Hanged?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Hanged? |
|---|---|
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 17:33
Profile
All hail the true defenders of the faith. Amazing how quickly a discussion gets bogged down if it even slightly smells of religion. Let me try to turn it back into the war of the sexes instead. 1. Women are generally smarter and more aware then men. 2. Therefore men (who hold power through strength) smite down women for whatever reason is handy. 3. This happens across religious and cultural boundaries. 4. Discuss. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 17:49
Profile
Hmm, hard to tell how provocative and devilishly advocational you're being, Salmon, but I got to ask, assuming you believe it, and I don't recall hearing the "smarter" or "more aware" claim before in those terms, would you base #1 upon biologal or cultural factors? I'm increasingly of the opinion, the more I learn and examine gender issues, that there is very little base difference overall between men and women. I am convinced that so much of what we deem biological difference apart from literal physical and functional differences, is really cultural. It just runs so deeply and ubiquitously and for so long nearly universally that it's hard to tell what men and women would be like under whole new socializing rules. In other words, books like 'Men are from Mars and Women are From Venus' are a bunch o' bunk. "Women" aren't really like "this" and "men" aren't like "that" except under the presently evolved social situations we have on hand. We get socialized into roles from day one and society is saturated with them. It looks and feels innate by the time we even become conscious of gender roles. There a few biological differences which can possibly factor into behavior/personality differences, such as the general fact that women's brain hemispheres tend to me more cross-connected than men's, allowing better multitasking skills primarily. But I wonder even about this. Which came first? Women got shuttled into a certain role in life which encouraged or required greater social or multi-tasking skills and therefore their brains adapted to reflect that, or brain structure determines how women simply "are"? [ Thursday, February 16, 2006 17:53: Message edited by: Synergy ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 17:58
Profile
quote:1. Yes. 2. Okay. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 18:06
Profile
Well, that was mildly annoying. Seems like the kind of way I'd be inclined to reply half the time too. I enjoy the either or question reply. I also like, "Excuse me, do you know what time it is?" *look down at watch*..."Yes...yes I do." -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 18:17
Profile
Homepage
I see no inductive fallacy. Khoth points out that the Bible is followed selectively. If braiding hair was not permissible because prostitutes did it but is now okay because everyone does it (or because prostitutes don't do it?), fine. I guess pigs don't carry disease anymore, either, so a kosher diet isn't necessary. You can argue utility for all of the rules in the Bible. Only heterosexuality can produce children, and children were necessary to survival in the harsh Biblical world. Now that times are different children are unnecessary and there is no need to condemn homosexuality. —Alorael, who would look at sexual dimorphism in other primates for an understanding of humans. If primates closely related to humans tend to have behaviors determined by gender, it's a fair bet that human behavior was also determined by gender and that brains evolved for those tasks along gender lines. Even if only humans culturally separated tasks but did it a long time ago different abilities could have developed. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 18:30
Profile
Homepage
Without saying that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, Alo, it's worth pointing out that primates closely related to humans have their own cultures. So, that's not a very good control test after all. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 19:07
Profile
Homepage
I suppose it is both biological and cultural. There are just so many factors that it is even hard to begin to pin them down. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 19:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:Would you be surprised if I told you that this is not a trivial statement to prove? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 19:47
Profile
Homepage
It's not a control test. There's no easy way to figure out whether neurological dimorphism from drift led to segregation of behavior or vice versa by looking at other primates, but we can determine whether it is a human adaptation or an earlier adaptation shared by more primates, or even an advantageous adaptation that is derived analogously in many branches of evolution. Actually, this would be a terrible study without better setup, but I'd be interested in knowing how often gender-based behavior has been independently evolved. —Alorael, who would be even more interested in the rather impossible or at least highly unethical study of how well very primitve human populations survive with only one gender present. (For a single generation, anyway. Second generations would be problematic.) Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 19:56
Profile
Homepage
I imagine the results of your unethical study would vary greatly depending on the environment of the primitive monogenders. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 20:09
Profile
Homepage
quote:Okay, I'll bite. What's the non-anti-homosexual version of Romans 1:26-27? quote: -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 20:23
Profile
quote:Actually, my point in answering yes to Synergy's question is that the statement is true despite its origins or even actual proof. As long as the perception exists that women are different, and perhaps threatening, there will be an equal and opposite reaction from males. I'm speaking in general terms of course, across time and continents. So, why do men find women to be different? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 20:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:Among other sites, you can find an interesting exposition of that passage here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm. I'm not sure the site is really as impartial as it claims to be. However, it does make an interesting case, suggesting that the passage was not intended as a point blank condemnation of homosexuality. There's a neat table presenting both points of view on many biblical passages relating to homosexuality here: http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm, if you scroll past the Mennonite comments at the top. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 21:28
Profile
Homepage
I find the whole nature vs. choice debate over sexuality quite fascinating (and confusing or frustrating at times). Both sides make some good arguments and some bad ones. Personally, I'm leaning towards nature. Dikiyoba wonders whether if someone who is not homosexual is automatically categorized as heterosexual. Is there a word to define someone who is not attracted to either sex? Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 21:41
Profile
Homepage
Ash: Well, my first instinct is to look at the original Greek, because the English always seems a little less precise. This is all my own work on the spot, working from the Perseus text, so forgive any typos or whatever. The most emphatic word in the first sentence (by position — ask if you want to know what I mean) is changed. This verb is familiar to me, and a quick check of the LSJ (the most authoritative Classical Greek dictionary) confirms what I suspected: this is the verb for handing someone over to the enemy, the verb for betrayal. It breaks down into two parts, translating literally as "to give to the side of [someone]." There is definitely a sense that the object of this verb is unwilling — God is punishing these people "because of this" by changing them against their will. Now, what is this "touto" — "this" — that this sentence mentions? It appears to be idolatry, hubris (in the various senses of that word), and not worshipping god. None of their crimes for which they are being punished involves homosexuality at all. Back to the changing business. Every verb here (and from that point on, you can see it in translation, too) stressed heavily that these people were not gay to begin with — they were changed. There are a couple of words here that are, I suspect, critical. One is "orexis." This that word translated as "lust," but it really just means "desire." It doesn't give any reason to suggest that the desire itself was shameful, the way that the English word "lust" does. The verb preceding it, "ekkaiw," suggests that the desire was too great to be resisted, but I'm not sure that it necessarily means that the desire itself was shameful either. Its magnitude was bad and would've made a classical reader shudder, but more on that in a sec. They did "undecorous" things — this is another odd word, "askhHmosunH" (apologies for the awkward transliteration), which just means "lack of form": it's "ungraceful," "lacking proper manners or refinement," or something of that nature. Still nothing to suggest that the same-sex desire itself was the problem, though; maybe they were having sex in public or neglecting their other duties or something. As a cultural aside: Classical Greece was full of stories of the dangers of too-great desire, so this idea of the problem being them having sex in the streets is not as strange as it sounds on its face. Herodotus begins his history with one such story, in which a king is so in love with his wife that he forces another man to see her naked, and he ends up losing his throne over it. So this extreme desire would've freaked out some people, but the same-sex aspect of it would've been very familiar (and not at all strange) to the Greeks. Finally, they received what recompense was necessary for their "planH" — this word does not mean perversion. It means "wandering," literally, or "going astray," or "deceit," but the LSJ gives no indication that it means "perversion." This was just your translator being creative. At this point, it is not clear to what this "planH" refers: is it the lack of sexual manners, or is it the various sins for which they were being punished in the first place? Let's keep reading. The very next sentence stress how they refused to believe in God, and God again hands them over to "a disreputable mind" — this is an odd phrase, and I'll go into it if someone wants, but it's more or less the same as before. They continue to do lots of bad things, none of which (as far as I can tell from a quick perusal of this laundry list of vices) have to do with sexual immorality, much less same-sex intercourse. Okay, so here's the result of my close reading of the Greek: * Nothing in the passage suggests that these people were gay, at least before God made them burn with sexual desires, and they certainly are not punished anywhere for same-sex intercourse. (They are punished at the end of the passage for a whole variety of sins, including murder, but that extensive list doesn't appear to include sexual immorality anywhere.) * My best guess about a contemporary audience's response to the few sentences about sexual immorality is that they would have more been bothered by the lack of decorum, since it was always bad to lack decorum in classical times, than by the same-sex intercourse, which was extremely common in Greece. * Therefore, nothing here suggests that same-sex intercourse is bad. What this passage says is that being overwhelmed by one's appetites and forgetting God and basic decorum is bad. After all, if this passage were about the immorality of same-sex intercourse, why on earth would the author insert at the end the fact that these people were also murderers, slanderers, envious trouble-makers, and all the other characteristics associated in a classical mind with a lack of proper restraint? This would simply water down his conclusion if his conclusion were simply that same-sex intercourse is bad, but really, it supports his conclusion that one must keep one's appetites in check and remember God and propriety, or else terrible things happen. EDIT: Having just read the darn thing in the original and examined it quite closely, I agree with a few points in the article to which Slartucker linked, but I think it's stretching some things a bit far. Dikiyoba: Yes, one can be bisexual, asexual, questioning, or anything else that you can imagine. [ Thursday, February 16, 2006 21:46: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Thursday, February 16 2006 23:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:What a wonderful view of humanity you have. Still, if that's how you feel, send me a plane ticket and I'll come and beat you up, as a special favour. quote:Exactly. 1-4 are ceremonial, about how you relate to God (like the other rules about sacrificing animals, and so on) [mostly ignored, unless from 10C] 5-10 are moral (like the other rules about witchcraft, and so on) [some followed, some ignored] And there are a lot more rules about how you treat property, like "What To Do If Your Tent Gets Mildew" or "How Badly You Are Allowed To Beat Your Slaves" [some ignored, some brushed under the rug] quote:That response is pretty much exactly what I mean by quote:Oh, and Paul's 'logic' there is of a form that always annoys me when people making rules come up with it: "There is a problem [prostitution], with a harmless side-effect [braided hair]. Therefore, we should ban the side-effect" -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net - Don't follow this link Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 00:55
Profile
In fairness to Paul (if this author really was Paul), he stressed elsewhere the basic principle that Christians should do nothing to offend or disturb people unnecessarily, for fear of scaring them away from the faith -- even if this meant refraining from actions that weren't intrinsically wrong. His most explicit expression of this point was in the context of eating meat from animals sacrificed to pagan gods. He argued that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with this, since the gods weren't real gods. But an unsophisticated onlooker might conclude, from seeing a Christian at a pagan feast, that Christianity wasn't worth taking seriously. For a pillar of a local church to dress her hair like a prostitute would similarly be bad PR, and for an evangelical organization bad PR is a sin, even though there is nothing intrinsically sinful about hairstyles. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 06:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you look closely, you will see that we are not really in dissagreement here. They always were the same. And something I meant to ask before but forgot: quote:What?!? When did this happen? My, what a sinner am I! Oh, and as already shown, there is New Testament verbiage against homosexuality, if not in the extent that it is 'a sin', at least to the extent that it is harmful and should be avoided, like being a drunkard. [ Friday, February 17, 2006 06:58: Message edited by: Jewels ] -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 07:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:You didn't actually read my post, did you? That line in the NT doesn't appear to have anything to do with condemning same-sex intercourse. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 10:48
Profile
Homepage
To put into context: By Jewels: quote:By Khoth: quote:By myself: quote:By Khoth: quote:Jewels was refering to the fact that ceremonies of the Old Testament are no longer needed, since they existed to foreshadow Christ. Khoth began the unrelated topic of tolerance vs. intolerance. I started the unrelated topic of the state of mankind without God. To clarify: we have nothing inherent in us to endear ourselves to God. (Thanks for the offer. I'll go to your place right after TM urinates on me.) On the Inductive Fallacy: I agree with you. Some Christians selectively ignore parts of the Bible. That doesn't mean all do. I think we have different definition on 'ceremonial'. From Wikipedia: quote:(Such as sacrifices, etc.) For more on the change from Old to New Testament, read Hebrews 10. I think Student of Trinity summed up Paul's logic pretty well. A modern day analogy: nothing is inherently wrong with cartoons depicting different races and religions, yet (most) editors refuse to print them because of the controversy. -------------------- What do you get when you mix an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic? Someone who stays up all night wondering whether there really is a dog. Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 15:44
Profile
quote:This is the self-deprecating lie which Christendom has so cripplingly taken to its bosom like a slow-working venom of guilt and shame. I say what a crock. If God is the Father of any of us, and if we know anything of the nature of good parents from earthly example which falls short, we know there is something highly inherently endearing and endurably loveable about our own children, even when they act foolishly like, uh, children. It is this false humility of Christianty which is obsessed with its own perceived “sinfulness” even though the Christ “did away with sin once and for all” that makes it something far less than the “good news” which the meaning of “gospel” suggests. Something deep in the spirit recoils, because it knows this is a lie designed to defeat and disempower, all in the name of God and Love and Forgiveness. The effective lies are the ones which come in the guise of religion and truth. Colossians 1:21 And you--once being alienated, and enemies in the mind, in the evil works, yet now did he reconcile, We were enemies and alienated from God in our own minds, not in His attitude or declaration upon His children. It’s all a battle for the mind. What we perceive and believe shapes all we think, feel, and do. -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 16:40
Profile
Homepage
Given that God created us humans, there must be something that he loves about us. I think it's our ability to love back. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 16:48
Profile
Given that God put all sorts of bones in the earth to mimic an evolutionary process he's not a big fan of bones. Or thinks humans are gullible fools. Or is against cremation. Or is too smart to get in the middle of the whole creation thing himself, so it was outsourced and the garbage we got came from actual evolution and it was only when God signed the purchase order that the whole thing started up. I like bananas. :P -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 18:37
Profile
Homepage
Kel: Thanks for that. If I understand you properly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying a statement like "Men committed indecent acts with other men" could be interpreted as condemnning the indecency of the act rather than the fact that they were done with other men. I can see your point, though I personally think that's a bit of a stretch. Out of curiosity, how would you translate that passage to English? -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, February 17 2006 19:47
Profile
Homepage
Well, yeah, if you say that men committed improper actions with other men in one instance, you're not necessarily saying that men cannot under some circumstances commit proper actions with men, too. Er, my own translation? This is about what I'd get if I were trying to be fairly literal. "Because of this, the god abandoned them to dishonor in emotion: that is, the women changed their natural use into one contrary to nature, and similarly, the men, having sent away their natural use of women, were completely enflamed in their desire for each other, men for men, doing things indecorously, and receiving in themselves the requital that was necessary for their transgression. And even as they refused to have the god in their mind, the god abandoned them to a disreputable state of mind, to do things that were not proper, being filled up with all injustice, wickedness, arrogance, and cowardice, full of envy, murder, quarrelsomeness, treachery, and improper conduct, being whisperers, slanderers, hated by god, violent towards others, haughty, vagabonds, contrivers of evil things, lacking obedience to fathers, lacking understanding, faithless, heartless, and merciless: whoever having recognized the god's decree, that the people doing such things are worthy of death, not only did them, but also agreed with the doers." [ Friday, February 17, 2006 19:48: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |