Evolution Promotes Brutality

[Hoghead1]

Oh, absolutely, TK. No doubt about it. That is why I am suspicious of claims he was gay, as he would have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the notion that was evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's sad when people feel the need to lash out because their belief systems are threatened by new ideas...

Ya ... tell me all about it, chief.

You're one of the biggest lashers around here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which is one of the reasons why religion is harmful, IMO.

I don't think so. You ban guns, and people will use knives. That people use religion as a tool to justify wars and other misdeeds doesn't make religion itself bad, nor does it make religion the inherent cause of the misdeeds in question. Additionally, people do take it as motivation to do good things as well. Overall, I view religion as neutral.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As a Christian I believe God set nature into perfect harmony with itself. What has caused brutality is religion and mans belief he is somehow separated from the harmony of natural life and superior. Religion states your philosophy is the only right way and you must kill outsiders and livestock to make amendments for your sinfulness.

Modern brutality is factory farming livestock into a life of unspeakable torture so humans can grow fat on their excessive greed while nature dies for it and they don't care.

You are all over the place here, if you can't settle on a detail to elaborate, don't just shove a bunch into a confusing bundle.

Nature has always been cruel, with animals devouring plants, and it is hardly our fault that lions eat zebra. Also, Christianity is, by definition, a religion. I fail to understand why some people try to say it isn't, or apply a negative connotation to the word "religion". I agree that the general hubris in our species as a whole is pretty high, but it differs from person to person. Also, ritualistic sacrifice of animals and people is not as common as it used to be, especially in developed countries. All religions have a different philosophy, and most modern ones don't claim killing animals is a requirement, and for those that suggest killing people, most ignore it.

How we farm livestock is pretty awful. I for one love eating meat, but I do think that the animals should at least get comfortable living conditions before they are taken to the slaughterhouse. It is a big industry, no doubt, but to assume that people within that industry do not care about the animals is a terrible generalization. There are those that raise livestock humanely, and they aren't all tiny, privately owned farms either.

But, if I am supposed to cry over the chicken that died to make my chicken nuggets, then I guess I fail to be compassionate enough for you. Animals eat other animals, and while it is biologically possible for humans to have a healthy diet without meat, it is significantly harder to plan out the meals and balance the nutrients. A lot of people just aren't capable enough to handle that, heck, many have trouble doing that even with meat as an option. Demonizing people for behaving as the omnivores we are is pointless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, absolutely, TK. No doubt about it. That is why I am suspicious of claims he was gay, as he would have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the notion that was evil.

Nobody -- not even Spong -- is claiming that Paul ever acted on homosexual feelings, but just having them would've been more than enough to rattle a deeply religious man such as him.

If Paul did feel some sort of homosexual attraction, his faith and culture would've taught him not only to keep those feelings buried deep, but that he was damned and unworthy of God for having them... but of course, we can't always choose who we're attracted to. So Paul is damned and unworthy of God due to something beyond his control.

Along comes this new sect -- Christianity. It teaches something that flies in the face of what Paul has been told and told himself: Yes, you are unworthy... so am I; so is everyone else. But you are not damned; you are forgiven. Just like that.

That would mean that Paul's concern over his own soul has just been blithely dismissed... if the Christians were right, he'd spent his life punishing himself for nothing. Too good to be true?

Could Paul's early persecution of the Christians been as much personal as theological? And could his eventual conversion be, at least partially, inspired by the discovery that under Christianity, there really were no strings attached to salvation?

Maybe... but we're talking about a man who spent his adult life punishing himself for his own carnal desires... and old habits die hard.

It's one possible way to read Paul... take it for what it's worth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ya ... tell me all about it, chief.

You're one of the biggest lashers around here.

No need to get personal, AV -- some of us are having interesting conversations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nobody -- not even Spong -- is claiming that Paul ever acted on homosexual feelings, but just having them would've been more than enough to rattle a deeply religious man such as him.

If Paul did feel some sort of homosexual attraction, his faith and culture would've taught him not only to keep those feelings buried deep, but that he was damned and unworthy of God for having them... but of course, we can't always choose who we're attracted to. So Paul is damned and unworthy of God due to something beyond his control.

Along comes this new sect -- Christianity. It teaches something that flies in the face of what Paul has been told and told himself: Yes, you are unworthy... so am I; so is everyone else. But you are not damned; you are forgiven. Just like that.

That would mean that Paul's concern over his own soul has just been blithely dismissed... if the Christians were right, he'd spent his life punishing himself for nothing. Too good to be true?

Could Paul's early persecution of the Christians been as much personal as theological? And could his eventual conversion be, at least partially, inspired by the discovery that under Christianity, there really were no strings attached to salvation?

Maybe... but we're talking about a man who spent his adult life punishing himself for his own carnal desires... and old habits die hard.

It's one possible way to read Paul... take it for what it's worth.

It is an interesting idea, though I am sure many would consider the suggestion that Paul was a closet homosexual to be sacrilegious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No need to get personal, AV -- some of us are having interesting conversations.

You kinda started it, with that whole "It's sad when people feel the need to lash out because their belief systems are threatened by new ideas" thing. That was condescending to say, and it didn't add much to the quality of this conversation, and comments like that are far too common and predictable to be considered "interesting".

Also, AV provides many interesting conversations and banter on here. Even his bad arguments or starting points often incite great debates.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is an interesting idea, though I am sure many would consider the suggestion that Paul was a closet homosexual to be sacrilegious.

Which is odd... nobody would deny that like all Christians, Paul was saved from his sins... is it so sacreligious to speculate what one of those sins might have been?

Would it be any less sacreligious if he had been a murderer before he was saved? A thief? An adulterer? A traitor?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which is odd... nobody would deny that like all Christians, Paul was saved from his sins... is it so sacreligious to speculate what one of those sins might have been?

Would it be any less sacreligious if he had been a murderer before he was saved? A thief? An adulterer? A traitor?

Based on the likely purely emotional reactions people tend to have, yes. But, not out of any adherence to the material itself. Yeah, I do often wonder what the issue is about that, but this site doesn't take kindly to bringing it up. We should probably stop, as it might already be too late.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You kinda started it, with that whole "It's sad when people feel the need to lash out because their belief systems are threatened by new ideas" thing. That was condescending to say, and it didn't add much to the quality of this conversation, and comments like that are far too common and predictable to be considered "interesting".

Fair enough -- although I wonder why AV felt the need to retaliate as he did. You don't think he suspected (incorrectly as it so happens) that I meant him?

Also, AV provides many interesting conversations and banter on here. Even his bad arguments or starting points often incite great debates.

A shame he usually asks the mods to close those threads just as those debates really start getting good .

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not the problem, TK. The problem is presenting psychological evidence that Paul had homosexual attractions, to begin with. How do you determine whether or not Paul had homosexual impulses that he did not act on? Where is the evidence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Based on the likely purely emotional reactions people tend to have, yes. But, not out of any adherence to the material itself. Yeah, I do often wonder what the issue is about that, but this site doesn't take kindly to bringing it up. We should probably stop, as it might already be too late.

Indeed... promotion of homosexuality is strictly against forum rules, but if Paul was homosexual and overcame it through his conversion to Christianity, that's hardly a promotion.

But you're right... it's dangerous ground; best to move away before this thread incurs the wrath of mod.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is not the problem, TK. The problem is presenting psychological evidence that Paul had homosexual attractions, to begin with. How do you determine whether or not Paul had homosexual impulses that he did not act on? Where is the evidence?

There is no hard evidence, and lacking a signed confession, not likely to be any.
I freely admit that it's speculation... one plausible explanation for the facts.

I think the question here isn't "is it true?" But rather "What if it's true?" If we read Paul as though it were the case, do his writings make more sense, or less?

That's not to say that "making sense" is how to determine truth; we're 2000 years too late to know for sure. All we have are his words and our ideas... whatever they may be.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fair enough -- although I wonder why AV felt the need to retaliate as he did. You don't think he suspected (incorrectly as it so happens) that I meant him?

Even if that wasn't his suspicion, he might have felt obligated to speak out against something that generally would be belittling believers. However, when you spread your fire that far, it wouldn't shock me if he did think you were targeting him. Much like I accidentally made a random person mistakenly think I was flipping him off today, when I was actually flipping off the Hobby Lobby behind him. Oops.

A shame he usually asks the mods to close those threads just as those debates really start getting good .

True, I wonder why he does that? Hey, AV, why do you close so many of the threads that you start?

 

[AV1611VET]

You kinda started it, with that whole "It's sad when people feel the need to lash out because their belief systems are threatened by new ideas" thing. That was condescending to say, and it didn't add much to the quality of this conversation, and comments like that are far too common and predictable to be considered "interesting".

Also, AV provides many interesting conversations and banter on here. Even his bad arguments or starting points often incite great debates.

WOW, Sarah, thanks!

The check is in the mail!

 

[AV1611VET]

True, I wonder why he does that? Hey, AV, why do you close so many of the threads that you start?

If I feel there are more blasphemous statements than supporting ones, I'll request a closure.

Also, if they are "piling up on someone," I'll request a closure on their behalf.

 

[PsychoSarah]

WOW, Sarah, thanks!

The check is in the mail!

XD you know I call out anyone that is needlessly belligerent towards other people.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I feel there are more blasphemous statements than supporting ones, I'll request a closure.

Also, if they are "piling up on someone," I'll request a closure on their behalf.

I have noticed that a lot of the atheists on here end up talking to people in different time zones. It puts evolution supporter and creationism supporter posts in a state of flux, so that at times it looks like one or the other is dominating.

Also, most of us are adults here, AV. You don't need to protect people from the debate they are willfully participating in. My favorite debates tend to be in threads where I am "outnumbered".

 

[Extraneous]

XD you know I call out anyone that is needlessly belligerent towards other people.

Come on Sarah, surely you see that Atheists here are far from innocent in that area.