Where can I have the conversation?

I guess I have not yet understood the difference between "groups"and forums." In an effort to engage with rational non-believers I tried to post something with the Atheist-Agnostic group, and was informed that this was a closed group consisting only of atheists and agnostics, and that anything I had to say was not welcome. So the non-religious come here, but the religious are not welcome there. I accept the difference. So let me try here what I was uninvited to say there.
I have developed a list of fifty outstanding men and women who have made significant contributions to social thought and liberal action, and who are atheists. I applaud the work of almost all of them (I would except Ayn Rand). I do not ask the religious or philosophic pedigree of those with whom I join in work for peace, racial justice, the rights of the GLBT community, overcoming poverty, economic injustice etc. I assume that those in the DU are of a common mind about these matters. If we are together in our work on these issues, then that is all I need to know.
I must admit that my radical social commitment comes from my faith. The first song I Iearned in Sunday School as a toddler included the words,"red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight." I have long been a peace advocate because that is what my faith obliges me to be. I would not be who I am without that grounding. My adversaries have been those whose religion or non-religion has pulled them in quite a different direction. But I don't reject my grounding because fundamentalists of any sort are narrow and bigoted.
I would like to hear from others with a variety of points of view as to how their faith or non-faith has led them to champion the issues we democrats espouse. What in your religious or non-religious background has made us allies in the way we see the larger world? Isn't that why we are part of DU in the first place, not to blast each other, or or to sneer at how others have come to the liberal positions they hold?

There is a GROUP for people of faith around here somewhere as well! atheists do not go and start shit over there, they would be shut down as quickly as you got shut down. R/T is a two way street as far theists and atheists go. Atheist's group is NOT. The specific religious groups are NOT.

Now do you have a comment about what I have just asked?

My not believing in sky daddy no more influences my being liberal than does my lack of beliefs in Unicorns.

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

If you apologize for that remark (which clearly indicates a claim that without religion, people in a society cannot be ethical), I'll believe you are sincere in trying to open a dialog.

Ball's in your court.

While I hold to the statement you quoted, it certainly does not assume that all good-will comes from religious motivation. In logic, what I said is a sufficient not a necessary cause. Neither would I like to live in a society where no one is allowed to question the religious ethical viewpoint. Those closed clerical dominated systems are deadly! It always takes non-religion to keep powerful religion honest. With all the warts and down-side religion in the US has fostered, I cannot assume we would have had the advances for human good--the civil rights movement for instance--without the black churches of the south in the forefront. That was a movement that could not have won without religious influence. i could cite many others just in the US,

I have honestly been trying to think of a peaceful society that provided for everybody as a human right that was totally devoid of an ethical sensitivity that came from some group of faith. Could you name a few? If there are those that someone could cite I might need to amend my original statement.

During the civil rights struggle in the South, "black churches" were one of the only places where African-Americans could safely assemble and for every "black church" helping advance civil rights, there was another "white church" fighing against it.

that much of the civil rights movement developed directly out of a black American type of liberation theology that had taken root even before the Civil War, even when slaves were forbidden to read the Bible or attend church. Look at the music--"Negro spirituals" are subversive anthems in which the singers draw implied parallels between themselves and Israelite slaves in Egypt, or cross "over Jordan" (aka the Ohio/Missouri) into the "promised land" of freedom. MLK's last speech invoked the "promised land" imagery, and, painfully, prophesied that like Moses, he wouldn't make it across the river.

The black churches were havens on many levels, but to imply that black religion was simply incidental to the civil rights movement is to ignore history. Nor does the segregationist policy of white churches negate the contributions of the black ones.

There is bad religion, bad politics, bad philosophy, bad morality, bad capitalism, bad socialism. So what's new? How does that negate the good in each? There were also a significant number of white churches and pastors in the South who were clear and who took it from the bigots. In both the freedom rides and the sit-ins there were plenty of white southerners.

More to the point, how do you tell the difference when both sides use the same label for their opponents?

Then we have nothing to discuss. You harbor great prejudice toward non-believers. Perhaps when you can get past that, and treat non-believers as equals, you might find people are more willing to engage you in the discussion you seek.

I have developed a list of fifty outstanding men and women who have made significant contributions to social thought and liberal action, and who are atheists. I applaud the work of almost all of them (I would except Ayn Rand). I do not ask the religious or philosophic pedigree of those with whom I join in work for peace, racial justice, the rights of the GLBT community, overcoming poverty, economic injustice etc. I assume that those in the DU are of a common mind about these matters. If we are together in our work on these issues, then that is all I need to know.

In multiple places in this thread, when someone disagreed with something you wrote, your response is "you must not have read what I wrote." What leads you to believe that the most likely reason someone disagrees with you is that they didn't read what you wrote?

Are you that narcissistic that you believe that everyone who reads your words will automatically agree with you?

and think they "made significant contributions to social thought and liberal action," but you still think believers are more moral than non-believers.

Oh we share the same goals alright, but until and unless you realize that non-believers can be just as ethical as believers, you are going to turn people away. Good luck with your goals when you would rather divide than unite.

believers are mote moral than non-believers? Perhaps you want me to say what you want me to say so you can put it down.

I refer you back to your quote that kicked it all off. Apologize for the original quote and maybe people will be more willing to engage you in a discussion. But when all you want to do is proclaim the superiority of religious belief systems, hey guess what, that's gonna make some folks upset.

the less religious the society is, the better they treat their people.

I hope you also realize that there is a vast difference between.

"a peaceful society that provided for everybody as a human right that was totally devoid of an ethical sensitivity that came from some group of faith." Which is your judgement of what has gone into humane cultures, and it nis quite a weak, qualified statement at that.

and

The all encpmpasing statement; "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."
Many of us here would be fine living in such a society."

group/forum. But really, what were you thinking?!?!?!

I have no belief or religion, not even a spiritual feeling. So why do I care about liberal causes, peace, equality, caring for and helping each other???? Because it is just the right thing to do. Not because some deity says we should, not because some book admonishes me to, not because some preacher tells me that this is the way into kingdom come.

I am not obliged to do it. But I know what empathy is, and I know how I would like to be treated in certain circumstances, and that is enough.

Oh, and welcome to DU. Good luck in figuring out how not to be blasted or sneered at. And if you can survive that, there really are lots of great people here.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

A question for the OP: If faith guided you to champion liberal causes, why does faith guide so many others to petty, mean-spiritedness? I contend that your compassion toward others has more to do with your level of empathy than faith.

My empathy comes right from what I have learned from all my religious background. Humans may not automatically be empathic. Dog eat dog is not just limited to dogs. My guess is that many empathetic non-believers have in their lives come across people of high ethical standards and were influenced by some religious person, book art, music, literature, philosophy or activity. My guess is that many people followed M.L. KIng and learned their ethical imperative from him. But I certainly don't insist they must give anything like that credit. There are honest non-believers who have come to their empathetic viewpoint quite apart from any religious influence.

Your last sentence shows that you also can see that it is possible to be empathetic and caring without a religious influence. Since everything that comes before we were here affects what we are now, it is difficult to sort out what has influence over us, but I want to make it clear to you that being "religious" does not make someone a "good" person (and we can all cite numerous examples). It is also true that being an "atheist" does not make someone a "bad" person. I have nothing against a religious person, as long as they live by their beliefs instead of just preaching to us about their beliefs. I should not have to be told that you are a Christian or fill in the blank. I should be able to see it in your actions.

Personally, I think that someone who lives their life with compassion and caring toward others without the fear of hell or the promise of heaven is to be commended instead of ridiculed for their non-belief in some "god". We do it because it is right, not because we were told we had to live that way.

You stated, "My guess is that many empathetic non-believers have in their lives come across people of high ethical standards and were influenced by some religious person, book art, music, literature, philosophy or activity."


For the highlighted part, did you mean for the reader to infer that the word "religion" only applied to "religious person" and not the rest of the items in your list, or was the reader to infer that the word religious also applied to the rest, such as "religious person, religious book, religious art, religious music, etc?

If I tell you I'm socially progressive AND religious, did my religion guide me to my philosophy, or did I seek out a religion which mirrored my philosophy. In my case my non-religion has nothing to do with with political/social principles; I'm not religious because I see no evidence that religious entities exist.

You told us we needed to 'simmer down'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x44668

But, if this thread is a sign you are finally giving up sneering at atheists:

My outlook came from growing up in a family where people tried to see the best in others, and who regarded public service as highly honourable. Possibly also a reaction against Thatcherism, which seemed cynical and greedy to me, as a teenager.

In R/T some of you do need to simmer down. What I have posed here I had written and would have posted in the other group had I been given the invitation. You may have noted that I am not some sentimental soft patsy--and I can face up to others who are willing to mix it up. Sheer nastiness, however, needs to get off the boil.

No, what you said in the other thread was that we had to simmer down before you'd bother speaking to us. Why on earth do you think you'd get an 'invitation' after coming in so rudely? No, you're not sentimental - you're rather arrogant. You preface your threads with inaccurate swipes at other DUers, and try to act as if you're the injured party. And I tried engaging your actual question above, and you've ignored that - you just want to keep attacking DU atheists, it seems.

You seem to think you're entitled to take sideswipes at other DUers, and that we should ignore it.

Here's a hint: stop trying to preach as if this is your congregation who are going to accept what you say without you having to justify it. This is a forum, not a pulpit.

Not worth it.

Quote by Woody Allen.

Life has no inherent meaning, value, or purpose. Just atoms in motion. We are tormented by disease, birth defects, starvation, disfigurements, and each other. We can barely communicate anything because we assume so much.

Why not try to make life a little better? Health care, education, clean water and air, shelter, and a little tolerance will increase happiness and pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are their own rewards, so why not pursue them?

------------

Side note: the DU groups are only for members of the group. I read both Christian groups here on DU, but I don't post in them.

I have some problems with what you say here:


I feel I need to respond particularly because you state what you say not even as just your personal opinion but very positively and dogmatically, as something that everybody should accept as being true.

I have as much problem with what you say as I have with the positive assertions of a fundamentalist Christian that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant “Word of God”, and among other things that a person can be “saved” and be assured of eternal life in heaven by “accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”, and only by doing so, and only in this life, because that is what the Bible says (and too bad for those who miss their chance in this life, for whatever reason, or for those who adhere to religions other than Christianity).

For instance if what you say is really true, then I don’t see what grounds one has for criticizing Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness or ethical egoism, or anybody who adheres to or practices her philosophy.


I would imagine that most people, most of the time, would get some satisfaction (and happiness and pleasure as well) from trying to make life a little better for themselves and others, and from doing what they can to see that people might have the good things that you mention. However, a con artist or swindler or sociopath might find his or her happiness and pleasure in getting things for him/herself at the expense of others, if he or she can get away with it and avoid being caught. (And if one actually is caught then that might just be accepted as being part of the game.)

That is almost certainly true of very many if not most of the top 0.1%, who probably derive much happiness and pleasure from being able to enjoy things that the rest of us will never be able to enjoy, and it probably adds to rather than takes away from their happiness and pleasure that they are able to enjoy what they enjoy by screwing the rest of us.

“Happiness and pleasure are their own rewards.” So if one is able to derive happiness and pleasure at the expense of others, and get away with it, then why not (if life has no inherent meaning, value, or purpose, and if this present life is all there is)?

For myself I do not see any reason that I should have to spoil my happiness and pleasure by worrying and agonizing about how many daunting and overwhelming and seemingly intractable problems, such as for instance global warming, or the inordinate power and influence of the top 0.1%, are going to affect people after I am dead and gone, particularly given that I am 60 years old and do not have any of my own children or grandchildren, if there is no meaning in life and this life is all there is. Or why I (or anybody else) should continue to do what is “good” and “right” and “unselfish” not only when it is easy or popular or when I can see the good results of doing so, but also when it is difficult or unpopular or not to my immediate or foreseeable personal advantage or benefit? Why should I bother with doing so if there is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose in life? If that is the case then perhaps I might rather pursue my own happiness and pleasure above all else and live by Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness (after all this life is all I have) as much as I can (and as much as I feel confident I would be able to get away with, which admittedly for me is not very much).


Because of the problems I have with what you say, which would seem to be the ultimate logical conclusion of being an atheist and of believing for certain that this present life is all there is, I find that I myself cannot finally be an atheist, and I cannot finally accept as a certainty that this life is all there is and that there is no life after this present life.

Admittedly I have never had any personal experience nor encountered any evidence which has confirmed for me the reality either of God or of a life after this present life, nor of anything that might be considered “supernatural” or “paranormal”. And I did try Christianity at one time in my life, and found it to not have been of any help to me in enabling me to better deal with any real world source of personal pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life. And I definitely have problems with regarding the Bible as being the “Word of God”, or as being any kind of absolute (or even not absolute) authority; many of the problems with the Bible are much discussed in this forum. At its very best I regard the Bible as exhibiting human fallibility and human prejudice just like anything else that has ever been written, and as being no more the “Word of God”, and no more “infallible” or “inerrant”, than any other book on the planet.

For me questions regarding the reality either of God or of a life after this present life are very much open questions, about which I feel it best to accept that (at least for the present) I do not have “the answers”. I would consider myself to be closest to being a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">Deist, and just on the believing side of agnostic. Deists believe in the reality of a supreme being who they regard as having created the universe, but among other things do not accept any alleged revelation from God, such as the Bible or the Koran, as actually being such.

I consider it to be very possible that the near-death experiences which we hear about just might be a manifestation of a life after this present life. This is true even though I myself am not in the position to make any definite statement as to what such experiences would actually indicate, as I myself have never had such an experience (and I don’t think it would be wise to wish for one!), and I do not know of anybody I know personally having had such an experience.

Much as I wish I could have the certainties that the Christian faith (and other “revealed” religions as well) claim to offer regarding the reality of God (and of life after this present life), I feel that the honest thing for me is to accept the lack of certainty about these things. However I also very definitely have problems accepting what would seem to be the logical conclusions of atheism, and particularly the lack of any meaning in life, as certainties.

Your problem with atheism seems to be that there is no-one to ultimately 'judge' those who are antisocial. But surely a universe that has a creator, but who does not supply any revelation or interference with ongoing life, is in just the same position? And with an agnostic position, you have no idea if there's any way the anti-social will be held to account in an afterlife.

Or are you just saying that the claim of an afterlife is useful for keeping the antisocial in check, in this life? That if we can keep them believing they will be judged by God, they'll behave better?

If there is strong evidence to the contrary, I would like to think I would change my mind. Meaningless existence requires no rationalizing. There are no excuses. Some kids toil in factories while Paris Hilton lives a life of luxury and fame.



~and~



Ayn Rand's philosophy won't make the practitioner happy. The characters in her books are not happy. In my limited observations, people who are humble and compassionate are happier than those who are not humble and compassionate.

Ayn Rand's philosophy will also deteriorate the society we live in, which will increase crime and bigotry. Societies with less crime and bigotry are more likely to produce happiness than societies with more crime and bigotry. Helping the poor improves your own life.



We don't have the technology to "fix" sociopaths. Their problem is not philosophy/religion.

Swindlers, on the other hand, might be able to be "fixed" with philosophy/religion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=210x43641">How many good, liberal Christians/Buddhists/Pagans/etc. on DU steal music off of the internet? I am godless and I pay for my music downloads, if the music is for sale. So maybe "meaningful" philosophies/religions won't prevent swindling.

I personally believe liberalism is the logical political conclusion to a godless, meaningless life, because liberalism is the political system most likely to promote happiness.

I don't see that atheism requires an affirmative belief that everything is random, and without meaning and value.

In fact, I think concluding that everything is meaningless and random, or only capable of absorbing the meaning someone chooses to ascribe is highly unlikely, and even a bit irrational, which is why I don't agree with ZombieHorde's post.

There are infinite possibilities for the Truth of things between a very specific, pat idea like an all-powerful human-like creature having "made" it all, and empty, random chaos.

All of are human experience suggests that everything has a cause, and is related to, acts upon, and is acted upon by every other thing.

That doesn't suggest meaningless chaos to me. It suggests that existence is bigger than we are, and that we fit into it somewhere, in a way that it is sufficiently compatible that we've existed, even if for only a moment or two.

I don't think it's necessary to know the entire Truth to recognize that there is a such a thing, or to try to contemplate and be in some kind of harmony with it. Some of the Eastern philosophies seem to embrace something like that.

It's not God or nothing out there. It's kind of a supercilious inverted religious stance when people go from rejecting religious dogma straight to, "It's all meaningless chaos."

We don't know what IT is. But it seems to be humming along pretty busily. It probably knows what it's doing.

You don't believe"life has no inherent meaning, value or purpose." Decent healthcare, education, clean water, shelter tolerance happiness and pleasure are certainly values you affirm.

I respect your point of view but I find your first sentence terrible nihilistic and sad. I am heartened by the rest of what you said.

We gove our lives whatever meaning and purpose we CHOOSE to. Our lives do not have INHERENT value. Do you see the difference?

Happiness has no inherent value, but I value happiness. So I value things which will create happiness. Spreading wealth creates more happiness than hording wealth. Compassion creates more happiness than selfishness. A little selfishness is good, but too much leads to misery.

...anymore than I could agree with some specific religion trying to say what the meaning, value or purpose is.

We don't know whether there is or there isn't.

As others have noted, the rest of your post suggests people can imbue their lives with meaning, value & purpose of their choosing, which I agree with completely.

But it doesn't mean there isn't something else going on as well.

We don't know.

It doesnt have "inherent" purpose or meaning.

Your posting history indicates that you aren't interested in having a discussion. The majority of what you've done here is start a thread, disappear, then start a new thread to complain about the previous one.

Several people have offered advice on how you might be better received in this forum, but as yet, you've yet to take ANY of that advice.

-The Religion/Theology forum (R/T) is for discussion of religion and theology. It is open to anyone, including people who disagree with you.

-The Christian groups (I think there are two or three) are for Christians to get together and discuss various issues without having to deal with atheists or agnostics.

-The Atheists/Agnostics group (A/A) is for atheists and agnostics to get together and discuss various issues without having to deal with people of faith.

Atheists can post in the Christian groups and people of faith can post in the A/A group (some do), but need to remember that in doing so, are essentially coming over to the other's house and need to behave appropriately.

Your post in A/A was akin to me going in to one of the Christian groups and saying, "You people need to know your place and stay out of R/T." Such a post would be highly inappropriate and certainly be locked. Please take a moment, read the http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html">detailed rules for DU, and before posting in a specific forum, check to see if there's an Admin thread pinned to the top and if so, read it.

This forum has been extremely unbalanced for a long time; the democratic (and Democratic) conversation needs voices like yours. It also needs your memories and experience.

So--I'm a Pagan, practicing in both my mother's Native American Tsalagi tradition and my father's ancestral Celtic faith. I've always been convinced that my grandfather and great-grandfather would have gotten along fine with a Druid, had they ever met one. (My ggf was also a deacon in the local Baptist church; I'm not sure how he managed that, but he did.) Every now and then the Egyptian gods and goddesses get into it, too, particularly Bastet and Sekhmet--I'm a cat person.

I was raised among four different religious traditions. Tsalagi, Episcopalian, Catholic (went to Catholic school) and Baptist (my mom really tried, but it didn't work.) Formally, as an adult, I was Episcopalian, gradually becoming Episcopagan and finally making that small lateral step away from church membership and back to Tsalagi and later, to Old World paganism as well. I see the gods and goddesses as essentially aspects of One God and One Goddess, who may in turn be halves of a greater whole. I'm still thinking about that one. I see Jesus and Mary also as aspects of god and goddess, though not in the Christian sense of the incarnation.

My first education in what it meant not to have full human rights came at ceremony on my grandfather's farm. While some leaders are now quite strict about what you can and can't wear in ceremony--I have walked away from some who told me I had to wear a skirt--my granddad's admonition to women and children was to "wear what you can run in." He and my uncle all carried their long guns, just in case the whites down the road decided to take violent exception. Fortunately, none of them ever did. They did, sensibly enough, come to my granddad for his services as a healer for themselves and their stock.

From the Ursuline nuns I learned about poverty and the duty to do whatever one could to alleviate it. We didn't just have food drives; the sisters took the girls along to deliver the boxes, and we saw first hand who "the poor" were and what they suffered. Later, when my dad became head of our city's Urban Renewal program, he took me along on his visits to substandard housing and showed me what could be done to make sure folk had safe and comfortable places to live. As an adult and Episcopalian, I worked with several peace and justice groups, opposing segregation and the Vietnam war. I became a member of Amnesty International and the ACLU. During this time, the clarity of "God's preferential option for the poor" as expressed in the teachings of Jesus were a strong motivating factor. I still hold with liberation theology, but with a pagan and LGBT flavor. I'm also involved in animal protection and environmental causes. All of this has had its roots in the conviction that "we are all relations," as the Lakota put it--all humans, all four-foots, all winged, all green and growing, everyone and everything. My writing and art pretty much come out of these same feelings.

I hope that answers your question and begins a conversation.

I don't know if I should continue to work in this forum. There is an absolutist mind-set that really won't hear anything about which they have not formed an absolute position.

is for holders of different viewpoints to maintain a presence. As it stands, one viewpoint is highly privileged, and challenging privilege is not an easy thing. You've had lots of experience at it, though. I'd like to see you stay.

What people and what viewpoints have been blocked from posting here?

Without religion, you wouldn't be ethical? Dude, that's really scary.

They believe they would not be moral or ethical except for the strictures of their religion. It is scary, to be sure.

I have heard and read, "There would be no reason not to kill you if I wasn't a Christian." What a moronic thing to say, IMO.

You are right. That statement is stupid and I don't know any progressive Christian who would affirm it. So let's talk about what progressive Christians really believe, say and do. I don't need to have any more examples of bad religion. I probably know more of them than you all do. I also know some very bad things non-religious people do, but why bother talking about them. Either way, it's boring.

When religious people stop justifying the bad things they do by saying that their religion, their faith, or their god requires it of them, we'll stop bringing them up. When religious people stop claiming that you can't be moral without god, we'll stop bringing them up. When religious people (and organizations) stop claiming the authority to dictate morality to others, while exhibiting precious little of their own, we'll stop bringing them up.

But to top it off, you throw out what a TRUE progressive christian REALLY believes, says and does, and that our experiences with those same people has been incorrect?

What. The. Fuck.

They all use the same name. I don't bother trying to sort them out any more. As far as what you know compared to what I know, you may be deceiving yourself.

You don't need any more example of bad Christians? You have no choice. They are all around you.

I just know where my ethic came from. I don't know where I would have been without it. Speculating on what hasn't or didn't happen is useless.

You're Christian, right? Your own holy book is full of lessons that I'm sure you would regard as immoral or unethical.

Multiple choice:

1. A mob is at your door, demanding you give them a house-guest to gang rape. Assume there are no police available. Do you...
(A) Give them what they want.
(B) Offer your daughter(s) in exchange.
(C) Offer yourself in exchange.
(D) Politely tell them to fuck off.

2. Your son curses you. Do you...
(A) Kill him.
(B) Beat him.
(C) Punish him in a nonviolent manner.
(D) Ignore it.

3. Your next-door neighbor routinely beats his wife. What are her options?
(A) Seek a divorce.
(B) Kill him.
(C) Deal with it.
(D) Run away.

4. Your son has also refused to do his chores. Do you...
(A) Kill him
(B) Beat him
(C) Punish him in a nonviolent manner
(D) Let it slide.

5. Your brother is killed by a drunk driver in a car crash following his wedding reception. Do you...
(A) Knock up your grieving sister-in-law.
(B) Kill the other driver.
(C) Kill the other driver and their entire family.
(D) Kill the other driver, their entire family, all the men in their hometown, and take the remaining women as slaves.

Answers, as revealed by God in the Bible:
1-B, 2-A, 3-C, 4-B, 5-A.

Not deriving my morals from a religion, I got 0%. How'd you do?

of the Sodom story.

You're not doing too well.

Genesis 19:4-4
We all know that to "know" someone means to have sex with them, right? A large conglomeration of people is colloquially known as a mob, and presumably Lot's house guests weren't up for it.

How exactly is summarizing these passages as a mob demanding that you give them your house guest to gang rape a "homophobic interpretation?"

Furthermore, what on earth are you even talking about? I'm "not doing too well" because I asked someone if they agreed with the Bible in that Lot's solution of offering his daughters to be gang-raped was a good, moral decision? Would YOU offer up your daughters to be raped by a horny mob? I know I certainly wouldn't.

Does thinking that offering up one's own children to be raped is immoral somehow make me homophobic, and if so, how are you defining homophobic for that to even make an iota of sense?

By the way, you know this happens again in Judges 19, right?

"We all know that to "know" someone means to have sex with them, right?"

Wrong. The verb in this passage is "yadha." It appears in the Old Testament 943 times. In 933 of those instances it means "to become acquainted with," or "to meet." It is used for heterosexual intercourse 10 times, and in a combined form 5 times, also for het sex. The word consistently used to refer to same-sex relations in the OT is "shakhabh." It appears neither in the Sodom story nor in the passage from Judges 19.

Neither of these passages has anything to do with sex. Sex does not come into either story at all until the head of household in each case offers female victim(s) to the crowd. The sex is offered as a bribe to the mob to protect the male (and therefore more important)guest(s).

What is involved is violation of the ancient code of hosptality. There were no Motel 6's in early Canaan or Israel; inns and caravanserais were found only in cities. A traveler on the road was most often obliged to take shelter with a local householder. Virtually the entire ancient world considered the offering of hospitality and the obligation to protect the guest not only a sacred duty but as a circumstance that created and unbreakable bond between host and guest. It was so important to the Greeks that they called Zeus "Zeus Xenios," Zeus the Stranger, and considered travelers to be under his explicit protection. In the Iliad, it's less offensive that Paris runs off with Menelaus' wife than that he violates the obligations of "guest friendship" when he does so. The same thing obtained throughout the Middle East and in some places still does. There are numerous references throughout the OT mandating that the "stranger within your gates" be regarded as family, including sharing in the Passover meal. Now, with that in mind: Lot is a resident alien. The people of Sodom are required to extend hospitality to him. Threatening his home and family violates that obligation. His two guests are ostensibly a couple of common travelers. The people of Sodom are equally required to extend hospitality to them. Instead, they show up in a mob and demand to know who these men are, and then they turn violent. That, not overwhelming desire for hot monkey sex with the travlers is their sin. Lot's offer is horrendous, but his daughters are apparently the best bribe he can think of to get the men of Sodom to spare his guests. The story of the Levite and his wife follows exactly the same pattern. Stop and think about it. Demanding to know who a couple of strangers in town are--"Bring them out and let us meet them!"--makes a whole lot more sense that "We'll kill you if those guys don't come out and let us fuck them." This isn't <i>Deliverance.</i>

The Bible itself bears out the non-sexual interpretation of the incident:

Ezekiel 16:49--"Now this is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Amos 4:11--Yahweh threatens to overthrow Israel as he did Sodom and Gomorrah. Israel's sins are listed as faithlessness, oppression of the poor and selfishness.

Matthew 10--Jesus tells his disciples that "IF anyone wil not welcome you and listen to your words . . .it will be more terrible for Sodom on the day of judgement than for that town."

"How exactly is summarizing these passages as a mob demanding that you give them your house guest to gang rape a "homophobic interpretation"

Because giving the mob "your house guest to rape" has nothing to do with the story as it was originally written and as it was interpreted for over 1000 years. The Bible itself does not support such a reading. The reading is homophobic because it gives an excuse for the oppression of LGBT people to those who want one. Your perpetuating it makes you part of the problem, however unintentionally--and consequently "you're not doing too well."

Tell me, okasha, do you extend your definition of homophobia to other things? Since the same bigots who use the 'sin of Sodom' garbage believe that Jesus is the Son of God, does that mean that believing that Jesus as the Son of God is a homophobic belief? For that matter, believing in God must be homophobic!

Of course I'm not doing too well in your eyes. You're willing to ignore an entire argument to critique a misinterpretation of a poorly translated expression that's inconsequential to the argument itself.

Well, praise Vectron you were here to clear that up!

New International Version: "They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.""

English Standard Version: "And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?(B) Bring them out to us, that we(C) may know them."
(cross-reference C goes to Romans 1:24&27, about lust, dishonouring their bodies, and men giving up natural relations with women and committing shameless acts with men; and Jude (1):7, which says Sodom and Gommorah are undergoing eternal fire for 'sexual immorality and unnatural desire')

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: "And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:"

Good News Translation: "They called out to Lot and asked, Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us! The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them."

New American Standard Bible: "and they called to Lot and said to him, “(A)Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may (a)have relations with them.”" (a): "I.e. have intercourse"

What's bizarre is that you think that a request just to become acquainted with a couple of strangers would be met by Lot (who is generally a good guy in the Bible, if a bit fallible) with a suggestion that the crowd rape his daughters instead. It makes Lot look even worse. And Bible translators evidently disagree with you, because most of them specify it was about having sex with the angels (though the crowd is apparently unaware they are angels).

While Ezekiel says the sin was not helped the needy, Jude says it was about sexual immorality. And the other references in the Bible to Sodom all use it as a general example of punishment by God, without specifying the sin beyond 'being ungodly' and similar. So that's open to interpretation, but irrelevant to the point of the post you replied to - which was that a 'good' character in the Bible met a mob demand for rape of guests with an offer of his daughters to rape instead.

And even if you think that the Ezekiel explanation overrules the Jude one, that does not show that all the story of Lot is about is 'getting acquainted with them'; getting acquainted with someone isn't a sin, is it? In fact, it's a good way to be friendly to them. Sodom had already been described in Genesis as 'wicked', and Genesis 19 says the angels had already been sent to destroy Sodom. The story is there to show that Sodom was 'ungodly' right up to its end. And that requires a bad act by its inhabitants. Ezekiel's explanation can apply to the reason the angels were sent in the first place; the decision to destroy Sodom had been made before the final attempted mob rape.

If you are going to insist that this passage be read to refer to the mob's demand for same-sex relations with the guests, you're going to have to explain why "yadha" is used for homosexual intercourse in this one, single instance out of almost 1000 occurences of the verb in the Old Testament. Have at it.

There are similar problems with the passage in Jude. The Greek gives the sin of Sodom as pursuing "sarkas heteras," "strange (or possibly foreign) flesh." The probable reference here is to a Jewish legend of the 1st. century CE that tells how the <i>women</i> of Sodom had sex with the angels, echoing an earlier passage in Genesis in which such a mis-mating resulted in the birth of the "giants."

And yes, interpreting these passages in the classic fundie fashion--in fact, insisting that they refer to same-sex activit--is homophobic.

Why is a request to be introduced to strangers met by Lot with the line "Do no do this wicked thing?" How is that a violation of sacred hospitality? And how is that somehow worse than allowing his daughters to be gang-raped?

any time soon. At least not a substantial one. I suspect our claimant is a bit less than objective here regarding this translation and its context, and that it's not their first time posting this little diatribe.

We're told that every man in Sodom has congregated at Lot's house after dark and surrounded it. That's a hostile gesture that constitutes a threat of immediate violence. It's the implied violence against his guests that's the "wicked thing," Lot is trying to prevent, though the demand to know who these men are and what they're doing in Sodom also violates the code of hospitality, and Lot is correct within his own standards to defend his guests from that, too.

Of course we would consider allowing Lot's daughters to be raped to be the worst evil here. The prospect of their father's being the one to hand them over frankly makes Lot into a monster in modern eyes. We would expect that, under these circumstances, the two strangers would either surrender to the mob or that they and Lot would fight to the death to protect the girls. Or at the very least, the angels who blind the men trying to break down the door could have acted sooner and obviated the whole mess. That's our western 21st century code of behavior.

It was not the code of behavior in Bronze Age Canaan, nor was it the code of behavior in 7th century BCE Judah when the first books of the OT were written down. Under that code, the safety of the guest trumped the safety of the family, and the well-being of men was prioritized over the well-being or even lives of women and children. Both the Sodom story and the story of the travelling Levite in Judges make this clear.

I think, frankly, that most contemporary people's instinctive response to this story is that Lot is a lousy excuse for a father. It's certainly mine. We can say the same for Abraham when he attempts to sacrifice Isaac. Hearers or readers at the time the story was composed, however, would have seen fathers who were willing to give up even their children in obedience to Yahweh--and in both cases, Yahweh rewarded their faithfulness by sparing those children.

My concern with this story is not so much that contemporary parents might toss their children out to mobs to be raped; that simply doesn't happen in any current religious group, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. What is evil in contemporary culture is the way this story is used as a weapon against LGBT persons, and used on the basis of a false reading, to boot. I object to that, and will continue to do so.

Remember, the entire city was destroyed and all of its inhabitants were killed because, according to you, the men wanted to meet a couple of angels.

That doesn't just make Lot into a monster, but it makes the Abrahamic god into more of a homocidal maniac than previously indicated (by drowning everyone on earth).

Also, you still haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it here and elaborate:

If reading the story of Sodom and Gomorrah so that the men of town wanted to have sex with the angels (ignoring that multiple versions of the Bible say that explicitly) is homophobic, how far do you extend your ad hoc definition of homophobia?

The same bigots who use this 'false reading' to justify their homophobia are also basing their justification on the belief in the Abrahamic god. Is this belief in God that underlies their bigotry also homophobic, making belief in the Abrahamic god a homophobic act?

I suppose I should rephrase that first question I asked:


Considering how the correct answer is (B), that just makes the actions of the "just" and "righteous" Lot more despicable and shows that the Abrahamic god will destroy an entire town for welcoming strangers.

n/t

Look either "know" means have sex with, as is explicitly indicated in several versions of the Bible, or it means to greet or get to know as you claimed upthread.

I've posed the question two different ways now based on those two options and you've acknowledged the rest of the story upthread (that Lot offered his daughters up to be gang-raped). At this point, claiming that the "question is a distorition of the story" is demonstrably false.

It leaves out the potential violence of the mob.

The quiz is a "gotcha" in any case, hardly a valid statement of the issues or a comment on them.

You're still ignoring the fact that the crowd's intentions don't change the morality of the response.

Since you seem hung up on the mob's intent, I think I'll pick up where muriel_volestrangler left off in showing that your preferred interpretation is bunk.

Here are some more versions of the Bible that explicitly state that the mob's intention was to bugger the angels:

Genesis 19:5

The Amplified Bible: And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.

New Living Translation: They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: They called out to Lot and said, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them!

Here's a version (The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language) using a dynamic equivalence translation from the original text:

Genesis 19:4-5

Before they went to bed men from all over the city of Sodom, young and old, descended on the house from all sides and boxed them in. They yelled to Lot, "Where are the men who are staying with you for the night? Bring them out so we can have our sport with them!"

And here's what a group of rabbis, historians, and Biblical scholars concluded the passage meant:

Genesis 19:5 (New JPS translation)

And they shouted to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we may be intimate with them."

So the consensus seems to be that the mob wasn't interested in making introductions. This brings us back to the original question:

A mob is at your door, demanding you give them a house-guest to gang rape. Assume there are no police available. Do you...
(A) Give them what they want.
(B) Offer your daughter(s) in exchange.
(C) Offer yourself in exchange.
(D) Politely tell them to fuck off.

Are you going to start over and insist that this "interpretation" is homophobic because homophobes agree with it in exactly the same way that belief in God is homophobic because homophobes believe in god?

Look, in your story her hubby dies right after the reception. The marriage wasn't consummated. She's still single. Going in there would be wrong.

Even if that little detail wasn't in your way, you might have an older brother. He goes first.

On the other hand, B, C, D sound pretty Biblical to me.

IIRC, the marriage of Henry VII to Catherine of Aragon was allowed because her marriage to Arthur wasn't consummated.

It's all about the practical applications, really, not how many angels can etc.

There's also a practical lesson to be learned from the goings on after Lot & Co. flee the city.

Now, on its face a story about how two sisters get their dad drunk and steal sperm off of him is pretty terrible. But, once you look past that and get into the deeper meaning of the story, namely that it was written as political propaganda against enemies of the Israelites, one thing becomes clear:

The Bible says it's ok to lie about your political opponents.

Ethics, as I know them, are based on rational thinking and analysis of what actions avoid harm and what actions do harm. Often, it is not a simple question, and requires thought and careful reasoning.

Having studied all the major religions and the major philosophical points of view, and having listened to the wisdom of many people, beginning with my parents, who were atheists themselves, I have developed a very strong set of ethical imperatives.

No religion is required to develop ethics. What is required is a willingness to avoid harming others. It's an impossible task, in reality, but developing a personal ethical standard is part and parcel of what being a thinking human being is about.

You attribute your ethics to religion. Yet, I can point to several groups who purport to follow the same religion who display almost no ethical behavior at all when it comes to people who don't believe exactly as they do. I see no unity in Christianity as a religion.

As an example, my ethical principles cause me to oppose capital punishment, since it is impossible to know with absolute certainty the guilt of anyone. That is part of my ethic. Within Christianity, different sects of that religion take different viewpoints on that very topic. So, it is impossible to say anything regarding Christianity's ethical position on capital punishment. What it comes down to is each individual Christian and that person's personal ethic. Religion plays no role in unifying the ethic.

Take a look at where "Death Penalty Focus" has its roots. The basic work has been done by a professor in the Theological school at Princeton. Many people of no religion have also been influential. We need both disciplines involved in this issue. Take a look at the advisory board and the board of directors.

I don't discuss the death penalty at all. It is simply wrong.

Tell me, does non-polo-playing, non-stamp-collecting, non-any_hobby_you_can_think of pull you in any directions?

Just like so many others, you treat the absence of faith and religion as if it were some sort of motivator. "non-religion" doesn't motivate anyone or anything.

BTW: Your A&A thread was locked for good reason, and complaining about it here is unseemly. The first thing you need to understand that is you're not special, and neither is your religion, and you won't get any special treatment from those of us outside the circle.

I don't mind being taken on by someone who at least is willing to hear what I have said, but your quote :

"Just like so many others, you treat the absence of faith and religion as if it were some sort of motivator. non-religion" doesn't motivate anyone or anything." just means that either you have not read what I have written, or just aren't willing to be fair.

Please read the original posting to this thread.

If you'd care to explain how what you wrote apparently means something else, I'll read that, too.

"I have developed a list of fifty outstanding men and women who have made significant contributions to social thought and liberal action, and who are atheists. I applaud the work of almost all of them (I would except Ayn Rand). I do not ask the religious or philosophic pedigree of those with whom I join in work for peace, racial justice, the rights of the GLBT community, overcoming poverty, economic injustice etc. I assume that those in the DU are of a common mind about these matters. If we are together in our work on these issues, then that is all I need to know"

You are treating "non-religion" as a motivator, and it is clearly shown by your post that this is an ingrained assumption on your part. When you recognize that this assumption is wrong, and when you also recognize that you are no being silenced, we may be able to make some progress on other points.

This is for people of a variety of views. A and A is specifically for atheists and agnostics.

There ARE a number of forums where religious people can discuss issues without intrusion from atheists. They will be on the list of groups here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=428

Although to be honest, I am not sure what the OP was wanting out of us. When anyone did address his questions to start a conversation, he did not reply to them, and only seemed to reply to the digs.

I will admit it though, I think I am lost in this thread.

My!. I have spend most of this afternoon replying to specific comments.

snarky. There are times to leave well enough alone. Respond to serious comments and you will find a much better conversation. Some of us have been telling you why we do not need religion or faith or whatever it is that you have to have a moral compass. Isn't that the conversation you wanted? You wondered what it was that non-believers had that keep them ethical. Have those discussions and leave the nasty threads unanswered.

Just a suggestion. :hi:

:thumbsup:

the more I like you.

Where have YOU been?

So I decided to venture here. I needed entertainment. :beer:

Stick around, we can always use another voice of reason.

You may be surprised to find that you are being engaged.

why keep score at all?

Religious people do good or ill because of their religion or in spite of it. Athiests do good or ill according to their own moral compass or in spite of it. Such matters surely deserve a more comprehensive discussion than "how many did what".

The Christians that do bad things because of their faith annoy me. The good Christians fail to inspire me beyond the value of their good deeds.

If religion in general and Christianity in particular offered even an adequate solution for the inequities of human behaivor it should at least offer it adherents the tools to police their own ranks.

I was raised southern Baptist and grew beyond it years ago. I have been told by DUers in A/A that I am an atheist. And to all outward appearences I am. I am certainly an iconoclast. But I think I may not be an atheist depending on the time of day.

My moral compass is in my own head. If I do good it's because I figured out how and cared enough to make it happen. If I fail it's my fault. The motivations of others are of no concern unless their reasons convince me or their passion inspires me.

The Christians that do bad things because of their faith annoy me. The good Christians fail to inspire me beyond the value of their good deeds.

Perfect!!!

Some people will think carefully about whatever the issue is and will post stuff you find informative and helpful

Some people will think carefully about whatever the issue is and will post stuff you find borderline crazy

Some people will just try to yank your chain

And so on and so on

It's an anonymous bulletin board. All kinds of people post here: the brilliant, the demented, the hardworking, the asinine, the thoughtful but ill-informed ... And sometimes one and the same poster can be brilliant, demented, hardworking, asinine, thoughtful but ill-informed

Don't take it too personally

"And sometimes one and the same poster can be brilliant, demented, hardworking, asinine, thoughtful but ill-informed"

Don't we all fit into that category!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Very intersting...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was a daughter to whom we were smart enough not to give the name "Charles."

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

self-delete

I was raised in a Christian religion, and rejected it on the level of any kind of literal truth, in early adulthood, in the midst of forming my values (out of early adulthood -- still in the midst of forming my values). Rejecting religion didn't fundamentally change my views or ethics or morality one way or the other, except for the decision that no argument beginning with "But God says you should ..." would hold any water with me. Thinking back, though, I don't think it ever really did.

The flavor of Christianity shown to me was not inconsistent with progressive values though. No one in church or at home preached intolerance or hellfire or any of the more despicable political aspects of religion that define the more divisive discussions we see.

Maybe it's because of that I kind of passed through and beyond the sneering, militant flavor of atheism you sometimes (ahem) see on Internet forums. I've been known to sneer BACK when confronted with the more condescending religious fallacies -- the idea that all ethics come from religion, or that life is meaningless without a belief in a religiously-provided afterlife chief among them.

I'm a humanist before being an atheist, I think. I see religion as a framework on which people have hung EVERYTHING they are capable of. Good and bad, wisdom and infuriating stupidity. Kindness and mercy, brutality and intolerance. It's all in there, or not. It's always people doing the interpretating and application.

I think getting extremely hung up on the underlying mythology (or faith) misses the point on both sides. Those obsessed with making otherwise good people obey their idea of a Supreme Being are nuts at the very best. Likewise, sneering at decent religious folk because they're doing generally good things with an underlying notion it pleases their god is pointless chest pounding.

Growing up, I heard mostly good ideas and saw mostly good practices from religious people. Do unto others. Feed the poor. Love thy neighbor. I decided those were all good things, but that it would mean less done under the rubric a mythology that didn't hold up to rational scrutiny, and was full of lot of its own ethical failings, from rape to infanticide to an inexcusable prejudice against pork chops and seafood.

That's the core of my atheism (or, more maybe more acurately -- a-religiousness). I don't decide what I think is right or wrong based on what someone else says someTHING else told them to tell me. Religion provides a lot of middle-men, all of whom tend to twist things as they see fit. If something doesn't make sense, no "Commandment" or sermon or priest ought to able convince you to do it anyway, or vis versa.

People's values are internal, no matter how they frame them. If someone kills because they "think" "God" wills it, it's that person who wants to kill. If someone forgives or assists or donates, that's the person too. You can read most of the big Holy Books as justifications for being a pacifist, warmonger, Social Democrat, or a Nazi Skinhead.

The rest -- Why We're All Here and What It Means are worthwhile considerations, but ultimately the answer there is that no one knows. We've got ourselves to answer to for now, and mostly I think that's what people do.



Edited extensively as I think of / correct stuff.