Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ChloeB

Cognitive dissonance

58 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I was watching this show on the History channel one day. They said the original text the bible was translated from doesn't say's 'thou shall not kill' that it say 'thou shall not murder.' Difference there but try to tell someone that and they will cut you to pieces. Another thing this King James version that a lot of Christians follow is exactly that King James of England's version. He purposely left some out. Made the people easier to control from what I have been told.

Most of the bible was written well after the fact by men. That is another problem I have with it. Is it correct or added to for effect.

Don't get me wrong Christians I'm not saying there is no god but more how right is the bible. I know all religions can't be right but yet they all think they are.

EDIT: Used wrong word.

Edited by Hilander
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why or what the connection is with people who are most passionate about their freedoms, their right to bear arms, on and on and on about not getting their guns taken away, are the first ones to be more than happy to demand freedoms be taken away from others because they object to it based on their "belief in the bible"? How hypocritical is it to demand and claim you are entitled to the freedoms that you want for yourself and you seem to understand that, but for someone else, their rights are not near as important? And I'm surrounded by these people and more than fed up with them and to try to reason with them and they've got their bible, nothing else matters that you say, no amount of reasoning and I read something today and I think this is the core root of it: "If you can reconcile all the direct kill orders God gives in the bible with 'Thou shalt not kill', you can rationalize anything." And it's true, to be on board with that belief, you absolutely have this sort of cognitive dissonance ingrained within you or it would crumble and there's just no hope in trying to reason with a person who holds on to that so dearly. I used to defend people who believe in it, live and let live, everyone has their right to their religious beliefs, but these people I'm taking up for are the same people who are so quick to rip away rights from other's that I care about, and it's not the other way around, but they play victim and say don't stereotype me for my beliefs, but what you can't get through their thick heads are their beliefs are fine for THEM, they have no business saying their beliefs in a very questionable book has any bearing on anyone else, but THEM, the person who freely chooses to follow and gamble on that book being truly of God. I'm done with it though, I'm convinced the book and the belief is toxic and the cognitive dissonance required to follow along with it warps people minds and maybe some good has been a result, but I think people are capable of that regardless and when it comes down to it, I think the world would be better off without it, period. I'm convinced of it now. I think trying to reconcile things like God saying kill, kill, kill and then thou shalt not kill has poisoned people's mind at a very fundamental level until they can justify anything when they have convinced themselves God is behind them. I'm done, when you start using your freedoms to rob other's of their's, I hope your's is the one that goes away and yes, I'm mad, forgive me for the rant.

Strange timing ... I just used the term in a completely unrelated topic. But I have to agree. Im a libertarian at heart with some conservative leanings ( mostly economics), but the Christian right is scary. A world super power consumed by an apocalyptic cult is scary indeed!!!!!!!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching this show on the History channel one day. They said the original text the bible was translated from doesn't say's 'thou shall not kill' that it say 'thou shall not murder.' Difference there but try to tell someone that and they will cut you to pieces. Another thing this King James version that a lot of Christians follow is exactly that King James of England's version. He purposely left some out. Made the people easier to control from what I have been told.

Most of the bible was written well after the fact by men. That is another problem I have with it. Is it correct or added to for effect.

Don't get me wrong Christians I'm not saying there is no god but more how right is the bible. I know all religions can't be right but yet they all think they are.

EDIT: Used wrong word.

Right, exactly, not about if God exists, but it is up to the person to put their FAITH in that book and faith is the words they use even, which is kind of like trusting something without proof, but they sure use it like it was hard cold facts to demand people are not allowed to do certain things and want secular law to reinforce their FAITH.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange timing ... I just used the term in a completely unrelated topic. But I have to agree. Im a libertarian at heart with some conservative leanings ( mostly economics), but the Christian right is scary. A world super power consumed by an apocalyptic cult is scary indeed!!!!!!!

Me too, I think libertarian most describes me, but someone said something the other day, which makes so much sense to me about your republican, conservatives, who supposedly want small government, wouldn't a truly conservative political philosophy not have any interest in gay marriage? They want small government until, oh holy hell, something contradicts the bible, them by god, they want the government to be all over the damn place to prevent things they believe God wouldn't like.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Me too, I think libertarian most describes me, but someone said something the other day, which makes so much sense to me about your republican, conservatives, who supposedly want small government, wouldn't a truly conservative political philosophy not have any interest in gay marriage? They want small government until, oh holy hell, something contradicts the bible, them by god, they want the government to be all over the damn place to prevent things they believe God wouldn't like.

You are correct. The left and the right want government to do differnnt things. But just as restrictive. The live and let live policy is the best. The only reason im right leaning in economics is because that's what I went to school for, and it's funny... the right dosnt have a clue about real economics they are indoctrinated into a system also. The left is less so, but they still are also, but this is why people should make decisions based off of their own critical thinking and not gurus or political leaders. Sheapals are left or right. The rest of us are intelligent human brings. Unfortunately we are just out numbered because we occupy a very narrow space on the bell curve.

Edited by Seeker79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct. The left and the right want government to do differnnt things. But just as restrictive. The live and let live policy is the best. The only reason im right leaning in economics is because that's what I went to school for, and it's funny... the right dosnt have a clue about real economics they are indoctrinated into a system also. The left is less so, but they still are also, but this is why people should make decisions based off of their own critical thinking and not gurus or political leaders. Sheapals are left or right. The rest of us are intelligent human brings. Unfortunately we are just out numbered because we occupy a very narrow space on the bell curve.

Economics, I really have no idea what I'm talking about at all, but I do know where I live in Texas, it's republican land and the left's idea to fix things is tax the rich, which seems okay when you think about it, they've got more, BUT they offer more tax incentives and tax breaks and guess where business went and jobs went and what state wasn't hit economically so bad, right here, Texas. I saw license plates from everywhere so I'm kinda with you there from what I know and see and just observe. Myself, I want people, all people to have the most freedoms possible without harming anyone else. I want people to keep their guns, have guns, I don't have them, but I want you to be able to, but I also see no reason my gay friends can't be married and for them to receive the same respect and rights. They say there is some harm if they legalize it, which is some imaginary threat to the traditional family, well I tell them I can't wait to see them blasting all over the place in their campaign to ban divorce, pegged as bad in their bible and a FAR BIGGER threat to their precious traditional family. They zombie out at the point and that's where I'm saying their brains are warped. They just cannot see how hypocritical and unfair it is.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the command in the Bible is "you shall not commit murder". It is not "you shall not kill". Murder is the unlawful taking of someone else's life. If God commands the death of a person in the Bible because of their crimes against Israel or God, that is lawful, and therefore not murder. Sorry, no cognitive dissonance here.

With that said, many American Christians (particularly from the South, which from what I understand is prime Texan real estate) are a lot stricter than many other groups in America, and definitely stricter than many of us outside the United States. I suspect a Southern Baptist who came to Australia would call all of us Christians "godless" because we don't have the legal Right to own a gun.

Despite your rant, Chloe, I think you are stereotyping Christians. Unfortunately this is perhaps because you are in the heart of Bible-Belt territory and your experience of Christians is necessarily limited to that type of Christianity which is quite a lot more rabid than Christianity elsewhere (not that individuals or churches may not be equally rabid, but the concentration of extreme fundamentalist views appears greater in your part of the world than elsewhere). So please keep your stereotypes outside your judgement of my (and other people's) Christian beliefs.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economics, I really have no idea what I'm talking about at all, but I do know where I live in Texas, it's republican land and the left's idea to fix things is tax the rich, which seems okay when you think about it, they've got more, BUT they offer more tax incentives and tax breaks and guess where business went and jobs went and what state wasn't hit economically so bad, right here, Texas. I saw license plates from everywhere so I'm kinda with you there from what I know and see and just observe. Myself, I want people, all people to have the most freedoms possible without harming anyone else. I want people to keep their guns, have guns, I don't have them, but I want you to be able to, but I also see no reason my gay friends can't be married and for them to receive the same respect and rights. They say there is some harm if they legalize it, which is some imaginary threat to the traditional family, well I tell them I can't wait to see them blasting all over the place in their campaign to ban divorce, pegged as bad in their bible and a FAR BIGGER threat to their precious traditional family. They zombie out at the point and that's where I'm saying their brains are warped. They just cannot see how hypocritical and unfair it is.

Chloe.... I own a small business in Cali.... I want desperately to move to Texas. Unfortunately my roots and clientele are here.. My wife's company has a campus in Texas and my best friend from high school runs a hosptital there..,, if I can ever convince her to let me be a stay at home dad ( which I'm practicaly already ) I will go. Im only 34 but I do not have the energy to build a dozen years of reputation and clientele again. But I almost feel that Texas is seperating itself along the lines of the constitution away from

The bs that goes on here and everywhere else. Im jealous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Howdy, Chloe

It was a good rant :) . And a very nice libertarian credo, as well.

For cognitive dissonance to operate, there has to be a contradiction, or at least a paradox, to manage without actually combing it out. It's very tricky to diagnose somebody else's paradox.

From a libertarian perspective, the right to bear arms and the right for same-sex marriage probably "come from the same place" or reflect the same kind of preference about how things should be. When minding their own business, people don't need anybody else's permission (or some such formulation, libertarians don't even agree on that).

Not quite so for trads. They, too, have their vision about how things should be: one man living with one woman, sharing one gun cabinet, paying a ten percent flat tax. God said.

And if God said, then there is no contradiction, and if there is no contradiction, then there is no dissonance. In fact, religious trads probably wonder how the libertarians, many of whom can scarcely see what the issue is supposed to be in opposing same-sex marriage, mange their cognitive dissonance. After all, if there is no "God said," then all morality is relative, and how dare you think you have rights if God didn't say that you did?

Getting into somebody else's head can be scary sometimes - especially if they're armed :).

Edited by eight bits
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it's funny. I teach martial arts. There is a very long history of governments takeing away weapons from its people, and not once has it ever worked out. Infact many martial arts weapons that we practice with today were actually farm implements or simple tools. The Nunchaku was used for dehusking rice. All people from every corner of the earth have kept the weapon of the day in their homes. It's as natural and healthy as haveing a stove. When a government attempts to disarm its public, tyranny is not far behind. This is a historical fact. When you look at the amount of people that die from car accidents, pharmacuticls, cancer, and heart disease then the factors leading up to them, one must shake their head at the gun debate and ask why!?!?! You are in more danger driving to the grocery store than you are from crazys with guns, yet the sheapal effect has no bounds.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the command in the Bible is "you shall not commit murder". It is not "you shall not kill". Murder is the unlawful taking of someone else's life. If God commands the death of a person in the Bible because of their crimes against Israel or God, that is lawful, and therefore not murder. Sorry, no cognitive dissonance here.

With that said, many American Christians (particularly from the South, which from what I understand is prime Texan real estate) are a lot stricter than many other groups in America, and definitely stricter than many of us outside the United States. I suspect a Southern Baptist who came to Australia would call all of us Christians "godless" because we don't have the legal Right to own a gun.

Despite your rant, Chloe, I think you are stereotyping Christians. Unfortunately this is perhaps because you are in the heart of Bible-Belt territory and your experience of Christians is necessarily limited to that type of Christianity which is quite a lot more rabid than Christianity elsewhere (not that individuals or churches may not be equally rabid, but the concentration of extreme fundamentalist views appears greater in your part of the world than elsewhere). So please keep your stereotypes outside your judgement of my (and other people's) Christian beliefs.

~ PA

Well I was very mad, PA, this is just all people are on about lately here, guns and gay marriage. And you are the only Christian I have EVER heard say they don't believe in it, but they don't think it should be illegal, that you get the separation of church and state. They don't freakin' care, it's God's law and screw what our country was founded on. My assessment is pretty spot on for my area though, sorry I can't speak for the world, but even the really laid back, don't believe hell is an actual place, wear shorts to church preachers are running their mouths about how they wished Obama had spoken to them before he endorsed it because the Bible clearly says it's wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm like SO WHAT!? Your bible is NOT the governing document for our country, it's separate and yes, enjoy your tax-free status while you want to be an advisor to Obama. I don't know if they'd call you godless for not owning a gun, they don't hide behind their bible for that one. So yes, you're better, but you and I've argued this all day back and forth, but I'm all for you believing what you want and your right to it, BUT, BUT, and this is what they don't get, it is a 2-way street, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, other people should get their rights and freedoms as well, EVEN if they don't agree with youir religious beliefs. You are free to practice those beliefs because we have a country that allows for that, a great thing, so share it and compromise or it doesn't work. Not one side can always have their way, EVEN if they've convinced themselves they have God on their side and makes them somehow more important and superior, that's their FAITH, which is absolutely ridiculous to use to justify any kind of enforcement of law on people who don't share it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite your rant, Chloe, I think you are stereotyping Christians. Unfortunately this is perhaps because you are in the heart of Bible-Belt territory and your experience of Christians is necessarily limited to that type of Christianity which is quite a lot more rabid than Christianity elsewhere (not that individuals or churches may not be equally rabid, but the concentration of extreme fundamentalist views appears greater in your part of the world than elsewhere). So please keep your stereotypes outside your judgement of my (and other people's) Christian beliefs.

I think it's possible to read her rant as being restricted only to the specific Christians who exhibit the behaviors she is criticizing and not all Christians, especially given the leeway that comes with she herself terming her post a 'rant'. You are correct concerning cognitive dissonance though; 'cognitive dissonance' I believe is actually a psychological disorder to some extent but it requires that the people who possess this dissonance actually experience some type of discomfort from the dissonance. Using this meaning of the term, it's usually not correct to say someone else has cognitive dissonance, they themselves need to. I think the more appropriate terms for what Chloe is discussing above is something more along the lines of 'contradictory' or 'hypocritical'.

To me this boils down to something that comes up a lot but I don't think has a simplistic answer: how much blame does a specific belief system deserve when it is questionable whether the corresponding believers are actually correctly adhering to that belief. Let me use gay marriage as an example, and the opposition by Christians to it. I am of the opinion that there simply is no call or command by Jesus anywhere in the Bible to make sin illegal or to use the mechanisms of the state to prevent people from sinning. If anything, I thought Jesus provided the opposite message (render unto Caesar...). So to me it is incorrect for Christians to say they object to the legality of gay marriage or fornication or whatever on Christian grounds. But unfortunately contrary to that I also believe that at some point 'Christianity' is what Christians believe it is regardless of what it says in the Bible so it's difficult to untangle the two.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Chloe

It was a good rant :) . And a very nice libertarian credo, as well.

For cognitive dissonance to operate, there has to be a contradiction, or at least a paradox, to manage without actually combing it out. It's very tricky to diagnose somebody else's paradox.

From a libertarian perspective, the right to bear arms and the right for same-sex marriage probably "come from the same place" or reflect the same kind of preference about how things should be. When minding their own business, people don't need anybody else's permission (or some such formulation, libertarians don't even agree on that).

Not quite so for trads. They, too, have their vision about how things should be: one man living with one woman, sharing one gun cabinet, paying a ten percent flat tax. God said.

And if God said, then there is no contradiction, and if there is no contradiction, then there is no dissonance. In fact, religious trads probably wonder how the libertarians, many of whom can scarcely see what the issue is supposed to be in opposing same-sex marriage, mange their cognitive dissonance. After all, if there is no "God said," then all morality is relative, and how dare you think you have rights if God didn't say that you did?

Getting into somebody else's head can be scary sometimes - especially if they're armed :).

Thanks, Eighty. I needed to vent so I know I didn't make a lot of sense. But this is it: "libertarians, many of whom can scarcely see what the issue is supposed to be in opposing same-sex marriage" that is me every day here, thinking and trying to figure out why on earth they are so invested and concerned in an issue that absolutely hs no effect on them and they make up all kinds of stuff why, all bogus, but they can pull the "I believe in the Bible and I'm a Christian card" every time and they think that's it, end of story. And I'm telling you, these people, I know them, and when it comes to gay marriage, it's like people becoming Irish on St. Patrick's Day, EVERBODY is suddenly one. I see them saying they don't support it because they're Christian and believe in the bible and they haven't opened a bible or stepped foot in a church in years! Many of them, this is the first time I've even seen them mention God or the bible and I think they maybe do it because they are just prejudice and they don't want to say it, they don't like gay people and want the law to make the world just how they like, but admitting their that selfish and trying to explain it rationally is a dead-end, so instead, suddenly they are a bible-loving Christian. For me, it's like 2 kids on a playground.......now little Johnny you get to keep your gun and Billy gets to marry his boyfriend, fair is fair, RIGHT? Apparently not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe.... I own a small business in Cali.... I want desperately to move to Texas. Unfortunately my roots and clientele are here.. My wife's company has a campus in Texas and my best friend from high school runs a hosptital there..,, if I can ever convince her to let me be a stay at home dad ( which I'm practicaly already ) I will go. Im only 34 but I do not have the energy to build a dozen years of reputation and clientele again. But I almost feel that Texas is seperating itself along the lines of the constitution away from

The bs that goes on here and everywhere else. Im jealous.

I've been hearing that more and more from people in your area. Well my family's been here for generations, and I love it, it's home, though some of these people make me insane, haha. But it will always be part of me and my heart. When we go to other states, we will say, "we're from Texas, watch out!" Hahaha, and you get some sort of weird respect. Maybe they think I'm gonnna shoot 'em? :P

You know it's funny. I teach martial arts. There is a very long history of governments takeing away weapons from its people, and not once has it ever worked out. Infact many martial arts weapons that we practice with today were actually farm implements or simple tools. The Nunchaku was used for dehusking rice. All people from every corner of the earth have kept the weapon of the day in their homes. It's as natural and healthy as haveing a stove. When a government attempts to disarm its public, tyranny is not far behind. This is a historical fact. When you look at the amount of people that die from car accidents, pharmacuticls, cancer, and heart disease then the factors leading up to them, one must shake their head at the gun debate and ask why!?!?! You are in more danger driving to the grocery store than you are from crazys with guns, yet the sheapal effect has no bounds.

Yep, absolutely. I could care less about owning a gun, but I am very, VERY uncomfortable with a government taking them away and what could follow, just as you said. I don't think taking them away from people are going to keep them out of the hands of crazy people who really want them. I really don't know what to do about the situation of these mass shootings, but on the topic of Texas, check these out:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/04/4750074/teacher-gun-training-bill-headed.html I think I'm for this, it sucks that it's came to this, but at least it's a step in protecting themselves and students.

This was another theater shooting and here in Texas, which you heard hardly anything about, but this time, someone armed saved lives, weird how this was so quiet. Why? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think it's possible to read her rant as being restricted only to the specific Christians who exhibit the behaviors she is criticizing and not all Christians, especially given the leeway that comes with she herself terming her post a 'rant'. You are correct concerning cognitive dissonance though; 'cognitive dissonance' I believe is actually a psychological disorder to some extent but it requires that the people who possess this dissonance actually experience some type of discomfort from the dissonance. Using this meaning of the term, it's usually not correct to say someone else has cognitive dissonance, they themselves need to. I think the more appropriate terms for what Chloe is discussing above is something more along the lines of 'contradictory' or 'hypocritical'.

To me this boils down to something that comes up a lot but I don't think has a simplistic answer: how much blame does a specific belief system deserve when it is questionable whether the corresponding believers are actually correctly adhering to that belief. Let me use gay marriage as an example, and the opposition by Christians to it. I am of the opinion that there simply is no call or command by Jesus anywhere in the Bible to make sin illegal or to use the mechanisms of the state to prevent people from sinning. If anything, I thought Jesus provided the opposite message (render unto Caesar...). So to me it is incorrect for Christians to say they object to the legality of gay marriage or fornication or whatever on Christian grounds. But unfortunately contrary to that I also believe that at some point 'Christianity' is what Christians believe it is regardless of what it says in the Bible so it's difficult to untangle the two.

First off, thank you. It was ranty and I was ticked off big time. And hypocritical yes, that's probably just it, but that's what so many don't see, the rules don't have to be fair, they are tilted to suit God's side, because of, well nothing more or anymore justification required than it's God's law and many think God's law supercedes man's law. And while PA says I'm stereotyping, I believe he himself says that as well. So there you have a conundrum when you say your religion has no place in government or law to people who believe that God's law supercedes man's law, while I say and so does my country that they are supposed to be separate, church and state. So many of them don't want that separation, they believe they follow the one and only true religion, the one and only true God and it's over EVERYTHING, except for some reason their tax-free status, so yes, hypocritcal yes, totally. Thing is they can't be reasoned with when they think like that and why I got so mad and said I think it's toxic poison and would go away, yes, extreme but I was very annoyed. I liked how you said that though, the legality of gay marriage, that kind of emphasizes the separation, they don't have to support it, they don't have to be gay, gay and married, but the legality of something and what the bible says are things that should be on 2 totally different playing fields.

I just read your signature: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

How absolutely perfect to what I'm talking about.

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, thank you. It was ranty and I was ticked off big time. And hypocritical yes, that's probably just it, but that's what so many don't see, the rules don't have to be fair, they are tilted to suit God's side, because of, well nothing more or anymore justification required than it's God's law and many think God's law supercedes man's law.

No problem Chloe. I do understand what you are saying I think, how hypocritical for those conservative Christians who are all for small government as far as rights they want, such as unfettered gun ownership, to simultaneously agitate for restricted freedoms and larger government as far as gay marriage for instance. However, I think to be as fair as possible, we have to look at it from the possible perspective of these Christians. For these Christians, god's word trumps all, and despite my objection to it, they apparently do think that God or Jesus does want them to try to legislate against sin. The issue that causes for your argument is that I believe that the Bible is absolutely silent on things like gun rights, but supposedly is not on gay marriage. Thus the conservative Christian's logic could be, 1) if (they believe) the bible says something is wrong then it is proper to try to get the prohibition of that sin written into law, but 2) when addressing issues on which the bible is silent, they follow their politically conservative beliefs. That logic does lead to inconsistent outcomes as you've noted, but it might not be hypocritical or contradictory.

Now I think there's all kinds of further criticisms that can be made outside of this particular hypocrisy charge, as I said why are they pushing to have anything they object to religiously written into law. And more hypocritical in my eyes, why select something like opposition to homosexuality which has very few actual biblical references and not also agitate to have believing in other gods/not believing at all/self-enrichment ('rich' as in money-rich) made illegal, as these sins are mentioned much more frequently and not believing in God is the gravest sin of all. That doesn't seem very consistent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Chloe. I do understand what you are saying I think, how hypocritical for those conservative Christians who are all for small government as far as rights they want, such as unfettered gun ownership, to simultaneously agitate for restricted freedoms and larger government as far as gay marriage for instance. However, I think to be as fair as possible, we have to look at it from the possible perspective of these Christians. For these Christians, god's word trumps all, and despite my objection to it, they apparently do think that God or Jesus does want them to try to legislate against sin. The issue that causes for your argument is that I believe that the Bible is absolutely silent on things like gun rights, but supposedly is not on gay marriage. Thus the conservative Christian's logic could be, 1) if (they believe) the bible says something is wrong then it is proper to try to get the prohibition of that sin written into law, but 2) when addressing issues on which the bible is silent, they follow their politically conservative beliefs. That logic does lead to inconsistent outcomes as you've noted, but it might not be hypocritical or contradictory.

Then don't you wonder why we don't see efforts comparable to their massive anti-gay marriage efforts to make getting remarried after a divorce illegal as well if it's proper for them to legislate against sins clarified in the bible? I don't see any of them caring about that at all. Isn't that a threat to the biblical definition of marriage as well and 2nd marriages after divorce deemed sinful and even adulterous (and adultery is on the BIG 10, a boast gay marriage and homosexuality can't even claim)? Where is their outrage and efforts for that?

Now I think there's all kinds of further criticisms that can be made outside of this particular hypocrisy charge, as I said why are they pushing to have anything they object to religiously written into law. And more hypocritical in my eyes, why select something like opposition to homosexuality which has very few actual biblical references and not also agitate to have believing in other gods/not believing at all/self-enrichment ('rich' as in money-rich) made illegal, as these sins are mentioned much more frequently and not believing in God is the gravest sin of all. That doesn't seem very consistent.

They'll use any excuse to get their religion written into law. I can't even tell you how many people here were saying that keeping prayer and God out of the classroom is responsible for Sandy Hook. That is how crazy they are! They could have God and prayer in that school all day, that kid didn't even go to that school. What is it like some prayer protective force field they think will happen? I am just dumbfounded by them. Religion and God doesn't make mentally ill people not mentally ill, but they try to say if he'd had God, he would have never done that, but truth is, sometimes mentally ill people are made worse by religious preoccupation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know it's funny. I teach martial arts. There is a very long history of governments takeing away weapons from its people, and not once has it ever worked out.

Could you list some of these? All I see in history is governments arming their people so they could attack other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want to be ready for when Jesus comes back and they have to shoot the unbelievers. That is what I been told. Red Neck land can be a scary place.

I don't mind people having guns, but those guns with mega rounds should be outlawed. I mean honestly how much fire power do you need to shoot a deer or an intruder.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to the conservative right in Texas but as a christian as far as gay marriage goes here is what I do see.

- The government of a country is required to be secular to represent the rights of ALL it's people, regardless of religious belief, creed, colour or origin.

- A secular government should apply the legal definition of marriage to all who wish to participate in a legal life partnership with a single other person, allowing for the legal rights applied within the marriage of inheritance, taxability, health care provision for partners etc to be applied in exactly the same way to a couple be they gay or straight. In the matter of secular governance, regardless of the personal beliefs of the polititians they should have their eye to encompassing all their citizenry equally under the law and just get on with it. There is no legitimate reason for a gay couple not to be considered legally married before the secular law.

- A secular government cannot however have a say in whether there is discrimination within a religious belief if said religious belief does not allow gay marriage to be enacted as a sacred ceremony within it's chosen "house of God".

I think that is where the line belongs, matters such as gay priests having rights to preach the christian gospel or gay couples having the right to be married within a church or by the Pastor/Priest of a particular religion need to be distinctly dis-entangled from the secular rights of citizens within the law of a country.

There is some muck in all that, no question. How can you not "discriminate" by the legal definition of the term and also practice freedom of religion if you deny one citizen access to a ceremony but allow another the same access if both have been baptized into a faith and are thereby legitimate members of said faith who are simply enacting a different sin than their equally but differently sinful brethren? AKA: A "liar" or "covetous" or "prideful" person would not by all accounts be denied a church wedding if he/she is of a faith and his/her partner is of the opposite sex for instance.

Simply put, you can't enact "sin" before the altar or within church walls and certainly not within the ceremonies of the faith, it would be a blatant "blasthemy" of the purpose of the altar and church walls - again the place where the line belongs as far as the chosen doctrine's definition of sin is concerned. So while many have sinned as far as their chosen faith's definition of sin is concerned - they have not asked their particular sin to be sanctioned before the altar of the church they participate in and would not, even though they may regularly attend and wish to express faith and repentance as much as they are able just the same.

It seems to me that the matter of doctrinal ceremony within church walls needs to be legally exempted from particular secular laws in specific instances before the tensions surrounding gay marriage laws can be eased.

It also seems to me that there are those who are questioning the level of exemptions that christians and other faiths are entitled to within their walls and when does secular law supercede doctrinal law in the matter of human rights - specifically the right to be treated equally in all matters and this is right at the heart of the stumbling block that conservative politics are struggling with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- A secular government cannot however have a say in whether there is discrimination within a religious belief if said religious belief does not allow gay marriage to be enacted as a sacred ceremony within it's chosen "house of God".

It seems to me that the matter of doctrinal ceremony within church walls needs to be legally exempted from particular secular laws in specific instances before the tensions surrounding gay marriage laws can be eased.

I can't speak for Australia, but I'm pretty sure in the US this is not an issue. Although some religious people here do make the argument that legalizing gay marriage here will infringe on someone's religious freedom because churches will have to marry gay couples, that would not be the case. Churches here don't have to marry anyone as it is strictly a ceremony and carries no weight legally, they can discriminate to their heart's content and not marry interracial couples or people of different denominations or people whose first name starts with a 'B'. (I'm not positive, but I think churches are also given exemptions to some extent from employment discrimination laws, I don't think Christian churches have to hire an atheist or Hindu as their treasurer or janitor for example. Again not positive, and maybe they are only allowed an exemption to allow them to legally disciminate based on religion.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can't speak for Australia, but I'm pretty sure in the US this is not an issue. Although some religious people here do make the argument that legalizing gay marriage here will infringe on someone's religious freedom because churches will have to marry gay couples, that would not be the case. Churches here don't have to marry anyone as it is strictly a ceremony and carries no weight legally, they can discriminate to their heart's content and not marry interracial couples or people of different denominations or people whose first name starts with a 'B'. (I'm not positive, but I think churches are also given exemptions to some extent from employment discrimination laws, I don't think Christian churches have to hire an atheist or Hindu as their treasurer or janitor for example. Again not positive, and maybe they are only allowed an exemption to allow them to legally disciminate based on religion.)

It boils down to that, what "some religious people" fear will come to pass, based on ignorance as you have pointed out. There is no secular aka: legal argument to support those fears, yet they stand. It has to be said though that there is a push within faiths for gays to have more rights within their particular doctrines and the fear of a legal endorsement encouraging this further is probably causing alot of the grief, right or wrong.

You said it well when you said "Render unto Caesar ....". Separating secular law from own personal faiths is paramount to a peaceful and egalitarian society.

Edited by libstaK
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you list some of these? All I see in history is governments arming their people so they could attack other countries.

China ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was very mad, PA, this is just all people are on about lately here, guns and gay marriage. And you are the only Christian I have EVER heard say they don't believe in it, but they don't think it should be illegal, that you get the separation of church and state. They don't freakin' care, it's God's law and screw what our country was founded on. My assessment is pretty spot on for my area though, sorry I can't speak for the world, but even the really laid back, don't believe hell is an actual place, wear shorts to church preachers are running their mouths about how they wished Obama had spoken to them before he endorsed it because the Bible clearly says it's wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman. And I'm like SO WHAT!? Your bible is NOT the governing document for our country, it's separate and yes, enjoy your tax-free status while you want to be an advisor to Obama. I don't know if they'd call you godless for not owning a gun, they don't hide behind their bible for that one. So yes, you're better, but you and I've argued this all day back and forth, but I'm all for you believing what you want and your right to it, BUT, BUT, and this is what they don't get, it is a 2-way street, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, other people should get their rights and freedoms as well, EVEN if they don't agree with youir religious beliefs. You are free to practice those beliefs because we have a country that allows for that, a great thing, so share it and compromise or it doesn't work. Not one side can always have their way, EVEN if they've convinced themselves they have God on their side and makes them somehow more important and superior, that's their FAITH, which is absolutely ridiculous to use to justify any kind of enforcement of law on people who don't share it.

For what it's worth, I think gay marriage should be allowed in our world. Our society (my Australian, your American) is not a Christian society, it is a secular one. And even the Bible tells us that we are strangers in a strange land, aliens without a true home of our own (until we reach heaven). So why oh why should we force a secular world to bow to Christian morality? If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum tomorrow to vote on the issue of gay marriage, I would vote "Yes", provided that a church who disagrees with homosexual relationships has the Right to not officiate such a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs. Though to be fair, I don't know if many of my fellow Christians at church would take that same action. But considering only 2% of Australians attend church regularly, I doubt church attendance would have a large bearing on the outcome of any vote on the matter.

Yep, absolutely. I could care less about owning a gun, but I am very, VERY uncomfortable with a government taking them away and what could follow, just as you said.

I've never lived in a society where gun ownership was acceptable. In Australia, it's been illegal for as long as I've been alive. I don't believe a population deserves the Right to gun ownership. If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum on gun ownership, in contrast to my stance on gay marriage, I would vote "No", we should not have gun ownership. Interesting contrast here, a Christian against gun ownership and for gay marriage. This has nothing to do with my morality. My morality governs my own actions, and no further than that. My reasoning is based entirely on secular ideals. People who don't adhere to my Christian morality shouldn't be forced to adhere to it.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.