JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

Sorry.

Both sides have made arguments and counterarguments (carbon dating proves an older Earth vs. carbon dating accuracy being over-exaggerated and making unprovable assumptions, etc.). I will be totally honest that it does seem like it comes down to a "he said, she said" situation.

Sorry, I think I mistakenly thought you were responding to something else. As far as the original comment goes, I guess that makes sense.

I'll have to take a look when I have time.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to say: "Don't question me."

The unexamined life isn't worth living and all that?

I doubt it. First of all, some people come to religion later in life, sometimes because of examining the claims of a specific religion. Also, I think people are kind of hardwired to want some kind of purpose in life, to know that there's something more than just the day in, day out of life. Not saying everyone does, but we, to make a blanket statement, seem to have disposition to believing in some kind of greater thing beyond us.

 

You make some good points, Wocky. I would offer a little pushback on a few things, but I think we ultimately agree on the main thrust of the "do question/don't question" issue and, as you rightly point out, we would be getting into some pretty thick theological weeds that are probably a bridge too far in terms of the current discussion. My original post on the subject was probably kind of out of the bounds already in terms of me just taking that kind of narrow "don't question" attitude and running with it.

 

It's definitely worth it, I'm looking forward to your thoughts after watching it!

 

I didn't have time to watch the whole thing, but what I saw was honestly pretty terrible. As if it was written to endear him to Sean Spicer, a lot of his commentary depends on his audience's credulousness, lack of familiarity with the relevant texts, and unwillingness to go look it up.

In the Old Testament, he tries to make the verse "it is not good for man to be alone" do a lot of work for him. His implication is that celibacy would be especially cruel and can't therefore be God's intention. Yet this whole line of argument ignores Paul's long exhortation of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 (quite literally: "It is good for man not to touch a woman"). Even if one didn't know this exact quotation, a passing familiarity with Christianity would reveal it's long tradition of members who were celibate, whether they were specific individuals (eg Catholic monks) or sometimes whole sects (the Shakers). That's a pretty tremendous hole in his argument, especially when he's trying to extrapolate to get to the notion that homosexuality is acceptable.

Progressing into the New Testament, his case is even worse. He tries to argue that Romans 1 is only a condemnation of people who willingly reject heterosexual feelings they actually have in favor of homosexual acts. He does this by arguing the first part of the chapter was only a condemnation of those who knowingly and correctly worshipped God only to later abandon that practice in favor idolatry. Actually reading the relevant passages reveals how bizarre that position is. From the very outset, Paul defines his topic as "the wrath of God [. . .] against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men" not the very narrow subset of Israelites to whom God revealed himself. Going further, the evidence he gives that they knew God is just the fact that the world exists ("being understood by the things that were made") not references to any of the prophets or revelations of God. Contrary to his argument, Paul never sets up an "exchange" as obligate or even relevant to the discussion. In fact, in the majority of cases, he's just talking about people who were always wrong but he feels should have known better.

None of this is to say that you aren't welcome to be homosexual if non-Christian. Or even that someone might not yet put forward a good argument for the practice within a Christian framework. But these two specific arguments I heard of his were deeply flawed to the point of speciousness. Just from a logical standpoint, they don't have much in the way of integrity or internal soundness.

 

I think he makes a well articulated and compelling case. You can see how easy it is for religious people to lose sight of the context of scripture given that it has been the subject of traditional 'schools of thought' for so long that these accepted interpretations have taken on a life of their own. In many case the 'orthodoxy' has taken precedence over the text itself. It is always good to re-visit the text and to consider extrinsic materials which might shed more light on the meaning of the text. It would be interesting to get a hold of the book Vines has written to look at the scholarship aspect.

My only other comments are that it is somewhat sad that the message would pack much more punch if a non-gay christian was making it, as I can see people just dismissing it as a clever attempt of a lonely gay guy wanting acceptance so he live in sin, and it is also very sad for Jewish gay people who feel compelled to follow scripture as the arguments put forward by Vines really only apply to Christians!

 

I would agree that there is a good point in arguing we should never accept a "traditional" interpretation for its own sake. I have no problem there. My issues is that the alternative frameworks he comes up with are at least as bad, and in at least the two cases I heard and cited above, definitively worse. In particular, his assertion about the topic of Paul's discussion regarding idolatry just isn't reconcilable with the actual words on the page. At all.

 

Well you'll get no argument from me Wocky as I will be outmatched pretty easily on any debate about scripture. Like I said earlier, I would like to see the scholarship side of the argument as you can only put so much detail into a one hour talk.

For me, the entire point of his lecture is not about any real academic insights or epiphanies, but rather it is an appeal to what I would consider to be the underlying framework of religion based upon scripture which is the text can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. It sounds good to me and I've probably read more scripture than your average cultural Christian.

So he is really just making the following appeal:"please just believe it means what I'm saying it means, it sounds logical, it sounds plausible, so let's get this new approach settled as part of accepted orthodoxy". The fact that he delves into context and ambiguity in meaning and definition is just code for the subtext of the lecture which is "come on guys, we all know this scripture stuff is weird and murky so let's just go with this".

You are not supposed to pull the argument apart Wocky, you are supposed to hear the hurt, frustration and anguish in his voice and delivery and just go with that. I did. Hopefully those cultural Christians who casually despise gays based upon what they are told is in the Bible will go with it as well. Having said that, his written 'scholarship' may be more compelling to you.

 

I don't know whether it's possible to construct a consistent worldview that takes the complete text of the old and new testaments into account that makes it in whatever sense true and meaningful, but I don't care. I feel tremendously sorry for anyone whose religious upbringing by accident of birth has made them so emotionally conflicted about the desire to love and be loved that they possess by accident of birth that they feel compelled to try. It's a tragedy. A terrible waste.

 

If free will is in effect, then Christians need to respect the free will of others. Just like how God respected the Adam's exercise of free will in eating the apple, just like how Jesus respected the free will of the man being crucified next to him who said "no, I don't want to go to heaven with you". Not to mention, we live in a democratic society...people have a right to live by whatever beliefs they choose to, whether that's Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever (within reasonable bounds of course). For the sake of our earthly existence, we need to respect some kind of mutual truce between different faiths, or else it'll just be the Thirty Years' War all over again.

 

I suppose the tricky thing is different people have different ideas of where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is? But yeah, peaceful coexistence is best for everyone.

 

My son's been taking a new testament class this quarter and has sent me some of his essays to read. It's been a thoroughly enjoyable experience reading thoughtful textual analysis without any religious baggage attached. Last one was a look at the later pastoral epistles in reference to the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla.

 

I wrote half of my wife's essays for her certificate of religious education (which she needed to teach at a Christian school). It was quite a joy ride.

 

This was in my FB feed.

On Wednesday of this week, one of the greatest architects of mental torture passed away. Joseph Nicolosi played a significant role in the death of millions of young people, and made church bullying and anti-gay oppression a Christian tenet.


For those who don’t know who Nicolosi is, he is/was—believe it or not, he was a psychologist: someone trained and educated in the sciences. He and two other doctors—actual MDs—founded the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and he was the purveyor of Reparative Therapy (NARTH). NARTH was created in response to the removal of homosexuality from the list of the American Psychiatric Association’s index of mental disorders. A move that Nicolosi took personally.

In other words, Nicolosi, himself an educated man, looked at the data as it was coming out, and because it conflicted with his ideology—his Christian beliefs, decided to ignore that data and create his own “cure” to a disease that didn’t exist. Unlike Ken Ham, he did not stop at creationist museums and really bad arguments about how bananas fit into our hands. Instead, Nicolosi actually created “treatment,” a form of brainwashing that he claimed could cure people from being gay. And this treatment was brutal (hence, the word torture).

i realize that the use of the word ‘torture’ may sound hyperbolic, but having spent fifteen years in Reparative Therapy, I know personally the devastating effects it has on the psyche. And because of his therapy and it’s so-called “biblical based” science, the church has found it the perfect excuse to oppress anyone who may express that part of their sexuality.

While I do not take glee in the death of others, I do acknowledge that a great malignancy has been removed from humanity. Nicolosi vehemently denied science, tortured youth into trying to become something they could never be, and encouraged parents to disown their children when that change couldn’t happen. Despite all the pushback from American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association, Nicolosi denied science, and used that denial to destroy the LGBT Community.

He was a net-negative on society. He did more damage than he did good, and he did so gleefully and unrepentant. He did so never questioning his actions, and he did it all in the name of God.
All of us, good and evil, face this final conclusion. Death comes to each of us. Whereas most of us strive to do good for our communities and our fellow humans, there are those who don’t. And when those who don’t leave us, it’s hard not to breathe a sigh of relief that there is one less evil in the world.

The greatest irony of all would be for him to stand in front of Jesus, and for Jesus to parade all the human beings whose lives he destroyed so that for once, Nicolosi would have to see the damaged he caused without blinders. I suspect that this is a man that would hear Jesus say, “Depart from me you worker of iniquity. I never knew you.”

I must confess, it’s hard to mourn the man who did so much damage to my life personally, and the lives of so many others. I can only hope that Reparative Therapy dies with him.
By Benthovens5th
Friday Mar 10, 2017 · 7:48 PM EST

 

The guy's anger is understandable I guess, but this claim is bizarre. As he points out, Nicolsi was already motivated to do this. The idea that religions would have shifted their belief in the absence of someone coming up with this therapy just doesn't hold water.

 

I mean, you gotta love a guy who thinks NARTH is a good acronym for Reparative Therapy.

Yes, yes, I see what the error is in context, but it's still funny. Isn't it? Is it not? It's not. Oh well.

 

I somehow missed this post before. That was an interesting analysis of someone else's analysis, but I wanted to particularly point this out because in this instance this guy is totally bringing up a classic straw-man of the anti-gay group, ie. the heterosexual who just decides they want to be homosexual. "People who willingly reject heterosexual feelings they actually have in favor of homosexual acts" don't exist. I mean, there may be people here and there; in fact, I'm quite sure there are - I mean, there are all kinds of people who have their own reasons for doing very unique and strange things. But they don't exist in a real or significant sense. I mean, why would you do such a thing? Why would a heterosexual man just decide to start having sex with other men? What could possibly motivate such a thing? I wouldn't. I can't imagine a scenario in which I would decide to do such a thing. I don't think I could. It just flies in the face of all reason. I'm just a totally straight dude, but I'm going to start having sex with men just because? Right. Happens a lot I'm sure.

 

The wiki entry shows though they do not know what the causes of homosexuality are they conclude people do not make it a choice. Also that it is not a mental disorder and they do not promote conversion therapy.

 

WELL YOU SEE BROTHER WHEN YOU GET INTO THE RING WITH SCIENCE BROTHER YOU GOTTA REALIZE YOU'RE NOT JUST WRESTLING WITH SCIENCE YOU'RE WRESTLING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF SCIENCEAMANIACS IN THE STADIUM! AND WHEN YOU'RE UP AGAINST ALL OF THEM, AND ALL OF THEIR USES OF THE ARTICLES, THE VITAMINS, AND THE TRAINING BROTHER, YOU GOTTA REALIZE THAT WHEN THE 22 INCH PYTHONS GET YOU IN THE RING, YOU'RE GOING FOR A RIDE BROTHER! SO WHEN SCIENCE BODYSLAMS YOU IN FRONT OF A MILLION SCIENCEAMANIACS AT METAPHYSICS PLAZA BROTHER, YOU'D BETTER BE READY FOR THE AWESOME FORCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHATTER THE VERY EARTH ITSELF!

 

BAH SCIENCE HE HAD A FAMILY