So the First Presidential Debate Happened

[Kyban]

I had an argument with one woman in the US who refused to believe one of the lines from the Pauline Epistles was true, so I showed her in her own Bible and she did not take it well.

Probably the kind of woman who "disapproves of them foreign folks" anyway.

[DarkLink]

I think a lot of people hear things that Romney actually supports (like improving and fixing medicare and healthcare), and assumes he's lying. In reality, long before running, Romney implemented a widespread healthcare plan as governor Romney is much more moderate than most people seem to think, and when he says something that sounds moderate, anti-republican types accuse him of lying.

And of course, these are politicians we're talking about.

I'm not an atheist (agnostic) and I'm certainly not anti-theist, that doesn't change the fact Gott is absolutely right. Christianity has evolved a lot since then, but if you are going to take a literal approach to the Bible over some things you can't object when people point out this means being pro-rape and anti-woman because it does.

My point was more about the tone. Mention religion of any sort, and it seems like someone with a chip on their shoulder shows up with out-of-context quotes with the intent of character assassination and the presumption that the religious individual is stupid and gullible. The technical accuracy of the quote is not the issue. So, yes, while you could find comments like that to construe that Jesus supported many uncomfortable cultural norms at the time, it's just as easy to point out that Abraham Lincoln was just as racist as everyone else back in the day. If you cherry-pick quotes, you could easily make Ghandi look like a violent, anti-government terrorist. That's just as silly and disrespectful as handwaving a few thousand years of complex religious beliefs with a mere 'Jesus likes slaves and rape'.



Edit:
BTW, Romney's moderatism (I think I just made up that word) is probably the reason for some of his seemingly crazy quotes. He's had to sell himself hard to republicans because he's a moderate, and so he has to sound like a crazy conservative when he's campaigning for conservative votes. A lot of republicans think he's 'not republican enough'. So either he has to sound crazy to get his core constituents or sound not-crazy to get the moderate vote. The recent polarization of US politics hasn't helped there.

[Kyban]

If you cherry-pick quotes, you could easily make Ghandi look like a violent...

Have you ever played Civilization? Every time I run into Ghandi he declares war!

[eldargal]

It's hardly cherry picking, the OT and parts of the NT are full of it. Much of the OT stuff is still considered important by various Orthodox Jewish groups, though even they tend to shy away from advocating mass rape these days. It is also a valid point to make that a literal interpretation ofthe Bible necessitates supporting these things when Romney is a Mormon who do believe in taking a literal interpretation of said book. Of course the fact is they don't really, they take the bits they want to take literally and ignor the bits that don't suit their political ideology.

Also Ghandi was possibly a bigot and an argument can be made that Lincoln freeing the slaves was more about undermining the southern economy than any particular belief in equality between the races.

[Wildeybeast]

Why do you say I'm a jerkass? I provided sources to back up my claim that if you follow Jesus he commands you to follow the rules of the old testament, which are extremely anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal (see Numbers 31 for all of those). If you can point out where the bible commands you to not do those things, I'll be happy to read them.

My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny), then you can't just pick and chose the bits that appeal to you now.

Whereas you picking out just the bits that support your argument, taking them out of context and misinterpreting them through your own very biased POV is perfectly acceptable of course. I love it how some atheists are just as militant, dogmatic and narrow minded as the most devoted religious fanatics and yet are completely incapable of recognising it. Your comments are wrong on so many levels that I could spend all day correcting them, but I'll settle with the following points.

Numbers 31 makes no reference to rape. Jesus did not

literally said he endorses the anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal old testament.

. For a start, much of the Old Testament is not law, it is history, poetry, prophecy and wisdom literature. Secondly there are three types of 'law' - ceremonial, civil and moral. It is entirely unclear as to which section of law he is referring. Whichever one it is, Numbers 31 is not law. And if you bothered to read the rest of the Sermon on The Mount, you would get a much more enlightened understanding of exactly what Jesus means when he says' he comes to 'fulfil' the law.

But Gott you forget Timothy 2:11-12
@Wildey, I thought he supposedly "Ascended"

He did (allegedly). It was a Theology joke and therefore inherently unfunny.

[Kirsten]

it is history

the word you are looking for there is myth

[DarkLink]

Whereas you picking out just the bits that support your argument, taking them out of context and misinterpreting them through your own very biased POV is perfectly acceptable of course. I love it how some atheists are just as militant, dogmatic and narrow minded as the most devoted religious fanatics and yet are completely incapable of recognising it. Your comments are wrong on so many levels that I could spend all day correcting them, but I'll settle with the following points.

Exactly.

And don't get me wrong, it's not like there aren't the same type of people within religions who attack others with different beliefs, and it's not like I'm only referring to attacks on Christianity. I'm saying that religions are vast and complex, and if you don't buy into one why hold a grudge against the people who do? Unless they're like, literally terrorists, but even then you should realize that for terrorists, religion is merely an excuse and justification for their hate, rather than the direct cause.

But there's a world of difference between this:

"Jesus' message was one of love."

"Well, I kind of read it differently, since he does justify [insert something unlikable] here."

And:

"Jesus' message was one of love."

"Nope, the only thing Jesus loves is rape and slavery."

[Kirsten]

My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny)

this is true, you cannot argue against it, it is demonstrable. People cite specific passages of the bible in order to try and justify their own prejudice. Romney recently stated that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and yet his great great whatever grandfather had six wives. It is impossible to defend 'biblical marriage' because a) marriage is not christian in any way, shape, or form, and b) biblical marriage has already been radically altered. It is perfectly reasonable to call BS on people who try to use the bible as some sort of perfect truth when they don't follow it themselves.

[Kyban]

Unless they're like, literally terrorists, but even then you should realize that for terrorists, religion is merely an excuse and justification for their hate, rather than the direct cause.

While it may start as an excuse for some it also becomes a tool that allows them to manipulate more people into fighting their cause. Religion may start out with all good intentions but throughout history it has been twisted to fulfill many horrific ends. It isn't inherently bad but rather like government, it can end up on either side of the scale (or both).

[Gotthammer]

When did I ever say I was an athiest?


I did say that cherry picking quotes from a book to make government policy is a bad thing, and if you pick out individual lines... let's just say Leviticus 20:13 at random here... and use it to justify refusing peoples' rights, you have to live by the rest of the text.
For isntance those who campaign to variously exclude and punish homosexuals use Lev 20:13 to justify it, but they should also be logically arguing that adultery is punishable by death or that poly-cotton blends are a sin (both from Leviticus ~or is it only the bit about gays that still counts..?).


And Wildey, I'd be happy to hear how using a religious text to justify denying people equal rights in countries with seperation of church and state "is wrong on so many levels". Everything else I will accept as being hyperbolic, and I do appologise as I lost my cool when I shouldn't have - but given the various christian demoninations often have as much difference in their own dogma to make them almost totally seperate religions (Mormons & Jehova's Witnesses anyone?) I am extremely skeptical of any faith-based governance as it is so very open to interpretation.

I will further admit that I have a chip on my shoulder, but I doubt many of you here are treated as a second class citizen due to other people's religious beliefs - that are meant to be seperate from the government - being used to justify denying you equal rights.