Just curious who here is religious? What are you metaphysical beliefs? How do you justify your sexual orientation based upon this if you do. :shock:
Printable View
Just curious who here is religious? What are you metaphysical beliefs? How do you justify your sexual orientation based upon this if you do. :shock:
hi crayons.
i'm pious but not religious.
that is...i've been accused of being a pious bitch; but i describe myself to most who ask as an atheist.
Thats interesting. Most people who I meet who describe themselves as atheist are usually very bashful of any religion and display no piety whatsoever.
More?
I used to be religious.A christian.I was raised to be religious.By and by i realized how unlogical religions in general are.Now i am a atheist.I don´t have any metaphysical beliefs.
(Debating whether I should respond to one of crayon's posts...)
Ah well, here's my vote. I'm Christian. I go to a high Episcopal church with the choir, full organ, rood gate and such for Sunday Mass and I try to make Euchrist service on Wednesdays. I live in a communal house and we do morning and evening prayers together. Feast days are fun. I believe we are doing something for Epiphany tonight. Yay beer!
How do I justify my sexual orientation? I don't. Justifying something would mean that you think it's wrong. I am well aware of the usual Christian objections to homosexuality, hopefully other people are well aware of the rebuttals.
As someone with one foot in the Queer camp (being trans but also openly bisexual) and one foot in the Christian camp, I will say that I get more crap from gay people about being Christian than Christians about being gay.
The Episcopal / Anglican church has been in the news fairly often with its controversy over electing a gay bishop (who is getting legally married this summer to his husband of nearly two decades) and some churches performing gay "commitment ceremonies" (they just don't call them "weddings").
The United Methodist church recently had a controvery about a pastor who transitioned female-to-male. Some people were trying to defrock him but although the church doesn't recognize gay marriages and insists that gay clergy remain celibate, they nationally clarified that transsexuality was not the same as homosexuality and that there were no objections to him remaining pastor.
One of my roommates commented that he often feels like he has to defend himself as a religious person from non-religious people. He said he ends up having more in common with a Pagan, Buddist or Muslim than with an atheist. I agree. I wouldn't necessarily classify myself a universalist, I remain agnostic on most theological debates, but having spent five years practicing another religion, I quite identify with non-Christians.
Here's another thing: I don't believe being gay is sinful, I don't believe being transsexual is sinful but I do believe in chastity. While I'm hardly a virgin or even still the most chaste person around, if everything goes right, I won't have sex again until I'm married. To me, it doesn't matter if the church or the state recognizes your marriage, it's still a marriage before God.
I have always had a spiritual aspect to my sexuality. When I sleep with someone, regardless of the specific sexual activity involved, it creates a special, permanent link between myself and the other person. What I didn't understand before was why you would only want to link yourself with a single person in your whole lifetime. I also have been in polyamorous relationships and would be curious about a polygamous marriage but will most likely just be monogamous.
I am fairly good in bed with both men and women, IMHO. I quite enjoy bringing delight to other people. I don't think sex is wrong or dirty or anything. There's just something about having the proper context for sexuality and, to me, that context is within a healthy marriage ~ heterosexual or homosexual.
I don't know if that's much of a "justification" for my sexuality. As far as my transsexuality goes. Some people say "God doesn't make mistakes". I answer that He doesn't. I am not a mistake. People were born to change and to grow, otherwise we'd always remain infants! Transition is dramatic to some people but simply part of growing up. Everything that happens to us is a lesson to be learned and many things, I believe, are Fate. We don't know if transsexuality is physiological, hormonal, psychological, or what, but I know that I was fated to transition.
That's a result of my personal relationship with God. It doesn't mean it's a healthy thing, the right thing, for everyone to do. It's the same with sexuality, or with drinking or anything ~ it's the context.
I was an atheist for a long time before I came to Islam. I came to islam becase it touched me emotionally.
May i ask what touched you so much that you became a believer?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
@ crayons:Could you add to the topic:And why?
The 109th Sura of the Quran.
In the name of Allah most Benificent ever mreciful
Oh say unto the disbelivers
I do not worship what you worship.
You do not worship what I worship.
I will never worship what you worship.
You will never worship what I worship.
To you is your way and to me is mine.
It is my favorite chapter of the Quran. When I fist read it it made me cry. Certain other passages still do. I read the Quran and found it to be profoundly beautiful and logical for a religous book. That and the love of a boyfriend who was a Muslimm brought me to the Islam.
I couldn't imagine how people could be atheist. Even when I wasn't Christian and didn't know what to call myself, I still believed in God(s). God saved my life when I overdosed in 10th grade. God named me.
I think atheists are people who refuse to acknowledge their spiritual experiences as real. To me, they are more real than my physical experiences. Who defines what is real?
Some people just have a lot of barriers built up spiritually, just like there are people who are always uptight or frigid, for whatever reason. Some people have a lot of hangups around sex because they were raped as a kid. Other people have a lot of hangups around spirituality because they were spiritually raped as a kid. The solution is therapy, yes, but also sometimes substances.
Drugs are a beautiful thing. They can also be dangerous and so must be used with respect and caution. However, they can also be very beneficial. One of my former roommates was permanently uptight and I just really wanted to get her drunk or stoned so she could simply relax and say what she was always too afraid to say. To the atheists, I want to give mushrooms or acid because it'll make you let go of your spiritual hangups.
My favorite way to use mushrooms is in a tea mixed with yerba matte to keep me from drifting off (also, make sure you have an empty stomach). Get changed, relaxed, light a candle, and put on some ambient music (I do the same thing with white wine sometimes to relax) and just lie down on your bed or couch or whatever. Even better is to forgo the music and just go into a big park or the woods where you can be away from all the man-made things which demand our attention and closer to our natural state. I don't know how anyone could miss the spirituality there.
Im more spiritual than religious. I have always been more intune with the spiritual. Im not keen on being part of a "Group" that tells my sins, and has me ostracized for being who i am. Im a firm beliver in God, the higher power, allah, dios, the creator ...to me its all the same. I belive in all that is good. In my house i have tons of artifacts statues from: Ganesha, buddha, african, Gods, yoruban saints., thailand goddesses etc.. I dont belive in one specific thing. I have always loved to read on different beliefs , deities, god and goddesess, . and their roles. Many peopel have that mind state that if they cant see, why belive it ? The point is not to see it, but to feel it..... within you.
What was crucial for your decision to become a muslim,the words of the Quran or the love and caring of your boyfriend?Or was it a mix of it?If you don´t mind me asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Use of drugs to become religious?Hallucinogen drugs don´t open your mind.They don´t have an mind expanding efect even if you have the impression.The do what the name says you get hallucinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgirlzoe
how come you debated whether to respond to my post?Quote:
Originally Posted by tgirlzoe
Hi, Tgirlzoe. I don´t mean to attack you and there are points in your post I respect. I am an atheist and I think you don´t understand atheism at all. Atheism is not just opposite to Theism and is a wide term. Atheists don´t simply disbelieve the same way theists do believe. You believe that your spritiual experiences are real while atheists don´t believe there are spiritual experiences but to you, it´s the simple explanation and it satsifies you enough to go on with your life. I have my opinion about that but I do respect you. You said you survived an overdose. I´m glad you´re alive and hope you stay by health but what does make you believe that you´ve been saved by a supreme being you call god? It´s something I read very often stated by some lost Rock stars like Dave Gahan etc.....Quote:
Originally Posted by tgirlzoe
Atheism is a part of rational thinking. My atheism is based on science and philosophy what I call rational thinking.
Well I thought I saw Mescalito once after eating a half-dozen peyote buttons. Does that count as metaphysical?
Atheist. Unaffected by personal religious belief.
I can't call myself pious, because there's too many religious connotations in the common usage of the word.
I do call myself moral, because morality is religiously neutral.
Don't get me wrong. I love mythology, but I see it all as just that. I also lump most philosophy & a lot of science in there too. I've always considered piety & pomposity to be twigs off the same branch. Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo & it makes no difference whether the doubletalk comes from a religious text, some blowhard philosopher, or some dude who thinks he can pinpoint the origin of the universe from some trace radiation that he could only explain by making up a big bang theory. I would never assume a deity just because I don't understand something. I would also never assume to be able to come up with answers to all questions with the limited tools of naked apes who are barely above scavenger status & still can't break free from a primitive fire culture.
More to come, maybe?...
I'm an atheist. I don't object to people with religious sentiments until they try to impose it on others, which is inevitable in most contexts. Religion isn't the source of every problem in the world, but it provides wicked people with the perfect excuse to oppress women, men, homosexuals, and anyone of differing political or religious ideology. This is apparent today in the Middle East where Muslim fascists murder each other over beliefs in invisible imams. It is apparent today as the fundamentalist Christian right wing stands in the way of stem cell research, the single most promising thread of research in biology today, and as the Catholic church stands against condoms in Africa, causing untold amounts of deaths from AIDS, and as nearly every major religious petitions against something as innocuous as gay marriage.
Spare me the preachings of the value of religious doctrine, please. You don't need to believe in nonsense or falsehoods to love your neighbor. In fact, I posit that the world would be a much worse place if most religious tenets were followed. How do you think US citizens would have reacted if our government, after the 9/11 attacks, said "You know what guys? I think we're just gonna turn the other cheek on this one. Jesus said to do that." It would have been an outrage even among the most hardcore fundamentalist Baptists.
Forgive me if I sound angry, because I am angry. I'm furious that the phrase "Well, my faith says that I should believe this way" can cause so much suffering to so many undeserving people. It's entirely acceptable in our society to stand against something as promising as stem cell research, which could potentially eliminate the suffering of burn victims and paraplegics everywhere, just because someone has some intangible predilection or ignorant tradition that tells them to believe so.
None of us is in a position to deny the experiences of another. But when it comes to our own beliefs, we can only take our own experiences and the reports of others as evidence. I do not generally discount the testimony of others, or generally deny their experiences, but I do judge their veracity against my own experience. It’s the best any human being can do.
I happen to be an atheist. This doesn’t mean science is my god. Though I think the big-bang theory provides a viable account of the evolution and expansion of the cosmos, it does not explain why or even how the universe got here in the first place. Like everyone else, when I look up into the night sky, awash with the light of myriads of stars and galaxies, I’m dumbstruck with wonder and I find myself asking, “What the fuck is all this about?” I find neither science nor gods adequate to the question.
I’ve always had trouble with authority figures and so I’m not disposed to worship anything: otherwise I might be persuaded to sing the following reply to the 109th Sura.
In the name of mercy,
Oh say unto the believers
I do not worship what you worship.
You do not worship what I worship.
I will never worship what you worship.
You will never worship what I worship.
To you is your way and to me is mine.
Unfortunately non-believers don’t worship anything, and so what at first seemed to me to be a beautiful symmetrical sentiment, is not symmetric at all.
So instead I’ll be happy enough to sing:
In the name of mercy,
Say to the believers,
I do not find sufficient what you find sufficient.
You do not find sufficient what I find sufficient.
I will probably not ever be happy with your answers.
You will probably never be happy not having an answer.
To you is your way and to me is mine.
Hippiefried exclaims,Quote:
Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo & it makes no difference whether the doubletalk comes from … some dude who thinks he can pinpoint the origin of the universe from some trace radiation that he could only explain by making up a big bang theory.
As I’ve indicated above, the big bang theory doesn’t explain origin of the universe; however I would like to make clear the theory is not mumbo jumbo. The theory was christened the Big Bang by its opponents Bond and Hoyle in the earlier half of the twentieth century. Bond and Hoyle were proponents of the Steady State Theory. It’s unfortunate that the name stuck, because the theory does not pretend a giant explosion is sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe. Both the Steady State and the Big Bang theories are historical theories, not metaphysical theories. Both historical accounts attempt to maintain consistency with Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding and has been expanding for as far back as we can see. Both theories are formulated within the mathematical framework of general relativity in an attempt to make quantitative predictions. The trace radiation of which Hippiefried speaks is known as the cosmic background radiation (CBR). The Big Bang was not invented to account for the CBR. It happened the other way around. The Big Bang predicted the existence of a background radiation left over from the time when the cosmos was compressed into a small volume of space and consequently glowing with heat. George Gamow, using the mathematical formulation of the theory, predicted what the current temperature of that radiation should be. The discovery of the CBR with the predicted temperature was a quantitative triumph for the theory. Later measurements of the distribution of the wavelengths of that radiation also lined up with perfectly with the prediction of the Big Bang. Not only does the theory predict the exact nature of the CBR it predicts the abundances of the lighter elements and the distribution and formation of galaxies. It’s clear to all astrophysicists, astronomers and mathematicians that some version of the Big Bang theory is correct. It’s also clear to most who are not carried away with their enthusiasm, that there is nowhere contained within the formal theory an explanation for the existence of the universe, its purpose or lack thereof.
:lol:
I had a feeling that'd get a rise out of you, Trish.
Look. I understand the theories. I even understand most of the science behind them. I just don't buy it as proven fact. Too many assumptions. We have no idea how big the universe is, or even if it has such a limitation at all. We don't know our own position within it. There's this assumption floating around that Hubble's claim of discovery of the red shift proves expansion. Relative to what? We're moving, & we really don't know how fast or even in which direction relative to everything else. We can be pretty sure that the universe isn't static. I'm thinking that there's no reason expansion & contraction can't be happening simultaneously. Maybe everything's just moving around with no rhyme or reason to it at all. Or maybe we're just stuck in our own limitations in trying to figure all this out.
I think it's egotistical to say that any of us puny humans have the answers to questions of beginnings & endings. It just seems to me that we assume a beginning because we have an end. That's why we have religion. It explains our being finite while things around us were there when we showed on the scene & continue after our demise. Well, as far as we know. Matter changes form & moves around, but it doesn't cease to exist as far as anyone knows. Energy can be created & it dissipates, but it doesn't cease to exist as far as anyone knows. Hence the CBR. As far as we know, life is finite. But there's no evidence that anything else is. With no end, what makes anyone think there's a beginning? Even if the big bang theory pans out, how often does it happen. Just give me a ballpark, in relative time of course. I'm sure some professor has put a bank of grad students & computers on the problem, at somebody else's expense of course, in order to reach demigod status in the cult of astrophysics.
Sorry. There's just too many people claiming to have answers. Every time I hear one, I have more questions. Think that's a learned thing from being in Catholic school & having the priest come in for Q & A periodically? I guess the Devil's in the details. :twisted: :wink:
There are assumptions in every field of study and they need to be continually tested. Two of the main assumptions behind modern cosmology are homogeneity and isotropy on the appropriate levels of scale. These assumptions are constantly being challenged and tested. Currently the Wilkinson survey of the CBR measures these in excruciating detail. The influx of data is the source of excitement. First we discovered so much homogeneity in the background radiation it was difficult to explain. One explanation and perhaps the most popular is the ad hoc hypothesis of an inflationary field. But whether you buy into inflation or not, the assumption of homogeneity is no longer an assumption. It’s a measurable property of the OBSERVABLE universe.Quote:
Too many assumptions.
Other assumptions are the applicability of general relativity (GR), thermodynamics, chemistry etc. These too are constantly being challenged and tested.
Exciting and true. Cosmological theories can only apply to the observable universe. There’s a lot of speculation on what was on the other side of the singularity, on bubble universes etc. So far I agree, if it’s not about the observable universe it’s speculation. This point of agreement reminds me of two interesting sorts of situations that can arise in science.Quote:
We have no idea how big the universe is, or even if it has such a limitation at all.
1) There are assumptions which cannot be directly tested which if true would have observable consequences. (This was originally the case with the atomic theory of matter).
2) There can be directly testable hypothesis which if true outside their testable range have consequences outside their range as well. This is the case with bubble universes.
Anything the falls into category two is in danger of remaining speculative unless the range of what is observable sufficiently expands.
This last quote illustrates a point on which it’s very easy to become confused. Every galaxy cluster is moving away from every other cluster. The distances between each pair is increasing with time. One doesn’t have to have an absolute determination of location to establish this, our locations relative to each other measured at different times would, for example, establish this. We also know the rate of the expansion. The rate at which two clusters recede from each other depend on the distance between them and is equal to about 50 km/s per megaparsec.Quote:
There's this assumption floating around that Hubble's claim of discovery of the red shift proves expansion. Relative to what? We're moving, & we really don't know how fast or even in which direction relative to everything else.
In the context of the big bang theory the clusters do not move away from each other through space but with space. Everyone has heard of the paper dots pasted onto the surface of an expanding balloon analogy. This part of the Big Bang can’t be directly tested but it’s consequences can. Moreover the underlying theory of spacetime required for this conception (general relativity) can and has been tested.
It takes a bit of nerve to tackle some questions, that I will grant. And I agree that human knowledge is on the puny side. But let me repeat. The big bang theory doesn’t claim to know the beginning of the universe. The theory has a big hole at the beginning (otherwise known as the big bang singularity). Formally, the big bang theory is mute about the beginning of the cosmos and it’s reason to be. But it is a successful, testable theory of the observable universe which has so far survived all tests.Quote:
I think it's egotistical to say that any of us puny humans have the answers to questions of beginnings & endings.
Personally, I don’t understand how accounts of the early universe, or accounts of the evolution of life on Earth, or the accounts of the beginning of solar system etc. threaten in anyway religious or metaphysical belief. Religion and metaphysics aren’t in the business of finding universal physical laws, nor the business of explaining the relation of one phyla to another.
True enough. But that doesn’t discredit ALL the answers. A good answer is just a seed from which springs more questions.Quote:
Sorry. There's just too many people claiming to have answers. Every time I hear one, I have more questions.
By the way, hippiefried, you’re an awesome contributor to this forum. I just wanted to thank you for all your insights and opinions. Even the ones with which I disagree.
I love this board. Where else can a member argue cosmology & the big bang theory one minute, & talk about raping her boyfriends ass the next. WTG Trish.
Where the hell was that?!?!? I missed it! :cry:Quote:
Where else can a member argue cosmology & the big bang theory one minute, & talk about raping her boyfriends ass the next. WTG Trish.
Oh well such is fate. Can't look now because I have to take this computer to have some of the external drives looked at.
Back in a day or 2. Kisses to Trish. Let's see pictures! :D
sorry to hear about the computer trouble, hope it's not too expensive. here a KISS to make it all better.
eggbert's talking about
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...er=asc&start=0
hi eggbert.
Can we not just agree that....
WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:roll: :roll: :roll:
depends. what don't we know? i agree we don't know how the universe came to be or what its purpose is or if it has any purpose at all. on the other hand we know it wasn't created along with a whole stack of other worlds by a giant Nordic frost giant preparing ammunition for a snowball fight.
Do we?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I don't know... :P
We don't. I do.
Even were the frost giant Nordic now, it couldn't have been Nordic at the time of creation since Norway and all things Nordic didn't exist until the giant created them. :)
Well, I guess that's one great myth crushed then. Apologies to all the Nordic Giant worshippers; you were just wasting your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If there was a religion devoted to a god who spends his/her time making snowballs though, I would join in an instant.
I consider myself to be a religious person. I do believe in metaphysical interpretations of events. I just think that the interpretations have to make sense. I’m not into believing something just because a minister said it. I belong to a denomination called Religious Science and have been a regular attendee for many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by crayons
The more important question, is how do I justify spending time here on a mostly sexually oriented forum? I believe that God made everyone unique. I have had an interested or love of gender issues for most of my life. So there must be a reason. A person will become closer to God by expressing or following love. But I am not talking about sex. Sex itself touches on lots of other important moral issues, such as faithfulness to one’s partner. I feel that most religions focus too much on the importance of sexual behaviors and not enough on treating people with dignity and compassion. And in fact, for me that is the metaphysical reason for trans and other gender variant people to exist. That is to teach mankind to have compassion for people who are different. The other reason is to teach that being in the mind is so much more important than physical being.
The short answer is that I am here to express love, so it is possible to do good here, just as it is possible to stumble.
I could say a lot more but, I'd be interested in Crayons answering her own question.
though the metaphysics you refer to doesn't resonate well with my instrument, the heart of your message, yodajazz, reverberates nicely with mine.
Well... If I could define love, you'd never see me because I would have already written the book & be sailing on my personal luxury liner surrounded by all the love money can buy. :lol:
My take on religious rules about love & sex goes something like this:
If there were such a thing as an omnicient creator of the universe, it makes no sense that such a critter would be the slightest bit interested in making rules about mating rituals. It just seems that adding to the human neuroses would be counter productive, & that such a being shouldn't be neurotic itself. As far as anyone knows, human monogamy is a social & cultural construct & fairly new in our history. If this was an edict from God, one would think it should have been written into the genome. That doesn't appear to be the case since such a large portion of the population hasn't gotten the memo.
The code:
The universal code of human interaction, commonly known as "the Golden Rule", is the basis for all morals & ethics. Treat others as you would prefer to be treated by others is a simple concept that, when followed, allows us to live in close proximity to other people. We're social animals. The code is neutral, & works whether one approaches it from a purely egoistic, altruistic, or combined point of view. It's universal & understood by all cultures. It might even be hardwired like an instinct. Most people follow the code most of the time, & everyone knows when they're in violation. When someone continuously violates it, we call them criminals or crazy, & look for ways to remove them from the general population.
Think about it. When the code is violated, everybody knows, despite all the dancing around with long winded justifications or lame excuses. The code tells us the difference between right & wrong. If it doesn't relate to the code, it's just an arbitrary rule & has no moral authority. All the great preachers & philosophers upon whose teachings religious sects are based, preached the code. There's been lots of embellishments & added arbitrary rules, & there's a raft of arguments about them. There's really no argument (outside the one for "Manifest Destiny") that being an asshole & violating the code is the right thing to do.
Oh & Trish: The least you could do is mount a camera on the headboard to capture those morning sessions. Or at least leave the curtains open so you don't keep blocking my view from accross the street. It's cold out here too, so I wouldn't be averse to you inviting me in to spy on you from that shadow in the corner of your bedroom. I'll bring the hot toddies. :D
If we are talking about the moral code from religions, then sex is important. It is important to steer males to remain faithful in a family unit. Too many men might run wild but morality tells them what's 'the right thing to do'. I just think that it is not as important to promote traditional relationships as it was 1500 years ago.
I think that 'do unto others' comes into play in relationships in regards to cheating. That does hurt a lot of people.
I believe in God becuase the unverse is ruled by laws. But I can understand people being skeptical of religous doctrine.
I happen to believe that 'asshole' behavior usually comes back to hurt the person, whether one atributes it to God or not.
The code isn't religious. Morality isn't religious. Morality predates all religions. Religious morality is merely memetic. It's a power grab. The power of the shaman over the superstitious predates the rise of kings. Kings were originally the designated human sacrifices. Things change, but not our nature. We're still driven by the 2 base instincts of survival & propagation.
It is the nature of the male of the species to spread his seed as far & wide as possible. This predates not only civilization, but the knowlege of paternity. It's the nature of the female to mate with whichever male has the attributes that attract her, regardless of whatever ritualistic rules anyone has told her to follow. This predates the knowlege of paternity & the rise of shamanistic rules. If the universe is ruled by laws, & I can agree with that from what I've seen personally although my conclusions differ, then why do religious & social mores insist that we rebuke them? It just doesn't jive. Sexual fidelity is a manmade arbitrary rule. It's been repeated so often that we now expect the promise of fidelity with all sexual encounters unless prior arrangements are made, & there's arbitrary laws against that too.
I ain't buying it. I don't see where monogamy is natural at all for our species. It started out as a form of slavery after the discovery of paternity. Maybe even before. Women have been treated as chattel all over the world until just the last century or so. Marriage is still treated as a transfer of ownership, even if the ownership is mutual. I'll give credence to religious morality & piety when I see religions get out of the slavery business. Infidelity only hurts people because they refuse to accept the freedom of those they claim they love. You can't lose what you don't own. If the promise of fidelity is sincere & mutual, then it goes beyond a social arbitrary rule passed down through the memes of tradition. Only then can the promise be tied to following the code & surpass the the idea of ownership.
The code is the only moral authority. If it doesn't fit the code, it's not a moral issue. Of the Ten Commandments, only 3 are covered by the code. And they're written into every codified law in the world. The 3 are: Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, & thou shalt not bear false witness. All the rest is arbitrary or impossible to follow. The code is the only rule that's universal, & it doesn't matter which shaman said what about what he/she claims to be the revealed word of God.
I don’t disagree with what you say. I just think there is a bigger reality to things than your statements. The ‘code’ can be separated from religion as ethics, but religion can not be separated from the code as morality. Religion gives people not only a code which aids immediate survival, but a connection to things outside of their immediate view. This goes beyond their own natural lives. Survival and propagation are greatly helped by social contracts by large groups of people who do not have any other bonds besides that. Religion generally gives people a social contract to treat others fairly, with kindness and charity. Even though the same religion might be used brand outsiders, as heathen, infidels, etc, one shouldn’t ignore the positive contributions to society. For example with the Catholic religion, a few priests have done damage to some individuals. But on the other hand the Catholic Charities social service organization has help probably hundreds of thousands of people over the years. I say the problem is not so much with the religion, but with people using parts of it for political or personal gain.
As for rules about fidelity, I certainly agree that the natural man would be happy to spread his seed far and wide. But this is a case where social survival is more important than natural instincts. Societies where men are expected to have single mate have prospered. It seems to be a good environment to raise children. In fact, men being free to sleep with a multiple women, reduces the incentive to provide for the children they produce. The natural state of humans helps individual survival, but once there are sufficient numbers of people to insure survival, social contracts help more people to survive and prosper. But if you feel that sexual fidelity is no necessary for humans, and can convince multiple women to go along with you, I will not judge you. That’s because I choose to honor the Christian value which says not to judge people (harshly).
In today’s world, couples in relationship increase freedom in many ways. For example the partner may be there to provide for them in a change of career or extended illness. Two incomes provides more options. In case of children, while one partner is taking care of the children one can be out making money. If all goes well those children can help the family unit when they grow larger or reach adulthood.
In ideal world it would be great if “the promise of fidelity” would last forever but it doesn’t. I don’t think there is anybody that has not been severely tempted by a sweet young thing as their mate grows older and they have been with their mate in their most unpolished states for great periods of time. Religious vows and divorce laws help provide for social stability.
Lastly as for the Ten Commandments there are different versions. But I would view the commandment to ‘honor thy father and mother’, to be part of ‘the code’ and very practical. Also it says “not to covet” which includes desiring things which don’t bleand to you, and is also the same as being greedy is a part of ‘the code’ also.
So as to the orginal question of the thread: I consider myself to be a religious person. I think religion can help people to organize the processes of theuniverse and life in their minds. It help people to prioritize which values are important for their well being in their every day lives.
Bigger reality? Hmmm... I was always under the impression that reality is reality no matter what.
How do you separate the code from morality or ethics? Why would you want to? The code works whether you look at it from an egoistic or altruistic standpoint. Religion only affects the code when used as a tool to justify violating it. Same for any ideology. When used in that way, said religion or ideology becomes a violation of the code & therefore immoral in & of themselves. The code is the social contract that lets us live in close proximity to each other. I personally think it's hardwired as an instinct. As social critters, if people didn't follow the code as a norm, we might not have even survived as a species let alone prospered like we have.
Whether or not someone prefers monogamous relationships is not an issue of morality. The only issue of morality involved is whether or not the parties involved understand the vows they make & stick to them. Formulated vows don't work because nobody can expect others to blindly follow their personal ideals completely, & make no mistake, we're talking about personal ideals. If this was a perfect ideal, we wouldn't need marriage laws which are over 90% rules for disolution of the contract. I won't argue whether monogamy has helped or hindered human prosperity. I'll have to think on that a while. However, I do believe that having too many arbitrary rules with draconian enforcement stifles any society.
The current "nuclear family" ideal is a recent construct. Just in the last half century or so. Dick & Jane along with Leave it to Beaver crammed it down everybody's throat until we started to believe that this meme was a true depiction of the norm. In reality, prior to WWII, the ideal norm was an extended family the kids surrounded by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, & cousins.
What if they're assholes? Fertilizing an egg doesn't make one honorable. You honor someone because they earn your respect. It has to be voluntary. Kids look up to those adults that are closest to them whether they deserve it or not.Quote:
Lastly as for the Ten Commandments there are different versions. But I would view the commandment to ‘honor thy father and mother’, to be part of ‘the code’ and very practical. Also it says “not to covet” which includes desiring things which don’t bleand to you, and is also the same as being greedy is a part of ‘the code’ also.
Nobody can control which ideas pop into their head. you control your reactions to them, but not the thoughts themselves. Everybody covets. The rule is impossible to follow. The rule against theft, which is part of the code, covers the reaction to coveteousness. Greed only violates the code if you expect something different from others. If you're going to be greedy, don't beg.
Whatever floats your boat. There's no rule anywhere that one can't hold themselves to a higher standard than what's written. It only becomes a moral issue, by virtue of being a violation of the code, when the arbitrary rules get forced on others.Quote:
I think religion can help people to organize the processes of theuniverse and life in their minds. It help people to prioritize which values are important for their well being in their every day lives.