Misconceptions

[LoAmmi]

But if god is omniscient and omnipotent then it was god's full intention to allow slavery, with a few restrictions so I don't see how god could have been reluctant at all about it. There was absolutely nothing stopping god from adding an 11th commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Keep Slaves. And don't tell me there wasn't enough room on Moses's tablet.

If everything is controlled by an all powerful god, and god included slavery, then it is still sanctioned.

The Jewish understanding would be that He knew people wouldn't accept that. They would continue to keep slaves. So, it was setup to attempt to make people treat those slaves better. But, Jews are more accepting of traditions and our rabbis did eventually prohibit it. It was also stated that if Jews were given slaves after then, they weren't to even treat them like slaves. (At that time, you might have been given slaves and have been unable to free them. In that case, you were to treat them like fellow humans and not like slaves.)

 

[awitch]

The Jewish understanding would be that He knew people wouldn't accept that. They would continue to keep slaves. So, it was setup to attempt to make people treat those slaves better.

I don't think I buy that. If a god is going to kill a whole bunch of people on the spot for making a golden calf statue, I don't see that same god worrying that people won't like one of his other rules.

 

[juvenissun]

So all I'm gathering is, the Bible is the only thing holding you back from being a terrible person. Well good thing the Bible exists then! We can't afford to have rampaging christians.

I, on the other hand, adhere to the wiccan rede and believe in not being an awful person not because a god scares me into it but because I know it's the right thing to do.

Circumstantial. That is only thing I can say about what you think is right.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think I buy that. If a god is going to kill a whole bunch of people on the spot for making a golden calf statue, I don't see that same god worrying that people won't like one of his other rules.

You don't have to buy it. It's how we interpret these things. I think it is significantly easier to get people to stop worshiping idols than tell them to basically destroy their existing economy entirely and do something else.

 

[keith99]

I mentioned that Christians also supported slavery. Its defenders were however not universally Christian nor was Christianity its strongest defender, which was on economic and racial grounds. Slavery's main opposition and strongest opponents however were Christians.

You do realize that there are still a few today who point to scripture to support those racial grounds.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Mafia or other criminal groups have a strong in-group/out-group ethos: outsiders are "not us", and thus fair game for unscrupulous behaviour, insiders who turn on them are vile traitors and thus even less deserving of humane treatment. It's a clear social dynamic guided by specific principles.(Many organized crime groups are devout Christians, by the way. Mexican drug cartels even venerate specific saints. )

I guess you win, Jane ... far be it from me to analytically mince the meaning of the concept of the "devout," particularly as it may pertain to New Testament definitions. We both know just how concise and clear the praxis of that kind of word actually is in real life. Yes--clearly--there is nothing for us to conflate or be confused about here, is there?

At least I know now that individuals in the Mafia or in other criminal groups have the very same kind of religious devotion, or even "faith," as say, a Billy Graham, or a Pope Paul the II, or a St. Francis of Assisi, or a Mother Theresa, or any other numerous Christians who place peaceable social interaction as a highest priority. Yep...you have absolutely no equivocation going on here in your use of terms.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You do realize that there are still a few today who point to scripture to support those racial grounds.

Yes, as there are those who point to Eugenics or Evolution or Anthropology or genetics to support it as well.

But these often still believe in a flat earth with a bowl over it, so...

 

[Chesterton]

Wow. What a toxic reply to a post that was intended to be supportive!
"I don't understand it, therefore it's icky, sick and pathological!"

Toxic? Like you, I was just trying to be helpful. When people have fluid on their brain, lungs or knee, it usually requires surgery. You mentioned gender fluid, so I thought you might ought to have someone take a look at your gender.

Oh, I'm most definitely weird, and proudly so. Others might use the word "queer" as a synonym for that (as queerness encompasses much more than just same-sex orientation), but I can live with weird. Still better than those poor, unhappy sods who try to measure up against some imaginary norm and always find themselves lacking at every corner.

But to answer your question: why should I think less of a person for refusing an offer, sexual or otherwise? "No" is a perfectly valid answer, and deserves to be respected as such.
If I offered you a cup of tea, and you declined, would I think less of you? In fact, it's not even important what your reasons are. No means no. End of story.

I don't think you should be proud of your alleged weirdness, because it's rooted in your fluidity. Fluid takes the shape of its surrounding container, as your weirdness takes the shape of your surrounding culture and zeitgeist. There's nothing weird about that, it's boring and predictable. I'm gendersolid, and when I said you're weird I only meant that you're female. If you were male you could not compare sex to a cup of tea. Besides, I can make my own tea.

Yeah or maybe we can encourage people to be open about discussing alternative ideas and as a consequence grow a deeper understanding about the diverse human experience. And who knows? You yourself may someday choose to adopt some of these labels personally and later on feel grateful for coming into contact with such terms.

I've lived the practices, which is part of the reason I know the labels for same are pretentious, silly and meaningless.

I also fail to see anything that Jane listed that should require medical attention, and even if it did I see no reason to discourage people from openly expressing their thoughts on a forum.

You shouldn't discourage me from making jokes on a forum either.

As for me I consider myself a heterosexual, vanilla a-romantic, gray-asexual, primary s/m nurturing empathetic romantic with secondary aggressive s/m empathetic romantic characteristics with agender/bigender/bi-romantic leanings. Lol.

Do I need medical attention? Possibly, lol.

I could probably explain the novels Moby Dick and War and Peace, and the Summa Theologica in fewer words than you use to describe what gives you an erection. Maybe that's a cause and a symptom of atheism; you should think about something other than yourself for awhile.

 

[awitch]

I could probably explain the novels Moby Dick and War and Peace, and the Summa Theologica in fewer words than you use to describe what gives you an erection. Maybe that's a cause and a symptom of atheism; you should think about something other than yourself for awhile.

I'd rather you didn't get my thread shut down with personal attacks.

 

[keith99]

What country are you from, Chesterton? Just so I can give it a wide berth.

I'm as sex-positive as it gets, and as a polyamorous, genderfluid pansexual, I'm probably as far removed from traditional Christian values as it gets. Yet I'd never think less of a person (male or female) for refusing a sexual offer.

Bolding mine.

I might, depending on the reason. Onan comes to mind. As does one stop on the Glory Road.

 

[MehGuy]

I've lived the practices, which is part of the reason I know the labels for same are pretentious, silly and meaningless.

You lived what practices?

What labels do you find to be silly, pretentious and meaningless? Speaking an general anti-feminist/sjw I do find how some people use such labels to feel special and at worse cause derision and other sources of bad politics, but at the end of the day I still think such terms are important for people to have the tools to better understand themselves.

There is a trial and error process with labels, over the last few years I have had to discard more primitive labels in favor of labels I feel more accurately depict my psychology and tastes. This is just par for the course, although I'd say I have not come around too many labels that are totally garbage.

I could probably explain the novels Moby Dick and War and Peace, and the Summa Theologica in fewer words than you use to describe what gives you an erection.

The only real label regarding my sexuality I used was the term heterosexual, lol. Being a gray-asexual I do not care for sex very much. I'll even say I unfortunately sometimes display prudish views on sexuality.

Maybe that's a cause and a symptom of atheism; you should think about something other than yourself for awhile.

Think about what? When I analyze myself its not just about me, but helping other people come to grasps about aspects of themselves too. I've actually had people come to me and thank them for giving them a better sense of themselves. The rewards are not strictly narcissistic.

 

[Chesterton]

You lived what practices?

Thread is about misconceptions, not conceptions.

What labels do you find to be silly, pretentious and meaningless?

Answering that would require me to click the mouse a couple times and look back and read the exact words, and saying something specific. But I'm as thought-positive as it gets, and as a polylogical, truthfluid panpostist, I'm probably as far removed from traditional Christian values as it gets. Yet I'd never think less of a person (male or female) for refusing a non-specific thought offer.

Speaking an general anti-feminist/sjw I do find how some people use such labels to feel special and at worse cause derision and other sources of bad politics, but at the end of the day I still think such terms are important for people to have the tools to better understand themselves.

There is a trial and error process with labels, over the last few years I have had to discard more primitive labels in favor of labels I feel more accurately depict my psychology and tastes. This is just par for the course, although I'd say I have not come around too many labels that are totally garbage.

It takes a few words to state a truth; it takes more words to obfuscate a truth.

The only real label regarding my sexuality I used was the term heterosexual, lol. Being a gray-asexual I do not care for sex very much. I'll even say I unfortunately sometimes display prudish views on sexuality.

All the words looked sexual to me. Maybe that's the problem; a failure to communicate. I reject modernity the same way you and Jane reject tradition.

Think about what? When I analyze myself its not just about me, but helping other people come to grasps about aspects of themselves too. I've actually had people come to me and thank them for giving them a better sense of themselves. The rewards are not strictly narcissistic.

Think of yourself as a concious amalgam of atomic matter first. Figure that out, then everything else like sexuality second.

 

[MehGuy]

Thread is about misconceptions, not conceptions.

Well it seems like the topic delved into conception territory. Given the nature of this thread, it's not that surprising.

Answering that would require me to click the mouse a couple times and look back and read the exact words, and saying something specific. But I'm as thought-positive as it gets, and as a polylogical, truthfluid panpostist, I'm probably as far removed from traditional Christian values as it gets. Yet I'd never think less of a person (male or female) for refusing a non-specific thought offer.

That's a shame, I would have really liked to know which terms you thought were meaningless.. etc. Could have made for a good discussion.

But yeah, tap dance around that if you will..

It takes a few words to state a truth; it takes more words to obfuscate a truth.

Well, I try to make my labels as simple as possible. Obviously I'm not there yet, although if I wanted I could make them a lot more needlessly complicate and pretentious. Lol.

All the words looked sexual to me. Maybe that's the problem; a failure to communicate. I reject modernity the same way you and Jane reject tradition.

Would adding (non-sexual) next to a label help? I used to do that with my s/m (sadomasochism) labels although I found it repetitive. Though if it needs to be done, I guess it needs to be done.

And they'll always be some failure in communication. All we can really do is learn, although it seems like some people don't want to put the time in for that.

Think of yourself as a concious amalgam of atomic matter first. Figure that out, then everything else like sexuality second.

I'd say that is mostly a fruitless endevour but ok.. Questioning things like sexuality/romanticism/spiritual inclinations seem much more feasible and as a consequence more deserving of my time.

 

[TillICollapse]

Back to the OP

1) That I'm an atheist.
2) That I'm a Christian.
3) That I shouldn't reference Judaeo-Christian scriptures unless I believe they are infallible.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

More misconceptions about me.

1) Being a feminist means I "hate men".
2) Being a feminist means that I "have a victim complex".
3) Being a feminist means that I am a sex-negative shrew obsessing about "objectification".

 

[Chesterton]

That's a shame, I would have really liked to know which terms you thought were meaningless.. etc. Could have made for a good discussion.

But yeah, tap dance around that if you will..

Your question was already answered twice. First directly, then with interpretative dance, not tap.

And they'll always be some failure in communication. All we can really do is learn, although it seems like some people don't want to put the time in for that.

I'm sure you've put in a lot of time to learn my Orthodox Christianity?

Back to the OP

1) That I'm an atheist.
2) That I'm a Christian.
3) That I shouldn't reference Judaeo-Christian scriptures unless I believe they are infallible.

Protip: do what everyone else does and display a faith designation. If you still want to remain vague and mysterious, just choose "pagan".

More misconceptions about me.

1) Being a feminist means I "hate men".

I agree that would be a misconception because it's plain to me that feminists hate women, and idolize men. No one goes around saying "I'm as good as you" unless they believe it's not true. The rich man doesn't say it to the homeless beggar.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I agree that would be a misconception because it's plain to me that feminists hate women, and idolize men. No one goes around saying "I'm as good as you" unless they believe it's not true. The rich man doesn't say it to the homeless beggar.

So in your book, black civil rights activists hate black people and idolize Caucasians?
Yyyyyeaaaahhh... that's not how that works.

Feminism started because women were denied basic human rights. They weren't allowed to receive a higher education, were not recognized as independent legal persons, couldn't vote, couldn't hold a political office, etc.
And - just as with the civil rights movement - the problem is still not resolved.

 

[Chesterton]

So in your book, black civil rights activists hate black people and idolize Caucasians?
Yyyyyeaaaahhh... that's not how that works.

Feminism started because women were denied basic human rights. They weren't allowed to receive a higher education, were not recognized as independent legal persons, couldn't vote, couldn't hold a political office, etc.
And - just as with the civil rights movement - the problem is still not resolved.

You're right. I'm wrong. I retract my comments and I apologize.

 

[redblue22]

Back to the OP

1) That I'm an atheist.
2) That I'm a Christian.
3) That I shouldn't reference Judaeo-Christian scriptures unless I believe they are infallible.

Interesting. Love to hear more.
Maybe I'll add a few more too. (feeling fun)

1. I have no doubts or questions about my beliefs.
2. I like sharing my beliefs.
3. I like everything that I might believe.
4. We can't be friends if we disagree.
5. I like debating my beliefs.
6. I'll never agree with you or change or listen.
7. I'm a bad, stupid, ugly person.
8. That I'm the complete opposite of #7.

 

[keith99]

I don't think I buy that. If a god is going to kill a whole bunch of people on the spot for making a golden calf statue, I don't see that same god worrying that people won't like one of his other rules.

Let's not forget adultery. If anything is to be excluded because God thought people would do it anyway that should be the top of the list.

There are over 200 commandments. More that a score about diet and at least 2 about digging latrines. Yet there is nothing not raping or not keeping slaves.