shmogie
Well-Known Member
Tell me, where in the NT, the Christians Bible, do you find approval for buying and selling people ? Do you find the teachings of Christ to be petty, malevolent or infantile ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views
- Thread starter Dan Mellis
- Start date
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Hello Dan Mellis,
Nothing leaks out from the Church into society. There are people who are not religious both atheist and agnostic who hold the belief that Homosexuality is wrong or unnatural for their own particular reasons. For someone who is not homosexual especially men who are not religious they find it difficult to be told it is normal when it does not feel normal to them. Hornet's nest of the worst kind. But very much an individuals responsibility.
Are you homosexual? Is there a difference between a religious person, atheist or agnostic being homophobic? I guess sometimes you cannot twist what people believe into something it is not.
You have had your say to push your beliefs and what you believe to be right onto others who like myself are not homophobic but knows that loving others includes sinners too.
You do not understand that sin is sin be it adultery, theft,lying, cheating and homosexuality. God tells us to love others to show love. The real hatred and all the above is not born in true believers of God.
You see the difference between what you assume and what is correct is totally different. Sin is sin no matter what the sin. I have no problem with what consenting adults do it is not my business and does not affect me. But anyone who hurt a child I would have a problem with.
Nothing leaks out from the Church into society. There are people who are not religious both atheist and agnostic who hold the belief that Homosexuality is wrong or unnatural for their own particular reasons. For someone who is not homosexual especially men who are not religious they find it difficult to be told it is normal when it does not feel normal to them. Hornet's nest of the worst kind. But very much an individuals responsibility.
Are you really comparing a persons sexuality to racism. You do not have to set up a church or be religious to be homophobic or racist. So nothing concerning people being either came from the Church it is from the heart of men.
Are you homosexual? Is there a difference between a religious person, atheist or agnostic being homophobic? I guess sometimes you cannot twist what people believe into something it is not.
You have had your say to push your beliefs and what you believe to be right onto others who like myself are not homophobic but knows that loving others includes sinners too.
You do not understand that sin is sin be it adultery, theft,lying, cheating and homosexuality. God tells us to love others to show love. The real hatred and all the above is not born in true believers of God.
You see the difference between what you assume and what is correct is totally different. Sin is sin no matter what the sin. I have no problem with what consenting adults do it is not my business and does not affect me. But anyone who hurt a child I would have a problem with.
That's not "the definition of a slave."
The good in religion can be accomplished without religion, maybe more so. The fact that religious institutions can do good is testimony to the fact that there are good people in every religion, not that their religion makes them good. In fact, religion is a way to pervert good intentions:
- "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Nobelist Steven Weinberg
Secular humanism promotes the good in people, and does more than just give lip service to the Golden Rule. Secular humanists understand that homophobia is unkind, irrational, and destructive. Yet Christianity and Islam are teaching their adherents that homosexuals are immoral, making their lives more difficult and perhaps dangerous for no better reason than ancient people wrote down that a god told them so. That makes Christianity and Islam immoral ethical systems by secular humanism's reckoning.
Why change if one is happy with his current set of beliefs and values?
Also, why follow a teaching? My personal philosophy doesn't come out of a book. Its elements can be found in many books, but they are not my beliefs because I read them in a book. They are the result of reflection, and trial and error to discover what habits of thought and action will maximize satisfaction.
But sex is pleasurable, good for a relationship unless it is illegal, unsafe, or a betrayal of somebody else, and good for your health : https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1
We can and should look at ourselves as animals. Human beings meet all the criteria of an animal: "Any of the eukaryotic multicellular organisms of the biological kingdom Animalia that are generally characterized to be heterotrophic, motile, having specialized sensory organs, lacking cell walls, and growing from a blastula during embryonic development."
That's me and you.
The evidence rules that possibility out. Human beings are relative johnny-come-latelys according to the strata (no human remains in mesozoic strata), radionuclide dating of human remains (depending on what we are calling human, none older than a few million years old), and human chromosome 2, which arose from the end-to-end fusion of two lower ape chromosomes somewhere after the bifurcation of man's line from what became modern chimps.
I wasn't aware that Buddhism taught the things you believe about not being an animal and not evolving from non-human ancestors.
Life is for living. For many, sex is a pleasurable experience that makes life better. Why do you suppose that men get vasectomies? I know of only one reason : To be able to enjoy intercourse without fear of procreation. Likewise with oral contraceptives, but with less efficacy in preventing unwanted pregnancies.
iam1me
Active Member
It is a definition of slavery. A fuller definition was given previously in our conversation (dictionary.com):
British Dictionary definitions for slavery
slavery
noun
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
work done in harsh conditions for low pay
It is important when discussing this topic to note that slavery is wide and varied. You don't need literal chains and whips, nor do those enslaved need to be hated or without rights. While never the ideal, I'd say there are varieties of it which are morally acceptable. Indeed, we have simply been trained not to view modern slavery as slavery. Capitalism is a slave master whose chains are debt, and whose whip is necessity.
Last edited:
Slavery is a matter of lack of freedom.
If you're working under harsh conditions for low pay and wonder if you're a slave, there's a easy way to tell: quit.
Tell your boss that you're giving your notice because you found a new job. If you find that you're allowed to quit, then guess what: you weren't a slave.
iam1me
Active Member
It's one thing to debate the application of a connotation in the dictionary, it's quite another to deny it altogether. You lost this debate before it began.
A lack of freedom is a common factor among the variations of slavery, but you confuse the freewill ability to shoot yourself with true freedom. We always have freewill, but we can only select between the options that are available to us.
True a fast food worker can quit their job - but at what cost? What are their alternatives? Go work for another low wage position without benefits? All you've done is swapped masters.
Quit and remain without a job? Then you lose whatever housing you have, you lose the ability to feed yourself, any dependents will similarly suffer and potentially be stripped from you, your assets seized for any outstanding debts that you can't afford to pay, etc.
You can attempt to get educated - if you are willing to take on a load of debt that you will never be able to pay off, making you even more of a slave.
The fact of the matter is is that capitalism has intentionally stripped the working class of the ability to care for themselves through any means except working as cheap labor. Nor do they even pay them enough to survive, but instead push much of that cost onto tax payers. They then seek to attack these same welfare programs, even tricking the same people who benefit from them to voting against them, so that they can reduce their taxes and keep their workers in a weak position that limits and eliminates their ability to negotiate for a living wage, better compensation, etc. They similarly seek to attack unions and legally neuter the ability for unions to negotiate via so called "right to work" laws.
This type of slavery is known as Wage Slavery. See here: Wage slavery - Wikipedia
The view that working for wages is akin to slavery dates back to the ancient world.[21] In ancient Rome, Cicero wrote that "whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves".[10]
In 1763, the French journalist Simon Linguet published an influential description of wage slavery:[12]
The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him ... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market ... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live ... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him ... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune ... These men ... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. ... They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
Case and point: 58% of Americans Have Less Than $1,000 in SavingsIn 1763, the French journalist Simon Linguet published an influential description of wage slavery:[12]
The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him ... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market ... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live ... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him ... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune ... These men ... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. ... They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
Additionally, 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense
You are making an error by confusing Chattel Slavery - Wikipedia as the only form of slavery
Last edited:
I assumed that you had made a simple misunderstanding, but I understand now that you're personally invested in this redefinition.
Good luck with that.
iam1me
Active Member
They say ignorance is bliss - you must be truly happy thanks to that ability to auto-filter out any evidence that contradicts you.
Your evidence didn't support your claim that the cruelest kind of chattel slavery did not occur in ancient Israel. You offered Old Testament scripture as evidence that nowhere in ancient Israel were human beings bought and sold as property, held captive against their wills, had their dignity and labor stolen from them, had their wives and children sold off, and could be beaten for any reason or for no reason.
I doubt that anybody reading your words interpreted your evidence as precluding the practice of slavery as just described. How could they?
You deflected to indentured servitude, which is a financial arrangement entered into voluntarily for a finite and specified period as a means of repaying a debt or in exchange for some service provided. The existence of such arrangements does not preclude slavery being practiced beside it. How could they?
Why even have this discussion? The claim by unbelievers arguing this point is that the Christian Bible is not an adequate moral guide, and part of the evidence in support of that claim is the Bible's failure to explicitly condemn the practice of trafficking in human beings. Nothing that you posted addresses that shortcoming.
And, of course, the moral and intellectual errors imputed to an allegedly perfect god show us just how human an activity writing the scripture was, and how far we've come from Old Testament days with its harsh, angry, judgmental and vengeful god through New Testament days with its gentler god and the casting off of hundreds of irrational commandments, to today, where we cast off all received moral instruction and develop our the ethical code using the principles of rational ethics characteristic of secular humanism.
The Bible is a series of verbal snapshots from man's history, and as such, given the advancements made in moral theory over the last several millennia, is only of historical interest, and not useful today as a moral guide.
He has to be. His god, whom he assumes is morally perfect, fails to condemn slavery. How can he possibly condemn that which he has been taught an infinitely benevolent god condones?
iam1me
Active Member
First off, you are attacking a straw man - I never at any point asserted that the category of slavery permitted by the scriptures was NOT Chattel Slavery. So, further intellectually dishonesty from the peanut gallery.
Secondly, what I DID argue is that the implementation of slavery permitted under the scriptures was fundamentally different than what we are familiar with in American History. American slavery was rooted in racism, hate, bigotry, and greed. It only regarded a slave as 1/3 of a person - and this as a compromise. People were stolen away from their homelands, kidnapped into servitude - an action which the scriptures call for death for (see Exodus 21:16 below). American slavery allowed a master to mercilessly beat and kill their slaves without consequence. If a master killed a slave under OT Law, theywould face the same fate. If a master beat a slave to the point of injury, the slave was to be freed. Under American Slavery, slaves that attempted to escape were rounded up, punished, and - if they survived - returned to their masters or sold to someone else. Under OT Law, a slave that ran away was to be welcomed and treated with respect - and NOT returned to their masters whom they ran away from. Slaves could even make money and buy their own things - including their freedom. There is thus a drastic difference between American Slavery and similarly brutal implementations of slavery and what was permitted under OT Law, where people still have rights and protections and where slavery is not justified by racism, hate, etc.
Exodus 21:16 “Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves.
Indentured servitude IS a form of slavery described and permitted under OT Law as well. I didn't claim that was the ONLY form of slavery, but explicitly noted both forms.
The subject matter was brought up by the author of the thread - a subject he wanted to dive into after I addressed the explicit topic of the thread. With regards kidnapping people into slavery - see the above scripture (Exodus 21:16).
As for claims of moral shortcomings in the scriptures, I welcome any real arguments on that front. So far I'll I've seen are appeals to popular opinion (a fallacy) and platitudes where people refuse to discuss the matter.
Additionally, as I've noted on multiple occasions, the scriptures fully embrace the fact that equality and freedom are the ideals we should strive for. In fact, one of the good deeds that was common in the Early Church was to purchase and free slaves. I am glad that as a society we have ideologically moved away from slavery, even if in reality all we really did was transition to wage slavery
It sure seemed like you were making the claim that the ancient Hebrews didn't engage in immoral practices regarding the treatment of people as property. If you are in agreement that cruel, selfish forms of slavery likely existed in ancient Hebrew communities, then there is no difference of opinion to debate here apart from whether one considers that a moral deficiency in biblical scripture
What would that matter unless you mean that there was no cruelty permitted?
You've said all of this already. It doesn't address the point that slavery was not forbidden by the scriptures, which is being called a moral failing and evidence that the ideas are of ancient human origin, not those of a divine presence.
And I have a scripture for you :
- "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." - Leviticus 25:44
The Christian Bible clearly treats slavery as the natural order of society, ordained by God Himself, and was used to justify the cruelest forms of slavery.
American slavers were Christians. They found their Bibles to be no barrier to that practice until the nineteenth century, when the rational ethics of secular humanism came to the rescue and eventually overturned the practice of slavery.
No, but I'll stipulate to the point for present purposes. So what? Indentured servitude is not the problem. Calling it slavery creates ambiguity and an equivocation fallacy by using the same word in different ways in the same argument - to represent both the voluntary financial arrangement some people entered into for an agreed upon period in exchange for an agreed upon compensation, a practice considered moral, with an unrelated practice that is clearly immoral.
Except where they don't :
- "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2
- "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1
- "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5
- "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Ok, so first of all, I've repeatedly said that there are bad atheists. Like repeatedly. Being an atheist does not make you perfect or in itself better than anyone else. My position is that athiesm as a philosophy is a better route to morality than theism as one, especially the theist options we have today.
I'm not a homosexual, and have no trouble in understanding that its an entirely normal behaviour to be so. Perhaps that's your religious indoctrination speaking?
I'm glad you personally aren't homophobic, and I entirely agree with you point about those who'd hurt a child. The difference is that if I and you both have a gay friend, there's only one of us thinking they might recieve some sort of eternal punishment for it. In that sense, I feel relatively safe in the assumption that you believe that "what happens between two consenting adults," is wrong if theyre of the same gender, even if you personally wouldn't have an issue with it.
It all boils down to the fact that you believe in a supernatural, psychic bully and I do not have good reason to do so.
A (not the) major cause and it is self-evident. Liberals and progressives have this strange delusion that you can have a sexual climate which both incentivizes and encourages short term and non-committal sexual choices without long term consequences to the population's ability to pair up and create stable and committed family units. It is not that irresponsible sexual choices in isolation bring down a society. But the perverse effects which build up over the course of generations will eventually contribute to the fraying of the social fabric over time.
It isn't the only cause of course. Economic forces and the increasing scarcity of traditional manufacturing jobs have much to play in this as well. But that's a whole different topic.
You're overlooking a fundamental truth about human beings. Human motivation is shaped by incentive. I'm saying that a permissive sexual culture incentivizes irresponsible, short term sexual choices and that these choices have detrimental, long term effects in the social aggregate. You have minority communities in the US reaching illegitimacy rates of nearly 70%. And projections are for the white majority to catch up within decades. If you think that a majority of people not knowing who their fathers are bodes well for a stable society then you're selling basket case of goods. But I don't expect those so invested in the current sexual culture to see the obvious anytime soon.
I'm sorry, but nigh uneatable STDs are already a thing. Right now it's gonorrhea, but it doesn't take a prophet to see the potential for more serious infections to join the list. And you think that its [said gonorrhea's] spread has nothing to do with sexual behavior? What about the fact that homosexual men represent the majority of HIV infections in the industrialized world? Again, nothing to do with the sexual choices being made by said demographic? I'm sorry but who do you think you're trying to convince? Of course, the potential for something airborne to become resistant is much scarier but the point still remains. We're facing the very real possibility of a future where once treatable STDs become much harder to near impossible to treat. Whether or not such a future puts a dent in the use of Tinder and other such disgusting apps remains to be seen.
I'm either paranoid or you're very naive. The fact that recently various states in the US both attempted to and in the case of New York succeeded to legalize abortion right up to the very point of birth seems to favour my view over yours. And the push to drastically weaken age of consent laws has existed for decades. NAMBLA were a bad look at the time of their height so they were dropped from the gay rights platform, but if you think such proclivities just disappeared and won't be again pushed for as culture becomes ever more permissive then I have one word for you. Twink. I mean, the bulk of the scandal in the Catholic Church was that homosexual clergy were targeting post-pubescent boys for sexual abuse.
The question is this. If consent is the only moral consideration involved in assessing the morality of a sexual encounter, how long will it be until some begin to advance the argument that at least some teens are in fact capable of giving informed consent to older sexual partners? That it shouldn't be assumed that all such sexual encounters are always and necessarily abusive?
How long to you think it will be before some begin to argue that in at least some circumstances, such sexual encounters could be liberating for those teens who are in fact capable of such consent and as such the existence of strict age of consent laws are an irrational artifact of redundant sexual attitudes?
If consent is the only moral consideration, then you'll have no rational leg to stand on in your objections should the law determine that at least some minors are capable of such consent. And if and when it happens I hope you'll remember your assurance that it will "never be okay". Because I'll have no qualms in saying that I told you so.
The ultimate point is that given the premise of sexual liberation there's only one direction things can go. This drift towards ever more permissiveness and license can be monetarily halted here and there, even reverted in the face of scandal for a time, but so long as the rejection of a teleological purpose for sex is tacitly maintained by the culture at large it will never find an end point. When you reject the idea of a created order and the moral law therein implied, then as it was so wisely said: "All is permitted". I don't believe humans are fundamentally moral by their unguided nature.
Anyway this is getting long and I'm running out of time. I'll respond to the rest of your reply sometime in the next few days.
Last edited:
You are not missing any context in that. It is what it says. Modern people just don’t like if they are not allowed to do stupid things.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Hi Dan,
Can I correct your thinking... A person whether a believer or atheist who believe homosexuality to be wrong is not by that belief a bad person.
Being human is something regardless of belief, holds different behaviour. If any person harms another for their sexuality, race or belief then they are a bad person.
Morality: - the way we treat others should always be about behaviour not beliefs or philosophy. Right and Wrong exist regardless of a persons belief code or unbelief.
What we consider right or wrong should not lead us to do wrong.
Does sexuality define right or wrong? It is a behaviour that mankind exhibits but what makes something sexually right or wrong?
Nature shows only a man and a woman can procreate does that means only a man and woman should have children? Does it make them good parents or better than two women or men?
You see religion is not the cause of homophobia it has long been my belief that believers are not here to tell the world what it should and should not be doing. Because the world is already dead in sin. The believer is here to ensure others written in the book of life come to the knowledge Gods love them and to become saved ready for the return of God.
It is basically put but those who are in the book of the living will be saved but the world needs help not condemnation. The world knows what is right and wrong but you cannot tell someone
that they have to believe what you believe to be right or wrong.
NATURE did not mean for man and man or woman and woman to be together regarding procreation. Does that mean people won't choose to be together? NO.
If this condemns them to death then a person would be worried. But if they make that choice knowing about God as does the thief or adulterer. Then that is their choice.
We as human beings need to treat others with love and with respect and not condemn for the judgment is not ours.
A supernatural psychic bully would not be interested in saving someones life, would they?
You're attitude could be compared with the homophobic toward believers. Your last statement you insult something someone else believes in by name calling.Do you not see your judgment is clouded by your Godphobia
you assume because someone warns that something is wrong and will have consequences that makes them bad. It doesn't make God bad if the warning is true. For only someone who cares for another would warn them.
YOU are responsible alone for your judgment and treatment of others. The NT has said something which hits home when reading your statement. Statement because it is what you believe being addressed.King James Bible
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
You see no man can love God if he hates his brother.
The fact is that something cannot be made normal because someone wants it to be normal.
The outcome is we should always treat others with love and respect regardless of what they believe.
I hope it helps understand that believers are not homophobic they believe that homosexuality is not right for them..
Can I correct your thinking... A person whether a believer or atheist who believe homosexuality to be wrong is not by that belief a bad person.
Being human is something regardless of belief, holds different behaviour. If any person harms another for their sexuality, race or belief then they are a bad person.
Morality: - the way we treat others should always be about behaviour not beliefs or philosophy. Right and Wrong exist regardless of a persons belief code or unbelief.
What we consider right or wrong should not lead us to do wrong.
Does sexuality define right or wrong? It is a behaviour that mankind exhibits but what makes something sexually right or wrong?
Nature shows only a man and a woman can procreate does that means only a man and woman should have children? Does it make them good parents or better than two women or men?
You see religion is not the cause of homophobia it has long been my belief that believers are not here to tell the world what it should and should not be doing. Because the world is already dead in sin. The believer is here to ensure others written in the book of life come to the knowledge Gods love them and to become saved ready for the return of God.
It is basically put but those who are in the book of the living will be saved but the world needs help not condemnation. The world knows what is right and wrong but you cannot tell someone
that they have to believe what you believe to be right or wrong.
NATURE did not mean for man and man or woman and woman to be together regarding procreation. Does that mean people won't choose to be together? NO.
If this condemns them to death then a person would be worried. But if they make that choice knowing about God as does the thief or adulterer. Then that is their choice.
We as human beings need to treat others with love and with respect and not condemn for the judgment is not ours.
A supernatural psychic bully would not be interested in saving someones life, would they?
You're attitude could be compared with the homophobic toward believers. Your last statement you insult something someone else believes in by name calling.Do you not see your judgment is clouded by your Godphobia
you assume because someone warns that something is wrong and will have consequences that makes them bad. It doesn't make God bad if the warning is true. For only someone who cares for another would warn them.
YOU are responsible alone for your judgment and treatment of others. The NT has said something which hits home when reading your statement. Statement because it is what you believe being addressed.King James Bible
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
You see no man can love God if he hates his brother.
The fact is that something cannot be made normal because someone wants it to be normal.
The outcome is we should always treat others with love and respect regardless of what they believe.
I hope it helps understand that believers are not homophobic they believe that homosexuality is not right for them..
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe for me that means the morality does not originate with me but with the creator of the universe.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Audie
Veteran Member
Its been a while, I forget the context. But anyway,
ok, that is a belief. It is not what I believe, but
it may not really matter.
It is in America and Mexico. Nobody else is teaching people that homosexuals are immoral, and seen as abominations fit for eternal punishment by a good and just god. Leviticus 20:13 orders the death of gays:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death"
So Christianity is clearly one source of homophobia. Are there other sources. Not the Rotary Club. Not the National Football League. Not Domino's Pizza. Not the American Contract Bridge League. Not the American Kennel Club. Not Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Not the FBI.
Same with atheophobia in America. It's Christian in origin. Christians have branded and marginalized atheists just as they have homosexuals. It's in the scriptures.
As far as we know, nature didn't mean for anything to happen. Only sentient creatures can intend. If you're going to use nature as a guide to what is intended, you're going to have to have to accept homosexuality given its extensive presence in nature.
If the Christian god or any other god or gods exist, they are indifferent to us at best. The Christian god is one of the cruelest given its creation of a burning torture pit stocked with demons also of its own making, there to gratuitously torture people forever to no benefit of anybody but a sadist.
"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
How does one insult an idea? One criticizes an idea, which another might take offense at. If the criticism is carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, then any offense taken is on the offended, especially if he has voluntarily entered a religious discussions forum that exists in part to critique such ideas..
I think it can. Mixed marriages are becoming or have become normalized just because some people wanted them to be.