Originally Posted by
Grendel
Listen, man. I don't have a single problem with your logic. There was a time when I believed the Mega Smiteman Big-G God was a thing, and back then, I might've agreed with you.
What I can't look past now is what happens when you look at the abrahamic ban on homosexuality through an evo-biology lens. Christianity didn't just punish same-sex activity, traditionally it abhorred any sexual interaction that wasn't no-movement benis-in-bagina missionary-position for the strict purpose of reproduction. That last part is what puts the gay-ban in a whole different light.
If a culture bans any expression of sexuality that doesn't result in breeding, and the human population naturally has a sex drive as it has through the whole of history, they're gonna breed a lot. Their numbers will exceed that of any other group that condones non-reproductive sex activity. They'll have more followers. They'll have larger armies. They'll be the likeliest group to survive through a filter event, and they will be selected for much like a trait is selected in evolution.
Catholics often don't even try to hide this intention as they're also the harshest against any form of contraception.
It's also no secret that Judaism was the one that started the stone-the-gaize practice. And the takeaway many historians get from studying Judaism over time was that its practices were highly concerned with preserving the Hebrew culture's longevity and social cohesion by any means necessary. This was an army of people who invaded countries, committed mass-rapes, and plundered lands for resources. Their "eugenic" practices, their pragmatism, was directly responsible for the religion lasting as long as it did, and bits of this pragmatism, but not the whole of it, survived into Christianity.
And if your God is concerned with preserving the fecundity of his followers even to the point of killing genetic deviants (ones that can't breed for him), that must imply he is invested in the genetic quality of his followers. Which means an individual's hereditary strength may determine whether or not one can be God's "child," or whether or not he can love them. If this were the case, God may refuse to love you simply because you're too weak or degenerate for his standards, possibly even if by no fault of your own. Which clashes with the common Christian wisdom that god loves the weak and poor in spirit especially.
Why else would your god insist on how important it is to show no concern for your earthly survival, to doggedly follow his commands even if it ends your own life?
It's so you can't run away if he decides to cull you off.
The logical conclusion of your god's commands is that our earthly toils are a breeding ground he runs, and we are the livestock. Which would make him a master little different than Natural Selection itself, making him redundant at best. And as anyone who's observed nature would know, Natural Selection is a cruel tyrant whose exploits none of us should condone.
And, you could argue that god's intentions shouldn't be deduced or assumed based on their affects by this kind of logic, because he is beyond our understanding and does not operate by our logic. But if you believe in this God because of logical arguments, you should also conclude that his intentions are similarly logical as well.
If your reason for following him is not out of logic, but arbitrary faith alone.......what the hell are you doing???
Reply With Quote
