Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:07 am What, like that isn't also applicable to you?
What I said, and I arrived at the stance after considerable deliberation, is that homosexuality must be accepted because it has always existed. But homosexuality and other deviancies (from a normality defined as the man-woman family) should be repressed lightly but generally — as the ethical standard.

Yet I know that this won’t happen — at least not now. Things work in cycles and the present cycle must complete itself.

The destruction of the family ideal — this is simply a fact — leads to social sterility. So in my ethics the family and the productive, fruitful relationship would be recognized by all to be the principle one.

It is not an irrational position but a sensible, even middle of the road position.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 am Even indirectly.
I refuse to read these 20” cut’n’pastes Iambiguous ole boy.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:22 am You rather Apollo than Dionysus. Jesus was Apollonian too as were other champions of law and order. But let's not a priori human nature.
Without "passions" man would be emotionally flat, Is that what you want? Or do you want men to be simply emotionally flat enough to obey orders from superior men?
One must — eventually — choose sane limitations.

Neither of your questions have much bearing on the recommendations I’ve recently made.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:16 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:07 am What, like that isn't also applicable to you?
What I said, and I arrived at the stance after considerable deliberation, is that homosexuality must be accepted because it has always existed. But homosexuality and other deviancies (from a normality defined as the man-woman family) should be repressed lightly but generally — as the ethical standard.

Yet I know that this won’t happen — at least not now. Things work in cycles and the present cycle must complete itself.

The destruction of the family ideal — this is simply a fact — leads to social sterility. So in my ethics the family and the productive, fruitful relationship would be recognized by all to be the principle one.

It is not an irrational position but a sensible, even middle of the road position.
Can you unpack the term "social sterility" a bit? What does it mean? What does it look like?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:37 pm Can you unpack the term "social sterility" a bit? What does it mean? What does it look like?
Intense sexualization, the cultivation of lust and desire, does not tend to support union at higher levels. It is a fact (anyone can verify this) that unscrupulous sexuality leads to barrenness on various levels: emotional, interpersonal, social.

Secondly, the farther one moves from the family as the center of society and social concerns, the further one moves from the most supporting and necessary foundation of all culture. A man must adapt to the sexual rhythms of the woman … or deviate into unproductive practices which alienate him from woman generally.

The seduction and perversion of woman is a thing of social consequence (seen of course from a traditionalist perspective). Pervert women and literally the foundation of cultural life is wrecked. Those consequences are extreme.

Does this seem like Christian moralizing? It really isn’t. These ideas and traditions far precede Christianity. I’d defend any point I’ve made here with Platonic logic.

Sterility is also defined intellectually. I focus on Harbal for this reason. A man well beyond ‘a certain age’ who reasons and acts like an unrestrained child.

However ‘Harbal’ is irrelevant. His type as outcome is not. They do not understand that all actions are consequential. But they want their way and won’t accept sane restraint.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:16 pm What I said, and I arrived at the stance after considerable deliberation, is that homosexuality must be accepted because it has always existed. But homosexuality and other deviancies (from a normality defined as the man-woman family) should be repressed lightly but generally — as the ethical standard.
If homosexuality has always existed, and probably will always exist, that could suggest it is a variation of normal sexuality, rather than a deviation from it. The repression of homosexuals doesn't sound ethical to me. :?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:37 pmCan you unpack the term "social sterility" a bit? What does it mean? What does it look like?
See Sexual Suicide by George Gilder.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:47 pm The repression of homosexuals doesn't sound ethical to me.
But you are, basically, a moron and hardly know what you are talking about, yes?

To repress excessive deviant sexual expressions requires a defined ethically defensible standard. And I assert that must revolve around the generative family. That mist be the ethical standard recognized by all.

It is an issue of service to a defined ethic that requires a degree of restraint or repression.

The normalization of sexual deviancy is never-ending. The more deviancy is not restrained, the greater each decade veers farther and farther from a reasonable normalcy.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:43 pm I focus on Harbal for this reason. A man well beyond ‘a certain age’ who reasons and acts like an unrestrained child.
You've got that wrong: I do reason like an adult, and act like an unrestrained child quite independently of it.
However ‘Harbal’ is irrelevant.
:|
His type as outcome is not.
Well I suppose that's some consolation.
They do not understand that all actions are consequential.
They do say that ignorance is bliss. 8)
But they want their way and won’t accept sane restraint.
You should see me when I really stamp my feet. It's an awesome sight. :shock:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:01 pm But you are, basically, a moron and hardly know what you are talking about, yes?
That depends on what, exactly, you mean by "hardly". :|
To repress excessive deviant sexual expressions requires a defined ethically defensible standard.
So let's just define "excessive" differently then, so that we don't have to repress people.
And I assert that must revolve around the generative family.
And do you find that something tends to happen when you make assertions?
That mist be the ethical standard recognized by all.
Well I don't recognise it, so it obviously must not be. :?
It is an issue of service to a defined ethic that requires a degree of restraint or repression.
But what of those who don't like their ethics being prescribed to them by reactionary, conservative twerps?
The normalization of sexual deviancy is never-ending.
And what, exactly, is wrong with always having something new to look forward to?
The more deviancy is not restrained, the greater each decade veers farther and farther from a reasonable normalcy.
That makes me rather glad that I am just the result of a process of postmodern decline that places no burden on me to care. 8)
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:46 pmSo let's just define "excessive" differently then, so that we don't have to repress people.
In liberal society, as it has been constructed, you are certainly right: there are no agreed upon ethical definitions.

This has led to ‘liberal rot’ according to some.

Thus we, transported by intellectual skyhooks, ponder ethics from a certain philosophical height. And one thing to ponder are the results of decadent liberal choices.

What the %#!!#%!! did you DO with that dammed pizza, Harbal!?!

There are laws in England curtailing crimes-of-opinion but none against unnatural acts with pizzas?!?
“Ya see?! This is what I’m talking about ….”
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:43 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:37 pm Can you unpack the term "social sterility" a bit? What does it mean? What does it look like?
Intense sexualization, the cultivation of lust and desire, does not tend to support union at higher levels. It is a fact (anyone can verify this) that unscrupulous sexuality leads to barrenness on various levels: emotional, interpersonal, social.

Secondly, the farther one moves from the family as the center of society and social concerns, the further one moves from the most supporting and necessary foundation of all culture. A man must adapt to the sexual rhythms of the woman … or deviate into unproductive practices which alienate him from woman generally.

The seduction and perversion of woman is a thing of social consequence (seen of course from a traditionalist perspective). Pervert women and literally the foundation of cultural life is wrecked. Those consequences are extreme.

Does this seem like Christian moralizing? It really isn’t. These ideas and traditions far precede Christianity. I’d defend any point I’ve made here with Platonic logic.

Sterility is also defined intellectually. I focus on Harbal for this reason. A man well beyond ‘a certain age’ who reasons and acts like an unrestrained child.

However ‘Harbal’ is irrelevant. His type as outcome is not. They do not understand that all actions are consequential. But they want their way and won’t accept sane restraint.
Harbal seems like a good person to me. He doesn't cause much in the way of real harm to anyone that I see and gets along reasonably well with most people here in the philosophy forum. He has a playful wit about him and he has a sense of humility. If that is the outcome of "unscrupulous sexuality" then perhaps it should be encouraged.

You might get along with him if you would stop trying to insult him for a change. Heck, you might get along with most here if you didn't try to lord yourself over everyone else as some kind of superior intellect. Has it ever occurred to you that all this knowledge you claim to possess may perhaps be of no more use than anyone else's knowledge? I mean, big deal, you've read about "replacement theory" or whatever nonsense that is supposed to be. The rest of us have read about other things. I had a traditional education in Western philosophy, specializing in the philosophy of mind. However, I learned some time ago that it doesn't make me any better than most anyone else one is likely to meet on the street. A good plumber is of more practical use.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 6:09 pmHarbal seems like a good person to me. He doesn't cause much in the way of real harm to anyone that I see and gets along reasonably well with most people here in the philosophy forum. He has a playful wit about him and he has a sense of humility. If that is the outcome of "unscrupulous sexuality" then perhaps it should be encouraged.
The category ‘good person’ means little when discussing ideas. Hitler loved Eva and was very kind and loving to his dogs. Did you know that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a favorite title of his?

I would suggest you are taking a sentimental tack. This is common today. It is (hi there Immanuel) kind of ad hominem backwards.

What do you mean by ‘real harm’? I can think many different attitudes or actions that are acceptable ethically in our present but that have tangible harmful results. What is your standard of measure? How do you decide? What structure of view do you have.

Reading what you write you seem to favor the utterly anodyne. Am I wrong? Let me know and I’ll correct my view.

We are involved in Cultural Wars. We are in the midst of them. They are real and they are consequential. All decisions, and most ethical ones, involve the imposition of value-stances. The place this starts is in the idea realm.

Unscrupulous sexual expression must be defined reasonably. I think it can be done. But it does require decisiveness, not the lack thereof.

Harbal either assumes the rôle of moron for some silly purpose or he really is a man concerned for nothing at all. A blank man. A lowest common denominator let loose.

My criticism of him is sadistically playful. Pay me back in kind. I admire wit. I have contempt for spineless brutal insults. You’ve got to do it with class IMO.
You might get along with him if you would stop trying to insult him for a change. Heck, you might get along with most here if you didn't try to lord yourself over everyone else as some kind of superior intellect. Has it ever occurred to you that all this knowledge you claim to possess may perhaps be of no more use than anyone else's knowledge?
There is nothing to get along with. My purposes involve cultural critique and idea warfare.

Also I am not merely insulting him. I direct my insults at US. We are all outcomes of degenerate processes. How many times must I repeat this?!?

I want you to lord it over me intellectually. Prove me wrong. Show me where and why I am wrong. Make it plain, right here in the presence of your peers.

Superior intellect? That is not the issue. The issue is familiarity with contemporary affairs. And that is got through wide reading.

You assholes read NOTHING. Except Immanuel who has read badly.

Really Gary — am I less than extremely wonderful? A gift 🎁 to the thread? Why am I not recognized for the amazing contributor I am convinced that I am?!? What is this defect in your seeing? 😎
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Note: I am also an accomplished hobby plumber. And I have my own tools …
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

A smart commentary on Gilder’s Sexual Suicide.
The value of the 1973 writing is still great, partly because it demonstrates that before the sexual revolution had "won" our society, a thoughtful sociologist could predict accurately what would be the consequences of women giving men the opportunity to sexually use them outside of marriage:

1. One MAJOR reason males married was to have a sex life. Post-Sexual Revolution, marriage becomes unnecessary to have sex,

2. So women find it difficult to find men to marry. They become increasingly willing to settle for a live-in boyfriend or a series of one-night stands.

3. The live-in boyfriend is far more likely to sexually or physically abuse his girlfriend's children than would be their own father. (The emotional and physical consequences of this abuse are immense.)

3. Children born to single mothers must either be given up in adoption (which is now rarely done), or the mother must try to go it alone financially. Especially if the mother is not through school, she will have great difficulty getting enough education to make an adequate income. She and her children often live in poverty.

4. Poverty often means attending sub-adequate school systems, and see undesirable examples of choices in the neighborhood around them.

5. Because young males need not take responsibility for their offspring and the women whom they sexually use, they fail to develop the sense of responsibility of the married. I.e., they drive less sanely than does the man with a wife and child in the car with him. They take risks that they believe will "only hurt themselves." They live for themselves, or for the gang. (Have you noticed the different rates on insurance for the married vs. single men? Insurance companies have reasons for their rates!)

6. As a result, young males are more likely to end up in prison or dead, especially if the person in question has had no father in HIS home of origin, either.

7. Prisons explode at the seams, and the whole of society pays, with increased crime, and increased expenses of police, courts, prisons, etc.

And THIS was published in 1973! If you are less than perhaps 50 years of age, you likely don't remember a time before sex outside of marriage became the social norm. I was born in 1951: I've watched as Gilder's words have become so, so true.
Post Reply