be painted into this corner where they get no say, no matter what and have to pay for 18 years, no matter what.

Again, I'm not trying to interfere with anyone else's personal choices but I feel extremely strongly that potential fathers have absolutely no rights.

[dontdrink36]

Originally Posted by smb41

You don't. But there's no innate driving factor to be nice and considerate if there's no moral standard deriving from a higher being ... that's what I tried to emphasize in my original post.

Would survival of the species not be reason enough not to get along? If animals can do this within their own species certainly humans could do the same.

[smb41]

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

I respect your right to believe that, however I will respectfully disagree. The original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible do not oppose homosexuality. The Old Testament and The New Testament both mention homosexuality, but they cite it as a different culture - but nowhere is it mentioned to be wrong or a "sin". This is a common misconception. The 1611 King James Bible was pushed to have a more Conservative translation, so many words were mistranslated and changed to fit that agenda. Old Testament and New Testament scholars as well as experts in Hebrew and Greek both agree on this. So no, the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong at all. That just comes from mistranslations in the text. In fact, if you reference the Leningrad Codex (which is from as early as 1000 AD and is one of the earliest and most accurate and complete Hebrew texts of the Bible) or the Codex Sinaiticus (from as early as 330-360 AD, and one of the most complete and accurate early Greek texts of the Bible) they are vastly different from modern Biblical text. (From my article, here)

Sounds intriguing, I'll look into that when I have more time.

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

Saying "homosexual lifestyle" implies that homosexuality is a choice

Never meant to imply that.

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

The phrase "Love the Sinner, Not The Sin" is not in the Bible, it's from St. Augustine. One of his letters, Letter 211 (c. 424), contains the Latin phrase "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum", which translates to "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." The phrase later appeared as "love the sinner but hate the sin" or "hate the sin and not the sinner" from Gandhi's 1929 autobiography. But this phrase never appeared in the Bible. (From my article, here)

I know, and I never claimed it was. I don't see how the translation loses any meaning either.

Originally Posted by chadizzy1

The definition of marriage has changed pretty drastically since those days, and now should be embraced as the union between two people who love each other.

This is where we disagree. I don't think the definition of marriage can be changed.

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by rconverse

This is where people lose me on abortion. It's not just a woman thing and I don't give one heck what anyone else tries to convince themselves of. A girl does not get pregnant on her own. Assuming I impregnated a female, half of that DNA is mine. Furthermore, the current laws are 100% against men. I get no say I the next 10 months of a woman's life but she gets a say in my next 18 years. Fuck that.

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything that doesn't involve my DNA. That said, it's bullshit that men have allowed themselves to be painted into this corner where they get no say, no matter what and have to pay for 18 years, no matter what.

Again, I'm not trying to interfere with anyone else's personal choices but I feel extremely strongly that potential fathers have absolutely no rights.

Honestly that's something I haven't given much thought to until you mentioned it. That does kind of complicate it a bit.

[cazzie34]

If men could terminate their parental rights abortions would go way up.
If men could terminate their parental rights STDs would go way up.

Not saying you don't have a point Roger. Just stating some things that would happen.

[chadizzy1]

Originally Posted by smb41

This is where we disagree. I don't think the definition of marriage can be changed.

If you look at Mesopotamia, which is the earliest civilization we have on record, polygamy (mostly polygyny) was widely practiced. So to honestly talk about the topic of "traditional marriage", I would say that polygamy is as traditional as monogamy. So to say that "one man one woman" is the most traditional form of marriage is disingenuous.

[FromTheMorning]

Originally Posted by Nick_United

Great back and forth here and, again, kind of what I was driving at when I first made this post. My ex-girlfriend's father was a pastor at a church for born-again Christians and he gave me a book about, basically, how would mankind know not to act awfully towards one another if not for religion and the Word of God telling them not to.

I'm assuming here that the "Word of God" is The Bible. If so, we should also stone any woman that isn't a virgin on her wedding night and put to death anyone that believes in different gods. Good thing for cherry picking. Because then we can go to some of the great teachings of Jesus and practice those. The fact that most religious people disregard Leviticus and Deutoronomy and the likes just shows that our morals come from outside the bible.

Originally Posted by smb41

No, you don't need to believe in God to follow the Golden Rule. But here's my issue with that - why would one feel compelled to follow the Golden Rule if there is no God, or no source of objective morality? If one truly believes that we are alone in the universe (in that there is no higher being, thus no objective morality), what's stopping us from being violent, unprincipled people?

I can respect the "old atheist"/Sartre view: there is no God, we are alone in the universe, and the existence of humanity is merely a biological accident. There is no right or wrong, good or evil. Hate is no better than compassion and murder is no better than an act of kindness. "Love" is meaningless.

The "new atheist"/Hitchens view, however, also claims that there is no God and that we are alone in the universe, but asserts that we as humans still have an obligation to be nice. Why? What for?

I understand the argument some people will make that at some point in our evolution of humans, we came to a "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me" mutual agreement, thus creating the Golden Rule. But I have a problem with the notion that out entire human culture is based off of some non-binding joint compromise. There's no substance to that, and I personally can't justify being morally upstanding because of a compromise a few guys made thousands of years ago. Doesn't work for me.

I would strongly recommend reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, as he and his works have defined my religious beliefs and reinvigorated my faith.

1. Empathy. Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
2. Again, empathy. In my 26 years of life I've raped and killed as many people as I've wanted to. Zero. To paraphrase a line from True Detective, If the only thing keeping you from being a violent and running rampage on the world is a promise of eternal happiness in the sky, well then you're just an asshole.
3. Because we don't want to see the world go to shit.