Obama now President of USA.

[Crazy Penguin]

And you're still left with a God who can create and micromanage all of time and space but can't get a book published properly.

[Dr. Watson]

This thread is a prime example of one of the internets strangest phenomena; namely that there are hardly any conservative folks on the internet. From what i've heard, about half of all americans are self labeled "conservatives", yet whenever discussions like this one pops up, every single person participating in it seem to suport the liberal point of view. I find it hard to believe that you guys are actually the very same people (you know, as in, of the same nationality) who thought it was a good idea to let George Bush lead your country...and then thought so again four fucked up years later.

[Brazillian Cara]

In their defense, he didn't really won the first time.

[Rob-Bert]

I'm assuming you think the amount of Americans you've run into on the internet reflects the amount of Americans that actually exist. They're the one who voted for Bush, not us.

[Zeta]

This thread is a prime example of one of the internets strangest phenomena; namely that there are hardly any conservative folks on the internet. From what i've heard, about half of all americans are self labeled "conservatives", yet whenever discussions like this one pops up, every single person participating in it seem to suport the liberal point of view. I find it hard to believe that you guys are actually the very same people (you know, as in, of the same nationality) who thought it was a good idea to let George Bush lead your country...and then thought so again four fucked up years later.

New technology scares and infuriates conservatives.

[Frieza2000]

This thread is a prime example of one of the internets strangest phenomena; namely that there are hardly any conservative folks on the internet.

I didn't think reciting the well-known beliefs of the opposing viewpoint would be productive or welcome, but now that you've got me typing I think I'll try to dispel some of the biblical ignorance.

Instead of ignoring the parts about shellfish and polycotton blends, sacrificing bulls, and stoning criminals, I guess.

Jesus established a new covenant in his blood that replaces the old one. There are passages in the gospel and the stuff after it explicitly talking about the end of the concept of unclean food.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination."

This is the only part of the link Dack provided that I'm going to bother with, since "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." is clear enough. First of all, the claim that it's mistranslated is entirely dubious. I'll take the word of the thousands of scholars working over the last few millennia and all of their translations over somebody on the internet who cites no source. The claim that Leviticus is rendered void because some of its laws are not in the new covenant ignores the fact that some of them clearly still are, such as thou shalt not murder or commit incest. Also, I find it very unlikely that a rule against homosexuality would've just spontaneously emerged if Jesus didn't somehow convey it to his apostles and that there would be no trace of it. There are a lot of practices and beliefs that started years after the church was formed, but we're generally able to trace when they started.

translated to shambles

The differences in translations are all pretty negligible. Some of them change the meaning of the passage, but not the overall teaching of the book they're in.

And you're still left with a God who can create and micromanage all of time and space but can't get a book published properly.

Obviously we believe that what we have is what he wanted us to have. We've been doing pretty well with it.

[Zeta]

Obviously we believe that what we have is what he wanted us to have. We've been doing pretty well with it.

Except for all of the religious persecution, the Salem Witch Triasl, the Inquisition, the murder of the Native peoples of America, the slavery, and the constant holy wars.

This is the only part of the link Dack provided that I'm going to bother with, since "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination." is clear enough. First of all, the claim that it's mistranslated is entirely dubious. I'll take the word of the thousands of scholars working over the last few millennia and all of their translations over somebody on the internet who cites no source. The claim that Leviticus is rendered void because some of its laws are not in the new covenant ignores the fact that some of them clearly still are, such as thou shalt not murder or commit incest. Also, I find it very unlikely that a rule against homosexuality would've just spontaneously emerged if Jesus didn't somehow convey it to his apostles and that there would be no trace of it. There are a lot of practices and beliefs that started years after the church was formed, but we're generally able to trace when they started.

There's still the matter of Lesbians being A-OK, but not gay guys.

And it's not entirely clear. They could just be talking about specifically anal sex. Was oral sex even considered sex back then? Did they even invent it yet?

And regardless of any justifications, us non-Christians still shouldn't have to follow all of the rules in the Bible against our will.

[Crazy Penguin]

And you're still left with a God who can create and micromanage all of time and space but can't get a book published properly.

Obviously we believe that what we have is what he wanted us to have. We've been doing pretty well with it.

That's good to hear, because otherwise there'd be dozens of different denominations in disagreement with each other.

[K2J]

And regardless of any justifications, us non-Christians still shouldn't have to follow all of the rules in the Bible against our will.

As a... questioning... college student raised in a relatively conservative community, I have to say one thing my teachers/pastors/parents placed a lot of emphasis on is the importance of choice for your belief. That's why I'm not in favor of Issue 8 or anything banning gay marriage. It's easier to say, "OK, we allow this, if you don't like it, don't use it/look at it/talk about it" than, "There's a group of people who don't like this - who think it's sinful - so let's not allow it at all at the cost to those who do."

What I'm trying to say is that not all of us Christians are rednecks or science-denialists. We come in a lot of flavors, and a lot of us disagree on a lot of extraneous things (such as contraception - Catholics don't allow it at all, whereas many Protestant views encourage it to prevent infidelity), so it's kinda hard to generalize us. Some say homosexuality falls into the "clean/unclean" category: that is, laws against it are outdated. Others say it's a sin, just like lying, stealing, heterosexual lust, or hatred. Still another group says homosexuality is a huge sin on the magnitude of God laughing when Heath Ledger dies.

Oh, and don't try pointing out how stupid our beliefs are. We know. It's in the Bible. Paul explicitly mentions how our views seem foolish to the rest of the world. So, no matter how loud you yell, "You are wrong!" at us, we'll just take it in stride. This is what scares me, and why I press on, hoping for my experience and interpretation of the world to lead me to a truth I can choose, not be forced into.

[Delphine]

There's still the matter of Lesbians being A-OK, but not gay guys.

Dearest Paul mention lebsians briefly, but that's it. Otherwise women are reduced to non-sexual baby makers and whores.

Obviously we believe that what we have is what he wanted us to have. We've been doing pretty well with it.

That's good to hear, because otherwise there'd be dozens of different denominations in disagreement with each other.

Quoted for truth, man.

[Baba O'Riley]

Not to play up the anti-God argument (which is pretty damn easy), but if religious dominations are condoning or endorsing intolerance, why are they treated with such enthusiasm by the public, and even those that they persecute?

Seriously, the number of atheist homosexuals should have shot through the roof by now. How many minorities do you know that carry around NRA cards?

[DackAttac]

things

The last thing I want to do is get into a debate over whether or not anyone's viewpoint is right or wrong. I had a whole post typed up that I nuked because I don't want to be "that guy", who posts "that post". I didn't mean to render the Bible into "You're wrong if you think God isn't 100% supportive of gays" territory; I meant to cast it into "There isn't just one way to take it" territory. As in "it shouldn't be used to make laws that can only be taken one way" territory.

At the end of the day, whether we agree or not, we all believe what we believe in because it makes sense to us. And all in all, I have to say that Christianity makes sense to me except for a few parts, and the most glaring is that if Tom and Sue love each other, it's a sacrament, but if Tom and Dave, or Sue and Jill feel that same love, it's an "abomination". I couldn't feel at peace with a deity that spiteful at the steering wheel. And since the Bible isn't really a straightforward instruction manual rather than a literary telling of the events that are relevant to Christianity, everyone has to do some assuming to take actual viewpoints and principles out of it. I assume that the Bible has some passages we misinterpreted, you assume Jesus said otherwise in some undocumented moments; I'm sure you have your reasons.

All I ask for is that your assumptions, your priests' assumptions, the pope's assumptions, be kept off of our country's rulebook, which explicitly states that it shouldn't have religion forced into it anyway.

[Dr. Watson]

Religion distracts the masses from their repressed state of living, from their just right to struggle against the unjust elite! Religion is opium to the people!

...But then again, so is probably music, video games, dancing, candy, movies, chess, Family Guy, The Powerpuff Girls, and, when you think about, even science...

Oh well, carry on then, all you bible humpers. I guess the most fundamental damage religion causes mankind is actually pretty much the same that my own favorite TV sitcoms does.

[gr4yJ4Y]

They can't stop following it because their entire world-view is based on it and their perception of reality would be shattered if they questioned it.

Actually doubt is a common aspect of some protestant denominations. It's often referred to as part of a cycle. There are times when you fully believe and there are times when you question it. I doubt that any Christian goes on fully assured 100% of the time. This is just plain honesty here. Similarly I have my doubts that all these years in college aren't going to bring me any good in the end. But I stick with it anyway. I'm sure you will find yourself having similar doubts if you've ever been in a long-term relationship with someone. We all have our ups and downs in life. This is part of the reason that the relationship with Christ is emphasized.

To paraphrase what K2J said, us Christians are pretty much crazy. I've ultimately found there's no sound logical reason for believing in the way I do, but that's why it's faith and not science. I don't think that these rules should be forced on others that don't think the same way I do... since there's no reason they should (this thinking/wording could lead down a slippery slope though... for say someone who doesn't find murder to be wrong). But when the majority of the country is Christian, it follows that the law would try to emulate Christian beliefs.

[Zeta]

(this thinking/wording could lead down a slippery slope though... for say someone who doesn't find murder to be wrong)

It's a religious law if you cannot make a logical argument for why someone shouldn't be doing something without bringing up religion or morality. The argument usually includes harming someone else. Murdering someone obviously harms someone else. Stealing harms someone else. Littering has the potential to harm someone else.

Two guys getting married harms nobody. People doing drugs, provided they don't try to operate any machinery or wield a weapon, harms nobody. Viewing pornography harms nobody.

It's a pretty easy and logical distinction to make, our country just doesn't want to make it.

[G.Silver]

Viewing pornography harms nobody.

What about aiding in the continued exploitation of our nation's topless lesbian teens?

I've ultimately found there's no sound logical reason for believing in the way I do, but that's why it's faith and not science.

Is it possibly because you were brought up to believe it? I've been thinking how everyone I know who considers themselves Christian (regardless of how they practice it) were brought up believing it, thanks to the continued hammering-in of ideas by their parents and church. I came to religion late in the game (at the impressionable age of 9 or 10) when a friend invited me to his fundamentalist youth group where I was informed on no uncertain terms that my parakeet would not go to heaven and that was about enough of that for me, but I suppose there are others who take up religion for one reason or another later in life.

[Baba O'Riley]

but I suppose there are others who take up religion for one reason or another later in life.

Yeah, it provides a comfort to know that in 30 odd years, you're not just going to end up worm food, or so I would assume. At least, my dad tells me that my view that I'm just going to be racing the metal of my coffin to see who deteriorates faster is "bleak."

That, and programs like AA use God as sort of a fixation. I wouldn't say it's a placebo, [spoilers]but I'm thinking it loudly.[/spoilers] The idea of God is ingrained firmly into their minds at that point, and it's a tool to assist sobriety. God is really just the big rubber stress ball in the sky.

[Frieza2000]

The last thing I want to do is get into a debate over whether or not anyone's viewpoint is right or wrong. I had a whole post typed up that I nuked because I don't want to be "that guy", who posts "that post".

I'm actually kind of relieved that my post wasn't that post either. I wasn't trying to speak about the merit of certain beliefs so much as I was trying to provide some education on the Bible, since this is the second time I've seen Zeta wonder why we got rid of Kosher.

I assume that the Bible has some passages we misinterpreted, you assume Jesus said otherwise in some undocumented moments

I didn't mean it as broadly as that. There are some passages that we barely understand at all. In fact, there are some parts that are missing because we've never found a copy where those lines aren't damaged beyond legibility. I doubt that we've mistranslated anything though, at least that badly. My Bible provides a couple of possible translations for lines or words that are uncertain or have popular alternatives, and it gives me the impression that a lot of very knowledgeable people spent a very long time on it.

All I ask for is that your assumptions, your priests' assumptions, the pope's assumptions, be kept off of our country's rulebook, which explicitly states that it shouldn't have religion forced into it anyway.

It's only an extreme few who disagree with this. God clearly gave everyone the freedom to sin, and any who would take it away make gods of themselves. The exception to this, as gr4yJ4Y and Zeta brought up, is when it effects the common good of society, and this is where we run into disagreements. You don't hear anybody (important) calling for a ban on pornography, even though it's reached an epidemic level unprecedented in all history. The hot-button issues you always hear about are ones that we believe go against the natural law and will lead to problems. I admit that it's pretty difficult to illustrate how gay marriage would hurt society, but there's merit to the arguments.

That's good to hear, because otherwise there'd be dozens of different denominations in disagreement with each other.

I couldn't think of a way to end that post. I was thinking more of how my particular denomination is doing with it, but touche.

[Frieza2000]

Also,

Why divorce is good for women.

You can rail against divorce, but that divorce lowers quality of life for all involved is an incorrect assumption.

I refute your editorial with a number of studies that find the following:

-Unmarried women are 50 percent more likely to die in any given year than are married women.1
-Unmarried men are five times more likely to die in any given year than married men at any age.1
-Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years.2
-Divorce is as hazardous to a man's health as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.3
-Unmarried people are sick more often, stay longer in the hospital than married people with similar problems, and are two and a half times more likely to end up in a nursing home.4
-Unmarried people are several times more likely to get the common cold than are married people.5
-Sick people who married got healthier. Healthy people who married got healthier still.6,7
-Married people are happier, more optimistic, and more energetic than singles, and they are less likely to become depressed.8
-People in difficult marriages are statistically happier and healthier than divorced people.9
-Married parents who fight often have happier and healthier children than divorced parents.10
-Marriage makes people richer.11
-After they marry, people work more productively and make more money than they did when they were single.12,13
1) Catherine E. Ross, John Mirowsky, and Karen Goldsteen, "The Impact of the Family on Health: Decade in Review," Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (1990): 1061.
2) Bernard L. Cohen and I-Sing Lee, "A Catalog of Risks," Health Physics 36 (1979): 707-22.
3) Harold J. Morowitz, "Hiding in the Hammond Report," Hospital Practice 10 (1975): 35-9.
4) Howard S. Gordon and Gary E. Rosenthal, "Impact of Marital Status on Hospital Outcomes: Evidence from an Academic Medical Center," Archives of Internal Medicine 155 (1995): 2465-71.
5) Sheldon Cohen et al., "Social Ties and Susceptibility to the Common Cold," Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (1997): 1940-4.
6) Nadine F. Marks and James D. Lambert, "Marital Status Continuity and Change among Young and Midlife Adults: Longitudinal Effects on Psychological Well-being," Journal of Family Issues 19 (1998): 652-86; Alan V. Horowitz, Helene Raskin White, and Sandra Holwell-White, "Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults," Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996): 895-907.
7) Yuanreng Hu and Noreen Goldman, "Mortality Differentials by Marital Status: An International Comparison," Demography 27, no. 2 (1990): 233-50.
8) Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2001): 57, 65-77.
9) Walter R. Gove, "Sex, Marital Status and Mortality," American Journal of Sociology 79 (1973): 45-67; Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser et al., "Marital Quality, Marital Disruption and Immune Function," Psychosomatic Medicine 49 (1987): 13-34.
10) Rex Forehand et al., "Divorce/Divorce Potential and Interparental Conflict: The Relationship to Early Adolescent Social and Cognitive Functioning," Journal of Adolescent Research 1 (1986): 389-97; Carolyn Webster-Stratton, "The Relationship of Marital Support, Conflict and Divorce to Parent Perceptions, Behaviors and Childhood Conduct Problems," Journal of Marriage and the Family 51 (1989): 417-30; Ed Spruijt and Martijn de Goede, "Transition in Family Structure and Adolescent Well-being," Adolescence 32 (winter 1997): 897-911.
11) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1997), 466, table 719.
12) Sanders Korenman and David Neumark, "Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?" Journal of Human Resources 26 (1991): 282-307.
13) Linda Waite, "Does Marriage Matter?" Demography 32 (1995): 483-507, esp. 495-6.

[Zeta]

I admit that it's pretty difficult to illustrate how gay marriage would hurt society, but there's merit to the arguments.

? The only arguments I've ever heard is that gay marriage will somehow make straight people take marriage less seriously, but that's not a good argument for several reasons. First of all, it's not a direct effect, and it's important to be able to prove those correlations when we're discussing law. Second of all, straight people already take marriage for granted - when two straight people want to get hitched, it's a holy sacrament from God. When they want to get divorces, it's a purely secular institution. Third, it's kind of a immature argument: "I only enjoy my candy because the other children can't have it! If they made me share, I wouldn't want the stupid old candy anymore anyways!" Fourth, the exact same arguments were used against interracial marriage.

[Delphine]

Haha, all I can think of now is some indie tit saying how he was into marriage before marriage sold out. To the gays.

[Dasher]

People make such a fuzz about life on this stupid planet, this Earth will go up in flames soon anyway so whats the use?

All the leaders of the world are Illuminati/Nazi assholes who give us fake history and science and people don't give a damn and prefer to believe their crap, so bye bye world.

[CM August]

*sets Dasher on fire*

[Malchik]

People make such a fuzz about life on this stupid planet, this Earth will go up in flames soon anyway so whats the use?

All the leaders of the world are Illuminati/Nazi assholes who give us fake history and science and people don't give a damn and prefer to believe their crap, so bye bye world.

HHHAAAARGGGG! I hope that was a form of irony or something.

[Zeta]

Ah, a retarded, half-assed Nietzsche wannabe. The internet isn't complete without them.