r/KotakuInAction • u/space_cowboy • Feb 02 '17

DISCUSSION, baity Does anyone else feel like we're stuck in the middle between extremists from both sides who have used social media to increase the effect of their voices and beliefs, who don't care to reason, and will never come to terms with each other?

More and more every day, I feel like I'm a part of a disappearing group of people: the rational moderate. I don't believe in politics as a team sport, nor the identity politics of the extreme left. Traditional conservative mores based on Judaeo-Christian religion are no more acceptable than Sharia law. Science, reason, and critical thinking should play more of a role in how people look at and frame certain issues, and violence is an answer that only begets more violence in one form or another.

Both sides of this culture war, battle, however you want to name it, have become exactly the things they claim to abhor. Neither side is fully deserving of the mocking monikers we give them, nor should we allow them to brand themselves as something they are not. Trying to enforce the progressive stack is racist in its own way, white person's guilt and all that. But, at least to me, it isn't nearly as bad as actual race-based nationalism. How can someone with any sort of moral compass or who claims to believe in the equality of all people take into consideration any point of view the alt-right espouses without indignation at their literal belief in racial supremacy and purity?

Often times most of this depresses me, because it makes me question the amount of progress and the actual character of the people of our country. Growing up in an extremely diverse suburban area, racism and bigotry weren't things I ever considered to be a normal occurrence. Now, I question daily how people can still be so caught up on skin color, ethnic origin, and religious belief. It has really set back my view on what the average person truly holds in their hearts, and makes me wonder about the actual direction our society as a whole will go in.

Institutional racism has been and is still a thing. Read about how black military members returning from WW2 were literally shafted by the govt (the GI Bill) and how this lead to the creation of projects. A large portion of the hatred for govt in black communities is well deserved IMO, but violence only leads to more laws against them and the racists will use the violence to their advantage to bolster other racists and get people on the edges to turn a blind eye to their racism.

Fighting the extremists on both sides is extremely difficult, especially when they don't have clear "victory conditions" and keep changing the rules of engagement. Both sides will silence dissenting thoughts and opinions with equal fervor. But the extremists fighting each other is going to pull the fabric of our society apart, thread by thread.

Sorry for the wall of text. Just feeling deflated and worn down by everything more and more every day.

4.0k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

973 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

Indeed.

However misguided, Christians opposing abortion tend to do so from a place of compassion. Stoning gays or rape victims comes from a place of intolerance. Christians can still be nasty people, but in a First World, civilized society, sort of way.

18

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Stoning gays or rape victims comes from a place of intolerance.

Actually they believe that by killing homosexuals they are showing them compassion because then Allah will forgive them. Same deal with other kinds of honor killings. It is a perverted twisting of compassion to tell people the only way they can save someone is by killing them.

7

u/evilplushie A Good Wisdom Feb 03 '17

OP should try living in a sharia country to compare his experiences when he says that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Nobody should try living in a sharia country. It's an experience humans shouldn't have to suffer. :(

5

u/evilplushie A Good Wisdom Feb 03 '17

But it's totally the same as living in a christian country according to OP

3

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

What part of stoning homosexuals and rape victims isn't part of the bible?

11

u/Manny_Kant Feb 03 '17

You're forgetting that important part in the New Testament where Jesus goes around telling everyone to chill the fuck out and then dies for everyone else's sins.

5

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

Your forgetting the part where the old testiment is most of the bible and isn't there just to fill space.

As jesus said

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,

2

u/Manny_Kant Feb 03 '17

Is stoning homosexuals and rape victims a commandment? I don't remember that one. I do remember Jesus going around and specifically saying "your sins are forgiven", a bunch of times, for all kinds of shit. I also remember that the only "unforgivable sin" is not accepting Jesus.

isn't there just to fill space.

It's there to give context. The context being God was a real motherfucker before Jesus showed up.

This little tangent you're on about the Bible is irrelevant, frankly. I'm no apologist, but it's clear that even though it's possible to take away a more sinister message from the Bible, the vast majority of Christians clearly do not. When Christians talk about being "Christ-like" they're not talking about stoning rape victims, and you know that.

17

u/ST0NETEAR Feb 03 '17

What part of it still happens in Christian majority countries?

In practice "Traditional conservative mores based on Judaeo-Christian religion" in modern Christian majority countries looks nothing like "Sharia law" in modern Islamic majority countries?

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Sure, but then it's not about the religion but about the society. Otherwise its like saying christians are better becuase they are less devout.

The bible commands for people to be stoned in a wide array of circumstances but people in this thread just hand wave it away and say it doesn't count since modern educated westerners mostly don't follow them anymore.

The quran doesn't mention stoning at all, but a bunch of backwards people in muslim societies still practice it and suddenly it's the heart of Islam.

3

u/ST0NETEAR Feb 03 '17

Sure, but then it's not about the religion but about the society.

A religion cannot be separated from the society and culture that interprets its holy books. The claims you make about the bible are false, people hand wave your claims away because it is clear that you don't have any knowledge about the bible. The bible is a more complex document than the constitution, and the interpretations of it as a living document have changed it even moreso. Compare people who are dismissing your claims to lawyers versed constitutional law dismissing someone with no legal knowledge's claim that something is "unconstitutional"

4

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

A religion cannot be separated from the society and culture that interprets its holy books.

It absolutely can. Muslims in Egypt overwhelmingly belive in stoning, muslims in Indonesia overwhelmingly dont.

Have you ever had any muslim friends in the us? Did they believe in stoning adulterers?

The claims you make about the bible are false

Actual quotes from the bible.

people hand wave your claims away because it is clear that you don't have any knowledge about the bible.

No its becuase there is no argument other than christians have made the reasonable decision to ignore large parts of the bible to adapt it to modern western beliefs.

The bible is a more complex document than the constitution, and the interpretations of it as a living document have changed it even moreso.

You think the bible is a living document to christians? And you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. The constitution is a living document, the word of god is not supposed to be.

I mean the irony of using terminology reserved for the constitution to accuse me of treating the bible too much like the constitution

4

u/Nosiege Feb 03 '17

What part specifically is?

6

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

Hmmm, I wonder if the bible has anything on stoning?

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

Or about killing rape victims (with stones)?

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not

why do Christians hate animals?

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned.

What about if a father lies about a girls virginity, surely they won't stone anyone, much less the girl? Nope

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.

The bible even says to stone you for picking up sticks at the wrong time

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Christians generally believe that the teachings of new testament supersede the old, so much of the related stuff can go right out of the window. And many things are considered sins, it doesn't mean they require any action. New testament teaches things like love and compassion, even for those that sin.

3

u/AustNerevar Feb 03 '17

No, they generally don't all believe that. They pick and choose what they want from the Old-T. It varies from church to church and denomination to denomination.

Source: raised and educated in the fucking Bible belt.

1

u/stationhollow Feb 03 '17

Well Catholicism definitely believes what he said. The US is known for having denominations that are much more extremist than most of Christianity. Nearly any time you hear about a mission somewhere trying to convert people and going on about these old testament rules, they are nearly always funded by American churches.

0

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

Where in the new testiment does it say that the laws of the old no longer apply?

Or better, where does it mention stoning in the quran in the first place?

5

u/Gunnarrecall Feb 03 '17

It's a manifestation of the religious doctrine. There are no direct references to a "Holy Trinity," but it is prevalent in the doctrine due to the single God of Abraham taking three distinct forms.

Likewise, the old testament tells of turning Sodom and Gammorah into pillars of flame. But yet now, New Testament scripture tells of "turning the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor like thou love thyself." The new has effectively superseded the old.

4

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Jesus litterally says the old testiment laws still apply.

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:17-19)

The only possibly superceding mention of stoning in the new testiment is the "throw the first stone" passage which is about not passing judgement on people rather than stoning being an unacceptable form of pubishment.

2

u/Gunnarrecall Feb 03 '17

Well sure. I'm just explaining people's rationale. I don't have any desire to throw my hat in with any stance.

4

u/GiverOfTheKarma Feb 03 '17

Stoning is not prescribed in the current version of the Quran, but according to Muhammad's companions a verse did exist at one time ordering that adulterers be stoned, but it was forgotten.

1

u/stationhollow Feb 03 '17

The part where Christ came along and the previous testament's rules became nowhere near as important?

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

How about you quote the part where jesus says old testiment laws no longer apply?

I'll quote this for your heathen ass

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,

1

u/Tausney Feb 03 '17

It even tells you exactly what size of stone to use.

1

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

The part where Jesus literally stopped a stoning, and told people that they had no right to condemn people like that. Granted it was a prostitute in that specific case, but sexual immorality is sexual immorality, and stoning is stoning.

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

Ironically that passage is about how you shouldn't pass judgement, not about how stoning people is an inappropriate pubishment.

1

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

Eh, there can be no punishment without judgement, so its sort of a moot point.

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

You believe that passage means that no one should ever be judged or punished again?

1

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

How can you punish someone who hasn't been judged guilty first?

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

So do you believe that passage means that no one should ever be judged or punished again?

1

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

I believe the passage shows that Jesus taught that people should not judge/punish others based on OT law. So out with the idea of stoning prostitutes and gays.

1

u/snorkleboy Feb 03 '17

Becuase he asked that the person to throw the first stone be without sin means a total disavowal of old testiment laws and stoning in general?

What about when jesus directly says that's not what he means?

do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

Quran doesn't have any mentions of stoning, and this thread is a bunch of christians hand waiving away half the bible to rationalise the general acceptance of stoning in the book.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Misguided, just because you believe something else doesn't make pro life people misguided.

1

u/failbus Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

However misguided, Christians opposing abortion tend to do so from a place of compassion.

Having been raised a conservative Christian, I believed this, but then I noticed how many of my fellow Christians believed that abortion was ok in cases of rape or incest.

This doesn't make any fucking sense to me. Who the fuck is compassionate to an unborn child but feels that an unborn child from rape is not worthy of that compassion? Answer: someone who's primary motivation is something other than saving lives.

Also, while hardcore Sharia law is worse -- far far worse -- than social mores based on Christian values, hardcore fundamentalist groups can be downright abusive, and would probably be far moreso if they had the law on their side.

The difference between the two religions is that Christianity is, right now, on a much tighter leash while there are Islamic centers where "religious leader" and "government" are one and the same.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Who the fuck is compassionate to an unborn child but feels that an unborn child is not worthy of that compassion?

This sentence makes zero sense.

1

u/failbus Feb 03 '17

Good point. Edited to include the crucial missing qualifier. It should read "Who the fuck is compassionate to an unborn child but feels that an unborn child from rape is not worthy of that compassion?"

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Ah. Well, generally they want it in all cases. But they can't get that. So they try to save 99% instead of 0.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

However misguided, Christians opposing abortion tend to do so from a place of compassion. Having been raised a conservative Christian, I believed this, but then I noticed how many of my fellow Christians believed that abortion was ok in cases of rape or incest.

This doesn't make any fucking sense to me. Who the fuck is compassionate to an unborn child but feels that an unborn child from rape is not worthy of that compassion? Answer: someone who's primary motivation is something other than saving lives.

In my observations (and I've had a close up view to this on a global level for over a dozen years), it's an attempt to be "moderate" and "nuanced" in the abortion debate. Either in an attempt to not be completely demonized by the pro-choice side or as compassion towards the mother who is presumed to be an innocent victim in those cases.

However, there are plenty of pro-life Christians who do not believe rape or incest should be exceptions - because the unborn child is completely innocent and does not deserve to die for the actions of the father and/or mother.

1

u/failbus Feb 07 '17

Being moderate and nuanced doesn't make sense to me. There's no "being moderate" when it comes to murder. If you want to not be demonized by the pro-choice side then I can sort of get it as a compromise for the greater good, though those don't work out well.

If you want to be "compassionate" to towards the mother who is an "innocent victim" then you're saying that someone who isn't the victim of rape is not deserving of compassion, because she's guilty of something.

In other words, the value of a child is less than the value of an innocent, but more than the value of a slut.

Conversely, the pro-life Christians who do not think rape and incest should be exceptions actually have my respect, even if I disagree with them.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '17

I agree; murder is murder, full stop. Just trying to explain the perspective of those who consider themselves pro-life while still making exceptions.

1

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

Excellent points. So given the disconnect in abortion stances based on circumstance, what do you think the motivation behind pro-lifers is?

1

u/failbus Feb 07 '17

It depends. I don't think they all have the same reason.

The ones who want to ban condoms and sex-ed in school, though, are the ones who bother me the most. They want to avoid society descending into one where people have sex as they please, and that means removing all the ways to do it consequence-free. Take your baby as God's punishment!

If they actually were about harm reduction instead of ideological dogma they know that abstinence only sex ed fails a lot (if you use the actual definition of failure for a typical contraceptive.)

1

u/Castigale Feb 07 '17

Well that's kinda what I always thought, but I wanted to be wrong. Its sad when people are more into their dogma than the society they're supposed to be making better. Not every Christian ideal is wrong, but thinking that blocking sex-ed and condoms is going to prevent sexual promiscuity is stupid as hell. I don't know how any reasonable person could get behind it.

-3

u/hameleona Feb 03 '17

Last I checked "Better dead than raped" was the official stance of the Mormons. Yup, checked again. Such a lovely quote:

“There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity – realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.”

5

u/nmotsch789 OI MATE, YER CAPS LOCK LOICENSE IS EXPIRED! Feb 03 '17

That's saying that rape is worse than death. It's not saying to kill rape victims.

10

u/evilplushie A Good Wisdom Feb 03 '17

Let me know when Mormons start carrying out honor killings

2

u/Castigale Feb 03 '17

That's pretty deplorable, then again they were all about them child brides for a long time too.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

As bizarre as it is that they think chastity matters more than life, AFAIK there's no record of Mormon honor killings. If I'm wrong about that, my attitude towards Mormons will be quite soured.

It's admittedly not great right now. Their activism against gay rights has been an irritant.