The idea that fantasizing about someone is 'using' them and, therefore, objectification is kind of bizarre to me, though.
That's kind of more what I meant.
Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the notion, but I suppose the argument could be made that their image or whatever being "used" as a sexual aid for someone to get their rocks off.
If you haven't 'met your perfect life partner' by 25, hire a hooker and a therapist and get your heads worked.
I considered the first of those, aged 23 and socially isolated. ^_^
Kinda glad I didn't.
I suppose. Dan Savage, the guru of sex, points out that hookers are used to showing a frustrated adult the ropes. It breaks the whole OMG I GOTTA GET LAID thing and will help you more then a bored drunk chick you picked up at the bar.
This goes all the way back to the Babylonians and Sumerians, who had sacred prostitutes in the temples of Ninlil and Millita who would accept intercourse with a worshipper in exchange for a coin or token. I've read one account that in some towns each male would only get one shot at the temple prostitutes his entire life; he'd be given a token when he reached sexual maturity so he could lose his virginity in the temple.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Sorry, I won't be using any crazy gel condoms until they've been available on the market for a few years. Maybe I'm a Luddite but I'm going to stick with the sure thing (or closest to it that we have) until a bunch of other shmucks have done all the proving for me.
They're going to be really exhaustively tested before they go live, what with the whole HIV thing and all.
I have no doubt, but even 10,000 tests in a clinical trial isn't as reliable as a billion or so in the first two or three years. Every new technology takes a few years to get the kinks worked out when it's released. That's all well and good on an iPhone or something but not on taking a chance being a baby daddy. I can wait.
Condoms have an 80% reliability figure associated with them in terms of real-world use.
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
It'll still be a great invention when they get it all figured out, and undoubtedly do a lot to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I can't tell you how many girls I've known back in high school and around my hometown who got knocked up because their boyfriends were such assholes that they refused to wear a condom and they either couldn't get the pill or somehow made a mistake while taking it.
In my opinion, the idea that fantasizing about someone you know is "wrong" is about on par with my girlfriend being pissed at me for something I did in her dream.
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The idea that fantasizing about someone is 'using' them and, therefore, objectification is kind of bizarre to me, though.
That's kind of more what I meant.
Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the notion, but I suppose the argument could be made that their image or whatever being "used" as a sexual aid for someone to get their rocks off.
Still not really seeing the harm. I might find it odd if I were to discover that someone had blown up a photo of me to poster size and hung it in their home as art/inspiration/porn/a dart board but as long as they weren't somehow making money off of my image I wouldn't really take exception to it. I don't have any inherent right to what you do with the electrochemical patterns generated by the interception of photons on your eyes' rods and cones after having reflected off of me. If I suddenly become the star of your sexual fantasies, or your dreams, or your memory confuses me with Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4... well, that's your head and I don't get to say what goes on in it. And if I don't get or expect a say, then there's not much reason for you to change it on the basis of what you think I might like better. It'd be (Internet Forum Analogy Alert!) like not painting your living room on the basis that your neighbors don't like that color.
In my opinion, the idea that fantasizing about someone you know is "wrong" is about on par with my girlfriend being pissed at me for something I did in her dream.
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
If this is true, the person in question already has some issues they need to work out.
EDIT I am of course referring to the fantasizer, not the fantasizee
Driving (or whatever) drunk is bad because being intoxicated makes it difficult to do those things effectively. Not only might I hurt someone (which would be bad because that someone is either me (which is bad on the basis that self-destruction is counter-productive to my life goals) or someone else (which is bad because my ability to empathize with them and those connected to them make it on-par with self-destruction)) but I am unlikely to get the job done. If I'm operating a saw, rather than a car, I'm not likely to cut straight lines even if I manage not to saw my thumb off.
I think that the fundamental difference between secular and religious moral codes is that one makes its arbitrary decisions at the level of "this would hurt me" (for some definition of hurt, possibly including feelings of remorse derived from empathy) and the other stops at, "this would make God angry". I'm biased, but I tend to find religious morality to be kind of shallow in that it requires no introspection. Follow the rules because they're the rules, not because they're good rules. Not to say that no religious people perform introspective surveys of their own morality, but religious morality does not, by nature, require it. And that lack of requirement leads to the common anti-atheist viewpoint that an atheist cannot have morals (or 'real' morals) because they have no code of moral laws to which to refer.
You're a really good debating partner.
The basis for religious morality is no more shallow than any other morality on their surfaces. It's unwise, though, to call religious morality shallow because it requires no introspection. No moral code requires introspection; it's easy enough to say "I should not do this because people will suffer" without ever thinking about why the sufferings of others are "bad." It's just as easy to say "because God said so" and never think about it, but I think that has more to do with the person holding the beliefs than the basis of the beliefs.
I think that the perception is that religious morality is shallow because so many people who follow it have a shallow appreciation of it. However, shallow believers are easier to spot because their beliefs are central to their lives and they are usually readily identifiable. I would contend that many, many non-religious people, maybe even a statistically similar number to the religious, take just as shallow a view of their own morality. The only difference is that they don't discuss it as readily, in large part because (in America at least), we just don't discuss those kinds of things in public.
I would say, though, that if you were to walk into a representative gathering place and ask 20 people what their moral beliefs were, less than half of them, Christian or otherwise, would be able to coherently explain them. I use coherently objectively- I can easily lay down my beliefs (for the most part) and give you the whys and wherefores behind them, even if it's a belief system you aren't able to fully grasp because it's so different from yours.
It's not that religious morality is shallow; it's just that religious morality is discussed at length and the representative sample of shallow believers is more readily visible than the shallow believers in secular moral codes.
daedelus on
Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
In my opinion, the idea that fantasizing about someone you know is "wrong" is about on par with my girlfriend being pissed at me for something I did in her dream.
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
True, but that's kind of a "Step 2" situation.
Though, along the same lines, who doesn't act a little weird or goofy (not creepy -- more like suddenly becoming exceptionally clumsy) around someone they're attracted to in a more than passing fashion?
Driving (or whatever) drunk is bad because being intoxicated makes it difficult to do those things effectively. Not only might I hurt someone (which would be bad because that someone is either me (which is bad on the basis that self-destruction is counter-productive to my life goals) or someone else (which is bad because my ability to empathize with them and those connected to them make it on-par with self-destruction)) but I am unlikely to get the job done. If I'm operating a saw, rather than a car, I'm not likely to cut straight lines even if I manage not to saw my thumb off.
I think that the fundamental difference between secular and religious moral codes is that one makes its arbitrary decisions at the level of "this would hurt me" (for some definition of hurt, possibly including feelings of remorse derived from empathy) and the other stops at, "this would make God angry". I'm biased, but I tend to find religious morality to be kind of shallow in that it requires no introspection. Follow the rules because they're the rules, not because they're good rules. Not to say that no religious people perform introspective surveys of their own morality, but religious morality does not, by nature, require it. And that lack of requirement leads to the common anti-atheist viewpoint that an atheist cannot have morals (or 'real' morals) because they have no code of moral laws to which to refer.
You're a really good debating partner.
Thanks. I like debating. Drives my wife up a wall.
It's not that religious morality is shallow; it's just that religious morality is discussed at length and the representative sample of shallow believers is more readily visible than the shallow believers in secular moral codes.
Hmm. I think 'shallow' was probably the wrong word choice for what I meant. Easy might be a better one. You're certainly correct that most people have a very shallow moral system in general, religious or not. Amongst atheists I'd wager that the average moral system, if defined, would consist of their local laws coupled with some moral beliefs strung together from their religious knowledge and whatever caused them to specifically not be religious.
But, in general, I'd maintain that religious morality is easier than secular. It may not be easier to actually follow (I'm fairly certain that following all of the moral codes in the Bible, for instance, is biologically impossible) but you have the whole thing laid out right there in black and white, and absolutely no questioning or doubt is necessary. If you don't have the religious framework to back you then you may simply go through life with a shallow, patchwork morality, but the moment that it comes into question you have no fall-back answer of "because God". If you were to ask me why I think that abortion is morally acceptable while murder is morally repugnant it would require a detailed explanation of my reasoning regarding personal rights, freedoms, and the definition of 'human life'. A religious person might offer just as deeply reasoned an answer, but the opportunity exists to say, "Scripture tells us that a life begins at conception and that it is sinful to take a life" rather than do any of that reasoning.
Admittedly another atheist or agnost or whatever could just say, "Uh...I dunno; it just is." But, to me, that's not really any different than the religious person's reliance on holy writ. They don't have a written record or community to back them up, but they're taking just as easy a route to morality as the religious person who rests on scripture without questioning their own beliefs, and that's what I take exception to with religious morality.
In my opinion, the idea that fantasizing about someone you know is "wrong" is about on par with my girlfriend being pissed at me for something I did in her dream.
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
True, but that's kind of a "Step 2" situation.
Though, along the same lines, who doesn't act a little weird or goofy (not creepy -- more like suddenly becoming exceptionally clumsy) around someone they're attracted to in a more than passing fashion?
Yeah. I don't think it's a huge concern, just something to keep in mind.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The idea that fantasizing about someone is 'using' them and, therefore, objectification is kind of bizarre to me, though.
That's kind of more what I meant.
Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the notion, but I suppose the argument could be made that their image or whatever being "used" as a sexual aid for someone to get their rocks off.
Driving (or whatever) drunk is bad because being intoxicated makes it difficult to do those things effectively. Not only might I hurt someone (which would be bad because that someone is either me (which is bad on the basis that self-destruction is counter-productive to my life goals) or someone else (which is bad because my ability to empathize with them and those connected to them make it on-par with self-destruction)) but I am unlikely to get the job done. If I'm operating a saw, rather than a car, I'm not likely to cut straight lines even if I manage not to saw my thumb off.
I think that the fundamental difference between secular and religious moral codes is that one makes its arbitrary decisions at the level of "this would hurt me" (for some definition of hurt, possibly including feelings of remorse derived from empathy) and the other stops at, "this would make God angry". I'm biased, but I tend to find religious morality to be kind of shallow in that it requires no introspection. Follow the rules because they're the rules, not because they're good rules. Not to say that no religious people perform introspective surveys of their own morality, but religious morality does not, by nature, require it. And that lack of requirement leads to the common anti-atheist viewpoint that an atheist cannot have morals (or 'real' morals) because they have no code of moral laws to which to refer.
You're a really good debating partner.
The basis for religious morality is no more shallow than any other morality on their surfaces. It's unwise, though, to call religious morality shallow because it requires no introspection. No moral code requires introspection; it's easy enough to say "I should not do this because people will suffer" without ever thinking about why the sufferings of others are "bad." It's just as easy to say "because God said so" and never think about it, but I think that has more to do with the person holding the beliefs than the basis of the beliefs.
I think that the perception is that religious morality is shallow because so many people who follow it have a shallow appreciation of it. However, shallow believers are easier to spot because their beliefs are central to their lives and they are usually readily identifiable. I would contend that many, many non-religious people, maybe even a statistically similar number to the religious, take just as shallow a view of their own morality. The only difference is that they don't discuss it as readily, in large part because (in America at least), we just don't discuss those kinds of things in public.
I would say, though, that if you were to walk into a representative gathering place and ask 20 people what their moral beliefs were, less than half of them, Christian or otherwise, would be able to coherently explain them. I use coherently objectively- I can easily lay down my beliefs (for the most part) and give you the whys and wherefores behind them, even if it's a belief system you aren't able to fully grasp because it's so different from yours.
It's not that religious morality is shallow; it's just that religious morality is discussed at length and the representative sample of shallow believers is more readily visible than the shallow believers in secular moral codes.
the belief that condoms are bad is a religious one, and to view condoms as anything else a godsend is a kind of psychosis or insanity. There is no basis in reality as to why contraception is bad. There is absolutely no logical argument that can be made to support the ban of contraceptives.
i don't want this thread to become a religion thread, but religious morality is very, very often shallow and arbitrary
The idea that fantasizing about someone is 'using' them and, therefore, objectification is kind of bizarre to me, though.
That's kind of more what I meant.
Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the notion, but I suppose the argument could be made that their image or whatever being "used" as a sexual aid for someone to get their rocks off.
What's wrong with that?
Also, what about people who masturbate to erotic fiction, where there are no real people involved?
Hmm. I think 'shallow' was probably the wrong word choice for what I meant. Easy might be a better one. You're certainly correct that most people have a very shallow moral system in general, religious or not. Amongst atheists I'd wager that the average moral system, if defined, would consist of their local laws coupled with some moral beliefs strung together from their religious knowledge and whatever caused them to specifically not be religious.
But, in general, I'd maintain that religious morality is easier than secular. It may not be easier to actually follow (I'm fairly certain that following all of the moral codes in the Bible, for instance, is biologically impossible) but you have the whole thing laid out right there in black and white, and absolutely no questioning or doubt is necessary. If you don't have the religious framework to back you then you may simply go through life with a shallow, patchwork morality, but the moment that it comes into question you have no fall-back answer of "because God". If you were to ask me why I think that abortion is morally acceptable while murder is morally repugnant it would require a detailed explanation of my reasoning regarding personal rights, freedoms, and the definition of 'human life'. A religious person might offer just as deeply reasoned an answer, but the opportunity exists to say, "Scripture tells us that a life begins at conception and that it is sinful to take a life" rather than do any of that reasoning.
Admittedly another atheist or agnost or whatever could just say, "Uh...I dunno; it just is." But, to me, that's not really any different than the religious person's reliance on holy writ. They don't have a written record or community to back them up, but they're taking just as easy a route to morality as the religious person who rests on scripture without questioning their own beliefs, and that's what I take exception to with religious morality.
I suppose I can see your point, but my Christian "upbringing" (the environment in which my faith was fostered after conversion) was practically insistent that every decision and belief (moral or otherwise) be questioned, evaluated, and re-evaluated, not just against Scripture but against the evidence presented by the world around us. God doesn't call us to be stupid or ignorant.
The opportunity exists, for example, in the abortion debate to say that Scripture dictates that abortion is wrong, but honestly to lay out just the Scriptural components to that conclusion would take pages. Also, because we're called to evangelize and no non-Christian is going to agree with us just based on Scripture, we have to take into account real-world evidence to support our belief. After that we have to learn to phrase things in a way that is both respectful and well-stated.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while there is an easy road offered by religion (and now that I think of it there are a number of those offered by newspaper editors, talk-radio hosts, and web authors), in Christianity at least I firmly believe that we are supposed to take the difficult one.
daedelus on
Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
I suppose I can see your point, but my Christian "upbringing" (the environment in which my faith was fostered after conversion) was practically insistent that every decision and belief (moral or otherwise) be questioned, evaluated, and re-evaluated, not just against Scripture but against the evidence presented by the world around us.
Sure it does. And that's fine, up until the point you reject it. Christianity only permits questioning up until the time that questioning leads you out of the faith.
Melkster on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
I really hope you meant one condom + birth control as doubling up, and not doubling up on condoms.
Cause double bagging makes condoms practically worthless (latex on latex friction invariably leads to tearing).
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
the belief that condoms are bad is a religious one, and to view condoms as anything else a godsend is a kind of psychosis or insanity. There is no basis in reality as to why contraception is bad. There is absolutely no logical argument that can be made to support the ban of contraceptives.
i don't want this thread to become a religion thread, but religious morality is very, very often shallow and arbitrary
Whoa, whoa, whoa- who said anything about condoms? Condoms are totally, totally cool in my book. I guess I missed where the whole contraceptives thing came up, but my wife and I use them. Actually, she and I are a bad example because she has some health issues- a pregnancy for her has to be planned or there are serious risks to the baby due to medications she's taking. But even for a couple without those concerns, there's nothing in Scripture that states that birth control is bad, or that sex is bad.
I think that the whole contraceptives as an evil thing came from two points: The Bible says that God digs babies and that they're a blessing to their parents, and that contraceptives make premarital sex a little bit easier to get away with. Neither of these things logically follow to the conclusion that contraceptives are inherently evil. As to your statement on religious morality, see my above post- I hope it's somewhat helpful.
daedelus on
Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
In my opinion, the idea that fantasizing about someone you know is "wrong" is about on par with my girlfriend being pissed at me for something I did in her dream.
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
If this is true, the person in question already has some issues they need to work out.
EDIT I am of course referring to the fantasizer, not the fantasizee
I wouldn't go that far.
I think it's safe to say that most male sexual fantasies involve imagining a woman to be more sexually available than she actually is. (After all, that's why they're fantasies.) They'll probably involve the woman in question acting in a way that is more parallel to typical male sexuality (less foreplay, more vaginal penetration, more visual stimulation) than typical female sexuality. This could lead to frustration when the man in question discovers that he had an expectation that women might act more like porn actresses than they actually do.
Of course, I recognize I'm painting this picture in very broad brushstrokes. Everybody's different.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the belief that condoms are bad is a religious one, and to view condoms as anything else a godsend is a kind of psychosis or insanity. There is no basis in reality as to why contraception is bad. There is absolutely no logical argument that can be made to support the ban of contraceptives.
i don't want this thread to become a religion thread, but religious morality is very, very often shallow and arbitrary
Whoa, whoa, whoa- who said anything about condoms? Condoms are totally, totally cool in my book. I guess I missed where the whole contraceptives thing came up, but my wife and I use them. Actually, she and I are a bad example because she has some health issues- a pregnancy for her has to be planned or there are serious risks to the baby due to medications she's taking. But even for a couple without those concerns, there's nothing in Scripture that states that birth control is bad, or that sex is bad.
I think that the whole contraceptives as an evil thing came from two points: The Bible says that God digs babies and that they're a blessing to their parents, and that contraceptives make premarital sex a little bit easier to get away with. Neither of these things logically follow to the conclusion that contraceptives are inherently evil. As to your statement on religious morality, see my above post- I hope it's somewhat helpful.
it may not be your belief, but it is a religious belief
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
I suppose I can see your point, but my Christian "upbringing" (the environment in which my faith was fostered after conversion) was practically insistent that every decision and belief (moral or otherwise) be questioned, evaluated, and re-evaluated, not just against Scripture but against the evidence presented by the world around us.
Sure it does. And that's fine, up until the point you reject it. Christianity only permits questioning up until the time that questioning leads you out of the faith.
I don't really see how this statement is helpful. God would permit me to leave if I wanted to; that's kind of how he rolls. Questioning has yet to lead me out of the faith; it's honestly just deepened my beliefs. It's hard, maybe impossible, to explain to someone who doesn't believe what I do, but intellectual discipline and rigorous study makes God more believable to me.
daedelus on
Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
1) Alcohol is inherently bad because it's a poison. Too much of it will kill me.
For what it's worth, this is actually false. Medical science robustly shows that moderate drinking (a drink or two a day) significantly lowers your risk of cardiovascular problems (and thus of dying). However, even moderate drinking results in lower brain volume over time. It is absolutely a trade-off based on what you want to get you first.
1) Alcohol is inherently bad because it's a poison. Too much of it will kill me.
For what it's worth, this is actually false. Medical science robustly shows that moderate drinking (a drink or two a day) significantly lowers your risk of cardiovascular problems (and thus of dying). However, even moderate drinking results in lower brain volume over time. It is absolutely a trade-off based on what you want to get you first.
Sorry, this is more what I had in mind: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol-poisoning/DS00861
If I just keep on drinking and drinking eventually I die of alcohol poisoning, not that I never drink because it's bad for me in general. I like drinking. Guinness + Blackthorn cider = god's own manna.
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
Maybe it's because the children of the free-love generation fell that they had a glut of sexual knowledge before they were ready for it and don't like the way they put it into practice? Or in a more abstract sense maybe they're looking at the teen pregnancy rates and panicking, figuring ignorance is better for kids? Or maybe they're trying to foist the sexual education of kids back on their parents. I kind of feel bad for the school system sometimes- this is such a hot-button issue that I'm sure a lot of them just wish that parents would deal with it.
daedelus on
Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
The whole country didn't go to Woodstock, you know.
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
Maybe it's because the children of the free-love generation fell that they had a glut of sexual knowledge before they were ready for it and don't like the way they put it into practice? Or in a more abstract sense maybe they're looking at the teen pregnancy rates and panicking, figuring ignorance is better for kids? Or maybe they're trying to foist the sexual education of kids back on their parents. I kind of feel bad for the school system sometimes- this is such a hot-button issue that I'm sure a lot of them just wish that parents would deal with it.
The Baby Boomers are seriously the worst generation
I suppose I can see your point, but my Christian "upbringing" (the environment in which my faith was fostered after conversion) was practically insistent that every decision and belief (moral or otherwise) be questioned, evaluated, and re-evaluated, not just against Scripture but against the evidence presented by the world around us.
Sure it does. And that's fine, up until the point you reject it. Christianity only permits questioning up until the time that questioning leads you out of the faith.
I don't really see how this statement is helpful. God would permit me to leave if I wanted to; that's kind of how he rolls. Questioning has yet to lead me out of the faith; it's honestly just deepened my beliefs. It's hard, maybe impossible, to explain to someone who doesn't believe what I do, but intellectual discipline and rigorous study makes God more believable to me.
I was actually planning to become a priest and I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies. For me, questioning deepened my faith, sure, but only up to a certain point, where the faith I had been taught began to unravel. Every Christian loved my "deep" questions about things like the Problem of Evil, or Biblical contradictions, or unethical/immoral practices/events condoned within the Bible, or when I questioned the Bible's position on homosexuality, or whatever - but only up until the point where I answered the questions I had in a way they did not find acceptable. That is, when I said, "This is bullshit."
Which is fine. They did exactly as they ought to. They believe that people who reject Christ go to hell, as laid out in scripture, so they disapproved when I "chose" hell, basically.
And what "God" permits wasn't what I was commenting on; I was talking about how your Christian "upbringing" encouraged questioning - I was saying that whoever taught you would be happy to encourage your questioning up until the point where that questioning caused you to take a position that he believes would send you straight to hell. I.e., disbelief in the saving power of Jesus Christ. God might permit you to send yourself to hell, but your friends should, of course, do everything in their power to keep you from doing that. (Unless, of course, they aren't real friends, or they don't really believe in Chrsitianity.)
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
I think you're really overestimating the reach and impact that the popular conception of the 1960's had. How many people went to Woodstock? 500,000 out of 200,000,000, or 1 in 400?
And even if the popular images of Woodstock and hippies were a widespread phenomenon, it's not unusual to see the next generation "rebel".
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
I think you're really overestimating the reach and impact that the popular conception of the 1960's had. How many people went to Woodstock? 500,000 out of 200,000,000, or 1 in 400?
And even if the popular images of Woodstock and hippies were a widespread phenomenon, it's not unusual to see the next generation "rebel".
Except it wasn't the next generation that rebelled. It was the boomers that 'grew up' and said "welp, we had our fun. we're going to protect the shit out of you so you can't have any, future generations!".
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
The whole country didn't go to Woodstock, you know.
No, but to the extent that any generation 'believes' anything, that generation believed in a much more open approach to sexuality than we see now.
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
I really hope you meant one condom + birth control as doubling up, and not doubling up on condoms.
Obviously. Who ever heard of using two condoms at once? That sounds like something we would have thought of back in like Freshman year of high school or something.
Duffel on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
I really hope you meant one condom + birth control as doubling up, and not doubling up on condoms.
Obviously. Who ever heard of using two condoms at once? That sounds like something we would have thought of back in like Freshman year of high school or something.
A rather large, misinformed group of people think "double bagging" offers twice the protection.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
I really hope you meant one condom + birth control as doubling up, and not doubling up on condoms.
Obviously. Who ever heard of using two condoms at once? That sounds like something we would have thought of back in like Freshman year of high school or something.
A rather large, misinformed group of people think "double bagging" offers twice the protection.
Well strictly speaking, if one condom were to fail structurally...
A rather large, misinformed group of people think "double bagging" offers twice the protection.
I guess, really, that's not any dumber than the other ridiculous sex myths that get spread around among teenagers ("Can't get pregnant if it's the first time", "Can't get pregnant through underwear", "Douching with coke kills sperm(?!), "Jumping up and down really fast afterward keeps the semen from reaching eggs"....)
Duffel on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
I really hope you meant one condom + birth control as doubling up, and not doubling up on condoms.
Obviously. Who ever heard of using two condoms at once? That sounds like something we would have thought of back in like Freshman year of high school or something.
A rather large, misinformed group of people think "double bagging" offers twice the protection.
Well strictly speaking, if one condom were to fail structurally...
... then it failed because the friction generated between two thin sheets of latex caused it to tear.
It takes a lot less ..err... "thrust" to tear two condoms than it does one.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
Yeah I'm not 100% sold on the notion, but I suppose the argument could be made that their image or whatever being "used" as a sexual aid for someone to get their rocks off.
This goes all the way back to the Babylonians and Sumerians, who had sacred prostitutes in the temples of Ninlil and Millita who would accept intercourse with a worshipper in exchange for a coin or token. I've read one account that in some towns each male would only get one shot at the temple prostitutes his entire life; he'd be given a token when he reached sexual maturity so he could lose his virginity in the temple.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Exactly, hence why I'm one of those people who believes in doubling up on condoms + birth control pill if the girl can stand it. Some people call me paranoid but it seems less troubling than freaking out every time somebody is a couple of days late on their period. I can do without that kind of stress.
It'll still be a great invention when they get it all figured out, and undoubtedly do a lot to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I can't tell you how many girls I've known back in high school and around my hometown who got knocked up because their boyfriends were such assholes that they refused to wear a condom and they either couldn't get the pill or somehow made a mistake while taking it.
It's hard to re-capture the feeling of trying to get a quickie in while you and your significant other had the house all to yourself for a while.
Parking up the street and walking to the house. Diving out the back door when you hear the garage opening.
Ahh, those were the days.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
It can lead to unrealistic expectations that can color interactions with that person (or other people).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Still not really seeing the harm. I might find it odd if I were to discover that someone had blown up a photo of me to poster size and hung it in their home as art/inspiration/porn/a dart board but as long as they weren't somehow making money off of my image I wouldn't really take exception to it. I don't have any inherent right to what you do with the electrochemical patterns generated by the interception of photons on your eyes' rods and cones after having reflected off of me. If I suddenly become the star of your sexual fantasies, or your dreams, or your memory confuses me with Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4... well, that's your head and I don't get to say what goes on in it. And if I don't get or expect a say, then there's not much reason for you to change it on the basis of what you think I might like better. It'd be (Internet Forum Analogy Alert!) like not painting your living room on the basis that your neighbors don't like that color.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If this is true, the person in question already has some issues they need to work out.
EDIT I am of course referring to the fantasizer, not the fantasizee
Well, depends on who it is, really.
You're a really good debating partner.
The basis for religious morality is no more shallow than any other morality on their surfaces. It's unwise, though, to call religious morality shallow because it requires no introspection. No moral code requires introspection; it's easy enough to say "I should not do this because people will suffer" without ever thinking about why the sufferings of others are "bad." It's just as easy to say "because God said so" and never think about it, but I think that has more to do with the person holding the beliefs than the basis of the beliefs.
I think that the perception is that religious morality is shallow because so many people who follow it have a shallow appreciation of it. However, shallow believers are easier to spot because their beliefs are central to their lives and they are usually readily identifiable. I would contend that many, many non-religious people, maybe even a statistically similar number to the religious, take just as shallow a view of their own morality. The only difference is that they don't discuss it as readily, in large part because (in America at least), we just don't discuss those kinds of things in public.
I would say, though, that if you were to walk into a representative gathering place and ask 20 people what their moral beliefs were, less than half of them, Christian or otherwise, would be able to coherently explain them. I use coherently objectively- I can easily lay down my beliefs (for the most part) and give you the whys and wherefores behind them, even if it's a belief system you aren't able to fully grasp because it's so different from yours.
It's not that religious morality is shallow; it's just that religious morality is discussed at length and the representative sample of shallow believers is more readily visible than the shallow believers in secular moral codes.
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
True, but that's kind of a "Step 2" situation.
Though, along the same lines, who doesn't act a little weird or goofy (not creepy -- more like suddenly becoming exceptionally clumsy) around someone they're attracted to in a more than passing fashion?
Thanks. I like debating. Drives my wife up a wall.
Hmm. I think 'shallow' was probably the wrong word choice for what I meant. Easy might be a better one. You're certainly correct that most people have a very shallow moral system in general, religious or not. Amongst atheists I'd wager that the average moral system, if defined, would consist of their local laws coupled with some moral beliefs strung together from their religious knowledge and whatever caused them to specifically not be religious.
But, in general, I'd maintain that religious morality is easier than secular. It may not be easier to actually follow (I'm fairly certain that following all of the moral codes in the Bible, for instance, is biologically impossible) but you have the whole thing laid out right there in black and white, and absolutely no questioning or doubt is necessary. If you don't have the religious framework to back you then you may simply go through life with a shallow, patchwork morality, but the moment that it comes into question you have no fall-back answer of "because God". If you were to ask me why I think that abortion is morally acceptable while murder is morally repugnant it would require a detailed explanation of my reasoning regarding personal rights, freedoms, and the definition of 'human life'. A religious person might offer just as deeply reasoned an answer, but the opportunity exists to say, "Scripture tells us that a life begins at conception and that it is sinful to take a life" rather than do any of that reasoning.
Admittedly another atheist or agnost or whatever could just say, "Uh...I dunno; it just is." But, to me, that's not really any different than the religious person's reliance on holy writ. They don't have a written record or community to back them up, but they're taking just as easy a route to morality as the religious person who rests on scripture without questioning their own beliefs, and that's what I take exception to with religious morality.
Yeah. I don't think it's a huge concern, just something to keep in mind.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What's wrong with that?
the belief that condoms are bad is a religious one, and to view condoms as anything else a godsend is a kind of psychosis or insanity. There is no basis in reality as to why contraception is bad. There is absolutely no logical argument that can be made to support the ban of contraceptives.
i don't want this thread to become a religion thread, but religious morality is very, very often shallow and arbitrary
I suppose I can see your point, but my Christian "upbringing" (the environment in which my faith was fostered after conversion) was practically insistent that every decision and belief (moral or otherwise) be questioned, evaluated, and re-evaluated, not just against Scripture but against the evidence presented by the world around us. God doesn't call us to be stupid or ignorant.
The opportunity exists, for example, in the abortion debate to say that Scripture dictates that abortion is wrong, but honestly to lay out just the Scriptural components to that conclusion would take pages. Also, because we're called to evangelize and no non-Christian is going to agree with us just based on Scripture, we have to take into account real-world evidence to support our belief. After that we have to learn to phrase things in a way that is both respectful and well-stated.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while there is an easy road offered by religion (and now that I think of it there are a number of those offered by newspaper editors, talk-radio hosts, and web authors), in Christianity at least I firmly believe that we are supposed to take the difficult one.
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
Sure it does. And that's fine, up until the point you reject it. Christianity only permits questioning up until the time that questioning leads you out of the faith.
Cause double bagging makes condoms practically worthless (latex on latex friction invariably leads to tearing).
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Whoa, whoa, whoa- who said anything about condoms? Condoms are totally, totally cool in my book. I guess I missed where the whole contraceptives thing came up, but my wife and I use them. Actually, she and I are a bad example because she has some health issues- a pregnancy for her has to be planned or there are serious risks to the baby due to medications she's taking. But even for a couple without those concerns, there's nothing in Scripture that states that birth control is bad, or that sex is bad.
I think that the whole contraceptives as an evil thing came from two points: The Bible says that God digs babies and that they're a blessing to their parents, and that contraceptives make premarital sex a little bit easier to get away with. Neither of these things logically follow to the conclusion that contraceptives are inherently evil. As to your statement on religious morality, see my above post- I hope it's somewhat helpful.
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
I wouldn't go that far.
I think it's safe to say that most male sexual fantasies involve imagining a woman to be more sexually available than she actually is. (After all, that's why they're fantasies.) They'll probably involve the woman in question acting in a way that is more parallel to typical male sexuality (less foreplay, more vaginal penetration, more visual stimulation) than typical female sexuality. This could lead to frustration when the man in question discovers that he had an expectation that women might act more like porn actresses than they actually do.
Of course, I recognize I'm painting this picture in very broad brushstrokes. Everybody's different.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
it may not be your belief, but it is a religious belief
The 60's: what the hell happened?
The people currently making policy about the whole sex-ed and abstinence-teaching thing are, by and large, the children of people whose sexual attitudes should have been defined by the 'free love' generation. Is it that they all rebelled against their parents ideas about sexuality and openness, so are now clapping down on the following generation (who are, in turn, rebelling against their parents and so are actually closer in line with their grandparents' beliefs)? It just seems bizarre that 40 years after Woodstock we'd have a school system trying not to teach children how to have safe sex.
I don't really see how this statement is helpful. God would permit me to leave if I wanted to; that's kind of how he rolls. Questioning has yet to lead me out of the faith; it's honestly just deepened my beliefs. It's hard, maybe impossible, to explain to someone who doesn't believe what I do, but intellectual discipline and rigorous study makes God more believable to me.
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
For what it's worth, this is actually false. Medical science robustly shows that moderate drinking (a drink or two a day) significantly lowers your risk of cardiovascular problems (and thus of dying). However, even moderate drinking results in lower brain volume over time. It is absolutely a trade-off based on what you want to get you first.
Sorry, this is more what I had in mind: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol-poisoning/DS00861
If I just keep on drinking and drinking eventually I die of alcohol poisoning, not that I never drink because it's bad for me in general. I like drinking. Guinness + Blackthorn cider = god's own manna.
Maybe it's because the children of the free-love generation fell that they had a glut of sexual knowledge before they were ready for it and don't like the way they put it into practice? Or in a more abstract sense maybe they're looking at the teen pregnancy rates and panicking, figuring ignorance is better for kids? Or maybe they're trying to foist the sexual education of kids back on their parents. I kind of feel bad for the school system sometimes- this is such a hot-button issue that I'm sure a lot of them just wish that parents would deal with it.
Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
The whole country didn't go to Woodstock, you know.
The Baby Boomers are seriously the worst generation
I was actually planning to become a priest and I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies. For me, questioning deepened my faith, sure, but only up to a certain point, where the faith I had been taught began to unravel. Every Christian loved my "deep" questions about things like the Problem of Evil, or Biblical contradictions, or unethical/immoral practices/events condoned within the Bible, or when I questioned the Bible's position on homosexuality, or whatever - but only up until the point where I answered the questions I had in a way they did not find acceptable. That is, when I said, "This is bullshit."
Which is fine. They did exactly as they ought to. They believe that people who reject Christ go to hell, as laid out in scripture, so they disapproved when I "chose" hell, basically.
And what "God" permits wasn't what I was commenting on; I was talking about how your Christian "upbringing" encouraged questioning - I was saying that whoever taught you would be happy to encourage your questioning up until the point where that questioning caused you to take a position that he believes would send you straight to hell. I.e., disbelief in the saving power of Jesus Christ. God might permit you to send yourself to hell, but your friends should, of course, do everything in their power to keep you from doing that. (Unless, of course, they aren't real friends, or they don't really believe in Chrsitianity.)
And even if the popular images of Woodstock and hippies were a widespread phenomenon, it's not unusual to see the next generation "rebel".
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Except it wasn't the next generation that rebelled. It was the boomers that 'grew up' and said "welp, we had our fun. we're going to protect the shit out of you so you can't have any, future generations!".
No, but to the extent that any generation 'believes' anything, that generation believed in a much more open approach to sexuality than we see now.
Obviously. Who ever heard of using two condoms at once? That sounds like something we would have thought of back in like Freshman year of high school or something.
A rather large, misinformed group of people think "double bagging" offers twice the protection.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It takes a lot less ..err... "thrust" to tear two condoms than it does one.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...