Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[Tassman]

What do you mean - some of us? As far as I know atheists are still the minority worldwide.

By some of us I mean those who've grown out of religion. Actually the 'non-religious' rank third in numbers after Christians and Muslims. And given that half (literally) of Christians are members of the Catholic Church, which many Evangelicals do not consider truly Christian, the numbers of non-religious people worldwide just about equals the number of "true Christians".

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

But even if this was not the case, majority belief doesn't mean it's right - e.g. the majority believed in a geocentric universe for most of human history, but they were wrong.

And don't blame us, after you said we don't have freewill - so it was the evolutionary process that created us to think and act this way.

Not quite. As has been pointed out to you countless times, we have the "illusion" of free will and act as though we have free will within the context of our determined universe. If you disagree that we live in a determined universe you need only tell us at what point in the evolutionary process 'freewill' was inserted into the human animal.

[seer]

By some of us I mean those who've grown out of religion. Actually the 'non-religious' rank third in numbers after Christians and Muslims. And given that half (literally) of Christians are members of the Catholic Church, which many Evangelicals do not consider truly Christian, the numbers of non-religious people worldwide just about equals the number of "true Christians".

No Tass, you are completely out numbered by those who believe in some kind of deity. I'm not pointing just to Christians. We seem to be wired for belief which makes me think that atheists have some kind of genetic/mental defect.

Not quite. As has been pointed out to you countless times, we have the "illusion" of free will and act as though we have free will within the context of our determined universe. If you disagree that we live in a determined universe you need only tell us at what point in the evolutionary process 'freewill' was inserted into the human animal.

No Tass, the "illusion" of free will is not actual free will. So groups like ISIS are only thinking and acting the way the evolutionary process created them to think and act. It is not their fault - and it's all quite natural.

[seer]

I'm not. Any of these posts look familiar?

"Waterboard Feinstein!"

"I think the European white race and culture is the best most advanced culture/ race in history. The most prolific race when it comes to science, invention and political structure, ideals. Far surpassing any other race known to man."

Or approvingly quoting sexist remarks like ""Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society"?

Or the many posts essentially implying that bakeries should be segregated between gay couples and straight couples?

Really? You people really need to get a life. Feinstein, was a trader. The "white" thing was a study in irony. The feminist thing was done completely in jest. And the gay thing says nothing about what I would personally do. But about what the government if forcing people of faith to do.

[Adrift]

That is completely and utterly unprovable one way or the other. It is impossible to even begin to speculate what the present-day world would look like without Judaism & Christianity (& Islam that resulted from both).

I don't think its impossible to speculate. Just check out books like, Dr. James Hannam's God's Philosophers, Prof. Larry Siedentop's Inventing the Individual, and Prof. Eric Nelson's The Hebrew Republic, and then for contrast take a look at the Islamic and atheist regimes of the 20th and 21st century.

No. If anything, Israel was typically more brutal than it's neighbors. Of course, that does vary throughout the Bible.

Nope. It really wasn't. Israel wasn't nearly as warlike and expansionist as their ANE neighbors. They had laws that called for the fair treatment of slaves (or rejected the practice entirely). They had laws against the sacrifice of children. They had laws limiting the powers of the king. OT scholar Christopher Wright highlights Israel's unique look at human worth in his essay on OT Ethics:

Source: Old Testament Ethics by Christopher J.H. Wright

The sanctity of human life. As early as the texts of the Noah covenant (Gn. 9:8-17) the principle was stated that human life was to be treated as inviolable on the grounds of the image of God. Even animals would be held to account by God for the killing of humans. The influence of this principle can be seen in Israel's law. Laws about domestic animals that injure or kill humans are common in ancient Near Eastern legal corpora. All of them prescribe various degrees of compensation and punishment of the owner. Only the Heb. law prescribes also that the 'guilty' ox was to be stoned to death (Ex. 21:28-32). It seems most likely that this was because the law was influenced by the religious principle of the sanctity of human life, as crystallized in Gn. 9:5 (cf C.J.H. Wright, God's People in God's Land, pp 156-160). Empirically, this high value shows itself in the narratives in several places where there is an abhorrence for the shedding of innocent blood (e.g. 1 Sa. 19:4-6; 25:26; 2 Sa. 2:22; 3:28, 37).

The equality of human beings. The OT did not eliminate all social distinctions, e.g. the subordinate social and economic status of the slave. It did, however, go a long way in mitigating the worst effects, by a theology of essential human equality based on our common createdness in God's image. In its law, the OT knows nothing of the graded penalties for crimes against different ranks of victim, as is common in ancient Near Eastern law. There was equality before the law for the native and the alien (Lv. 24:22). The slave was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies (Ex. 21:20-21, 26-27). This is reflected in Job's great ethical self-defence in which he bases his claim to have treated his slaves with justice, in any case which they brought against him, upon an unambiguous statement of created human equality between master and slave: 'Did not he who made me in the womb also make them? (Jb. 31:15). Once again it is in the Wisdom literature that we find the broadest outworking of this creation theology in the social ethos of Israel. There are several texts in Proverbs which affirm the equality before God of rich and poor (22:2;29:13), and others which so identify God with every human being, regardless of status, that what we do to them we do to God himself (14:31; 17:5; 19:17).

© Copyright Original Source

And as the Persian historian Muhammad A. Dandamayev tells us, "We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters. Thus, slaves both born in the household and those bought with money, just like the free Israelites, were to be circumcised in order to share cultic life and eat the Passover (Gen 17:13, 23, 27; Exod 12:44; Deut 12:12, 18; Lev 22:11)."

Furthermore, the philosopher Paul Copan points out the following in his work:

Source: Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan

We can mention the inferior sexual morality of the ANE. We are familiar with the Canaanite qedeshot-the female and male cult prostitutes (cp. Gen. 38:15, 22-3; Deut. 23:18-19; also Hos. 4:14). A number of ANE cuneiform laws permitted activities that undermined the family's integrity and stability by allowing men, for instance, to engage in adulterous relations with slaves and prostitutes. The laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Lower Mesopotamia (1930 BC) take for granted the practice of prostitution (for example, ¶¶27, 30). In Hittite law (1650-1500 BC), "If a father and son sleep with the same female slave or prostitute, it is not an offence" (¶194). Hittite law even permitted bestiality: "If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offence" (¶200a).[54]

Not only do we find morally-inferior cuneiform legislation, but its attendant harsh, ruthless punishments. Commenting on the brutal and harsh Code of Hammurabi, historian Paul Johnson observes: "These dreadful laws are notable for the ferocity of their physical punishments, in contrast to the restraint of the Mosaic Code and the enactments of Deuteronomy and Leviticus."[55] For instance, Hammurabi's code stresses the centrality of property whereas the laws in the "Book of the Covenant" (Exod. 21-23) consider crimes against persons to be far more weighty.[56]

For certain crimes, Hammurabi mandated that tongue, breast, hand, or ear be cut off (??192, 194, 195, 205).[57] One punishment involved the accused's being dragged around a field by cattle. Babylon and Assyria (as well as Sumer) practiced the River Ordeal: when criminal evidence was inconclusive, the accused would be thrown into the river; if he drowned, he was guilty (the river god's judgment), but if he survived, he was innocent and the accuser was guilty of false accusation.[58] Besides punishments such as cutting off noses and ears, ancient Egyptian law permitted the beating of criminals (for, say, perjury or libel) with between one hundred and two hundred strokes.[59] In fact, a one-hundred-stroke beating was the "mildest form of punishment."[60] Contrast this with Deuteronomy 25:1-3, which sets a limit of forty strokes for a criminal: "He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these." The reason? So that "your brother is not degraded in your eyes." Furthermore, in Babylonian or Hittite law, status or social rank determined the kind of sanctions for a particular crime whereas biblical law holds kings and priests and those of social rank to the same standards as the common person.[61] The informed inhabitant of the ANE would have thought, "Quick, get me to Israel!"

© Copyright Original Source

I was looking at the life of David recently. In 1 Sam 30, the Bible makes clear that the Amalekites killed no one when they raided David's town,

The text is a bit more complicated than what you're implying. First of all, the words "and all" in "and taken captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great." is not in the Septuagint. Second of all, whatever fate was to await the captives was likely something comparable to death. Third of all, the penalty under the law specified the punishment for kidnapping, Exodus 21:16, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

but when David strikes back he kills almost every last man (his usual policy - 1 Sam 27:9).

The Amalekites weren't some poor, harmless, helpless people. They hounded Israel for centuries. We see them going to war with Israel way back when Moses and Joshua were still around in Exodus 17:8, and they continued attacking Israel throughout their history (see Judges 3:13, 6:3–5, 33; 7:12; 10:12). Even much later, during the rule of Xerxes I we still see the descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites, attempt to destroy all of the Jews in Xerxes kingdom (Esther 3).

Whereas when David captured cities, he engaged in genocide against civilians (2 Sam 8:2 & 1 Kings 11:15)

I don't know what in the 2 Sam passage makes you think David was dealing with civilians, and the 1 Kings passage it isn't David who killed the men of Edom, but Joab, one of his military commanders (confirmed in the superscription of Psalm 60). Later, on his death bed, David told Solomon to execute Joab for his betrayals, and for the shedding of innocent blood.

and mass torture (2 Samuel 12:31 / 1 Chronicles 20:3).

2 Sam and 1 Chron may not say what you think it does. OT scholar Tremper Longman points out,

Source: 1 Samuel - 2 Kings Edited by Tremper Longman, David E. Garland

As for the "people," earlier interpreters explained that David “put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln" (v.31 [KJV]; cf. also Patrick, 452-53)...But "consigning them to labor with ...and with ..." is more likely to represent a correct rendering of the key preposition b- than "put them under ...and under...." Apparently David forced the defeated Ammonites to work on various building projects. The “saws,” for example, were of the kind used to trim the faces of blocks of stone (cf. 1Ki 7:9).

© Copyright Original Source

And on the 1 Chronicles passage OT scholar Steven S. Tuell points out,

Source: First and Second Chronicles by Steven S. Tuell

The population of Rabbah, and indeed of "all the cities of the Ammonites" (20:3), is turned into a labor force by David, "to work with saws and iron picks and axes." Harsh as this seems, the MT of 20:2 suggests even more horrific treatment: the Hebrew evidently means, "he sawed them with saws"! (Emphasis added.) However, the word occurs only here, suggesting the possibility that it may be a scribal error. The parallel in 2 Samuel 12:31 definitely has "set them to work with saws and iron picks and iron axes," suggesting this should be the reading in 1 Chronicles as well. Finally, putting an entire population to torture seems impossibly extreme, even for the cruelest of ancient despots. It is entirely out of character for David.

© Copyright Original Source

Old Testament scholar Louis Jonker agrees,

Source: 1 & 2 Chronicles (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) by Louis C. Jonker

20:3 / The Masoretic Text of 2 Sam. 12:31 indicates that David's men consigned the Ammonites "to labor with saws and with iron pics and axes," but the MT of 1 Chron. 20:3 has the Ammonites "hacked to pieces" with those same tools (unlike NIV, which does not follow the Masoretic Text of 1 Chron. 20:3 but rather that of 2 Sam. 12:31). The difference between these two readings is just one letter of the verb! The Chronicler's version is either the original one or a scribal error.

© Copyright Original Source

And OT scholar Peter McCarter says in the Anchor Bible commentary on 2 Samuel that setting up work crews "for the economic exploitation of the conquered territory" was standard practice for victorious kings.

Yep, I agree with this. As square_peg mentioned, it would be wonderful if the Church was still known for their good deeds, rather than the opposite.

It is still known for its good deeds, you just won't see those good deeds on the nightly news, but the people across the world who are helped through Christian charity and aid are aware of it. Instead, the media will fill your head with all the bad deeds of Christians. And why not? Seeing those who are supposed to be moral paragons doing evil is what people want to read. We never see the thousands and thousand and thousands of cases where teachers, and doctors, and police officers, and the like do good deeds. They only ever make the news when they're having sex with their students, being sued for malpractice, and abusing their power.

Sure, most intellectual movements build on what came before them. But if it hadn't been Christianity that it was building on, then it would have been something else.

Like the intellectual movements built upon Islam and Hinduism?

There were various moralistic movements in ancient Greece, and in ancient Rome, long before Judaism/Christianity had affected them - we don't owe the basic concept of morality or thinking about morality to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And yet, Judaism/Christianity was worlds ahead of the Greeks and Romans concerning the moral treatment of women, slaves, and the generally disadvantaged. Interesting that.

Unfortunately we do owe the basic concept of persecuting gay people to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition: As historical surveys make clear, the vast majority of civilizations throughout history have been fairly tolerant or accepting of gay people except those influenced by Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. There is nothing comparable in the historical record of other cultures to the death penalty for gay sex that Christians have assumed is present in Leviticus 18 & 20.

I know the subject of homosexuality is sort of your hobby horse, but the basic concept of "persecuting gay people" is NOT found in Christianity. Homosexuality is certainly sinful behavior in Christianity, but Christians are never to persecute others. And we do see examples throughout history where other cultures had things to say against homosexuality (I note that your "historical survey" was not done by an actual historian, but by gay rights activist, and scholar of 19th century British literature, Louis Crompton):

From the Middle Assyrian Law Code (The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE) we see this statement:

Source: Middle Assyrian Law Code

20: If a man has had sex with his neighbor and he has been charged and convicted, then he is to be considered defiled and made into a eunuch.

© Copyright Original Source

Ancient Egypt's view of homosexuality is a bit more complicated, but the Book of the Dead offers a couple ritual or confessional statements against it:

Source: Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt by Lise Manniche

As far as homosexuality is concerned there are but few examples to suggest that it was indulged in for pleasure. Raping another man was an act of aggression, a means of gaining power over an adversary. A passage in The Book of the Dead speaks of it as a virtue not to have committed a homosexual act, and a list of prohibitions valid in various cities suggests the same. A much discussed passage in one of the wisdom texts points to the same attitude. ...

Homosexuality among women is even more sparsely documented. In a Book of the Dead written for a woman it says: 'I have not had intercourse with any woman in the sacred places of my city god,' but beyond doubt the text was copied from a 'male' version and an obvious mistake has not been corrected. But the possibility had, nevertheless, entered some people's minds, for in a dream book for women it is said: 'If she dreams that a woman has intercourse with her, she will come to a bad end.' (P. Carlsberg XIII, b2, 33)

© Copyright Original Source

And while homosexuality was largely tolerated in Greece and Rome, being on the passive end of a male/male relationship was considered dishonorable. Plato switched up his views on the subject suggesting in his Symposium that it was natural among warriors, but later apparently changing his mind in his Laws where he sounds practically Pauline: "I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.".

I'm not religious, so it seems unlikely I would support a religious movement.

But yeah, no matter where you go in the world, religions seem to try to make it there business to distort the basic universal morality of treating other people well and instead introduce additional rules and complications that they claim is 'moral' and 'what God wants'. And insofar as the ideas that religions teach that result in people not actually treating others well, we can say those religions are immoral. Christianity's own record on the subject is spotty: There's plenty of good stuff (love others as yourself etc), and plenty of bad stuff (slavery, genocide, homosexuality, rights of women etc). The sheer fact that it is a religion makes it morally dangerous because people can stand up and say "God told me X" which distracts people away from the universal morality of treating others well and makes people start acting out of potentially very complicated moral reasoning.

The record that atheism has left us on the subject, not in 2000 years of history, but in less than 100 is far far more terrifying. Approximately 80 to 110 million civilians were killed by their own state within that period, and more were jailed, persecuted, and left destitute. You could combine all of the atrocities committed by the church in 2000 years, and it'd be a drop in the bucket compared to what's been done under Communist regimes since 1917. Now you might consider those particular atheist regimes some sort of secular religion, but that leads you to a sort of No True Scotsman territory. The truth is, any ideology can be twisted to do "bad stuff".

[Starlight]

I don't think its impossible to speculate.

Well Edward Gibbon famously argued that without Christianity, the Roman Empire wouldn't have fallen. It's possible the resulting political stability might have triggered the rise of modern science 1200 years earlier. Alternatively modern science might never have occurred without Christianity. Without Christianity we might still be all peasant farmers today or might be living on Mars by now... speculation becomes absolutely groundless when random chance is extrapolated over a 2000 year period.

for contrast take a look at the Islamic and atheist regimes of the 20th and 21st century.

Most of the modern atheistic West looks pretty good to me.

I'm not surprised that you can find quotations from some Christian scholars deluding themselves into thinking ancient Israel was a wonderful place. Their cherry-picking is cute. Given many of my friends would have been executed for homosexuality under Levitical law (assuming the majority of Christians are right in how the interpret Levitical law) but not in the universally more accepting rest of the ANE, you'll forgive me if I don't break out the pom-poms and cheer-lead for ancient Israel.

And yet, Judaism/Christianity was worlds ahead of the Greeks and Romans concerning the moral treatment of women, slaves, and the generally disadvantaged. Interesting that.

And as a result, in Christian Europe and Christian America we never saw any slavery.

Oh wait.

Did you know slavery was outlawed in Georgia in 1735, but George Whitefield, founder of the Evangelical movement, led a successful campaign to reintroduce it there...? Thanks Evangelicalism.

They had laws that called for the fair treatment of slaves (or rejected the practice entirely). They had laws against the sacrifice of children. They had laws limiting the powers of the king.

Um, it's worth bearing in mind that the actual civil laws of the historical country of Israel, and what happens to be written in the various religious books we now call the Bible, are not necessarily at all the same thing. The Bible is very very clear that the country 'strayed' significantly many times in its history, and a lot of scholars are skeptical that certain biblical laws (eg the year of Jubilee) were ever followed. You're confusing what some religious guy wrote down in a book that wasn't necessarily viewed at the time as being at all significant, with the civil laws of the nation that changed over centuries. Biblical law represents a confused collection of idealized versions of what various prophets and theologians felt the law ought to be, not a binding version of what the law actually was at any given time.

I know the subject of homosexuality is sort of your hobby horse, but the basic concept of "persecuting gay people" is NOT found in Christianity.

It seems to be found an awful lot in Christian history.

Do you think Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for gay sex? Do you regard the death penalty as persecution?

And we do see examples throughout history where other cultures had things to say against homosexuality

Sure, in a handful of other cultures in history there's been a negative view of it. No death penalty though!

(I note that your "historical survey" was not done by an actual historian, but by gay rights activist, and scholar of 19th century British literature, Louis Crompton)

It's a highly-regarded work, and you'll find that most of the serious historical analyses of homosexuality have been done by gay people because they're the ones most interested in the topic. I'm not particularly fussed on any one historical survey to the exclusion of others... I have read several and they all say similar things, there isn't really much disagreement on the basic facts of which cultures believed approximately what.

The record that atheism has left us on the subject, not in 2000 years of history, but in less than 100 is far far more terrifying. Approximately 80 to 110 million civilians were killed by their own state within that period, and more were jailed, persecuted, and left destitute. You could combine all of the atrocities committed by the church in 2000 years, and it'd be a drop in the bucket compared to what's been done under Communist regimes since 1917. Now you might consider those particular atheist regimes some sort of secular religion, but that leads you to a sort of No True Scotsman territory. The truth is, any ideology can be twisted to do "bad stuff".

Your equating Communism with atheism just makes me laugh. Sure Communist countries did lots of bad things, but blaming their atheism for that is completely ridiculous, you might as well blame it on their hair color! I live in a Western democracy where there has always been separation of church and state, and where the number of non-religious people now outnumber the religious people, and which is regarded as among the best countries in the world to live... gee, what horrors atheism has wrought...

Looking at this global analysis of the most, and least, religious countries in the world, I'd be personally totally happy with living in 9 of the top 10 listed most atheistic countries in the world, while I'd be okayish with living in only 3 of the top 10 listed most religious countries in the world. Seems to me like atheism makes for much better countries.

[Starlight]

Speaking of greater non-religion resulting in better countries, I've just seen in the news that Slovenia's parliament voted today to legalize same-sex marriage. This is in contrast to other countries formerly part of Yugoslavia, like Croatia, that have banned same-sex marriage. A big difference between the two countries is the extent of religious fervor - in both the largest religion is Roman Catholicism, but in Slovenia only 20% of the population says they believe in a 'personal God', while in Croatia, 70% of the population say religion is an important part of their daily life.

[Adrift]

Well Edward Gibbon famously argued that without Christianity, the Roman Empire wouldn't have fallen. It's possible the resulting political stability might have triggered the rise of modern science 1200 years earlier. Alternatively modern science might never have occurred without Christianity. Without Christianity we might still be all peasant farmers today or might be living on Mars by now... speculation becomes absolutely groundless when random chance is extrapolated over a 2000 year period.

Edward Gibbon's view, that Christianity was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, is roundly rejected by modern Roman historians. Its far too simplistic, and simply not accurate.

I'm not surprised that you can find quotations from some Christian scholars deluding themselves into thinking ancient Israel was a wonderful place. Their cherry-picking is cute.

Impressive hand-wave

Given many of my friends would have been executed for homosexuality under Levitical law (assuming the majority of Christians are right in how the interpret Levitical law) but not in the universally more accepting rest of the ANE, you'll forgive me if I don't break out the pom-poms and cheer-lead for ancient Israel.

Given that homosexuality is likely more nurture than nature based, and that the concept of a "homosexual orientation" was completely and utterly foreign in the ancient world, chances are probably pretty good your friends wouldn't have much to worry about in Ancient Israel. I have many gay friends too. rah-rah!

And as a result, in Christian Europe and Christian America we never saw any slavery.

Oh wait.

Well...wait...who were the first to abolish slavery? An institution known world-over since the beginning of time....oh yeah, Christian nations. Hmm...

Did you know slavery was outlawed in Georgia in 1735, but George Whitefield, founder of the Evangelical movement, led a successful campaign to reintroduce it there...? Thanks Evangelicalism.

Did you know that the abolitionist and Civil Rights movements were practically entirely Christian movements!

Um, it's worth bearing in mind that the actual civil laws of the historical country of Israel, and what happens to be written in the various religious books we now call the Bible, are not necessarily at all the same thing. The Bible is very very clear that the country 'strayed' significantly many times in its history, and a lot of scholars are skeptical that certain biblical laws (eg the year of Jubilee) were ever followed. You're confusing what some religious guy wrote down in a book that wasn't necessarily viewed at the time as being at all significant, with the civil laws of the nation that changed over centuries. Biblical law represents a confused collection of idealized versions of what various prophets and theologians felt the law ought to be, not a binding version of what the law actually was at any given time.

So...wait a second. Didn't you quote the Bible to tell us how terrible the Israelites were, and now you're telling us that probably the Bible wasn't that accurate anyways?

It seems to be found an awful lot in Christian history.

Yeah, that's terrible. Shouldn't have ever happened. Hey, did you know that Stalin was an atheist and that he criminalized homosexuality by sentencing gay men to five years in prison with hard labor? Guess its not just a Christian history thing.

Do you think Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for gay sex? Do you regard the death penalty as persecution?

Yes, and outside of the context of the ancient theocracy that was Israel, yes.

Sure, in a handful of other cultures in history there's been a negative view of it. No death penalty though!

Yeah, Israel was unique in many ways. For instance, the same penalty was also incurred for sex with boys and animals, while both were lawful for some of their neighbors.

Your equating Communism with atheism just makes me laugh. Sure Communist countries did lots of bad things, but blaming their atheism for that is completely ridiculous, you might as well blame it on their hair color!

So you went with the No True Scotsman Fallacy anyways. Figured you couldn't help yourself. You do realize that this very same argument can be used to counter your Christian persecution argument...right? Watch:

Your equating slave holders/gay persecution/the evils of the known world/fill in the blank___ with Christianity just makes me laugh. Sure slave holding/gay persecuting/blah blah blah countries did lots of bad things, but blaming their Christianity for that is completely ridiculous, you might as well blame it on their hair color!

I live in a Western democracy where there has always been separation of church and state, and where the number of non-religious people now outnumber the religious people, and which is regarded as among the best countries in the world to live... gee, what horrors atheism has wrought...

Now when you say "non-religious" do you mean that the majority of the people in your nation are "atheists" or that they simply do not ascribe to any one particular mainstream religion or denomination? Because, you do realize that "non-religious" is not exactly synonymous with "atheist", right?

Looking at this global analysis of the most, and least, religious countries in the world, I'd be personally totally happy with living in 9 of the top 10 listed most atheistic countries in the world, while I'd be okayish with living in only 3 of the top 10 listed most religious countries in the world. Seems to me like atheism makes for much better countries.

Again, "not-religious" is not synonymous with atheist, and they spell that out pretty clearly in your link. In fact, none of the nations on the list have an atheist majority. Not even China which has been under the stranglehold of state atheism since the purges and persecution of the Cultural Revolution! Confusingly enough, your link even counts the "Not-Religious" among believers! (16% of Christians, 20% Muslims, 54% of Jews, 12% of Hindus). Yeah...I don't think this global analysis says what you think it says.

[rogue06]

Edward Gibbon's view, that Christianity was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, is roundly rejected by modern Roman historians. Its far too simplistic, and simply not accurate.

Rome fell due to military, economic and administrative factors although you still find non-scholarly sources still parroting Gibbon

[Adrift]

Rome fell due to military, economic and administrative factors although you still find non-scholarly sources still parroting Gibbon

Yep. I've been doing quite a bit of study on the fall of the Western part of the empire, and I don't know how many times I've read or heard something to the effect, "The oft repeated claim by Gibbons, that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, is simply not accurate, and very few scholars still hold to it".

[Knowing Thomas]

Well Edward Gibbon famously argued that without Christianity, the Roman Empire wouldn't have fallen.

Yes, and America lost the Vietnam War due to letting minorities in the military.

[Enjolras]

The record that atheism has left us on the subject, not in 2000 years of history, but in less than 100 is far far more terrifying. Approximately 80 to 110 million civilians were killed by their own state within that period, and more were jailed, persecuted, and left destitute. You could combine all of the atrocities committed by the church in 2000 years, and it'd be a drop in the bucket compared to what's been done under Communist regimes since 1917. Now you might consider those particular atheist regimes some sort of secular religion, but that leads you to a sort of No True Scotsman territory. The truth is, any ideology can be twisted to do "bad stuff".

Atheism isn't an ideology, so the comparison to Christianity is not parallel. An atheist could be a communist or a democrat, a liberal or a conservative, a libertarian or a royalist. Saying someone is an atheist tells you one and only one thing about that person: he or she does not believe in a god or gods. That's it. It's hard to see how atheism per se had anything to do with murderous regimes; you need additional criteria to explain them (like dreams of a Communist utopia). I'm not saying Stalin wasn't a true atheist. I'm sure he was. It's just that him not believing in a god did not in and of itself lead him to believe or do anything else.

[Starlight]

Given that homosexuality is likely more nurture than nature based,

and that the concept of a "homosexual orientation" was completely and utterly foreign in the ancient world, chances are probably pretty good your friends wouldn't have much to worry about in Ancient Israel.

By that logic, England in the early 20th century shouldn't have had any homosexuals either since it was firmly anti-gay. The idea that by altering culture you can just make gay people stop existing is pretty hilarious.

Well...wait...who were the first to abolish slavery? An institution known world-over since the beginning of time....oh yeah, Christian nations. Hmm...

Christian Europe reintroduced the extinct idea of slavery in the 1500s. Yes, they eventually got rid of it again, but you can hardly praise Christian nations for abolishing slavery without condemning them for introducing it and engaging in it.

I'll remind you that the staunchest defenders of slavery was the extremely religious American South who required a lengthy war to force them to abandon slavery, which they extensively justified on religious grounds.

Did you know that the abolitionist and Civil Rights movements were practically entirely Christian movements!

Given that nearly everyone during those periods identified as Christians, that's pretty meaningless.

Do you think Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for gay sex? Do you regard the death penalty as persecution?

Yes, and outside of the context of the ancient theocracy that was Israel, yes.

....?!?
The rules for Israel are different?
Is this like American Exceptionalism but for Israel? Things are suddenly moral if it's Israel doing them??

Yeah, Israel was unique in many ways. For instance, the same penalty was also incurred for sex with boys and animals, while both were lawful for some of their neighbors.

And the Levitical laws have some pretty funky things in them - for example, God must have hated the Israelites quite a lot to prohibit them from eating tasty, tasty, bacon; and gotta love the rules against wearing two different fabrics at once; and sowing two kinds of seed in the same field, and so forth.

So you went with the No True Scotsman Fallacy anyways.

Er, so, while myself living in a very secular nation that is not terrible, was I supposed to take your assertions that secular nations are all terrible seriously? Cos I was kinda struggling with that one, for obvious reasons.

You do realize that this very same argument can be used to counter your Christian persecution argument...right? Watch:

Your equating slave holders/gay persecution/the evils of the known world/fill in the blank___ with Christianity just makes me laugh. Sure slave holding/gay persecuting/blah blah blah countries did lots of bad things, but blaming their Christianity for that is completely ridiculous, you might as well blame it on their hair color!

Er, like, have you been at all following the modern gay rights movement? You do know that Christianity is basically the sole motivating factor for opposition to gay rights in the Western world, right?

Very few, if any, of the various evils of extremist Communist regimes of the 20th century, can be closely or at all tied to their atheism, which is what I was pointing out. It's mostly causally irrelevant to their political policies. But what is absolutely clear is that Christianity is the primary cause of opposition to gay rights. So, no, the two cases are not the same at all in any way.

Now when you say "non-religious" do you mean that the majority of the people in your nation are "atheists" or that they simply do not ascribe to any one particular mainstream religion or denomination? Because, you do realize that "non-religious" is not exactly synonymous with "atheist", right?

I typically use the various terms "non-religious", "non-believer", "atheist", etc synonymously, because what I am usually talking about by such terms is the part of the population whose behavior and political views are not directly influenced by religious teachings. I don't normally find it useful or relevant to split up that group any further. What usually matters is differentiating people who act out of religious motivations from people who don't, and whatever terminology happens to be being used to refer to that difference is not normally particularly important.

Again, "not-religious" is not synonymous with atheist, and they spell that out pretty clearly in your link. In fact, none of the nations on the list have an atheist majority.

Who cares?
In lots of countries, the "atheists" plus "not-religious" combined clearly outnumber the "religious" by far. Secular is secular... who cares if it's nominally "atheist" or just "not-religious"... it makes no important difference.

Confusingly enough, your link even counts the "Not-Religious" among believers! (16% of Christians, 20% Muslims, 54% of Jews, 12% of Hindus).

Obviously people might say "oh I'm a Christian" if asked what religion they are, yet if asked to elaborate further might say "Oh, well my parents were Christians and I went to church once, but I don't really know what Christianity teaches, and I don't really believe any of it." People who are "nominal Christians" like that should be grouped as non-religious for purposes of thinking about which people are going to act out of religious motivations are which are not.

I don't think this global analysis says what you think it says.

Your reading of it is kinda irrelevant to my basic point that the least religious countries in the present day are pretty much all great countries, and the most religious countries are pretty much all terrible countries. So looking at various countries in the world like you suggested tells us that religion=bad and secularism=good.

[Adrift]

Atheism isn't an ideology, so the comparison to Christianity is not parallel. An atheist could be a communist or a democrat, a liberal or a conservative, a libertarian or a royalist. Saying someone is an atheist tells you one and only one thing about that person: he or she does not believe in a god or gods. That's it. It's hard to see how atheism per se had anything to do with murderous regimes; you need additional criteria to explain them (like dreams of a Communist utopia). I'm not saying Stalin wasn't a true atheist. I'm sure he was. It's just that him not believing in a god did not in and of itself lead him to believe or do anything else.

Going with that argument, "Theism" isn't an ideology either. It tells us only one thing about a person, that he/she believes in a god or gods. But an atheist regime, on the other hand, is based on ideology, just as much as any theocratic regime would be.

Phil Zuckerman, Professor of sociology with a specialization in atheism and secularity writes in his book Atheism and Secularity:

Source: Atheism and Secularity by Phil Zuckerman

Since the CCP established the People's Republic of China in 1949, atheism has been emphasized and elevated theoretically in the national ideology because of the consideration of uniting people and their thought. In the ideological dictionary of the CCP, atheism is a basic doctrine that manifests in two major forms: scientific atheism and militant atheism. Scientific atheism as the outcome of the European Enlightenment Movement, regards religion as illusory or false consciousness, nonscientific, and backward, so that atheist's propaganda is necessary to cripple religion with the advancement of science and education. In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religions as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of the antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.

© Copyright Original Source

And talking about irreligion in British Society, Zuckerman states:

Source: Atheism and Secularity by Phil Zuckerman

As passionate religion fell out of fashion, so too did fervent denial of it. Secular societies declined in number and membership, and the movement gradually died down. Though public intellectuals like Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, and Chapham Cohen kept on denying God in their writing and speeches, atheism as a movement lay dormant in Britain for decades. But the stage had been set, and atheistic opinions had lodged themselves in the British mind: as the twentieth century progressed, British opinion on the subject evolved slowly and without fanfare toward acceptance of atheism as a legitimate ideology.

© Copyright Original Source

That said, most atheists don't act as though there is no ideology to their atheism. New Atheism, and Atheism Plus both have other components that go beyond "he/she doesn't believe in god/s. Even you and the other atheists here find yourselves in conflict with theists over a multitude of issues outside the strict and narrow "I don't believe in god/s".

[Adrift]

Not sure why you're laughing. Even advocates are giving up that particular argument: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-gay-gene.html

By that logic, England in the early 20th century shouldn't have had any homosexuals either since it was firmly anti-gay. The idea that by altering culture you can just make gay people stop existing is pretty hilarious.

You said that you read historical surveys on homosexuality. Are you telling me that you didn't know, and that you currently deny that the concept of homosexual orientation is a relatively modern concept?

....?!?
The rules for Israel are different?

Well...yeah. Didn't you know that was the Christian view?

Is this like American Exceptionalism but for Israel? Things are suddenly moral if it's Israel doing them??

I don't know what American Exceptionalism is, and I don't really understand your second question here. What do you mean suddenly? Under the Christian view, the civil law of Israel was only in affect as long as Israel was able to put their civil laws into affect. By the time they were made a Roman province they no longer had the ability to institute the death penalty (legally). Upon Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, the old covenant between God and Israel was fulfilled, and a new covenant, a covenant of grace, was established to the whole world.

And the Levitical laws have some pretty funky things in them - for example, God must have hated the Israelites quite a lot to prohibit them from eating tasty, tasty, bacon; and gotta love the rules against wearing two different fabrics at once; and sowing two kinds of seed in the same field, and so forth.

Yes. Ceremonial laws were in effect to keep them distinct from surrounding cultures. Don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a nation that had some quirky ideas about bacon than about pedophilia.

Er, so, while myself living in a very secular nation that is not terrible, was I supposed to take your assertions that secular nations are all terrible seriously? Cos I was kinda struggling with that one, for obvious reasons.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Er, like, have you been at all following the modern gay rights movement? You do know that Christianity is basically the sole motivating factor for opposition to gay rights in the Western world, right?

Very few, if any, of the various evils of extremist Communist regimes of the 20th century, can be closely or at all tied to their atheism, which is what I was pointing out. It's mostly causally irrelevant to their political policies. But what is absolutely clear is that Christianity is the primary cause of opposition to gay rights. So, no, the two cases are not the same at all in any way.

I think you'll find much disagreement that resistance to "gay rights" is tantamount to persecution, or that "rights" are what are being resisted at all. Regardless, not all Christians have a political agenda that amounts to resistance to anyone's rights. There are plenty of Christian libertarians and apolitical types who's focus is elsewhere.

I typically use the various terms "non-religious", "non-believer", "atheist", etc synonymously, because what I am usually talking about by such terms is the part of the population whose behavior and political views are not directly influenced by religious teachings. I don't normally find it useful or relevant to split up that group any further. What usually matters is differentiating people who act out of religious motivations from people who don't, and whatever terminology happens to be being used to refer to that difference is not normally particularly important.

Who cares?
In lots of countries, the "atheists" plus "not-religious" combined clearly outnumber the "religious" by far. Secular is secular... who cares if it's nominally "atheist" or just "not-religious"... it makes no important difference.

What? Dude, you may not find terminology awfully important, but you're probably not going to get far in convincing people of your point of view when you're making up your own definitions for common words. Who cares? I care.

Obviously people might say "oh I'm a Christian" if asked what religion they are, yet if asked to elaborate further might say "Oh, well my parents were Christians and I went to church once, but I don't really know what Christianity teaches, and I don't really believe any of it.

The paper you linked literally called them "Believers". Likely what they mean is not those who say "I don't really believe any of it", but those who do not regularly attend church or are especially zealous.

Your reading of it is kinda irrelevant to my basic point that the least religious countries in the present day are pretty much all great countries, and the most religious countries are pretty much all terrible countries. So looking at various countries in the world like you suggested tells us that religion=bad and secularism=good.

Most of your least religious countries are still highly religious (in most cases, predominantly so). Your point is irrelevant.

[Enjolras]

Going with that argument, "Theism" isn't an ideology either. It tells us only one thing about a person, that he/she believes in a god or gods.

That's true.

But an atheist regime, on the other hand, is based on ideology, just as much as any theocratic regime would be.

There is no content to atheism per se, and there is very little content to theism per se (the belief in the existence of god(s)). You need additional ideas to form an ideology, which is what is implied in referring to a regime. But there is no reason for an atheist to think a regime must follow upon the rejection of belief in gods. I don't believe in fairies either, should my fellow a-fairyists somehow conclude this lack of belief should be forced upon others?

Christianity however, is not simply 'theism.' There is significant content to it which many have used to justify the atrocities before mentioned. It is also true that Christianity has led to much good in the world. In my view, this simply shows the Bible is a mixed bag of good and bad. You could argue that all the bad things Christians have done has been the result of disobeying or misreading scripture, but that reminds me of those who defend Islam in the same way by saying 'true' Islam is a really religion of peace, and ISIS is completely distorting the loving teachings of Mohammed.

Phil Zuckerman, Professor of sociology with a specialization in atheism and secularity writes in his book Atheism and Secularity:

Source: Atheism and Secularity by Phil Zuckerman

Since the CCP established the People's Republic of China in 1949, atheism has been emphasized and elevated theoretically in the national ideology because of the consideration of uniting people and their thought. In the ideological dictionary of the CCP, atheism is a basic doctrine that manifests in two major forms: scientific atheism and militant atheism. Scientific atheism as the outcome of the European Enlightenment Movement, regards religion as illusory or false consciousness, nonscientific, and backward, so that atheist's propaganda is necessary to cripple religion with the advancement of science and education. In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religions as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of the antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.

© Copyright Original Source

Propaganda and force are not inherent to non-belief in a god, even though some have chosen that path. That's my point: these regimes have other factors contributing to their authoritarianism.

And talking about irreligion in British Society, Zuckerman states:

Source: Atheism and Secularity by Phil Zuckerman

As passionate religion fell out of fashion, so too did fervent denial of it. Secular societies declined in number and membership, and the movement gradually died down. Though public intellectuals like Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, and Chapham Cohen kept on denying God in their writing and speeches, atheism as a movement lay dormant in Britain for decades. But the stage had been set, and atheistic opinions had lodged themselves in the British mind: as the twentieth century progressed, British opinion on the subject evolved slowly and without fanfare toward acceptance of atheism as a legitimate ideology.

© Copyright Original Source

That said, most atheists don't act as though there is no ideology to their atheism. New Atheism, and Atheism Plus both have other components that go beyond "he/she doesn't believe in god/s. Even you and the other atheists here find yourselves in conflict with theists over a multitude of issues outside the strict and narrow "I don't believe in god/s".

That's true. I think it's interesting how many atheists seem to assume that not believing in god(s) means you must necessarily be in favor of abortion, for example, or you must be a liberal or Democrat. I don't see how one entails the other. Most atheists obviously do have other beliefs as well as their non-belief in god, which is why there are conflicts in areas other that those dealing strictly with belief in God.