posted
Perhaps these things are trivial, Lalo, and perhaps they are not. What I'm saying is that it could be that from our limited perspectives we cannot see real harm that they do, which is why they have to be presented to us as simple imperatives--the same way you don't explain to a small child in graphic detail why he can't touch a stove. The comparison is unflattering, but that doesn't make it invalid.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but not ever in his life will said child, once an adult, engage in touching the stove in a sanctioned manner. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps these things are trivial, Lalo, and perhaps they are not. What I'm saying is that it could be that from our limited perspectives we cannot see real harm that they do, which is why they have to be presented to us as simple imperatives--the same way you don't explain to a small child in graphic detail why he can't touch a stove. The comparison is unflattering, but that doesn't make it invalid.
"These things" being my examples of bans on eating pork or beef, having sex before marriage, or drinking coffee.
Why not explain to the child why she shouldn't touch a stove? Tell her doing would injure her -- and if she wants to know more, tell her.
And while I'm sure most gods' colossal intellects overshadow our own intelligences, if you can't understand why you're forbidden to do something, I think it's damn irresponsible of you to obey unquestioningly. Didn't your god give you free will? Why else do you have it if not to exercise it? If a god can't give you a good reason to not have a porkchop, beyond three thousand year old mandates to a nomadic shepharding tribe in the Arabian desert, it's your duty to find out why and what's morally reprehensible in eating Babe.
Shame on anyone who's blessed with an intellect and chooses not to exercise it when their self-credited religion bans eating a food or reading a book. It's that kind of religious mentality that gets Harry Potter burned in the South, or jihads declared in the Middle East.
Saying that it's possible that your god's just too smart to tell you why something's wrong is a sham. If you're incapable of understanding why something's wrong, you have neither the obligation nor the reason to go about shunning it -- if your god's omnipotent and doesn't want you to do something, She can damn go back in time and redesign the human race to have large enough brains to understand the wacky laws She cranks out. Unless, of course, you enjoy worshipping an irresponsibly arbitrary god that passes random laws on random acts, then incapacitates your ability to understand why such acts would be immoral. Shame on Her, and shame on you for obeying such a monster.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But at the same time, if someone decides he/she doesn't want to eat meat or drink coffee or whatever, is it really your place to tell him/her, "No, you should because it won't kill you"? I mean, I _could_ do any number of things that I don't do, such as eat some more pecan pie tonight or go out and play with my new puppy right this very second.
I really don't think that God would strike me dead if I called up so-and-so tomorrow and decided to have sex with him (So-and-so, however, might kill me once he caught my bronchitis ). Doesn't mean that I should/have to necessarily go do it.
The point is that if someone wants to wait for _any_ reason, there's no reason he or she shouldn't. It's not going to harm you.
Now, if I were to suddenly give up...I don't know...._oxygen_, or something...
quote:But at the same time, if someone decides he/she doesn't want to eat meat or drink coffee or whatever, is it really your place to tell him/her, "No, you should because it won't kill you"?
Of course not. If you choose not to do something for your own reasons, I have no problem with it. We've had conversations to this effect before, where you explained to me your logical reasons for waiting for marriage -- and truth be told, I have a lot of respect for your patience.
My problem lies with people who obey random laws from gods without understanding why. As I just told T on AIM, "why are you compelled to obey what you don't understand? If God wanted you to have both free will and obedience, She, She being an omnipotent, omniscient deity, would have granted you the ability to understand Her laws and thus morally obey her mandates. If you're told to not do something, and can't explain why, it's likely that it's not God's will that you obey that ban."
There are plenty of secular reasons to not eat red meat or drink caffeine, and any one of those passes my inspection. But claiming that a god says no -- let alone those who can't provide any reasoning beyond the God-says-no argument -- is laughable, and likely to get called on.
[Edited to better clarify my quote from my conversation with T_Dawg]
posted
Wasn't there a thread on dietary restrictions some time back? Not to say that you shouldn't discuss it in this thread, I am finding it interesting, I just wonder if I could find it and copy out someone else's fine argument. *grin*
From what I remember, when the restrictions were put in place, there were actual health reasons for not eating pork (etc). Dangit, I wish I could remember.
As far as premarital sex, dietary restrictions, etc, my opinion is that it is a personal contract you have made with God. Truly sinful or not, it comes down to what *you* have agreed to forsake in order to come to terms with your own salvation. Like Lent. I don't believe that if you give things up for Lent, that gives you more 'credits' for heavenwardness. But if you have made a contract with God ('I will not eat chocolate for the time Lent occurs' for instance), and you don't honor it, I think that it affects your personal relationship with God, yes. Of course, you can always honestly repent.
I'm an off-the-wagon Protestant-no-preference though. *grin* I believe in a loving, forgiving God. That's about all I got.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this conversation is very relevent to the thread--Lalo's the perfect example of how to act if you wish to remain single. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he sure isn't going to be dating any God-fearing religious conservatives, that's for sure. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo's attitude isn't that sex is a must-have for a pre-marital relationship. He's said he CAN respect the ability to wait. I think what he's also saying is that he can't grasp why people would feel compelled to wait for, what seems to Lalo, arbitrary reasons when an unknown God commands it so.
posted
I know -- it is just that I seem to find a lot more guys, the older I get, who just want sex. I could have sex with ANYONE, but it is so hard to find a relationship that has something beyond that -- communication, intelligence -- the ability to debate without arguing...
I do get what you're saying, Farmgirl. I think I feel frustrated because even if I wanted to have sex, it doesn't seem likely anytime soon with any relationship. And that's what gets me from wanting to date, really, is that barrier, because men our age do look for sex.
posted
Er. Dude, not to enhance my reputation as Hatrack's most eligible bachelor, or anything, but I'm fairly sure I just intelligently and clearly communicated my political thoughts on religious issues, in the midst of which citing my respect for and habit of waiting until both parties in a relationship are ready and desirous for sex.
I realize I must be terribly boring reading material, but at least do me the favor of reading what I write before calling me an example of the type of men that turned you to lesbianism.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: realize I must be terribly boring reading material, but at least do me the favor of reading what I write before calling me an example of the type of men that turned you to lesbianism
LOL, Lalo. I'm not sure HOW you derived that from my post. Lesbianism is the not anywhere in MY mind... I like men, thank-you-very-much.
I do read what you write -- I don't agree with most of it, but I respect your right to voice your opinions on everything (which you so like to do).
You are a fine example of a young man who likes to Argue rather than truly debate...
posted
Well, I honestly can't say my religion mandates any food bans at all. And I can give plenty of good rational reasons why sex prior to marriage is best avoided, and also know why they don't satisfy everyone. So maybe Eddie wasn't talking to me in the first place. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I judge debate at local high school tourneys, and I love a good debate as well as the next Aries...
And Lalo CAN do a good debate when he wants to -- he started out doing pretty good on this thread, in fact.
But sometimes he then tips over to purposefully bring in hot buttons or unrelated stuff to the overall essence of the thread, in order to 1) draw more attention to himself and 2) create an argument. Such as: as we all discussed being single and it's ups and downs, he somehow saw a need to bring in religious beliefs about food restrictions -- which wasn't on topic at all.
Then he took my post about wishing that I could find men more interested in the intellectual AS WELL AS the physical, and somehow screws that whole passage around to meaning that I'm now a lesbian.
In these instances, in my mind, he is purposely trying to cause an argument rather than a factual debate. Luckily, I'm not easily offended, and I really find him quite funny, so it doesn't work.
posted
It wouldn't be a hot-button unless you harbored some homophobic tendencies.
But that's okay. That stands for all insults--it doesn't hurt unless somewhere in your mind you have a fear for it to be true or bad or both.
Anyway.
I think Eddie is better off because he is at least completely honest about his wants and his thoughts. He's willing to acknowledge that as a young man, he does want sex. He's also willing to respect the want to wait that others have. He's able to talk about it, instead of trying to slyly pressuring some chick into it.
I'd rather deal with an honestly horny guy like that then deal with the guy who claims he's fine with waiting and then starts laying on the pressure a month into the relationship.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would have to agree -- better someone that is upfront and honest with how they think than someone who is not. Thanks for pointing out this virtue of Lalo's to me.
posted
He does have some, but they're well hidden behind his rough and ready exterior. But if you read his journals from his time in South America (maybe you have), you will die from the honesty and humor.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- realize I must be terribly boring reading material, but at least do me the favor of reading what I write before calling me an example of the type of men that turned you to lesbianism --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL, Lalo. I'm not sure HOW you derived that from my post. Lesbianism is the not anywhere in MY mind... I like men, thank-you-very-much.
Heh. Well, it's not as though I can debate you on this point -- forty minutes after my post, it seems you've edited your post to remove whatever it was I was referring to.
Now that you've deleted what you wrote, it's possible that I could have interpreted your post incorrectly -- I was under the impression that you claimed men like me (and what kind of man is that, again?) disgusted you with the male gender entirely, and you gave up on us.
But we'll never know, will we? Out of interest, why did you edit your post?
quote:But sometimes he then tips over to purposefully bring in hot buttons or unrelated stuff to the overall essence of the thread, in order to 1) draw more attention to himself and 2) create an argument.
While I'm often guilty of initiating arguments, you're ascribing motives to me as though I were some petulant child you're trying to have a battle of wits with.
And as amusing as it is to hear condescension from you, I must protest. I do not, contrary to your claim, prefer to argue than debate. While you could have easily laid that charge at my feet years ago, in this thread (and most over the course of the past year, to my knowledge) at least, the discussion of gods' intervention in sexual chronology was brought up by Pearce in defense of her decision to wait until marriage to have sex. My subsequent argument against following the arbitrary and unreasonable laws of various gods on various subjects with no corroborating reason but "god-told-me-so" was not unprovoked, nor was it meant to create conflict where there was none.
You, however, entered this thread declaring what a disgusting example of manhood I am. When Mac corrected your strange analysis of my comments, you responded with a despondent sigh over the sorry state of men (a degenerate's club for which I'm apparently a representative member) and several comments on how a man should be -- a description which, ironically, I seem to fit to the letter even if judging only from my performance on this thread.
When I pointed this out, and requested that you read my posts before calling me such a sorry example of a man, you condescendingly come back with a ridiculous comment about how I prefer to argue rather than debate.
When Mac asked you to clarify that -- a service, I might add, you seem to have denied her save with the occasional lie and non-sequitor -- you come back with a brilliant analysis of my actions in this thread, first accusing me of neediness for attention (which, while untrue from my understanding, may very well be accurate; Santa didn't bring me too many gifts this year, so she might agree with you), then of unprovoked argument (untrue, as shown above).
Of course, then you claim I interpreted your oh-so-ironic post about the perfect man as your declaration of lesbiansim; patently false, as I explained above. I interpreted your post expressing general disgust with men (of which I'm apparently a particularly reprehensible example) as your declaration of lesbianism.
I'm sure you find me quite funny -- ha ha ha. It's a relief that you can at least find comic relief in me, since I'm such a sorry man in every other aspect of the term.
Now that I've wasted an unfairly large part of my life in proportion to what your posts have thus far deserved, I'd like to ask a few questions of my own.
Exactly what are you basing your declaration of disgust with men off of in relation to me? Apparently guys like me drove you away from dating in the first place -- what kind of a pig am I, and what did you possibly use to reinforce this charge?
What are you basing your charge of my preference to argue, as opposed to debate constructively, off of? I've already shown your one example of this thread to be false -- an example you should have seen as incorrect with even a slight amount of care in reading, rather than scanning for excuses to libel my character.
What do you base your charge of neediness for attention from? Of all your claims, this seems to be the most random.
I'm rather relieved that I'm not attractive to some woman out there -- it keeps me human. And so long as I'm still a hunka hunka gorgeous man to Mac, I'm reassured of my worth as a man, if only by being held in high esteem by such a quality source.
Though, of course, your disregard of my quality as a man breaks my heart.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. This thread has certainly been derailed.
...that said, even if I did believe in God (I'm agnostic), I don't see "God says so" as a valid moral justification for anything. I believe that if absolute morality exists, it exists wholly independently of God's existence.
In other words, for me, God is not the source of morality. If you believe in Him, God can let you know what the rules of morality are, though. But moral actions are not moral because they are sanctioned by God; rather, God sanctions moral actions because they are moral.
Back on topic, I think my views on dating are somewhat similar to Ed- er, Lalo's, so I don't feel the need to elucidate them. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow -- I didn't realize I had pushed a hot button with you, Lalo! I apologize if I caused offense. I thought we were just having a little on-line debate fun on an otherwise boring Saturday morning....
By the way, I did not edit out anything in any of my above posts. In re-reading, I realize I had made a mistake in one sentence, where I typed the word "with" when it was supposed to read "without."
Personally, I don't feel like I expressed an overall disgust with men -- only exasperation at the fact that most of the men I have interacted with lately seem to be interested only in sex, and not in the intellectual, emotional aspects of a relationship. I did not mean for that to be a blanket statement that somehow implied that are NO good men out there -- I was only relating to my recent personal experiences.
And how that referenced you was that in previous posts you seemed to be more focused on the physical (sex) aspect of relationships.
You do give me amusement, but don't take that offensively! You writing amuses me because you are twenty years younger than I, and you tend to see things very black & white. In many ways, you remind me of my son (okay, now I realize you will clobber me for that one).
By the way, I do think you are talented at the written word -- your openness on the forum, even when I don't agree -- is refreshing because it isn't all superficial.
So please don't be offended when we are just having a casual friendly conversation with opposing ideas.
posted
I believe, like twinky, that morality exists apart from God. I believe that God is trying his best to help us learn and grow, like any parent. When you are a kid and you think about being good and bad, you think in terms of "Will I get in trouble for this?" "How much trouble will I get in for this?" You think of morality only in terms of whether you will get caught and how tough the punishment will be. Many people approach religion the same way. I think those elements are included in religion for people who are still on that level, of a child, thinking, "How badly do I want to do this vs. how likely and severe will my punishment be."
When you grow up, IF you grow up, you start to see good and evil in terms of damage or benefit you cause to other living beings. You start to realize that you choose how you act, and depending on the choices you make, a lot of sorrow and misery can result, or a lot of joy and wonder and delight. So you begin to see your choices in that light. "How much sorrow will this cause?" "Is this going to lead long term to my happiness and that of other people?"
God is trying to teach us how to be happy. He's trying to teach us to grow up. In many ways, the things he recommends are quite obvious to us. But we are also short-lived and limited, and tend to be rather caught up in our material existence. So there are some things which make for much long term sorrow and misery, which nevertheless SEEM like a REALLY GOOD IDEA at the time. These are the things people chafe at mostly, in God's commandments.
One good way to get a perspective on such things is to look at everyone's parents. For some reason, the same behavior which might seem like a good idea when you or your friends do it, shows its true colors more openly when your parents and your friends' parents do it.
I think I learned a lot about the kind of life I did and didn't want from my friends' parents. Some of them were alcoholics. I remember one good friend whose father would come home drunk and start hitting everyone who was there. We once had to jump out the bathroom window to get away from him, and went and spent the night in the woods, when I was over at her house. Her mother got very drunk one time and slept with the neighbor. I remember my horror at realizing what the disarray of her clothing meant. She came home and cried to me that she was a terrible mother, and peed on herself.
I think that family, including the older sister who was on heroin, was very instructive to me. They also had a tendency to just scream and hit and express their anger quite freely without any self-control. Their house was a fun place every now and then but mostly it was quite miserable. I saw that I didn't want a life like that.
As another illustration, does anyone ever feel flattered, or singled out, or special, from the attentions of a slut? Aren't innocence and purity inseparably bound up with attractiveness? There are deep mysteries in all this that we don't fathom. And the potential for deep hurt, as well.
Anyway, I think God has a longer view, one that takes into account the long term joy and misery inherent in different life choices. And that all of his commands are for our own benefit. So that we don't have to learn every single thing the hard way, if we are wise enough to listen. However, like most kids, we often do have to anyway.
But that's what parents do. They say, "Don't jump off the roof, you could break your ankle." Then when you do it anyway and break your ankle, they take you to the hospital to get it set, and make you chicken soup, and sit with you and comfort you, and say, "See? That's why I told you it wasn't smart to jump off the roof." Then when you do it again as soon as you get your cast off and break it again, they do it all over again. <laughs>
That's what God's commandments are. They are all the ways he's telling us it's not smart to behave. If we listen, we don't have to learn the hard way, and suffer the irreparable hurt that goes along with that learning. If we listen, then we can go on and learn the higher lessons, that grown ups learn. There's oh so much more. Being a grown up is an amazing and powerful thing. But we are stuck on the level of toddlers.
[ December 28, 2003, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate...you are absolutely right about learning what NOT to do from parents. We either learn good behavior or bad behavior from our parents, and we choose to emulate or NOT to emulate whichever one we see.
Kids worship their parents when they're young and do what their parents do. Whether the kid's parents are good or bad, the kid will either follow their example or rebel against it.
Dad smokes. You either learn through his modeling to start smoking ASAP, or you watch him be sick and coughing and say screw trying THAT.
Same with alcohol, illegal drugs, child abuse. You either use it or break the cycle. But that takes maturity and someone pointing it out and helping you along.
Sometimes you get defensive when that happens. It's all you know, you have to learn new and different things, and it's hard.
I talked to AK about this on AIM. Possibly the relationship with God is similar to one you might have with your parent. They know more stuff through experience and maturity. We have neither. So we want to go sledding down a steep hill. Mom says, "Don't do that, you'll get hurt."
But it looks fun. So you go down. You hit a frozen cow patty and go flying.
Mom says, "Told you so."
You either use the lesson and not go down, or had fun despite the pain and go down again.
You grow up a bit, more mature, gain experience. Look down the hill again, see the danger and avoid it. Or you fling yourself down and really do some damage and learn that way.
What I believe is that as long as you're truly trying to be decent, you'll be okay with God.
posted
pH, there are guys out there who're okay with just cuddling and "making out," but draw the line before home plate -- but you're right that few of these guys are in the music industry, or have a "dangerous" air. Most of them are squeaky-clean dull types.
The ones that you're attracted to, based on my experience being friends with guys of this sort, are most likely to consider extended make-out sessions followed by a polite exit to be a classic example of "teasing."
I would suggest, then, not even trying to find dangerous men until you're ready to demand that one marry you within months. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a singles thread, there sure is a lot of talk about God going around.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that talking about religious beliefs in relation to dating is a bad thing. It just seems somewhat strange to me.
When I think about dating or going out with a girl I don't think I've ever thought about my religion (or hers, for that matter). I just try to be a decent human being: in other words, not pressuring for sex and physical because it isn't and shouldn't be as important as the "mental" relationship. There's nothing religious about it, it just feels like the right way to act.
[rant] But then I look at the real world and it often looks like the guys who only think or talk about or pressure sex and the physical are doing much better in relationships than I am.
posted
This is very true, Tom. And I'm a music business major, so (especially as I continue my education) I spent a lot of my free time outside of class with those kinds of people.
But I have met at least one guy who wasn't like that. So they do exist. They're just rare. *eyes things*
But even the non-dangerous type who don't mind not having sex can still get kind of irritable. The argument (which wasn't really an argument because I just couldn't get him to argue) that eventually led to my breakup with my last boyfriend stemmed from something similar:
We went out to dinner and a movie or something like that. I told him a couple of times that I was feeling tired. We got back to his house and crawled into bed. He started kissing me. I pushed him away, told him I was really sleepy, and proceeded to curl up with him and go to sleep.
Apparently, he was really pissed off about that. He waited half an hour until he thought I was asleep, then got up and went to sleep on the living room couch.
posted
Speaking for the (slightly) older crowd...Or the divorced middle-aged crowd...or whatever...
Here's the problems I have with ANYONE who just wants sex, or wants sex before (or in lieu of) a real relationship:
1)If they're doing that with me, I have to assume they are doing that with lots of people. In which case, my fear of catching STDs ramps up dramatically.
2) Sex is great in and of itself, but sex with someone you truly love and care about is a lot better. That's just my opinion, of course. I haven't really had any "random stranger" sex so I can't really speak from experience about how the passion of the moment would truly measure up, so let's just say "I don't get it" in every sense of that phrase.
3) I'm not much into conquests. If I have sex with someone (see #2 above) it is because I want to be with that person exclusively. As far as I'm concerned, we'd be VERY committed to each other at that point and marriage is at least a definite probability. I'm not going to say I don't believe in pre-marital sex. I do, but to me it definitely is "pre-marital" not extra-marital, or just "for the fun of it."
The above make it tough, sometimes. For example, I can imagine causing some serious misunderstandings if I happen to go out with a woman who would like a casual sexual relationship and my attitudes would make her, perhaps, feel unattractive or unwanted. Quite the contrary, I might be incredibly attracted to her physically, but if I'm not ready to commit to her, I'm not about to have sex with her.
Oh well. That's probably what keeps me from scoring all the time. Just as well, I just got new bedroom furniture and I don't want notches in the bedpost. Mars the finish.
posted
Standard disclaimer: In case you don't know already, I'm a guy.
I was sorely tempted to jump into this thread with both feet, but then I paused. I don't have a problem with the religious discussion--I do that all the time--but when it comes to actual serious exposition about my romantic ventures (or lack thereof) online, I find that I'm simply not willing to air anything of consequence. A few of you may recall that I posted on Hatrack irregularly for about three years under my real name. But after a while, I decided that this simply was not a good idea and that I have no desire to speak at length about personal issues in full view of complete strangers.
There are some people here who I feel like I sort of know, despite the fact that we've never met in person. I don't mind talking one-on-one to these people over email or instant messenger. But a public message board? I trust some people, but I certainly don't trust everyone. Even when the information itself is innocuous, I would rather not aid shadowy figures who would build a composite portrait of me.
There's something very enticing about the notion of finding the soulmate that has so long eluded you by casting your bread upon the digital waters, so to speak. Perhaps I'm just too paranoid about this particular medium to make full use of this. I'm more than happy to share my mind on academic issue you care to name, but I just am not willing to bare my heart in public. Is this irrational?
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course, every one of us is different, Taberah, and some of us are more cautious than others. I won't judge you on that.
I think that many of us feel naively secure here in Hatrackland. Even when there are serious arguments, I think that there is very little flaming. (unless I am just avoiding the icky threads, totally possible) And I haven't heard much about someone being harassed in real life because of information secured from the board. If this has, indeed, happened, please please please do not tell me. I like my illusory hatrack just fine, thank you, and also don't want old grievances aired.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, mack, I didn't drive to YOUR house and mess with YOUR kid's head!
*grin*
It took a concious effort to navigate the crappy roads in this area. You really *are* a glutton for punishment. Hee!
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). Doesn't mean that I should/have to necessarily go do it.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
And that's what gets me from wanting to date, really, is that barrier, because men our age do look for sex.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
