23
   

How many people is it acceptable to have.....

 
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:21 am
@hingehead,
Exactly, Hingehead. Smile
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:28 am
Well, my profile atm is this: 'A man who desires no more from things than to understand them easily makes peace with his soul' Friedrich Nietzsche.

So, no I wasn't offended with what Spendius said, just hoping I hadn't gone to far down in his estimations. I asked for opinion and if I was going to get one contrary to what I 'wanted' to hear then I am glad it was from someone who can articulate themselves well and put up an interesting debate. Whilst i'm not sure his gender distinctions stand up to modern opinion, he is right in pointing out the dangers. I do tend to forget them.

Very big thank you to everyone who has been posting.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 08:11 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
Actually the fact that individuals are different is one life's most interesting gifts. If you want your differences to be based on what hangs (or doesn't) between your legs, and if you want your possibilities in life to based on same, well, I prefer my world.

And actually that sounds as if you're boiling it all down to two choices again.
As if I said that because I find it interesting, that's all I find interesting- that's not at all what I said.

Quote:
You tell me what the singular characteristics of the TWO genders are and I will show someone with the wrong dangly bits displaying that characteristic.

I was just being a smart aleck. sorry - didn't realize we were being so serious now.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 09:47 am
@aidan,
Quote:
The reason you shouldn't take anything personally PQ is that he has issues with female behavior universally and across thousands of years.


The usage there of "issues" is okay as long as it is taken to mean an interest and not to imply any objections. We both are as we are. It is a question of the management of the obvious tensions between us in relation to certain objectives. That involves some restrictions on free expression of both sides.

We know that unbridled promiscuity is perfectly natural and that it is characterised by what we consider to be serious negativities. To us, unimaginable negativities. Hence our attempts to control promiscuity in relation to economic factors. Society is impossible without such control.

Freud maintained that the control damaged our mental and physical health and it is difficult to argue with that. But leaving it to nature is even more damaging.

Civilisation, particularly advanced civilisation, requires strict controls. But who is to decide what they are and who they will apply to and how they will be managed.

History has shown that calling in the aid of Divine guidance has been the most efficient method. That is why all societies have religion. It has the advantage when developed over long time periods of setting aside the interests of elite classes. Without Divine guidance elites will pursue their own interests as, say, Nero did. He was sentenced, after he almost bankrupted the Roman Empire with his exercise of individual free expression, to be "dedicated to the infernal deities" or somesuch. To be whipped to death in ordinary language. He committed suicide first though.

Religion is an evolutionary tool. That is why I find it so astonishing that so-called evolutionists seek to undermine and destroy religion. The nicest thing one can say about them is that they are completely stupid. That they seek to destroy an evolutionary tool like Christianity when faced with the benefits it has brought, and which they themselves are enjoying, and when it is quite capable of evolving further to meet new challenges, beggars belief, and explains why they only constitute a small, if noisy, segment of the population. (14% I gather.)

They went to the Dover trial using scientific evidence of blood clotting cascades in chiclids to set aside 2,000 years of Christian thinking which produced the very science they so arrogantly claim to be speaking in favour of and saw it as a great victory when they found one judge, who has a bumper sticker reading "Have gavel-will travel", idiotic enough to agree with their silliness. Skimming a few million dollars off the locals in the process.

In a truly promiscuous world the German cad would have screwed Queenie on the night-club table. And then departed in the throes of post-coital euphoria. The very fact that they went to hide in her rooms shows that they accept Christian values. After all- there are movie art-works extant with Library of Congress catalogue numbers and copyright protection in which a table-ender, a luxury enjoyed by some married men at lunchtime who live near their place of work, might well be taking place in a corner away from the main action. So they should be commended for their discretion in that regard.

What I'm trying to explain is that a balance of forces are involved, a social contract, and that these forces are under ethical guidance stemming from Christian morals and that proponents of evolution theory need to explain what alternative they are putting forward in their place bearing in mind that the free expression of individuality is applicable to themselves and they have exactly the same urges that our lovers had on the night in question and in the movie artworks.

Mr Dawkins is on his third wife and it is a fair bet that a "shagger", as some ladies refer to his type, will take advantage, on his speaking tours, of the local talent whose little heads he is well practiced at spinning into a ball of confusion.

And once the bankers start letting their individual expressions of freedom loose you might forget all your best laid plans. They have behaved quite consistently with the principles laid out in Darwin's masterpiece. Nobody can argue with that. It is only our Christian morality which prevents us from dedicating them to the infernal deities. And not all of us.

The individual gives up some autonomy in return for the safety and comforts of society.






vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 02:21 pm
@spendius,
We've moved onto evolution? Evolution isn't really a big problem if you think of 'creation' as evolution (rather than taking the creation story seriously).

Quote:
Religion is an evolutionary tool. That is why I find it so astonishing that so-called evolutionists seek to undermine and destroy religion.
Even if they thought of religion that way, there's no problem with thinking "We are slowly evolving past the need for religion, and I am playing my part in that."

Quote:
The nicest thing one can say about them is that they are completely stupid. That they seek to destroy an evolutionary tool like Christianity when faced with the benefits it has brought, and which they themselves are enjoying,
You use a battery for light in the dark, and it runs flat. Do you keep using it, or realise that it's use has run it's course? Now, I personally have nothing against religion, however the use of the analogy is simply to draw your attention to the fact there are legitmate counter arguments. Religion still has benefits, even in this day and age.

Quote:
and when it is quite capable of evolving further to meet new challenges,
This is most peoples issue with religion (that it doesn't, hasn't). I recall in the 80's the various churches themselves admitting that they were losing relevance (and then in recent years, there seems to have been a resurgence).

The problem with religion founded in written word as being the absolute truth, is that it can't recognise when it was wrong (eg. God hating Homosexuals). Written word of absolute truths also tend to lead people towards intolerance. One of the problems with intolerance, among other problems, is that it is the major driving factor behind war (there are of course other contributing factors to war).
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 02:58 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
And actually that sounds as if you're boiling it all down to two choices again.
As if I said that because I find it interesting, that's all I find interesting- that's not at all what I said.


I will assume you're being a smart aleck again and not pick holes in your statements Wink
0 Replies
 
bonka09
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 03:49 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
I know what your are feeling about this situation I have been through this phase too about 6 years ago. I slept with who i wanted when i wanted and just had fun partying with friends and then i settled down got a good job and then found a guy who treated me like none of the guys i slept with and a few of those guys at one point and time were my boyfriends but i moved on and now i've been with my current boyfriend for 5years and are going to get married here ina year. my advise is have fun while it lasts dont' let pple judge you and dont' judge yourself which is most important be confident. it dont' matter if you are guy or a girl you can sleep with as many pple as you want.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:22 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Even if they thought of religion that way, there's no problem with thinking "We are slowly evolving past the need for religion, and I am playing my part in that."


I don't think that is possible and us remain human. It would spell the end of curiosity. Whilever we are human we are going to wonder where we came from and where we are going. No scientist will ever answer those questions. So people will weave stories and those stories will be made to carry a morality thought suitable for survival. Some won't be.

Some people will be content to not wonder about those things but not many.

Quote:
You use a battery for light in the dark, and it runs flat. Do you keep using it, or realise that it's use has run it's course? Now, I personally have nothing against religion, however the use of the analogy is simply to draw your attention to the fact there are legitmate counter arguments. Religion still has benefits, even in this day and age.


My whole position is based on the benefits of religion. I don't know why you are telling me that. And I might say that it doesn't matter whether you have nothing against religion. You may as well say you have nothing against trees.

Quote:
This is most peoples issue with religion (that it doesn't, hasn't). I recall in the 80's the various churches themselves admitting that they were losing relevance (and then in recent years, there seems to have been a resurgence).

Which proves my point. It isn't a quick process. And various churches are not The Church. I don't remember the Catholic Church ever admitting any such thing.

Just like war has many causes so also intolerance. I don't think Jesus was intolerant and He was the founder of our religion.

0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 06:53 pm
@bonka09,
As indicated by your username?
Haha, no that was a joke, forgive me, and thank you for your post.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 06:53 pm
@vikorr,
BOY do you know how to argue.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 10:44 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
I don't think that is possible and us remain human. It would spell the end of curiosity.

This belief is categorically wrong. I’m one of the most curious people I know. One of the reasons I left the church was that I always wanted to know ‘why’ I believed everything that I believed, and I found too many inconsistencies to support a religion. I’m still very curious by nature, and have hundreds of books that I’ve read on many different subjects. I daresay that plenty of other people would tell you much the same thing.

Quote:
My whole position is based on the benefits of religion. I don't know why you are telling me that. And I might say that it doesn't matter whether you have nothing against religion. You may as well say you have nothing against trees.

If you want to look at a concept (in this case religion) to decide if it is good or bad, you have to look at the whole, not just the good/benefits, but also the bad/detriments.

And also that the benefits of any one given thing/concept/entity change (either go up or go down) over time (and in different circumstances) - which was the point of the analogy.

Quote:
It isn't a quick process. And various churches are not The Church. I don't remember the Catholic Church ever admitting any such thing.
Who is to say the Catholic Church is The Church? In Malachi it says “I am the Lord Thy God, I change not”. In Gods Ten commandents it says “thou shalt not have any other gods before me, neither graven image of anything on earth or in heaven” (going from memory). Therefore the principle of this law should never change...and it’s well known the Catholic church has statues etc.

And it seems the Jews thought that forgiving sins was the province of God alone " calling it blasphemy when humans did this, and yet human catholic priests do this. Then there is the issue of how the church was formed, and the changes they made. It's founding is also set in dubious circumstances. No, there is nothing to say the Catholic church has it any more right than any other church.
Quote:
Just like war has many causes so also intolerance. I don't think Jesus was intolerant and He was the founder of our religion.

I Never said Jesus was intolerant. He was the epitome of tolerance and love. He would be the shining light of the bible. Funnily enough, if you understand anything at all about what a mystic is, Jesus was one (going by the definition of mystic). Religion doesn't like them, because their 'religion' is to search for who they are, to find peace, and to accept and love others.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 10:46 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Lol, PQ, I don't know if that's a compliment or an insult.

True enough though, I don't put enough effort into letting people know what I agree with.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 04:40 am
@vikorr,
It's a compliment!
You are very thorough.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:15 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
This belief is categorically wrong.


You think I should go back to the drawing board then I presume?

Quote:
I’m one of the most curious people I know.


Most of us are.

Quote:
One of the reasons I left the church was that I always wanted to know ‘why’ I believed everything that I believed, and I found too many inconsistencies to support a religion.


How many other reasons did you have? And if you had always wanted to know 'why' how come you were in the church? A church is for people with faith. Not for sceptics. So really you were only going through the motions of being in the church. Maybe there were practical benefits.

Are you sceptical about your nationality? Some people are. They see themselves as sentinent organisms on the surface of the earth and nothing more. If you look at my profile you will see that I incline that way. There are racist considerations in nationality. And comforts in being well off whilst others starve. And having an identity.

I was talking about the curiosity over origins and destinies. And those can never be satisfied scientifically. It might be said that a belief that those questions can be settled scientifically is a religion. Comfort is sought in the quest in the company of like-minded people which, as we well know, requires massive funding from the rest of us and provides high status and well paid jobs and has its own esoteric language which closes out the bulk of the population. And also limitless. Servicing the mundane aspects of life of such a priesthood is left to a lower class of humans who are denied the reserved car park, the posh washrooms and the higher salary scales.

Animals are curious about things around them but not about origins and destinies. It is a specifically human curiosity which directs itself to those religious questions and, seemingly, ubiquitous in human societies. We even routinely use the word "godforsaken" to denote desolation. Without religion we become animals as La Mettrie said and he was de Sade's philosophical mentor.

So I don't think it is possible to do away with religion and remain human. And I don't think that is a belief either.

Without religion there is only human authority to provide ethical commands. Our only alternative is to submit to power.

Quote:
If you want to look at a concept (in this case religion) to decide if it is good or bad, you have to look at the whole, not just the good/benefits, but also the bad/detriments.


Obviously. We do that with everything if we are wise. I tried to look at Queenie's actions that way to see if the good/beneficial aspects of them, which do exist, are worth the bad/detrimental aspects, or the risks of them. She wondered if they had caused her to go down in my estimation. Well- no,they didn't. But had I been a fellow student of her's developing a liking of her with a view to a proper relationship leading to, say, marriage, and a life together, I would have written her off forthwith on hearing about it. And any other woman who defended those actions.

Looking at the good/bad dichotomies of religion predates Plato and has been going on every since.

Quote:
No, there is nothing to say the Catholic church has it any more right than any other church.


You might read with profit Matthew Arnold's essay on Joseph Joubert in relation to that statement. I get the impression that you judge these matters from your individual stance rather than from considerations of the whole of mankind. Which is fair enough as long as you know that you are.

Quote:
Religion doesn't like them, because their 'religion' is to search for who they are, to find peace, and to accept and love others.


I wouldn't go that far. The Church is suspicious of mystics. It has suppressed some and ruthlessly. Mysticism involves intellectual abstractions, passivity, oceanic feelings and altered states of consciousness which tend to invalidate contact with the world as it is and the loss of the usual distinctions between subject and object. The Church is necessarily dealing with the world as it is in a practical way. Mysticism can be an aid to that but it can also be disruptive. Some mystics have eschewed sex for example. If such an idea caught fire we would die out. Mysticism is also seen as dualistic in that it maintains a distinction between the mystic and the world or the Godhead. It can see the sexual partner as a mere representitive of the opposite sex rather than as the person he or she is. It also is ready to make invidious comparisons between the mystic and the non-mystic. A form of snobbery one might say. The Pope does wash the feet of paupers and they have been seen to kiss the ground of countries they are visiting.

There are "inconsistencies" in every organised body of thought. If I were to chance my arm I would say you left the church because your individuality overpowered your real position as just another member of society and as an escape from the disciplines required for orderly management of affairs.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:23 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
You are very thorough.


I don't agree. I think solipsism is vik's bottom line and he seeks to justify it with sophistries all of which are as old as the written word.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 08:48 am
@spendius,
spendi wrote:
I think solipsism is vik's bottom line and he seeks to justify it with sophistries all of which are as old as the written word.


If you could have squeezed 'sophomore' in there it would have been a really nice alliteration.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:54 pm
@hingehead,
You mean "sophomorassic solipsism. Yes.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:08 pm
@spendius,
Hi spendius, no I'm not a solopsist (had to look the word up).

Quote:
And if you had always wanted to know 'why' how come you were in the church? A church is for people with faith. Not for sceptics. So really you were only going through the motions of being in the church. Maybe there were practical benefits.
I was ‘born’ into a church. So the ‘why’ questions waited until I was mentally developed enough to start putting 2 + 2 together. There are always practical benefits to any religion (or no one would be attracted to them).

I wouldn’t class myself as a skeptic, though that can be a natural result of ‘seeking consistency in ones principles/beliefs’ (and you could call curiosity of how something works ‘skepticism’). If a principle does not apply to every circumstance, then it is, by definition, wrong (or not quite right). The ‘awareness of inconsistency’ often lead to a ‘why’ do we believe this. ‘What’ is the true underlying principle? To honestly ask the question ‘why’ is to seek understanding.

Knowledge is certainty of belief. Belief is the holding of a concept that doesn’t have direct proof. Faith is an act -acting on a belief. Faith is an act of a person who is still just a little bit skeptical/uncertain. It takes conviction and courage. Acting in the knowledge of certainty takes no courage.

Quote:
I was talking about the curiosity over origins and destinies.
Quote:
I don't think that is possible and us remain human. It would spell the end of curiosity.
Quote:
Animals are curious about things around them but not about origins and destinies. It is a specifically human curiosity which directs itself to those religious questions and, seemingly, ubiquitous in human societies. We even routinely use the word "godforsaken" to denote desolation. Without religion we become animals as La Mettrie said and he was de Sade's philosophical mentor.
I’m not particularly worried about where I came from. And I make my own future. So I’m not particularly curious about either my ‘origin’ nor my ‘destiny’. Hmmm...therefore by your beliefs, I am not human, but an animal (well, I am an animal, but you are making a distinction). And every agnostic, or aetheist is also an animal... how do you tell who’s animal and who’s human without having them carry a sign on their head stating whether or not they believe in a religion?

Quote:
Without religion there is only human authority to provide ethical commands. Our only alternative is to submit to power.
That is a whole topic in itself (so are many of these subjects, so please excuse me if I shorten them, or plain ignore some of the lesser ones)
Quote:
I get the impression that you judge these matters from your individual stance rather than from considerations of the whole of mankind. Which is fair enough as long as you know that you are.

That would be an inaccurate simplification.
Quote:
There are "inconsistencies" in every organised body of thought.

Not in principles there aren’t.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:14 pm
By the way Spendius, in relation to mysticism, and some of the forms practiced by members who visit the philosophy forum - I have some of the same objections you do (regarding it's practicality). That said, many of your objections to mysticism that you listed can also be attributed to Christianity.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:27 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
And thank you for the compliment.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 09:42:19