Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 6 of 82 (41806)
05-30-2003 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AstroMike
05-30-2003 12:23 PM


Bigoted?
Maybe I didn't read that article close enough. (I admit I only skimmed it.) What was bigoted about it?
Personally, I totally understand why the guy would say what he said.
Imagine living in such a way that you really did ask yourself after a show, "Did this show enhance my relationship with and commitment to God?"
I really don't know how any Christian, who believes that the greatest command is to "love God with all your soul, strength, heart, and mind," could have a problem with this guy's "heart."
Now, I realize NosyNed isn't a Christian, but I am curious about what's "bigoted" about that article. Scary I understand, but it seems consistent with "loving God with all your strength" from a Christian mindset. Is that bigoted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AstroMike, posted 05-30-2003 12:23 PM AstroMike has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 05-30-2003 5:04 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 13 of 82 (41868)
05-31-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
05-30-2003 5:04 PM


I missed the reference to mixed swimming, because it was in the midst of a list, and I wasn't analyzing the list. I always expect anyone like that writer to be anti-Rock Music. I wouldn't allow my kids to go to a rock concert or listen to most rock bands, either, so I'd be with him on the rock music, anyway.
Somehow I also missed the Moscow preparing the news thing. That was pretty funny. That's definitely bigoted.
Actually, I guess it's a little funny that mixed swimming is right between nude shows and sodomite steam baths. Wow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 05-30-2003 5:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 06-05-2003 9:14 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 22 of 82 (42187)
06-05-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
06-05-2003 9:14 AM


quote:
Are nude paintings evil, too?
I'm not real prone to using the word evil, but I would neither look at a nude painting, nor let my children. I don't dodge the nude statues we run across in museums, or occasionally in other buildings. I don't even pay them much attention, nor tell my children not to look. However, I would not paint or sculpt a nude figure, nor would I own one.
quote:
What about the clear eroticism of the Song of Solomon in the Bible? Are your kids allowed to read that?
No. That was a real difficult question for me when I was a Christian. The apocryphal parts of Daniel and the apocryphal book Judith were difficult for me, too. However, since I don't believe anymore that the Bible is the center of the faith Jesus and the apostles taught, I just tell the kids they can't read that yet. Not that any of them, even the 13-year-old, have asked to read such a thing.
I guess I'd let my 13-year-old read Judith; not Song of Solomon.
quote:
And what about Jars of Clay, or Mister Mister?
Never heard of them.
quote:
Those are both rock bands that are christian.
Okay. I'm not Christian, at least in the sense of belonging to any modern churches that call themselves Christian, or considering myself related to them.
quote:
And what is so evil about rock music, anyway? It's less evil than a football game
Really? Why? I understand, although I definitely disagree, you saying that about Promise Keepers, but I can't think of any reasons for you to say that about football.
quote:
Fear of art is fear of our humanity.
I don't consider myself afraid of art. I consider some things that I guess you would call art not to be art. I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't approve of mixed nudity, nor mixed almost nudity, so I wouldn't paint or sculpt anything like that, and I wouldn't purposely go see such paintings or sculptures. I guess I don't believe that qualifies as fear of art.
I understand people might disagree with me, especially those who don't follow or believe in my God. I do not think, however, that my opinion is bizarre. If there is no God, and we have no history but that which goes through Homo erectus and the Australopithecines, then my opposition to nudity and arousing sexual desires is pretty foolish, I admit.
On the other hand, my opposition to Rock music is an opposition to a lifestyle, at least when it comes to "hard rock." I was a teenager. I went to rock concerts. That lifestyle is destructive. I'm glad I'm out of it. I'm glad the youth of our village avoid such a lifestyle. It has no appeal to them.
Rock is a wide term, I understand, although I'm no musician. When I say I'm opposed to the rock music lifestyle, I mean what I see at hard rock concerts. I don't know where the line is between rock and pop music, whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 06-05-2003 9:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2003 9:27 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 28 by nator, posted 06-16-2003 11:15 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 25 of 82 (42249)
06-06-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
06-05-2003 9:27 PM


quote:
Do you let them read the violent parts of the Old Testament? so, then why do you believe that it is acceptable for a child to learn about how lives are taken (violence, etc), but not how lives are made?
Yes to the first question, and I do let them know how lives are made. We have pets, and several of the youth in our village raise horses, so my kids all know that Shadow had a foal because Abby paid for stud service.
It hasn't come up with all my kids, since the youngest took her first steps about a week ago, but if it does, we let our kids know humans mate, too. (No storks in our family.)
That is not the same, however, as exposing them to nude photos or letting them watch humans mate. In fact, I have some problems with the 2nd grade sex education books that I saw while I was in Germany. That may be no more than my upbringing, but my upbringing says you don't expose kids to sex prematurely, but a certain amount of violence is okay.
I don't know that I can argue for or against my view of violence in stories, but I think limiting their exposure to nudity and preventing their watching sex is a real good idea. In fact, I greatly limit their exposure to watching violence, too. Talking about it is a different thing. What happened is what happened.
I'm rambling a bit, trying to sort thoughts. Sorry this is so long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2003 9:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 06-21-2003 10:15 AM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 32 of 82 (43565)
06-21-2003 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
06-16-2003 11:15 PM


Schrafinator,
My children don't have their own Bibles, although a couple of them have at one time or another. I think we have two in the house. That serves us pretty well, especially since I'm almost as likely to read mine on the computer as off the bookshelf.
As for the rock and nudity, I don't think I live as frightened of that as you picture. I have been to a couple rock concerts as an adult, and there are situations I could picture allowing my children to go to one. On the other hand, the saying is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and while the circle of drug users and the circle of hard rock concert attenders are not the same circle, they do intersect way too much for my comfort.
Besides, it's not really an issue. We live in a village. None of my children's friends go to rock concerts or listen to rock music. My children barely know what rock music is, and it probably rarely comes up in a discussion.
Anyway, I'm not sure how you get anywhere with a discussion on nudity or hard rock. There's not like some authority to appeal to. I think it's bad for kids, and I don't think people live as "free and natural" as they think they do. Maybe that's our culture and not our nature, as I would say it is, but either way I do not think people in general are as unaffected by nudity as they wish they were.
And no, I am not talking about the Michelangelo's David or pictures of Adam in religious art, although, no, I wouldn't have paintings of Adam enjoying the garden in my house.
Those are value systems, and I think ours are working great. I have happy, well-adjusted kids, and I don't see the need for rock and roll or nudity in their lives, and because I've rubbed off on them, they feel that way, too, probably stronger than me. We've found that as our kids grow, we have to teach them how to keep their nose out of the air and enjoy things quite as often as we have to urge them to avoid things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 06-16-2003 11:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 06-22-2003 12:27 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 34 of 82 (43651)
06-22-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
06-22-2003 12:27 AM


I don't really have time right now to give you a good response, and I probably won't for a couple days. I did want to get to a couple things, though.
quote:
This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.
I have read some things about this. I have trouble seeing how it applies to our culture very well. I've read about sexual activity among tribes, where there are definite lines drawn where it is acceptable and unacceptable. It isn't the same as Judeo/Christian morals, but there are lines, and they apply because of what is good and useful to the society.
Our society is made up mostly of strangers and acquaintances, with very few people living in close, daily contact. I'm curious how you see any of that applying to us.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that I never saw your paragraph on violence in your previous post. I could have sworn I read your whole post. I have no idea how I didn't see that part. I was totally stunned you mentioned violence in this last one, thinking I'd only talked to someone else about it.
Anyway, I'll get back to you on all that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 06-22-2003 12:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 12:31 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 82 (43970)
06-24-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
06-24-2003 12:31 AM


First, a quick comment on the Dvorak keyboard. What they tell you is that the Dvorak keyboard can reduce hand movement something like 75% when you are typing, thus helping to prevent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. What they don't tell you is that the W is right next to the V, so when you hit ctrl-v in order to paste in a quote, you face a great risk of hitting ctrl-w, thus CLOSING YOUR WINDOW AND LOSING YOUR ENTIRE POST!!!
Sigh...
That's a lousy way to find out you can close a window with ctrl-w.
Ok, now that the griping is over:
violence
Sorry for the phrase "a certain amount of violence." I'm sure that can conjure up thoughts of 40-hour-per-week television episodes. We don't have TV where I am. (Literally, until recently we couldn't get cable, satellite, and only one station with any normal antenna. We still can't get cable.)
What I meant was several movies (literally, several) like the Lord of the Rings, 13th Warrior, and just a couple others, plus war stories they have heard, whether tales from the Bible, from modern events, or a few books they've read.
Maybe that bothers you, too, I don't know.
nudity
I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the point in nude paintings or sculptures. I'm sure Michelangelo's David is awesome, although I don't think I've seen the real thing, but I'm also sure that there are other awesome sculptures of men or women with clothes on.
In my culture, we wear clothes. Admittedly, in my culture we also consider breasts as possibly a sexual signal, as you pointed out. "Consider," though, or "think," which is what you used, are the wrong words. In the US, breasts affect men. Women know they affect men. That's not because anyone considers or thinks it ought to be so. It just is so. I won't argue that's cultural. I'm sure nudity has a much different or maybe no effect on Amazon tribes that live naked. We don't, and nudity affects us Americans.
Sex in the City
Did I get the name of that TV show right here? I've been seeing it advertised on hotmail.
You mentioned human women being able to engage in sexual activity outside of estrus (new word for me). That is evidence that it has social significance, and I probably asked for that specifically. However, when we were evolving, we were "pack" animals, living in packs or villages. The social significance there is not the same as the social significance in the city; not nearly the same.
I am under the impression that our restrictions on sexual activity have evolved as our society evolved. I don't think appealing to our evolutionary past offers any application for our evolutionary present. Yes, there is social significance, but there would be social significance even if sex was limited to marriage and all marriages were unbreakable. (I'm not for passing such laws, by the way. We're discussing personal choices, and the reasons for them, not politics.)
It is hard for humans to put limits on their behavior, unless society pushes those limits on them. Like the lab mouse that will die of malnourishment while continually choosing sugar over needed food, humans are severely limited in their self-control. I don't think the experiment of releasing the societal limitations on sexual activity is going so well that I care to concede it's a good idea.
Rock and roll
I am very against the whole rock concert scene and lifestyle. No, rock doesn't create drug use, nor does drug use create Rock 'n Roll. The circles overlap greatly, though, because the drug culture and the rock culture bear a lot of similarities, enough to let them work together. I like neither culture at all; I think both are destructive.
I don't know what to say here. There is a life I live, and that my children live, complete with a culture, and a "feel" to that culture. A rock concert is the diametric opposite of our culture.
Shoot, I took our young teenagers, about a dozen of them, to a skating rink on a Friday night (last year) that was packed full of kids from the local high school. Most of the kids skated, but none of them found the atmosphere even tolerable, and a couple hated the place so much they saw no reason to skate. They just wanted to leave.
There's peace and light, and there's darkness, confusion and noise. Our life is one, and a rock concert, which is an amplified version of that loud, dark skating rink, is the other.
If I've missed anything, Schraf, I'm sorry. I'm only 41, but my mind has been a lot of places and had a lot of experiences, and I guess my mental hard drive is overloaded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 12:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 38 of 82 (44151)
06-25-2003 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
06-25-2003 10:15 AM


I'm going to take a little time and answer while I'm here at work, because I never dreamed such a complex, value-based discussion could get to the point it would seem simple to me. I expected this discussion to wind out of hand, grow in the number of subjects covered, and lead nowhere.
quote:
But when you say "It's just so that breasts are a sexual signal" then you are contradicting the cultural argument.
No, we're just not meaning the same thing by "It's just so." By "It's just so," I meant "The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood" (which you said), and by "I admit it's cultural" I meant, "[that's] not the same as it being intrinsically so" (also what you said.
Where we were disagreeing was:
quote:
Most people have to battle the outside culture, but you don't, as there doesn't seem to be much influence from "outside culture" where you are. So, you can teach your kids that nude art is always inappropriate and pointless.
I was saying that the culture influences me, too, and there's not a whole lot I can do about that in this case. I concede, though, that on this point, you're obviously right. My kids' cultural influence will have mostly to do with how we (I, my wife, our village) influence them.
I simply cannot imagine having a nude piece of art in my house, nor do I care to imagine the discussion that would elicit with my friends, lol! If you're right, and there's some point to be gotten from nude paintings or sculptures, it will take a much longer time than this discussion for any of us to get comfortable with that.
On the other hand, our ladies all wore head coverings and long skirts or dresses just four years ago. Our culture is pretty young, so it goes through pretty rapid transformation as we learn how to love, not just be religious.
quote:
In addition, even if she did get an erotic thought, what's so terrible about that? We all have them, and we all start having them at a pretty young age. It's how we do or don't act on them, or how we feel about ourselves for having them, in which our upbringing and the values our parents taught us comes into play.
You've mentioned something along these lines a couple times. I haven't remembered to quote or comment on it. I agree with this.
quote:
The point is, drugs and the abuse of them are nearly everywhere in our culture, and singling out rock music as somehow "most compatible" with the drug culture is just not true.
I pretty much stayed stoned from the time I turned 18 until a few months before my 21st birthday. I don't agree with this statement of yours. The saying is "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll," not something else, and my experience says there are good reasons for that.
quote:
Can I tell you how many cokeheads wear Italian suits? Do you how much abuse of alcohol goes on in country music bars? In people's living rooms? At sporting events? In the rural Midwest? Prescription drug abuse is there, too.
Sure, all those things happen. I went to a hippie gathering at Tennessee's "The Farm" a couple years ago. I was in no way surprised that when I got out of my bus a young lady was there to greet us and offer to sell us whatever we might need to get high. I have worked with drug users before, but I would be shocked to be greeted at the door of my workplace with an offer to buy drugs.
And I chuckled when I read the Country Music bar reference. Bars are for the specific purpose of using alcohol, so it's no surprise that abuse is common there. I wouldn't let my kids go to a Country Music bar, and neither would the local law enforcement agency.
If it were an issue, I would discourage my kids from listening to country music, too. Way too high a percentage of drinking, cheating, and leaving my wife songs. Although I have to admit I really like that song about Joe changing the tire for the lady who tips his pregnant wife a hundred dollars. (Country music is played all over the place in this area, even on speakers at the gas station and in WalMart. I do flip through the dial to see what's playing on various stations now and again when I'm driving as well.)
I think the rock concert scene is a bad one, but let's address your specific statements:
quote:
Could it be that your kids felt uncomfortable and scared because they were never exposed to large groups of people before?There's also high-energy, excitement, and fun! Just because it's peaceful doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's raucous doesn't mean it's bad.
No, not always.
quote:
Well, I'm sorry that you think that high-energy, exciting things are inherently bad. They are not.
I don't, but I do think that when high-energy and exciting means the dark hall and incredible noise level of a rock concert that it is inherently bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM nator has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 42 of 82 (44389)
06-26-2003 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by contracycle
06-26-2003 5:15 AM


Contra,
As far as I can see, you may not like religion, and you may want to get rid of it, but, as far as I can see, your post is proof that the atheist can be just as religious as any theist.
quote:
I find it a terrible, terrible thing that you would be so abusive to your children as to impose these meaningless and pointless restrictions on their lived experience.
So, your opinion of what is meaningless and pointless is so accurate and so reliable that anyone who doesn't agree with it is being abused?
That's what you're saying. You're saying that if my children grow up with my religious convicitions and my choice of values, instead of yours, then thay are abused and shortchanged in their life.
That, my friend, is exactly the arrogance that makes people not like religion. It is exactly the arrogance that makes me not like religion. It doesn't allow anyone to explore or experiment, but demands that they aquiesce just because you're so insightful and knowledgeable about human nature, life, and the spiritual realm.
Sorry, I don't trust you that much.
Your children are sexual. How are you benefitting them by hiding sexuality from them?
By sticking around to raise them. I can go to jail for not hiding certain aspects of sexuality from them.
Three of my seven children are sexual, and one of those three is young enough that he won't admit it. The other four are not sexual, although I know they will be.
The three that are sexual are able and have talked to us about sexual things. Life is not hidden from them. They have seen dogs and horses mating, and they know that human children are produced by mating as well.
So basically, I don't know what you're talking about. Should I encourage my 13-year-old to go have sex now that he's got underarm hair and a rumble in his voice?
Just as perhaps you have done with rock and roll. It is hard to understand how someone can hold such a perverse opinion of music. We dance - we have always danced. We sang before we had words to sing, and made music on stones and logs when that was all we had to hand. And when we do this, most of us experience Joy and a sense of union and togetherness.
My children not only dance, but they have danced publicly and brought joy to a whole lot more people than themselves. My boys have danced with girls, and my girls have danced with boys. We have waltz nights here, performed by our young celtic group (called Rivendell) that are participated in by the elegantly graceful 60 and 70 year olds and the hopping, too fast 6 and 7 year olds.
I don't think Ozzy Osbourne plays music. I think he plays loud noises to crowds that are mostly not sober.
Since my children are used to music, and they are used to dancing, I am not surprised when such loud noise is aggravating to them, not entertaining. (Although I have to admit that I am surprised that some of the Celtic music they play and listen to appeals to them, it's so horribly repetitive that it's only nice for a short time.)
From my perspective, you are making your children into emotionally broken robots, loaded with a value system that is totally anti-thetical to human behaviour. You are crushing their capacity to relate to a whole range of entirely normal human behaviours; indeed, cruchsing out of them a huge chunk of the joy that is to be had in human existance
From the perspective of those who have met our children, our children are the most joyous and outgoing they have ever met.
Frightened, religious southerners made up a lot of stuff about us when we moved to Buford Pusser's county. Some of them believed it and told the Department of Child Services we were being too sexual with our children (the opposite of what you accused us of). Fortunately (IMO, by the hand of God), we had already met the sherrif, and DCS was told by him to ask questions first and take children later, not take children first and ask questions later, as was their plan.
Fourteen DCS agents from all over the state interviewed every last one of our children and some of the adults. Their final comment was, "Everyone ought to raise their children this way. We wish we could send some to you."
One young man who lives with us (and who just has his own son, only about seven months old now) had his very worried parents come to visit. They wondered if he had joined a cult. I had personally talked to his dad about our beliefs, and I'd even talked to the mom's pastor, in a meeting she arranged.
The dad and mom finally came to visit. They were here all day, and when I came home from work, he met me on the porch, saying, in his Jewish accent, "You told me about your theology, but you should have just told me about the children. They're wonderful. As soon as I met the children, I knew, everything's okay."
That's a typical reaction. I'll place our children next to any anywhere in the world, because they're the happiest, most well-adjusted children I've ever met, too. They're not without problems, they're not perfect, and a couple of them have typical personality problems. On the whole, though, it would be hard to find a happier batch of children.
At this point, you'd have to take my word for it. We have plenty of people who wonder about this "group that lives together." There are two major things that cause them to lose their ability to make up or pass on stories about us. They meet our children, or they eat at our cafe and meet the ladies who work there. No one who's done either finds it easy to slander us anymore.
Come and see! We're very proud of our kids. We don't think it's exceptional parents, either, but an exceptional way of life, and, of course, an exceptional God :-).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 06-26-2003 5:15 AM contracycle has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 49 of 82 (44448)
06-27-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
06-27-2003 7:56 AM


Becuase you are feeding them a set of claims you nkow you cannot demonstrate, and which they are not equipped to criticise. It is indeed exactly abuse.
Since you are suggesting nothing but the same, a set of claims you know you cannot demonstrate, you would be in the same category raising those same set of kids. You would have very little support saying that science can prove the supernatural doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist. It's simply outside the realm of science.
And I am quite convinced the benefit of our lives and lifestyle is obvious. Children grow up and are able to make choices about continuing their parents' lifestyle, values, and religious beliefs all the time, especially in America, where public communication is so strong.
By no means - but why then are you so horrified by rock and roll and similar entirely normal expressions of teenage reflexes?
This is bizarre. Rock and roll is a normal expression of teen reflexes??? It is a very new cultural phenomena now closely related to the drug culture.
As long as sexuality is bound up in a mythology of sin and morality, it cannot be free and honest.
With statements like this, you validate even incest with young children. There are lines, and they must be drawn for society to exist.
All I see, and saw before you ever wrote any posts to me, is a fanatically religious atheist, not one whit different from Jerry Falwell. I hope you'll excuse me if from now on my reaction to you is the same as to him, which is to just turn you off. Fortunately, there's really very little likelihood that ideas like yours will gain even as much following as his moral majority.
Good-bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 06-27-2003 7:56 AM contracycle has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 50 of 82 (44453)
06-27-2003 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
06-27-2003 7:56 AM


Obviously, an opinion of what consititutes abuse does not imply universal recognition of that opinion. But given that opinion, it would be odd if I did not act on it or express it.
Expressing it is one thing. Most people, though, are humble enough to think that charges of abuse must only be leveled on the strongest evidence, and that their opinion of how others ought to live and believe is pretty pitiful evidence for suggesting abuse.
That seems to have escaped you.
Arrogance I can deal with.
Sure, you can, and as long as religious people have ruled, they have been well able to deal with their own arrogance. However, their arrogance was real difficult for other people to handle, because all their freedom was taken away.
That's why I equate you with religious people. Almost no one has a problem with someone else believing in God. They have a problem with theists enforcing their god's morals on unbelievers. Everything you have said is a defense for pushing YOUR morals on other people. What you wrote is a defense for you as a god, so it's quite religious, in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 06-27-2003 7:56 AM contracycle has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 64 of 82 (44721)
06-30-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
06-30-2003 2:45 PM


Just a note. Thanks, Crash, for taking up the discussion, because it's too personal for me to be unbiased in. I wondered if I was being too rude, and I still do, but one thing I was sure of (and still am) is that contra was being just that--contra. We weren't discussing. He had something to say, and he was going to say no matter what I said, no matter whether it applied.
Throwing out words to be twisted and trampled on is not my idea of a good time. I used to have to do it back when I was a Christian, and I don't care to do it again, even with an atheist.
It does amaze me that the most anti-Christian atheist I've seen on any message board so far is also the most like them I've ever seen.
I'll commend all you atheists and agnostics (if that's different, lol, I don't want to be involved in that discussion from another thread!). Until Contracycle I have never once had an unbeliever pay no attention to my side of the argument the way Christians do regularly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2003 5:03 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 71 by nator, posted 07-02-2003 10:20 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 79 of 82 (45013)
07-03-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by contracycle
07-03-2003 11:48 AM


It seems to me there has been a lot of research in this area, mostly aimed at rates of incidence pregnancy in children. The majority appears to me to encourage the idea that the earlier and less moralistically the subject is addressed the healthier the childs appreciation of sexuality.
This may well be true, and your article *suggests* that this conclusion might be warranted.
The jump from this paragraph to everything else you said is huge. So is using the Jehovah's Witness resistance to blood transfusions as a general reason to oppose religious parents.
You might be aware that authorities already override JW's convictions on this matter, choosing the child's welfare over the parents' convictions. That hardly is justification for overriding every parent's conviction if it can be called religious.
An attentive parent should have very little problem knowing when to begin a child's sex education, and how far to take it, religious or otherwise. I can't imagine that letting the government choose is a good alternative.
Your assumptions are what lie at the heart of racism. Every religious person endangers their child's life, because some Jehovah's Witness parents withhold transfusion. Generally, very little of what you said about me is remotely accurate, but I'm a theist, so I'm just like every other theist. Children must be rescued from all theists, even if very little of what you believe in general about theists is true about me.
What's worse, is that I am pretty extreme as far as theists go, and you still have very little right about me. Almost nothing of what you said applies to the average Catholic, Episcopalian, or even any of the more liberal Baptists, who, on the sort of moral matters we're discussing, tend to think no differently than the average non-religious person.
By the way, I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the paragraph above, except for the part about "the earlier." All your study addressed was starting earlier than 13, which seems sort of obvious to me, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by contracycle, posted 07-03-2003 11:48 AM contracycle has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 80 of 82 (45015)
07-03-2003 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
07-02-2003 10:20 PM


Schraf,
Thanks for the comments. I don't think I mind being disagreed with. I don't even mind being told I'm flat out wrong. For some reason, it irritates the daylights out of me to say things and have everything I say misinterpreted, seemingly on purpose. (I don't really think it's on purpose.) If a person is going to disagree with me, disagree with me, not some stereotype. If I wanted to defend the stereotype, I'd live like the stereotype.
I expect people like you to argue with me, because I already know you disagree with me, and that's what a debate forum is for. I enjoy all discussions more when I have the upper hand :-), so I haven't always enjoyed our discussions, lol, but I've had problems with very few people on this board. In fact, your vehemence (I hope that's not a derogatory word) can be refreshing. I don't ever have to wonder what your point is, and across the internet, it can be hard to gauge where people are coming from.
So, thanks again.
Oh, and Crash, your analysis about the authority/conspiracy thing and the rest of that post was pretty insightful. All I picked up was a general feeling, and it was the same as when I was stupid enough to try posting on the "Christians Unite" board.
Sorry, Contra, for talking about you third person, but his assessment was very insightful, and you ought to listen to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 07-02-2003 10:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 07-04-2003 9:17 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024