- 29,724
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The notion that any interpretation of a religious text, however reasoned the interpretation may or may not be, is the cause of any act (even good ones!) is...just...aggressively stupid. That individuals perpetrate (or perform, when they're benevolent) such acts absent any interpretation of a religious text is indication that the cause is something else.
What interpretation? Which Bible? I gather there are numerous examples of the latter and uncountable examples of the former.
Because I want to and because the narrative to which you so desperately cling is wholly unsupported by evidence.
As I said, it's one thing to make up an explanation for things we observe and another thing entirely to assert that something unobserved occurs at all. I figure it's a means of control. "Do what we say so you can go to the good place, while failure to obey will result in you going to the bad place." It's very silly.
We're all going to die. I expect my own experience after death will be comparable with my own experience prior to my birth, which is nothingness. I'm okay with that. The absence of an afterlife doesn't dissuade me from respecting the rights of--and performing benevolent acts for--others while I'm alive.
Why should I? It's not substantive. It's a work of fiction.
I put no more stock into the Qur'an, Bible, Talmud, or Buddhist and Hindu texts than I do into Harry Potter. Fiction is fiction, however many deluded individuals use it as a foundation for their worldview notwithstanding.
What purpose does orthodoxy serve if Christians or any other purported believers of particular doctrine don't actually adhere to it? That purported believers, indeed those who have accepted the task of spreading the word, are still given to perpetrate heinous acts purportedly proscribed by doctrine is sufficient to question its relevance and efficacy.
If they require that adherents respect individual rights, fine, but the Bible and any other religious texts needn't enter into respect for others' rights. Indeed the Bible and other religious texts frequently denigrate individual rights.
Where orthodoxy denigrates rights, individuals should steer instead toward heterodoxy. Countless do. Too many don't, and too many of those who don't possess authority such that denigration of rights results in violation of rights by force of law.
So much this. I don't understand pedophilia, but as it's thought without action, I can't justify condemnation of it, much less an Earthly punishment, and so I can't accept others' justifications for the latter.
A bargaining chip too often leaned upon in the absence of a compelling case for conviction at trial. Just as the state may execute those not guilty of a crime, the state may coerce confession with the threat of execution when a party isn't guilty of a crime. Mandatory minimum sentences for convictions at trial serve an identical purpose even if the result isn't as severe or final. They're more tools for coercion than the means of affecting justice.
[citation needed]
lol. That sure is convenient. Or rather it's very clever of the bitch what penned this fiction to include passages with the explicit intent, however feckless, to terminate skepticism.
I mean I thought attributing it to defect to be a kindness.
Another reasonable explanation is that @TRLWNC7396 is a liar. After all, every Christian is a liar even if they lie only to themselves, though they are given to proselytize.
"From a humanitarian point of view," but not your point of view, which you shared previously:
Gosh, that's awkward.
That religious doctrine--especially where child rapists are counted among purported adherents--prohibits homosexuality isn't particularly substantive. It's all fiction. It ought to affect only those purported adherents but it ends up affecting those who don't believe through enforcement of law which violates individual sovereignty.
lol. "We straights." That doesn't sound at all like something a closet case would say to someone who suspects they are homosexual to cknvince them otherwise. Not at all...
I'm straight and I'm happily married to a remarkable woman for whom I show my affection publicly and without the slightest regard for how others may feel about it because it doesn't legitimately affect them. Homosexuals have the right to do the same.
Crying like a little bitch because others live their lives in a manner that you don't like but which doesn't legitimately affect you is certainly a choice, and it's one that deserves mockery of an intensity that is likely to run afoul of this forum's guidelines so I'm going to stop here.
Delusion certainly can be comforting but it isn't guaranteed to be.
Individuals abide by the law and do good to others (there is no practical collective "mankind" beyond basic compositional similarities as individuals are so wildly varying in personality) in the absence of religion. Individuals frequently abide by the law not because it's the right thing (and the law frequently isn't the right thing, such as--but certainly not limited to--where it prohibits homosexuality) but because the state or similarly ruling entity may affect punishment for failure to abide by it.
And you've circled back to delusion. There is no substantive difference in the dynamics I highlighted above when delusion is removed. The delusion is superfluous.
Oops.
Say, speaking of "sick stuff," isn't your prophet said to have married a girl aged something like six years and consummated that marriage still prior to her having reached puberty? Isn't it said that there was an age difference of decades between Muhammad and Aisha? Hard to imagine this marriage and subsequent consummation were truly consensual given that disparity, even before you consider the prophet's status as such. Could she really have declined? I mean I'm already skeeved out by adult women who have removed pubic hair, thus having the appearance of pre-pubescence...to each their own, I guess...but one whose pubic hair hasn't even grown yet? Jesus Christ. The creep factor there is off the charts and you choose to follow his teachings. Sick stuff indeed, but I suppose it's different...because reasons.
60-something-year-old man, zipping up after ejaculating into a nine-year-old girl: "Homosexuality is a sin."
You: "YASS KING!!!"
Amazing.
Disrespect for consent seems rather fundamental to Islam and other religions. I posit that when you fail to respect the consent of others, including--but certainly not limited to--that of exclusively adult participants to homosexual relationships, there's less in the way of you violating another's consent, including that of children, with rape or some other harm.
"proof"
I said god damn.
I said god damn.
No response to this, huh? Weird. I expect it's as inane a bitchfit as when American conservatives throw it.
I'm again curious what purpose orthodoxy really serves when it doesn't even guide those who purport to adhere to it.
"Where do rights come from if they're not God-given" is one of the more pathetic gotchas from those desperate to defend their delusional belief in a supreme being.
Last edited:
