The first function of a public debate is to air and examine the issues. An opposition is essential to that. It is to explore the subtle details for an audience and not to keep banging on a drum.
fm wrote-
Quote: Yeh, lets all agree with spendi and be thankful for all those child molesting parsons and priests whove managed , through Gods help, to manage their lust.
That is a ridiculous point. One might discredit any institution by that shallow argument. I mentioned earlier the overcoming of our brute animality and that we had to accept that it is a slow and imperfect process. One does not abandon the institution because of the difficulties. The problem referred to might well have other causes such as imperfect recruitment in the US context. While it is a serious matter it is not a reason to undermine an important principle. From a philosophical point of view it constitutes cheating.
Quote:Give till it hurts, so that all our clergy can sponge off our gullible good will and fear of everlasting pain and suffering.
That is just a smear. The doctrine of hell has been long abandoned by serious people and, where cynicism does prevail as I accept it does, it remains an aspect of that imperfect development of human nature. People have voted with their feet to retain ministers of religion of one sort or another for the whole of known history. I refer you to a quote I gave from Joubert a while back.
Quote:We dont necessarily believe in what he belives in. Thats why most of us are gainfully employed , contributing members of society, while hes a sponge on society and a chip eating unkempt haik.
That's a rodomontade of self flattering assertions each one of which is debatable. A very loose use of language of the type you won't see in any of my posts. It's ranting in cliches actually and suggests fm is losing his cool.
But- to more responsible matters.
Vengo wrote-
Quote:Wait wait wait, you're not arguing against the assertion that there's more to religion than marriage, are you?
To some extent yes. The other functions of religion such as providing explanations to meet an obvious demand for them of our origins or as a unifying force or satisfying the need for ritualistic ceremonials can be acheived by a variety of outward forms. The Darwinian cannot satisfy any of those on a mass scale. A Darwinian is forced to scoff at marriage.
A 50% divorce rate doesn't mean that the other 50% are happy.
In such matters attempts to regulate the relations between the sexes are given a greater chance of success when they don't rely on human authority. Anyone who accepts that principle, as I presume the anti-IDers do regarding the Christian forms, will see the benefit of reinforcing the divine authority by whatever means are found most efficient and will support the established processes. Induction into groups at birth (baptisms) and departures from this world (funerals) are also important but nothing compares to the regulation of the interaction of the sexes.
I refer you to the quote I gave from an article by Waldermar Januszczak concerning the pictorial art of 16th century which I will repeat.
Quote:...we need to recognise lust as the atom bomb of sins: the ultimately destructive human weakness, a lethal crack in our make-up through which everything that is terrible in the world slunk in.
This presumably had the approval of the editor of The Sunday Times.
One might of course ignore such statements if they produce a degree of discomfort but those who are subject to such effects are hardly fit and proper persons to be debating the education of 50 million young people.
A responsible person who disagrees with it has a duty to present his case and not hide his head away and start another assertion fiasco about his truth seeking in areas we all agree about.
Quote:Personally, I enjoyed the Earthquake in Chile. It was an awfully good look at a world outside of society where people weren't fettered by societal hierarchies.
It is a well known position. The last verse of Black Diamond Bay contains a nice example. A writer, not thinking himself original, has a duty to put his/her own spin on it simply for literary novelty. That I tried to do. I'm glad you liked it.
Quote:What does it say about you, that you see no inherent benefit to an individual who helps others?
Not in the slightest.
Quote:Could it be that stable relationships between adults(monogamous or otherwise) lead to a higher likelihood of the offspring making it to adulthood since there are multiple caretakers?
That is a very complex point. From the Greek practice of exposing infants to Huxley's "nurseries", from starvation diets to societies addicted to gluttony, from matriarchy to patriarchy and stations in between and from consideration of individuals to considerations of cultural survival over long periods of time. A theologian bears those in mind and many other things. And his becoming entangled in a brothel scandal (an impossible concept for an anti-IDer) doesn't alter that one iota.
Someone who doesn't become so entangled and doesn't keep those things in mind has nothing of value to add to this debate. He will be merely blurting out his personal prjudices and trying to force them on everyone else. Pride outranks lust as a vice. And Religion, ours anyway, teaches humility but, once again, that brute animality rears its head and we can only make gradual progress because of it. Abandoning Religion seems to me unthinkable and a political non-starter.
