The Destruction of Sex.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:54 pm

A simple observation of modern culture is that sex has been placed on a pedestal way far above than it should be.

Whether one turns on the television, radio, or is skimming through e-mails one is bombarded with what used to be considered pornography 20+ years ago. This exploitation, of both men and women (in different respects), has created a chain around the throat of modern civilization.

A culture of death has resulted where all forms of creativity and expressions of the individual will have been stifled into a morality based upon the necessity of physical, emotional, and intellectual masturbation.

Life is no longer a priority to many as the seeking of pleasure is the only moral code today.

The human body, as a crowning achievement of order, in many respects has been reduced to a "mere play thing" whose only purpose is to "distract" man from any pursuit of meaning and structure.

Where sex was one used as a "creative force", today it has been reduced to simply...nothingness.

Men hate women. Women hate men. A brutal rule of technological hedonism has caused a dividing line between the sexes with the bars fundamentally be "ourselves".

Hedonism is totalitarianism in that it limits man in the ability to seek any truth past his own eyes...and the eyes are always moving. It is the perpetual appetite of the eyes which forms man for what he is, and when he seeks sensual pleasure over knowledge his ability to grasp any concept of justice is lost.

Where the intimacy of marriage was one valued as a "true" knowledge of the human body through mutual agreement, the nature of what we deem as "relationships" today is strictly equivalent to nothing other than cheap entertainment meant to distract us until the next form of entertainment comes.

It is in this loss of the ability to "create" that man is reduced to something lower than the animals and a savage atheism arises as man turns against his own nature in the pursuit of idols.

And what of these idols? What have they done for us other than cause further seperation, contempt and confusion?

What truth is their in our modern world other than death?

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:13 pm

When was intimacy in marriage ever defined as true knowledge of the human body through mutual agreement? I'm not sure if any of the philosophies strongest in supporting mutual marriage of the sexes would of came out with a weird assertion such as this. Intimacy isn't a mutual definition of the body. You are adding a definition here as a historical idea I seriously doubt anyone held to. You are free to prop it up as a Anti-Pornographic ideal hence forth, but this iconoclasm had no place in prior history as far as I can discern. I'm a supporter of intimacy and long term connections between males and females, building a family unit.... but I think you are thinking sensuality within intimacy can have the overriding trait that we define others by. I'll give you a western example most here are familiar with, in the marriage vows "in sickness or in healthy until death do us part". Not all marriages have the luxury of sensuality to determine the mode of intimacy. Feudal era had many arranged marriages, you did it the amount you had to to keep the marriage pact/alliance going on. Didn't necessarily mean you had a sexually profound appreciation for your mate, but you could be intimate in other ways. Of course, I strongly favor sensuality as a important, healthy aspect of intimacy in sexual relations, but most philosophers in most eras would of very quickly of noted this isn't a case as a universal rule, and furthermore, letting intimacy through sensuality or intimacy without sensuality define the body, a body you can observe without sexual desires or intentions, isn't the best mode for definition. Better than Plato's definition for a man, a large bird without feathers, but still pretty piss poor. You can't widely use this definition of a body widely. Do you hunk the Greeks widely approached defining a body on this basis when describing approaching enemy armies? The subtle touch of the Persian nipple army is approach? How we long for their touch, as once experienced in Caria once more? A bond forever more?

No, I think people just saw a generic form of a body on the outermost layer, skin deep. They had one, others had one, no great insight to how it works (Greeks viewed the inner working of the body much differently over the Chinese, some good books exist on this), but a body was a body. They knew a male well enough from a female generally, and reproduction worked itself out well enough from local pop explanations for how sex and familyhood worked.

And hendonism isn't inherently sexual or intimate. Usually is, but isn't by default.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:49 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:13 pm
When was intimacy in marriage ever defined as true knowledge of the human body through mutual agreement?
In many previous cultures, whose foundations ours are built upon, where a level of chastity was required prior to the marriage commitment. Roman era pagan tribes expected young men to practice chastity and so do certain elements of Tibetan philosophy. It is not all limited to strict abrahamic religions.

I'm not sure if any of the philosophies strongest in supporting mutual marriage of the sexes would of came out with a weird assertion such as this. Intimacy isn't a mutual definition of the body. You are adding a definition here as a historical idea I seriously doubt anyone held to.
In ancient Judaism sex was oftened worded as "knowing" and limited to strictly marriage or as a marriage itself...that is one example off of memory...unless you want more.

You are free to prop it up as a Anti-Pornographic ideal hence forth, but this iconoclasm had no place in prior history as far as I can discern.
Pornography was dropped by U.S troops in vietnam (or the phillipines? Fact check me on this one) in order to disrupt social ties and weaken the enemies morale.

I'm a supporter of intimacy and long term connections between males and females, building a family unit.... but I think you are thinking sensuality within intimacy can have the overriding trait that we define others by. I'll give you a western example most here are familiar with, in the marriage vows "in sickness or in healthy until death do us part". Not all marriages have the luxury of sensuality to determine the mode of intimacy.
I am not arguing for a strict sensual only approach has to defining marriage. In simple terms, the marriage vow maintains a median between one extreme of "no sex" and the other extreme of "continual sexual pleasure". Many marriages, I can think of Catholicism as another example, do not consider a "marriage" a "marriage" unless the sexual act as taken place.

Feudal era had many arranged marriages, you did it the amount you had to to keep the marriage pact/alliance going on. Didn't necessarily mean you had a sexually profound appreciation for your mate, but you could be intimate in other ways.
Like in the above example argues, it maintains a balance. The simple truth is that people get tired of having sex with the same person over the course of time (regardless of thier level of attraction). Then people get tired of not having sex.

In regards to the intimacy in other ways, I fully agree. The marriage contract, I argue, allows a balance for "no sex" and "continual sex" and prevents humanity from reducing itself to strict bestial instincts. Are marriages happy? No. Are people who continually sleep around happy? No. Are sexually inactive people happy? No.


Of course, I strongly favor sensuality as a important, healthy aspect of intimacy in sexual relations, but most philosophers in most eras would of very quickly of noted this isn't a case as a universal rule, and furthermore, letting intimacy through sensuality or intimacy without sensuality define the body, a body you can observe without sexual desires or intentions, isn't the best mode for definition.
How we view sex in turn defines the body...to argue against sex in turn ruins the definition of the human body by default as it destroys the common sense observation of it (genitals, etc.)

To argue for excessive sex in turn ruins the definition as it reduces the body to "meat" only.


Better than Plato's definition for a man, a large bird without feathers, but still pretty piss poor. You can't widely use this definition of a body widely.
The body as a means of measurement is the most accurate approach I believe. Of all the "bodies" within nature, humanities seems to be one of "adaptation" to measurement and in this respect should be viewed as a "median".

Do you hunk the Greeks widely approached defining a body on this basis when describing approaching enemy armies? The subtle touch of the Persian nipple army is approach? How we long for their touch, as once experienced in Caria once more? A bond forever more?

No, I think people just saw a generic form of a body on the outermost layer, skin deep. They had one, others had one, no great insight to how it works (Greeks viewed the inner working of the body much differently over the Chinese, some good books exist on this), but a body was a body. They knew a male well enough from a female generally, and reproduction worked itself out well enough from local pop explanations for how sex and familyhood worked.

And hendonism isn't inherently sexual or intimate. Usually is, but isn't by default.

It is intimate until the "break up" then intimacy is put into question if it was ever there at all.

The simple truth is the sex has been thrown out of perspective in today's world as some sort of "god" that will solve all our problems. It is no different than previous cultures, or maybe better put "cults", who viewed it as some sort of "demon". "Gods" are often demons in disguise.

OuterLimits
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by OuterLimits » Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:07 pm

And before monogamy, a definite tendency for alpha males to monopolize females:
http://quillette.com/2016/01/07/origina ... xtremists/

"The West can thank the Romans for decisively rejecting this ancestral preference, and codifying a surprisingly modern form of monogamy in their marriage laws. Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked."

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:06 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:07 pm
And before monogamy, a definite tendency for alpha males to monopolize females:
http://quillette.com/2016/01/07/origina ... xtremists/

"The West can thank the Romans for decisively rejecting this ancestral preference, and codifying a surprisingly modern form of monogamy in their marriage laws. Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked."
Interesting point however:

"As against Betzig's contention that monogamy evolved as a result of Christian socio-economic influence in the West, monogamy appeared widespread in the ancient Middle East much earlier. In Israel's pre-Christian era, an essentially monogamous ethos underlay the Jewish creation story (Gn 2) and the last chapter of Proverbs.[56][57] During the Second Temple period (530 BCE to 70 CE), apart from an economic situation which supported monogamy even more than in earlier period, the concept of "mutual fidelity" between husband and wife was a quite common reason for strictly monogamous marriages.[citation needed] Some marriage documents explicitly expressed a desire for the marriage to remain monogamous. Examples of these documents were found in Elephantine. They resemble those found in neighbouring Assyria and Babylonia.[56] Study shows that ancient Middle East societies, though not strictly monogamous, were practically (at least on commoners' level) monogamous.[53][54] Halakha of the Dead Sea Sect saw prohibition of polygamy as coming from the Pentateuch (Damascus Document 4:20–5:5, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Christianity adopted a similar attitude (cf. 1 Tm 3:2,12; Tt 1:6), which conformed with Jesus' approach.[56] Michael Coogan, in contrast, states that "Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE."[58]

Under Judges and the monarchy, old restrictions went into disuse, especially among royalty, though the Books of Samuel and Kings, which cover entire period of monarchy, do not record a single case of bigamy among commoners — except for Samuel's father. The wisdom books e.g. Book of Wisdom, which provides a picture of the society, Sirach, Proverbs, Qohelet portray a woman in a strictly monogamous family (cf. Pr 5:15-19; Qo 9:9; Si 26:1-4 and eulogy of perfect wife, Proverbs 31:10-31). The Book of Tobias speaks solely of monogamous marriages. Also prophets have in front of their eyes monogamous marriage as an image of the relationship of God and Israel. (Cf. Ho 2:4f; Jer 2:2; Is 50:1; 54:6-7; 62:4-5; Ez 16). Roland de Vaux states that "it is clear that the most common form of marriage in Israel was monogamy".[57][59]

The Mishnah and the baraitot clearly reflect a monogamist viewpoint within Judaism (Yevamot 2:10 etc.). Some sages condemned marriage to two wives even for the purpose of procreation (Ketubot 62b). R. Ammi, an amora states:

Whoever takes a second wife in addition to his first one shall divorce the first and pay her kettubah (Yevamot 65a)

Roman customs, which prohibited polygamy, may have enhanced such an attitude[original research?] - especially after 212 AD, when all the Jews became Roman citizens.[56] However, some Jews continued to practice bigamy (e.g. up to medieval times in Egypt and Europe).[citation needed] Fourth-century Roman law forbade Jews to contract plural marriages.[60]

A synod convened by Gershom ben Judah around 1000 CE banned polygamy among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.[61]"

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


The problem occurs in that it was quite common in eastern countries as well.



However to address you point, I am not strictly for monogamy or polygamy and believe that both have a time and place.

Marriage is a balancing median that stabilizes sexual behavior, nothing more.

In situations where a village has mostly been robbed of its men, due to war (such as in africa), a situation arguing for "polygamy" results.

Where the ratio of men and women is balanced, arguably monogamy is the best result to maintain a psychological balance in the community and promotes genetic diversity.

What I am arguing is:

1) Sex outside the marital institution causes disruption.
2) Sex on its own terms is a "marital" or unifying act under natural law and the "institution" itself (ceremony) establishes a median between man's rational and bestial instincts by allowing both to coexist through "ritual" as a form of divine mediation between man/nature/God.
3) Any form of excessive sexual behavior outside the partners is strictly conducive to adultery and is a threat to any institution or culture.
4) And I could argue further but I will leave it at that for now.

OuterLimits
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by OuterLimits » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:54 pm
A simple observation of modern culture is that sex has been placed on a pedestal way far above than it should be.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "High Tech, High Touch" - from the book Megatrends.

The modern world becomes more sterile, people become more alienated, then sex becomes something magical which breaks through the alienation.

People have and want increasing control over nature including human nature, but then wildness needs to be reintroduced in some manner because people's inclinations are not robotic.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:25 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:54 pm
A simple observation of modern culture is that sex has been placed on a pedestal way far above than it should be.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "High Tech, High Touch" - from the book Megatrends.

The modern world becomes more sterile, people become more alienated, then sex becomes something magical which breaks through the alienation.

People have and want increasing control over nature including human nature, but then wildness needs to be reintroduced in some manner because people's inclinations are not robotic.
But how is this an increase in control when we are subject to our own creation?

Let me word it this way, assuming you are arguing that it is natural for man to control nature through technology, isn't this nature the very thing which is dis empowering man and causing him to be further subjugated to nature itself? This is assuming your premises only.

Isn't the manner which sex is being "overcome" causing the vary nature of alienation and sterility it is trying to avoid?

This is considering that pornography and sex-bots are causing the same separation they are perceived to be avoiding. In man's continual "relation" to himself a cause of fractation occurs in which man's self-relation causes him to separate himself to both "man" and "woman" (regardless of the sex) through this act of perpetual masturbation in which he/she alone is the sexual initiator and recipient.

Thoughts?

OuterLimits
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by OuterLimits » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:36 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:25 pm
This is considering that pornography and sex-bots are causing the same separation they are perceived to be avoiding. In man's continual "relation" to himself a cause of fractation occurs in which man's self-relation causes him to separate himself to both "man" and "woman" (regardless of the sex) through this act of perpetual masturbation in which he/she alone is the sexual initiator and recipient.
Thoughts?
People find by pursuing their control that they become separated from certain things that they need, as well as securing more of other things they need. There is a practice now for babies born via C-section - who typically have weaker immune systems - to be doused in fluids with bacteria which babies born normally encounter in the birth canal.

Most people can avoid sex-tech if they like. I don't normally encounter much of a sexual nature on the internet in a given day.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:55 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:36 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:25 pm
This is considering that pornography and sex-bots are causing the same separation they are perceived to be avoiding. In man's continual "relation" to himself a cause of fractation occurs in which man's self-relation causes him to separate himself to both "man" and "woman" (regardless of the sex) through this act of perpetual masturbation in which he/she alone is the sexual initiator and recipient.
Thoughts?
People find by pursuing their control that they become separated from certain things that they need, as well as securing more of other things they need.

I am not sure the pursuit of "power" (control) has real "answer" within itself as the "self" is never fully definable. To pursue "power" over something is really an act of extending oneself. This extension of the self inevitably results in a state of randomness as the self is never fully defined or even determined except through the act of moderation or observing "balance".

What we understand of control through moderation is balance between the internal and external world rather than a specific control over it. Technology does not allow for this interior control as it not self-reflective, by its very nature, except in the respect of physicalizing the pursuit of "desire" and "convenience" which in themselves are never fully definable but rather deficiencies. If I "want" or "desire" it is strictly a "deficiency" and nothing more. Modern technology seems to build itself around this void.


There is a practice now for babies born via C-section - who typically have weaker immune systems - to be doused in fluids with bacteria which babies born normally encounter in the birth canal.

Weak immune systems are immune systems out of balance with nature. When we observe a "weak" immune system, what we are observing is the inability for a child to maintain a balance within it's environment.

What happens is that the child either "adapts" to the environment and "lives" or fails to do so and dies. Natural law maintains its own course and man is able to avoid the situation of cannibalizing its own (through forced sterilization, euthanasia, birth control, etc.)

The problem with the modern health industry is that is requires the act of abortion, euthanasia, or sterilization in order to maintain the balance man once had through natural law and in doing so forces man to resort to "unnatural" choices that cause him/her to tear his/her fabric apart.


Most people can avoid sex-tech if they like. I don't normally encounter much of a sexual nature on the internet in a given day.

I think it is because we have become de-sensitized to it. This de-sensitization inevitably results in more "forceful" and unnatural stimulus to be applied (or better yet created) in order for the act of sex to exist at all.

And what exists of sex, through these artificial stimuli, is a mere shadow or "proxy" of the original form as the act itself becomes more and more seperated from its original source: people.

Let's take a look at birth control, what it says by default is: "Our relationship is too weak for us to bear the burden of anyone but ourselves, and this is because that enough is a burden." If we look within nature and lack of reproduction is an act of dying in which the species (or specific animal) is too weak to promote its lineage across time and space.

To seperate sex from its creative agency (and by default it is a creative agency) is to categorize what creation truly is into little categories for our own amusement...and amusement passes.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:07 pm
"Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked."
It's always amazing to me how wildly untrue statements about the Biblical record can go unchallenged. It's as if nobody cares what the Bible actually says, so long as whatever is being claimed is negative in implication.

But in point of fact, and only for those interested in facts, one of the very first of all Biblical precepts, back in Genesis (i.e. the first book of the Old Testament, in order of arrangement), we read that this principle was established in the very, very earliest history:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
Gen. 2:24.

And the implications of this are nicely spelled out in Ephesians 5, in the New Testament too, with the assertion that it means, "Whatever God has joined, let no one put apart."

Seems kind of monogamous to me...doesn't it to you?

So, what the heck? :shock:

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:26 pm
OuterLimits wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:07 pm
"Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked."
It's always amazing to me how wildly untrue statements about the Biblical record can go unchallenged. It's as if nobody cares what the Bible actually says, so long as whatever is being claimed is negative in implication.

But in point of fact, and only for those interested in facts, one of the very first of all Biblical precepts, back in Genesis (i.e. the first book of the Old Testament, in order of arrangement), we read that this principle was established in the very, very earliest history:

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
Gen. 2:24.

And the implications of this are nicely spelled out in Ephesians 5, in the New Testament too, with the assertion that it means, "Whatever God has joined, let no one put apart."

Seems kind of monogamous to me...doesn't it to you?

So, what the heck? :shock:
Christianity is one of the most misunderstood and misquoted religions in the modern world. Over 70 denominations give evidence to it.

Nick_A
Posts: 2311
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Nick_A » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:54 pm
A simple observation of modern culture is that sex has been placed on a pedestal way far above than it should be.

Whether one turns on the television, radio, or is skimming through e-mails one is bombarded with what used to be considered pornography 20+ years ago. This exploitation, of both men and women (in different respects), has created a chain around the throat of modern civilization.

A culture of death has resulted where all forms of creativity and expressions of the individual will have been stifled into a morality based upon the necessity of physical, emotional, and intellectual masturbation.

Life is no longer a priority to many as the seeking of pleasure is the only moral code today.

The human body, as a crowning achievement of order, in many respects has been reduced to a "mere play thing" whose only purpose is to "distract" man from any pursuit of meaning and structure.

Where sex was one used as a "creative force", today it has been reduced to simply...nothingness.

Men hate women. Women hate men. A brutal rule of technological hedonism has caused a dividing line between the sexes with the bars fundamentally be "ourselves".

Hedonism is totalitarianism in that it limits man in the ability to seek any truth past his own eyes...and the eyes are always moving. It is the perpetual appetite of the eyes which forms man for what he is, and when he seeks sensual pleasure over knowledge his ability to grasp any concept of justice is lost.

Where the intimacy of marriage was one valued as a "true" knowledge of the human body through mutual agreement, the nature of what we deem as "relationships" today is strictly equivalent to nothing other than cheap entertainment meant to distract us until the next form of entertainment comes.

It is in this loss of the ability to "create" that man is reduced to something lower than the animals and a savage atheism arises as man turns against his own nature in the pursuit of idols.

And what of these idols? What have they done for us other than cause further seperation, contempt and confusion?

What truth is their in our modern world other than death?

"The orgasm has replaced the Cross as the focus of longing and the image of fulfillment."
― Malcolm Muggeridge

Secular progressive attitudes will say it's about time. The experts will call it a sign of progress.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:28 pm
Christianity is one of the most misunderstood and misquoted religions in the modern world. Over 70 denominations give evidence to it.
That's certainly PART of what denominations indicate. I can grant you that.

But it's easy to let that mislead one into thinking these differences are all profound; and in some cases, they're clearly more matters of detail than of substance. Some people prefer a more "liturgical" style of religious practice, and some are more drawn to a simple style. Some have clergy, and some have different clergy, and some have no clergy...not a big problem, in either case. Neither issue has anything to do with big issues like salvation or moral living, and not even much to do with public service...and so on.

Another thing the proliferation of denominations can indicate is that when people are allowed to interpret Scriptures in light of their own consciences, they seem to take the job very seriously, and form groups around shared views of what that Scripture tells them. Not a bad thing, that. It's very anti-authoritarian, for one thing. For another, it's far less autocratic than being dominated by conventional religious authorities and ruled by the interpretations of a synod or pontiff. It better honours the moral responsibility of the individual.

But yes, in some cases denominations indicate substantive disagreement, in some cases to the point where one has every right to doubt the application of the word "Christian" itself to some of the proposed variants.

What of it, though? Every good thing has its imitators. And for every treasured original, there are likely to be found some fraudulent copies.

Sometimes all that means is that what is being copied is just very, very valuable or important to people.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:28 pm
Christianity is one of the most misunderstood and misquoted religions in the modern world. Over 70 denominations give evidence to it.
That's certainly PART of what denominations indicate. I can grant you that.

But it's easy to let that mislead one into thinking these differences are all profound; and in some cases, they're clearly more matters of detail than of substance. Some people prefer a more "liturgical" style of religious practice, and some are more drawn to a simple style. Some have clergy, and some have different clergy, and some have no clergy...not a big problem, in either case. Neither issue has anything to do with big issues like salvation or moral living, and not even much to do with public service...and so on.

Agreed

Another thing the proliferation of denominations can indicate is that when people are allowed to interpret Scriptures in light of their own consciences, they seem to take the job very seriously, and form groups around shared views of what that Scripture tells them. Not a bad thing, that. It's very anti-authoritarian, for one thing. For another, it's far less autocratic than being dominated by conventional religious authorities and ruled by the interpretations of a synod or pontiff. It better honours the moral responsibility of the individual.

The problem occurs in that an anti-authoritarian method still calls for authority and moral responsibility of determining truth still requires an "authority" to be responsible too. People are political animals.

But yes, in some cases denominations indicate substantive disagreement, in some cases to the point where one has every right to doubt the application of the word "Christian" itself to some of the proposed variants.

What of it, though? Every good thing has its imitators. And for every treasured original, there are likely to be found some fraudulent copies.

Sometimes all that means is that what is being copied is just very, very valuable or important to people.

Interesting point.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Destruction of Sex.

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:39 am
The problem occurs in that an anti-authoritarian method still calls for authority and moral responsibility of determining truth still requires an "authority" to be responsible too. People are political animals.
I think there's a good question as to whether there is any legitimate authority capable of "determining truth" for others. I think that even a legit interpreter of authoritative text -- say, a high-level academic, or some esteemed clergyman -- still has a responsibility to subject his explanations to the rational judgment of the hearing individuals.

Now, that may seem galling to him. He may prefer that they defer to him because of the impressiveness of his credentials. He may despise the idea of having to explain to mere "laypeople" the deep insights he's culled by hours of study or induction into theological disciplines of various kinds. But if he succeeds in bullying them into obedience through his reputation or credentials, instead of by educating and informing them and winning their confidence in the normal way, then what does their assent to his creeds really mean?

And if their judgment does not agree with his, and they decide that they don't believe in what he insists is the right interpretation, then what rightful recourse does he have? Can he legitimately use force, or power of position, to oblige people to act against their consciences? Would you want him to do that?

I think not. I think none of us would, really.

John Locke said the same thing. He said that because God judges the individual, not the church or state as a collective, that each individual could owe no higher duty than to keep his or her own conscience clean before God. Each of us individually would answer for himself on what Locke called, "The Great Day," (meaning the Day of Judgment, of course). He used this to derive the principle that every person has a primary right -- and duty -- of free conscience.

I think he was onto something.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest