Longest Thread Ever

[babe]

That goes the other way even more strongly. Attempts to set the fulcrum in the same place for everyone not only affects everyone's fulcrum, but affects those whose fulcrum most comfortably placed differently from yours in a manner that is particularly harsh.



I don't see it as coming from God, but I see no reason that should be relevant to you. I only asked for integrity on the matter. If you want to step up and say "God says women aren't equal, so he gave men authority", I have no desire to counter that; the admission suffices for me. It's the pretense that there is equality in face of the disparity in authority that I find demeans you.



In order: yes, yes, yes, I don't know, yes, yes, no (AFAIK), no, yes, probable yes, no, no, yes, yes. In each case that had authority, they were able to use that authority to more effectively leverage their influence. For example, Ghandi without an organized support system to listen to him is just a guy in jail. You would never have heard of him.

Gandhi did have some friends/supporters from liberal media of his time. He was also a British-educated lawyer who was a good student of the British power elites, and learned how to use their methods as well as effectively counter them. He spoke their language, and defied them in their own style. Made it difficult for them to dismiss him as he was in every regard, their equal. But he was also something they were not. He lived by his principles, personally.

He won his own people by doing all this from their own level, their own circumstances, and their own values. . . . .

The word: genius. Better yet: true. Better still. . . . : integrity. Still a socialist, though. The world could benefit from socialists like him, though.

 

[babe]

I didn't say one way or the other, so there is nothing to agree with.




What you are not addressing is the fact that all of these individual fulcrum's are interconnected and moving one affects them all. This is like living in an HOA, you all may be individuals, but each of you as individuals have a say in the association as a whole as well. It's more than just a "me" thing.



Yes, actual authority is important. A key point in this is that the source of the authority comes from God in this instance. If the Church gives authority to someone that God is not actually backing, it turns into apparent authority where it looks like they are an agent of God, but they truly have no legitimate/actual authority. That can cause problems. You seem to be implying that this authority can be changed on a whim by man, but the only being that can change this is God. If you do not believe in God in the same way, then you see this from a worldly view.

Question for you. Ghandi, did he have authority? Martin Luther King Jr., did he have authority. Mother Theresa, did she have authority? Confucius, did he have authority? Plato, did he have authority? Nelson Mandela, Albert Einstein, Madame Curie, William Shakespeare, Leonardo Da Vinci, Hellen Keller, Thomas Paine, Oprah, Martin Luther... I could go on and on. Was it authority that made them great?

I understand that for an LDS person, or a person still holding an LDS notion of "authority", there is a specific definition of "authority" that is deemed as traceable to the Universal Standard Authority. A lot of folks think "authority" requires some higher level of official sanction or official position in the affirmed correct value system. OB would likely relate to this as having the sanction of "experts" in one field or another of human endeavor, or maybe even "government" recognition.

Jesus might have felt he had authority because of his special relation to the Father, for example, and he might have felt obliged to honor the office of the Chief Priest or Pharisees or priests of his day "as they sit in Moses' seat". . . . but clearly, he also viewed integrity and truth as bearing authority on their own merits, and ranked that above a mere "office" or "recognition" by any presumed source of validation.

Gandhi did not claim "authority", but "virtue". Martin Luther claimed "scripture". Mother Theresa claimed "compassion". Confucious claimed "wisdom". Plato claimed "reason". Albert Einstein claimed "math" and "intuition". Madam Curie claimed persistence and dedication, Shakespeare claimed understanding, Da Vinci claimed imagination, Thomas Paine claimed liberty.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Helen Keller, Oprah, and Nelson Mandela all claimed Nietzschean progressivism to the vulgar cheers of an uncomprehending press. Helen Keller was an innocent exploited by sophisitcates, Oprah is a calculating wench, King Jr. had elemental character in his own right, but exploited association with a crowd of exploiters. . .. willing to ride the wave of political activism. If only anybody actually believed in or paid attention to what he said, it might have actually made a difference. . . . as it is, the black folk were only exploited and turned into the stockade to be kept as a leige class for the special exploitation of the elites. . . .. dependents belonging to the government. . . . mere puppets for socialism. . . .

Nelson Mandela lacked the essentials of personal truth but was a good stooge for the use of statists. I call him out because of his atrocities(necklacing) and other immoralities. Right out the Trotskiite notebook. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot are his "set" of cohorts.

The folks who fall into the favoritism of statists will have the blessing and "authority" of the statists, but can do nothing fundamental to lift folks out of the statists' powers.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I understand that for an LDS person, or a person still holding an LDS notion of "authority", there is a specific definition of "authority" that is deemed as traceable to the Universal Standard Authority. A lot of folks think "authority" requires some higher level of official sanction or official position in the affirmed correct value system. OB would likely relate to this as having the sanction of "experts" in one field or another of human endeavor, or maybe even "government" recognition.

Jesus might have felt he had authority because of his special relation to the Father, for example, and he might have felt obliged to honor the office of the Chief Priest or Pharisees or priests of his day "as they sit in Moses' seat". . . . but clearly, he also viewed integrity and truth as bearing authority on their own merits, and ranked that above a mere "office" or "recognition" by any presumed source of validation.

Gandhi did not claim "authority", but "virtue". Martin Luther claimed "scripture". Mother Theresa claimed "compassion". Confucious claimed "wisdom". Plato claimed "reason". Albert Einstein claimed "math" and "intuition". Madam Curie claimed persistence and dedication, Shakespeare claimed understanding, Da Vinci claimed imagination, Thomas Paine claimed liberty.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Helen Keller, Oprah, and Nelson Mandela all claimed Nietzschean progressivism to the vulgar cheers of an uncomprehending press. Helen Keller was an innocent exploited by sophisitcates, Oprah is a calculating wench, King Jr. had elemental character in his own right, but exploited association with a crowd of exploiters. . .. willing to ride the wave of political activism. If only anybody actually believed in or paid attention to what he said, it might have actually made a difference. . . . as it is, the black folk were only exploited and turned into the stockade to be kept as a leige class for the special exploitation of the elites. . . .. dependents belonging to the government. . . . mere puppets for socialism. . . .

Nelson Mandela lacked the essentials of personal truth but was a good stooge for the use of statists. I call him out because of his atrocities(necklacing) and other immoralities. Right out the Trotskiite notebook. Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot are his "set" of cohorts.

The folks who fall into the favoritism of statists will have the blessing and "authority" of the statists, but can do nothing fundamental to lift folks out of the statists' powers.

If you are trying to break authority down to the different levels, that's fine, but as it relates to authority to act in the name of God you have to have that given to you from God.

If you want to act in the name of the USA, you have to have that authority given to you by the people of the USA.

If you want to act in the name of your local chess club, you have to have that authority given to you by the chess club members.

You just need to realize that the chess club president will have an uphill battle when trying to sit and vote in congress meetings if he was not voted in to congress. You can try, see how far you get, but when it's all said and done and push comes to shove you will be sent home and any decisions you make for congress will not be valid.

They all most likely have different methods of bestowing that approval, but it should be express authority for it to be binding. If you are taking authority you can also do that as far as you are allowed, but it is most likely not binding.

It is also possible that OB and I have not reconciled the point that in a church that believes in God, that authority must come from God. If OB does not believe in God he will have troubles believing and understanding this and will approach it from a here and now social or other perspective. Tough to reconcile ideas when you are in different places. This is why in order to understand the perspective of someone else as much as you possibly can, you need to first understand the base point where your views diverge.

I can for the most part understand what OB is saying, he can understand what I am saying for the most part, and we can agree to disagree.
We can continue to discuss or argue the finer points of things and hopefully come to a mutual respect of each other, but realize that we are in different places.

 

[One Brow]

Please define what "the cage" is exactly.

The limitations and roles conditioned by society. Themes on women belonging in the home, being subservient, etc.

 

[One Brow]

Which is why it's important to me to do everything I can to have that fulcrum point be a place that God says is best for everyone. If it is moved by one group or another, somebody else will always be offended. This is why it's important to have God, who sees all and knows all help out with the process.

If we had a God, or a pantheon, that spoke for themself/themselves, and set things up directly, I would have no reason to object. Instead, we have many different people claiming for speak for God/the gods, and their messages are not always consistent. You can certainly find religious people who think the fulcrum needs to be set by the couple involved, and not in a place set by society. Why does your claims of God's opinions hold more weight for the rules of society than theirs? Why would theirs hold more than yours?

I also find it interesting that if a person moves from the seat on one side of the teeter totter; which is designed to be the most useful spot, balanced spot, as well as comfortable spot to another position why would you complain about discomfort and try to force others to move to make it more comfortable for you. That's your choice, why force everyone into a position of discomfort because of your choice to move?

No one is asking you to move your fulcrum, they just want to be free to move theirs. Do you really want to say that your discomfort with their choice of a position is sufficient reason to disallow their moving it?

Putting words in my mouth again? I never said what you put in quotes, you are just trying to interpret things in a negative light because it suits you.

I used the phrase "if you want to say that" as an indication that you have not said that. If you had said that, I would have used "when you said that". I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course. It's merely the inevitable consequence of what you have said, a consequence you deny to yourself.

Lets put it this way, and I'm sure you will disagree again.

Men = 1+3+4+4
Women = 6+2+2+2

Both have completely different numbers that go into their equation, and yet Men=Women.

History has taught us that when those with authority claim they can maintain 'separate but equal', the reality becomes unequality. When only men have authority, all decisions made come from the perspective of men.

Besides, I would use math like:

Men = (1 ± 1)+(3 ± 2)+(4 ± 3)+(4 ± 2)
Women = (6 ± 5)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 1)

People come in wondrous variety, not pre-made forms.

You are free to feel my belief in God demeans me, and I am free to believe your lack of faith in God limits your view.

Yet, earlier in this very post you were complaining of me putting words in your mouth, from a similar statement. I was very clear on what I thought was demeaning to you (the rationalization that women can be equal when denied equal authority).

I don't necessarily agree with some of your answers or feel any actual authority they had was either late in the game or made minimal difference in what they were able to accomplish. Ghandi's support system you mentioned was not there because of any actual authority he had. It would have been there regardless.

Ghandi did not just act alone, he organized with others and took a role as leader. For example, in South Africa he formed the Natal Indian Congress. His most effective work came when he was as a leader with various organizations.

Martin Luther was an adversary of the pope and was excommunicated from the church. He may have started with some authority but much of his life's work was done without the backing of authority.

He had the direct backing and protection of Frederick III. He was able to banish the Zwickau prophets. He became the head of a large congregation.

I say most, if not all of these individuals would have been just as influential and effective in their lives without direct authority.

Feel free to say that. However, Luther wasn't any more visionary or radical than Giodano Bruno, he didn't have any more personal power, from what I can tell. From what I can see, the reason Luther founded a religious movement, and Bruno inspired some conversation, was the effective use of authority.

Sure like you say, it can help, but it is a small side note and what they were able to accomplish had much more to do with who they are rather than any authority from a pope, government, or organization. In fact, they often were in opposition to some such group.

The existence of competing authorities, or power struggles within an authority, are not signs of a lack of authority.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If we had a God, or a pantheon, that spoke for themself/themselves, and set things up directly, I would have no reason to object. Instead, we have many different people claiming for speak for God/the gods, and their messages are not always consistent. You can certainly find religious people who think the fulcrum needs to be set by the couple involved, and not in a place set by society. Why does your claims of God's opinions hold more weight for the rules of society than theirs? Why would theirs hold more than yours?

So the only way you will believe in God is if he directly speaks to you and tells you what he wants?

As to society, we should all have a say, but that's a point. I should be able to speak my mind and push what I feel is important as much as the next person.

No one is asking you to move your fulcrum, they just want to be free to move theirs. Do you really want to say that your discomfort with their choice of a position is sufficient reason to disallow their moving it?

We are in a society, and all in this together. What makes you think we are all on our own teeter totter? If that was the case, who cares and sit on the ground wherever you want. As it is, it's my analogy and we are all on one teeter totter.

I used the phrase "if you want to say that" as an indication that you have not said that. If you had said that, I would have used "when you said that". I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course. It's merely the inevitable consequence of what you have said, a consequence you deny to yourself.

Saying "if you want to say that" implies that I want to say "that". So you start this paragraph by saying you are not actually putting words into my mouth, but go on to accuse me of wanting to and claiming I am denying myself. Let me channel my inner OB and let you know that I know you are playing word games, that you cannot actually see into my soul or innermost desires, and that you need to stop pretending not to believe in God. I learned these things based on our conversations.

History has taught us that when those with authority claim they can maintain 'separate but equal', the reality becomes unequality. When only men have authority, all decisions made come from the perspective of men.

Besides, I would use math like:

Men = (1 ± 1)+(3 ± 2)+(4 ± 3)+(4 ± 2)
Women = (6 ± 5)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 1)

People come in wondrous variety, not pre-made forms.

Your logic is unequal. Treating everyone the same is unequal. Forcing everyone to be your version of "equal" is unequal.
I believe I said equal weight, not that they were twins or exactly the same.

A 10 lb bucket of corn and a 10 lb bucket of iron have the same weight. Are they the same, no. Can you do the same things with them, no.
They have different functions, but are both important in their own right.

Sometimes a square peg needs a square hole of close to the same size. Sure you can trim the corners of the square peg to make it fit, but do you want to do that? Maybe this world needs square and round pegs.

Back to authority when it relates to religion and church. We believe in God, it is the basis of religion. We believe Christ directs his church. We believe Christ speaks to his prophets on the earth who have authority to act in His name and run his Church the way he wants it run. Once a church stops listening to Christ and starts listening to society, you may as well just rename the church to "The Church of Society", because it's not Christ's church anymore.

If any decisions are made by a man and not revelation from God, that's when there are issues. Otherwise it's not coming from the perspective of men nor should it, it's coming from the perspective of God/Christ.

Yet, earlier in this very post you were complaining of me putting words in your mouth, from a similar statement. I was very clear on what I thought was demeaning to you (the rationalization that women can be equal when denied equal authority).

I apologize for not understanding precisely what about my beliefs was the demeaning part to me, and for thinking it was my belief in God.
I do though reject your demeaning words that seek to belittle what I believe.
Men and women can have equal value, and equal weight without being clones.
I prefer a world of men and women as opposed to Imperial Stormtroopers.

 

[babe]

If you are trying to break authority down to the different levels, that's fine, but as it relates to authority to act in the name of God you have to have that given to you from God.

If you want to act in the name of the USA, you have to have that authority given to you by the people of the USA.

If you want to act in the name of your local chess club, you have to have that authority given to you by the chess club members.

You just need to realize that the chess club president will have an uphill battle when trying to sit and vote in congress meetings if he was not voted in to congress. You can try, see how far you get, but when it's all said and done and push comes to shove you will be sent home and any decisions you make for congress will not be valid.

They all most likely have different methods of bestowing that approval, but it should be express authority for it to be binding. If you are taking authority you can also do that as far as you are allowed, but it is most likely not binding.

It is also possible that OB and I have not reconciled the point that in a church that believes in God, that authority must come from God. If OB does not believe in God he will have troubles believing and understanding this and will approach it from a here and now social or other perspective. Tough to reconcile ideas when you are in different places. This is why in order to understand the perspective of someone else as much as you possibly can, you need to first understand the base point where your views diverge.

I can for the most part understand what OB is saying, he can understand what I am saying for the most part, and we can agree to disagree.
We can continue to discuss or argue the finer points of things and hopefully come to a mutual respect of each other, but realize that we are in different places.

The way I got to be "chess club president" was by starting it. And I wrote the "Constitution" for it in an incredibly complex way that had three branches of government with supposed powers of balancing each other out, but if anyone ever actually read it or understood is debatable. In practice, I was the Emperor of my Chess Club. I used to play up to six contenders at once, and if anyone beat me they were King for the day. If I went to Congress representing my chess club, it's entirely possible I could befuddle the whole mass of elected representatives and convince everyone they are incompetent to challenge me, especially if I had a willing mainstream media at my back and all the TV news anchors were saying I represented "Hope and Change". All in all I would have as much authority to grant exemptions to Obamacare as Obama does.

 

[One Brow]

So the only way you will believe in God is if he directly speaks to you and tells you what he wants?

At the very least, it would be more convincing if there were unison on what this supposed God wants.

As to society, we should all have a say, but that's a point. I should be able to speak my mind and push what I feel is important as much as the next person.

As long as those pushes don't affect other people, or have sound secular reasons for their effect, absolutely.

We are in a society, and all in this together. What makes you think we are all on our own teeter totter? If that was the case, who cares and sit on the ground wherever you want. As it is, it's my analogy and we are all on one teeter totter.

Perhaps we meant different things by it, then. I took it as a statement that there was some balance between men and women in relationships, and used moving the fulcrum as an example of how different couples should be able to find their own balance. In that interpretation, the balance between I and my wife, or between two gay men, etc., has little effect on your balance. What did you mean by your analogy? If largely the same thing, how does my changing the fulcrum in my marriage affect you?

Saying "if you want to say that" implies that I want to say "that". So you start this paragraph by saying you are not actually putting words into my mouth, but go on to accuse me of wanting to and claiming I am denying myself. ...

I specifically said you did not want to say men and women are unequal. ("I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course."). I also said that this unequality was an inevitable consequence of your position on not allowing women authority. When you put those to together, you are demeaning (not denying) yourself by maintaining this facade.

Your logic is unequal. Treating everyone the same is unequal. Forcing everyone to be your version of "equal" is unequal.
I believe I said equal weight, not that they were twins or exactly the same.

I didn't recommend treating everyone the same, just giving everyone the same opportunities. By forcing all men into the 'can potentially be tasked with job A but not job B' category and all women into 'can potentially be tasked with job B but not job A' category, you are treating very different men (and women) as being the same. Your criticism applies much more strongly to your position.

A 10 lb bucket of corn and a 10 lb bucket of iron have the same weight. Are they the same, no. Can you do the same things with them, no.
They have different functions, but are both important in their own right.

I agree. I just think men can sometimes be corn and sometimes be iron, and the same for women; while you want to say one gender can only be corn and the other can only be iron. Why not let each bucket show it's contents, instead of assuming all the green buckets are iron and the orange ones are corn?

If any decisions are made by a man and not revelation from God, that's when there are issues.

I not trying to convince that God does or does not ask. I'm just asking you to acknowledge what your decision means in practice.

Men and women can have equal value, and equal weight without being clones.
I prefer a world of men and women as opposed to Imperial Stormtroopers.

I agree with both of those statements. I also think that men are not clones of each other, nor are women, and as a consequence, some men are truly suited for what is classified as 'woman's work', and vice-versa.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

As long as those pushes don't affect other people, or have sound secular reasons for their effect, absolutely.

2 way street man, and who's the deciding vote on "sound secular reasons"? You? Me?
Back to square one eh?

 

[One Brow]

2 way street man, and who's the deciding vote on "sound secular reasons"? You? Me?
Back to square one eh?

"sound" - evidence backs up the justification
"secular" - reason not motivated in religion

 

[Jazz Spazz]

At the very least, it would be more convincing if there were unison on what this supposed God wants.

Unison among who? It would be real easy for God to send an angel or something to tell us all what is right and tell us what to do, but does that really help us.
We are here to learn how to do what is right even if he's not there visibly pushing us to do it. We can't learn what we need to learn about ourselves if He is constantly holding our hand, He waits for us to come to Him and check in and find out what is next. We are here to learn to tune our dial so to speak to hear Him through all the noise.

If I ask my kids to clean a room and give them instructions as to how to do it, often it does not get done at all. Frequently there is a minimal effort, sometimes a good effort is put in but it is missing a few details, and every great once in a while it is done to perfection.
On the other hand if I sit in the room and correct them, point out what to do, encourage, reprimand, push... they generally get it done right eventually but they didn't really learn anything. What's more important, a clean room or the kids learning they can do it on their own?

I don't think God's main priority is a "clean room" so to speak. I think his main hope and priority is that we learn who we are and what we can do when he's not constantly over our shoulder telling us what to do. He is there to get advice from and talk to, but we must go to him.

You make it sound like you want to skip the whole faith aspect of life and move right on to the knowledge part. You want to know God lives and what he wants before you'll do anything. On the flip side, my understanding is that God has said you must have faith, and then as you exercise your faith and try to do the things I ask of you, then you start to receive the knowledge.

Perhaps we meant different things by it, then. I took it as a statement that there was some balance between men and women in relationships, and used moving the fulcrum as an example of how different couples should be able to find their own balance. In that interpretation, the balance between I and my wife, or between two gay men, etc., has little effect on your balance. What did you mean by your analogy? If largely the same thing, how does my changing the fulcrum in my marriage affect you?

Sure if you and your significant other are in a bubble and on your own teeter totter as the last 2 people on a deserted island it won't matter what you do to balance your social teeter totter. Have at it.

If you are actually part of a society and have a 1/233000000 part of the social structure of this country, and we are all on the same teeter totter, then anything anybody does will affect the rest.

I specifically said you did not want to say men and women are unequal. ("I'm aware that you would not say it so directly, of course."). I also said that this unequality was an inevitable consequence of your position on not allowing women authority. When you put those to together, you are demeaning (not denying) yourself by maintaining this facade.

And I say your logic and reasoning is flawed by your inability to see how things can be different and yet equal and by claiming women need to be able to be bishops or higher church leaders in order to have a shot of being equal.

I didn't recommend treating everyone the same, just giving everyone the same opportunities. By forcing all men into the 'can potentially be tasked with job A but not job B' category and all women into 'can potentially be tasked with job B but not job A' category, you are treating very different men (and women) as being the same. Your criticism applies much more strongly to your position.

Agree to disagree.

I agree. I just think men can sometimes be corn and sometimes be iron, and the same for women; while you want to say one gender can only be corn and the other can only be iron. Why not let each bucket show it's contents, instead of assuming all the green buckets are iron and the orange ones are corn?

I do understand that some Men are better at what is considered by many "womens roles" and vice versa. I also acknowledge my belief in God and his plan affects my view of things. I acknowledge that people if left to themselves don't really know what is best for the world, or best for themselves. Just as we don't let a 3 year old run into the street to get a ball that rolled there for safety reasons, we may not know God's plan enough to know what street we are running into just to get what we want.

I not trying to convince that God does or does not ask. I'm just asking you to acknowledge what your decision means in practice.

It means that if leaders of the church do what God wants them to do we are on solid ground and can handle problems that come our way. If leaders of the church do what they want to do we will most likely run into unnecessary problems and situations.

Basically, women and men are afforded all of the same opportunities in life. If God sets up an organization of His Church that gives people different roles, even if gender based, there is a reason and it's up to us as individuals to find out why.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

"sound" - evidence backs up the justification
"secular" - reason not motivated in religion

So why would non religious reasons have more weight than religious reasons?
Why are my religious reasons less valid than another person's non religious reasons?
Because you want it to be non religious, I'm guessing you want to exclude any religious evidence to back up religious reasons.

It just sounds like a non religious power grab to decide what people can and can't do.
Just as offensive as it would be to you if I said all decisions should be made by sound religious reasons, and that religion is mine.

 

[One Brow]

Unison among who? It would be real easy for God to send an angel or something to tell us all what is right and tell us what to do, but does that really help us.

In that case, there's no real way to tell which one is right.

If I ask my kids to clean a room and give them instructions as to how to do it, often it does not get done at all. Frequently there is a minimal effort, sometimes a good effort is put in but it is missing a few details, and every great once in a while it is done to perfection.
On the other hand if I sit in the room and correct them, point out what to do, encourage, reprimand, push... they generally get it done right eventually but they didn't really learn anything. What's more important, a clean room or the kids learning they can do it on their own?

Since you asked my opinion, the best way is to let then clean on their own first, and then point out any oversights. If you never tell them what they are doing wrong, they will never really know if they are meeting your standard.

God never even comes down after the fact to tell us we did it wrong.

You make it sound like you want to skip the whole faith aspect of life and move right on to the knowledge part. You want to know God lives and what he wants before you'll do anything. On the flip side, my understanding is that God has said you must have faith, and then as you exercise your faith and try to do the things I ask of you, then you start to receive the knowledge.

I can't tell the difference between your idea of god, Thor, or there being no God. Do you have faith in Thor? Shiva?

Sure if you and your significant other are in a bubble and on your own teeter totter as the last 2 people on a deserted island it won't matter what you do to balance your social teeter totter. Have at it.

If you are actually part of a society and have a 1/233000000 part of the social structure of this country, and we are all on the same teeter totter, then anything anybody does will affect the rest.

I still don't understand, in your analogy, what the fulcrum was supposed to be, and why it has to be at the same place for everyone. could you expound on that, please?

And I say your logic and reasoning is flawed by your inability to see how things can be different and yet equal and by claiming women need to be able to be bishops or higher church leaders in order to have a shot of being equal.

I see that in an ideal world, such a thing is possible. We don't live in an ideal world. In the world we live in, people with authority tend to lose sight of people who lack authority, and make decisions without fully understanding the position of those who don't have authority.

Agree to disagree.

You can disagree, but it is nonetheless true.

I do understand that some Men are better at what is considered by many "womens roles" and vice versa. I also acknowledge my belief in God and his plan affects my view of things. I acknowledge that people if left to themselves don't really know what is best for the world, or best for themselves. Just as we don't let a 3 year old run into the street to get a ball that rolled there for safety reasons, we may not know God's plan enough to know what street we are running into just to get what we want.

Maybe it's not God's plan. Maybe I'm God's way of letting you know your room is still a little messy because of this inequality.

 

[One Brow]

So why would non religious reasons have more weight than religious reasons?

Freedom of religion means that you can't use your religious reasons to make decisions for my life. I value freedom of religion.

Why are my religious reasons less valid than another person's non religious reasons?

Because non-religious reasons are there for the benefit of everyone, regardless of religion.

Because you want it to be non religious, I'm guessing you want to exclude any religious evidence to back up religious reasons.

What is "religious evidence"? God told youthrough prayer? Conversion rate?

As an example, if a religious organization worked with parolees and reduced the recidivism rate by 10%, that's a good reason to fund the program (although unless you can show there is a difference, there should also be a version of that program for every religion and no religion, as prisoners request). Reducing recidivism is a secular purpose, and if the program is sound, it deserves funding.

It just sounds like a non religious power grab to decide what people can and can't do.

What is something you think I would support forcing religious people to do, or prevent them from doing, in their own lives?

Just as offensive as it would be to you if I said all decisions should be made by sound religious reasons, and that religion is mine.

There is a difference between secular reasons and atheist reasons. I would oppose any principle that said all laws have to be passed in accord with atheist principles.

 

[babe]

I like OB's math in this case:

Besides, I would use math like:

Men = (1 ± 1)+(3 ± 2)+(4 ± 3)+(4 ± 2)
Women = (6 ± 5)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 2)+(2 ± 1)

People come in wondrous variety, not pre-made forms.

I'd probably expand the math to include the summation sign, going from n, m, and l =0 to = infinity, throw in some eigenfunctions/values, and such, trying to approach the reality somehow. . . .

But men and women are different, still, and as a practical matter we can be smarter playing into the strengths of each individual on every specific attribute, talent, or characteristic. I still confess that kids are better served by mom than Mr. mom, at least in my experience. . .. but then I also need to explain at infinite length the talents and experience of my wife in that department. . . . .

 

[babe]

Freedom of religion means that you can't use your religious reasons to make decisions for my life. I value freedom of religion.



Because non-religious reasons are there for the benefit of everyone, regardless of religion.



What is "religious evidence"? God told youthrough prayer? Conversion rate?

As an example, if a religious organization worked with parolees and reduced the recidivism rate by 10%, that's a good reason to fund the program (although unless you can show there is a difference, there should also be a version of that program for every religion and no religion, as prisoners request). Reducing recidivism is a secular purpose, and if the program is sound, it deserves funding.



What is something you think I would support forcing religious people to do, or prevent them from doing, in their own lives?



There is a difference between secular reasons and atheist reasons. I would oppose any principle that said all laws have to be passed in accord with atheist principles.

While I suspect this position will prove troublesome in a progressive pack of agenda-pushers, I'd be glad to stand up for you.

For me, "religious evidence" includes realizing, as an eighteen year-old youth in a car with no brakes, going down a twisting mountain road, that someone else took the wheel. . . . some unseen hand. . . . and while giving me a serene calm, found a gentler-sloping cut to run up, polishing the process off with a roll and a fall to the road, landing on the wheels and just bouncing a couple of times. Four humans with no seat belts, and no one hurt.

I could go on. Probably my mother was saying her prayers.

My father, while being just as disbelieving as OB, was nonetheless praying as well, as I believe. Because when I got home that day, there was a letter in my mail box from my father condemning me in the roundest terms for neglecting the care of my brakes and other good sense issues, instructing me to count my fingers, touch my nose, and look in the mirror and try to place some appropriate value on my own life, and the lives of others. . . . He plainly stated I was going to have an awful accident, and that I'd have no one to thank if I lived, but God, angels, or the Three Nephites. Clearly, he was being sarcastic, and was just plain horrified at his idiot son.

 

[One Brow]

But men and women are different, still, and as a practical matter we can be smarter playing into the strengths of each individual on every specific attribute, talent, or characteristic.

I agree. On average, men are stronger and women more communicative. However, we need to makesure the really stong women and really communicative men can flouish using their own natural talents.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Freedom of religion means that you can't use your religious reasons to make decisions for my life. I value freedom of religion.

I'm saying it's a two way street, you don't want my religious reasons making decisions in your life, I don't want your non-religious reasons making decisions in my life. I also value freedom of religion.

Because non-religious reasons are there for the benefit of everyone, regardless of religion.

Not true, but interesting how you believe your belief/non-belief structure is important to everyone, but mine is not because it has a base in religion.
You are trying to throw all religion out the window and say it's not valid to all of society.
It is just as valid to all of society as a lack of religion if you believe this freedom of religion stuff you just said.

That's like saying "I'm a vegan, but you all can eat whatever you want. As a side note, I have thrown out all animal products and there are none left because they are not relevant".

What is something you think I would support forcing religious people to do, or prevent them from doing, in their own lives?

Making any decision or passing any law that has reasoning tied to religious belief in any way. You say "in their own lives", and maybe you live in a bubble on a deserted island on your own planet and in your own solar system... but I happen to live with other people around me so my "in my own life" tends to overlap with other people's "in their own lives". Strange how society works.

There is a difference between secular reasons and atheist reasons. I would oppose any principle that said all laws have to be passed in accord with atheist principles.

And yet your athiest reasons to do things are tied to your core. Why can you believe all people are racists at times or have racist tendencies, and yet have trouble understanding that a persons belief/non-belief views are woven through all they do and decisions they make?

 

[♪alt13]

So why would non religious reasons have more weight than religious reasons?
Why are my religious reasons less valid than another person's non religious reasons?
Because you want it to be non religious, I'm guessing you want to exclude any religious evidence to back up religious reasons.

It just sounds like a non religious power grab to decide what people can and can't do.
Just as offensive as it would be to you if I said all decisions should be made by sound religious reasons, and that religion is mine.

They are not non religious reasons nor are they anti religious they are just not exclusive to religion. Take the Utah Jazz. Its a secular organization ran by the Miller family who happen to be Mormon. Fox news may try to convince people of the evil secularist plot but the reality is that most of the secular activities in this country are being done by religious people. Again there is nothing anti religious in the word secular.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

They are not non religious reasons nor are they anti religious they are just not exclusive to religion. Take the Utah Jazz. Its a secular organization ran by the Miller family who happen to be Mormon. Fox news may try to convince people of the evil secularist plot but the reality is that most of the secular activities in this country are being done by religious people. Again there is nothing anti religious in the word secular.

And who gets to decide when something has a religious basis? The religious or the non-religious?