nPeace
Veteran Member
You are talking about yourself here, I have to assume. If not...First, let me begin by expressing my pessimism regarding entering into such discussions. To me, the examples are abundantly evident, so why would you need me to demonstrate them to you. The answer invariably is confirmation bias. You didn't see them before, and won't see them now, either, for the same reason. It's the difference between a science student not understanding how epigenetics works and an adult creationist not understanding how evolution works. My experience is that I can help in the first case, but not in the second because of the differences in the way the educated student and the fervent believer processes information.
Other examples are the person who says that there is no evidence that January 6th was a violent, failed insurrection, or wants to know what crimes Trump allegedly committed. People who ask or say such things are telling you that they didn't see what you saw before and won't now, either due to the confirmation bias that has them in that state now.
Why would you have a problem with people who are willing to adjust their understanding?But I can accommodate you anyway. Some creationists continue to understand the Genesis creation story as history revealed by God, but others have accepted the science that tells us that the history of the evolution of the universe did not occur in six days. What to do? Just say that they didn't mean or believe that these days were 24 hours to make scripture seem to contradict the science less than it does.
I have adjusted my understanding of various texts.
Why would you think it is a cases of making the text say something other than what it meant?
Sounds about right.You can't provide the example yourself? That only means that you don't see what the disinterested reader of scripture sees, which means a confirmation bias in play and little hope of your response to my examples not being motivated reasoning (rationalization). Pessimistic as I am for a critical assessment of my argument for the Bible being atheophobic, here it is. I offer these scriptures as examples of atheophobic hate speech If it you've already normalized that kind of thing and don't see a problem, substitute gay, black, or Jew for unbeliever and see how these read to you then:
[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
That's which of the four? "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
Which one fits telling someone they have confirmation bias?
Again, which of the four, does this fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8
How about telling someone they will spend the rest of their life in jail if they do X, or lose their job, if they do Y... or don't do Z... like get vaccinated, for example?
Which of those four fit here?
Please say, which of the four, does this fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- Corinthians 6:14
Telling my children to stay away from bad associates is "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
What? Are you serious?[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
So telling someone they are a liar, for denying that Donald Trump was ever president of the U.S.A. is being "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
You've got to be joking. Tell me you are kidding.
Well, well, well.[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23
I'm convince you just picked out some random texts, without any basis for your argument, since you weren't expecting to be asked to back up your assertion.
There's nothing wrong with you saying, if I am not with you, I am against you.
It's actually a true statement.
You seem to be describing your feelings. Is that how you feel?Altogether, this "holiness" manages to describe unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.
Actually, the people Jesus was speaking to, already felt far removed from God, and were seeking to be near.
They knew they needed a savior, and were looking for one.
They understood the state they were in.
Even those who did not feel that way, appreciated Jesus' words so much, they looked for him, and were happy to find him.
They felt better at hearing his words. Not worst.
Mark 1:35-37 ; Romans 10:20
You're speaking for yourself, again.
You just think you are right, and those who don't agree with you, are wrong, and so they must be dishonest, in trying to deny the "obvious"... making excuses, in doing so.To me, that's plainly obvious, but I assume that you cannot see it the way I do and will now explain to me that I've misunderstood and why what sounds like hate is actually love. That's what I mean by motivated (specious) reasoning. I expect that you find my reading of those scriptures unacceptable not because of their conclusions are unsound, but rather, because right or wrong, they are unacceptable to you and you will feel a need to mitigate my argument any way you can. The usual apologetics involve either citing a contradictory scripture as if it made all of the above go away as we see with the biblical rape and slavery discussions, where the mention of kid treatment somewhere makes all of the rest go away, or a reassignment of the meaning of the words, like where day no longer means day, and cut off your hand doesn't mean to cut off your hand, and turn the other cheek doesn't really mean that, either, when there is no reason to believe that the words didn't mean what they say, but good reason for the motivated reasoner to try to make them comport better with modern sensibilities.
Which of the four does that attitude fit into... "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, or anti-intellectualism"?
Who taught you. Your parents; Your peers; Or do you imagine you taught yourself?The conscience.
I began in my youth and had generated a fairly mature moral code by my mid-thirties.
Scenario...The rules of right behavior still get tweaked from time to time even now, but not the moral imperatives informing them. Sometimes, we see unintended consequences of our choices, and revise them to better comport with those imperatives - the trial-and-error that you demean next using the word stuck. Isn't it the man with the received morals that is stuck for his lack of any means to modify them as the rational ethicist plods forward updating mores that no longer serve? Look at the anti-abortionists stuck in ancient Judean times trying to increase the population as if that were still a need rather than a problem.
You are attracted to beautiful girls... in your young manhood.
You want to kiss and caress them, and make love to them... all of them.
According to your conscience, is that right, or wrong, and at what point did you think marriage was the right thing?
You didn't read any of the information. Hence your questions. Read them, and see. No need to read the entire page.What double standards? What inability to make moral judgments?
Tested them in ignorance, but that's okay. You aren't the only one.I've tasted them as well, and found them flavorless. There is nothing in any holy book that I can use. Where scripture and I agree, it is not because of scripture, and where we disagree, I find the scriptural instruction flawed and reject it, so what use is such a book to such a person?
I didn't find any difference to you guys expressing your feelings about things.No, but you knew that, right? I just gave you the examples of the Christian atheophobic and misogynistic anti-abortion positions being immoral by humanist standards. Add the homophobia we see with the demeaning and oppressing of all things LGBTQ+ including drag shows based in scripture calling it abomination (you asked for examples of homophobia earlier).
The only difference is you go by what feels right to you, while we go by what God says is right... or wrong.
You certainly don't hold back when it comes to saying what you think is immoral, when it comes to Christians.I'm sure they are. People are as proud to have kept the faith for a lifetime as I am of having tunneled out of it.
I think you want to know if I consider it immoral for others, since I've already answered regarding adultery for myself, but added that what others do is their business. This does not that I don't have opinions about the behavior of others.
I guess experience - what you see - tells you that.Adultery is risky behavior if it's done secretly, which is usually the case. You might lose your wife or be killed by a jealous husband, for example. Those are good reasons for anybody to avoid that behavior including me, but because Jesus recommends it is not a good reason for me. And I'd like to repeat that betrayal in my case would be the moral infraction, not the sex per se, which would be perfectly moral if everybody involved were on board with it. I'd also add here that even if my wife gave me permission to take another lover either privately or as part of a threesome, I would decline, because I think it would be spiritually damaging to me and might affect my relationship with my wife adversely going forward anyway, even with permission.
We can look at what happens when we do A, and compare that with what happens when we do B, and know which works best.
So, it helps when we know that we have been directed to do A, because once we know that A works, we don't have to try out Bb, to find out if Aa works.
It's like having a map, you know is reliable.