-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
New belief among teenagers. What do you think?
- Thread starter Marlena Telep
- Start date
- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,391
- 20,701
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That's an oversimplification of the biological reality. In lots of biological systems, non-reproducing organisms contribute to life's flourishing, even to the flourishing of close kin.
I would argue modern science doesn't support a crude essentialist, static notion of nature. And the patristic, early Christian anthropology doesn't necessarily, either. In fact, the universe observed by modern science is much better reconciled with patristic categories, expressed in theologians like Gregory of Nyssa or Maximos the Confessor, than later Latin Medieval thought rooted in Aristotle.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Did my post lack clarity? It appears so. I was not addressing the issue of those who are "attracted to lawn tractors", or similar. I was specifically and implicitly condemning the act of placing gays and trans in the same category as criminals and sexual predators.
As to your claim of mental aberration, perhaps you have some peer reviewed data to back that up. Are some of those individuals suffering from some form of mental illness? Probably, but all of them -- don't be ridiculous. Many will simply be indulging in the time honoured tradition of teenage rebellion. Still, the main thing I take from your post is your total lack of sympathy for those with mental aberrations.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,391
- 20,701
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Humans aren't any different than other biological organisms in regard to the role of non-reproducing oranisms in the species. Non-reproducing humans can still contribute to survival of other members of their kin groups and bands.
Upvote
0
Again, "contribute to survival of other members of their kin groups and bands" is not within the scope of what I was talking about.
You're continually making strawman arguments.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,376
- 4,179
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
I thought we were talking about trans. A trans person (or any LGBT) may well engage in reproduction in the usual way according to their biology regardless of their LGBT status.
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,391
- 20,701
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Chatgpt has this to say about non-reproducing kin, and how they might be evolutionarily valuable from a Neo-Darwinian perspective (which isn't necessarily my own, but which seems to be what you are arguing from):
From my neo-patristic perspective, your argument is deeply problematic and fundamentally opposed to the notion that all human persons are created through the divine Logos immanent in creation, and are made for communion with God and are capable of salvation owing to the dignity in which they were created, whether one conceives that as a biological evolutionary process or not. Personhood is not limited to biology, but an irreducible ontology that confers dignity. It doesn't matter whether a person is gay or not, whether they have children or not. They all add something unique and irreducible to the world.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,553
- 16,256
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
This (quoted below) was not a question, it was statement of "fact", followed by a question that assumed that "fact".
In the sense that I was never a "cultural Christian" (participating in the "culture" of Christianity without the belief) and I did actually believe. It's quite the opposite. Outside my family and our parish, I didn't engage in the "culture of Christianity" and few if any people even knew what church I went to if any at all. Not counting the 5 years before I started school, I was in school for almost all of my time as a Christian. My only classmates who *knew* that I was a Christian (and what type) were those who went to the same parish. In college it was even more so, as I didn't even talk to my roommates about my religion or where I was going. If anything, I was a "crypto-Christian" who kept his faith hidden from others outside those who *needed* to know.
This is, frankly, the think I hate most about this site. If we ex-believers make some comment about our own memories of our former faith and practice that don't match *their* view they toss about claims that we weren't really Christians. Sorry that my memories of my mundane involvement in religion from the last century don't meet your standards for "True Christianity (tm)"
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,620
- 2,843
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
THe question didn't assume that fact, it was operating on your words about not believing that it was objective truth. So what is it you believed, if you didn't believe that it was objective truth?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,553
- 16,256
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
It absolute did assume that I was not a real believer, a "cultural Christian", at least the one I quoted a few minutes ago.
Gee, what could it be if it wasn't "objective", could it be... subjective? That seems to fit my memory, but it is an old memory and the most recent few years of it were when I would have more likely accepted the "subjective" labeling of the "truth" of my religion as I was well aware of the contradicting nature of other faiths. Perhaps earlier I would have found it "objective", but I don't know. (Also, I didn't likely know these usages of objective and subjective until late in that period anyway.)
Let's face it though, *no* religion is "objectively true". If it were, then we wouldn't have so many non-compatible religions, truth claims, etc. I don't discount your subjectively true religion as unbelieved any more than anyone else's religious belief. Why should I? That I might have recognized that my faith was subjective doesn't negate it.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,376
- 4,179
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
No, I still don't get it. I still don't see how nominalisms effect on Christian theology is taken advantage of by trans people in order to be "out." Perhaps you could be more specific about some other of these "me me me" things that nominalism also leads to...?
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,620
- 2,843
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Do you believe that subjective "beliefs" are true or false? I'm still not tracking what sense you believed, regardless of whether you recognized the categories or not.
Epistemic uncertainty does not entail a lack of ontological objectivity. You're making a category error. As for your contention that "recognizing" that your faith was subjective doesn't "negate" it, it sure seems to undermine it from what I can tell. Because to believe something is true is to believe that it is true whether you believe it or not.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,553
- 16,256
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I don't even think that is a valid question to ask, or relevant. Various subjective beliefs and opinions are relevant to how you behave, what motivates you, etc., but they are only that, personal.
Did you mean to write "in what sense"? That would make it the statement a bit more coherent. Regardless, I don't think it matters. I can't tell you anyway about the "nature" of my faith 35 or 40 years ago, only that it existed. I did not track or record my thoughts on faith and religion at any point when I possessed it. I can't even tell you if I stopped believing in God before or after I stopped going to church and that was only 25 years ago.
ooooo
I do think that is a good argument against all religion, but that is not and cannot be the topic of any post or thread.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,620
- 2,843
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That was kind of my point, if it was subjective you didn't believe it was true.
If you can't speak to the nature, how can you be sure it truly existed?
I'm sure you do, but as I said you're conflating epistemic issues with ontological ones. So the argument is based on a category mistake.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,553
- 16,256
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I can't tell you if I thought it was "objective" or "subjective" or had even considered the "question". Like I said, I did not keep a diary or journal of my faith, belief, and religious practice. It was a long time ago and I certainly couldn't answer some detailed questionnaire about my belief 30 years ago. What I can tell you is that I know the difference between participating in religion as a believer and faking it, because I HAVE DONE BOTH. I wasn't faking it in the 20th century.
I'm not going to play your anti-realism games.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,620
- 2,843
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
In the words of John "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Your inability to speak to the nature of your belief calls into question your perception of it, to the point where I believe it's legitimate to question such perceptions and whether it qualifies as belief in the sense that believers believe.
There's no game, simply pointing out the flaw(fallacious base) in your argument.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,620
- 2,843
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Considering its a complete mangling of what I have argued it is a straw man, even if unintentional or from a lack of understanding. Perhaps before you seek to challenge my argument, you might take the time to actually understand it?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
