Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1145 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Missing from Joe's treatise is any mention of curiosity and critical thinking, both helpful in setting up (and changing) ideals and learning from mistakes. And does encouragement come from anchors or people (including self)?

Maddy, you went out of your way to quote me there. I don't know if you're challenging what I wrote or riffing off of it. It was a shift I thought might be useful to Tari. It was intentionally short and had just the one point so it wouldn't get lost.

Critical thinking and a seriously inordinate amount of curiosity are high amongst my ideals. I'd recommend both to anyone but recognise not all are inclined to do so. Ideals can become their own type of encouragement. They've been more effective for me than other people tbh. That's just me; I'm not going to get prescriptive for anyone else. Do you see people and self as separate from ideals or anchors? I think it's all entwined. Ideals (for me) are values I consider important enough to highlight so they don't get lost and forgotten amidst all the distractions of people.

The places curiosity has taken me is why I don't mind the 'anchor' imagery or the idea of some sort of point to return to. Not necessarily to adhere to, but to re-examine in light of new experiences and current understanding.

The bit about lying and truthfulness is complex. I prefer 'right speech' as a paradigm because it's encased in ideas of compassion and helping others. In general, of course be honest. But sometimes it's too much, or too harsh, or even just wrong. IMO the biggest danger may be in getting so caught up in a self-image of always telling the Truth that it becomes circular and insulated from critical engagement. We've all seen it, the person who makes false claims to facts because she's convinced herself she's always right.

Anyway, that's my take on the things you brought up. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Reads the OPs post* ... ....... ......... ......... Hail Cthulhu! *walks off*

Well, you got it partly right.

I wonder if you realize that you don't get to determine whether or not anyone has the ability to reject or not reject what it is you say. That's entirely out of your hands. I don't mean the ACTUAL rej

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Tari, what about this sort of thing (anchor in OP's terminology) as an ideal to keep aiming for, even though it will be missed? Then it can be used to help learn from mistakes made and as encouragement to keep trying.

Would that sit better with you?

Well I don't think one needs or should use some kind of anchor in the first place. I think giving people unrealistic life goals is a surefire way for them to turn around and disbelieve everything you say, a surefire way to lose their trust, and a surefire way to make their life even more difficult than it needs to be. The anchor 3 is just nonsensical at best, and I'm an expert at nonsensical :) 

The whole idea of using anchors in general, when you remove all of the religious aspects from these, is a rather simple premise...

You're human, you make mistakes, you should always strive to do your best in life, but when you can't or when you don't, it's okay to keep trying, or even keep moving forward without ever trying what you failed at, if necessary. I believe this is how life, generally speaking, works..or should.

It's rather basic life lessons that even if most are never "taught" (ie by parents, teachers, other adults in their lives) they will learn as they go. Life itself is a lesson, and I don't believe the vast majority of it CAN be taught by another, but has to be experienced. I liken it to training wheels on a bike. They can be great (for some) for building up skills necessary to balance, but at some point you have to stop relying on them if you want to ride a bike without them. Once you're on the bike without them, you have to remember to properly pedal, to balance yourself, not to mention know how to stop without running into something that will stop you, for you. You'll probably fall at least once, it might hurt really bad too. But you can nearly always get right back up and try again until you get it right. As much as we'd like to think we're teaching our children how to ride that bike, by holding on the first time e take those training wheels off, we're really not. It's a skill they need to master on their own, and no amount of us holding onto the seat to help steady them is going to teach them to use their own skills to perfect their balance and pedaling skills.

These anchors, and the countless other versions I have seen of them, are proverbial training wheels, ones that I don't believe *anyone actually needs(though I know that's not a popular opinion). They are life lessons that we all learn as we go, whether or not we choose to employ them is a different story entirely..but they're something we all possess, or will possess at some point. Adding religion into them makes them uniquely qualified to be not applicable to the vast majority of the human species, and certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2017 at 7:05 AM, Skell Dagger said:

They all read pretty much the same: "(practicing) gay (and bisexual) men should be killed". It's fine if we adore other men from afar and restrain ourselves into monk-like celibacy, but we're not allowed to do anything about it. And as for Love the sinner, hate the sin, I'm sorry but that's downright patronising.

So forgive me if I don't feel like I'm a child of god when god's rules state that I should be killed.

I know I'm late to the party, but......I've always wondered why it was always directed at men? I've never heard or seen much "religious hate" being directed at bisexual or gay women, and I feel a bit slighted by that, lol! Seriously, though, I really have wondered about this for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:

I know I'm late to the party, but......I've always wondered why it was always directed at men? I've never heard or seen much "religious hate" being directed at bisexual or gay women, and I feel a bit slighted by that, lol! Seriously, though, I really have wondered about this for a long time.

Women were just property back then..we got traded for horses and cattle and goats and some cash..If a mans woman got out of line ,she got punished as well as the man she belonged to..

that kind of thing is in a lot of religions and cultures also..

Heck even my husband gave my father some horses when we got married..More tradition than anything..I mean my father didn't ask for them and I didn't even know he was gonna do it..

He just thought it would be a nice surprise to add something traditional to our wedding..I didn't think he was gonna go that old school though..hehehehe

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:

I know I'm late to the party, but......I've always wondered why it was always directed at men? I've never heard or seen much "religious hate" being directed at bisexual or gay women, and I feel a bit slighted by that, lol! Seriously, though, I really have wondered about this for a long time.

One thing to bear in mind is that the major Western religions all got their start from the values of a small desert tribe that generally found itself on the edge of destruction. It would be logical for them to discourage any behavior that would get in the way of being fruitful and multiplying.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 10:41 PM, JoeDex said:

I see no validity in that. 

You expect us to take your points seriously, but you try to rebut someone else's statement not only without giving any logical argument, but without even telling us what statement you're rebutting.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it's good for people to have -some- ethos by which they conduct their lives as long as that ethos does not espouse oppressing others, justify slaughter and actually adds something positive to the community.

Personally, I get just as much from the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, the writings of Marcus Aurelius (stoicism) and the Martial Art of my choice as I do from any one religion.

My skepticism about this thread comes from the OPs either glaring ignorance of the target audience or their inventive trolling of this community; and bad personal experiences with people who thought killing in the name of God was OK.

I believe in an intelligence greater than mere humanity, I also believe we have yet to figure out what that really is :-)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AmandaKeen said:

Personally, I think it's good for people to have -some- ethos by which they conduct their lives as long as that ethos does not espouse oppressing others, justify slaughter and actually adds something positive to the community.

Personally, I get just as much from the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, the writings of Marcus Aurelius (stoicism) and the Martial Art of my choice as I do from any one religion.

My skepticism about this thread comes from the OPs either glaring ignorance of the target audience or their inventive trolling of this community; and bad personal experiences with people who thought killing in the name of God was OK.

I believe in an intelligence greater than mere humanity, I also believe we have yet to figure out what that really is :-)

That's kind of how I see it also..

I mean if the advice sounds good,I'll try it..It doesn't really matter where I read it..I read all kinds of philosophies and religions because i like reading the stories and the meanings to the stories..

i couldn't imagine only being stuck to watching just one movie..I learn from those as well..

The thing I notice a lot about people and their religions is, it seems the ones that are most well read don't seem to be as loud as the ones that only think they are..

You can spot a real believer from one that is twisting some verses to suit their needs..

Them twisters have always tried to pull the fast one with guilt trips,manipulation and getting something for nothing.;)

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:

I know I'm late to the party, but......I've always wondered why it was always directed at men? I've never heard or seen much "religious hate" being directed at bisexual or gay women, and I feel a bit slighted by that, lol! Seriously, though, I really have wondered about this for a long time.

Think about the people that wrote the book.  To most of them, the concept of sex without a ***** involved was inconceivable.  The closest it is ever mention is when Saul of Tarsus mentions women and unnatural acts in his letter to the church in Rome.  I am not going to try and interpret that for my own justification; I'll just go with it meaning exactly what fundamentalists think it means given the Saul was raving misogynist in all his letters.  Women were playing with other women and he had no way to describe that.  Men having sex with other men "as with a woman" he could grasp.  But "sex" without a *****? That's not even sex to him.  It is just unnatural.

This sermon of mine usually goes on to cover the grossly false metaphor of a man planting a seed and ends with how in ever religion I have had any dealings with it is a woman's fault men get horny.  But for now, I'll just end with lesbian are not condemned over their sexual practice because to them, you cannot have sex without a ***** being involved.

[edit]
If I knew it was going to bleep the clinical p.... version I would have just used the "richard" word in the first place.

Edited by Rhonda Huntress
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

You expect us to take your points seriously, but you try to rebut someone else's statement not only without giving any logical argument, but without even telling us what statement you're rebutting.

Did you read the post? There is a link to about 2 hours of reading. I red it and I did not see any validity in it. I meant to quote but I did not. See one of the Anchors is that you will fail. I failed to put in the quote. If you noticed, this time I have rectified my error.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Heck even my husband gave my father some horses when we got married..More tradition than anything.

Never one to honor tradition, my father cut a check to my ex-hubby at our wedding, as a sort of "thank you for taking her off my hands". A decade later at the completion of our divorce and as I was moving back to my parent's home, my ex-hubby wrote a check back to my father for the same amount.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Never one to honor tradition, my father cut a check to my ex-hubby at our wedding, as a sort of "thank you for taking her off my hands". A decade later at the completion of our divorce and as I was moving back to my parents home, my ex-hubby wrote a check back to my father for the same amount.

Men are goofy.hehehehe

 

When we were taking pictures with my father..The first one ,with my husband my father..The photographer said  smile and my father held up that days news paper..

I said,what's that for?

He said,Maybe something,maybe nothing at all..You just never know..

He was just being silly

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 1:55 PM, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Maddy, you went out of your way to quote me there. I don't know if you're challenging what I wrote or riffing off of it. It was a shift I thought might be useful to Tari. It was intentionally short and had just the one point so it wouldn't get lost.

Critical thinking and a seriously inordinate amount of curiosity are high amongst my ideals. I'd recommend both to anyone but recognise not all are inclined to do so. Ideals can become their own type of encouragement. They've been more effective for me than other people tbh. That's just me; I'm not going to get prescriptive for anyone else. Do you see people and self as separate from ideals or anchors? I think it's all entwined. Ideals (for me) are values I consider important enough to highlight so they don't get lost and forgotten amidst all the distractions of people.

The places curiosity has taken me is why I don't mind the 'anchor' imagery or the idea of some sort of point to return to. Not necessarily to adhere to, but to re-examine in light of new experiences and current understanding.

The bit about lying and truthfulness is complex. I prefer 'right speech' as a paradigm because it's encased in ideas of compassion and helping others. In general, of course be honest. But sometimes it's too much, or too harsh, or even just wrong. IMO the biggest danger may be in getting so caught up in a self-image of always telling the Truth that it becomes circular and insulated from critical engagement. We've all seen it, the person who makes false claims to facts because she's convinced herself she's always right.

Anyway, that's my take on the things you brought up. :)

I was riffing. You haven't set out enough for me to challenge anything.

I'm highly self motivated. I've never needed much encouragement from anyone, so we may be alike there. There are ideas I find compelling, and I might use those ideas to move myself forward, but they're not anchors, they're not ideals. I'm not sure what the ideals are and never have been (though I like your "compassion and helping others"). Yes, in general, be honest, but that's not an ideal, that's a method. And as you observe, it can be too much, too harsh, or even just wrong.

Do I see people as separate from ideals? I do. There might be some underlying ideals that would aid our collective prosperity if we adhered to them, but we don't. And I don't think we could all agree on what those ideals might be. In fact, I routinely watch people hold conflicting ideals, or at least exhibit behavior that conflicts with their stated ideals. My hypocrisy meter peggeth over.

And I'm not even sure that any underlying ideals would as immutable as Joe's anchors. I'm not sophisticated enough in the philosophical arts to put the right name on my view, but I probably lean towards descriptive moral relativism with a suspicion we may never figure out what the absolutes are. I also like the idea that morality is an evolved thing. Would the same morality evolve elsewhere? Until you identify the absolutes, it's all relative. And I'm actually wary of certainty, for the reason you cited in the second last sentence of your post, which I've italicized. Unfortunately, I can't be certain I'm not one of those people we've all seen.

;-).

ETA: As an engineer who strives for perfection, but will sometimes accept good enough in order to ship the product, it seems that the certainty of moral absolutism can sometimes shut down the discussion. Ben Franklin's autobiography is a favorite of mine, because he details his own realization that certainty is often as unproductive as it is unachievable.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO ideals don't have to be absolutes. Would a word like 'principles' work better?

I know Joe put his propositions forward in terms approaching some sort of absolute but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to limit the conversation to that kind of thinking unless we want to. I'm reasonably certain I don't.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Yes, in general, be honest, but that's not an ideal, that's a method. And as you observe, it can be too much, too harsh, or even just wrong.

You are so right. I know someone who prides themself on being honest about everything, but it's not cool at all. It's rude, it's hurtful, and it can cause hard feelings when you get caught in the middle of one of her "honest rants". Honesty is NOT always the best policy.

Edited by Aislin Ceawlin
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1145 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...