Several points about this. Firstly, I wasn't the one who began the notion of 'sacred=From God' in the Christian context. That was Archtype who set down that little clause there, you can see it from the previous discussion and I did not challenge it for the sake of not over-complicating the debate. I do not considering sacred to be constructed from that notion. I discussed things in a Christian context because that's what Archtype was arguing for.NightHawk21 said:
Secondly, you bring up cultural anthropology, which is a good call. But the excuse that 'you have to consider the cultural aspects of the times' completely refutes Archtype's use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality as well. If you can call ownership of women an aspect of the cultural context, then condemnation of homosexuality by 'God's will' can also be interpreted as an aspect of cultural context. That was my point by highlighting those various Bible verses at the end of my statement, obviously those practices are part of an older culture and I was inferring that the condemnation of homosexuality was of the same vein. This is what I meant by cherry picking passages from the Bible, all the terrible stuff in the Bible is in a 'cultural context' while everything that supports their own opinion is relevant. They can just hand-wave things they don't like because of cultural context. I reject that notion. If you're using the Bible as any kind of moral guideline and system, you'd better be ready to admit when even passages you favour are cultural context, which Archtype did not do.
Also, you don't need to lecture to me about the Torah and the Quran, I'm well aware of the history of both.
Thirdly, actually yes, if you are completely devoted to a religious text as truth and use it to back up your arguments with 'because God said so' you are an anti-intellectual slave. Surrendering to such a dogmatic stance completely invalidates any attempt at logic or reason. The use of 'God says so' is an immature stance that is simply you pushing away responsibility for your own opinions. It is a cowardly and irrational position. As other people have pointed on this thread, Archtype ignores critical thinking by using selective evidence in order to back up his claims. He hand-waves off criticism of his beliefs without actually considering them. Despite what you think from my post, I actually do consider the other side constantly. I'm a libertarian, but I don't treat Ayn Rand's works as dogmatic belief. I regularly read a communist newspaper called Spartacus and several liberal media blogs. I'm an atheist, but I've also read works such as 'the Signature of God' which attempts to explain how the Bible represents an absolute truth. I do consider the other side, but when I find their arguments lacking I will call them out on it. I mean, hell, go look up the 'when will religion die out?' thread where I actively defend the concept of spirituality against a more militant atheist (might be locked though). When Archtype completely dismisses subjective morality by saying that atheists changes their minds quickly (can be seen above in his discussion with someone else) this shows his lack of critical thinking or even his ability to comprehend what he's arguing against. I mean, just look at his counter-argument to the same statement that you quoted. It's filled with dogmatic faith that absolutely disregards actual evidence and he completely ignores points that confirmed by historians and theologists, such as mistranslations of the Bible. He then has the gall to call me ignorant of Biblical teachings despite offering no successful counterargument. His argument is not one of reason. It doesn't matter what your book of choice is: the Bible, Torah, the Communist Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged, etc. if you use that as dogma that you feel somehow validates your opinion then yes, you are an anti-intellectual slave to a dogmatic faith.
Fourthly, your comment on the New Testament interests me. Have you read the New Testament? It has many questionable passages as well. For example, Jesus Christ shows support of slavery multiple times, including Ephesians 6:5, where he says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Of course you'll say this is merely cultural context again, but my point is this: how exactly do you determine what is cultural context and what isn't in the Bible? It seems that consistently its a case of 'when God says something good and moral, that's legitimate, when he says something bad or immoral to our standards, that's just cultural context.' This is a horribly questionable means of determining this and I reject it.
Also, to your comment about 'no proof': well, this is no problem when it is a personal belief in spirituality. But when you're attempting to force your own morality on other people, in this example, gay marriage, then yes, I expect you to have some evidence. Why should religion be immune to this? If it is an individual belief in some power or what-not, that's fine. But when you actively argue that society or institutions should be shaped towards your moral beliefs then yes, you require evidence. If Archtype doesn't want to marry a man, that's completely fine. But when he argues that other people should conform to his belief simply because it's in the Bible, he needs to back that up with some actual logic, not just 'lol secularism' and saying my points are wrong when they are not. I can back this shit up with academic, peer-reviewed sources, I doubt he can do the same.
Finally, note how I did not say anything openly against moderate Christians in general (cept possibly the cherry picking comment, but even you admit that cultural context is used to shift through passages). If someone reads the Bible, critically thinks about it, and accepts aspects of it as truth then I have no problem. But as I said before, the use of 'because of the Bible said so' reasoning is not an intellectual argument by any means. It's a dogmatic one. I did, however, offer up a critique on the relationship between modern Christians and the Bible, which you attempted to counter. I can't say that I haven't heard these arguments before and they can't be refuted easily, but your argument was far more effective then Archtype's because you did expand on your points with evidence that is actually legitimate. You stated theological facts, rather then just using the 'God said so' argument, which is a far more effective means. If you are Christian, you do attempt to convey your arguments constructively. What I don't understand is why you would back up someone who is clearly part of that group giving Christians a bad name. Why don't moderate Christians challenge the fundamentalists and the absolutists more? Instead, Archtype gets to use your post as a nice little defensive shield against criticism. If you guys really want atheists to stop grouping Christians together, take a stand and challenge the irrationalists.
The mental gymnastics that modern christianity basically presupposes break your logic center.
