Longest Thread Ever

[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?