Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I have that effect on people.

Always the wrong people.

You and Obama.

 

[MissThundercat]

So Evangelicals think the LGBT community is to blame for all the hurricanes.

According to nutbar friends of mine, the wildfires and hurricanes are God speaking to us.

 

[state of hockey]

So Evangelicals think the LGBT community is to blame for all the hurricanes.

According to nutbar friends of mine, the wildfires and hurricanes are God speaking to us.

You need new friends.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

You need new friends.

never underestimate balance...

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I don't personally have any facts available on this stuff, but from what I can recall of Peterson:
The "less monogamy before" is a myth, and self-consciousness in humans developed in tandem with a large brain, big infant skull, long-term developmental dependency, and two active parents. All mutually dependent. The "cultures where plurality works well" were basically dismissed as being rare exceptions to the norm. As to men wanting to pass on their awesomeness, I think he said women actually control selection more than men do, and they select for competence as providers. Men would bang everyone in sight if they could, regardless of genetic heritage.
Edit: I'm vaguely remember some stuff about, women don't go into heat only occasionally like other animals, so they can ensnare men with their availability throughout that long term of dependency blah blah... sorry, I listen to this stuff while trying to work so I miss a lot.
But I recommend the whole lecture series. Start with the "advice to millennials" one which started the whole "clean yer dam room!" Meme.
Edit: the pod episode is called "How to change the world properly", I found it inspiring and it actually had a positive effect on my personal social interactions... how rare is that for a single lecture!

If it works well for them and their brains are structured the same way I would have a hard time dismissing it as nature and go more for the nurture. It wasn't until quite recently that it was the expected norm for monogamy. It was socially unacceptable for females to be plural but males were very frequently pluralistic and females were basically forced to accept it. THere is a lot of research showing monogamy was not as monogamous as we thought with a fairly large percent of people having other partners even while in committed relationships. Was a thing at some of the conferences I went to because assuming monogamy was not a good idea when screening for STDs or discussing birth control. Assumption of monogamy can be dangerous for the patient and their partners.

Decided to research a bit (Google is your friend) to make sure I hadn't missed something. A sampling of what I found, all of which refutes the monogamy being a natural state thing. It might feel good to think so but it ain't so when you look at any of the research. Much more driven by culture and as a woman I can tell you it was not until fairly recently that women were allowed the luxury of complaining and expecting sympathy for a cheating spouse. It was always her fault that she wasn't enticing enough to keep his interest.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/not-born-yesterday/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings
https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/08/121109/polyamorous-relationships-open-sex-study
https://www.bustle.com/articles/121...nogamous-heres-what-5-researchers-have-to-say
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675?journalCode=usmt20&

Females do 'go into heat' and there are a bunch of fun studies to show what happens if you put the hormones collected from their sweat glands around a place. Men will congregate near the area smeared with the pheromones of women who are ovulating. I am too lazy to look this one up but PBS ran a series once that showed men shifting about a theater that was hilarious.

I haven't listened to the guy (not time right now) but so far, from what you are saying, he has done a lot of thinking but none of it really scientifically based. Esp the women in heat thing. That is basic GYN knowledge.

There is also a bunch of research that shows women are less sexually interested the longer they have a partner. Men can get aroused by just about anything. They see the partner and they want it. Women have stages in a relationship. In the beginning they are interested and are easily aroused by their partner by thought or visual stimuli (seeing them). As relationship continues they are less so. They must be 'courted', provided with a stimulus of some sort (physical aproach, hearing something that may engage them) to get them interested and then aroused). Went to a whole seminar on this around the time viagra came out. Biggest prob with guys is inability to perform. Biggest problem with women is decreased libido or interest. Ergo viagra doesn't work on women. The guy giving the lecture told us in a long term relationship foreplay was doing chores (take out the garbage!!! he boomed) for the woman so she could concentrate on the partner when being approached. That women were less likely to be thinking of sex the longer they were in a a relationship. This was independent of the quality of the relationship. His take home message was women frequently thought they were 'frigid' when they were following a normal pattern of decreasing interest. Men were unaware that women needed to be approached, noticed a decrease in initiation from their partner and thought they were 'frigid' rather than taking the correct approach of trying to engage. One of the most fascinating CEU things I ever went to and dam useful when counseling GYN pts.

 

[MissThundercat]

never underestimate balance...

Keeps life interesting.

 

[geezer]

Assumption of monogamy can be dangerous A sampling of what I found, all of which refutes the monogamy being a natural state thing. It might feel good to think so but it ain't so when you look at any of the research. Much more driven by culture and as woman I can tell you it was not until fairly recently that women were allowed the luxury of complaining and expecting sympathy for a cheating spouse. It was always her fault that she wasn't enticing enough to keep his interest.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/not-born-yesterday/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings
https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/08/121109/polyamorous-relationships-open-sex-study
https://www.bustle.com/articles/121...nogamous-heres-what-5-researchers-have-to-say
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2016.1178675?journalCode=usmt20&

Females do 'go into heat' and there are a bunch of fun studies to show what happens if you put the hormones collected from their sweat glands around a place. Men will congregate near the area smeared with the pheromones of women who are ovulating. I am too lazy to look this one up but PBS ran a series once that showed men shifting about a theater that was hilarious.

I haven't listened to the guy (not time right now) but so far, from what you are saying, he has done a lot of thinking but none of it really scientifically based. Esp the women in heat thing. That is basic GYN knowledge.

There is also a bunch of research that shows women are less sexually interested the longer they have a partner.

Good stuff, sociologically.
It's fairly obvious that people cheat all the time.
The basic "GYN knowledge" of women having an ovulation cycle does not preclude the fact that they are able to make themselves available at other times, even during pregnancy. That's unusual, and has been cited as having an evolutionary purpose. It's not the same as an animal going into heat. Most mammals do not copulate at other times. Many don't even interact at all with the male outside those five minutes.
A better word than monogamy for how humans work would be "serial monogamy" since with less than a couple years of devotion to develop offspring humans would be screwed.

 

[burd]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

There is also a bunch of research that shows women are less sexually interested the longer they have a partner. Men can get aroused by just about anything. They see the partner and they want it. Women have stages in a relationship. In the beginning they are interested and are easily aroused by their partner by thought or visual stimuli (seeing them). As relationship continues they are less so. They must be 'courted', provided with a stimulus of some sort (physical aproach, hearing something that may engage them) to get them interested and then aroused). Went to a whole seminar on this around the time viagra came out. Biggest prob with guys is inability to perform. Biggest problem with women is decreased libido or interest. Ergo viagra doesn't work on women. The guy giving the lecture told us in a long term relationship foreplay was doing chores (take out the garbage!!! he boomed) for the woman so she could concentrate on the partner when being approached. That women were less likely to be thinking of sex the longer they were in a a relationship. This was independent of the quality of the relationship. His take home message was women frequently thought they were 'frigid' when they were following a normal pattern of decreasing interest. Men were unaware that women needed to be approached, noticed a decrease in initiation from their partner and thought they were 'frigid' rather than taking the correct approach of trying to engage. One of the most fascinating CEU things I ever went to and dam useful when counseling GYN pts.

I've worked pretty hard to maintain a marriage relationship for 40 years, and now you're telling me I have to take out the garbage more?

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Good stuff, sociologically.
It's fairly obvious that people cheat all the time.
The basic "GYN knowledge" of women having an ovulation cycle does not preclude the fact that they are able to make themselves available at other times, even during pregnancy. That's unusual, and has been cited as having an evolutionary purpose. It's not the same as an animal going into heat. Most mammals do not copulate at other times. Many don't even interact at all with the male outside those five minutes.
A better word than monogamy for how humans work would be "serial monogamy" since with less than a couple years of devotion to develop offspring humans would be screwed.

Well, I guess but cats and dogs don't seem to have a problem trying to * anything, in heat or not. I can tell you for a fact that chimps and other primates copulate incessantly and indiscriminately. My parents were at a loss to explain what they were doing in the London zoo. Maybe primates are lumped in with us.

Screwed in our culture maybe but there are many cultures that hand babies among themselves to breast feed and care for if the mother is unavailable/busy. Our culture has compartmentalized the nuclear family, isolating its members. Many others are intradependent. (Can you tell culture and sociology stuff fascinates me?

I've worked pretty hard to maintain a marriage relationship for 40 years, and now you're telling me I have to take out the garbage more?

yes. yes I am. and if it works I will expect a nice bouquet of flowers sent to me (I used to tell the latter to my patients. I actually got a bouquet once. Laughed myself silly because the card just said something like here is your bouquet and my staff was totally lost)

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

...My parents were at a loss to explain what they were doing in the London zoo...

What WERE your parents doing at the zoo?

If you want to expand the gene pool and add variety, monogamy works. If you want to shrink the variety and spread the "best" genes, go for polygamy.

But isn't that a form of eugenics??

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I don't think this has a pig's flying chance of happening in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/09/same-sex-dance-partners-cards-strictly-come-dancing/

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

I don't think this has a pig's flying chance of happening in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/09/same-sex-dance-partners-cards-strictly-come-dancing/

They'd be killing their demo. Those shows' audiences are indistinguishable from Hannity's.

 

[joecct]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

An obit and post mortem of the Church of England

https://www.julesgomes.com/single-post/RIP-the-CofE–choked-by-her-own-niceness

 

[MissThundercat]

Religion and hurricanes:

Some Orthodox Jews ignored the evacuation order and are staying home because travel is forbidden on the Sabbath.

Some Christians went to a beach to pray the hurricane away.

And Kirk Cameron said that these things are "God showing us his power and might." (Link on Fox News)

I don't mock the first two, but doesn't Cameron have an incredibly crappy, straight to DVD movie he should be making right now?

 

[leswp1]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

What WERE your parents doing at the zoo?

If you want to expand the gene pool and add variety, monogamy works. If you want to shrink the variety and spread the "best" genes, go for polygamy.

But isn't that a form of eugenics??

Trying to get us not to look at the primates who were engaging in sexual congress with many partners, serially

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Faith groups do provide the bulk of disaster recovery...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...isaster-recovery-coordination-fema/651007001/

The Seventh Day Adventists, over several decades, have established a unique expertise in disaster “warehousing” collecting, logging, organizing and distributing relief supplies, in cooperation with government disaster response agencies.

The United Methodist Committee on Relief is known for its expertise in “case management.” After the initial cleanup — where the Methodists have work crews helping pull mud out of houses — the church sends trained volunteers into the wreckage to help families navigate the maze of FEMA assistance, state aid programs and private insurance to help them rebuild their lives. The group have 20,000 trained volunteers around the country who can be called up for "early response teams," basically small crews that can help with debris removal and home cleanup, said Cathy Earl, UMCOR's director of disaster programs.

The Convoy of Hope, a non-denominational Christian organization, specializes in feeding. Before Hurricane Irma made landfall in Florida, the Springfield, Mo.,-based Convoy had three trailer trucks stocked with food, water and sanitary supplies parked in the state waiting to deploy to areas hardest hit, said spokesman Jeff Nene.

Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical aid group run by Rev. Franklin Graham, has trucks at the ready in Florida with chainsaws and debris removal experts to help clean up houses. After initial cleanup, the group has contracting services available to help the needy rebuild their homes. The group has responded to 20 disasters already this year, said Luther Harrison, vice president of North American Ministries for Samaritan’s Purse.

...ok...now back to your steady stream of negativity.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

now back to your steady stream of negativity.

When people make negative statements about abuses of faith that doesn't reflect on faith per se. That's like somebody claiming that the conviction of Harvey Glatman was anti-semitic.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

When people make negative statements about abuses of faith that doesn't reflect on faith per se.

Don't you find it odd that you post strictly and continuously on abuses of faith...and not any other abuses? If I start a thread on education, will your day be filled with posting abuses of education?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Don't you find it odd that you post strictly and continuously on abuses of faith...and not any other abuses? If I start a thread on education, will your day be filled with posting abuses of education?

In what universe do you live? Do you read the political forums on here?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar

Don't you find it odd that you post strictly and continuously on abuses of faith...and not any other abuses?

On this thread? No, for some reason I don't find it odd at all.

As for "strictly," my posts in the last week have been about the finer technical points of hypostates and early Christian doctrine, as they are from time to time. Those just don't summon your wahmbulance.

Religion is far too rich and broad to be wholly negative or positive about. You're burnt because I am utterly dismissive of religious literalism as a childish mistaking of the map for the territory and too often a malevolent tool deliberately wielded by charlatans to inspire the weak-minded to bigotry and violence. You cloak your resentment by ostentatiously wrapping that target of literalism in the garb of all religion, perhaps out of chicanery but more likely because as a purblind fundamentalist you sincerely jam all religion into that tight, mentally and morally asphyxiating, box*.

It is natural to lash out at someone who calls your heartfelt beliefs sanctimonious rubbish. And your heartfelt beliefs are sanctimonious rubbish.

But... and this is important... not anybody else's.

Just yours.

* "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England!" -- Thwackum, Tom Jones, Henry Fielding