Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Anderson

Member
  • Posts

    1731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Anderson

  1. Anderson

    Slavery

    Don't forget that Christianity was a lot of minor groups until the 4'th Century AD and only by the First Council of Nicaea "The Bible" in the modern sense appeared. That is without some passages of The Hebrew Bible known today as The Old Testament and only the canonical New Testament, leaving out a lot of apocrypha. Also Christianity and its "mainstream", decriminalization proclaimed by Constantine eventually replaced slaves with the Colonus caste of people who eventually transformed into what we know as feudalism - a masked form of slavery or a really good situation for the equivalent of an Ancient Times slave. Depending how you look at it. Later on through the Middle Ages slavery disappeared completely.
  2. Anderson

    Slavery

    Very interesting development. I understand and totally agree that Christianity was not the pioneer of many ideas. It is interesting you bring sophism among greek philosophers though. The reason I say this is because I don't think Sophists really wanted to convince anyone that slavery was wrong. They were just provocateurs who didn't necessarily believe what they preached and were tolerated in Athens only because of democracy. In that regard, on the contrary, greek philosophy had little impact on Christianity, but it did bring examples of behavior such as cynicism and stoicism for Christians to follow, perhaps even Jesus was influenced by Essenes though who were similar to the greek counterparts. Who knows? I would draw your attention to another aspect such as greek influence on the Christian understanding of heaven and hell (which The Hebrew Bible does not mention at all). It is that influence that later shaped in Medieval Times the concept of burning in hell, whereas Jewish dogma focuses not on afterlife but on action in this life, not preoccupying itself with the fate of the soul too much. ​ The bullet point is that it's not that simple if you want hardcore evidence.
  3. Anderson

    Slavery

    No. When I wrote that I meant the phraseologies where all humans are referred to as God's servants/slaves. That is a metaphor. An allegory to express creationism prominent in the whole text through the miracle it proclaims. Surely you see that. Thomas Jefferson was also infamously a supporter of slavery despite being a founding father. I suppose it's just a regressive way of strict interpretation just as of the Quran that terrorists do. A narrow minded interpretation that lets them justify their actions. Rubber-like, elastic interpretation. Over time interpretations change.
  4. http://m.dw.com/en/two-men-may-get-100-lashes-after-gay-sex-in-indonesia/a-38354186
  5. Exactly. And it's kinda weird to talk of Islam inclusion like Mogherini and of LGBT rights concurrently. They are mutually exclusive in their current forms.
  6. But they are usually with at least a mild muslim background interest... The Quran directly forbids homosexuality. Hard to reconcile that. If it was Sharia law it would be easier if we presumed that a secular Islamic state would eventually leave Sharia Law only for more in depth theological study and leave the source, base text of Quran. But if the main source says so... I don't see a reconciliation on this topic.
  7. I did not mean through arrogance. Everything in this world needs to have order. For a society to function it would be absurd for every less conventional practice to become suddenly legalized. The state carries only as much as it can handle. Especially if society isn't ready. I do not have evidence for you. Same as I can't prove the existence/absence of God - I think we already talked about this previously. ​This is only something we can find out empirically. That's why I advise caution At the very least an uninitiated society needs years to acknowledge such a circumstance.
  8. No it's not. But it's hard to grasp how the liberal movement considers that somehow both muslims (the way they are today) and LGBT are supposed to peacefully coexist without terrorist attacks happening periodically. This needs a broader answer with either a universal religion or some limited, temporary state policies to stop this. At the moment it's reaching a dead and ugly end.
  9. Depending on national laws. The idea is why justify one group of sexual preferences over another?
  10. No need for apocalyptic scenarios. This does not justify the ignorance of some liberal circles.
  11. Even if it's an acceptable practice in Islam and elsewhere? They can have children too.
  12. Anderson

    Slavery

    Firstly slavery was normal at the time, as much as engaging in relationships with them, abusing and killing them. All sanctioned (positively) by Roman Law. The New Testament isn't the Bill of Rights obviously. But it did condone more righteous, generous behavior towards slaves. In a way the general idea of the texts is to recognize the brother in every servant and sort of to subtly suggest society to change its attitude. In a similar fashion as The Gospel of Mary Magdalene breaks the stereotype of women having the possibility of being a 13'th Apostle or an equivalent follower/clergy of Jesus Christ. As it's apocrypha, the Church likes to pretend that this text has no value. The Church also loves to quote Christ of course as his phrases laid in parables do not need theological debate. Clearly, ideas developed over time and as pointed out most eloquently in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber the schism and the difference between Protestants and Catholics eventually led to capitalism, to industrialization, to progress and the abolition of slavery too. It would not have been possible without this conflict of two religions were Protestants where more productive than Catholics in the economy. A thing also mentioned by Montesquieu. The New Testament is the first step in a long journey. At least when it comes to the economy changes that happened. The Roman Empire being forced to exchange slavery to feudalism (new way to mask slavery) because it conflicted with Christianity and so on and so on. Though I would argue The Old Testament is culturally more significant in how we view the world in general. How we view ancient times.
  13. The same reason why not every national minority gets autonomy within a country. Same reason why Texas is not an independent state even if it really wants to. In Vitro is a relatively new method and we may have very little data to operate with to make a prognosis of long term effects. But that's just speculation for now. The state can be involved, but it may choose not to. Tax evasion and sadistic torture affect the state in a bad way. The state gets involved only when the society needs it. The state should not be involved in a way that would cause harm to society. While an objective minority with dubious prospects to raise families? Remains to be seen if it's as good as polygamy in Islam. Or the aforementioned failed attempt to legalize polygamy in developed countries. Time will tell.
  14. I'm not the prototype religious person but The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible shouldn't be read outside the context of the whole book and the contextual, logical ending of it. Slavery of course became immoral with the New Testament. Not in as much of a religious current as also a cultural reshape of the whole society. A sort of a collective penance. But of course each denomination saw it in their own way. And of course the discussable and vastly engaging apocrypha... Yes, we do in countries that haven't recognized same sex marriages documents from abroad, haven't legalized the process nationally and especially if they have a constitutional restriction. It's a subjective matter of a vote in Parliament. It's also not a condition to enter the EU in Europe. Only non discrimination laws are mandatory.
  15. I could only accept more rights for LGBT if they were a humble and righteous community. Not arrogant, hypocrite and ugly as they are at present. They do not deserve those rights at least for these reasons if they can't get better representatives. Chaikovsky became a great classical composer not due to his homosexuality, but because he kept it to himself. It's not a bragging right. Therefore we are at present where everyone gets what they deserve. I don't deny the value of liberalism either. Liberalism is a natural way for a human being to exist. But anarchy is awful. For our society, in my region at any rate it will be at least another 20 years before it can be embraced by society. A layman uninitiated into thinking in these categories will have a hard time wrapping his head around all this and the reasons for it all. In due time all things will come to be considered properly I guess.
  16. When I'm talking exaggeration and overreacting I mean to avoid these scenarios. It's old but real, real appropriate:
  17. Biomedicine still argues on the ethics of in vitro fertilisation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss long term effects on the life of an individual born in those conditions. If I had the power, homosexuals would certainly not be in the category of people to get psychiatric treatment. Lots of people get there wrongfully. It is even worse than prison because of the isolation and not even knowing why you're there. Very high chances of abuse by staff. But I will say that the methods of psychiatry raise question on where the limits are of pathology and normality. These are vary shaky and treacherous grounds. I'm only thankful that law is hard and slow to change. ​The reason why we even got so far from terrorism to this - is because modern society's moral compass is under scrutiny. We can do better than that. That's why to me conservatism matters. The struggle goes on. In the 1970's a work called "Comportamento sessuale e personalità". (English: Sexual Behavior and Personality) Milan by Siegfried Schnabl - he speculated that polygamy might be legalized in the US and elsewhere. We know that never happened. The sexual revolution was not that crazy. My conclusion is that it might be part of the same current as legalizing drugs. So we should definitely give it consideration. It's probably an overreaction to completely legalize marriages of same sex couples. At the end of the day each countries does it as it sees fits. The bare minimum is the protection of non discrimination policies against LGBT. That's about it. Homosexuality is eccentric and always will be a minority. That's for certain.
  18. Another idea to throw around: same sex marriage women are more likely not to adopt children but rather to use in vitro fertilization. Are you okay with that? Are those going to be healthy families with their heterosexual equivalent?
  19. Yeah, I can accept that one. Nobody in the world should be without something resembling a family. Orphanages suck.
  20. Same here. Pedophilia here though is not common due to the clergy being allowed to have families.
  21. I'm against having homosexuality as a criminal offense. But I do not regard it a person seriously with such a condition neither. For the same reasons by analogy why people have a restriction of movement in psychiatric institutions. Do you believe we went really far with our methods there? We still use primitive sedatives to combat the occasional anguish or aggressive psychosis. It's not the end of the world if they get 100% rights as heterosexuals but it's still not the same traditional family. There's still no father/mother figure from which a child could mould their potential future soulmate by compatibility. Because you notice that approximately the way a mother-child relationship goes, the same way a boy searches for some resemblance qualities in his future lover. And vice versa for girls - they look up to their fathers for traits to find with their future boyfriend. This is just one of the psychological things that gets screwed. I'm not saying it's better to be orphan than raised in a homosexual family. But I have earnest doubts on how serious the intentions of such people from these LGBT communities can be. To me having no issues with LGBT is just a way to avoid conflict. But most people in this category still won't really understand LGBT's. Even if they claim they are fine with it. It's not a race thing after all.
  22. True. I was generalizing. By exception Belarus is a secular heaven of communism but... you know what Mr. Lukashenko says. Shame he can't explain it rationally. At least one of his crimes could get a mitigating circumstance. But his kind don't live up to that discussion in court.
  23. What makes you say that this is progress? Homosexuality is not prosecuted anywhere criminally except muslim countries today (btw why extremists hate us). We say that it's not a bad thing to give them equal marriage rights to us - but is that out of generosity or ignorance? Most people just don't want to argue with LGBT and just to let them slide on this one. But that's not tolerance. This is an absence of dialogue. It's ignorance and accepting something without even taking a thought about it. It's two different things. The truth is - people still don't see LGBT people as normal and prefer to ignore them. This is an illusion of progress. I repeat, Japan - one of the most advanced countries in the world still hasn't legalized same sex marriages and its Constitution directly restricts this. ​I see no interdependence of legalizing same sex marriages when most of these people are also not exactly the people to work their lives to feed 3 or more children. They want a comfort zone. They are not a real movement as the feminist movement was (which is respectable and admirable from every point of view). ​Economic growth happens when the demographic crisis of an aging Europe is overcome. That's the priority. Not adopting children by LGBT's. Again, when we have the luxury to talk about LGBT, these things are accepted to a limited degree only in Europe - in big parts thanks to the European Convention it is enforced with the ECHR activism. Something that Russia hates to guts. Most importantly to protect human rights without consideration of their belonging to sexual orientation or any other criteria. Africa, the Middle East will never have an analogy of such an instrument in the foreseeable future. Are we truly setting our priorities right?
  24. Science is good. But Freudian extremes are awful. In my opinion science isn't capable of reaching conclusive answers when psychologists in more closed, private discussions openly state that homosexualism is an illness. For fear of being blamed as a homophobe. We're still with psychology and psychiatry in its infancy. We practiced lobotomy just half a century ago. At least for this reason laws should not be hurried to change. I'll tell you why. The right to not be tortured/killed/harmed is absolute just as the right to life. It does not distinguish from what you see yourself as. That's the purpose of anti-discrimination laws against LGBT. Yes, it makes perfect sense here. But not IMHO to legalize same sex marriage and domestic partnerships, adoptions of children by these couples etc. etc. ​Liberals are despised in Russia. But the honest ones like Nemtsov or Lystiev get murdered. The ones who are under control, on a leash, who are sons and daughters, done favours and stuff for rich ruling class elite have protection and so they go about compromising any idea. Including that of a working opposition in Russia and elsewhere in the post soviet space. This is mostly cheap pop stars mixed with hysterical tasteless TV bloat starting from Boris Moiseev, to Natalia Morari to Sobchak (ex-mayor of Moscow and his daughter) and so on. Obviously they have very liberal lifestyles and thus aren't even fighting for LGBT in reality. Just sort of going with the fad for fame and attention.
×
×
  • Create New...