Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010





Gaius Marius posted:

How do you know your translated bible is any more accurate then the local priest?

It's not about accuracy per se, it's about interpretation or emphasis. Those with power use that power and medieval clergy tended to have a lot of power. They would thus interpret the Bible in ways that favored their privilege.

God I sound like some communist. And of course a lot of priests were poor and powerless and lived out in the boonies, at lest in early modern France but I'd assume this holds true for many different places. Not everyone with power is an evil mastermind. But skepticism about those with it and the knowledge hey keep a stranglehold on seems prudent to me.


zonohedron posted:

If I don't trust what my priest is saying, I can ask his bishop. If I don't trust my bishop, I can ask other bishops. That's how I confirm what they're saying, not by reading a passage and saying "but I think it means this ". In fact if I don't know if a book is copied correctly, I do the same thing; I don't decide based on whether I like the words!

Edit to answer your edit:

I know Eaa is taking stuff out of context because he's not reading the Bible the way the Church that Christ founded reads it. Like, I know Sovereign Citizens are full of crap when they refuse to say they "understand" someone because to them "understand" means "stand under" which means "obey", and they don't want to agree "Yes, I obey you" to a police officer, but it's not because my dictionary is better than theirs or anything, it's because that's not how anybody else uses the word. I know that Jn 1:1 is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and not "and the Word was a god.", not because I know Greek better than the Jehovah's Witnesses, but because that's not how the Church understands it and therefore that's wrong.

But we are getting pretty lost in the weeds. Ultimately you would say a Christian does not ever have to actually read The Bible to be a good, faithful Christian. It's just enough to attend Mass and know what the clergy says?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 21, 2006

When there were five in the bed and we all rolled over I said nothing, because I would not fall off.

NikkolasKing posted:

. Ultimately you would say a Christian does not ever have to actually read The Bible to be a good, faithful Christian.

Why do you think they put strained glass windows depicting stories from the gospels in churches? Near universal literacy is relatively recent thing.

Who is the Word available too? Is it just to the learned and educated or everybody? Tradition and a clergy structure are a way to make it available to more people. Widely translated bibles are also way to make it available to more people.

The issue is to make one way the only way.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Apr 27, 2021

Zazz Razzamatazz
Apr 19, 2016

No hunks allowed, ya dangus

Itís also worth keeping in mind that back then if you knew how to read, youíd likely know how to read (and speak) Latin. It was the lingua franca at the time, the language of learning. If you wanted your textbook or whatever to be read by Italian and French and German and English speakers- youíd write it in Latin.


NikkolasKing posted:


But we are getting pretty lost in the weeds. Ultimately you would say a Christian does not ever have to actually read The Bible to be a good, faithful Christian. It's just enough to attend Mass and know what the clergy says?

This day and age? Iíd say no.

But itís also worth pointing out if you attend daily Mass or at least read the daily readings for Mass youíll end up reading like 95% of the New Testament and around 65-75% of the Old Testament every few years. (At work so I canít be bothered to look up the exact numbers)

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

man buys avatar
to save dead web forum
what a dumb moron



Zazz Razzamatazz posted:


But itís also worth pointing out if you attend daily Mass or at least read the daily readings for Mass youíll end up reading like 95% of the New Testament and around 65-75% of the Old Testament every few years. (At work so I canít be bothered to look up the exact numbers)

A Jesuit priest ran the exact numbers. If you attend daily Mass, you'll hear 13.5% of the "Old Testament" and 71.5% of the New Testament. Before Vatican II, those numbers were only 1.0% and 16.5% respectively!

https://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

(He left the Psalms out of calculation because of their omnipresence in non-lectionary liturgy)

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 27, 2021

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

The general increasing love of athletics is benefiting our young men, and making their lives better and more worth the living.

NikkolasKing posted:

But we are getting pretty lost in the weeds. Ultimately you would say a Christian does not ever have to actually read The Bible to be a good, faithful Christian. It's just enough to attend Mass and know what the clergy says?

Of course. There are still illiterate people around who are also good, faithful Christians.

Christianity is not based on what you do, it's fundamentally about grace. Your faith is what matters, not your actions.

A good Christian should want to read the Bible and learn as much about their faith as possible, but it's not mandatory.

zonohedron
Aug 14, 2006




NikkolasKing posted:

It's not about accuracy per se, it's about interpretation or emphasis. Those with power use that power and medieval clergy tended to have a lot of power. They would thus interpret the Bible in ways that favored their privilege.

The Bible has to be interpreted, just like Philip had to interpret it for the Ethiopian. Ultimately I have to trust that Christ instituted a Church with the authority to teach in His name, and that since this Church used that teaching authority to give me the Bible in the first place, I can also rely on the Church to tell me what it means. It isn't a system of "Pastor Bob reads the Bible for you, and tells you what it means, and if you don't like it, see what Pastor Joe says, but don't look at it yourself," because Fr. Robert and Fr. Joseph should both be interpreting it the way that Bp. Patrick tells them to, and Bp. Patrick should be telling them to interpret it the way that all the other bishops do - and by all I mean all, all the bishops since the Apostles, not just all the ones who happen to be alive right now. For the Eastern Orthodox this is where it stops; for Catholics (both Eastern and Latin) the Pope is the final arbiter if there isn't consensus among "all the bishops always". That's why Pope Pius IX could declare that Mary was preserved from sin from the first moment of her conception, even though Thomas Aquinas (among many others!) taught otherwise - it's his job to be the final vote. Conversely, Pope John Paul II did not have to be the final vote on a discussion of who may be ordained; he merely said that "the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents". (This is more or less the only kind of thing that the Pope would be doing, in an Eastern Orthodox view - announcing "yep there's consensus" rather than saying "since there's not consensus, I say such-and-such".)

Deteriorata posted:

Of course. There are still illiterate people around who are also good, faithful Christians.

Christianity is not based on what you do, it's fundamentally about grace. Your faith is what matters, not your actions.

A good Christian should want to read the Bible and learn as much about their faith as possible, but it's not mandatory.

Here I would disagree and say both that faith is an action and that our actions are critical to our salvation - God doesn't declare us saved and then we should want to act like it, God infuses us with holiness and then we have to cooperate. So of course we should want to know God as well as we can, and know the Scriptures as well as we can, and understand what God's Church teaches about Him to the greatest degree that we can, because that's what we do when we love someone - we get to know them! On the other hand, you can know a lot about someone and not love them.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

To witness titanic events is always dangerous, usually painful, and often fatal.





Gaius Marius posted:

How do you know your translated bible is any more accurate then the local priest?
In principle you could become a scholar of Biblical languages and then refer to the original texts. But what if those texts are conflicting or inaccurate?

What if you were to go through the Bible and derive a citation-rich alternative theology of some kind? It would be hard to not have Jesus be prominent from the Biblical texts, of course, but it is pretty easy to get Unitarian or Arianist thoughts out of it.

HopperUK
Apr 29, 2007

Clear off, fatso, this is a respectable establishment




NikkolasKing posted:


Again, it's not about deferring to authority. It's about blind, mindless faith in authority.

This is harsh. Do you think an illiterate farmer had 'mindless' faith because he got his scriptural understanding from a priest rather than direct from the bible? You can quibble with the source but judging the quality of faith of other people is a bit much isn't it? I love the Bible and I read it a lot but Catholics in general don't believe that the Bible is the end of God's teaching, or even the beginning of it.

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

Itís also worth keeping in mind that back then if you knew how to read, youíd likely know how to read (and speak) Latin. It was the lingua franca at the time,

i tied a declension to my thesis, which

NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010





Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

Itís also worth keeping in mind that back then if you knew how to read, youíd likely know how to read (and speak) Latin. It was the lingua franca at the time, the language of learning. If you wanted your textbook or whatever to be read by Italian and French and German and English speakers- youíd write it in Latin.

So like I mentioned back when I first started the discussion, I was listening to a lecture on Descartes and one of the facts brought up was how he wrote his Discourse on Method in French. He wanted it to reach a wider audience than just the most high and learned classes.

I just figured the aim was similar with translating Bibles into the vernacular, democratizing the knowledge.


HopperUK posted:

This is harsh. Do you think an illiterate farmer had 'mindless' faith because he got his scriptural understanding from a priest rather than direct from the bible? You can quibble with the source but judging the quality of faith of other people is a bit much isn't it? I love the Bible and I read it a lot but Catholics in general don't believe that the Bible is the end of God's teaching, or even the beginning of it.

That is harsh yes and I apologize. But a lot (most?) people back then explicitly didn't have a choice so of course they can't be at fault. But once more going back to my initial musings, this sort of separates us Moderns, or at least me, from people back then. I just don't understand supporting something without knowing as much as you can about it.

Maybe it was easier when nobody you knew knew any more than you did.

zonohedron
Aug 14, 2006




NikkolasKing posted:

That is harsh yes and I apologize. But a lot (most?) people back then explicitly didn't have a choice so of course they can't be at fault. But once more going back to my initial musings, this sort of separates us Moderns, or at least me, from people back then. I just don't understand supporting something without knowing as much as you can about it.

Maybe it was easier when nobody you knew knew any more than you did.

You're confusing being a Christian with being a member of a political party, or a social organization, or the like, I think. You don't support the Church like you would one of those groups; you're just part of it. It's kind of like saying to a child that you don't understand why they haven't renounced their citizenship until they understand more about the country they're a citizen of.

It's also not a matter of how much the people around us know, because most people I know aren't theologians, and someone having read every single verse of every single book of the Bible wouldn't mean they necessarily know more about Jesus than someone who's never read a word of anything.

White Coke
May 29, 2015


NikkolasKing posted:

I just don't understand supporting something without knowing as much as you can about it.

How broadly do you apply this principle? Does it apply to scientific laws and interpersonal relationships, or is it just with regard to the realms of philosophy, politics, and theology?

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


White Coke posted:

How broadly do you apply this principle? Does it apply to scientific laws and interpersonal relationships, or is it just with regard to the realms of philosophy, politics, and theology?

*checking to see if my catechism has a gold fringe* aw crap

NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010





White Coke posted:

How broadly do you apply this principle? Does it apply to scientific laws and interpersonal relationships, or is it just with regard to the realms of philosophy, politics, and theology?

Probably more the latter group, although that might just be my preference. Even a vague knowledge of history and philosophy will teach you that science isn't as absolute as it pretends but at the same time I don't think "do electrons really exist or not?" matters as much to our day to day lives as does God exist or how should society be run. As such, everyone should probably think about those things more than wondering if our scientific knowledge is accurate or not.

I also draw a hard line between the mundane and the religious. I don't support capital punishment but I'd sooner support it than believing in Hell. Because, as humans, we have limits and we have to operate within those limits. Politics is thus a matter of limits and being practical with how lovely life in this world is. Religion is by is very nature a higher order activity to help us overcome the shittiness of the world. It should be held to a higher standard. Or, in short, I'd sooner accept somebody being a Republican because they were born into a Republican family than just being a Christian because everybody they know is a Christian. It might sound like I'm being more judgmental to the latter but it's only because I have the greatest respect for deeply religious people. Faith is something wonderful and beautiful and it's something you as an individual must obtain, nobody can give it to you, unlike your political beliefs.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Apr 28, 2021

White Coke
May 29, 2015


NikkolasKing posted:

It might sound like I'm being more judgmental to the latter but it's only because I have the greatest respect for deeply religious people. Faith is something wonderful and beautiful and it's something you as an individual must obtain, nobody can give it to you, unlike your political beliefs.

You seem to have respect for a certain kind of religious person, and deciding whether or not someone has the right kind of faith based on whether or not theyíve met your approved criteria is, I think, the wrong way to go about it. Not everyone has to struggle and strive to believe, and I donít think you can decide who has genuine faith based on their reading list.

NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010





White Coke posted:

You seem to have respect for a certain kind of religious person, and deciding whether or not someone has the right kind of faith based on whether or not theyíve met your approved criteria is, I think, the wrong way to go about it. Not everyone has to struggle and strive to believe, and I donít think you can decide who has genuine faith based on their reading list.

Like, I hope nobody is getting the impression I try to gatekeep for religions I don't even belong to. It's not my right and I'm not quite that much of an rear end in a top hat. I would never go up to a Christian and tell them they aren't a Christian or they're a bad Christian.

I guess this is just why, despite my adult lifelong interest in religions and reading about them, I've never found much faith or belief in any of them. I find them intriguing and instructive and beneficial to society...but for me? Nothing. I wish I had that hallelujah moment. I guess another very Protestant view of mine is the antagonism between Faith and Reason. All the knowledge in the world doesn't give you faith. Which I suppose contradicts a lot of what I've been saying but...I guess I just haven't explained myself well at all.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Apr 28, 2021

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

To witness titanic events is always dangerous, usually painful, and often fatal.





NikkolasKing posted:

Like, I hope nobody is getting the impression I try to gatekeep for religions I don't even belong to. It's not my right and I'm not quite that much of an rear end in a top hat. I would never go up to a Christian and tell them they aren't a Christian or they're a bad Christian.

I guess this is just why, despite my adult lifelong interest in religions and reading about them, I've never found much faith or belief in any of them. I find them intriguing and instructive and beneficial to society...but for me? Nothing. I wish I had that hallelujah moment. I guess another very Protestant view of mine is the antagonism between Faith and Reason. All the knowledge in the world doesn't give you faith. Which I suppose contradicts a lot of what I've been saying but...I guess I just haven't explained myself well at all.
What you have said has made sense, and indeed has been fairly in concord with a lot of what I have heard people say about religion in general. If I were to say you were making an error, it is that you seem to consistently privilege rhetorical/textual elements of religious practice and thought over the practical lived experience, or potentially things like mystical/non-linear experiences. Religion is a complex human behavior so this cannot really be done effectively, or at least it gives you a kind of skewed view. Like it's important, but it's the bones.

The bones are fixed. The bones are reliable. Provable, permanent. But if you went only by bones, this is what Cythereal would use to sign their posts:



It isn't just the bones.

zonohedron
Aug 14, 2006




NikkolasKing posted:

I don't support capital punishment but I'd sooner support it than believing in Hell. Because, as humans, we have limits and we have to operate within those limits. Politics is thus a matter of limits and being practical with how lovely life in this world is. Religion is by is very nature a higher order activity to help us overcome the shittiness of the world.

So you're okay with someone supporting capital punishment, because you recognize that politics is about making compromises and sometimes you gotta let the government kill some people if that's what it takes to make other people feel safer, but you're not okay with someone believing that some people would, if given the choice, permanently reject God in favor of worshipping only themselves, because....

Basically you're describing religion as something like... an exercise routine? Like, it's better for you if you get 30 minutes of aerobic exercise a day, but even once a week is good, but some people just don't feel like it, and whatever, it's their health? And you shouldn't decide that your exercise routine is nine hundred jumping jacks every morning at six am, that's excessive and weird.

On the other hand, for a lot of us, religion is more about being who God is calling us to be, it's a direct response to a direct request, "be holy as I am holy," and so while obviously we gotta know who this person telling us to be holy is, so we can better do the thing he's saying, reading the seventy-three books that his Church recognizes as inspired by him is just part of that, and not everybody's going to be able to do that.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

The general increasing love of athletics is benefiting our young men, and making their lives better and more worth the living.

NikkolasKing posted:

Like, I hope nobody is getting the impression I try to gatekeep for religions I don't even belong to. It's not my right and I'm not quite that much of an rear end in a top hat. I would never go up to a Christian and tell them they aren't a Christian or they're a bad Christian.

I guess this is just why, despite my adult lifelong interest in religions and reading about them, I've never found much faith or belief in any of them. I find them intriguing and instructive and beneficial to society...but for me? Nothing. I wish I had that hallelujah moment. I guess another very Protestant view of mine is the antagonism between Faith and Reason. All the knowledge in the world doesn't give you faith. Which I suppose contradicts a lot of what I've been saying but...I guess I just haven't explained myself well at all.

Faith is not a purely intellectual enterprise. You cannot learn or reason your way into faith. You can learn a lot about religion, but faith itself is something you have to feel.

John Wesley had a similar problem. He'd tried to be a good Christian all his life, had followed all the rules, been ordained as a priest, and studied it intensely for years. However, he always felt off - like he didn't really get it.

Then he had his Aldersgate experience and everything changed. I hope and pray that you'll experience something similar one day.

zonohedron
Aug 14, 2006




Deteriorata posted:

Faith is not a purely intellectual enterprise. You cannot learn or reason your way into faith.

Or to quote John Henry Newman, in a letter he wrote to a friend:

quote:

The Catholic doctrine concerning faith and reason is this, that reason proves that Catholicism ought to be believed, and that in that form it comes before the Will, which accepts it or rejects it, as moved by grace or not. Reason does not prove that Catholicism is true, as it proves that mathematical conclusions are true, e.g., but it proves that there is a case for it so strong that we see we ought to accept it. There may be difficulties which we cannot answer, but still we see on the whole that grounds are sufficient for conviction. This is not the same thing as conviction. If conviction were unavoidable, we might be said to be forced to believe, as we are forced to mathematical conclusions--but while there is enough evidence for conviction, whether we will be convinced or not, rests with ourselves--This is what the priest means, when he is first asked -If a man has not evidence enough to subdue his reason, what is to make him believe?' and then answers 'His will.' and this is just our trial--and one man rejects what another accepts--On the contrary, were we forced to believe, as we are forced to admit that two sides of a triangle are greater than the third, there would be no trial of our affections, nothing morally right in believing, or wrong in not believing.

I think most of y'all non-Catholics could reasonably substitute y'all's own denominations and/or religions as appropriate, though some Protestants would suggest that reason can't prove anything until grace acts on it, rather than reason proving just fine but the will needing grace to accept.

Powered Descent
Jul 13, 2008

We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.



Deteriorata posted:

Faith is not a purely intellectual enterprise. You cannot learn or reason your way into faith. You can learn a lot about religion, but faith itself is something you have to feel.

John Wesley had a similar problem. He'd tried to be a good Christian all his life, had followed all the rules, been ordained as a priest, and studied it intensely for years. However, he always felt off - like he didn't really get it.

Then he had his Aldersgate experience and everything changed. I hope and pray that you'll experience something similar one day.

"That's the thing about faith. If you don't have it, you can't understand it. And if you do, no explanation is necessary." -Kira Nerys

BIG FLUFFY DOG
Feb 16, 2011

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.




Reason is fundamentally dualistic and therefore inadequate in detailing and understanding non-dualistic concepts that dominate religion. Its at best a crutch used for when you are not yet capable of approaching the divine on its own terms

HopperUK
Apr 29, 2007

Clear off, fatso, this is a respectable establishment




Powered Descent posted:

"That's the thing about faith. If you don't have it, you can't understand it. And if you do, no explanation is necessary." -Kira Nerys

I have so many opinions about the Vorta you have no idea

BIG FLUFFY DOG
Feb 16, 2011

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.




Crossposting from the buddhism thread jn the interest of ecumenicalism



Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

The principles expressed in the martial arts make up the backbone of my philosophy.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Crossposting from the buddhism thread jn the interest of ecumenicalism

My father, when he was very ill from cancer, would prepare his meal and grab a treat for the dog. Before his meals, Dad would meditate for about a minute, and the dog would sit in absolute stillness until Dad opened his eyes and handed him his treat. I donít believe in rebirth but if I did our beloved dog would certainly be living in the human realm. He was virtuous the goodest boy.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

To witness titanic events is always dangerous, usually painful, and often fatal.





Thirteen Orphans posted:

My father, when he was very ill from cancer, would prepare his meal and grab a treat for the dog. Before his meals, Dad would meditate for about a minute, and the dog would sit in absolute stillness until Dad opened his eyes and handed him his treat. I donít believe in rebirth but if I did our beloved dog would certainly be living in the human realm. He was virtuous the goodest boy.
Being a pet animal is honestly a pretty good deal for a lot of animals from a karmic perspective. Your good boye didn't have to go procure his own food (likely, in some part, by deliberately killing other living things) or fight with other dogs.

ProperGanderPusher
Jan 13, 2012






Hey.

Hey, Orthogoons.

Christ is Risen.

Slimy Hog
Apr 22, 2008



ProperGanderPusher posted:

Hey.

Hey, Orthogoons.

Christ is Risen.

Indeed he is risen!

Keromaru5
Dec 28, 2012
For what it's worth, this is more trashy shoujo manga than trashy nerdbait hentai.


Aληθώς ανέστη!

HopperUK
Apr 29, 2007

Clear off, fatso, this is a respectable establishment




Happy Easter, splitters!

Slimy Hog
Apr 22, 2008



HopperUK posted:

Happy Easter, splitters!

Is there a SA bug that made you post 1 month late or something?

Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

The principles expressed in the martial arts make up the backbone of my philosophy.

Slimy Hog posted:

Is there a SA bug that made you post 1 month late or something?

Took me a second.

White Coke
May 29, 2015


He is Risen, for sure now.

Fritz the Horse
Dec 26, 2019

... of course!

Oh boy um er this is certainly A Take

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/teenage-pregnancy-vs-the-success-sequence/

quote:

The Conservative Case For Teen Pregnancy
Where the success sequence is parsimonious, pregnancy is liberal in the old-fashioned sense of the word, even munificent.

The writing is also terrible. Someone ate two whole thesauruses for breakfast.

(I am not at all a fan of Walther, to put it lightly)

BIG FLUFFY DOG
Feb 16, 2011

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.




there's a definite strain among conservatives, Scalia being the most prominent example, that really really likes using big words needlessly and its always struck me as coming from a place of insecurity where they're aware of how much the intelligentsia leans left/liberal and thinks knowing what munificent means validates their opinions.

In happier news, just as the buddha converted Angulimalla a depraved serial killer to goodness and calmed a drunken elephant intent on killing him, a goose, the most evil of all creatures, has taken refuge within the 3 gems.

Night10194
Feb 13, 2012

We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.


BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

there's a definite strain among conservatives, Scalia being the most prominent example, that really really likes using big words needlessly and its always struck me as coming from a place of insecurity where they're aware of how much the intelligentsia leans left/liberal and thinks knowing what munificent means validates their opinions.

It's not just them. You see it in a lot of fantasy authors, too. You can always tell dumb writing gussied up with a thesaurus in the writer's lap and I always hate it. It's my stylistic white whale.

Lutha Mahtin
Oct 10, 2010

Your brokebrain sin is absolved...go and shitpost no more!


his dictionary apparently doesn't have an entry for natalie imbruglia

Kevin DuBrow
Apr 21, 2012

as requested

Fritz the Horse posted:

Oh boy um er this is certainly A Take

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/teenage-pregnancy-vs-the-success-sequence/


The writing is also terrible. Someone ate two whole thesauruses for breakfast.

(I am not at all a fan of Walther, to put it lightly)


quote:

It is not love of chastity that leads the vast majority of Americans who attain it to “delay parenthood,” as the literature puts it, but the apparently successful attempt of pharmaceutical corporations to reduce the marital act to a sterile parody. Whatever virtues the average middle-class American couple exhibit by “delaying,” they are not natural ones. They are really showing us their disordered understanding of prudence, which has become a synonym for convenience. 

I can't believe there are still people who bemoan the effectiveness of contraception in allowing teenagers to not become pregnant. Later in the article he points out the "children who will never be born". Think of the hypothetical kids!

Kevin DuBrow fucked around with this message at 17:45 on May 8, 2021

NikkolasKing
Apr 3, 2010





I consider myself fairly conservative but if there is one aspect of conservatism that has never made sense to me, it's the anti-sex thing. No doubt this hatred for sex is why progressives tend to valorize it. Neither view has any merit. Sex is like eating or pooping, just something that happens and we move on. It does not deserve any special moral consideration, either for or against.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

The principles expressed in the martial arts make up the backbone of my philosophy.

NikkolasKing posted:

I consider myself fairly conservative but if there is one aspect of conservatism that has never made sense to me, it's the anti-sex thing. No doubt this hatred for sex is why progressives tend to valorize it. Neither view has any merit. Sex is like eating or pooping, just something that happens and we move on. It does not deserve any special moral consideration, either for or against.

I think eating absolutely has moral considerations.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply