|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 25, 2015 10:47:56 GMT
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11355745/Judge-orders-father-to-take-his-children-to-church.htmlSo yeah, this makes me mad. There was also another one about Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities sending their women to a sex specialist because of sexual problems. Unsurprising due to the entire lack of sexual education in these places. The article can be summed up by a few paraphrases: "Orgasm? What does that mean?" "...didn't know what/where her clitoris was until after her third childbirth when the doctor told her..." "...the sex specialist draws up a potential list of solutions that their rabbi then has to go over to see if they are acceptable to try or not..." That also made me mad. You know the whole "tolerance" vs "acceptance" thing? I'm not even sure we should tolerate that kind of treatment of women and children, even in a multicultural society. I do tolerate it, because I understand freedom of religion and legal presence, but I'd be quite inclined to deal harshly with such things if I were in a position of legal authority. Acceptance is right out.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Jan 25, 2015 12:43:17 GMT
This is why I think religion should be seen as completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. The judge sounds like he's more interested in spreading his own views rather than being impartial.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 25, 2015 21:33:33 GMT
Precisely my problem with it. It also reveals a certain prejudice on my part. I read it and was like: "Ah, the good old USA. Only in the US would higher courts support this ruling." And then I looked a bit closer. "Holy shit." I said to myself. "This really wouldn't fly in the US, I mean, the ACLU would be all over this and even higher courts wouldn't be able to ignore the first amendment." Further looking. "The... uh... Telegraph? That... that isn't in the US, is it? Oh..."
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Feb 10, 2015 3:14:04 GMT
I don't particularly like Secular Talk.
But I knew there was another reason why I didn't like Russel Brand. That old argument again.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Feb 10, 2015 4:01:33 GMT
I don't think either of them understand the concept of God, religion and life.
God isn't your consciousness, nor does he have to hold your personal moral beliefs. The only thing you were given in this life is your life, the only promise you were made at the point of your conception is that you will die. You might die after the first few cells divide in your mother's womb or you may die lying in bed at the age of 105. How you die is not promised to you. How you live is not promised to you. That you don't suffer is not promised to you.
Fry seems to believe that the existence of a God entitles him to a perfect world where children don't die and everyone lives to a ripe old age with all their facilities in one piece. He wants the world to be like a flowerpot in the window with God watering it and doting over it's every need to keep it happy. He wants Eden.
Brand seems to think God is some extension of himself. That God's understanding of the universe is equal to his own. That what he does understand is all that matters and what he doesn't understand is simply a metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 1, 2015 22:22:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 2, 2015 0:14:38 GMT
Oh... oh look, there is a second one.
Oh... oh my...
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 2, 2015 6:40:56 GMT
I hate being on top. Y'know, the standard missionary position? It's goofy, unnatural feeling, gives your lover almost nothing to do but lie there, and seems to shorten the overall experience.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 2, 2015 8:06:47 GMT
Huh, probably why this guy is all for it? Or at least, thinks it better. I mean, anything else would be hedonistic!
Also... I love how his points rely so heavily on the English names, which he then invariably screws up anyway (ah, yeah, "cowgirl" doesn't mean anyone is like a cow... I mean, unless we're talking furries I suppose). And his whole thing about how animals don't do it in different ways... yeah... not so true. They found some monkeys who were having sex face to face, not often seen in monkeys. I think they were chimps. But the point is that even his naturalistic fallacies are wrong. And the whole "it isn't IN the Bible, so don't assume you can do it!" Thing... yeah.
Hmm. I missed a chance to call you a hedonist, and saying so now wouldn't make any sense because I've already come down on your side...
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 2, 2015 8:53:55 GMT
When it comes to sex I don't really think hedonism is a bad thing.
I mean, if we weren't supposed to enjoy it, it wouldn't feel good. We'd have barbs on our sex organs or something.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 2, 2015 9:24:54 GMT
I started listening to the guy. He says something like "It was the man who God gave that right to... to come on top of his wife".
Soooooo.... God is in favor of the pull out method?
Y'know, everything I know about Jesus paints him in a fairly easy going light. What you read in the new testament without interpretation by someone with an agenda is fairly straightforward. I don't think the guy would have been too concerned about what position you and your wife liked to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 2, 2015 9:27:49 GMT
Jesus was also anti-family, and got really angry at the capitalists.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 2, 2015 9:36:46 GMT
He's getting a lot of mileage out of this "know your wife" line. Which is vague as hell.
Also the "lie with" line. If you're on top, are you laying down?
"Are you a cow? Are you a horse?" No, but I'm hung like one and she's got mammaries that would make a cow jealous.
I think this guy is trying to atone for that nasty doggy style sex he had with a prostitute the night before.
|
|
|
Fundies
Mar 2, 2015 16:32:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by frostwolf on Mar 2, 2015 16:32:26 GMT
Didn't Jesus only get pissed off once? The time when he threw the merchants out of the church if I recall. That I like as it showcases a seperation of religion and economics. Which should be separate.
I don't think Jesus gave a damn about what we did with sex, though given the time period there probably wasn't much experimentation on sexual intercourse.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 2, 2015 18:23:14 GMT
You don't think the Romans experimented?
|
|