Dewey wrote a book!
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?
I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in hand with power and control.
Elbows up!
-
@Mik said in Dewey wrote a book!:
That's how 89th sees it. We're here to be exposed to different views. I don't see him advocating discrimination.
That's what tolerance is. Live and let live.
OK, so I'm not allowed to criticise?
My view is every bit as valid, and I'm giving it.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Mik said in Dewey wrote a book!:
That's how 89th sees it. We're here to be exposed to different views. I don't see him advocating discrimination.
That's what tolerance is. Live and let live.
OK, so I'm not allowed to criticise?
My view is every bit as valid, and I'm giving it.
That's your interpretation of what I said. It's not what I said.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?
I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in hand with power and control.
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?
I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in with power.
Religion today has got to be the flimsiest wealth and power scheme out there, aside from maybe the arts or humanities. The podunk spa at the tail end of my neck of the woods rakes in ten to fifteen times the annual revenue of the local Catholic church. The hospital down the road is several orders of magnitude above both. And then there are the energy companies, the real estate companies and political "non-profits." It makes it very difficult for me to take seriously that religion is all about wealth and power. If that's the case then any honest appraisal of their efforts would conclude they absolutely suck at it.
Please love yourself.
-
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Because, to be honest, that seems like the most plausible explanation to me at least.
We’ve been here for a million years or whatever and suddenly, just in the last two thousand, we suddenly got it. What are the chances?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Because, to be honest, that seems like the most plausible explanation to me at least.
We’ve been here for a million years or whatever and suddenly, just in the last two thousand, we suddenly got it. What are the chances?
Fair question and maybe one that is unanswerable. There were other religions before Judaism. A lot of people claim that Hinduism may be the oldest great organized religion. I prefer to think that a monotheistic religion existed after creation and was practiced by Adam and his descendents until people mucked things up, as they are want to do.
So, enter Abraham. Muslim tradition holds that he was the son of an idol maker. In Joshua 24:2, it does say that he worshipped idols, not a single God. The Abraham story is well-known, and details how Judaism came to be.
So, why Christianity? Why is the world's largest religion based upon a man who only taught for three years?
As I told TG, it is a religion that has at its core, the only deity to die and be physically resurrected in three days.
Some make arguments that Jesus didn't die on the cross (Muslims, who say God replaced Him) or that the Roman's couldn't tell if he was dead. Do a bit of reading and you will find the Romans were quite proficient at crucifying people. Couple that with the scourging of Jesus (which often killed the recipient) and the piercing of his side with a spear, and I don't think there's much doubt about Jesus' death.
Well, maybe he wasn't dead, the Romans screwed up? Don't think so. They placed him in a tomb, sealed it with a stone and stationed guards outside. The Roman penalty for letting a prisoner escape who was under the penalty of death, was death for the guards that let him get away. I suspect the guards at the tomb were under the same burden of responsibility. And certainly, any man, beaten and stabbed and crucified, was not going to roll the tomb's stone away and then overpower the Roman guards.
Then, the resurrected Jesus appears to over 500 people before his Ascension. He's real, He's flesh and has the scars to prove it.
Lastly, let's just look at the Disciples and the early church. Men who previously had shown signs of cowardice, became lions of their faith, preaching and teaching it until their own violent deaths at the hands of the authorities.
Then something else miraculous happened...A religion many considered a heretical twig of Judaism exploded throughout the Middle East and into Europe. Considering that Christianity was never meant to be carried by the sword and preached a message of love and salvation (unlike other religions of its day) through a monotheistic God and considering how fast and far people could travel in that day...The growth of the early church is incomprehensible.
And now, it is the world's largest religion and I don't think it's through growing.
Maybe God did send His only Son, that we may have everlasting life. Maybe a little over 2000 years ago, we did "get it".
-
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
What if all the religious rules are just stuff people made up?
Was the idea to just cosplay meaning because it sounded fun, or was it a grift to get rubes to give them attention and money and things?
I suspect that to be the case. The very word religion, to me at least, has come to suggest money. Money in turn goes hand in with power.
Religion today has got to be the flimsiest wealth and power scheme out there, aside from maybe the arts or humanities. The podunk spa at the tail end of my neck of the woods rakes in ten to fifteen times the annual revenue of the local Catholic church. The hospital down the road is several orders of magnitude above both. And then there are the energy companies, the real estate companies and political "non-profits." It makes it very difficult for me to take seriously that religion is all about wealth and power. If that's the case then any honest appraisal of their efforts would conclude they absolutely suck at it.
Religion today has got to be the flimsiest wealth and power scheme out there, aside from maybe the arts or humanities…..
That is probably true in varying degrees throughout Western democracies. No need here to detail the myriad of reasons that have led to this result. It is however not the case elsewhere in the world where clergy either directly control or heavily influence state policy or, in the case of Russia, allow itself to be co-opted into being essentially an institution of state power.
I still believe Napoleon was quite correct in his assessment of religion in general when he maintained;
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
-
Religion today has got to be the flimsiest wealth and power scheme out there, aside from maybe the arts or humanities…..
That is probably true in varying degrees throughout Western democracies. No need here to detail the myriad of reasons that have led to this result. It is however not the case elsewhere in the world where clergy either directly control or heavily influence state policy or, in the case of Russia, allow itself to be co-opted into being essentially an institution of state power.
I still believe Napoleon was quite correct in his assessment of religion in general when he maintained;
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I still believe Napoleon was quite correct in his assessment of religion in general when he maintained;
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
Well then they suck at that too and always have done. Regarding the poor murdering the rich, there's a much stronger correlation between income inequality than religion. At least 9 out of 10 French citizens would have classified themselves as God-fearing in between beheadings.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I still believe Napoleon was quite correct in his assessment of religion in general when he maintained;
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
Well then they suck at that too and always have done. Regarding the poor murdering the rich, there's a much stronger correlation between income inequality than religion. At least 9 out of 10 French citizens would have classified themselves as God-fearing in between beheadings.
I’ll grant you that they suck at formulating and articulating public policy.
At least 9 out of 10 French citizens would have classified themselves as God-fearing in between beheadings.
Should come as no surprise. It was a time when it was inconceivable to most, save Voltaire and perhaps a couple of other philosophes, that God might not be or never was to begin with.
-
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
-
One of the reasons I've always been overt about "gossiping" in public on these forums is because I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on, while I'm also aware of this nonsensical idea that it's not virtuous to be transparent about what one says about others.
-
@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:
… I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on…
Seems obviously false.
@jon-nyc said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:
… I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on…
Seems obviously false.
Granted, the sheer volume is difficult to keep up with.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each poster’s personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also, by and large, of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each poster’s personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also, by and large, of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Behind a bedroom door? Probably, although I thought of the examples of where "rough sex" between two consenting adults ends in injury or death.
But this is not just behind bedroom doors. Homosexuals are a very vocal and active political segment. They want this rule changed, this law enacted, that law repealed. As such, they are trying to mold public policy and laws.
I find that many of the things they are currently pushing, are not good for society.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
Well, it’s certainly not for the coffee.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.
Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.
That's why we are all here.
Well, it’s certainly not for the coffee.
-
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
