Religion, weaponized religion, and the separation of church and state

[BevoAbyss 2059]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

Maybe I'm missing a fundamental piece of your argument here, but both Theists and non-theist scientists alike generally agree that the Universe and existence came forth from a singularity event. Call it Big Bang or Genesis 1:1, it's the same thing, just explained from a different perspective, right?

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Whether it was Heisenberg (commonly misattributed) or more likely some other random German, the sentiment remains the same, because once you've used science and natural laws and the limits of conscious human ability to understand, you will inevitably get to a ledge where you either have to view on in faith, or view down the abyss until the abyss stares back at you. (Figured you'd appreciate the Nietzchism given your affinity for Sartre).

Thanks for the thoughtful-witty reply. 

My argument is not based in science. It is based in logic, as summarized in Points 1, 2, 3. 

Existence must precede Consciousness (Genesis 1:1). Contemporary cosmology supports this logical conclusion, but is not the foundation. Existence includes all forms of the universe, past, present, future—the multiverse, singularities, Big Bangs, etc. 

Even the “singularity” had to come from some previous aspect of Existence, as logic suggests. As stated in the last sentence of my post: "astronomers are beginning to realize the Big Bang happened in a pre-existing universe of some kind." (Yes, I am familiar with Lawrence Krauss's fallacy "The Universe Came From Nothing.")

Cosmological sciences support/correlate with the logic test. Genesis 1:1 fails the logic test. Completely. 

Once we abandon logic and evidence as starting points, anything can follow, no matter how fact-free or illogical. Look at GQP/MAGA for proof of that. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Maybe I'm missing a fundamental piece of your argument here, but both Theists and non-theist scientists alike generally agree that the Universe and existence came forth from a singularity event. Call it Big Bang or Genesis 1:1, it's the same thing, just explained from a different perspective, right?

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Whether it was Heisenberg (commonly misattributed) or more likely some other random German, the sentiment remains the same, because once you've used science and natural laws and the limits of conscious human ability to understand, you will inevitably get to a ledge where you either have to view on in faith, or view down the abyss until the abyss stares back at you. (Figured you'd appreciate the Nietzchism given your affinity for Sartre).

I just say “damn, that abyss is deep. Maybe one day we will be able to explore and study it.”

I see the limits of science as the limits of man, which time and time again we have overcome. Will we always be able to further science and truly know the explanation or origin of everything in the universe. Extremely unlikely. Does that mean there is a God? No. But just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean I need to bridge that gap with faith. That doesn’t make sense to me. How can it?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

This is a good question and honestly, it's something I've struggled with starting in 2018. I've struggled with do I abstain or do I vote, and I still struggle with it today.
Since you asked in a good faith way I'll answer as honest and introspective as I can:
So far, right or wrong, my justification and actions have been that a) I have voted for Republicans like Abbott and b) my logic has been that as a Christian who believes that abortion is human-on-human murder, I'm at least trying.
I have become increasingly less politically interested (privilege?) though and might just abstain moving forward and let Babylon be Babylon and just focus on what God has given me to steward and resign the mental position in my head as master of my little universe.

There is already an abortion (of a) thread, so I don’t think we need to go real into depth here. However, you abstaining might be the most sensible thing I have heard a right wing/religious person say. To me that means you have come to understand that you and your beliefs shouldn’t interfere with the rights of others, but you don’t feel like you can be complicit.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

51 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Anything is possible. We could all be possessed by Thetans because of Xenu. But there is a reason why we mock those that believe in Xenu and accommodate those that believe in Jesus. Time (and lots of killing by the ruling class). Both claims are outrageous, lack evidence, and are infused with the perverted morality of the founders of each cult.  

There is no point trying to reason with a delusional person. 

 

So Scientology and Christianity are cults?  Next you are gonna tell me Joseph Smith was just a con man, Jesus really didn’t hang out in America doing peyote with the Native Americans and Mormonism is a cult, huh?

[BevoAbyss 2059]

2 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

ou will inevitably get to a ledge where you either have to view on in faith, or view down the abyss until the abyss stares back at you. (Figured you'd appreciate the Nietzchism given your affinity for Sartre).

Thanks for the Nietzsche/Sartre connection. Much appreciated! This points toward what I see as failure of secular philosophy.

No doubt, that Existence being the ultimate locale — site for the observable universe (or multiverse, Big Bang) at 13.75 billion years old and stretching across 100 billion light years — creates a huge void in space and time and human thought.

Nietzsche's poetics that humanity is on a rope over an abyss was followed by Sartre's view that the vast/eternal nature of Existence created a "vertigo" that challenges all previous belief systems. We, as a species and individually, must overcome the voids and vertigo and make the leap over the abyss to a sane philosophy for the future. 

So far, secular philosophy has failed to develop a popular philosophy/narrative for the leap — a unifying narrative that connects humanity to the universe from we emerged. We need a secular, evidence-based narrative that recognizes universal human rights (for every human being on Earth, regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) and protects the planet as the home/support system for all life on Earth—along with providing meaning and a shared destiny in a seemingly meaningless universe.

Sorry, Star Wars ain't it. Star Trek was on to something, but got derailed and overwhelmed. 

Two forces have filled that void. Church and Corporate Consumerism. Both tap into our primate tribalism and narcissism, with Corporate Consumerism selling endless lifestyles/identities for tribes and would-be individualists via brands and products. Church sells purity and eternity, a seductive and powerful claim, however bogus. Consumerism sells hedonism, pleasure, and exhibitionism, which are a lot of fun, but are eventually not good for the ecosystems.

I admit I get a lot of fun, pleasure, and meaning in life from art, architecture, design, fashion, science, along with national parks and sleeping under the starry skies.

Speaking of the starry skies, up there just beyond Earth, the Hubble and Webb telescopes are peering ever deeper into existence ..

TLDR: Secular philosophy is weak, consumerism is fun but bad for the planet long-term, thus much more is needed for the human species to survive and flourish

[HamsterHookah 112]

32 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful-witty reply. 

My argument is not based in science. It is based in logic, as summarized in Points 1, 2, 3. 

Existence must precede Consciousness (Genesis 1:1). Contemporary cosmology supports this logical conclusion, but is not the foundation. Existence includes all forms of the universe, past, present, future—the multiverse, singularities, Big Bangs, etc. 

Even the “singularity” had to come from some previous aspect of Existence, as logic suggests. As stated in the last sentence of my post: "astronomers are beginning to realize the Big Bang happened in a pre-existing universe of some kind." (Yes, I am familiar with Lawrence Krauss's fallacy "The Universe Came From Nothing.")

Cosmological sciences support/correlate with the logic test. Genesis 1:1 fails the logic test. Completely. 

Once we abandon logic and evidence as starting points, anything can follow, no matter how fact-free or illogical. Look at GQP/MAGA for proof of that. 

Someone like @axiom of foundationcan probably do this better justice and maybe this conversation is better for a more philosophical/daily texan thread as it doesn't relate to anything overtly political, but I think Leibniz's justification seems as reasonable as any. Here is a quick primer:

 

[atomheartbevo 89664]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

But there is a reason why we mock those that believe in Xenu and accommodate those that believe in Jesus. Time (and lots of killing by the ruling class). Both claims are outrageous, lack evidence, and are infused with the perverted morality of the founders of each cult.  

You know who doesn't get mocked?  Cthulhu.  Nobody mocks Cthulhu. 

[atomheartbevo 89664]

6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Trump was the test for all ‘Christians’ and ‘Evangelicals’ 

a looooooooooot of those dumb mother dumb mother fuckers failed 

He was the perfect test for Christians and Evangelicals

• Publicly stated he didn't believe he needed to ask for forgiveness.
• Was willing to have violence used against innocent people so he could do a photo op in front of a church
• Was caught cheating multiple times on multiple wives (he even had his side piece in the same resort town as his first wife at the same time, and got busted)
• Has no problem using the Lord's name in vain.
• Vulgar as hell towards women.
• Massive hatred for poor people
• Loves to lie

The list goes on.  If George Soros wanted to come up with a candidate to prove that Christian Republicans were hypocrites, he could not have come up with a better one.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

While I appreciate everyone’s thoughts in this thread on whether religion is real or not, how the universe started and all the other stuff I think many are missing the key to why the OP started this thread.  It has to do with religion being part of the government and certain religious beliefs being forced on others through the government (correct me if I’m wrong OP).  So those of you on this thread that are religious (seems to be mostly Christian’s here), I totally respect your beliefs and what makes this country great is everyone gets to believe whatever the fuck religion they want or not believe in religion at all and the government can’t do shit about it.  It seems many Christians feel the government should allow them to force their beliefs on others (prayers in public school, Christmas trees in government buildings, I guess the whole abortion thing, etc…) yet I am pretty sure those same Christians would not want the government to force other religion’s beliefs on them.  We don’t need the Jews forcing the government to force every man to have circumcisions or certain Muslim beliefs to be forced on the population where women have to cover their whole bodies except their eyes and so on.  What this all really boils down to is why the fuck can’t I buy beer and wine before noon on Sunday morning in Texas.  

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

 

Thanks for the thoughtful-witty reply. 

My argument is not based in science. It is based in logic, as summarized in Points 1, 2, 3. 

Existence must precede Consciousness (Genesis 1:1). Contemporary cosmology supports this logical conclusion, but is not the foundation. Existence includes all forms of the universe, past, present, future—the multiverse, singularities, Big Bangs, etc. 

Even the “singularity” had to come from some previous aspect of Existence, as logic suggests. As stated in the last sentence of my post: "astronomers are beginning to realize the Big Bang happened in a pre-existing universe of some kind." (Yes, I am familiar with Lawrence Krauss's fallacy "The Universe Came From Nothing.")

Cosmological sciences support/correlate with the logic test. Genesis 1:1 fails the logic test. Completely. 

Once we abandon logic and evidence as starting points, anything can follow, no matter how fact-free or illogical. Look at GQP/MAGA for proof of that. 

 

7 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Someone like @axiom of foundationcan probably do this better justice and maybe this conversation is better for a more philosophical/daily texan thread as it doesn't relate to anything overtly political, but I think Leibniz's justification seems as reasonable as any. Here is a quick primer:

 

The metaphysics of Leibniz is the best of all possible metaphysics. 
 

My view is that consciousness is necessary for existence, which entails that nothing exists without consciousness.  I also believe that something can’t come from nothing.  Consequently, consciousness is eternal. 
 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

While I appreciate everyone’s thoughts in this thread on whether religion is real or not, how the universe started and all the other stuff I think many are missing the key to why the OP started this thread.  It has to do with religion being part of the government and certain religious beliefs being forced on others through the government (correct me if I’m wrong OP).  So those of you on this thread that are religious (seems to be mostly Christian’s here), I totally respect your beliefs and what makes this country great is everyone gets to believe whatever the fuck religion they want or not believe in religion at all and the government can’t do shit about it.  It seems many Christians feel the government should allow them to force their beliefs on others (prayers in public school, Christmas trees in government buildings, I guess the whole abortion thing, etc…) yet I am pretty sure those same Christians would not want the government to force other religion’s beliefs on them.  We don’t need the Jews forcing the government to force every man to have circumcisions or certain Muslim beliefs to be forced on the population where women have to cover their whole bodies except their eyes and so on.  What this all really boils down to is why the fuck can’t I buy beer and wine before noon on Sunday morning in Texas.  

Nailed it.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

While I appreciate everyone’s thoughts in this thread on whether religion is real or not, how the universe started and all the other stuff I think many are missing the key to why the OP started this thread.  It has to do with religion being part of the government and certain religious beliefs being forced on others through the government (correct me if I’m wrong OP).  So those of you on this thread that are religious (seems to be mostly Christian’s here), I totally respect your beliefs and what makes this country great is everyone gets to believe whatever the fuck religion they want or not believe in religion at all and the government can’t do shit about it.  It seems many Christians feel the government should allow them to force their beliefs on others (prayers in public school, Christmas trees in government buildings, I guess the whole abortion thing, etc…) yet I am pretty sure those same Christians would not want the government to force other religion’s beliefs on them.  We don’t need the Jews forcing the government to force every man to have circumcisions or certain Muslim beliefs to be forced on the population where women have to cover their whole bodies except their eyes and so on.  What this all really boils down to is why the fuck can’t I buy beer and wine before noon on Sunday morning in Texas.  

Yes, it's the codifying(?) into law a belief system based upon one set of "truths" that are not verifiable. As best I can tell anyway. It is one of the many reasons why church and state should be separate.

 

[gyroprotagonist 2592]

11 hours ago, Nivek said:

Not really.  Some private schools have a different focus on education than the public school system and don't subject their kids to a constant stream of testing, they also can be more adaptive to the individual needs of students and provide more support for kids with special needs or learning disabilities.   If you have a kid with learning disabilities, it is a process to get the testing (which they drag their feet to set up), then a pain in the ass to get the results (they drag their feet for this as well) and then to start getting the ARD meetings and IEP plans in place.   Then trying to hold them accountable to help them support your kid is another challenge. 

But there is something to keeping the poors away as well.  Some kids are a challenge and it seems the school system's options are hamstrung.   

 

yeah, once we found out both our kids were dyslexic, they were moved (1 from private and 1 from public) to a private school specializing in teaching kids with learning differences.  It is a stone cold fact that the cost of this education would preclude 'poor' people from sending their kids their sans scholarship.  As a dumb hick from a small town with 1 HS and no real private alternatives, i was astounded at the cost of private grade/high schools when i moved on from college to Dallas and had kids.  but soon found the cost acceptable when the need arose.  

we did not want to fight the good fight with public schools and had the means to go the private route.  

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Yes, it's the codifying(?) into law a belief system based upon one set of "truths" that are not verifiable. As best I can tell anyway. It is one of the many reasons why church and state should be separate.

 

I just realized I’m not in a philosophy thread, so maybe this discussion is not suited for the thread, but I thought this point was interesting.

Every ethical system is ultimately based on some principles that we believe to be true, but cannot verify.  One cannot get an “ought” from what “is.”  We cannot verify or prove from empirical methods (i.e. the basis of science) the way things ought to be. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

38 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

 

The metaphysics of Leibniz is the best of all possible metaphysics. 
 

My view is that consciousness is necessary for existence, which entails that nothing exists without consciousness.  I also believe that something can’t come from nothing.  Consequently, consciousness is eternal. 
 

 

Let's take this offline to another thread, but I read a very interesting article this week about a) the rise of consciousness in people/mammals and b) the distinction between perception and sensation that comes from being conscious. (Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, between perception and sensation. Perception, Reid wrote, registers information about objects in the external world; sensation is the subjective feeling that accompanies perceptions. Because we encounter sensations and perceptions simultaneously, we conflate them. But there’s a difference between perceiving the shape and position of a rose or an ice cube and experiencing redness or coldness.)

Here is the article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/nicholas-humphreys-beautiful-theory-of-mind

I quoted this part earlier this week in a tech thread on chatgpt:

Quote

The startling performance of software programs like ChatGPT has convinced some observers that machine consciousness is imminent; recently, a law in the U.K. recognized many animals, including crabs and lobsters, as sentient. From Humphrey’s point of view, these attitudes are misguided. Artificially intelligent machines are all perception, no sensation; they’ll never be sentient so long as they only process information. And animals such as reptiles and insects, which face little evolutionary pressure to develop a grasp of other minds, are also very unlikely to be sentient. If we don’t understand what sentience is for, we’re likely to see it everywhere. Conversely, once we perceive its practical value, we’ll acknowledge its rarity.

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[David Dennison 18856]

Has anyone pointed out that religion is one of many psychological tools human animals use to combat the terror associated with knowing they are going to die?

[HamsterHookah 112]

3 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I just realized I’m not in a philosophy thread, so maybe this discussion is not suited for the thread, but I thought this point was interesting.

Every ethical system is ultimately based on some principles that we believe to be true, but cannot verify.  One cannot get an “ought” from what “is.”  We cannot verify or prove from empirical methods (i.e. the basis of science) the way things ought to be. 

And this is exactly where politics dares intervene. The intersection between what is and ought and what is utilitarian to hold a society together to function.

And even in politics and law we see vestigial Christian/Theist foundations when you read things like "All men are created equal" (a creator/God reference) and men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" which point to both God/Theism foundations AND a higher law that governs man's law.

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Has anyone pointed out that religion is one of many psychological tools human animals use to combat the terror associated with knowing they are going to die?

No, because this isn't a 9th grade google classroom chat room and we are no longer thrilled by the pithy superficiality of the generic platitude.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

 

Thanks for the Nietzsche/Sartre connection. Much appreciated! This points toward what I see as failure of secular philosophy.

No doubt, that Existence being the ultimate locale — site for the observable universe (or multiverse, Big Bang) at 13.75 billion years old and stretching across 100 billion light years — creates a huge void in space and time and human thought.

Nietzsche's poetics that humanity is on a rope over an abyss was followed by Sartre's view that the vast/eternal nature of Existence created a "vertigo" that challenges all previous belief systems. We, as a species and individually, must overcome the voids and vertigo and make the leap over the abyss to a sane philosophy for the future. 

So far, secular philosophy has failed to develop a popular philosophy/narrative for the leap — a unifying narrative that connects humanity to the universe from we emerged. We need a secular, evidence-based narrative that recognizes universal human rights (for every human being on Earth, regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) and protects the planet as the home/support system for all life on Earth—along with providing meaning and a shared destiny in a seemingly meaningless universe.

Sorry, Star Wars ain't it. Star Trek was on to something, but got derailed and overwhelmed. 

Two forces have filled that void. Church and Corporate Consumerism. Both tap into our primate tribalism and narcissism, with Corporate Consumerism selling endless lifestyles/identities for tribes and would-be individualists via brands and products. Church sells purity and eternity, a seductive and powerful claim, however bogus. Consumerism sells hedonism, pleasure, and exhibitionism, which are a lot of fun, but are eventually not good for the ecosystems.

I admit I get a lot of fun, pleasure, and meaning in life from art, architecture, design, fashion, science, along with national parks and sleeping under the starry skies.

Speaking of the starry skies, up there just beyond Earth, the Hubble and Webb telescopes are peering ever deeper into existence ..

TLDR: Secular philosophy is weak, consumerism is fun but bad for the planet long-term, thus much more is needed for the human species to survive and flourish

Whatever the fuck you're doing just stop it and post normally. Some of us sane people use dark mode.

[formermav43 4606]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Has anyone pointed out that religion is one of many psychological tools human animals use to combat the terror associated with knowing they are going to die?

Only on every thread about religion on the internet ever. You didn’t mention the “sky daddy” though, so you don’t get full marks.

[David Dennison 18856]

So there's no real dispute as to religion's psychological utility.

[Brisketexan 105139]

20 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

the pithy superficiality of the generic platitude

Man....that album was probably Tangerine Dream's best work.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I do think to a degree that origins (reasons) of religion and proof of god are valid in the discussion. After all, if there was empirical proof of the Christian god and that the Bible is his word and law, then the vast majority of folks would be perfectly fine with human laws mirroring those beliefs. Without that proof, one is basing laws on faith…and we know what happens then.

[nbmishoid 949]

13 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

I've got Heschel and de Chardin on the shelf next to each other. I have some Buddhist stuff around here somewhere. There's a couple of shelves of science and history. 

I want to learn. I want to know. I want you to tell me what you believe and why. 

However,  I really don't need it waved in my face. If you just gotta have a public spectacle with the believers carrying the icons down the street as long as you have the proper paperwork then you let your freak flag fly. But, I don't want to be coerced, forced, or in any manner required to participate in your celebration. Might watch though. Might ask someone some questions. 

What's up with the dragon going to visit every store? How often does this happen? The drummers are pretty cool. 

Hey, what's up with the elephant dude in the backyard in the tent and all the chairs?

Whole lotta religion out there and some of them might be in your neighborhood.

The only public spectacles being made, that I have seen in nearly 7 decades, have been and continue to be made by religionists.  If not all, the at a ratio of 1000/1 or more.

As for reading, and we really mean study, I have to admit my curiosity is about world we live in, not an imagined world.  As for ethics, the bottom line of not being cruel I learned on the street before 1st grade.  Not a single individual in the world can stipulate the ethics of others. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

26 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

I do think to a degree that origins (reasons) of religion and proof of god are valid in the discussion. After all, if there was empirical proof of the Christian god and that the Bible is his word and law, then the vast majority of folks would be perfectly fine with human laws mirroring those beliefs. Without that proof, one is basing laws on faith…and we know what happens then.

Which, again, raises the point that a lot of America's stated laws are based on a theist creator God, to begin with.

So do we have a fundamental problem with that and do we blow the whole thing up and start over by anchoring on something else? And what else is that?

In my view, the beauty of things being true is that they are timelessly, always true. If you want to build your house on the shifting sands of culture and moral relativism, then your house will likely not stand, if you get my drift.

[HamsterHookah 112]

2 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

The only public spectacles being made, that I have seen in nearly 7 decades, have been and continue to be made by religionists.  If not all, the at a ratio of 1000/1 or more.

As for reading, and we really mean study, I have to admit my curiosity is about world we live in, not an imagined world.  As for ethics, the bottom line of not being cruel I learned on the street before 1st grade.  Not a single individual in the world can stipulate the ethics of others. 

Since Briskettexan has entered the chat, let me cut him off at the pass so we don't get the same message regurgitated in 5 different ways; for the vast amount of American performative Christians, cruelty is the point.

I said it BT, so you don't have to. Please. Give us something more original and authentic. I feel like Brendan Fraser at the end of The Whale when he desperately asks his online writing students to just please write something new and different and authentic.

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, HamsterHookah said:

Which, again, raises the point that a lot of America's stated laws are based on a theist creator God, to begin with.

So do we have a fundamental problem with that and do we blow the whole thing up and start over by anchoring on something else? And what else is that?

In my view, the beauty of things being true is that they are timelessly, always true. If you want to build your house on the shifting sands of culture and moral relativism, then your house will likely not stand, if you get my drift.

What are some things that are "timelessly, always" true?

[HamsterHookah 112]

Just now, David Dennison said:

What are some things that are "timelessly, always" true?

God is good.

OU sucks.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

24 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

.... Without that proof, one is basing laws on faith…and we know what happens then.

A patriarchal-based faith as most faiths today are....

All men are created equal...man came first and then woman, woman was created from man, and so on. While there are matriarchal societies there are few, if any, matriarchal religions (save perhaps the Goddess type movements). Some faiths (Unitarian, et al) promote a more individual approach, but even the Unitarians didn't elect a woman to the post of the UUA until 2017. Quite a few faiths restrict female participation to specific roles. Expanding that outward, as goes the religion so goes the secular laws and restrictions.

For further reading, SEE: Afghanistan, Education for Women.

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

A patriarchal-based faith as most faiths today are....

All men are created equal...man came first and then woman, woman was created from man, and so on. While there are matriarchal societies there are few, if any, matriarchal religions (save perhaps the Goddess type movements). Some faiths (Unitarian, et al) promote a more individual approach, but even the Unitarians didn't elect a woman to the post of the UUA until 2017. Quite a few faiths restrict female participation to specific roles. Expanding that outward, as goes the religion so goes the secular laws and restrictions.

For further reading, SEE: Afghanistan, Education for Women.

FWIW, it's called complementarianism and it's something my wife and I believe and adhere in, in our family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

Complementarianism in Christianity:

Quote

 

Complementarianism holds that "God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church."[6] Many proponents and also opponents of complementarianism see the Bible as the infallible word of God.[7]

The complementarian position claims to uphold what has been the most traditional teaching[8] on gender roles in the church. However, the terms traditionalist or hierarchicalist are usually avoided by complementarians, as the former "implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior", while the latter "overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence". Therefore, they prefer the term complementarian, "since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences".[9]

While they do not necessarily use the term "complementarianism", many Catholics are advocates of complementarianism with regard to the social doctrine of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that "God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity"[10] but also that the harmony of society "depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."[10]

 

 

[David Dennison 18856]

6 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

God is good.

OU sucks.

Regarding the first, I thought we were trying to avoid "the pithy superficiality of the generic platitude."

Regarding the second, this is the way.

[nbmishoid 949]

10 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Since Briskettexan has entered the chat, let me cut him off at the pass so we don't get the same message regurgitated in 5 different ways; for the vast amount of American performative Christians, cruelty is the point.

I said it BT, so you don't have to. Please. Give us something more original and authentic. I feel like Brendan Fraser at the end of The Whale when he desperately asks his online writing students to just please write something new and different and authentic.

I have stated this bottom line numerous times.  Refer to Rorty for an extensive discussion. You can’t refute or otherwise inform the point by simply being pissy   And did I give a single inference that Christianity was cruel?  I simply said I learned the foundation of ethics without the help of religion, more so with the help of the kid up the street that ended up shot and in prison.  

Edited March 22, 2023 by nbmishoid
Spell check

[HamsterHookah 112]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Regarding the first, I thought we were trying to avoid "the pithy superficiality of the generic platitude."

Regarding the second, this is the way.

The first: I was meeting your level of effort, for my own sake and sanity.

The second: You are winning me over, again, DD.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Which, again, raises the point that a lot of America's stated laws are based on a theist creator God, to begin with.
So do we have a fundamental problem with that and do we blow the whole thing up and start over by anchoring on something else? And what else is that?
In my view, the beauty of things being true is that they are timelessly, always true. If you want to build your house on the shifting sands of culture and moral relativism, then your house will likely not stand, if you get my drift.

I don’t think you are going back far enough. There are many civilizations that existed before Christianity or outside of the abrahamic religions. This is what I mean by human decency. Religion didn’t provide these morals or concepts. Just because some christian beliefs appear to be reflected in early laws in this country doesn’t mean their origins are christian. It’s correlation in my opinion.

Regardless, even if we just take your statement at face value, the 1st amendment lays it out for us that there needs to be separation.

[hookemATL 11734]

Believe whatever the fuck you want to, be it multiple Gods contorting reality on a daily basis, or some overseer style Big Man In The Sky who just silently judges you until you die (at which point he does the thumbs up/thumbs down thingy to determine your eternal fate).  All of that is totally fine to believe and walk around with in your head and raise your family to believe. 

The exact millisecond you step out of line and start trying to use this insane gobblety gook bullshit (that no one is legally bound to adhere to) to frame actual policy, or you know just generally BE ASSHOLES/CRUEL/OPPRESIVE/MURDEROUS/ETC. TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT LIKE YOU, you lose any and all shaky credibility that you had.  Keep it the fuck out of government and education.

How hard is it to respect the rights of people that dont conform to your exact moral pathways?  Beyond that, how hard is it to not be shitty to OTHER HUMAN BEINGS for their choice of partners/lifestyle/GENDER.  I am quite sure there are plenty of kind and lovely people that call themselves Christians (I know many), but the extremism and weaponization of the faith tends to paint a broad brush and keep me wary of individuals that wear it on their sleeves.

Christianity (Southern Baptist in particular) has carved out deep ruts of trauma in the lives of people that I love more than anything in the world so I have no use or want of organized religion of any type (and never have).  Do what you want, but don't expect people to lay down for your fairy tales when it impacts their lives and the lives of people that they love and care for.  It is supposed to be a deeply personal thing, your faith, so keep it to yourself and your faith communities. 

Do what the J-man says and love thy neighbor, obey the golden rule, AND DRINK HIS BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

One can call it complementarianism or whatever term men in the Catholic church and or People of Praise adherents decided to call it, but following this belief the man is still the head of the household and men do not serve under female leadership in roles of the church.

That stays within the boundaries of the home and church and secular laws are followed? Well, do your thing. But we have one such person sitting on the Supreme Court and that court has been rather activist of late so pardon my skepticism.

I have watched in three generations rights been given and taken away. How long before I watch my daughter suffer the way my mother did because someone believes women should stay at home and endure pain and infertility and no mental health counseling due to lack of healthcare or that women be unable to vote? Amy is fine to take advantage of her position, but she is not unlike Clarence Thomas if she thinks that is going to last and maybe that is what she wants. But what she wants and what I want are apparently two different things. What I want is the equity in the illustration with the baseball game and the three fans standing on different sized boxes but according to many faiths, females shouldn't be watching the game at all. Men make the rules, men write the laws, women are supposed to be complimentary (pun intended). I'm not even going to delve into being allowed to play.

If it seems I am slamming my hand on the table for feminism, I am referring to anyone (including women) whom the Founding Fathers deemed irrelevant.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Mrs Whiggins
clarification

[Biff Tannen 45683]

2 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

 

The metaphysics of Leibniz is the best of all possible metaphysics. 
 

My view is that consciousness is necessary for existence, which entails that nothing exists without consciousness.  I also believe that something can’t come from nothing.  Consequently, consciousness is eternal. 
 

 

 

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.

[BevoAbyss 2059]

Apologies if my recent posts appeared as black on black screen. Brian Fantana alerted me that it might be because I was pasting text from a Word doc, which I was use for long posts. I had no idea. Sorry about that! 

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Whatever the fuck you're doing just stop it and post normally. Some of us sane people use dark mode.

Dark mode sucks. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Apologies if my recent posts appeared as black on black screen. Brian Fantana alerted me that it might be because I was pasting text from a Word doc, which I was use for long posts. I had no idea. Sorry about that! 

This isn’t the thread about black on black crime.


So to the religious folks that have participated, particularly the ones that say they are religious conservative, do you think gay marriage should be legal and protected?

[David Dennison 18856]

36 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

The first: I was meeting your level of effort, for my own sake and sanity.

The second: You are winning me over, again, DD.

Touche.

"God is good" raises the issue of whether an aphorism can still be considered "timelessly, always" true when hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of people don't believe it. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"God is good" raises the issue of whether an aphorism can still be considered "timelessly, always" true when hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of people don't believe it. 

That is why some of my ancestors were called savages. It had less to do with their strategy of warfare than their lack of Christianity.

[Slacks 6821]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Dark mode sucks. 

 

12 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

This isn’t the thread about black on black crime.

am i in here fucking around or what?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

am i in here fucking around or what?

Depends on the color of your slacks today. Security is on speed dial.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

ROTFL. Sorry. Both of your avatars one right after the other are cracking me up today.

Back to business....

[HamsterHookah 112]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Touche.

"God is good" raises the issue of whether an aphorism can still be considered "timelessly, always" true when hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of people don't believe it. 

The other thing about truth is, it's true whether you believe it to be or not.

[Slacks 6821]

31 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Depends on the color of your slacks today. Security is on speed dial.

Ramadan begins this evening, sir. I'm not wearing slacks today. Unrelated statements, which I think is what this thread consists of.

[David Dennison 18856]

16 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

The other thing about truth is, it's true whether you believe it to be or not.

That sounds like an opinion.

Edited March 22, 2023 by David Dennison

[Willfully Horn 8017]

17 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

If you claim God exists, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Theists have none.

I believe in God, creator of all that is. I also believe that science, like religion, attempts to describe what is, as well as mankind’s relationship to what is. Religion, writ large and imo, has done a remarkable job of describing what is. 
Supporting my opinion is a tl,dr post.

I want to point out that science often describes what is after religion has already made the same description. This is the latest example, as science now is examining the idea that monism is what is, (and was awarded Nobel’s prize for physics in doing so.)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/quantum-monism-could-save-the-soul-of-physics/

 

Apologies if this has been discussed. I am catching up, and, AB, I want to ask that your claim, in another thread, that secular philosophy is the only force opposing the worst actions of humanity, be supported and examined,

Edited March 22, 2023 by Willfully Horn

[nbmishoid 949]

A remarkably incorrect description of the real world.   Seriously.