59 replies to this topic

[Poore]

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

This is one of the best articles I've ever read, and seeing as how religion and spirituality ALWAYS sparks debate among the Legends Alliance crowd, I figured this was the right place to put it.

My question is this: what do people on both sides of the debate (atheists and theists) think about this point of view? And, based on that, why do both sides still have to (metaphorically) piss in each others cornflakes all the time?

Go!

[Goose]

I Agree with pretty much every point he makes.

And to answer the question. People get hurt by other people, and they take out that hurt on other people. People piss on others cornflakes because its a coping mechanism.

[SOAP]

I wonder if my old "Satanic" Cylon crucifix avatar counts as being offensive? Technically reversed crosses aren't Satanic.

[Alardonin]

The article made some good points. Though some have been addressed here quite a few times, like this one:
"Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic." = morality




"Anybody can memorize facts. But you remain a clumsy, intellectual oaf of a person as long as you keep looking for sheer black and white in every situation."

I've made quite a few of those black and white claims in my life. Hell, I think I did that here concerning politicians, but even I know that such a fixed black and white view is ultimately flawed of course. The article, like some of my friends, made a good job of reminding me of it, but then you have examples like this in it:

"After all, you know as well as I do that there are two kinds of people who attack Christianity: those who love rationalism, and those who just have a knee-jerk reaction to being told what to do."

But I can let the examples like the above pass I guess, even if you have this in it: "It's just another form of hypocrisy, and if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that hypocrisy sucks."

One example of why I found the article's quality to be somewhat lacking. Besides, that's another thing I can disagree with it... hypocrisy does not suck... hypocrisy is... well... funny.

With that aside I can pretty much say that I've gained an allergy towards the whole atheist versus theist debate. With some exceptions.


This isn't necessarily on topic, and would be best put on one of Goose's topics. One question I would ask is, keeping the view centered only on a specific kind of Atheist(not in the mood to approach the theistic view) why do some of them find religion to be so god dammit pointless and a waste of time, not to mention extremely antagonistic towards much of humanity? Especially when you take into consideration the current view stuck in society today?

I'm not talking about the atheists that simply look at some religions and don't see much difference between them and any book of the Harry Potter series(meant no offense) among many other kinds of atheists, I'm talking about the atheists who are so strongly attached to the above view.

So another questions would be(sorry if off topic, again), why is religion so worthless and why would the world as it stands today be a better place without it? Could it in any way invite something positive to Humanity, or would just be another nail to attach stagnation on us as we stand today?

[Raien]

Perfect article. Perhaps this will finally end the debates on religion we've had so many times on this forum.

Edited by Raien, 02 June 2009 - 06:58 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Some of the commentary on Atheism sort've annoyed me with the ignorance, as if our adherence to morality (such as detesting robbery) means we adhere to a universal moral acceptance, which was just silly.

[Raien]

Some of the commentary on Atheism sort've annoyed me with the ignorance, as if our adherence to morality (such as detesting robbery) means we adhere to a universal moral acceptance, which was just silly.

I noticed he mentioned something about a morality gene on the third page. It's probably due to that idea that he thinks morality is universal (even though morality is not genetic).

Edited by Raien, 02 June 2009 - 12:17 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Great article.

Though I'm kind of sad at all the people in the comments that completely missed the point.

[wisp]

Some of the commentary on Atheism sort've annoyed me with the ignorance, as if our adherence to morality (such as detesting robbery) means we adhere to a universal moral acceptance, which was just silly.

Agreed. There were some good points in the article, but there were also a lot of statements that could easily be refuted and explained in a more empirical way. The author of it was trying to do a good thing by writing it, but honestly, I found the article to be somewhat irritating. :/

I have no problem getting along with most theists, and I don't generally go around flaunting my opinions of religion or anything (unless I'm in an atheist forum XD). So I can get behind the intent of the article - I just wish there were fewer statements from ignorance.

Edited by wisp, 02 June 2009 - 02:45 PM.

[Egann]

Unfortunately...I hate to have to say it, but this article is too little too late...of the wrong stuff to boot.

To be honest, I don't think atheists and theists (in general) have ever gotten along too well and...well, asking the one to do better than to put up politely with the presence of the other is, well, foolhardy. The problem is that no one even seems interested in doing that, anymore.

The problem is not, as this author's article seems to think, a lacking of seeking middle-ground...which is what the entire premise of the article is. The problem is that both sides have escalated in reaction to the other and the result is that we now have such galvanized followers that they reject any leadership that would seek to restrain the veracity of the group. In that sense, stopping the culture war is impossible and any attempt is doomed to failure before it begins.

(EDIT: This is particularly true of atheism because it has no official structure and purely unofficial leadership. This is not true of most theism, but that doesn't mean that a restraining leader is any more likely to happen there.)

This actually applies to many more divisions than just the theist/atheist one. The "Democrat/ Republican" and "Liberal/Conservative" divisions both have similar polarizing effects going on.

At this point there isn't really much an appeal to common ground can do. All you can do is yell at both sides for not playing nice and hope they actually listen...which 'ain't very likely.

Personally, I don't mind atheism too much. To be honest, though, I cannot abide the hubris of the humanism it's often accompanied with.

Edited by Egann, 02 June 2009 - 02:51 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

(EDIT: This is particularly true of atheism because it has no official structure and purely unofficial leadership. This is not true of most theism, but that doesn't mean that a restraining leader is any more likely to happen there.)

Yeah, no. I think it's equal on both sides. Christianity has no official structure either. We're split by denominations and even IN the church we're split on what we think about everything. In a way we're worse off.

[SOAP]

(EDIT: This is particularly true of atheism because it has no official structure and purely unofficial leadership. This is not true of most theism, but that doesn't mean that a restraining leader is any more likely to happen there.)

Yeah, no. I think it's equal on both sides. Christianity has no official structure either. We're split by denominations and even IN the church we're split on what we think about everything. In a way we're worse off.

It's even worse when you consider ALL the religions and forms of theism, not just Christainity. That includes polytheism, pantheism, animism. Countless, countless -isms. IZUUUMS! Ugh, I'll stick to plain boring atheism.

[SOAP]

(EDIT: This is particularly true of atheism because it has no official structure and purely unofficial leadership. This is not true of most theism, but that doesn't mean that a restraining leader is any more likely to happen there.)

Yeah, no. I think it's equal on both sides. Christianity has no official structure either. We're split by denominations and even IN the church we're split on what we think about everything. In a way we're worse off.

It's even worse when you consider ALL the religions and forms of theism, not just Christainity. That includes polytheism, pantheism, animism. Countless, countless -isms. IZUUUMS! Ugh, I'll stick to plain boring atheism.

Personally, I don't mind atheism too much. To be honest, though, I cannot abide the hubris of the humanism it's often accompanied with.

Care to elaborate?


Also Egaan, you act like no one on either side has any emotional investment or valid raeson for finding a middle ground to stand on. Many atheists have theist friends and families and vice versa that I'm sure they care deeply about. Most of my friends are Christian. I don't agree with them and they don't agree with me but at the end of the day I see them as people, not as their beliefs. They're not Christians or theists to me. They're Andrew. Matthew. Ryer. Emily. James. Rachel. My sister Laura. My step siblings Joel and Shadai. My grandparents. People who have touched my life one way or another. People I loved and do anything for. That's my middle ground.

Edited by SOAP, 03 June 2009 - 05:43 AM.

[wisp]

Technically pantheism can be a form of atheism, SOAP. Though I guess that's a little off-topic for this thread. XD

I also would like for you to explain your comment about hubris, Egann.

[Egann]

(EDIT: This is particularly true of atheism because it has no official structure and purely unofficial leadership. This is not true of most theism, but that doesn't mean that a restraining leader is any more likely to happen there.)

Yeah, no. I think it's equal on both sides. Christianity has no official structure either. We're split by denominations and even IN the church we're split on what we think about everything. In a way we're worse off.

It's even worse when you consider ALL the religions and forms of theism, not just Christainity. That includes polytheism, pantheism, animism. Countless, countless -isms. IZUUUMS! Ugh, I'll stick to plain boring atheism.

Yes and no (to both.) While it's true that theism in general is schismatic, the various religions that make it up and their constituting sub-divisions all have official leadership. After all, most theism is in the form of organized religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of any "official" atheist leadership.

Personally, I don't mind atheism too much. To be honest, though, I cannot abide the hubris of the humanism it's often accompanied with.

Care to elaborate?

I also would like for you to explain your comment about hubris, Egann.

There are two distinct issues going on in what we generally lump into the category of "atheism," atheism, and humanism. Atheism is pure and simple denial of the existence of a deity. Active "disbelief" or passive "lack of a belief" doesn't particularly matter here. Then there's humanism, which, although the specific definition depends on context, is essentially a belief in human self-sufficiency almost always to the exclusion of "religion."*

The two tend to come together in a package-deal. If you don't believe in God, you believe in yourself. This is not a logical necessity, as that there are some atheists who are not humanists (although they tend to be apathetic) and quite a few humanists who are not atheists.

Now, like I said, I don't really have that much of a problem with atheism. The problem is that humanism adds a tinge of moral compulsion to atheists so that they bear a certain disdain towards religion along with any and all those religious because...let's face it, "religion is all a bunch of lies, all we need is our own abilities." Essentially, by claiming intellectual superiority, humanism justifies intellectual elitism and creates an excuse to start a humanist inquisition to "liberate the huddled masses from the grips of the (religious) deceivers."

If hubris isn't the word for that, I don't know what is. Straight atheism divorced from humanism tends to be nowhere near that aggressive, either. In fact, it's not that energetic, period.

* Personally, I think that the very concept of "religion" is misleading. There are only different philosophies, complete with different acts of moral compulsion which vary from insisting complete isolation to not distinguishing itself from the secular.

[Poore]

I agree with Egann. However, I also find the attitude of the "if you sin, you'll burn in hell", fire and brimstone Fundamentalists just as annoying. Which is why I liked this article - it condemns both of these groups while supporting a mutual respect between people who hold opposing ideologies. I really believe in what he's trying to say, which is that, even though we disagree, we can still respect each other as people. If you disagree with that idea, I really don't know what to say.

[bjamez7573]

That was a good article. All of the points seemed pretty right on to me.

* Personally, I think that the very concept of "religion" is misleading. There are only different philosophies, complete with different acts of moral compulsion which vary from insisting complete isolation to not distinguishing itself from the secular.

I agree, I see religion as a package with certain values and beliefs. But when it comes down to it, even people with no religion either believe in something or not believe something and hold certain values.

*note - I am kind of new here to these forums so go easy on me if something I said offended somebody, as that is never my intent

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Now, like I said, I don't really have that much of a problem with atheism. The problem is that humanism adds a tinge of moral compulsion to atheists so that they bear a certain disdain towards religion along with any and all those religious because...let's face it, "religion is all a bunch of lies, all we need is our own abilities." Essentially, by claiming intellectual superiority, humanism justifies intellectual elitism and creates an excuse to start a humanist inquisition to "liberate the huddled masses from the grips of the (religious) deceivers."

I could pretty much say the same about religion.

Also, it would seem as if you don't know a thing about Humanism in general. It is a philosophical activity concerning itself with ethics. It champions scepticism over blind faith, the scientific method and the pursuit of truth through the scientific method and rational enquiry. Humanism rejects only those bits of religion that do not meet the scientific method or rational enquiry, God being one of those attributes of religion. Frankly, I don't get where you think atheist humanists wish for an Inquisition.

I'd also like to point out that that was a rubbish article. I stopped reading it due to its liberal use of supposedly "funny images", which hardly had any relevance to what he was saying and the condescending tone of voice he used throughout the entire article. As far as convincing anyone goes, it is useless. Though I could not find a single reason to disagree with any of his bullet points, the filler in between was off-putting enough for me to ignore his message completely. It is likely I won't remember a single one of his points. I hardly do, because the actions of the more extreme religious followers outrages me in such a manner that I forget completely about the moderates. During debates discussing religion or the religious, I almost always lump every single religious believe in with the fundamentalists, because it's easy to forget that moderates aren't like that.

Though logically, I know those ten points to be true, I always forget that they even exist.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 09 June 2009 - 04:36 PM.

[Poore]

Uh...what? You forget things that you agree with because of hatred for extremists, then claim to defend a cause (humanism) that champions science and reason above all? And you admit to generalization and discrimination based on stereotypes?

Are you at all familiar with the concept of hypocrisy? If not, I suggest you use the boundless power the Internet has placed at your fingertips to educate yourself.

Quick fact: Cracked.com is a humor site, hence the humorous images. The condescending tone is entirely appropriate, as you yourself have shown with your post - people who have an attitude that they will ignore intelligent ideas they know to be true merely to further their own cause and stroke their own egos deserve to be treated with condescension.

You sound like exactly the kind of person this article was targeted toward. Good job showing everyone that it actually needed to be written.

[Selena]

Atheists tend to combat religion by acting exactly like the religious. I'm irritated easily by either group for that reason - they seem to share a good many of the same negatives. I think most of that stems not from a lack of belief, but by being driven to 'combat' Christianity due to its overwhelming influence on Western culture. Which goes back to trusty human mindset of "I'm right and you're an idiot for not sharing my opinion." Regardless of how scientifically educated or how spiritually enlightened someone is, it often comes back to that.

But atheism, despite it's claims to be entirely separate from religion, does seem quite similar to me.

* Asserting that they're right with no proof either way. (Not very scientific)
* Spreading the 'word' in an attempt to win converts away from religion.
* Insulting and condemning the opposition for thinking differently.
* Splintering into multiple 'denominations.' Atheist, anti-theist, agnostic, agnostic pantheist, etc.


Again, a lot of it seems to be a black and white issue of "You're either a Christian or an atheist." With little in between, at least so it seems. Which is also sort of a religious mindset. The way most atheists carry on in debates, they're always primarily interested in saying "Christianity is wrong and I have a long list of reasons why." Just very... focused. Which does make one wonder if the scope of their spiritual study has gone beyond just atheism or the Abraham faiths, and if they're genuinely atheist or just very anti-Christian. It can be very irritating to listen to either side prattle on in the same manner.

[Poore]

So...Lena said everything I wanted to say, but way better.

[Egann]

So...Lena said everything I wanted to say, but way better.

She tends to do that, no?

Really, the problem is that we've got atheistic humanists and religious humanists going at each others throats.

Yes, you read that correctly. The people causing problems on BOTH ends of the spectrum are humanists. Just slightly different strains.

Really, think about it. Jesus specifically said to do good for your enemies. You can only have 'Christians' saying things like "God hates fags" or "You'll burn in Hell" if they haven't first insisted on using their own judgment in the place of God's.

Even though they would never put it this way, the only difference between religious humanists and atheist humanists is that the religious humanists look to religion to provide a few metaphysical conveniences because if they choose to, they can ignore what God says. Fundamentally, they both have the same damn insistence on the autonomy of their own human judgment.

Ironically, it's because the atheist and the theist share the same humanistic attitudes that neither can stand the other. At least, generally speaking.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Uh...what? You forget things that you agree with because of hatred for extremists, then claim to defend a cause (humanism) that champions science and reason above all? And you admit to generalization and discrimination based on stereotypes?

Are you at all familiar with the concept of hypocrisy? If not, I suggest you use the boundless power the Internet has placed at your fingertips to educate yourself.

Quick fact: Cracked.com is a humor site, hence the humorous images. The condescending tone is entirely appropriate, as you yourself have shown with your post - people who have an attitude that they will ignore intelligent ideas they know to be true merely to further their own cause and stroke their own egos deserve to be treated with condescension.

You sound like exactly the kind of person this article was targeted toward. Good job showing everyone that it actually needed to be written.

At first I didn't know how to react. Your post was entirely unexpected. Then I re-read what I wrote and noticed that I'd forgotten to say something. What I forgot to mention was that I normally remind myself as often as possible. However, to do that I actually go to a forum where I know there are Christians who do not meet the fundamentalist stereotype and are actually more like people like... Oh, I don't know... Kenneth Miller and Archbishop Rowan Williams. Thoughtful religious people who show that they've actually thought carefully about their religion and used humanistic values to reject those bits of their religion that quite frankly are just absolutely atrocious.

Sorry if I forgot to mention it. Judging from your reaction, I've just created a bit of tension there that was entirely unnecessary.

Also, I let my contempt of the article bury my point. I apologise for that as well.

The point I was trying to make is that the article was ineffective due to its condescension, the same tone I hear in the kind of theists that put atheists on edge in the first place. Why should the article have been written, if as you stated, the people who need to read it are the kind of people who will not read it? If the target audience is not reading this article, then what is the point of the article in the first place? Surely, if we take what you have stated at face value, then the purpose of the article is nothing more than to stroke the egos of those people who agree with it in the first place?

Though I may agree with the bullet points, I take exception to the way it was written. I take exception to the way it was crafted. Not only did I find it unfunny, I found it defeated its own purpose through its tone.

Also, Egann, I can't quite get what you're trying to say here. How can you rile against humanistic values, when you yourself use humanistic values to decide what is right or wrong? Take paedophilia for example. The Bible does not condemn it. So why are you are against it? (I presume you are against it). It cannot be because of anything apart from the fact that you've thought about it and decided that it is wrong, based on what else you knew or at least thought you knew to be logically true.

There, I've spent an hour on this post, so it should be sound now.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 10 June 2009 - 04:00 PM.

[SOAP]

I don't get why you're so against humanism Egann. I also don't get why you would consider human self-sufficiency hubris. What's hubris is religion saying that huamns can't be arbiters of right or wrong without some diety holding our hands the whole time. We decide right and wrong all the time with or without God's help. For those who do, that's there business but ultimately at some basic level you're still deciding right and wrong for yourself. At some point and time you had to have investigated your religion and it's holy text to know that it's good and true according to you. At some point you had to trust your own judgement that your religion's the right one otherwise why would you bother with it? Unless of course you only believe Christainity is true because that's what you were raised in, in which you don't have much a leg to stand on to tell anyone what is right or wrong when you can't determine something as fundamental as belief on your own.

I doubt the "God hates fags" folks are religious humanists. You could argue that they're willfully ignoring God's commandments and appealing to religion to defend their faulty logic but they're not making any effort to discern whether the values they hold are good or not. Westboros and all their ilk are just plain ignorant and going by what they were raised to believe. It's same ignorant, irrational hatred that they've been indoctrinated in from a child and likewise they indoctrinate their own children in that same hatred by teaching them it's okay to hate people who are different. Whether those beliefs come from God or Man is an entirely different debate but they're definitely not humanists. A humanist could see the fault in such logic right away which is why most humanists are tolerant of homosexuality because there's no rational reason to be threaten by it if you're secure in your heterosexuality.

Edited by SOAP, 10 June 2009 - 10:47 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

You could also argue, SOAP, that the "God hates fags" folks are merely following the word of the Bible. After all, on issues of homosexuality, it is rather explicit. Put homosexuals to death. Of course, this is Old Testament only and Jesus Christ was supposed to have made the Old Testament laws invalid... but I haven't yet seen someone point out the relevant bits of the Bible to back that bit up. Not to mention that the New Testament states that homosexuality is unnatural, which in the context of the rest of the passage, isn't really a good thing.

I'd argue that the "God hates fags" folks are the literalists, whilst the more decent Christians are the humanists.

[Egann]

I don't get why you're so against humanism Egann.

The answer depends on what sense your talking about. In a personal sense, it's because I believe that belief is futile without acknowledging God as the fountainhead of it. In a generic sense it's because humanism is effectively metaphysical arrogance towards a higher authority, even if the authority is agreed to exist.

Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance. He had his own copy of the Bible, and he would literally cross out passages he didn't like. If God doesn't exist or it's not the God of the Bible, why are you starting with the Bible? And if He does exist, whatever gives Thomas Jefferson the right to edit his stuff?

The humanist attitude is, put simply, even if I admit God exists, I still refuse to acknowledge His superiority and insist on my own autonomy. In that sense, I fault religious humanism much more than atheistic humanism because at least the latter is a little more consistent by denying God's existence directly. But really, they're still kissing-cousins no matter how you cut the cake.

You could also argue, SOAP, that the "God hates fags" folks are merely following the word of the Bible. After all, on issues of homosexuality, it is rather explicit. Put homosexuals to death. Of course, this is Old Testament only and Jesus Christ was supposed to have made the Old Testament laws invalid... but I haven't yet seen someone point out the relevant bits of the Bible to back that bit up. Not to mention that the New Testament states that homosexuality is unnatural, which in the context of the rest of the passage, isn't really a good thing.

I'd argue that the "God hates fags" folks are the literalists, whilst the more decent Christians are the humanists.

...No. I've heard the "Jesus invalidated the law" position all over the place...and frankly, I don't see how scripture can bear that interpretation. He said a) It is easier for all of heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tittle of the law to do so AND b) I came not to abrogate the law, but to fulfill it.

The only theologically correct position I can see -although I'm open to new ideas- is that the Old Testament Laws still apply in spirit except when specifically abrogated. HOWEVER as that the Old Testament laws applied to a political state which could institute punishments and the New Testament applies to a body of believers who are not politically affiliated, the Old Testament punishments can no longer attached and, as far as the Church is concerned, all sin is to be dealt with in love.

Parenthetically, this is precisely how I interpret how Jesus handled the Pharisees wanting Him to stone an adulterer: sure Jesus had the authority to forgive her, but the reason He actually did so was not a selfish desire to escape a trap set by the Pharisees, but because, as the head of the Church -which is not a political entity- it wasn't His place to hand out punishment. That's the job of the politicians.

[SOAP]

I don't get why you're so against humanism Egann.

The humanist attitude is, put simply, even if I admit God exists, I still refuse to acknowledge His superiority and insist on my own autonomy. In that sense, I fault religious humanism much more than atheistic humanism because at least the latter is a little more consistent by denying God's existence directly. But really, they're still kissing-cousins no matter how you cut the cake.

Humanism does not require refusing God's superiority. If a person wants to have religious and spiritual relationship with God, again that's their business. So long as they use they're thinking for themselves rather than letting others think for them. You can be self-autonomous and believe God is superior. I believe my mother has superior knowledge than me when it comes to human relationships. Mainly because she's older than me and has more experience and because she's a woman and women are better at human relations than males. Doesn't mean I can't discern right from wrong without her there. It would not be a slap to her face if I made my own decisions in life. Besides what kind of mother would she be if I had to call her every time I needed to make a decision. By that same token, what kind of creator would God be if he created beings that were unable to think and make their own decisions. Autonomy doesn't mean "Fuck you God, I want to party and do my own thing." Autonomy is simply a part of maturity. If your God exists then our autonomy means he's successful as a creator.

Edited by SOAP, 11 June 2009 - 08:51 PM.

[Poore]

@Egann:

There's also Romans 3:19-28, which specifically addresses the law (read: the Laws of Moses):

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

[Steel Samurai]

Addendum to Poore:

The law is the teacher, to show humanity that it needs God, that it can't be perfect without him. When Christ came, none of the Law passed away, but it was fulfilled. So, it's still there, but its purpose has been served. There's books that could be (and have been written) about the topic, but the essential point is this, as far as I understand it: For the one who believes that Christ took the punishment for all the sins ever, there is no eternal consequence for any sin. That doesn't mean that God likes it, but the punishment has already been taken. There are no levels, no christians better than other christians, hell, no christians better than atheists, buddhists, hindus, moslems, bahai, etc.

I possibly got a little side tracked there. But hopefully you see the point.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

All of which is all good and well, but requires human judgement and interpretation of scriptures. After all, did not Poore provide an alternative way to "ignore" the Old Testament rule of stoning homosexuals?