God's law or private law?

[The Grand Nudger]

1) Well if I shared that view I would go all the way. Why not just create an all male population while we’re on it? That would spare neighboring countries from the current refugee crisis lol

[quote pid='2132625' dateline='1672481622']
Not really sure how that's going all the way with anything..as if it followed from any of those beliefs that your co-religionists hold..but it's not surprising to see another non sequitur used as a dismissal.  
 

2) That’s the atheist point of view and I respect that because it’s an entirely legitimate point of view (as I have already admitted). But being someone who is religious myself and having read the books of really serious theologians (who were even guest professors on Islamic faith in the U.S.) I think I know enough to claim all of these territories of distortion and ugliness back for myself :

It's not just the atheist point of view, as you don't have to be an atheist to hold it.  It's the logically consistent point of view, and I see how little that matters as soon as it's inconvenient for your own beliefs about magic books.  
 

3) I’m starting to think that my arguments seem a little too theoretical for you because I mostly gave example from my own culture or from the Hindu belief system. You’re from a Judeo Christian tradition and you seem to be more knowledgeable on that. So you could check out just one chapter (of your own choice) from Marianne Williamson. She was a democratic presidential candidate in 2019 and is from a Jewish family and you probably have friends or relatives who own one of her books. Just read one chapter from any book. This is intended to give you an idea on what I would call “our 21st century way of approaching such issues”.

They don't seem "too theoretical".   They appear to be inconsistent, poorly researched, and irrational.  Meanwhile, I'm not from any tradition, not a democrat, don't give a shit about whether a person is from a jewish family, and I certainly won't find any such book in any friend or relatives house.  A quick bit of googling tells me she's one of the nuts that got wrapped up in some other nuts new age babble - "converting to christ" and, like you, relies on the mistaken notion that any terrible thing in a magic book was a misinterpretation.  

Magic books say terrible things because those terrible beliefs were common to their authors.  They were not, then, seen to be terrible the way you see them now.  They are not deviations from the original message, they are the original message.  In this, the people and the forms of religion you have no time for are more faithful to the original message than your own.  As I've mentioned before, I do appreciate that beliefs like yours and hers are an improvement over some others - but that's obviously from a secular point of view, and whatever improvement may be had it isn't well served by any of the arguments you've made.  

To borrow from you, up above, I think you might want to look into going all the way with this rejection of the original message of your respective faiths.  To acknowledge that you're creating your own new gods, your own new religions.  I understand that in lieu of having any reason to believe x, people will often invoke tradition, and in this it seems like it might be useful to capture the very notion of tradition's perceived authority from others - but like so much else in this thread, traditional authority is irrelevant with respect to whether or not a religious belief is ugly or irrational - no indication that a belief is accurate, and it is no argument whatsoever for following such a belief in life.  






[/quote]