Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Discuss literature (e.g. books, newspapers), educational studies (getting help or opinions on homework or an essay), and philosophy.

What religion do you follow?

Baha'i
0
No votes
Buddhism
8
3%
Christianity
84
35%
Hinduism
1
0%
Islam
12
5%
Judaism
1
0%
Nature-based/Pagan/Shamanistic/Indigenous Religions
4
2%
Sikhism
3
1%
Taoism
11
5%
Unitarian Universalist
2
1%
I'm agnostic
41
17%
I'm atheist
48
20%
Other (please explain)
24
10%
 
Total votes : 239

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:35 pm

If I missed something you wanted an answer to, give me a kick

WeiWenDi wrote:DZ - you have to remember that I'm deliberately being Socratic here. What do you mean when you say 'companionable'? The married Rs still don't have any mutual interests or hobbies in common. They still don't actively spend time together except for sex and housework, and maybe raising the kids. Their friendships are all 'outside the house'. What makes you say 'companionable' in this scenario?


To be honest, I suspect the answer is "companionable compared to number 1"

By what I mean generally with a companionable one... not a romantic or even sexual one, more a fondness grown over time. Nobody will make a movie out of it but people who have grown together as it were, they don't need to share the same interests but are happy together. Sorry, I am describing it badly

Would you both agree to these five defining factors?


To a degree yes. I'm uneasy about defining love and my lack of expirence means I'm not the best judge
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby FoxWithWings » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:48 pm

Dong Zhou

Why so angry? What you felt was nothing to be ashamed of.

To be honest, Shi has mostly covered my answers. I do not believe one can make oneself hetro if one is gay by force of will or prayer (in some ways, given various societies, it would be a hell of a lot easier if one could). I do believe (may be wrong here) that youngsters, as their hormones go crazy, can dabble and sway a bit on the scale but that is as far as I would go. As for getting into Heaven, like Shi, I would hope that God would look at the person and their life, not who s/he fell in love with.

I would be curios to hear more of your story but I'm guessing you would be too uncomfortable to go further?


Zhou, that was a confused time in my life I am still coming to terms with, my parents don't even know about it, and I tell them practically everything, both for their advice and reassurance. It's certainly something I don't want to talk about, not that I don't think any of you are "worthy" of knowing, it's just something I'd rather keep quiet. The only reason I said it now was to endorse my argument. And because, I thought it might be time to stop hiding it, to come to terms with it I guess.

If anything, it was a sign that adolescence just freaking sucks. Believe me, I had good traits back then that I still possess, courtesy of my Faith, but let me tell you, getting away from that and going to college is fresh air.

And it wasn't awful, it wasn't like I had a crack daddy or was inducted into a gang. I had, and have, a very wonderful family life. I have two married parents who love me, a brother who does the same, and the extended family is a wonderful group as well. It was outside of the family where I found my greatest difficulties. All things considered, however, I am very blessed.

If by gave in to doubt, you mean life became intolerable and they were destroyed from the inside, each and every suicide in such circumstances a shame on the human race then yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure gave in to doubt is the right phrase


But isn't that what happens? Something horrible happens in their life, and they give in to despair and grief. I don't mean to call them weak, I know people who have been through things that would've destroyed me, but suicide is never the answer. Life never becomes intolerable, it is always tolerable. I believe this to the core of my being, there is always a better alternative than suicide, no matter the situation.
"There's no one I'd rather be, than me" -Ralph
FoxWithWings
Master
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Either in a forest, or flying above it.

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:31 am

Dong Zhou wrote:If I missed something you wanted an answer to, give me a kick

WeiWenDi wrote:DZ - you have to remember that I'm deliberately being Socratic here. What do you mean when you say 'companionable'? The married Rs still don't have any mutual interests or hobbies in common. They still don't actively spend time together except for sex and housework, and maybe raising the kids. Their friendships are all 'outside the house'. What makes you say 'companionable' in this scenario?


To be honest, I suspect the answer is "companionable compared to number 1"

By what I mean generally with a companionable one... not a romantic or even sexual one, more a fondness grown over time. Nobody will make a movie out of it but people who have grown together as it were, they don't need to share the same interests but are happy together. Sorry, I am describing it badly

Would you both agree to these five defining factors?


To a degree yes. I'm uneasy about defining love and my lack of expirence means I'm not the best judge


All fair enough, but then I'd feel very uneasy myself about proclaiming a positive homosexual 'right' to marry, based on a 'loving' relationship I don't know how to adequately describe. And I don't want to appeal to an argument from ignorance on the matter. That's part of my concern here.

And that's fine regarding (2). I was sort of in the dark myself about how to describe it. But I wanted to describe the relationships that were present among people of my grandparents' generation, and of my parents-in-law's generation here in China. I assume sex happened - they had children, sometimes a lot of them - but it seemed there wasn't a lot of romantic interest in the way they dealt with each other. More of the comfort and ease of a shared life.

I would personally hesitate very deeply to call such marriages 'loveless'.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:56 pm

FoxWithWings wrote:
Zhou, that was a confused time in my life I am still coming to terms with, my parents don't even know about it, and I tell them practically everything, both for their advice and reassurance. It's certainly something I don't want to talk about, not that I don't think any of you are "worthy" of knowing, it's just something I'd rather keep quiet. The only reason I said it now was to endorse my argument. And because, I thought it might be time to stop hiding it, to come to terms with it I guess.


I understand not wanting to talk about it but know we are here if you ever do want to talk.

If anything, it was a sign that adolescence just freaking sucks. Believe me, I had good traits back then that I still possess, courtesy of my Faith, but let me tell you, getting away from that and going to college is fresh air.

And it wasn't awful, it wasn't like I had a crack daddy or was inducted into a gang. I had, and have, a very wonderful family life. I have two married parents who love me, a brother who does the same, and the extended family is a wonderful group as well. It was outside of the family where I found my greatest difficulties. All things considered, however, I am very blessed.


I was a complete and utter git during my adolescence, done things I'm not proud of and have a wonderful (non-extended) family so I share some... understanding of that.

But isn't that what happens? Something horrible happens in their life, and they give in to despair and grief. I don't mean to call them weak, I know people who have been through things that would've destroyed me, but suicide is never the answer. Life never becomes intolerable, it is always tolerable. I believe this to the core of my being, there is always a better alternative than suicide, no matter the situation.


I can see how life could be intolerable, that even without depression (which is an entirely different matter, a medical one), the embrace of death could be such a tempting answer.

Sorry if my reply is poor, weather means lack of sleep and brain a tad fried

Edit:
WeiWenDi wrote:
All fair enough, but then I'd feel very uneasy myself about proclaiming a positive homosexual 'right' to marry, based on a 'loving' relationship I don't know how to adequately describe. And I don't want to appeal to an argument from ignorance on the matter. That's part of my concern here.


I will likely never marry. I live a happy life but not one with much romance so asking me on romance advice generally is a bit like asking fishing advice from a man in the midst of Mars. When talking about bigger idea of romance, I found love hard to quite pin down what it means, what it looks like, when writing on paper as there are exceptions to the rule and so on. In person, I'm more confident if I know someone well enough and over time to say whether I believe they are in love.

I have met homosexuals who I believe to be in love. Who may well make good parents if they choose to. People who, if married by a church, might well set a better example of marriage then several heterosexual marriages I know. Some are more setting an example for a case of "churches really should consider making marriages a bit less easy then buying milk." Or having any standards (beyond being able to pay) about what they require for marriage at all. By that, I mean in practise rather then anything priests are supposed to do to check if the marriage should go ahead but don't seem to actually do.

Though in fairness, the one I have been saddest about was at a registry office.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14586
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby FoxWithWings » Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:21 am

I understand not wanting to talk about it but know we are here if you ever do want to talk.


I appreciate it

I was a complete and utter git during my adolescence, done things I'm not proud of and have a wonderful (non-extended) family so I share some... understanding of that.


I have my share of adolescent regrets. Really, who doesn't?

I can see how life could be intolerable, that even without depression (which is an entirely different matter, a medical one), the embrace of death could be such a tempting answer.

Sorry if my reply is poor, weather means lack of sleep and brain a tad fried


How it might seem intolerable, yes. I agree with you on everything else.

And don't worry, I'm not feeling that sharp either, I've been in either college or my job all this week, and I'm scrambling to get all of my books and other things.
"There's no one I'd rather be, than me" -Ralph
FoxWithWings
Master
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Either in a forest, or flying above it.

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:45 pm

Going back to the topic of religiously-motivated violence in the OT, this article seemed a propos:

Eric Jobe wrote:If we understand the hopes of the Jews in exile in Babylon, and we interpret Joshua as reflecting their hopes of reentering the Land of Israel, we may also see in this a type of Christ who leads us out of the bondage of sin and the exile of godlessness into the Promised Land of the Kingdom of God. Within this Kingdom, that is externally the Church and internally within our hearts, we must drive out the Canaanites, which is interpreted to be sin.

This is indeed how the Fathers understood the book of Joshua. St. John Chrysostom writes:

S. John Chrysostomos wrote:The name of Jesus [Joshua] was a type. For this reason then, and because of the very name, the creation reverenced him. What then! Was no other person called Jesus [Joshua]? But this man was on this account so called as a type… He brought in the people into the promised land, as Jesus into heaven; not the law; since neither did Moses [enter the promised land] but remained outside. The law has not the power to bring in, but grace. (Homilies on Hebrews 27.6)


From Ode VI of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete:

S. Andrew of Crete wrote:Like Joshua the son of Nun, search and spy out, my soul, the land of thine inheritance and take up thy dwelling within it, though obedience to the law.

Rise up and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua against Amalek, ever gaining the victory over the Gibeonites, thy deceitful thoughts.

O my soul, pass through the flowing waters of time like the Ark of old, and take possession of the land of promise: for God commands thee.


Many more quotations could be provided from patristic and liturgical texts, but these should suffice to illustrate the matter. When we read and are repulsed by the slaughter and carnage in the Bible, we may take some solace in the very real possibility that these texts do not record history exactly as it happened, but rather they represent the ideology and theology of the Israelites and Jews as they struggled to take possession of the Land of Israel. Seeing it this way brings us closer to the manner in which the Fathers interpreted these things, in a spiritual fashion, not literalistic.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:37 pm

FoxWithWings wrote:
I've freaking done it, you happy now?


No. I wasn't trying to pry anything out of you and your life is your private business. Specifically, for the purposes of our conversation, your anecdotal evidence is a) not data or proof for all homosexuals and b) no offense, dubious to me. As to B, its your personal life and I don't wish to interrogate you about it.


Of course.


Well, that really isn't then a fair or logical solution for those trapped in such circumstances.


They gave in to doubt. Suicide is a tragic way of saying "I give up"


Well, I think your answer is a tragic way of saying " I give up". You posit that god grants the strength to overcome any obstacle. Many obstacles, including depression and shame, are not overcome on a repetitive basis and you're retort to that is to blame those pour souls for giving up.



WeiWenDi wrote:Going back to the topic of religiously-motivated violence in the OT, this article seemed a propos:

Eric Jobe wrote:If we understand the hopes of the Jews in exile in Babylon, and we interpret Joshua as reflecting their hopes of reentering the Land of Israel, we may also see in this a type of Christ who leads us out of the bondage of sin and the exile of godlessness into the Promised Land of the Kingdom of God. Within this Kingdom, that is externally the Church and internally within our hearts, we must drive out the Canaanites, which is interpreted to be sin.

This is indeed how the Fathers understood the book of Joshua. St. John Chrysostom writes:

S. John Chrysostomos wrote:The name of Jesus [Joshua] was a type. For this reason then, and because of the very name, the creation reverenced him. What then! Was no other person called Jesus [Joshua]? But this man was on this account so called as a type… He brought in the people into the promised land, as Jesus into heaven; not the law; since neither did Moses [enter the promised land] but remained outside. The law has not the power to bring in, but grace. (Homilies on Hebrews 27.6)


From Ode VI of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete:

S. Andrew of Crete wrote:Like Joshua the son of Nun, search and spy out, my soul, the land of thine inheritance and take up thy dwelling within it, though obedience to the law.

Rise up and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua against Amalek, ever gaining the victory over the Gibeonites, thy deceitful thoughts.

O my soul, pass through the flowing waters of time like the Ark of old, and take possession of the land of promise: for God commands thee.


Many more quotations could be provided from patristic and liturgical texts, but these should suffice to illustrate the matter. When we read and are repulsed by the slaughter and carnage in the Bible, we may take some solace in the very real possibility that these texts do not record history exactly as it happened, but rather they represent the ideology and theology of the Israelites and Jews as they struggled to take possession of the Land of Israel. Seeing it this way brings us closer to the manner in which the Fathers interpreted these things, in a spiritual fashion, not literalistic.



Well, I'm all for a non-literalistic translation of most, if not all, theological texts. The OT would rank among those I'd be the most thankful for. That said, is the message then that that we should be enslaving and committing genocide on sin? Sin is evil, so I guess there's no reason to be upset. But it is certainly a off-putting way to frame that issue. More to the point, if we're going to go with this angle (which I prefer) it means many Christians (not putting this tactic on you WWD) need to not appeal to the OT in many instances.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4307
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby James » Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:47 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:Now, we just seem to be rehashing old territory here. I don't think anyone can really dispute any of the above, but I also don't think any of the above is particularly groundbreaking or controversial. Like you said, common usage in common context. But we're not interested in common usages or common contexts here, because religions generally have no problem with them insofar as they are the ones setting the social norms defining 'common' - here we are talking specifically about the marginal cases, no?

Why is there talk of rehashing after you expressed confusion over my position on the subject? :P

And maybe I'm misunderstanding the later, but I don't think the circumstances regarding sex in intimacy, love, and marriage need be any different as applied to homosexual couples (than heterosexual couples) other than particular plumbing techniques employed in the process.

WeiWenDi wrote:Okay - fair enough! So, just to get your argument down to the gist and make this as easy as possible for others following the conversation to understand, let me summarise your premises. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

a.) A healthy (sexual) relationship requires 'other things' (e.g. happiness) than love.
b.) Sex is 'typically' extremely important, and a 'primary need' within a sexual relationship.

I think I can alter my position and agree to both a.) and b.). In fact, I think Shikanosuke might argue (based on his statement quoted above) that I've sneakily been holding to a.) all along! But for the sake of argument let's assume you're right on both counts.

Reasonably close. I'd just add that b) is frequently the case but must not always be so. Conversely, while for some couples it is not so, it is not realistic to expect as much of couples as an external observer. A) I agree with as written.

WeiWenDi wrote:Before we can talk about what these 'other things' are, I still think we need to look more carefully at what 'love' is, if only for the sake of defining what 'other things' are necessary to a healthy sexual relationship.

For the sake of doing so, let me give you three examples - three character-sketches - and ask what you think of each.

Well, to preface 'love' is definitely something that can hold different meaning. You can boil it down into the chemical reactions that create the sensation people frequently describe as love, or you can take the term to describe something that might be more consistent with a culture's beliefs. When I use the term I try to stick to definitions that are slightly more accessible and consistent with Western culture's expectations and normal usage.

WeiWenDi wrote:(1) A newly-wed couple in an arranged marriage. Wealthy Mr. and Mrs. P have betrothed their daughter, Miss P, to the son of important politician Mr. R - let's call him R, Jr. Miss P and R, Jr. were introduced to each other by their respective parents and by a matchmaker, who evaluated their maturity and anatomical compatibility and decided they were suitable for each other. But they have very different interests, to the point where Miss P's first impression of R, Jr. was that he was unfeeling and his of her that she was childish. They barely exchanged ten sentences in all before they were married. Once they were married, they had very regular sex - let's say, three to five times a week on average. Née P did it because she felt it was her duty to keep R, Jr. satisfied, and R, Jr. did it because he wanted children. Neither one felt any particular erotic closeness to the other. However, R, Jr. never abused née P and she very rarely quarreled with him and never cheated on him, though we may say for the sake of argument that these were from completely selfish motives. In fact, let's go further. Let's say R, Jr. is a sexist and an egotist, and didn't abuse her because he felt it beneath him to ill-use someone so inferior to him in every way - in intellect, in physical strength and in emotional stability. And née P seldom argued with him because she felt it would be too troublesome, and never cheated on him only because she lacked the initiative, enterprise and opportunity to do so.

Wouldn't call it love by any definition based on story provided.

WeiWenDi wrote:(2) The same couple, ten years later. R, Jr.'s edges have mellowed a bit, after having had two daughters by née P. He has a higher respect for women now generally, and for his wife in particular. After all, née P takes care of his house and kids well, and even occasionally helps him with his work. And née P has noticed that her husband maybe hasn't changed in essentials, but he's gotten more complacent and even unguarded around her. For the sake of keeping things easy for herself, she's come to notice his good qualities and ignore his bad ones. They still have sex three to five times a week, but now both of them are looking forward to it because having practiced so often on each other (and being anatomically compatible into the bargain!), he knows all her 'sweet spots' and she now knows how to keep him turned on and attentive until she's satisfied herself with an orgasm or two. Mr. R satisfies his emotional and intellectual needs by hanging out with his 'guy friends' and née P by hanging out with her 'girl friends'. They still don't share many interests and don't talk to each other very often, but they have managed to successfully cobble a fairly comfortable life together. Now, as said before, R. Jr. has a genuine and heartfelt respect for his wife, and now née P wouldn't think of cheating on her husband because she's physically satisfied with the sex, and emotionally content with the rest of her life.

How could one answer? There's no way to answer scientifically based on the story as provided. The later may well be simply be the exceptional human capacity to acclimate to what is accepted as realities of life. We'd have to use a cultural definition of 'love' here and looking at this from the outside I'm not inclined to describe it as love.

And what does compatible plumbing have to do with it? "[...]knows all her 'sweet spots' and she now knows how to keep him turned on and attentive until she's satisfied herself with an orgasm or two," is a pretty flexible sort of thing. :P

WeiWenDi wrote:(3) A completely contrary example. Mr. S and Miss T meet in a thoroughly unplanned fashion, without the planning or knowledge of their families or friends, and immediately and completely fall for each other. Over the course of a few days or a few weeks they discover they have all of the same interests, hobbies and habits. Miss T thinks Mr. S is a perfect gentleman. Mr. S is perhaps not the villain of the set piece as Hans was in Frozen, and genuinely does have feelings for Miss T. They have sex, they enjoy the sex. But some material circumstance arises such that Mr. S can only continue the relationship with Miss T at considerable cost to his own well-being. (Maybe Miss T's brother Mr. T threatened to knock all the teeth outta his mouth if the foo' didn't stop his jibba-jabba.) Mr. S has the opportunity to continue the relationship with Miss T, but because doing so would be inconvenient, he chooses to leave her instead.

I can't believe you just sewed Frozen and Mr. T into a paragraph together.

Is it what chemically produces the scenario that may be described as love or lust depending on interpretation? You can't know in observation. From a more speculative standpoint, Mr. S is giving up pretty easily for what many might describe as love, but then again, Mr. S got threatened by Mr. T, and that can only lead to bad things. How can one know?

It's hard to answer these questions because the concept of love does not make for good checklists.

WeiWenDi wrote:(Note that, to make things simple, the sex in all three cases is physically satisfying to each party. For whatever reason, each party gets as many orgasms as they want, as good as they want and as hard as they want. I deliberately made it the case in (1) and (2) that the sex is not emotionally satisfying, because James and SunXia are holding that sex is not necessarily tied to emotion.)

If the goal is to support that any of the above represents the role of sex in a relationship (for better or worse) I'm not sure the three fictional scenarios can really represent anything. Your arranged marriage, for example: the one which started off pretty awful and eventually led to the couple acclimating to one another. I would be pretty amazed if they had regular intercourse to the conclusion of the story if not for obligation. It's a pretty remarkable frequently even for couples that describe themselves as happy after a good period of time.

And there is a great deal to be said for the state at which intercourse concludes in a relationship as a result of a healthy decision made by both in a relationship, and a conclusion born of one/both seeing it as sinful or completely forbidden. A person who chooses to serve another out of kindness, for money, for shared interest—has a very different perspective from that of a person who is forced to serve another, even if the other factors are involved.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17935
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:22 am

James wrote:Why is there talk of rehashing after you expressed confusion over my position on the subject? :P

And maybe I'm misunderstanding the later, but I don't think the circumstances regarding sex in intimacy, love, and marriage need be any different as applied to homosexual couples (than heterosexual couples) other than particular plumbing techniques employed in the process.


Well, the point is that I'm still confused. :D

I can respect that you hold to the second position at this point, but given that we lack a common frame of reference for now when we're talking about all these different terms it seems a bit premature to begin talking about how they can apply for same-sex couples.

James wrote:Reasonably close. I'd just add that b) is frequently the case but must not always be so. Conversely, while for some couples it is not so, it is not realistic to expect as much of couples as an external observer. A) I agree with as written.


All true. But we are looking at certain, shall we say, cultural outliers here to determine the limits of a.), so you'll notice I haven't made an issue out of b.). On which:

James wrote:
WeiWenDi wrote:(1) ...


Wouldn't call it love by any definition based on story provided.


Okay, there you're fully agreed with Dong Zhou and Shikanosuke. I think we can all agree that scenario (1) is not 'love' even though it has all the physical and external markers of a stable relationship.

James wrote:
WeiWenDi wrote:(2) ...


How could one answer? There's no way to answer scientifically based on the story as provided. The later may well be simply be the exceptional human capacity to acclimate to what is accepted as realities of life. We'd have to use a cultural definition of 'love' here and looking at this from the outside I'm not inclined to describe it as love.

And what does compatible plumbing have to do with it? "[...]knows all her 'sweet spots' and she now knows how to keep him turned on and attentive until she's satisfied herself with an orgasm or two," is a pretty flexible sort of thing. :P


Like I said, that was highlighted merely to meet your condition b.) about sex being a 'primary need' above, because I wanted to interrogate your condition a.). P and R are able and willing to satisfy each other physically. The only thing I highlighted to change were the circumstances around it.

But again, as with DZ and Shikanosuke above, you are on the one hand unwilling to either claim that (2) is love, and on the other hand are unwilling to answer definitively the way you did for (1) that it is not.

That means something has changed within these conditions to admit the possibility. I want to know what that is.

Like I said, though, I think this scenario applies, more often than we might think, wherever arranged marriages are still practised.

James wrote:Is it what chemically produces the scenario that may be described as love or lust depending on interpretation? You can't know in observation. From a more speculative standpoint, Mr. S is giving up pretty easily for what many might describe as love, but then again, Mr. S got threatened by Mr. T, and that can only lead to bad things. How can one know?

It's hard to answer these questions because the concept of love does not make for good checklists.


One needs to have a baseline standard, though, in order to discuss the concept intelligently. Obviously, this is something better done within the realist and humanist scope of literature than in a philosophy text, but we can at least try.

Does love demand, for example, commitment or an investment of time? Or does it require only romantic emotions?

In (2), commitment is there even though the romantic emotions are not. In (3) the exact opposite holds true. These questions are important because without them I can't even start to discuss your condition a.), either to agree with it or to disagree with it! For example, when you say 'other things' do you mean money? Stability? Shared life-goals? Opening one's shared life to the possibility of offspring? Right there marked off a vast range of things to add to 'love' as a condition of a healthy relationship, and I'm just trying to understand the scope!

James wrote:If the goal is to support that any of the above represents the role of sex in a relationship (for better or worse) I'm not sure the three fictional scenarios can really represent anything.


That is the point, actually.

We're all agreeing on your point b.) about sex being a 'primary need', yes?

So it's not worth making an issue out of, for now. These scenarios aren't meant to be realistic, they're philosophical fictions and thought-experiments meant to gauge where you think the boundaries of 'love' are.

James wrote:And there is a great deal to be said for the state at which intercourse concludes in a relationship as a result of a healthy decision made by both in a relationship, and a conclusion born of one/both seeing it as sinful or completely forbidden. A person who chooses to serve another out of kindness, for money, for shared interest—has a very different perspective from that of a person who is forced to serve another, even if the other factors are involved.


Ah, so the sex needs to be done for the right reasons, yes, regardless of the resulting physical satisfaction of both parties? I agree. The question is, what are those reasons? I think it should be easy enough to guess where I fall on this question, but I am interested in your and other people's perspectives on this.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Religion: Old Thread, New Poll!

Unread postby FoxWithWings » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:29 pm

Shika

No. I wasn't trying to pry anything out of you and your life is your private business. Specifically, for the purposes of our conversation, your anecdotal evidence is a) not data or proof for all homosexuals and b) no offense, dubious to me. As to B, its your personal life and I don't wish to interrogate you about it.


It's fine Shik, you warrant no blame.

Well, I think your answer is a tragic way of saying " I give up". You posit that god grants the strength to overcome any obstacle. Many obstacles, including depression and shame, are not overcome on a repetitive basis and you're retort to that is to blame those pour souls for giving up.


Blame them? I don't blame them for anything. That's just what happened. They gave up. A massive amount of strife overwhelmed them, and they gave in.

Shik, it is their fault. But please don't think I'm trying to write them off. They deserve all the help we could (and should) give them. I have a friend who struggles, almost daily, with depression. I would take a bullet for her, if it would help, I actively maintain myself as a reliable shoulder she can lean on, so she doesn't do what I fear she might do.
"There's no one I'd rather be, than me" -Ralph
FoxWithWings
Master
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 2:42 pm
Location: Either in a forest, or flying above it.

PreviousNext

Return to Literature, Academics, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved