Duder
Over 750 post club
Brent -
This results from a curious feature of human behavior, most likely a product of our evolution. Early, multi-family tribes banded together for mutual defence against predators or against other tribes. It is simply a matter of animal instinct - when you are threatened you want safety in numbers and you look to team up with allies against the threat. An enemy is the catalyst for the group's sense of unity.
The human environment is very different in the modern world - we are no longer in danger of being eaten by lions or speared by enemy bushmen on the morning walk to work. But the instinct or the habit remains. For our groups to hold together, they need enemies. Notice how every in-group hates or ridicules some out-group. For example, in order for my friends and I to feel like compassionate, enlightened liberals, we need to be able to point to a group of coldhearted and ignorent right-wing reactionaries - in other words, an enemy with which to hold our group in contrast.
Most of the Christians here are doing the same thing. In order for them to maintain their cohesiveness as a group of God's children, they need to define a group of devil's agents. And when you see their rabid hatred of fags, liberals, Muslims or whomever, all they are doing is trying as best they can to draw closer to one another.
It is a curious feature of human nature, is it not , that in order for me to love you I am required to hate someone else?
Once you understand this, you can transcend it with the aid of God's grace. You can compensate for it. You gave a good example of it yourself when you said that, even though you don't particularly like homosexuals, you don't need to make them evil so that you can feel good about being straight! Sure, you feel that little twinge of homophobia - so do I. But we recognizing it as no more than an outmoded evolutionary holdover, and we can laugh it off and proceed with our lives untroubled by it.
Oops! You backslid a little bit here. You are playing the same game as the Christians! In order to feel like a loving soul, you want to criminalize hatered. It's the same trap - the same primal throwback. You're playing the game of "I'm more tolerant than you".
Besides, it would be grossly unconstitutional to outlaw what is in people's hearts, or to outlaw organizations that promote it.
Again, you go too far. I agree that every citizen is bound to abide by the constitution. But the constitution is only a document - a piece of paper. It is a symbol only - a symbol that stands for something. It is not the thing itself - only a symbol of the thing.
This is what Christians fail to understand about the Bible. The scriptures are like a finger pointing the way to God, but instead of looking to where the finger points, the Christians commit the error of idolarty and suck the finger for comfort.
Don't make the same mistake about the constitution. It points to something higher than itself. The constitution does not want to be worshipped - it wants you to behave yourself in accord with higher principles that cannot exactly be codified. So don't condemn people for looking beyond the constitution. That is what wise people do!
So you see what I was getting at. Throwback, primative groups maintain their identity only in opposition against other groups. Real religion is meant to move people out of this primative condition - to broaden their loyalties and their spheres of concern and compassion. Religion is not the problem, it is the solution. But religion is a hard thing to find. Most people slide right back into their comfortable, unchallenging tribalism and call it religion. Others, as you will find if you hang out on this board for a while, have seen through the game of black and white and want others to break out of it, too.
Please don't think I was picking on you - I've enjoyed your thoughts and if I'm taking issue it's in a friendly way.
Welcome to the board!
This results from a curious feature of human behavior, most likely a product of our evolution. Early, multi-family tribes banded together for mutual defence against predators or against other tribes. It is simply a matter of animal instinct - when you are threatened you want safety in numbers and you look to team up with allies against the threat. An enemy is the catalyst for the group's sense of unity.
The human environment is very different in the modern world - we are no longer in danger of being eaten by lions or speared by enemy bushmen on the morning walk to work. But the instinct or the habit remains. For our groups to hold together, they need enemies. Notice how every in-group hates or ridicules some out-group. For example, in order for my friends and I to feel like compassionate, enlightened liberals, we need to be able to point to a group of coldhearted and ignorent right-wing reactionaries - in other words, an enemy with which to hold our group in contrast.
Most of the Christians here are doing the same thing. In order for them to maintain their cohesiveness as a group of God's children, they need to define a group of devil's agents. And when you see their rabid hatred of fags, liberals, Muslims or whomever, all they are doing is trying as best they can to draw closer to one another.
It is a curious feature of human nature, is it not , that in order for me to love you I am required to hate someone else?
Once you understand this, you can transcend it with the aid of God's grace. You can compensate for it. You gave a good example of it yourself when you said that, even though you don't particularly like homosexuals, you don't need to make them evil so that you can feel good about being straight! Sure, you feel that little twinge of homophobia - so do I. But we recognizing it as no more than an outmoded evolutionary holdover, and we can laugh it off and proceed with our lives untroubled by it.
Oops! You backslid a little bit here. You are playing the same game as the Christians! In order to feel like a loving soul, you want to criminalize hatered. It's the same trap - the same primal throwback. You're playing the game of "I'm more tolerant than you".
Besides, it would be grossly unconstitutional to outlaw what is in people's hearts, or to outlaw organizations that promote it.
Again, you go too far. I agree that every citizen is bound to abide by the constitution. But the constitution is only a document - a piece of paper. It is a symbol only - a symbol that stands for something. It is not the thing itself - only a symbol of the thing.
This is what Christians fail to understand about the Bible. The scriptures are like a finger pointing the way to God, but instead of looking to where the finger points, the Christians commit the error of idolarty and suck the finger for comfort.
Don't make the same mistake about the constitution. It points to something higher than itself. The constitution does not want to be worshipped - it wants you to behave yourself in accord with higher principles that cannot exactly be codified. So don't condemn people for looking beyond the constitution. That is what wise people do!
So you see what I was getting at. Throwback, primative groups maintain their identity only in opposition against other groups. Real religion is meant to move people out of this primative condition - to broaden their loyalties and their spheres of concern and compassion. Religion is not the problem, it is the solution. But religion is a hard thing to find. Most people slide right back into their comfortable, unchallenging tribalism and call it religion. Others, as you will find if you hang out on this board for a while, have seen through the game of black and white and want others to break out of it, too.
Please don't think I was picking on you - I've enjoyed your thoughts and if I'm taking issue it's in a friendly way.
Welcome to the board!
