the *** sex & religion thread (American, African, bling, member)

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

you're really missing the point. the point is that logic, although it might be 'reliable' and 'useful' cannot be taken to be an absolute because it relies on supra-rational feelings... how do you choose one set of mathematical axioms over another? how do you decide what is meaningful and what is not? the system relies on what lies outside the system; rationality relies on irrationality... its the dialectic, man. when you say reason is the best you are already speaking in the language of reason to justify itself; you are completely entrenched. but just the fact that there is something opposed to reason that it bases itself against means that it has to be relative and not absolute. the best way to look at the universe and see it for what it really is is to stop trying to force it into a conceptual grid and realize concepts are concepts, life is life. that's enlightenment, man.

How is that the best way of looking at the universe? By saying that A = A you are already using logic, which is what you claim to diminish.

Morality and theology have nothing to do with each other. Like...at all. You can't approach something abstract (morality) scientifically because science deals with concrete observations and facts.

P.S. I gave up writing a response to that, I'm far too busy with schoolwork to write a who knows how many pages argument in response to a twenty page article.

It is actually a chapter from Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness. It's the first chapter.

Logic is logic. Logic is used in science. It is used to observe reality in this way. Since morality is very much a part of reality, it would have to work there if it worked in the science department.

Why don't you give me them instead? Because if what is "moral" comes down to being "selfish" which is basically reproduce, eat, and don't kill people than Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't so much philosophy as pointing out the obvious.

No, no, no. The goal in life is to achieve your own happiness in this reality. Rand's philosophy is a way of achieving that happiness. Ayn Rand doesn't care about just living on being a robot.

See but here's the problem I have with creating a rational world. I don't believe humans are rational beings. Our genes maybe but our conscious and thinking minds? Not in the slightest in fact your argument above shows you yourself are irrational and Ayn Rand was irrational. I don't think a single rational person has ever existed. So why strive for the impossible? The world isn't black or white, nor is it completely selfish or completely selfless. You can't operate in extremes and absolutes nor can you judge every single thing as either right or wrong. Life just isn't that simple (please note: I'm referring strictly to abstract things, not concrete. I'd consider gravity an objective truth because it's completely provable and testable.)

Well, you could be like the post-modernists and give up. The point of life is happiness. Therefore, we strive for the best we can do. The thing is, you look at science as if it is separate from logic, but you are wrong. Science depends on the same logic Rand uses to argue for her morality.

I'm very skeptical about Jesus' existence. I don't know if you know who Jim Walker is but he makes a very good argument against the "evidence" here:

I have already shown he is wrong. I just stated some things Jesus was mentioned in. Jesus may have never been mentioned in the form of a dude dieing on a cross, but a man named "Cristus" was supposedly causing an uprising with the Jews.

Also, the Pilate thing in the Bible probably didn't happen since the ritual (letting a guy go at passover) has never been mentioned. It was probably used to add to the narrative. You know what Barabbas means? It means son of God. So in Matthew where it mentions Barabbas being let go instead of Jesus it was the author of Matthew adding his own comment to the story. Basically, since he was writing to the Jews, he was telling them how they chose the militant zealot nationalist (Barabbas) over the true peaceful messiah (Jesus).

Erm, pardon me but what? That doesn't make any sense.

What I mean is that you have to hold something as an absolute.

You're placing too much stock in what I said. I merely suggested (not said this is right) you might want to look at things like Objects to Objectivism or any other criticisms of Ayn Rand. She had a disdain for academic philosophy (fact) and because of this alot of her answers to philosophical questions either don't answer the question or show a fundamental misunderstanding or outright ignorance of the question.

Until I come to those areas, I don't care. Like I have said, I am no Objectivist. I merely agree with what I argue for.

I think there's a difference between what is logical for survival and moral though. I mean to put it an extreme situation, if there are three people let on earth. You, at a very very very old age (too old to have sex), a little girl and a little boy and there was only enough food for two people what do you do? Rand teaches it would be moral for you to look out for yourself yes? Well if it was and you fed yourself (which would be moral because its selfish right?) then your species would die out (which would be immoral.) What's the right thing to do in that situation? Do you see what I'm saying about setting up rules for something abstract being difficult? There are certain situations where things just aren't very clear.

So basically, you believe you are a slave to the rest of the species. In that case, you could justify the Holocaust, enslavement of African-Americans, etc.

[cardboard adolescent]

Of course, because what I'm trying to express can't be put into words. I could take the Buddhist path and express it in paradoxes but I somehow doubt that would get through any better. Philosophy leads inevitably to antinomies and paradoxes, which is the only reason it can sustain itself, there will always be someone on one side yelling one thing and someone on the other side yelling the opposite and flinging shit and trying to build a reputation. Logicians just take a step back from the fundamental philosophical issues, make some convenient assumptions, and then build nifty systems around them that ultimately only they and a handful of other professionals can understand, and which, if they serve any practical purpose at all, will probably only lead to computers becoming more human and humans becoming more mechanical.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

Logic is logic. Logic is used in science. It is used to observe reality in this way. Since morality is very much a part of reality, it would have to work there if it worked in the science department.

Let me break this down for you. An apple falls from a tree. You then drop it from the height of the tree to a ground. What can you logically figure out through these observations and tests? What goes up most come down!

Someone just helped an old lady cross the street. Another man shot someone for no reason at all. What can you logically figure out through these observations? How do you then further test these to prove what is right or wrong?

Please read something on the scientific method before you say morality works with science. It doesn't. Morality deals with abstract thoughts. Science deals with concrete observation. You can't mix the two together.

No, no, no. The goal in life is to achieve your own happiness in this reality. Rand's philosophy is a way of achieving that happiness. Ayn Rand doesn't care about just living on being a robot.

Following Ayn Rand's philosophy wouldn't make me happy in the slightest though.

Well, you could be like the post-modernists and give up. The point of life is happiness. Therefore, we strive for the best we can do. The thing is, you look at science as if it is separate from logic, but you are wrong. Science depends on the same logic Rand uses to argue for her morality

I'm not looking at science as separate from logic, I've recognized several times that you can't separate the two. I'm separating morality from science. There's a huge difference you know.

So basically, you believe you are a slave to the rest of the species. In that case, you could justify the Holocaust, enslavement of African-Americans, etc.

You're not making any sense. I'm just asking what the objectively moral thing to do in that situation is. Let you live for a few more years an old man or let your species survive.

[Kamikazi Kat]

I don't care. If somebody wants to have same *** sex, go ahead. Alot of people at my school have these irritating views toward homosexuality. I remember I got caught up in this conversation with a few people in class, we were discussing how we would react if we had a homosexual son or daughter. Everybody had their own little unique "solution" to the "problem," which in other words means "how can I not appear ignorant and intolerant of others but still not get *** cooties." One of them said that he would still love his son, but would refuse to attend the sons wedding unless the marriage was with a women, and not a guy.

I honestly don't care about somebody's sexuality.

[The Robot Hunter]

My take on homosexuality in a nutshell as a (hopefully non-ignorant or bigoted) Christian:
The act of sex between two people of the same sex is a sin because God created marriage as a bond between two people of the opposite sex. Pre-marital sex of any kind is a sin and since I don't believe God would honor a same-sex marriage I view sex between two homosexuals as a sin.
But the fact that it is a sin doesn't and shouldn't matter to me as far as how I view a person goes. Sin is sin and I know every Christian lives in their own particular one so it is not Christ-like in any way to treat someone poorly because they are not committing an "acceptable" sin. There's no reason that a homosexual can't be saved just as there's no reason why a minister who's addicted to pornography or internet gambling can't be saved.
I don't see homosexuality as a problem to be fixed because being a homosexual is different than the act of homosexuality (the act of sex, as opposed to the commitment to another person of your same sex). I see the conundrum of this but I know that people are born homosexual. And I know the question is then "Why would God create homosexuals then?" And I have no idea. But I do know that I have no problems being friends with a homosexual and don't have any more preconceived notions about them than anyone would have preconceived notions about me as a straight man.
I support *** marriage as a political policy because even though I believe it's wrong I believe that it is not the place of the government to decide this and moreover, I think it is stupid to prevent the commitment of two people in an exclusive relationship; The world needs more commitment between people in general. And Christianity (as a religion) needs more commitment to partnering with the homosexual community to repair some of the rifts that have occurred as a result of bigots who veil their hate for another person in religion.
Okay, that wasn't really nutshell-like was it? So I'll be more concise: Basically Christianity isn't supposed to be about policies. It's supposed to be about being Jesus to a world that needs a lot more love and peace, and my view is that if Jesus were posed with a question about homosexuality He would say that all have fallen short of the grace of God and the only thing that matters is coming back to a relationship with the Father through Jesus.
As far as I can tell that's what a Christ-like take on homosexuality is supposed to be. And of course I'm not here to tell anyone how to feel or think, I just thought I'd give my take on the situation as a Christian.

Aside: why is gay considered a "bad word" by MB?

[Anteater]

Being *** is pretty *** I think, if you want a straight up take on the subject.

[sumguy]

Wow Robot Hunter. I started to read your post and thought "Damn it, now i have to get all Millitant Athiest" but after reading the whole thing through all i can say is... "I wish all christians were like that. It would make me feel much better sharing the planet with them." So... Thank you.

[The Robot Hunter]

Originally Posted by sumguy

Wow Robot Hunter. I started to read your post and thought "Damn it, now i have to get all Millitant Athiest" but after reading the whole thing through all i can say is... "I wish all christians were like that. It would make me feel much better sharing the planet with them." So... Thank you.

Well thank you. I see it this way: The only group of people I can honestly say I hate are ******* Christians because not only are they *******s but they've completely missed the point and are doing a **** job of representing Christ, not to mention other Christians. There's a famous quote from Ghandi that's something like "I like their Christ, but I do not like their Christians."

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter

My take on homosexuality in a nutshell as a (hopefully non-ignorant or bigoted) Christian:
The act of sex between two people of the same sex is a sin because God created marriage as a bond between two people of the opposite sex. Pre-marital sex of any kind is a sin and since I don't believe God would honor a same-sex marriage I view sex between two homosexuals as a sin.
But the fact that it is a sin doesn't and shouldn't matter to me as far as how I view a person goes. Sin is sin and I know every Christian lives in their own particular one so it is not Christ-like in any way to treat someone poorly because they are not committing an "acceptable" sin. There's no reason that a homosexual can't be saved just as there's no reason why a minister who's addicted to pornography or internet gambling can't be saved.
I don't see homosexuality as a problem to be fixed because being a homosexual is different than the act of homosexuality (the act of sex, as opposed to the commitment to another person of your same sex). I see the conundrum of this but I know that people are born homosexual. And I know the question is then "Why would God create homosexuals then?" And I have no idea. But I do know that I have no problems being friends with a homosexual and don't have any more preconceived notions about them than anyone would have preconceived notions about me as a straight man.
I support *** marriage as a political policy because even though I believe it's wrong I believe that it is not the place of the government to decide this and moreover, I think it is stupid to prevent the commitment of two people in an exclusive relationship; The world needs more commitment between people in general. And Christianity (as a religion) needs more commitment to partnering with the homosexual community to repair some of the rifts that have occurred as a result of bigots who veil their hate for another person in religion.
Okay, that wasn't really nutshell-like was it? So I'll be more concise: Basically Christianity isn't supposed to be about policies. It's supposed to be about being Jesus to a world that needs a lot more love and peace, and my view is that if Jesus were posed with a question about homosexuality He would say that all have fallen short of the grace of God and the only thing that matters is coming back to a relationship with the Father through Jesus.
As far as I can tell that's what a Christ-like take on homosexuality is supposed to be. And of course I'm not here to tell anyone how to feel or think, I just thought I'd give my take on the situation as a Christian.

Aside: why is gay considered a "bad word" by MB?

Why is anal sex sexually pleasurable if were not supposed to have it?

[sumguy]

i think the theory is "To overcome temptation and achieve all glory" or something like that.

But in my personal opinion. I don't find anal all that appealing.