posted
Cultural and ethical development is not as easy to judge as technological development, Treknophile, and I should hope you recognize that you just might be wrong about the nature of an optimal society.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
*kindly offers Omega a ten-foot pole to touch his last question with*
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Cultural and ethical development is not as easy to judge as technological development"
You're right. If a car has three blown tires, doors falling off the hinges, one working headlight, a blown transmission, and has led its last two owners to their deaths, nobody would insist that it still works and everyone should ride in it.
posted
...and since no such objective judgements can be made about ethical systems or cultures, no such comparison can be made. Thanks.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I do not make a judgment so much as an observation. If Christianity is supposed to do what they claim to do (save the world, bring peace, and so on), why has it not been done it in the past 2000 years? And don't tell me because people are sinners/won't listen/etc. If it worked, people wouldn't continue to be so. I realize that Christianity does plenty of good. I've been there and I have a few Christian friends -- quite close ones, too. And do you realize that no argument against Christianity (at least that I'm aware of) ever criticizes Jesus? It's when you say "we are the one true religion, join us or be damned" that Christianity becomes a tool for exclusion, an excuse to increase church membership. And THAT is when it doesn't do what it says it would. If you say Christianity is good, then be an example of good unto others, and let them come to you.
And let me tell you a story regarding homosexuality. While I lived in England, one of my flatmates was a devout Christian. She was adventurous, loving, generous, and intelligent. And she always had wonderful things happening to her, such as one time she prayed for a job and a lady asked her to go to Hawaii for a week to babysit her children. She's okay with homosexuals *in theory*, but as another friend told me, when she walked on the street and saw gay people being openly intimate with each other, she'd turn to whoever she's with and go "that's so disgusting!" or "I can't believe they're doing that in public!", etc. That just saddens me, because her fear of gay people prevents her from loving them. It may not sound like a big deal written down, but imagine someone who's positive and loving most of the time, someone who is the light. Then they turn to you and say something like that. It's jarring and it feels..."off". I've had one-time church friends say things like to me, too. It's one of things that led to my eventual rejection of the whole thing.
[ September 30, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Tora Regina ]
posted
Not necessarily. Well, one could say "time elapsed = evolution taking place", no matter how aimless or minor that evolution is. Then again, "time elapsed" would have to be reset for the start of every new society. The ethical systems of a millennium-old Mongol, Bactrian or Old Kingdom Egyptian society (all now long gone) would have had more time to evolve than those of a barely decade-old Free Estonian one, for example.
What modern ethical structures might have over old ones is the benefit (or burden) of interconnectivity. The old Egyptians couldn't have cared less about how the old Chinese treated their deviants. Modern-day Egyptians read all about modern-day Chinese oppression of Falun Gong.
...Which incidentally means that everybody must have an opinion on homosexuality. This was far from a necessity mere fifty years ago.
posted
Well, I personally find it intriguing to go through all the attitudes on homosexuality in the various cultures that either don't exist any more (like the Spartans), or exist only in drastically altered form (like the Jews). The entire spectrum is represented, from utter condemnation to wholehearted encouragement.
Given such relative morality, then and now, I try to look only at the objective. Homosexuality is not harmful to non-homosexual beings -- and I don't count the occasional annoyance of having a gay person try to pick you up as harm. Barring denial or alternative methods, homosexual couples cannot reproduce, which can have a marginal impact on population growth and density. Homosexual attitudes don't "lead" heterosexual children "down the wrong path", or else why don't straight role models make gay children straight?
The whole question of nature vs. nurture is still way too up in the air, so I am reserving judgement on that. I have several nebulous and interwoven models in my head and on paper to account for all the possibilities I see, and all I can say is that at the present time, we are in the middle of the mare's nest. In ages past, in our ignorance, it was fairly cut-and-dried, one way or another. We are now about in the place where we have learned a lot more about it, but not enough to form any scientifically testable conclusions. Thus, we are likely to do more harm than good, despite good intentions.
And Tora, as to your friend's reaction, I feel that way about any overt public displays of affection. I'm fairly Victorian in some of my attitudes, about the most pronounced being that there is a time and place for that sort of activity, and flaunting it out in public view is not one of them. Holding hands, an occasional light kiss or squeeze -- fine. But you want to make out, straight or gay, go somewhere at least semiprivate, or at the very least filled with other like-minded individuals.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
"...and since no such objective judgements can be made about ethical systems or cultures, no such comparison can be made. Thanks."
Crap. (oh, excuse me) Fertilizer.
Tolerance for differing lifeforms is more ethically advanced than intolerance - so long as the differing lifestyle does not harm anyone else - which as Peregrinus has pointed out, gays do not. I thought we all learned that back in TOS with IDIC. How can one claim to be a Star Trek fan, and not embrace this most fundamental of axioms: Tolerance - even love for differences is the heart of Trek - and the beginning of enlightenment.
I think you dropped the ball, Omega. Tell the truth (you seem to be intellectually honest): Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy? If the second, why can't you make up your own mind. 'God's a busy man' - why not do your own thinking?
Jesus of Nazareth (pretty sharp guy from what I've read - founded one of the most successful corporations in the biggest industry in history (the only one which doesn't require a product for its investors) said; 'It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kindom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.'
I put it to you that is should be just as hard for an intellectually-honest Christian person to enjoy Star Trek. I mean, really! We have persons carrying on fornication. We have an obvious acceptance of evolution (and of course, a true Christian believes that Dinosaurs never existed, that the fossils were created 'as is'. Heck, we have humans having sexual relations with non-humans - and having progeny! That has to be worse that a woman lying with a donkey - bestiality at its most foul! Why weren't the Christians protesting that abomination?
Unless one were intellectually dishonest (which I am sure you are not), a true Christian has to take the entire bible as the literal truth. Why? Because if one small crack appears in its omni-truth - if believers start saying 'this part I believe, but not this part because it is too unbelievable' - it opens up the Bible to Occams Razor of Logic - which states that the simplest explanations are most likely to be true, and the most complex explanations are least likely to be true. And I put it to you that an Eternal God, an Afterlife, and Creation are the least likely of all Biblical 'facts'.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Just thought I'd put another nail in Yaweh's coffin.
My sister, a God-fearing Christian with an unfortunate over-abundance of intelligence/intellectual honesty, found this on the internet and emailed it to me. I post it in the hopes that it may; 1- provide one and all a good laugh. 2- in some small way, advance the blessed day that reality and scientific fact conquer all. _________________________________________________
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S.radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a U.S.resident, which was posted on the Internet. It�s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God�s Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can�t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don�t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn�t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God�s word is eternal and unchanging.
your devoted fan, Jim _________________________________________________
And in this spirit, I am changing my signature line.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
"occasional annoyance of having a gay person try to pick you up as harm."
It is next to near impossible to have a straight woman try to pick me up, so a gay come-on would be less harm, than a compliment.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed. I am usually flattered that some gay (or even bi) men find me attractive along with at least a few straight (or even bi) women. I even feel a little sad that I have to turn them down, as my bread isn't buttered that side.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Tolerance for differing lifeforms is more ethically advanced than intolerance
But I'm not advocating intolerance. If someone said all gays should be killed, I'd be the first to tell 'em they're wrong. You're confusing intolerance with disapproval. Why does everyone do that?
Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy?
Church of Christ denomination (much as we might like to deny that we're a denomination) has no clergy.
I put it to you that is should be just as hard for an intellectually-honest Christian person to enjoy Star Trek.
No more so than for an intellectually honest scientist to enjoy Star Trek, in all its scientific inconsistancy. Just because I disagree with pieces of it on occasion, I don't have to throw out the whole thing. I enjoy Monty Python, even though it's borderline blasphemous on occasion. It's funny.
a true Christian believes that Dinosaurs never existed, that the fossils were created 'as is'.
Some do, some believe other things, some believe in evolution.
And I put it to you that an Eternal God, an Afterlife, and Creation are the least likely of all Biblical 'facts'.
Ah, but you can't compute their likelyhood, can you? They're not anything that can be handled by statistics. Besides, woudln't the presence of an omnipotent being that spoke things into existence be simpler than an unending chain of unlikely coincidences of carbon chemistry? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic