Sex, Religion and Politics.

Quote:

There also seem to be a large number of people over 50 here, wonder if that has anything to do with the formality and intelligence.

Portal Star- I think so, although I believe that the vast majority of our younger members are intelligent and thoughtful too. I think that a certain "tone" is set on this forum. New people peruse the forum. Those who would not blend well with the rest of the group, drop out quickly. A2K does not serve their needs. As a result, the group becomes perpetually self-selected.

I was a part of another forum, one from which many of our members came. Through lack of moderation, the forum was taken over by a bunch of imposters and wackos. I always had a strong emotional connection to that forum. Once in awhile, I take a peek at the forum, find that I have little to say there, and leave quickly.

0 Replies

Thank you
Thanks everyone for the welcome, I really appreciate it. I hope that eventually I will be able 'blend' in as well, even though to be honest I am not very intellectual, I admire those who are. I also have an interest in art, even though I don't have an artistic bone in my body, I have always wanted to write, but never seem to get very far. I love politics but when I get into political discussions I do tend to get heated when confronted with those who are on the other side. So, I guess I will have to see if I can live up to this board, I sure hope so.

I did not mean to interrupt the ongoing conversation, please continue with it as it is an interesting one. Razz

0 Replies

revel- Hey, you are entitled to have your say anywhere on this forum. These are free wheeling conversations, and no one is "interrupting". As far as being "intellectual", that is definitely not a prerequisite here. I think that each person has strengths in different areas of knowledge, and we gain a lot by sharing.

As far as the political discussions, some people have difficulty in maintaining their "cool", in situations where emotions run high. My advice to you is to stick to the issues, and avoid the tendency to attack a member, even if he/she has said something that you detest. Attacking another member verbally IS grounds for banning on A2K.

One effective thing that you can do on a politics thread, if you feel your blood pressure rising, is to shut that thread off, and do something else. Then come back, when you have had a chance to cool off.

0 Replies

Quote:

NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

On Thursday some of the staff of the Religious Freedom Coalition were fortunate enough to attend the National Prayer Breakfast at the invitation of Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA). The prayer breakfast was attended for the most part by 2000 Christian preachers and their wives although there were foreign guests. For fifty-two years the National Prayer Breakfast has proclaimed Jesus Christ. The honored speaker of the day, President George W. Bush, spent most of his time talking about Iraq, assuring the assembled Christians that our armed services were constructing mosques in Iraq with our tax dollars, and "showing deference" to mullahs, and that our military stationed there honors Muslim holy days in that nation. At a time when the President has lost support among evangelical Christians he probably should have mentioned the name of our Lord at least once, but he didn't. His remarks were simply given to the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. The loudest applause at the prayer breakfast came for Joe Gibbs and former Congressman J.C. Watts who gave clear Gospel messages of the power of Jesus Christ. Gibbs told of how he accepted Christ at age nine and Watts talked of the "sweet fragrance of Christ's love that overcame the stench of death at Calvary."

0 Replies

Well, Bush just went up in my estimation, if that is true!

0 Replies

sex religion and politics
sex religion and politics are definitely the most sentimental and emotional topics i know

0 Replies

In my circle of friends and associates, when one talks about politics the main aim, is "not" trying to convert to ones brand, but to put sh>t on the oppositions. The immediate affect is to consolidate the others beliefs, but all in all, everyone seems to have "fun".

However, when sex rears it's ugly head ( often wondered what was meant by that saying ) when in mixed company it's usually talked about more in the vernacular of jokes. In all male, it seems to range around..... past conquests, before marriage ( on a count of the numbers we all quoted, it was just as well it was all very much in
the past ) the lowering frequency once married, and how terribly good we all were at it.

With religion, ( very few Interested in my circle of friends ) it was debated only when the religious one's were absent, as we found, they were unable to debated, only
to quote passages from the Bible, if one tried to debate the passage, they would turn it into a argument.

Find it much more interesting and enjoyable to follow the subjects in Able2know

0 Replies

The original query from Phoenix:

Quote:

It is an old saw that you don't discuss sex, religion or politics in polite company. But these ARE subjects, (especially religion and politics) that we DO discuss, in great detail, on this forum.

What is it about these subjects that often engenders so much contentiousness?
Why do usually charming, delightful people become tigers when discussing political figures, or religious tenets?

What do you think that we can do on Able2Know to minimize the animosity that sometimes arises during discussions of these subjects?

My intention is to keep this thread conceptual. Please refrain from bringing in any particular personalities into the discussion. Thanks!

Fascinating topic and I've waited a couple of days before posting in order to sort out what I think about this. So here goes:

I think sex, religion, and politics are such volatile subjects because relationships, beliefs, and our place in the world pretty well sum up who we are. Whenever our beliefs in these areas are challenged, we naturally feel defensive, even angry: 'our team' and therefore 'we' are under attack. This is greatly compounded if our 'team' or we personally are derogatorily insulted which is too often the case in a forum like this.

Somewhere recently, maybe earlier in this thread, Phoenix gave somebody excellent advice: when a post evokes strong negative emotions, don't respond right away. Walk away, calm down, and then come back to formulate a reasoned rebuttal or argument to support an alternate point of view.

This is an acquired skill I think. Too many, especially the immature, think debate is calling somebody names or otherwise casting insulting aspersions. How can A2K keep this to a minimum? I think you just have to keep beating the drum to focus on the message but respect the messenger.

0 Replies

As we all know, there are species of animals that possess potentially lethal offensive instruments, such as antlers, that enter into conflicts designed to pass on "more fit" genes. Specifically, the duels between competing males during rutting season seems designed to produce better offspring for the species while simultaneously preventing mortal injury to the combatants.

Humans will fight or argue about concepts which they feel are at least important if not downright life altering. Politics and religion involve questions in which much seems at stake. The former involves immediate real world quality of life issues the latter with the ultimate question of spiritual quality of the afterlife (not to mention the theist/atheist struggle).

In the discussion of high stakes destiny altering subjects such as religion and politics we see the potential for serious conflict laced with the high possibility of violence in its resolution. But, observe the great lengths that we and other societal animals go to prevent violent conflict. Witness the carefully choreographed struggles as mechanisms that have evolved for the prevention of physical one-on-one violence.Yeh, there is that evolution thing again. But can we envision the long term success of a species that fights to the last member over a deeply held belief? There is the common sense notion, on an individual basis, that discretion is the better part of valor and that it is better to retreat so that one can fight another day. So, why not go whole hog in the evolutionary process and develop (evolve) a social structure that avoids such deadly conflict in the first place?

Most of us know the discomfort of such "awkward" situations when such arguments take place "live". Those of us not directly involved in such discussions feel this discomfort in our guts while the wish to be "somewhere else" quickly becomes overwhelming. This gut feeling is that which our species has developed over millions of years and is one of those evolutionary "Good Tricks" hard won and worth keeping.

What is interesting is the conflict facilitation promoted by the physical detachment we see in such phenomenon as A2K discussions and drivers in vehicles exhibiting "road rage". The lack of close physical contact between those of differing schools of thought, or point of view, removes the threat of physical harm to involved parties. This, in turn, removes our innate aversion to conflict and so greases the skids towards less "civilized" behavior. Thomas Jefferson would probably be disappointed in this manifestation that speaks against the innate "goodness" of man. Instead, he would probably want to highlight mankind's social development of techniques which tends to mask such animalistic tendencies, that is, our "culture". But sadly, this speaks less to the overall goodness of man and more to the power of uncaring evolutionary forces to overcome deficiencies in such carbon based life forms.

I am not a sociologist but I am sure that some discussions are not pursued because the relationship is more valued than is the political or religious views so held in opposition. But it becomes a different story when two opposing views are put forth by strangers. The classic "Us against Them" struggles ensues. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice or WTO vs. Anti-Globalization are such examples. First the others are ostracized to the point of being "Them" and therefore outside our "Tribe". The next step is to lower the opposition to a lesser sub-human status with name calling such as "murderer" or "mud person". This implies considerable less worth and presumably justifies violent acts against those so labeled.

The Sex taboo seems more due to societal norms or accepted practices. Outside our own society it is a none-issue. Indeed in some cultures the sex act and commitment to social structure (family and or Female/Male paring) are separated, one does not explicitly exclude or include the other.

For purposes of this discussion about our "western" social mores, individuals in a mixed gender group discussing sex could open the door to this powerful natural drive and lower inhibitions leading to, well...you know. Whether that is good or bad is subjective. Without going into the differences between the sex goals of males and females and their evolutionary origins, we all can recognize how promiscuity can wreck such important social structures as the family. It's not the sex, it's the perceived slight or infidelity and how the wronged individual perceives what that means to the relationship.
Submitting to the temptations of extra-relational Sex is at least as dangerous (Given an involved family) as participating in a violent conflict. Long after the wounds of a physical conflict have healed the financial and mental scars of a failed family relationship still must be endured, perhaps forever.

JM

0 Replies

One of my missionary companions use to say "everybody is good for something: If nothing else as a horrible example" Do you suppose he was calling me to repentence? Neil

0 Replies

truth
Foxfyre, Yes, we must continually "beat the drum", a way of giving public expression to the ideal of maturity. Otherwise, we must just tolerate the personality (or lack thereof) of others, just as we hope they'll tolerate ours.
JM. You're wrong; you ARE a sociologist, or a social anthropologist. Great insights.
Neil, what a wise person, your missionary companion. I hope you've kept in touch.

0 Replies

Good discusstions and good debates happen within the boundaries of a set of fair rules gently enforced by moderators. This board is a good example of that. I have not posted long, but for the most part it has been a good experience.

When controversial subjects are debated everyone must understand there will be opposing views.

I like to be able to state my views as frankly and clearly as I can. If someone disagrees I would like to know their position and how they came to hold it. I enjoy learning from others and will read their links, cites, and listen to their opinions without attacking them.

I understand that behind every discussion there is the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Knowing this I can amend or change my thoughts to follow that truth with ease. Many times the truth is simply "I/we don't know."

Finally, there is respect of others. Without respect and tolerance of others' views no debate can be held. I am old now, and have a deep respect for the freedoms we enjoy in America. This country was founded on freedom of belief. I want to see that upheld in all debates.

Love

0 Replies

Hmm... thats a good question LOL not everyone knows everythin I agree

0 Replies

Lekatt, I'm sure every civil person here appreciates your orientation. Let me disagree with you on one point. You say that:

"I understand that behind every discussion there is the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Knowing this I can amend or change my thoughts to follow that truth with ease. Many times the truth is simply "I/we don't know."

Most people will agree with this very reasonable position, but I would like to push the matter to a more esoteric philosophical perspective, for better or for worse.
I do not take the positivist position that there is "the truth", in the sense of an ultimately correct PROPOSITION or set of propositions that accurately and completely describe Reality. I DO feel that there IS an Ultimate Reality, that which gives rise to all things (or IS all things), including our illusions. I realize that this is a kind of positivism, insofar as it denies Nihilism and Absolute Idealism. I do feel, however, that Ultimate Reality is not something that we can capture linguistically or mathematically since it transcends all such efforts. Indeed, It includes all such efforts. They cannot stand outside of it and point to it. At the level of propositions there are only perspectivistic interpretations, positions or points of view--none of which are possible without human culture.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Lekatt, I'm sure every civil person here appreciates your orientation. Let me disagree with you on one point. You say that:

"I understand that behind every discussion there is the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Knowing this I can amend or change my thoughts to follow that truth with ease. Many times the truth is simply "I/we don't know."

Most people will agree with this very reasonable position, but I would like to push the matter to a more esoteric philosophical perspective, for better or for worse.
I do not take the positivist position that there is "the truth", in the sense of an ultimately correct PROPOSITION or set of propositions that accurately and completely describe Reality. I DO feel that there IS an Ultimate Reality, that which gives rise to all things (or IS all things), including our illusions. I realize that this is a kind of positivism, insofar as it denies Nihilism and Absolute Idealism. I do feel, however, that Ultimate Reality is not something that we can capture linguistically or mathematically since it transcends all such efforts. Indeed, It includes all such efforts. They cannot stand outside of it and point to it. At the level of propositions there are only perspectivistic interpretations, positions or points of view--none of which are possible without human culture.

I see nothing in your post to disagree with. My understanding of your post is that we can't always know what the real truth is, and I agree. We are too close to it, as in, "can't see the forest for the trees." I agree with that, somethings we may never know the complete reality of, until we leave our corporal bodies, and maybe not then.

I believe we humans should try to live within the truth we know, until more or newer truth is revealed to us. This truth will not be the same for everyone. Some will see the glass half empty and others half full. But if we stand up for truth then we have a goal, all of us, to learn all we can. If we stand for truth we will read the material of those who think differently as much as we do those who think like us.

Now, to define truth, my dictionary says in part:

Quote:

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts :

Truth must be things that can be demonstrated to be true. Facts, sincerity in action, etc. Truth is not opinions, theories, assumptions, etc. Once we have established this it is easy to see how truth becomes the goal.

Then there is the truth of experience, I have never seen a UFO, but a close and trusted friend of mine has. I have no reason to doubt him, never lied to me before. Yes, he could have been mistaken, but I researched his story and found that many of his neighbors saw it also. Now, just because I didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there. I will not call him silly, this is one of the times when I have to say: "I don't know."

Discussions and debating is not hard as long as one realizes the truth of not knowing everything, as well as the truth of maintaining respect for all people and their ideas.

I remember a saying I read a long time ago.

Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss things.
Great minds discuss ideas.

Love

0 Replies

Lekatt, I was referring to Reality rather than "truth". And I was not referring to "truthfulness" (i.e., sincerity). But I agree that truth statements are essential to our everyday existence. We favor statements that make sense to us and our neighbors, statements by which we can coordinate our actions, and there are pragmatic "truths", propositions that produce positive results (such as the physics and engineering principles that we use to build lasting bridges and health-promoting drugs). But you say that we cannot know what the REAL truth is. I was saying that there is no "real truth" in the absolute sense of a proposition that describes Ultimate Reality. I guess I'm saying that Ultimate Reality (what actually is in the final "analysis") cannot be described in human terms). BUT because I AM an expression of Ultimate Reality, I can, in a wordless manner, "introspectively" sense its nature. But that's mysticism.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Lekatt, I was referring to Reality rather than "truth". And I was not referring to "truthfulness" (i.e., sincerity). But I agree that truth statements are essential to our everyday existence. We favor statements that make sense to us and our neighbors, statements by which we can coordinate our actions, and there are pragmatic "truths", propositions that produce positive results (such as the physics and engineering principles that we use to build lasting bridges and health-promoting drugs). But you say that we cannot know what the REAL truth is. I was saying that there is no "real truth" in the absolute sense of a proposition that describes Ultimate Reality. I guess I'm saying that Ultimate Reality (what actually is in the final "analysis") cannot be described in human terms). BUT because I AM an expression of Ultimate Reality, I can, in a wordless manner, "introspectively" sense its nature. But that's mysticism.

I can only answer you from my understanding and experience.

Reality is truth, the words are interchangeable in most cases. Now, I agree the ultimate reality can not be described in words, only introspectively sensed. But this is not mysticism, it is spirituality in my way of thinking. In my NDE and subsequent experiences I "felt, experienced" many things that I can not describe in words. When I try to set them down they appear foolish and with no sense. Feelings are hard to put to words, colors that can't be described, or music that can only be felt, not heard.

While all this is very interesting to talk about, it is not necessary to know in order to live a great life. One can learn the value of love and live very successfully. My path is truth, love, and light. This brings me peace, and calm, but most of all it helps me to be fearless. One can not fear what one loves.

I feel you have a point in this discussion that remains undisclosed.
Now, maybe the time.

Love

0 Replies

Well put, Lekatt. I use the term, mysticism, in its strict (not New Age) sense, and that is for me synonymous with "spirituality."
Your equation of truth with Reality is fine. But to me "truth" has to do with propositions ABOUT the world. Reality, as I refer to it, is beyond that. It is sometimes glimpsed in immediate or unmediated experience, but rendered "something else" when talked about, when "encapsulated" in formulas. No matter, I'm glad you have experiences that bring you peace.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Well put, Lekatt. I use the term, mysticism, in its strict (not New Age) sense, and that is for me synonymous with "spirituality."
Your equation of truth with Reality is fine. But to me "truth" has to do with propositions ABOUT the world. Reality, as I refer to it, is beyond that. It is sometimes glimpsed in immediate or unmediated experience, but rendered "something else" when talked about, when "encapsulated" in formulas. No matter, I'm glad you have experiences that bring you peace.

I find no reason to disagree with you. Yes, there is far more to this world than meets the eye.

Love

0 Replies

I can't speak for Americans, but as a former Englishwoman who moved to Australia (and became an Australian citizen) I can say that there is a similar fear or reserve amongst Australians. Pommies (a term of 'endearment' by Australians for those born in England) like myself, tend to shock when we actually enjoy debates and delight in an opposing view: Good Heavens - you might actually learn something by discussing a delicate subject, even if the discussion becomes passionate! Debate and enjoy!

0 Replies

Sex, Religion and Politics.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know