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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lyrhawn, that statement is wrong. Your grandparents notwithstanding, not all religious people are Catholic.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have gaydar? Is it open-source now? I knew we should have kept tighter control of the licensing!
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it objectionable to call one form of Catholocism 'watered down', but not to call the other 'merely obedient'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Dagonee said, but stated better than I would have. I'm wary of arguing things with you anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find the implication that Catholics who are obedient must be "merely" obedient to be quite arrogant. Obedient != unthinking
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
