Opinion on Pride Month

[Cessarea]

No she said:

"Theology is based on interpretations of religious ideas, so it's not like it's concrete or objective. It's basically just an argument you're making for your own interpretation to be adopted by more people."

Now there are two propositions here.

1. Theology is based on interpretations of religious ideas, so it's not concrete or objective.

I think we all agree on this. It could be expanded for more specificity sure but the meaning remains.

Theology being a formal discipline means that you can't just toss ideas out there. You have to actually engage in rigorous and methodical analysis. You wouldn't say this about history, philosophy, political science, or biology. The way y'all talk about theology makes it glaringly obvious that you're not believers and don't value theology as an actual academic field.

By all means, theology is an organised system, just don't compare it to history and biology. History studies things that literally took place. It does not deal with abstraction, it's concrete analysis. Whilst, sure, a lot of times historians have to make leaps of faith in regards to what actually happened, the fact remains that the field is ultimately predicated upon studying fact, material events that have taken and are taking place. History as a field can also interpret and analyse beyond that, in abstraction, creating historical patterns, but that's besides the point. The comparison becomes even worse with biology, where the study of fact is even more dependant on material existence. There is very little abstraction to be had.

Political science is a bit fairer to compare, but I'd say that ultimately the greatest comparison you made was with philosophy. Theology is a field of study akin to philosophy, and that does not mean it's more or less worthy, mind you. It only means that the dependence of the field in relation to material events is lessened. The argumentation is primarily abstract in nature. The systems are rigorous, for sure, not everyone can become a proper philosopher or theologian, it takes years of study. But that "rigorous and methodical analysis" does not result in one truth. As I've stated in my previous post, multiple people can make different assertions that hold the same level of truthfulness, because there is no great material truth being studied by philosophy that answers can slowly be approximated to. You work primarily with rhetoric, argumentation, and interpretation. Again, this is no attempt to "devalue" philosophy or theology, it's just stating the difference between these fields of academia.

[Jedi Council]

No she said:

"Theology is based on interpretations of religious ideas, so it's not like it's concrete or objective. It's basically just an argument you're making for your own interpretation to be adopted by more people."

Now there are two propositions here.

1. Theology is based on interpretations of religious ideas, so it's not concrete or objective.

I think we all agree on this. It could be expanded for more specificity sure but the meaning remains.

Theology being a formal discipline means that you can't just toss ideas out there. You have to actually engage in rigorous and methodical analysis. You wouldn't say this about history, philosophy, political science, or biology. The way y'all talk about theology makes it glaringly obvious that you're not believers and don't value theology as an actual academic field.

2. The main purpose of theology is to convince others to follow your interpretation.

Now there could be debate here, but I tend to agree with the above.

In both cases, I do not see how screeching that theology is a "discipline that involves the systemic study" invalidates either of these two propositions.

See above. Also, no, theologians aren't car salesmen. The goal isn't just to attract as many followers as possible. It's about achieving a more insightful understanding of the divine. Making up nonsense doesn't meet muster. Again, y'all are talking about theology and religion in a way that only atheists can.

Once more, nothing you have said here contradicts either of Parmistan's original points.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Surely God, if he was so against doin' it in the butt, would have in his omniscience noted such a flaw in His Holy Hole's design.

If God was so in favor of "doin' it in the butt", surely he'd have made it as safe as regular intercourse, with no greater risk of infections?

This strange obsession with anal sex that many people have online is just bizarre.

What is it to you if someone wants to get ass fucked? My word. Nothing. Mind your own business.

Blokes need to learn to stay out of consenting adults’ sex lives.

[Parmistan]

Furthermore, disciplines that involve systemic study are by no means immune to being just a bunch of people trying to convince the majority to get behind their ideas. Look at Law, that's pretty much what it's all about. When you're dealing with a field that has no objective or natural truth, it inevitably becomes a contest of argumentation and rhetoric, constrained only by logical sense.

That last line is my entire point. You have to actually employ the correct methodology and formulate ideas and frameworks that adhere to the logic of the texts and the discipline as a whole. "It's subjective and not concrete so I can make any argument that people like" isn't a valid argument. If I convince people that free speech is bad, it doesn't actually mean that free speech isn't enshrined in law. If I convince people that Napoleon was Portuguese, it doesn't make my assertion historically accurate or worthwhile.

Those things are objective. Biology is objective. Facts, figures, math, statistics, these things are OBJECTIVE. Theology is SUBjective. It's just a sub-branch of Philosophy, and kind of the defining characteristic of Philosophy as a field is subjectivity.

[New Nevis]

It’s always a very funny sight when I see anti-Pride NPCs making fun of the Intersex flag. Do these people know that they are literally, PHYSICALLY, born that way? It’s not even a sexuality thing, just a biological condition.

[Parmistan]

It’s always a very funny sight when I see anti-Pride NPCs making fun of the Intersex flag. Do these people know that they are literally, PHYSICALLY, born that way? It’s not even a sexuality thing, just a biological condition.

I think a lot of them look at it as "well then you were born wrong" which HOO BOY don't love that

[Ifreann]

It’s always a very funny sight when I see anti-Pride NPCs making fun of the Intersex flag. Do these people know that they are literally, PHYSICALLY, born that way? It’s not even a sexuality thing, just a biological condition.

Quite a few are not currently the way that they were born, because a doctor determined that the way they were born was wrong and changed them. Without asking.

[Parmistan]

It’s always a very funny sight when I see anti-Pride NPCs making fun of the Intersex flag. Do these people know that they are literally, PHYSICALLY, born that way? It’s not even a sexuality thing, just a biological condition.

Quite a few are not currently the way that they were born, because a doctor determined that the way they were born was wrong and changed them. Without asking.

Hey but don't worry everyone, the queer community isn't facing ANY systemic abuses anymore.

[Pua Pua]

I don't understand why everyone needs a month, or a day. It honestly feels worse to have all of your time with your lifestyle and culture constrained just to a single month. Why can't we appreciate Pride year long rather than condensing it into one month?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't understand why everyone needs a month, or a day. It honestly feels worse to have all of your time with your lifestyle and culture constrained just to a single month. Why can't we appreciate Pride year long rather than condensing it into one month?

Except having a month to celebrate something or a group isn’t synonymous with constraint.

[Necroghastia]

I don't understand why everyone needs a month, or a day. It honestly feels worse to have all of your time with your lifestyle and culture constrained just to a single month. Why can't we appreciate Pride year long rather than condensing it into one month?

Er... we can? Nothing is stopping you or anyone else? LGBTQ culture keeps on keeping on throughout the year already?

This is like saying that because November is Native American Heritage month, indigenous people do not participate in their culture outside of November, or Muslims do not have any observances outside of Ramadan.

[Parmistan]

I don't understand why everyone needs a month, or a day. It honestly feels worse to have all of your time with your lifestyle and culture constrained just to a single month. Why can't we appreciate Pride year long rather than condensing it into one month?

Can and do. But the month is an important celebration of it.

[Fahran]

Those things are objective. Biology is objective. Facts, figures, math, statistics, these things are OBJECTIVE. Theology is SUBjective. It's just a sub-branch of Philosophy, and kind of the defining characteristic of Philosophy as a field is subjectivity.

The natural sciences are a sub-branch of philosophy as well and a lot of footwork is done by epistemology, which is likewise another sub-branch of philosophy. I don't believe you understand the distinction between objectivity or subjectivity here. Even with a more subjective discipline or a more subjective approach to a particular topic, you're still confined by limitations. As a historian, you might analyze primary and secondary sources in constructing a hypothesis. This is often a subjective approach, especially when you're using qualitative sources. Theologians are, as often as not, operating from that same position. Subjectivity does not mean making up ideas and arguments as you please. Theology being a formal discipline is completely at odds with the suggestion that you just need to fashion a theological position you like and that can become popular with other people.

EDIT: You're also approaching theology, religious law, and religious history as "not real" to some extent. To a lot of people, they are both real and objective.

[Fahran]

Once more, nothing you have said here contradicts either of Parmistan's original points.

I literally disagree with the entirety of the second point and with the implications drawn from the first point.

[The Black Forrest]

Those things are objective. Biology is objective. Facts, figures, math, statistics, these things are OBJECTIVE. Theology is SUBjective. It's just a sub-branch of Philosophy, and kind of the defining characteristic of Philosophy as a field is subjectivity.

The natural sciences are a sub-branch of philosophy as well and a lot of footwork is done by epistemology, which is likewise another sub-branch of philosophy. I don't believe you understand the distinction between objectivity or subjectivity here. Even with a more subjective discipline or a more subjective approach to a particular topic, you're still confined by limitations. As a historian, you might analyze primary and secondary sources in constructing a hypothesis. This is often a subjective approach, especially when you're using qualitative sources. Theologians are, as often as not, operating from that same position. Subjectivity does not mean making up ideas and arguments as you please. Theology being a formal discipline is completely at odds with the suggestion that you just need to fashion a theological position you like and that can become popular with other people.

EDIT: You're also approaching theology, religious law, and religious history as "not real" to some extent. To a lot of people, they are both real and objective.

Well the amount of people who think they are objective and real is irrelevant. If somebody had evidence, a test, etc., to show Jesus never existed; how many Christians are going to be objective about that? Very few…..

[Fahran]

Well the amount of people who think they are objective and real is irrelevant. If somebody had evidence, a test, etc., to show Jesus never existed; how many Christians are going to be objective about that? Very few…..

This goes back to my earlier point. Most people here are approaching theology as atheists and thus treating it as roughly akin to literary analysis - which they also appear to believe is a free-for-all. Mind you, the comparison to literary analysis is not a bad comparison per se, though reductive, but there's a distinction to be drawn between good and bad literary analysis. I could argue all manner of positions while analyzing a piece of literature, but not all of them will be well-supported by the text or logical. And theology is a separate field with more refined methodologies than university-level literary analysis.

If you want to make the argument that theology and religion don't matter, that's a much simpler argument than stating that religious people can all just make up whatever we please. Because, as a religious person, that's not how we approach the issue generally. It's not terribly relevant in my case given I come out of the Haskalah, but my earlier point about Abrahamic theology and law more generally holds.

[Parmistan]

Those things are objective. Biology is objective. Facts, figures, math, statistics, these things are OBJECTIVE. Theology is SUBjective. It's just a sub-branch of Philosophy, and kind of the defining characteristic of Philosophy as a field is subjectivity.

The natural sciences are a sub-branch of philosophy as well and a lot of footwork is done by epistemology, which is likewise another sub-branch of philosophy. I don't believe you understand the distinction between objectivity or subjectivity here. Even with a more subjective discipline or a more subjective approach to a particular topic, you're still confined by limitations. As a historian, you might analyze primary and secondary sources in constructing a hypothesis. This is often a subjective approach, especially when you're using qualitative sources. Theologians are, as often as not, operating from that same position. Subjectivity does not mean making up ideas and arguments as you please. Theology being a formal discipline is completely at odds with the suggestion that you just need to fashion a theological position you like and that can become popular with other people.

EDIT: You're also approaching theology, religious law, and religious history as "not real" to some extent. To a lot of people, they are both real and objective.

But they AREN'T objective. Thinking your personal interpretation of a text is objective doesn't make it so.

Well the amount of people who think they are objective and real is irrelevant. If somebody had evidence, a test, etc., to show Jesus never existed; how many Christians are going to be objective about that? Very few…..

This goes back to my earlier point. Most people here are approaching theology as atheists and thus treating it as roughly akin to literary analysis - which they also appear to believe is a free-for-all. Mind you, the comparison to literary analysis is not a bad comparison per se, though reductive, but there's a distinction to be drawn between good and bad literary analysis. I could argue all manner of positions while analyzing a piece of literature, but not all of them will be well-supported by the text or logical. And theology is a separate field with more refined methodologies than university-level literary analysis.

If you want to make the argument that theology and religion don't matter, that's a much simpler argument than stating that religious people can all just make up whatever we please. Because, as a religious person, that's not how we approach the issue generally. It's not terribly relevant in my case given I come out of the Haskalah, but my earlier point about Abrahamic theology and law more generally holds.

If I approached LOTR with the kind of attitude you guys approach theology with, I'd still be doing Literary Analysis, but it would be Literary Analysis with one hand tied behind my back because I have to on some level treat the text as factual in some way.

You are interpreting a book or series of books. You are making moral and philosophical arguments in doing so. I fail to see how this is distinct from Literary Criticism aside from being given the trappings of reality.

[Fahran]

If I approached LOTR with the kind of attitude you guys approach theology with, I'd still be doing Literary Analysis, but it would be Literary Analysis with one hand tied behind my back because I have to on some level treat the text as factual in some way.

You are interpreting a book or series of books. You are making moral and philosophical arguments in doing so. I fail to see how this is distinct from Literary Criticism aside from being given the trappings of reality.

Well, for starters, theology and religious law are distinct disciplines from literary analysis and, historically, there have been particular approaches that convey legitimacy in each respective field. In the case of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, our approach is pretty rigorous and allows a lot of flexibility for interpretation and argumentation, but the way you're describing it is less than accurate.

I also think that bad literary analysis, similar to bad aesthetics, should warrant the death penalty. I'm joking a bit, but we really shouldn't treat these fields with flippancy. They're valuable and do offer insights into the human condition that other approaches might not - but that's compromised when you permit illogical moonshine to be comparable to quality work.

[The Black Forrest]

Well the amount of people who think they are objective and real is irrelevant. If somebody had evidence, a test, etc., to show Jesus never existed; how many Christians are going to be objective about that? Very few…..

This goes back to my earlier point. Most people here are approaching theology as atheists and thus treating it as roughly akin to literary analysis - which they also appear to believe is a free-for-all. Mind you, the comparison to literary analysis is not a bad comparison per se, though reductive, but there's a distinction to be drawn between good and bad literary analysis. I could argue all manner of positions while analyzing a piece of literature, but not all of them will be well-supported by the text or logical. And theology is a separate field with more refined methodologies than university-level literary analysis.

If you want to make the argument that theology and religion don't matter, that's a much simpler argument than stating that religious people can all just make up whatever we please. Because, as a religious person, that's not how we approach the issue generally. It's not terribly relevant in my case given I come out of the Haskalah, but my earlier point about Abrahamic theology and law more generally holds.

Science doesn’t argue theology. The only amount of faith in science is the scientist who says “please god; let this work”

Theology doesn’t argue science. “God did it” can never be part of the equation. It’s against testing to see if the claim is true. It needs tests which can’t be built.

A great Scientific endeavor would be to prove if God existed. The problem? It’s an unanswerable question. There is no test to prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Pangurstan]

This goes back to my earlier point. Most people here are approaching theology as atheists and thus treating it as roughly akin to literary analysis - which they also appear to believe is a free-for-all. Mind you, the comparison to literary analysis is not a bad comparison per se, though reductive, but there's a distinction to be drawn between good and bad literary analysis. I could argue all manner of positions while analyzing a piece of literature, but not all of them will be well-supported by the text or logical. And theology is a separate field with more refined methodologies than university-level literary analysis.

If you want to make the argument that theology and religion don't matter, that's a much simpler argument than stating that religious people can all just make up whatever we please. Because, as a religious person, that's not how we approach the issue generally. It's not terribly relevant in my case given I come out of the Haskalah, but my earlier point about Abrahamic theology and law more generally holds.

Science doesn’t argue theology. The only amount of faith in science is the scientist who says “please god; let this work”

Theology doesn’t argue science. “God did it” can never be part of the equation. It’s against testing to see if the claim is true. It needs tests which can’t be built.

A great Scientific endeavor would be to prove if God existed. The problem? It’s an unanswerable question. There is no test to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yes, the question of whether God exists is not based on empiricism, which is why it is the domain of theology and philosphy instead of science.

[Jedi Council]

Science doesn’t argue theology. The only amount of faith in science is the scientist who says “please god; let this work”

Theology doesn’t argue science. “God did it” can never be part of the equation. It’s against testing to see if the claim is true. It needs tests which can’t be built.

A great Scientific endeavor would be to prove if God existed. The problem? It’s an unanswerable question. There is no test to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yes, the question of whether God exists is not based on empiricism, which is why it is the domain of theology and philosphy instead of science.

And both of these are non-objective disciplines, meaning that they cannot possible provide a definitive answer, unlike, in most cases, science.

If we can all agree on that then we are one step closer to keeping religion where it should be - within the person of the individual and expanding no further than your own views, actions, and life habits.

[The Black Forrest]

Why is pride needed? An example.

A 66 year old woman was killed at her store for flying a pride flag.

https://abc7.com/lake-arrowhead-store-o ... /13673754/

[Pua Pua]

I don't understand why everyone needs a month, or a day. It honestly feels worse to have all of your time with your lifestyle and culture constrained just to a single month. Why can't we appreciate Pride year long rather than condensing it into one month?

Er... we can? Nothing is stopping you or anyone else? LGBTQ culture keeps on keeping on throughout the year already?

This is like saying that because November is Native American Heritage month, indigenous people do not participate in their culture outside of November, or Muslims do not have any observances outside of Ramadan.

My take was poor wording on my part, my fault. I was speaking in terms of parades and whatnot; I myself am a member of the LGBTQ community. I'm not against pride (and have participated and attended it myself) but I've always been saddened by the way that all celebration from outside of the community seems to come to a full stop right after the month ends.

I feel like there should always be the option to invite people to celebrate each other's culture throughout the year. And I also feel like it's seen as more "socially acceptable" (for lack of a better term) to invite people to celebrate solely during a designated month or day. This is all speaking from what I've seen people say and what I've felt myself as a member of the LGBT community, so I recognize that I cannot speak for everyone. Just my two cents

[The Order of the Black Sun]

I myself do not hate the LGBTQ community, however I am against it and the entire month itself. I’m surprised that most people from the community haven’t noticed that businesses just use the month for money.

Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Yet again, I want to clarify, I love everyone I just disagree with a lot of them.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I myself do not hate the LGBTQ community, however I am against it and the entire month itself. I’m surprised that most people from the community haven’t noticed that businesses just use the month for money.

Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Yet again, I want to clarify, I love everyone I just disagree with a lot of them.

>i love everyone
>we should stone the gays to death