The views of Jesus are now seen as woke and too left/liberal

Homosexuality was common in religious circles in Sumerian times, and very definitely in Greek times (including Alexander in 4th century BC).
The Romans had a more fluid based of dominance.

These predate most modern religions by centuries at least - Judaism would be an outlier. Hinduism is too, but I don't know what that religion's views on sexuality are.

One of the best and most common ways to suppress/influence a conquered people is to ban their cultural/religious practices. Some of the thinking may have been based on that.
 
Vic said:
If I've got this right, the argument is that some sexual morality (against non-reproductive sex) derives from an evolutionary need to reproduce. But then how would homosexuality evolve?

Put it another way. If evolution is about selection of the fittest, once we have evolved enough to have "conscious thought processes" - enough to make a conscious choice about mating partners - how do you distinguish between a morality that derives from "automatic response" and one that derives from thought processes?

Which came first, the moral thinking or the idea of "god"? If God doesn't exist, then all the moral strictures against non-reproductive sex - and some reproductive sex like adultery - derive from human (evolutionary?) thinking not divine command and are just projected onto a divine being that somehow humans created in their own image - i.e. they evolved the idea of god.
Click to expand...
Hi Vic, only just seen this. You're asking some great questions. Unfortunately, am just off out (got a long journey to an evening soccer match*) so I can't write anything today. Am not a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary psychologist but do have one book that might have something on how homosexuality evolved.

Will take a look and let you know tomorrow if it sheds any light on this issue.

*Tonbridge Angels v Dover Athletic
 
Vic said:
If I've got this right, the argument is that some sexual morality (against non-reproductive sex) derives from an evolutionary need to reproduce. But then how would homosexuality evolve?

Put it another way. If evolution is about selection of the fittest, once we have evolved enough to have "conscious thought processes" - enough to make a conscious choice about mating partners - how do you distinguish between a morality that derives from "automatic response" and one that derives from thought processes?

Which came first, the moral thinking or the idea of "god"? If God doesn't exist, then all the moral strictures against non-reproductive sex - and some reproductive sex like adultery - derive from human (evolutionary?) thinking and not from divine command and are just projected onto a divine being that somehow humans created in their own image - i.e. they evolved the idea of god.

Addendum:
So if there is no god you can't blame man-made religion for a moral code that must derive from conscious thought processes rather than divine revelation (even if the setters of the moral code reinforced it by claiming that it came by divine revelation). That's then back to Utilitarianism - what is the utility of that moral code?
Click to expand...

Have now had a chance to read your post with the attentiveness it deserves.

I can only partly address the points you made but where I can't, I think I know where to look for the answers.

First of all, this is from David Buss's The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. As with the other books I will draw your attention to in this reply, I haven't read this title yet, but I have delved into it and so remembered what the author wrote about homosexuality:

'No one knows why some people have a strong preference for members of their own sex as mates. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection theory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when some people served better as aides to their close genetic relatives than as reproducers.

No current evidence exists to support this theory. Gay men do not invest more in their nephews and nieces than do heterosexual men. Other theories point to the mother's intrauterine environment, birth order, and other nongenetic sources. If there exists one single large cause of sexual orientation, it is likely that scientists would know it by now. That the origins of homosexuality remain somewhat of a mystery suggests that the causes of sexual orientation are likely to be multiple and complex.'

For a possible answer to your second question, I would refer you to Joshua Greene's book Moral Tribes (which I have read). Been a while since I looked at it but Greene posits a camera analogy to distinguish automatic responses from conscious decision-making. If you click on the link to Singer and de Lazari-Radek's book and do a search on the word 'camera', you will see how he approaches this issue. Of course, whether he is right is another matter, but the two co-authors certainly summarise his theory accurately.

Moving on to the evolution of the notion of God, in retirement I created a website for students of A Level Religious Studies and Philosophy. This blog entry partly looks at that:


Much of the relevant section is based on what I read in this book:

1692197914304.png

Would guess that if you have power and influence, and can persuade people that God (or the gods) demand certain types of behaviour, then that adds considerable weight to your own authority.

tenor-1-gif.59453


Since then, I have acquired (but not read) these two titles, which may offer entirely different perspectives on this issue, as might Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

1692198323092.png

1692198369088.png


So that's as far as I've got. Hope this reply helps.
 
Last edited:
The bible has been read all over the world for thousands of years by believers and non believers alike, I think it helps people and is a fairly accurate/inaccurate book of what life was like five thousand years ago written by people who had no concept of what the actual Universe is.

At school I was fascinated by the Old Testament but as none of us know or cannot prove if a God exists it’s not something I think about very often. I do think that society will suffer from the lack of charitable minds and works (I’m thinking of the boat people crossing the channel) and how less tolerant people are of difference and ethnic backgrounds.
Maybe if they all believed there was a hell and what we do in this life we pay for in the next one,
oh dear! we all have to be good to each other and our neighbours
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
The bible has been read all over the world for thousands of years by believers and non believers alike, I think it helps people and is a fairly accurate/inaccurate book of what life was like five thousand years ago written by people who had no concept of what the actual Universe is. Also, the Bible isn’t exactly a picture of life 5000 years ago, most of it was probably written 3-400 bc at latest. Some may be parallel in time to Homer though. No one believes in those gods anymore.

At school I was fascinated by the Old Testament but as none of us know or cannot prove if a God exists it’s not something I think about very often. I do think that society will suffer from the lack of charitable minds and works (I’m thinking of the boat people crossing the channel) and how less tolerant people are of difference and ethnic backgrounds.
Maybe if they all believed there was a hell and what we do in this life we pay for in the next one,
oh dear! we all have to be good to each other and our neighbours
Click to expand...
To be fair religions tend to create divisions not heal them, look at Norn Iron or the Jews v pretty much every other religion . On the flip side you never hear on the news about athiests rebels carrying out attacks on agnostic strongholds. Not suggesting non believers are not capable of evil but every atheist I know is less of a **** than most religious folk I ken.

The problem with hell is, why would the devil punish you for being bad. Aren’t you doing his bidding, you’re his guy.
 
BobbyJohnstone said:
To be fair religions tend to create divisions not heal them, look at Norn Iron or the Jews v pretty much every other religion . On the flip side you never hear on the news about athiests rebels carrying out attacks on agnostic strongholds. Not suggesting non believers are not capable of evil but every atheist I know is less of a **** than most religious folk I ken.

The problem with hell is, why would the devil punish you for being bad. Aren’t you doing his bidding, you’re his guy.
Click to expand...
Two world wars with no obvious religious cause; Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler's dismissal of religious humanitarianism. It's actually a hard sell for atheism's moral codes.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Have now had a chance to read your post with the attentiveness it deserves.

I can only partly address the points you made but where I can't, I think I know where to look for the answers.

First of all, this is from David Buss's The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. As with the other books I will draw your attention to in this reply, I haven't read this title yet, but I have delved into it and so remembered what the author wrote about homosexuality:

'No one knows why some people have a strong preference for members of their own sex as mates. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection theory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when some people served better as aides to their close genetic relatives than as reproducers.

No current evidence exists to support this theory. Gay men do not invest more in their nephews and nieces than do heterosexual men. Other theories point to the mother's intrauterine environment, birth order, and other nongenetic sources. If there exists one single large cause of sexual orientation, it is likely that scientists would know it by now. That the origins of homosexuality remain somewhat of a mystery suggests that the causes of sexual orientation are likely to be multiple and complex.'

For a possible answer to your second question, I would refer you to Joshua Greene's book Moral Tribes (which I have read). Been a while since I looked at it but Greene posits a camera analogy to distinguish automatic responses from conscious decision-making. If you click on the link to Singer and de Lazari-Radek's book and do a search on the word 'camera', you will see how he approaches this issue. Of course, whether he is right is another matter, but the two co-authors certainly summarise his theory accurately.

Moving on to the evolution of the notion of God, in retirement I created a website for students of A Level Religious Studies and Philosophy. This blog entry partly looks at that:


Much of the relevant section is based on what I read in this book:

View attachment 90326

Would guess that if you have power and influence, and can persuade people that God (or the gods) demand certain types of behaviour, then that adds considerable weight to your own authority.

tenor-1-gif.59453


Since then, I have acquired (but not read) these two titles, which may offer entirely different perspectives on this issue, as might Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

View attachment 90327

View attachment 90328


So that's as far as I've got. Hope this reply helps.
Click to expand...
That's more on my must read but never will list. But I appreciate your trouble to survey the literature.

My own bit of study was looking at the historic concept of the just war and applying it to modern conflicts with the aim of regime change. I paraphrase one medieval theologian: "No Prince goes to the aid of an oppressed people unless there's some advantage for himself".
 
A lot of the shit aimed at Christians can be aimed at any of the 3 major faiths can't it?

The big "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the commandments they all see to ignore and discount as not that important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.