And don't forget Victor Frankl's classic about a prisoner of war camp.
He talked about decent and indecent men, and noted many acted morally under conditions of extreme privation (which should refute Maslow's claims convincingly).
Religion Matters: Take 3
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 03, 2017, 04:17PMAnd don't forget Victor Frankl's classic about a prisoner of war camp.
He talked about decent and indecent men, and noted many acted morally under conditions of extreme privation (which should refute Maslow's claims convincingly).
My personal experience serves that purpose as well--both my own behavior and that of others I've witnessed. Can't argue that strong consciences in difficult situations isn't at least a bit unusual though, but that actually has a whole lot to do without our deeply misunderstood religious nature (proactive/invested misunderstanding being heavily involved, I'd say).
He talked about decent and indecent men, and noted many acted morally under conditions of extreme privation (which should refute Maslow's claims convincingly).
My personal experience serves that purpose as well--both my own behavior and that of others I've witnessed. Can't argue that strong consciences in difficult situations isn't at least a bit unusual though, but that actually has a whole lot to do without our deeply misunderstood religious nature (proactive/invested misunderstanding being heavily involved, I'd say).
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
I wish them well and pray for their safety
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
It's taken about 1,400 years for Islam to allow women to be taught the religious texts.
At least the Christians were quicker on the draw in this respect.
Tertullian: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office."
At least the Christians were quicker on the draw in this respect.
Tertullian: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office."
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: BillO on Jul 08, 2017, 11:02AMIt's taken about 1,400 years for Islam to allow women to be taught the religious texts.
At least the Christians were quicker on the draw in this respect.
Tertullian: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office."
And therefore.......What?
In all of history women have been treated this way and many other ways that are unwarranted. Now we are evolving.
At least the Christians were quicker on the draw in this respect.
Tertullian: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in church. Neither may she teach, baptize, offer, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal office."
And therefore.......What?
In all of history women have been treated this way and many other ways that are unwarranted. Now we are evolving.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 08, 2017, 12:35PMAnd therefore.......What?
QuoteNow we are evolving.
^^^ ... and therefore that.
QuoteNow we are evolving.
^^^ ... and therefore that.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 08, 2017, 12:35PMIn all of history women have been treated this way and many other ways that are unwarranted. Now we are evolving.
Are you talking about evolving in a Darwinian sense? If so you'll need to explain what you mean and what evidence there is?
Are you talking about evolving in a Darwinian sense? If so you'll need to explain what you mean and what evidence there is?
-
ttf_Piano man
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 08, 2017, 11:54PMAre you talking about evolving in a Darwinian sense? If so you'll need to explain what you mean and what evidence there is?
Probably not in a strictly Darwinian sense. Idiots who oppress women still reproduce quite effectively.
Probably not in a strictly Darwinian sense. Idiots who oppress women still reproduce quite effectively.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: Piano man on Jul 09, 2017, 02:07AMProbably not in a strictly Darwinian sense. Idiots who oppress women still reproduce quite effectively.
Not in any way "in the Darwinian sense".
Women are not oppressed nearly as much as even 100 years ago at least in Westernsociety.
Not in any way "in the Darwinian sense".
Women are not oppressed nearly as much as even 100 years ago at least in Westernsociety.
-
ttf_Piano man
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 09, 2017, 08:03AMNot in any way "in the Darwinian sense".
Women are not oppressed nearly as much as even 100 years ago at least in Westernsociety.
My point is that isn't evolution, but just social progress.
Women are not oppressed nearly as much as even 100 years ago at least in Westernsociety.
My point is that isn't evolution, but just social progress.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
This one certainly raises some eyebrows, but I'd also guess it raises plenty among Catholics as well (whether or not it's doctrinaire--often that a given notion is doctrinaire is used to pretend it's not also a bit incredulous even if only in some innocuous way).
--
Quite worth noting, I think:
Something that endeared me immediately to the local UU congregation--the first time my wife and I went to a service one of the church leaders read a mock UU statement making fun of their extreme inclusiveness and sensitivity to diversity, and the congregation enjoyed this highly self-deprecating humor immensely. It says a lot about how well grounded their beliefs are--how assured they are about them. They're all about social activism, such as feeding, clothing and housing the poor, and advocating for just on behalf of the weak and all that sort of thing--practices which may be less or comparably more familiar to various religious congregations. It's pretty hard to raise any valid ethical issues or significant criticisms with that sort of thinking and behavior, or to argue it's not in line with what the whole Jesus thing is all about. Seems when a given version or instance of a given religion is short on that sort of thing there's a lot more of the wrong kind of sensitivity--defensive/self-serving sensitivity rather than sensitivity to inclusion and service and such ... the attractive and repulsive sides of the same magnetic coin. Seems there's a line or two about that in the Bible, as I recall.
My wife's Episcopalian church has a lot of this same attractive sincerity and self-assurance going on amongst its membership, as do many other churches of course. But there are also a lot of churches that don't.
--
Quite worth noting, I think:
Something that endeared me immediately to the local UU congregation--the first time my wife and I went to a service one of the church leaders read a mock UU statement making fun of their extreme inclusiveness and sensitivity to diversity, and the congregation enjoyed this highly self-deprecating humor immensely. It says a lot about how well grounded their beliefs are--how assured they are about them. They're all about social activism, such as feeding, clothing and housing the poor, and advocating for just on behalf of the weak and all that sort of thing--practices which may be less or comparably more familiar to various religious congregations. It's pretty hard to raise any valid ethical issues or significant criticisms with that sort of thinking and behavior, or to argue it's not in line with what the whole Jesus thing is all about. Seems when a given version or instance of a given religion is short on that sort of thing there's a lot more of the wrong kind of sensitivity--defensive/self-serving sensitivity rather than sensitivity to inclusion and service and such ... the attractive and repulsive sides of the same magnetic coin. Seems there's a line or two about that in the Bible, as I recall.
My wife's Episcopalian church has a lot of this same attractive sincerity and self-assurance going on amongst its membership, as do many other churches of course. But there are also a lot of churches that don't.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
Religion Matters: Take 3
or rolls some eyes
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 14, 2017, 07:25PMor rolls some eyes
Well ... yeah. I'd expect that to be the initial response from the large majority. In fact the immediate litmus would be about if the eyes are rolling, or if the jaws are working and the lips tightening and such.
Well ... yeah. I'd expect that to be the initial response from the large majority. In fact the immediate litmus would be about if the eyes are rolling, or if the jaws are working and the lips tightening and such.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Religion Matters: Take 3
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 14, 2017, 07:25PMor rolls some eyes
Well ... yeah. I'd expect that to be the initial response from the large majority. In fact the immediate litmus would be about if the eyes are rolling, or if the jaws are working and the lips tightening and such.
Well ... yeah. I'd expect that to be the initial response from the large majority. In fact the immediate litmus would be about if the eyes are rolling, or if the jaws are working and the lips tightening and such.