quote:"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion."
According to the singer-songwriter, 59, his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it".
I wouldn't want to see the government ban organized religion, cause I don't like the government banning anything. But I do agree with his sentiment. I'd love for people to simply practice whatever religion they practice in private. I also realize that there's no way in heck it would ever happen. Community is a large part of any religion.
I wonder if there's a way to disorganize religion while retaining the community part of it and still allowing people to practice it to their hearts content.
Find some way for the people to remove the hierarchical structures of it maybe? Democratic religion?
[ November 13, 2006, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I'd say one of the main arguments against that are that banning religion isn't going to end hatred of gay people. People don't need religion to hate anyone, they can it just fine without it.
Besides, if we're going to argue that banning religion will make homosexuality more acceptable, we might as well argue that banning homosexuality will make religion more acceptable. It's a silly suggestion. I see where he's coming from, but it's still silly, for the purposes he's attempting to achieve anyway.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
What if your heart's content includes open religious practice?
And it is an overgeneralization to say that religion promotes hatred towards gays. Yes, most religions disagree with homosexuality, but this is different than hating the actual people who are gay (excepting those few religions that actually do promote gay hatred. And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
To ban organized religion would go against the very foundation of this nation. Sure, it may not bother you if you don't practice in an organized religion, but for someone like me, banning it would be banning me from my constitutional right to free worship.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:To ban organized religion would go against the very foundation of this nation.
Note, I said I wouldn't want to see the government ban it. Cause I agree with you, banning anything goes against the foundations of this nation.
I just think organized religion does a hell of a lot of harm. A lot more harm than good in many cases. And I think finding some way to remove the organization, the hierarchical structure, but still retaining the community and practice might help nullify the bad in future. Probably is I can't come up with any way to do that realistically.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
"Laissez-Faire Religion in America." I can see the bumper stickers now.
Now to address the OTHER side,
Marlozhan -
No, the major religions don't promote hating gays, or gay violence, but I think you'd have to agree that religion is a huge contributing factor to where anti-gay sentiment comes from. It isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the man who fails to follow his religion entirely, and instead only half listens and goes on a personal crusade. A man can carry a cross with him at all times, as a sign of faith, and choose to use that cross as a weapon, but that isn't the Cross' fault, it's the fault of he who wields it so. In other words, I don't blame Christianity for gay hatred. But when I hear on the news that a gay kid in some Bible Belt state was tied to a tree and stoned to death, while being made to say "Hail Marys" I have to wonder, not about the faith, but about the people PREACHING the faith.
I think in the same sense that it is considered logical to religious folk to love the sinner and hate the sin, it's perfectly rational by the same logic to blame the believer and not the belief.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It would be awesome if religion were practiced by whoever wanted to, but didn't have such a centralized power structure. How does having a congressional lobby help anyone build a deep, personal relationship with their God?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
How many fracking times do I have to say it? I don't support the government doing anything like this. I don't like governmental control of much on the personal liberty scale. I'm damn near libertarian! I think to a degree it's necessary in the economic arena, but not much.
What I mean is that the people of the religion find a way to remove their power structures with out losing the community. I don't mean anyone force it on them in any way, I mean they find a way to do it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I always figured that religion should really be about helping YOU figure out how to live your life, not telling OTHER people how you think they should live their lives.
I really did like some of the things I learned from Christianity. I find it difficult to believe that so many religious folks have managed to fully remove the beam from their eye.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
How many fracking times do I have to say it? I don't support the government doing anything like this. I don't like governmental control of much on the personal liberty scale. I'm damn near libertarian! I think to a degree it's necessary in the economic arena, but not much.
What I mean is that the people of the religion find a way to remove their power structures with out losing the community. I don't mean anyone force it on them in any way, I mean they find a way to do it.
Apologies. My diatribe wasn't pinpointed soley at you, despite the fact that I named you. You may not be in favor of government getting into the business of faith management, but others are. Clearly, from Elton John's statement, and subsequent statements that refute his method, but agree with both his statement and his endgame, those thoughts are alive in the world, and I think have some representation on this board. My comments are aimed at those people much, much more than at you Alcon. I wasn't rebuking you personally.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Apologies. My diatribe wasn't pinpointed soley at you, despite the fact that I named you. You may not be in favor of government getting into the business of faith management, but others are. Clearly, from Elton John's statement, and subsequent statements that refute his method, but agree with both his statement and his endgame, those thoughts are alive in the world, and I think have some representation on this board. My comments are aimed at those people much, much more than at you Alcon. I wasn't rebuking you personally.
Fair enough. I'm with you up to here:
quote:and subsequent statements that refute his method, agree with both his statement and his endgame
His statement is that an awful lot of organized religion promotes hate (specifically of gays) rather than the love it's supposed to. His endgame is lack of organized religion.
I support his end game. I don't support anyone forcing it on them. I hold (naive, impossible, pipe dream) hope that one day the members of the various organized religions will realize that the organized structures they support do more damage than good and find a way to disorganize. That would achieve the same end game, with out forcing a thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you look at his statement, he said "ban religion completely," not "ban organized religion completely."
His method is the state sponsored banning of religion. His endgame is a world without ANY religion at all, for the sake of tolerance. His statement, and subsequent statements by you, is that religion is incredibly intolerant of homosexuality and promotes hatred.
I agreed insofar as I thought religious followers fell within that group, but not religion by nature.
What I was saying above, when I tried to apologize to your taking offense, was that the belief held that religion is dangerous and should be changed to make it more docile is a slippery slope. It's good that you don't want to have the government get rid of religion. But support for the endgame, of a world without religion, and rhetoric about the ills and dangers of religion, is what I caution against. If you fall within that group, then I don't apologize, as I think it warrants cautioning. If you don't, then consider the apology in force.
Edit to add: I know that in the article it mentions his support for banning "organized religion." But two things on that:
1. His quote omits the word "organized."
2. I'd contend that "religion" and "organized religion" have few if any differences. Religion is by it's nature organized in some way or form. Even if you got rid of every church, pastor, and preacher in this world, and left only individuals with their Bibles, there would still be organized religion, just without the hierarchy of clergy. Anything involving worship that has a set doctrine is by it's nature organized.
I think the reason the clergy exists at all is to make sure that a million people don't read the Bible and pick it apart until there are a million different doctrines. Clergy are a guiding force in religion, they keep everyone on the same page. If you stray, they will do their best to get you back on the path. Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:"But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
When he said religion, he was talking about organized religion.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
And there's something wrong with this... how?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I wonder if there's a way to disorganize religion while retaining the community part of it and still allowing people to practice it to their hearts content.
I'm a non-denomenational Christian. We don't have a hierarchy or power structure. We just show up and worship. But we read our Bibles and still think gay marriage violates the Word of God.
I also think it's unfair to categorize all organization as hard hearted like he did. How many missionaries are out in third world countries working for the good of the people? How much money did the big churches pour into New Orleans after Katrina or southeast Asia after the tsunami?
Religion is tempting a lot of times becuase it gives people a checklist. "I'm a good person if I do these things." It's much harder to focus on having a relationship with God and loving your neighbors.
But just becuase a lot of people do it badly doesn't mean religion itself is to blame.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks Avid, I had a big long, convoluted post all set up and ready to go, but going off your post actually makes it much easier.
Alcon -
The only way to get rid of religion in the way you're talking about, is to get rid of the Bible entirely. Otherwise you still have the framework of a religion there. It's the template for an organization, and people will follow it, regardless of whether or not there's a massively powerful church hierarchy or not.
Getting rid of authority figures in religion, like I said before, removes the checks and balances. Remember that Christianity at it's core IS about love and peace, you said it yourself. And the majority of the clergy preach just that message. It gets through to millions, but millions still ignore it. What do you think would happen if the message didn't get out at all?
Have you seen American History X? You don't need a Pope and Bishops, and Clergy, and a massive social structure to spread a message. All you need is one guy with ideas, one guy with a good voice, and in this case, one book with a LOT of implied positions on issues, but not a whole lot of ways to get them done. Human imperfection fills in the gaps.
Oh, and Karl, I believe homosexuality was criminalized in the USSR in the 30's, where religion was also banned. Not what that does for you one way or the other, but it's an example.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: According to the singer-songwriter, 59, his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it".
That's a pretty misleading name for the thread. He isn't calling for religion to be banned. He's saying what his solution would be. Those are two very different things.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm But then people would just go underground with religion. Perhaps those that are more "tolerant" should have a louder voice, but they will just be called luke warm by some.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's a pretty misleading name for the thread. He isn't calling for religion to be banned. He's saying what his solution would be. Those are two very different things.
How is that not saying what "should" be done?
Even if the quote were the title, it would still lead to the same conclusion: Sir John is a wannabe totalitarian.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm confused Lisa. How is "My solution is X" all that different from "X Should take place?"
If you're advocating a solution to a perceived problem, isn't it understood that is something you want done?
Edit: Or, what Dag said. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Oh, and Karl, I believe homosexuality was criminalized in the USSR in the 30's, where religion was also banned. Not what that does for you one way or the other, but it's an example.
Well, Marlohzan's comment seemed to me to be implying something more contemporary, but I see your point.
However, I'm not sure criminalizing in this case is "preaching hatred". In fact, I'm not sure there has been much "preaching of hatred" of homosexuals until homosexuals started asserting their rights as normal human beings. Before that it was largely just a given that homosexuality was a peversion and therefore not to be desired, at least among western society.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I'm hardpressed to present a modern example. Russia is still a hotbed of anti-gay sentiment, if you think you had it bad here, wooo, it's bad over there. But mostly the driving force behind the bad over there is the Russian Orthodox Church. In the 30's, it was Stalin and Co. I think you see the beginnings of an institutionalized hatred of gays back then, but in the present, it all comes back to the church, so you got me there.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I'm confused Lisa. How is "My solution is X" all that different from "X Should take place?"
If you're advocating a solution to a perceived problem, isn't it understood that is something you want done?
If he were advocating it. But he's not.
(He is advocating that religious institutions find a way of getting along with one another, but not that they all close up shop. The latter's merely a lovely dream for him.)
To give another example that may or may not make things clearer, I have long felt that it would be nice if we could round up all the hardline Palestinian terrorists and all the hardline right-wing Israeli settlers and put them into a large secluded area with a ton of ammunition. They'd blissfully wipe each other out for the greater glory of God, and the other 98% of the people on both sides could finally live in peace.
Do I think this should happen? No. Do I think it would be a moral solution? No. Do I think there would be any way of accomplishing it? No. But do I think it's a lovely, poetic idea that would actually work if if not for the practical and moral objections? Oh, yes.
What one would do given hypothetical carte blanche and what one thinks should be done can be two very different things. Elton seems well aware of that distinction.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Smuel, I think your example underscores the problem with these kinds of hypotheticals.
Setting aside for the moment, the moral and practical problems with the two "solutions", (and assuming you are right about Elton John's "lovely dream" attitude) those scenarios rely on hypotheticals that I'm not convinced actually exist. I think the purely evil, unreasonable, and implacable forces that must be abolished because there is no other option are myths made up by the opposing forces to rally their people, (with perhaps a very small minority as an exception). Things get stickier when you are dealing with real people.
How many extremists do you think there are on both sides? How many of them are inherently implacable to their very core to the extent that their mutual extermination is a "nice idea"? If this rotten core were extricated and eliminated, would that solve the problem? Are all the rest of the Palestinians and Israelis in full agreement of what constitutes peaceful co-existence and just awaiting the removal of the rabble-rousers so they can live in peace?
Likewise, where are the religious haters who's hatred can be shone to have been directly the result of their religion? Does being a Christian make someone intolerant and hateful? What about Dagonee and kmboots? Or Belle? I would say that those three are good examples on this board who (IMO) are largely who they are because of their faiths, and I could not justify carte-blanche elimination of a philosophy that can lead to the existence of any of them. I think the haters who are made that way by their religion are mythical. I think the hater part of them is created by something else that just found religion a handy tool for reinforcing itself. I've known some pretty irrational homosexuals who are also full of a lot of hate. I don't think it's the homosexuality that makes them that way, even though for them it is an aspect of their lives they allow to be perverted into reinforcing their hatred.
I'm not entirely sure my point is clear in the above, so comments are welcome. I just felt a rebuttal was in order. Either Elton John is seriously advocating something terrible, or he is advocating a reasonable solution to a mythical problem he has created simply to make use of his desired solution, which is essentially pointless and doesn't even deserve a thread, except maybe to laugh at it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
I think that's just playing semantic games. Aside from "well, one could say that X is Y so from that point of view . . ." do you really think that anyone in that discussion was "preaching hatred"?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
KarlEd
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Well, Karl, I'm not saying you need to agree with my dream scenario... one which, I might add, would put some of my real-life cousins in the hypothetical compound for extremists. (I'm not going to debate my fantasy further because the details have nothing to do with this thread.) I'm simply addressing the claim that Elton is seriously advocating that religion be abolished, which he is not. In fact, all of us -- me, you, and Elton -- agree that "Things get stickier when you are dealing with real people."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
And there's something wrong with this... how?
Coming from an fairly large organized religion, I'll tell you what's wrong with this. People are stupid. People with religion can be even more stupid. The beliefs of my religion point to a single, simple, yet elegant path of constant improvement of physical, emotional, and spiritual ability. The leadership is there to usher people down that path, to correct and guide people. Without it, you end up with people doing what they want to do, and trust me when I say that when people do what they WANT to do, it very rarely leads down a good path. The problem with religion is not organization. It's when people choose to do what they WANT to do with the religion rather than seeking to understand and grow. Removing all religious hierarchy will do the exact opposite of what you want, simply because the same people will just find more and more reason to hate, because hate is a very major part of human nature. We always have to have an enemy, because that's the way things are in nature. There's always a predator out there trying to kill us and we have to either run from it or kill it back.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
cut-paste everything Karl said.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
as an aside.. can you imagine being famous having having every snarky, stupid or venting comment you make poured over by the public all over the world?
That would be hell.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I saw the subject line and thought, "Wasn't he knighted by the head of the Church of England?"
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
John is a hypocrite. He preaches tolerance by showing intolerance for other people's religious views. John is just showing himself to be an intolerant bigot.
BTW, organized religion in the old USSR/ Communist Block was also, if not banned outright, driven into near extinction. See also China or Cuba today today. (See the Javier Bardem movie "Before Night Falls" about being a homosexual under Castro's communist Cuba.) The Nazis also weren't big on organized religion because, as with the communists, it's competitor for authority and people's loyalty. (The type of authority over other peoples lives that John appears to want to have.) Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis or communists?
John is a successful entertainer, but he's no big thinker. I suspect that John equates public policy disagreements with hate. For example, he is a proponent of homosexual marraige. I oppose that practice. I don't hate gays. My position on this issue is not based on spite. I'm also not particularly religious. So employing Gestapo to close down churches isn't going to change my opinion. I'm surprised he didn't mention homophobia while he was having his spiteful and bigoted rant against religion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis
I'm pretty sure "athiest" is an inaccurate word when it comes to Nazis. Atheists were among those persecuted by the Nazis.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The problem with saying people should practice religion in private only is that a great deal of what religion can do is enabled by being organized. People working together can accomplish a great deal more than individuals alone.
I suspect that is actually the objection to organized religion - that people working together have more power than people alone. In that case, it isn't the organization that's a problem - it's the concentrated power. That's too bad - power can be used for both bad and good, but trying to prevent its accumulation by not allowing people to gather is a terrible, terrible thing.
It's the chickens! They're organized.
[ November 13, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mig: If your objection to homosexual marriage isn't religious, then what's the deal? (uh-oh, here we go...)
If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't. But don't object to other people doing it or they might go passing laws against something you want.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
She didn't technically say it wasn't based on her religious beliefs, though I can see why you might think that was implied.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with what kat said. Any group that gets organized - and groups of any size must organize to do anything. And with organization comes power. And this will, in some degree, lead to corruption, to protecting the power at the expense of the original goals of the group and to rigidity and inflexibility. This is not just true of religion. Look at unions, for example. or Congress.
Part of Catholicism is the concept of communion which means being in communion with each other as well as with God. They two aren't separable. (Some exceptions for hermits, I suppose...) We are two thousand years old and enormous. And we made what I consider a big mistake; we got mixed up in politics. Given that, we could be worse (and we have been). Change happens slowly for us but it does happen. Look at the Second Vatican Council.
Someday we will get it right.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
KarlEd wrote:
quote: Either Elton John is seriously advocating something terrible, or he is advocating a reasonable solution to a mythical problem he has created simply to make use of his desired solution, which is essentially pointless and doesn't even deserve a thread, except maybe to laugh at it.
Or maybe he is pulling one of those Swiftian modest proposal type things to call people's attention to a problem.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
No. I don't want to see Churches become the social equivelant to the bath houses of the past century--where people go despite it being politically correct to call people going there perverts and dangers to society. I don't want suicides and depression because society is forcing people to deny, hide, closet their religion.
I want the renaisance of thought and ideas that comes with the free assembly of the faithful. Sure, I may not enjoy the televised spectacle that is the most blatant form of this behavior, but I have the power to turn the channel, walk away, live and let live.
Then again, I don't want the same thing to happen to people who are homosexual.
Oh the irony, of those who society finally allows out of the closet of their sexuality, forced into another closet because of their faith.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Ex. My cousin originally said she was straight. After a bad ending to a relationship with a man, she declared a month later that she was never straight and clearly must be a lesbian. Following suit, she had a bad break up with a female and weeks later was with a man again, declaring that she was straight once more.
I have known several other individuals whom I am very good friends with who I can trace their 'sexuality' to a key relationship issue. They deny that there is such a connection, of course, but when one has a weak opinion of oneself and goes through an emotional breakup, they occasionally consider themselves the factor that was wrong and question all possibilities, including their sexuality.
One can also look at history to support another example of where it had occurred. If you look at history, the most common examples of homosexuality is during war times, both for men and women when those of the opposite gender were in short supply.
Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Johivin,
quote:The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain.
you assume there is a stated purpose to life. This is not a given.
quote:I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
If you weren't so busy "surmounting" things, you might surmise that it occurs throughout nature, and is therefore very natural in many circumstances. You might also surmise that humans are also a product of nature and therefore there is a huge natural component to human "social issues".
quote: [I know a bunch of people so well I can conclusively tell that they are lying to themselves about something so complex as their sexuality therefore what I've convinced myself of must be the truth]
Well, ok. Is your psychic ability genetic or natural? Or is it something you made a conscious choice about?
quote:Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
I was thinking I should cut you some slack because you're probably a teenager, but if you've actually observed "Greek and Roman days" then you're old enough to put up with my sarcasm.
quote:One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Thus illustrating how little you know about the complexities of genetics. Not that I feel homosexuality is exclusively genetically determined, but I felt I should point out that some intelligent people find your arguement to be less than compelling.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect."
I don't agree with this. Believe it or not Homosexuals can have sex with the same sex, and therefore pass on the genes. It happens all the time. Now, for me that is a point against it as a natural condition. What I do think is actually opposite this. If it is genetic, then wouldn't that trait be traced down family lines? At the same time, if it can't be traced like any other genes then would it not be a persistant genetic defect?
[ November 13, 2006, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Karl,
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
[ November 13, 2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Ex. My cousin originally said she was straight. After a bad ending to a relationship with a man, she declared a month later that she was never straight and clearly must be a lesbian. Following suit, she had a bad break up with a female and weeks later was with a man again, declaring that she was straight once more.
I have known several other individuals whom I am very good friends with who I can trace their 'sexuality' to a key relationship issue. They deny that there is such a connection, of course, but when one has a weak opinion of oneself and goes through an emotional breakup, they occasionally consider themselves the factor that was wrong and question all possibilities, including their sexuality.
One can also look at history to support another example of where it had occurred. If you look at history, the most common examples of homosexuality is during war times, both for men and women when those of the opposite gender were in short supply.
Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Sigh. Then count me among the unnatural. I have sex and yet have not produced offspring. Wait a minute...perhaps...(gasp)...sex has other purposes! I wonder what those could be...
So the purpose of life is merely to perpetuate itself. So really, no point in living past menopause, then.
I wonder if other animals, (sheep, whales, dolphins, giraffes, various primates) also participate in same sex activites because of bad break-ups?
edit to add: BTW, if genetic changes from the parent didn't happen, we wouldn't be having this conversation. To refer to mutations as "defects" is just silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
John is being a silly dip and needs to learn to make commentary without such sweeping generalizations.
Seriously, I can imagine this going over about as well as the whole brouhaha over "We are bigger than Jesus."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect."
I don't agree with this. Believe it or not Homosexuals can have sex with the same sex, and therefore pass on the genes. It happens all the time. Now, for me that is a point against it as a natural condition. What I do think is actually opposite this. If it is genetic, than wouldn't that trait be traced down family lines? At the same time, if it can't be traced like any other genes than would it not be a persistant genetic defect?
Or it could be that politics and social convention has created a false dichotomy of homosexual/heterosexual and that Kinsey was right about it being a spectrum. It would therefore only take a person who wasn't on the farthest end of the spectrum, but just off it by a hair or two for those genes to be passed on.
Or it could be that everyone has the same genetic sexuality which naturally encompasses the whole spectrum, but early socialization causes some people to lock to one end or the other.
Or it could be that there are a dozen genes, all of which give traits that are necessary for survival but which in certain combinations increases the likelihood of homosexual tendecies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Science does not agree with your postulation of entirely socialized homosexuality, and your ameteur anecdotal analysis and naturalistic fallacy do not make a greater case than our current understanding of human sexuality.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
KarlEd, if what you say is true (and there currently is no evidence what is the correct assumption) than Homosexuality is as equally a social construct as a genetic one. A study that I think would be good is if we can find that "genetic" marker in newborn (or in the womb if possible) babies and track the emerging sexuality. That way we can know if the genes are pre or post social conditioning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think you guys are putting far more intellectual effort into Sir Elton's suggestion than he has.
I love some of his early music, but I seriously doubt he could even begin to outline how he would ethically ban religion.
Why should you do his work for him?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
I think that's just playing semantic games. Aside from "well, one could say that X is Y so from that point of view . . ." do you really think that anyone in that discussion was "preaching hatred"?
Um... yes. I guess you had to be there, but yes.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It may well be that the only genetic imperative is to get one's rocks off regardless of the target and that evolution has selected for those species that primarily choose a heterosexual method for acheiving this.
It may be that homosexuality is purely a social product. What difference does it make, really, if it is? So is medicine and spaceflight. I have no vested interest in homosexuality being a purely (or even strongly) genetic phenomenon. It doesn't matter to me whether I was "born this way" or whether social conditioning made me this way, or whether it is a mix of the two (which I suspect). While the answer may be of scientific interest, it has little political interest for me. I am more than the sum of my genes and deserve to be treated with respect and to enjoy the same rights as everyone else regardless. I'm not a victim of evolution or social conditioning any more than anyone else in the world is. I celebrate whatever causes have let to the creation of me. Call it conceit if you must, but I'm far from being one of nature or societies failures.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Karl,
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
There aren't any. What is it with people thinking that Darwinism is a moral theory? It is a purely descriptive theory of what actually happens in nature; you cannot reason from "This happens" to "That ought to happen" or "We should do this". You might as well ask for purely general-relativistic reasons for humans to exist.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For the genetics, just think about how 2 brown eyed people might have a blond child. Or why sickle cell is still in the population at such high amounts. Of course, few things are that simple, but conceptually it should explain why the gene would be in the population. Also, a gay man might still have a child with a straight woman due to societal pressure. As far as evidence, in human genetics, you can pretty much rip apart any experiment done (sample size, inadequate controls, not enough generations, highly complex system, environmental pressures cannot be eliminated, etc). However, there is reason to believe that their is a genetic link.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can understand what you are saying scholar, but "there is reason to believe" is not enough.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ok. Take the last 20 posts about Homosexuality and replace that word with Organized Religion. Resume debate.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Karl,
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
There aren't any. What is it with people thinking that Darwinism is a moral theory? It is a purely descriptive theory of what actually happens in nature; you cannot reason from "This happens" to "That ought to happen" or "We should do this". You might as well ask for purely general-relativistic reasons for humans to exist.
Just wanted to make sure there aren't any. I generally try to ask questions about subjects I'm not certain about, rather than making bold assertations that turn out to be wrong.
I didn't think there were any reasons. That's why I couldn't really find fault with the first thing Johivian said. If you view the human species from a evolutionary perspective, then those who do not reproduce, which homosexuals in monogamous relationships would be a subset of, do not contribute to the human species.
I don't really find this a compelling argument, but from the standpoint he professes to hold, it is consistant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but the standpoint itself rests on fallacious is-ought reasoning! Consistency is irrelevant if your axioms are clearly wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The axiom that the only purpose to life is reproducing life is silly and sad.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Just popping in to say I also celebrate whatever causes have let to the creation of KarlEd.
That is all.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The axiom that the only purpose to life is reproducing life is silly and sad.
Why? Personally, I agree-there is much more to life than reproduction. I don't really think the idea is silly, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think calling opinions silly and sad without giving a reason is simply name-calling.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We all exist to create KarlEd's would be more in the vein of silly,
Especially considering only 2 people in recorded history have fulfilled their purpose. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Honestly, do any of us really think that once a person's child bearing and raising years are past that there is no purpose to their existance? Or that people who don't reproduce have no purpose at all?
I said his axiom was silly and sad. I did not claim (as he did by implication) that there was no reason for him to exist.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, but the standpoint itself rests on fallacious is-ought reasoning! Consistency is irrelevant if your axioms are clearly wrong.
If you're talking about where he goes after his opening statement then I agree with you. From my limited knowledge of the subject, I believe naturalistic moral arguments are almost a universally agreed upon fallacy. However, his opening premise brought to mind to Dawkins' works on the subjects of evolution and the meaning of life. Being a theist, I didn't necessary find Dawkin's arguments convincing either, however they do have substance to them. Of course, it may have just been the thread title that brought Dawkins to mind. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Recognizing that it's only been a few minutes, you haven't actually answered my question. You've replied with another question, which itself is pretty simply answered also.
Someone who believed that the primary (or even only) purpose to life was reproduction could well state that after their own children are born and raised and on their own, another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I've heard this "homosexuals have no biological purpose" argument quite a bit. I wanted to run this by you all and see what you thought. It's more a hypothesis than anything else.
Evolutionarily and biologically speaking we might consider survival of the population to be more important than the survival of our own genes. In times of overpopulation (and I do consider the world to be overpopulated), one might expect to see a rise in the number of homosexuals as a population control. I don't how I'd prove this one, but it makes a lot of sense to me on a macro level.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I say we outlaw dried up old rockers. Anything that gets rid of Mick Jagger can't be bad, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So what woul dhe being doing wasting time on the internet. Shouldn't he be out spreading his seed somewhere? Shouldn't you? Why would any of us waste time with art, philosophy, this discussion? If none of this has a purpose (unless of course, we are all here trying to hook up) what are we doing?
And, BTW,
quote: another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
homosexual people can do these things.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Well, I'm off to spread my seed. Don't wait up!"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Evolutionarily and biologically speaking we might consider survival of the population to be more important than the survival of our own genes.
Are you sure?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Well, I'm off to spread my seed. Don't wait up!"
Have fun! Oops. Wait. Don't bother. Not the purpose.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:another fulfillment of that purpose would be to aid in the raising of their grandchildren, or their community's children, or taking a career that aids children, etc.
Thus, those that choose not to have children or are incapable of having children can still contribute to the human species thereby invalidating the statement, "If you view the human species from a evolutionary perspective, then those who do not reproduce, which homosexuals in monogamous relationships would be a subset of, do not contribute to the human species."
Edit: or what kmb said much more concisely with only six words.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
The children are born. It's done, whoever passed on their genes did it. Contribution over, from a genetic, evolutionary standpoint. Perhaps you could detail how it refutes this. My understanding of the theory of evolution is nowhere near complete.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BQT, theoretically you are only "done" once those children are able to pass on their genes. Once they have kids, you're done.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
grandchildren = evolutionary success
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Makes sense, thank you However, genetically it doesn't matter who raises the kid, so long as it reaches mating age, right? A sterile stranger could raise the kid through puberty, but still add zero of his own genes to the pool.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rakeesh, could not the same function, given to the Grand ParentS--that of helping the community raise the children.
Having a sub-set of permanent bachelors that produce equal amounts of community work, but have fewer drains on the resources since they have no children, should result in an increase in the chances of the communities survival.
To say that homosexuals have no evolutionary place since they can not reproduce is like saying that worker bee's in a hive have no evolutionary place.
In fact, a community that contains productive but not reproductive homosexuals would out-survive a community that does not. So anti-homosexual behavior is more unnatural, and evolutionarilly dangerous and prone to be naturally deselected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
True. But then, according to Johivin, we shouldn't be wasting resources (food,etc.) on parents once they are done popping out babies (or for men, once their last offspring is conceived as long as there was someone to raise the child.
So let's see what, according to Johivin, are people who have some justification for existance:
1)Fertile people who are actively procreating.
2) People who have children to raise up to the point where those children can join group number one.
3) Children who will join group number one.
Nope. I still shouldn't exist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Assuming a child had a constant supply of food/water can it be demonstrated that that child would grow up and be sufficiently able to pass on their genes?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
so.... can sterile people be as gay as they wanna be?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Me neither, since I am childless at 26 years old. I think he's dead wrong though and that there's a heck of a lot more to life. I just jumped in because from the naturalistic/evolutionary standpoint he claims to hold, his statement did more validity than it was given credit for, even if his argument wasn't sound.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Evolutionarily and biologically speaking we might consider survival of the population to be more important than the survival of our own genes.
Are you sure?
That some might? Absolutely.
I'd argue that people have an instinct to preserve their own genes and a competing instinct to preserve their population. These two instincts sometimes work towards the same purpose, but the examples otherwise are obvious. That's why people are willing to join the army and go off and fight a war, neh?
This has strayed more into the psychological than I would have liked. I kind of assumed it would be taken as a given that, at times, there are people willing to sacrifice their own contribution to the gene pool in exchange for some benefit to the population. The how and why that leads to that behavior isn't so important to my hypothesis, merely the fact of the behavior.
*I was going to expand more on what I wrote, but I just noticed that Dan has already explicitly and implicitly touched on the points I would have made. Kudos, Mr. Raven.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks, that kind of helps me see where you were coming from before. Sorry if I'm coming off as adversarial I think I'm just talking to keep me sane while writing my yearly self-evaluation.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
More in line with where Elton is coming from...
On NPR a few years ago they did an article on Gay Muslims. One of the more odd proofs that are used to prove the superiority of Islam by some supporters with limited insight is, "There are no gay Muslims." (NPR went on to interview and research the homosexual underculture in parts of the Muslim world. Its not that there are no Gay muslims, there just are not any living gay muslims who admit it.)
This thread made come up with the ultimate answer to that comment.
"There aren't any gay suicide bombers either."
.
.
(forigve me--I can't help it)
.
And not just because the explosive belts would clash with thier purses either.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
An uncle sacrificing himself for his nephew is an evolutionarily sound system (because the surviving genes are till closely related to the uncle). A study exists that claims sisters of gay men have higher fertility than the rest of the population. So, perhaps a gay man's evolutionary role is to insure his sister's genes survive (or his parent's grandchildren).
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Does having a gay uncle increase the likelyhood of surviving long enough for your children to have children? If so, then I've got to see that study Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Does having a gay uncle increase the likelyhood of surviving long enough for your children to have children? If so, then I've got to see that study
It does if Uncle Elton is looking out for them. With the fashion sense he will instill within your children's minds, they will have trouble NOT propagating their genes.
To say nothing of the sweet ride Elton as a car collector could hook your kids up with.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Touché.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: grandchildren = evolutionary success
Yay! I'm a success! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Congratulations! Beautiful child. We have no further use for you.
(kidding of course, except about the beautiful part)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by BaoQingTian: Thanks, that kind of helps me see where you were coming from before. Sorry if I'm coming off as adversarial I think I'm just talking to keep me sane while writing my yearly self-evaluation.
Not at all. I thought your question was a fair one, and I didn't think you came off as adversarial. Good luck with your evaluation. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Congratulations! Beautiful child. We have no further use for you.
(kidding of course, except about the beautiful part)
Well we could always liquify her and feed her to the young, a la Matrix.
Juxapose,
Thanks, I was hoping I wasn't being a jerk. Thanks for the well-wishing as I play the corporate game. If my next raise wasn't based on it, it would be tempting in light of this thread to do it based on my genetic strengths and 'development needs.' However, the accomplishment section would pretty much be blank since I haven't genetically contributed to any children this year, nor am I anyone's gay uncle.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: ... However, the accomplishment section would pretty much be blank since I haven't genetically contributed to any children this year, nor am I anyone's gay uncle.
Slacker!
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Consider the following statement and then answer this question, “Who is more likely to make such a statement Atheists or Organized Religion? Here is the statement:
“People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Oh man, I hear that from the folks at church enough. You've been married 3 YEARS and don't have any children yet?! (Insert their horrified gaze and my eyes rolling) Oh well, I guess I'm now an evolutionary as well as religious slacker.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't know any atheists on this board that would say that, Sam. Atheism is not equal to amoral. I know you're not saying that, but just thought it needed to be said.
Edit: In response to your question, I admit I can't think of a scenario where a theist would say this, but I have heard some atheists in other places say similar things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Oh man, I hear that from the folks at church enough. You've been married 3 YEARS and don't have any children yet?! (Insert their horrified gaze and my eyes rolling) Oh well, I guess I'm now an evolutionary as well as religious slacker.
Just tell them you are trying, even if you are not
They can't really get mad at you for God's will now can they? Too bad you don't live down in my section of Provo Bao, I'd sit next to you at church and field your questions for you.
Best of luck on your evaluation!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: “People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
"People who do not reproduce are not following God's Will and will probably go to Hell."
I heard that every Sunday at my old church.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Consider the following statement and then answer this question, “Who is more likely to make such a statement Atheists or Organized Religion? Here is the statement:
“People who do not reproduce are genetic dead ends and serve no useful purpose in terms of continuation of the species.”
I have heard this exact argument before from multiple people of organized religion. For the specific people I'm talking about, they are both religious and highly educated. They have no problem with the coexistence of faith and evolution and seem to combine the two ideas whenever possible. This includes statements like the one you quoted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Homosexuals could do that very well, I believe, yes. I'm not sure why that question was posed in response to a remark of mine, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm struggling to understand how anything I said got wrangled up in homosexuality and the evolutionary purpose of homosexuals. I said to someone (not me) who believed that propogating the species was the primary or sole purpose to human life (and I challenge anyone to find me someone who, in rhetoric and in how they actually live exemplifies this ideology), there was in fact a purpose to living that matched that belief once one's own children were successfully raised and independant.
You know, why bother? I give up.
Posted by gums (Member # 9874) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis
I'm pretty sure "athiest" is an inaccurate word when it comes to Nazis. Atheists were among those persecuted by the Nazis.
Karl is right, although many Nazis were athiest, many were also neo pagan.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why else would Hitler go for the Ark of the Covenant!? And the holy grail!?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's like no one in this thread has even HEARD of Indiana Jones.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
He was the guy that was kicked in the crotch by Chuck Norris in the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. Of course I've heard of him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by gums:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis
I'm pretty sure "athiest" is an inaccurate word when it comes to Nazis. Atheists were among those persecuted by the Nazis.
Karl is right, although many Nazis were athiest, many were also neo pagan.
While what you say is technically true, it is rather misleading. Most Nazis were ordinary garden-variety Christians.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think if organized religion were suddenly erradicated, it would re-create itself.
Although I'd be somewhat curious to see what it would re-create itself into.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That all depends on whether my secret police are still around to enforce atheism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm struggling to understand how anything I said got wrangled up in homosexuality and the evolutionary purpose of homosexuals. I said to someone (not me) who believed that propogating the species was the primary or sole purpose to human life (and I challenge anyone to find me someone who, in rhetoric and in how they actually live exemplifies this ideology), there was in fact a purpose to living that matched that belief once one's own children were successfully raised and independant.
You know, why bother? I give up.
You asked why I thought it was silly. I answered with examples of how silly it is. I don't know why you asked, since you don't seem to think the axiom has any merit either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I always seem to double back when I say I give up, but...
Your examples weren't very compelling towards demonstrating your point. I responded to them, and you have not answered my responses. As to why I asked, I asked because I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric. Evidence which has not been given here. One can still pursue the primary (or only) meaning to human life-assuming one believes such a thing-as a non-adopting homosexual. By improving the quality of life for other human beings, you make it more likely to safely increase the quantity.
Easy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You're right, Rakeesh. I have no evidence that my life as a non-procreator has any purpose.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
My life has a purpose. It may be exclusively a purpose that I have given it, but that's all the purpose it needs, IMO.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
In Dicty, in order to propogate, the unicellular critters merge together into a multicellular creature and the critter on the top gets to multiply. So, most dicty's only purpose is to help that one little dicty procreate. They never get to propogate their own genes. And there is some system that keeps "greedy" dicty from propogating (like if you genetically engineer some to move to the top, the other cells keep them down- it has been 4 years since I attended that seminar so my memory of how they do that is fuzzy).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Teleosts are known for filial cannibalism, ie., males sometimes eat their offspring. Studies suggest that contrary to predictions, this actually reduces male reproductive success.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've got to admit that I find the whole "what is the purpose of life" question a bit silly and irrelevant; we're talking about it over at Ornery, too.
To my way of thinking, the whole concept of "purpose" is precisely that -- a concept. It doesn't necessarily have to reflect physical reality any more than the word "nice" has to reflect reality. We all, as a result, define and discover "purpose" for ourselves -- and while some people might be comforted to believe that their purpose is reflected or mandated by some concrete reality, I don't think that's at all necessary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think I made myself clear that I wasn't looking for concrete, provable evidence when I said, "As to why I asked, I asked because I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric."
But let's instead focus on the other thing I said, and treat it as though it was the only statement I made. That way, I can appear unreasonable.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Rakeesh, I agree with your statement, "I don't as a rule like dismissing things as 'silly' without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric," but I think the point that many are trying to make is that it is not necessary (and may even been inaccurate) to rationalize every purpose as being somehow related to the goal of successful reproduction as an individual or as a species.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rakeesh, instead of appearing unreasonable, wouldn't you rather appear silly?
That way we cold dismiss you without lots of proof or at least evidence, scientific or simply ideas and rhetoric.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
No no, banning things encourages people to do it! I swear this is at least half of what it interesting about porn.
The other half is the part where porn is naked people having sex. Before anyone attempts to explain why porn is appealing.
But really, in Europe nudity isn't as intriguing, because it's not forbidden. I think banning religion would have the same effect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...but I think the point that many are trying to make is that it is not necessary (and may even been inaccurate) to rationalize every purpose as being somehow related to the goal of successful reproduction as an individual or as a species.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's necessary or accurate to define life's purpose as reproduction. I'm trying to point out that some of the objections given to such a belief as silly and sad are themselves flimsy at best.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
kat--so then what are your thoughts on the apostle Paul and the Dalai Lama, as well as hundreds of other saints, holy men, meditators, early Christian mystics, etc.? Plenty of them did not leave descendants. I just want to hear your thoughts now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My stars, was that to me?
I am going to assume that it was.
I think many things make life meaningful, and that this life is not the only place to fulfill the purposes of our existance.
However, I hesitate to blithely dismiss anyone's deeply-held beliefs as "silly and sad" simply because I disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I dismissed his idea; Johivin dismissed my life.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's necessary or accurate to define life's purpose as reproduction.
Understood. Here is the main point that I was responding to:
quote:One can still pursue the primary (or only) meaning to human life-assuming one believes such a thing-as a non-adopting homosexual. By improving the quality of life for other human beings, you make it more likely to safely increase the quantity.
I believe it's unnecessary to show how you can still contribute to the reproductive chances of the species in general without having to reproduce yourself (which scholar's example does a good job of supporting), because I don't think the initial premise is correct to begin with.
Is that premise or belief a silly and sad one? Well, I would be a bit sad if any purpose that I had in life were limited to only things that in some way increased the chances of the species' survival. I'm not sure that I would find it all that silly though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright. I'll be careful not to, you know, change my name to Johivin or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alright. I'll be careful not to, you know, change my name to Johivin or something.
Huh? You may be defending it (or attacking my attack of it) but I'm not attributing the idea to you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: He was the guy that was kicked in the crotch by Chuck Norris in the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. Of course I've heard of him.
Drink!
(It's a new drinking game. Every time someone mentions the Ultimate Showdown, you have to drink.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, I thought it was the every time someone mentioned Chuck Norris.
Fun drinking game: Watch Walker Texas Ranger. Every time Walker kicks someone, drink.
If you aren't totally sloshed after the show is over, I'll buy your next round.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love how lots of Christians flip out when a gay man suggests they organized religion should not legally be allowed to exist, while at the same time so many of them are dead set on making sure that a gay couple can't legally marry.
I guess it's only cool to have the government oppress OTHER people's freedoms Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe a better comparison to having gay marriages not be legal is revoking the tax exempt status from any religious organization, other than the parts that are actually doing community services such as running hospitals, orphanages, feedint the poor, etc.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's indeed a better comparison, but it doesn't invalidate MC's point. Since such a thing is actually within the realm of possibility, anyone suggesting it would cause absolute paroxysms of Persecution Paranoia (tm) in the Christian right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Please. You don't have to nearly that far to cause P of PP in the Christian Right. The Christian right has perfected the art of P of PP over the puniest and paltriest of pretexts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
True, that's why I specified that they would be not merely paroxysms, but absolute paroxysms. :nods:
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Christian right has perfected the art of P of PP over the puniest and paltriest of pretexts.
And the Christian Right's opposition has perfected the art of calling serious infringements on constitutional rights puny and paltry.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Pundits!!
Perfect, very clever Toad, yes, yes...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I consider last year's flap over people who prefer "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas" to be puny and palty. I thought it was petty, too, on both sides. Is that what we are considering a serious infringment of constitutional rights these days?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is that what we are considering a serious infringment of constitutional rights these days?
I'm not entirely sure why you are asking this. First, the flap centered mostly around private businesses, not government, so I'm not sure why you brought up constitutionality.
Second, even if some of the their issues are puny and paltry, it doesn't mean that ones that aren't puny and paltry aren't called that.
[ November 16, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag, I think you need a second "aren't" near the end of that. Right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, thanks.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think that non-breeders of all sorts actually contribute to the future of the human race by not reproducing. If everyone in ever generation reproduced at or above population replacement rates (common, I think, in many countries) the impact on resources might prove problematic within a few generations. This is also one reson why the human race needs wars, disease and sociopathic predators. Bears, lions, et al, just aren't keeping the population in check like they used to. Of those choices, I'm waaaay in favor of the widespread gay.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hey, we're working as fast as we can. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, now there's an argument to use on religious folk. Their religion demands that they don't use contraceptives, so they have seven kids (just using my Catholic grandparents as an example), but if everyone had seven kids, and all those kids had seven kids, it won't take long to fill the planet. So really, gays are allowing them to live their religious lifestyle without choking humanity on itself. Really, they should be appreciative of the service.
I wonder how that'd go over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What a minute, kmbboots, are you serious? Did you really think that's the kind of thing Dagonee was referring to about infringements on constitutional rights? Give me a break.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does Dag really think I was referring to serious infringments of our constitutional rights when I wrote about puny and palty reasons for the Christian Right to freak out?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That scenario is problematic. Ask Russia how excited they are about having an aging population of people who haven't produced future workers. We have gone from 31 workers for every person on social security to 3, and it is only getting worse. We are not pressed by a preponderance of children, but by a preponderance of older people who are not replacing themselves.
quote:Their religion demands that they don't use contraceptives, so they have seven kids (just using my Catholic grandparents as an example), but if everyone had seven kids, and all those kids had seven kids, it won't take long to fill the planet. So really, gays are allowing them to live their religious lifestyle without choking humanity on itself. Really, they should be appreciative of the service.
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. The entire idea that we are using up resources came from a book in the 1960s that claimed that by the 80s we'd all be starving to death because 5 billion was just WAY, WAY too many for the planet to support. Oh, I don't have time to dig up the links to refute this.
Anyway, I think coming up with justifications is a fine activity, but you can do better than this. That argument is very weak.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What a minute, kmbboots, are you serious? Did you really think that's the kind of thing Dagonee was referring to about infringements on constitutional rights? Give me a break.
Actually, I think they were talking past each other. Here's my take:
Kate: The religious right is good at PP over really insignificant things. Dag: And their opposition is good at calling some really important things insignificant. Kate: I was referring to the really insignificant stuff, like the "happy holidays" flap. Dag: You don't seriously think that's a major constitutional issue, right? But regardless, my point stands. Just because some of the issues are paltry and puny, doesn't mean some of their genuinely important issues don't also get lumped in with the puny and paltry unjustly.
(Feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented anything).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Anyway, I think coming up with justifications is a fine activity, but you can do better than this. That argument is very weak.
Yes it is. I don't think anyone was suggesting it in any more than a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does Dag really think I was referring to serious infringments of our constitutional rights when I wrote about puny and palty reasons for the Christian Right to freak out?
I don't know. I do know that the exact same criticism you levied against the Christian Right has been levied against them for protesting against serious infringements of constitutional rights. I have no idea whether you were doing that or not, and I didn't accuse you of doing so.
I made the initial response I did merely to offer another piece of information on the phenomenon you were describing. I have not once said that the Christian Right does not overreact to little things. I used the word "And" to start my post for a reason.
Again, even if some of the their issues are puny and paltry, it doesn't mean that ones that aren't puny and paltry aren't called that. It's a distressingly common tactic, and, even when the puny and paltry attack is brought up in a way that's not using that tactic, it bears reminding that the tactic is commonly misused. And that there is a highly funded set of advocacy groups using the attorney-fee reimbursement aspect of civil rights suits to intimidate local officials into violating the constitutional rights of religious people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Anyway, I think coming up with justifications is a fine activity, but you can do better than this. That argument is very weak.
Yes it is. I don't think anyone was suggesting it in any more than a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
You're probably right. I think it bothers me that he was so flippant about what dumb arguments those "religious folk" could be silenced by.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
This is responding to a post from way back but... "Bible Belt"??????????
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
A lot of the developed countries are at negative population growth right now(Japan, for one). But the ones that aren't are generally more ripe for conflict. Some have argued that regions where there is more competion for mates (more males than females, limited resourses) are the best places to recruit the surplus for terrorism or war. That is just a general tendency in anthropological terms, divorced from morality or emotional involvement.
Generaly, in areas where women outnumber men, there is less conflict and more getting laid. Everybody benefits. I mean, would a guy really want to go into a tube station in London with explosives strapped to his body, if he could be home licking whipped cream out of his lover's navel?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Anyway, I think coming up with justifications is a fine activity, but you can do better than this. That argument is very weak.
Yes it is. I don't think anyone was suggesting it in any more than a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
You're probably right. I think it bothers me that he was so flippant about what dumb arguments those "religious folk" could be silenced by.
He was correct, I was kidding. Other than trying to explain to you why it was funny, and the intricacies of comedy, I don't know how else to sate your annoyance.
I never suggested they would be silenced by such an argument, in fact, the sarcasm that was supposed to be inherent in my post was meant to outline just how useless such an argument would really be on "religious folk," which by the way, I don't know why you seem to take issue with as a term. Folk is another word for people, religious is fairly inoffensive, at least to people who claim to be so. So, religious folk to me doesn't seem to have anything offensive to it.
Folk is a word I use in everyday conversation too, by the way.
To say nothing of the fact that I wouldn't for a moment call religious folk stupid, seeing as how I referenced in that very post that my grandparents are Catholic. You think I was calling my grandparents stupid? My entire family, with the exception of my brother and I, is very, VERY religious. My cousin is a minister. Two of my aunts teach bible study, and another cousin taught at a Christian high school until she left to homeschool her kids.
Learn to take a joke, or ask me to clarify, but don't assume you know what I'm inferring, or you might find yourself as horribly wrong as you are right now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* Folk is a colloquial term often used to diminish people. It can be used in other ways, but in context it certainly seems to be used in a dismissive way.
I'll ask to clarify, but if you have to defend yourself with "learn how to take a joke", then you misjudged your own language and/or funniness. Be careful how you use language.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: A lot of the developed countries are at negative population growth right now(Japan, for one). But the ones that aren't are generally more ripe for conflict. Some have argued that regions where there is more competion for mates (more males than females, limited resourses) are the best places to recruit the surplus for terrorism or war. That is just a general tendency in anthropological terms, divorced from morality or emotional involvement.
Generaly, in areas where women outnumber men, there is less conflict and more getting laid. Everybody benefits. I mean, would a guy really want to go into a tube station in London with explosives strapped to his body, if he could be home licking whipped cream out of his lover's navel?
The opposing argument to that, is probably that the guy in London blowing himself up is being promised 20 virgins in heaven with endless cans of ready whip. Personally, I'd choose the home option, as the girl I've got now is better than any 20 virgins this world or the next could offer me. But then, she's one in a million, so I guess it's back to the drawing board on that as an option.
Several less than developed nations are experiences negative population growth too, half of eastern Europe, Russia was already mentioned, the Ukraine I read recently was expected to lose EIGHTY percent of it's population in the next two generations due to negative growth rates and emmigration out of the country.
My solution to any possible overcrowding problems in the other thread discussing population issues, don't remember which thread it was, but it involved General Sax talking about Caucasians needing to outbreed the other races to escape extinction, was to bring the rest of the world out of poverty, and watch birth rates stablize. The majority of the world's industrialized, wealthy nations either have a 2.1 perfect replacement rate, or less. Russia's rate would go up if everyone had access to work, money, and infrastructure. And much of the rest of the world's I think would go down as well, if they came out of the 19th/20th centuries. That was a little tongue in cheek too, but it's responsible as well as altruistic (well, not ENTIRELY, but not bad), and good for the world at large.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *sigh* Folk is a colloquial term often used to diminish people. It can be used in other ways, but in context it certainly seems to be used in a dismissive way.
I'll ask to clarify, but if you have to defend yourself with "learn how to take a joke", then you misjudged your own language and/or funniness. Be careful how you use language.
I don't use it that way. I accept that you don't know me well enough to discern what I mean when I say something that could potentially be taken the wrong way, so I'm telling you flat out. And I wouldn't even say it's commonly used that way, depending on where you are from. Rural people (at least around me they do, and down south where I have other family)(see, I almost said folk again, but changed it for your benefit, unless you think I'm calling farmers stupid too?) use folk on a daily basis, and they aren't debasing their neighbors, they're using it as a replacement for "people," which is commonly accepted.
I also reject that I was attempting to diminish religious PEOPLE with my apparent 'attempt' at humor. Religious people, as a whole, are against birth control, are they not? Religious people are against homosexuality in general, for whatever reasons, are they not? Near as I can tell, I stated facts, and then used an argument against their positions that was so obviously absurd and flawed so as to induce a comedic effect. It's a fairly regularly used technique. If all you're taking issue with is the fact that I said "folk" and not people, then let's just chalk it up to you misunderstanding me and let it go.
And your assertion there isn't necesasrily an automatic. Karl got the joke, or at least I'm assuming he did. I assumed you got it, but didn't think it was funny, but you don't appear to have gotten it at all, hence the explanation. And there's no way I misjudged my funniness, I'm hysterical Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh, I agree completely. When you have a comfortable life, you are less likely to find things to fight about. The area where I lived has a huge population of Georgians, for example. Not just because it's the state of Georgia, but because of the mass exodus of people from the former Soviet Republic. Obviously, they are here seeking a better life. There is definitely an exodus from Eastern Europe (and a huge market for Easter European mail-order brides-- I think there are at least two huge companies here in Atlanta that organize match making trips overseas).
It's only when a population feels they are being denied the means to make a life for themselves and their families that you run into problems, I think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes on the first and no on the second.
Maybe it's the general stereotypes of religious people that are getting to me. Over 90% of Americans believe in God. Over 70 claim to belong to a church. Half claim to go. Over a third claim to go every week. That's millions and millions of people and there is a wide, wide range of opinions and attitudes.
Dismissive stereotypes of all kinds are problematic. It means that you're not dealing with the actual people and instead prefer to deal inaccurate cartoons. You're certainly within your rights to do so, but I think it'd be great to read a conversation not being illustrated with crayons and a magic marker.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would you disagree with the following statement:
"Generally those who are religious and oppose homosexuality also oppose birth control?"
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*Aplauds Katie* Nicely handled, on that last bit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: This is responding to a post from way back but... "Bible Belt"??????????
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Would you disagree with the following statement:
"Generally those who are religious and oppose homosexuality also oppose birth control?"
I would. Especially the birth control part. Birth control is used by about the same percentage of U.S. Catholics as it is by the rest of the country. I don't have the exact numbers here (although I think I have quoted them before) but a study in the 80s or early 90s showed that over 90% of "good"* Catholics believed that BC is fine.
And that's Catholics. I would guess that among mainline Protestants it would be at least similar.
*by "good" they used various measures of how important faith was to the person, frequency of attending service, percentage of income donated, etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks, Olivet.
Lyrhawn, that statement is wrong. Your grandparents notwithstanding, not all religious people are Catholic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a religion that believes birth control is wrong* outside of the Catholics.
*With a nod to Ms. Boot's stats above.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, and isn't now a good time for kittens?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I had a decent sized post in which included an apology for the misrepresentation of religion as a whole, but it seems to have been sucked into the Hatrack abyss somewhere.
Anyway, I do apologize for fronting outdated stereotypes of religion. Blah blah blah, etc etc, stuff I don't feel like typing out again.
And I'd dispute what makes a "Good" Catholic, but there's a generational divide there. I grew up with a rather strict interpretation from my mother on what a "good" Catholic meant, but today's version is apparently a hell of a lot more watered down.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Oh, and isn't now a good time for kittens?
Is that caption a crack at gay guys?! Is it?!!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooooo...Lyrhawn. I'm gonna have to object to "watered down". Your mother might think so, but I would argue that obedience is not a reliable hallmark of a good Catholic. Yes. There is a generational difference. Check the Second Vatican Council (roughly 1963-65) for why. But don't think that contemporary Catholics are less passionate, less involved, or less true than their ancestors. An argument could be made that we are more so, because, since Vatican II, we have more choices and more opportunity for leadership and governance.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, it was a crack at Catholics.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
How does "ball diver" = "Catholic"?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Or Tony Danza. Take your pick.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Tony Danza is a BD? Score one for the team!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
He makes my gaydar go off, so yes.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
You have gaydar? Is it open-source now? I knew we should have kept tighter control of the licensing!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Heh, heh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Actually, I'm having trouble coming up with a religion that believes birth control is wrong* outside of the Catholics.
Some selected quotes discouraging the use of birth control. Though it should be noted that the church has NEVER declared any of it doctrine, notwithstanding Joseph F Smith being a prophet a large portion of his life.
I know lots of Mormon's who use birth control (my wife included) but if I came across a Mormon who was vehemently opposed to its use, it would not surprise me, but its certainly not even a mainstream sentiment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ah. Interesting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It should be noted that what Black Blade has linked is not official LDS doctrine, does not all come from the leaders, and may or may not be accurate.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
However, the post-1999 hand book of instructions quote is current church policy, is it not?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ooooo...Lyrhawn. I'm gonna have to object to "watered down". Your mother might think so, but I would argue that obedience is not a reliable hallmark of a good Catholic. Yes. There is a generational difference. Check the Second Vatican Council (roughly 1963-65) for why. But don't think that contemporary Catholics are less passionate, less involved, or less true than their ancestors. An argument could be made that we are more so, because, since Vatican II, we have more choices and more opportunity for leadership and governance.
You're Catholic, I'm guessing?
You more or less just made my case for me. Today's Catholicism is a watered down version of what it used to be. It may just be that this version is better for Catholics, it brings more people in, it allows more people to comfortably worship with what appears to some older Catholics as relaxed rules. If the argument is whether or not people are obedient to the "old" rules or not, then it doesn't really matter. The point is the "rules" changed, and were relaxed, in other words, watered down.
I was raised with two or three different version of Catholicism: My grandpa's old school version, which is basically 19th century pre French Revolution European Catholicism, my mother's more modern Catholicism, but still more strict than what is mandated today, and then what actually happens today.
I never said which was better, to be honest, I don't really have a personal opinion on the matter, as I think I'm a very, very lazy Catholic (I use the term Diet Catholic most of the time). My only point was that things have changed, relaxed, and thus, watered down.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Different != "watered down"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, "watered down" implies weaker or less intense. Having a sufficient understanding of doctrine and theology that one can and must take personal responsibility for one's decisions is more intense and, I believe, creates a stronger faith than following a set of rules that one doesn't even have to think about. My Church requires more of me than mere obedience. It requires participation at many levels. Informed dissent is not "relaxed" or "lazy".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is it objectionable to call one form of Catholocism 'watered down', but not to call the other 'merely obedient'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If it is objectionable to you, argue it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine - the implication that people who believe that contraception is wrong don't "[h]av[e] a sufficient understanding of doctrine and theology that [they] can and must take personal responsibility for [their] decisions" and that such people are exhibiting "mere obedience" is objectionable to me.
Dana managed to respond to Lyrhawn's post without creating that implication.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What Dagonee said, but stated better than I would have. I'm wary of arguing things with you anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, Dana rocks!
Dagonee, do you think contraception is wrong because you have thought about it, considered the theology and the reasons for it, decided that you agree, or for any number of other reasons decided to abide with that particular "rule"? Or is "well, the Pope said so" the extent of responsibility you take for that decision?
I would have guessed that for you it is the former. I am sure that many Catholics who take personal responsibility, have understanding of doctrine and so forth, reach different conclusions than I do on a lot of things. That is not "mere obedience".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What Dagonee said, but stated better than I would have. I'm wary of arguing things with you anyway.
Rakeesh, if you are wary of arguing things with me, why do you start arguing things with me?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I find the implication that Catholics who are obedient must be "merely" obedient to be quite arrogant. Obedient != unthinking
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Obedient does not have to mean merely obedient.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wary != unwilling, to continue the use of the symbol.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think passing judgement on whether other people have thought sufficiently before they do their best to follow the commandments is a terrible thing to do.
If you want other people to consider your disobedience a considered dissent instead of the garden-variety breaking-of-commandments, then it's hardly fair to not return the courtesy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was arguing that the difference Lyrhawn sees in pre- and post- Vatican II Catholicism is not an issue of making things easier or more comfortable. Vatican II Catholicism is not "Catholic-lite". I was not suggesting that everyone who thinks BC is wrong does so without thinking about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it's fair to pass judgement on someone who think BC is wrong. What if they haven't wrestled with that particular issue? What if the issue they wrestled with was whether or not to be Catholic, and then having gotten a strong answer in that regard, they do their best to be as strictly Catholic as they possibly can.
No birth control can be a very hard thing to live - I wouldn't want to tell someone that their reasons for faithful obedience are not good enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Having a sufficient understanding of doctrine and theology that one can and must take personal responsibility for one's decisions is more intense and, I believe, creates a stronger faith than following a set of rules that one doesn't even have to think about.
Well, you said something quite different before than what you're saying now. Before, your faith was stronger, more intense, more thoughtful, participatory, and responsible. Now it's simply 'different'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I am not passing judgement on people's decision on BC. I am not passing judgement on people particularly. I am talking about the difference in a church culture that says, "It is not your job to think about this. We have made a pronouncement. Obey it or you will go to hell" and a church culture that says, "Here is the accumulated wisdom, but ultimately you must decide for yourself how best to be faithful."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I was referring to a Church culture that discouraged thinking about those decisions or thinking about doctrine at all, not about people who make different decisions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think both presentations are extreme distortions.
"Here is accumulated wisdom" does not carry the weight of a commandment and it doesn't imply anything about the will of the Lord. It's like the old joke - it makes it sound like the 10 Suggestions.
"Don't think. Shut up and obey or go to hell" is a terrible characterization as well. Saying that following the commandments will please the Lord and is the only way to grow spiritually is hardly a Jonathon Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" polemic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I think that if you look at the generational change Lyrhawn and I were talking about you will see a significant shift in direction. For example, when my father took what was then called "Catholic Instruction" 50 years ago, he was given rules and was quite often told, "you don't need to know why." That is a big part of the reason he didn't become Catholic. His experience was pretty typical. Today the RCIA process spends a lot of time on the "why". When we talk about doctrine, we try to give a sense of why the Church's position is what it is, historically, traditionally, scripturally etc. This is what I mean by presenting accumulated wisdom.
By "obey or go to hell" what I mean is that, quite literally, if you didn't obey, you couldn't receive the sacraments and were endangering your salvation.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing with "commandments" and I don't know about the Jonathan Edwards thing. (Is he the guy who talks to ghosts?)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I seem to recall that the Catholic church will occasionally say that this, that, or the next thing is 'necessary to salvation'. Is there an updated list somewhere of what the current necessities are? Or maybe they've dropped the concept in recent years?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, not sure what you mean. Can you give some examples? From what I understand, grace is necessary for salvation. The details are how one can/should access that grace.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It should be noted that what Black Blade has linked is not official LDS doctrine, does not all come from the leaders, and may or may not be accurate.
I could have sworn I said that in my post. Sans the accurate part.
edit: Not only that I should have noted that some of the comments are in favor of personal choice, so not directly negative towards it's use.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: kat, I think that if you look at the generational change Lyrhawn and I were talking about you will see a significant shift in direction. For example, when my father took what was then called "Catholic Instruction" 50 years ago, he was given rules and was quite often told, "you don't need to know why." That is a big part of the reason he didn't become Catholic. His experience was pretty typical. Today the RCIA process spends a lot of time on the "why". When we talk about doctrine, we try to give a sense of why the Church's position is what it is, historically, traditionally, scripturally etc. This is what I mean by presenting accumulated wisdom.
By "obey or go to hell" what I mean is that, quite literally, if you didn't obey, you couldn't receive the sacraments and were endangering your salvation.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing with "commandments" and I don't know about the Jonathan Edwards thing. (Is he the guy who talks to ghosts?)
I like that explanation better. The "obey or suffer for eternity" mentality is why I retreated from the faith.
I suppose I'll have you ask your forgiveness/tolerance of my use of "watered down" to describe the changes. I grew up with a stricter view, with the strict "obey or face the consequences" mentality that came with it. Therefore, and as I said before, I don't necessarily think that the new Catholicism is BAD, in fact I specifically said that I wasn't claiming that, just that it required less of what USED TO be necessary to consider yourself a "good Catholic."
I'm outdated (and sadly, only 22), gimme a break. I've only ever been to one church, Shrine of the Little Flower, which is a fairly big/semi-famous church in Southeast Michigan. If anyone's ever heard of Father Coughlin, big figure a few decades ago, he preached there. Maybe it's time I reconsider Catholicism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Therefore, and as I said before, I don't necessarily think that the new Catholicism is BAD, in fact I specifically said that I wasn't claiming that, just that it required less of what USED TO be necessary to consider yourself a "good Catholic."
That is true. The good part is that it requires (or at least opens the door to) more of some new things. New things that I think are quite wonderful.
quote:Maybe it's time I reconsider Catholicism.
Maybe. If you do, remember that it is (and will continue to be) a work in progress. There has been plenty of "push back" to VII. It is an interesting time in the Church.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
KarlEd
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)