Future of religion

[Alvecia]

Honestly, now it just sounds like you're trying to definition lawyer your way around the charge without actually addressing the point. "I'm not technically a bigot because...."

The long standing actions of the Catholic Church kind of fly in the face your point about Abrahamic religions. Rather than being a deterrent, it seems in fact they provided a platform to do it, and the means to escape consequences.

Just like politics. Democracies in name only are rampant with immorality and corruption to the point people loe faith in them.

The implicit agreement here being that the prescence of abrahamic religion has no effect of the levels of "immorality"

[Endem]

To quote Ed Feser:

...a great many people seem to have forgotten what bigotry actually is and exactly why it is objectionable. John Knasas, in the course of a discussion on a completely unrelated subject, happens to give in passing a pretty good characterization of bigotry:

[ B ]iases and prejudices can determine how things come across. In the light of racial prejudice, white bigots are unable to appreciate something done by a black person in good faith. A smile, a courtesy, will be taken as a setup, unemployment as indicative of lazy character, employment as indicative of another white person’s mercy rather than the black person’s merit, and so on. The bigot constantly interprets what is given in the light of preconceptions. (Being and Some Twentieth-Century Thomists, p. 115)

Oxford defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.” Merriam-Webster tells us that a bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

These characterizations of bigotry are by no means eccentric or partisan. They reflect longstanding English usage of the term. Now, notice that on all of them, the nature and problematic status of bigotry are essentially procedural rather than substantive. That is to say, they have to do, not with the content of the bigot’s beliefs, but with the manner in which he holds them. The bigot is someone whose attachment to his beliefs is fundamentally emotional rather than rational. He evaluates the evidence in light of his beliefs rather than evaluating his beliefs in light of the evidence. He is reluctant or unwilling to give a fair hearing to opinions other than his own or to arguments against his own. He tends to be hostile to those who hold those different opinions, prefers to avoid them altogether rather than engaging them and their views, and resorts to invective instead of reasoned debate.

Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.

Is the suggestion here that not letting religions discriminate against the LGBT will directly lead to world leaders establishing pedophilic harems?

It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Ah yes, because Christian priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

[Catarapania]

To quote Ed Feser:



Accuse me of bigotry all you want. But the more you resort to invective, and the less time you devote to arguing that the behaviors "LGBT" individuals are prone to are morally acceptable, the more the charge applies to you.



It wouldn't be limited to world leaders, and the technical term is "pederasty," not "pedophilia," but once the Christian "romantic paradigm" (one man, one woman, one lifetime) is completely displaced, our "natural" tendencies will rise to take its place. In particular, the alliance-forming instincts that many are mistaking for their "orientation" will become less objectionable, and the "natural" adolescent behavior of seeking out older men with whom to form alliances will once again be publically accepted.

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

[Alvecia]

Honestly, now it just sounds like you're trying to definition lawyer your way around the charge without actually addressing the point. "I'm not technically a bigot because...."

Actually, I'm trying to expose the fact that the charge of bigotry in this context is intended to bypass rational debate. By hitting me with a label, you can reject what I say without having to think about it.

The long standing actions of the Catholic Church kind of fly in the face your point about Abrahamic religions. Rather than being a deterrent, it seems in fact they provided a platform to do it, and the means to escape consequences.

And once again you try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Twas not I who accused you of bigotry. I merely pointed out that your statement read a lot like "not allowing religion to discriminate is discimination"
Would you say that statement is accurate?

I would posit that the presence of religion had and has little effect on the development of modern morality as it exists today.
I might be convinced to go as far as to say that in fact religious morality has lagged behind societal morality.

I'll grant it is difficult to say either way given the limited sample size.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds regarding a discussion of pederasty and it's historical context, but I would say that it and other moral stances have become more prominent as a result of two major factors.
1. the average layman's ability to participate in the development of the laws and moral standing of the society in which they exist, and the greater accountability of those who lead society
2. the increase in health, wealth, and safety of the average member of society

[Catarapania]

Actually, I'm trying to expose the fact that the charge of bigotry in this context is intended to bypass rational debate. By hitting me with a label, you can reject what I say without having to think about it.


And once again you try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Twas not I who accused you of bigotry. I merely pointed out that your statement read a lot like "not allowing religion to discriminate is discimination"
Would you say that statement is accurate?

Yes. Our choice isn't whether we will discriminate, it is whom we will discriminate against. Do you disagree?

I would posit that the presence of religion had and has little effect on the development of modern morality as it exists today.
I might be convinced to go as far as to say that in fact religious morality has lagged behind societal morality.

I'll grant it is difficult to say either way given the limited sample size.

I would say that that's obvious nonsense, at least on the grand historical scale. That being said, if you limit yourself to the past hundred years, and insist on a liberal definition of "social morality," I can see how you'd think otherwise.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds regarding a discussion of pederasty and it's historical context, but I would say that it and other moral stances have become more prominent as a result of two major factors.
1. the average layman's ability to participate in the development of the laws and moral standing of the society in which they exist, and the greater accountability of those who lead society
2. the increase in health, wealth, and safety of the average member of society

I require a more precise referent for "it and other moral stances" that you allege have become "more prominent."

[Endem]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Did... Did you just copy and paste your argument?

Anyway, as I said, this "pederastry" which is just pedophilia, contrary to your claims, never went away due to the rise of Christendom ( I'd go as far to say it exacerbated the problem ), pedophilic behaviour has been seen in people of all orientations, in my opinion it stems from a procreative behaviour gone awry which has nothing to do with ones orientation, as can be proven by well, the numerous scandals of priests and their pedophilic behaviour.

Now, call me crazy, but to me it has been quite easily explained why Christianity wants to continue supressing LGBT, ever since the secularization of the Western world, the priesthood preyed on the ostracized LGBT people for members, on the simple mechanism thatt being in such position of respect gives the means of masking your behaviour( in the 60's and 50's I think there were scandals of priests engaged in homosexual behaviour much like today's scandals of pedophiliac priests ) Now, huge disclaimer, because I wanted to say that pedos and lgbt is nothing alike, continuing, since the legalization of LGBT behaviour ), the only group that is discriminated is pedos, and is the only group the priesthood can still draw members from. So, it's in the self-preservatory interest of Christianity to still persecute LGBT people as they are simply running out of priests.

[Neanderthaland]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Because your "ladder" includes a bunch of other dangerously old rusty snags that make it a hazard to use. And we don't need it anymore. We've grown tall enough to stand without it.

[Lower Nubia]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

WHAT? Paedophilia is a problem everywhere. It has no greater proportion of adherents in Churches than it does in schools, orphanages, companies, government agencies. Christianity did not make paedophilia accessible to people, this is nonsense. It is accessible when people in a position of power/authority have control or contact with children. This makes schools, orphanages, daycares, and churches a common target to infiltrate.

[Alvecia]

Twas not I who accused you of bigotry. I merely pointed out that your statement read a lot like "not allowing religion to discriminate is discimination"
Would you say that statement is accurate?

Yes. Our choice isn't whether we will discriminate, it is whom we will discriminate against. Do you disagree?

I mean, at that point, the basis of your argument is just "I'm upset that my side isn't winning"
Your issue isn't that you're being disciminated against, it that you're being discriminated against.

And to that I guess all I can say is tough shit my dood. You lose.

I would posit that the presence of religion had and has little effect on the development of modern morality as it exists today.
I might be convinced to go as far as to say that in fact religious morality has lagged behind societal morality.

I'll grant it is difficult to say either way given the limited sample size.

I would say that that's obvious nonsense, at least on the grand historical scale. That being said, if you limit yourself to the past hundred years, and insist on a liberal definition of "social morality," I can see how you'd think otherwise.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds regarding a discussion of pederasty and it's historical context, but I would say that it and other moral stances have become more prominent as a result of two major factors.
1. the average layman's ability to participate in the development of the laws and moral standing of the society in which they exist, and the greater accountability of those who lead society
2. the increase in health, wealth, and safety of the average member of society

I require a more precise referent for "it and other moral stances" that you allege have become "more prominent."

I'm sure you would.

LGBT right, womens right, freedom of /from religious.

[Catarapania]

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Did... Did you just copy and paste your argument?

There was no substantial difference between what he said and what you said, so your comment wasn't worth the effort of doing otherwise.

Anyway, as I said, this "pederastry" which is just pedophilia, contrary to your claims, never went away, pedophilic behaviour has been seen in people of all orientations, in my opinion it stems from a procreative behaviour gone awry which has nothing to do with ones orientation, as can be proven by well, the numerous scandals of priests and their pedophilic behaviour.

I would argue that the very notion of "orientation" is questionable, since most cultures have no concept of it. There are those who choose to form their identity based on one set of impulses (those aimed at alliance-forming), and those who choose to form their identity based on a different set (those aimed at reproduction).

Now, call me crazy, but to me it has been quite easily explained why Christianity wants to continue supressing LGBT, ever since the secularization of the Western world, the priesthood preyed on the ostracized LGBT people for members, on the simple mechanism thatt being in such position of respect gives the means of masking your behaviour( in the 60's and 50's I think there were scandals of priests engaged in homosexual behaviour much like today's scandals of pedophiliac priests ) Now, huge disclaimer, because I wanted to say that pedos and lgbt is nothing alike,

I think that most of what you've said so far sounds like a bad conspiracy theory. I also think that there's a reason that male homosexuality appears to have primarily manifested as pederasty in history.

continuing, since the legalization of LGBT behaviour ), the only group that is discriminated is pedos, and is the only group the priesthood can still draw members from. So, it's in the self-preservatory interest of Christianity to still persecute LGBT people as they are simply running out of priests.

Again, this reads like a bad conspiracy theory. Do you have any real evidence or argument behind this?

[Catarapania]

Yes. Our choice isn't whether we will discriminate, it is whom we will discriminate against. Do you disagree?

I mean, at that point, the basis of your argument is just "I'm upset that my side isn't winning"
Your issue isn't that you're being disciminated against, it that you're being discriminated against.

And to that I guess all I can say is tough shit my dood. You lose.

I'm not the one who thinks that discrimination is inherently bad, at least not when based on behavior.

If you gave a reason that went beyond "don't you feel bad for LGBT people who were marginalized?" that could stand up to scrutiny, I'd be happy to accept second-class citizen status. I have yet to see such a reason.

I would say that that's obvious nonsense, at least on the grand historical scale. That being said, if you limit yourself to the past hundred years, and insist on a liberal definition of "social morality," I can see how you'd think otherwise.

I require a more precise referent for "it and other moral stances" that you allege have become "more prominent."

I'm sure you would.

LGBT right, womens right, freedom of /from religious.

So you're changing the subject again? Recall, my question was "where did the animus against pederasty initially come from?" And Christian teaching is the obvious answer. My second question then was "why should we trust Christian teaching in the one case (pederasty), but not in the other (LGBT)?" If we're going to question Christianity in the name of "muh freedumb," shouldn't we question all of it?

[Catarapania]

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Because your "ladder" includes a bunch of other dangerously old rusty snags that make it a hazard to use.

Such as it's disapproval of LGBT? Isn't calling that "hazardous" kind of begging the question against traditional religion?

And we don't need it anymore. We've grown tall enough to stand without it.

Yeah, the state of the world says something different. Frankly, I'd blame most major atrocities of the 20th century on secularism.

[Alvecia]

I mean, at that point, the basis of your argument is just "I'm upset that my side isn't winning"
Your issue isn't that you're being disciminated against, it that you're being discriminated against.

And to that I guess all I can say is tough shit my dood. You lose.

I'm not the one who thinks that discrimination is inherently bad, at least not when based on behavior.

If you gave a reason that went beyond "don't you feel bad for LGBT people who were marginalized?" that could stand up to scrutiny, I'd be happy to accept second-class citizen status. I have yet to see such a reason.

I don't think discimination is inherently bad.
Single gendered toilets are technically discriminatory but you're not gonna catch me lobbying against them.

I don't think such a reason exists that could convince you. That's just how it be.
You got your side, I got mine. Fortunately I happen to be winning.
Sucks to be you

I'm sure you would.

LGBT right, womens right, freedom of /from religious.

So you're changing the subject again? Recall, my question was "where did the animus against pederasty initially come from?" And Christian teaching is the obvious answer. My second question then was "why should we trust Christian teaching in the one case (pederasty), but not in the other (LGBT)?" If we're going to question Christianity in the name of "muh freedumb," shouldn't we question all of it?

You asked for other examples of "it and other moral stances" that I believe have become "more prominent". I provided.
Exactly what subject has been changed?

[Endem]

Did... Did you just copy and paste your argument?

There was no substantial difference between what he said and what you said, so your comment wasn't worth the effort of doing otherwise.

Anyway, as I said, this "pederastry" which is just pedophilia, contrary to your claims, never went away, pedophilic behaviour has been seen in people of all orientations, in my opinion it stems from a procreative behaviour gone awry which has nothing to do with ones orientation, as can be proven by well, the numerous scandals of priests and their pedophilic behaviour.

I would argue that the very notion of "orientation" is questionable, since most cultures have no concept of it. There are those who choose to form their identity based on one set of impulses (those aimed at alliance-forming), and those who choose to form their identity based on a different set (those aimed at reproduction).

Now, call me crazy, but to me it has been quite easily explained why Christianity wants to continue supressing LGBT, ever since the secularization of the Western world, the priesthood preyed on the ostracized LGBT people for members, on the simple mechanism thatt being in such position of respect gives the means of masking your behaviour( in the 60's and 50's I think there were scandals of priests engaged in homosexual behaviour much like today's scandals of pedophiliac priests ) Now, huge disclaimer, because I wanted to say that pedos and lgbt is nothing alike,

I think that most of what you've said so far sounds like a bad conspiracy theory. I also think that there's a reason that male homosexuality appears to have primarily manifested as pederasty in history.

continuing, since the legalization of LGBT behaviour ), the only group that is discriminated is pedos, and is the only group the priesthood can still draw members from. So, it's in the self-preservatory interest of Christianity to still persecute LGBT people as they are simply running out of priests.

Again, this reads like a bad conspiracy theory. Do you have any real evidence or argument behind this?

Yeah, I know it sounds like that, but honestly, hmmm. I was told that by my psychologist, and he's the smartest person I know, and I trust him to see a difference between conspiracy theory and not, I'm gonna need to ask him when I see him again.
Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to debate that now since I've started doubting it myself, and am not in a mood to go web surfing but if I remember correctly the person who told me that, showed me the statistic of people enrolling in seminaries, with it going down as did the rates of acceptance for homosexualism go up, along with that a rise in reports of pedophilic crimes commited by priests.

Anyway, I am going to stop arguing about that theory, and may need to start looking for a different psychologist, but I need to ask, what the hell do you mean that homosexuality is "alliance forming behaviour"?! It's just attraction to a different sex.

[Catarapania]

I'm not the one who thinks that discrimination is inherently bad, at least not when based on behavior.

If you gave a reason that went beyond "don't you feel bad for LGBT people who were marginalized?" that could stand up to scrutiny, I'd be happy to accept second-class citizen status. I have yet to see such a reason.

I don't think discimination is inherently bad.
Single gendered toilets are technically discriminatory but you're not gonna catch me lobbying against them.

I don't think such a reason exists that could convince you. That's just how it be.
You got your side, I got mine. Fortunately I happen to be winning.
Sucks to be you

Emphasis added.

That's very close to trolling. Should I report you?

Then again, most of the mods are socially liberal, they probably wouldn't do anything.

In any case, how do you justify discriminating against my religion in light of the First Ammendment, which promises that the Government "shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"?

So you're changing the subject again? Recall, my question was "where did the animus against pederasty initially come from?" And Christian teaching is the obvious answer. My second question then was "why should we trust Christian teaching in the one case (pederasty), but not in the other (LGBT)?" If we're going to question Christianity in the name of "muh freedumb," shouldn't we question all of it?

You asked for other examples of "it and other moral stances" that I believe have become "more prominent". I provided.
Exactly what subject has been changed?

The questions I asked were as follows:

How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society?

...

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

[Catarapania]

Anyway, I am going to stop arguing about that theory, and may need to start looking for a different psychologist, but I need to ask, what the hell do you mean that homosexuality is "alliance forming behaviour"?! It's just attraction to a different sex.

Heh. Natural selection is based on who reproduces. The only reason a tendency towards non-reproductive sexual behaviors would be preserved is if it would tend towards increasing the amount of reproductive behavior that occurs. There's no real evidence for homosexuals contributing to fitness via kin selection. Which basically leaves alliance-forming as homosexual behaviors' contribution to reproductive fitness.

[Neanderthaland]

Because your "ladder" includes a bunch of other dangerously old rusty snags that make it a hazard to use.

Such as it's disapproval of LGBT? Isn't calling that "hazardous" kind of begging the question against traditional religion?

Yes. If it includes that belief, then traditional religion is wrong.

[Catarapania]

Such as it's disapproval of LGBT? Isn't calling that "hazardous" kind of begging the question against traditional religion?

Yes. Traditional religion is wrong.

Unless you have an argument behind that assertion, you're engaging in the fallacy of "begging the question."

[Alvecia]

I don't think discimination is inherently bad.
Single gendered toilets are technically discriminatory but you're not gonna catch me lobbying against them.

I don't think such a reason exists that could convince you. That's just how it be.
You got your side, I got mine. Fortunately I happen to be winning.
Sucks to be you

Emphasis added.

That's very close to trolling. Should I report you?

Then again, most of the mods are socially liberal, they probably wouldn't do anything.

In any case, how do you justify discriminating against my religion in light of the First Ammendment, which promises that the Government "shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"?

If you believe I'm trolling I would encourage you to report it. I know I can be overly snarky at times.

More however I've recognised that we've identified the line in the sand, so to speak, between your ideology and my own, and I acknowledge that there's nothing said that can change that.

For starters I'm not American, so no amount of Amendments make much of a difference to me.
That said, I would suggest that giving your particular religion free reign to discriminate, while excluding others from the practice, would in fact be making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and would therefore be in voilation.

I am, of course, no consitutional lawyer, so take that however you will

You asked for other examples of "it and other moral stances" that I believe have become "more prominent". I provided.
Exactly what subject has been changed?

The questions I asked were as follows:

How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society?

...

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

You can perhaps understand why I'm reluctant to discuss "Pedophilia through the Ages" on a forum that is ostensibly PG-13, hence my vagueness.

I do believe though, that I've provided something of an answer previously:

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds regarding a discussion of pederasty and it's historical context, but I would say that it and other moral stances have become more prominent as a result of two major factors.
1. the average layman's ability to participate in the development of the laws and moral standing of the society in which they exist, and the greater accountability of those who lead society
2. the increase in health, wealth, and safety of the average member of society

Put simply I don't believe that such an idea came about as a result of your particular abrahamic religion of choice, but rather that said idea has always existed regardless of it, and only the above two points have made the enforcement of said idea more prominent.

[Endem]

Anyway, I am going to stop arguing about that theory, and may need to start looking for a different psychologist, but I need to ask, what the hell do you mean that homosexuality is "alliance forming behaviour"?! It's just attraction to a different sex.

Heh. Natural selection is based on who reproduces. The only reason a tendency towards non-reproductive sexual behaviors would be preserved is if it would tend towards increasing the amount of reproductive behavior that occurs. There's no real evidence for homosexuals contributing to fitness via kin selection. Which basically leaves alliance-forming as homosexual behaviors' contribution to reproductive fitness.

That's a very Darwinistic outlook, especially since we humans definitely do not direct our behaviours towards only reproduction, I mean, after all, if only behaviours that contribute towards ones individual amount of offspring had become preserved, we wouldn't have much of a civilization at all as self-less behaviour would be evolutionary rooted out. Christianity or not, if we agree to your principles than why the hell has it become normal for monogamy to become as widespread as it is, if it means reducing the amount of offspring one can potentially have. I am even a living contradiction of your argument as I am Asexual, due to my orientation, reproduction or "alliance forming" in my case is not even possible. I am sorry to inform you, but applying Darwinistic principles to sociological processes doesn't solve everything.

[Catarapania]

Emphasis added.

That's very close to trolling. Should I report you?

Then again, most of the mods are socially liberal, they probably wouldn't do anything.

In any case, how do you justify discriminating against my religion in light of the First Ammendment, which promises that the Government "shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"?

If you believe I'm trolling I would encourage you to report it. I know I can be overly snarky at times.

More however I've recognised that we've identified the line in the sand, so to speak, between your ideology and my own, and I acknowledge that there's nothing said that can change that.

For starters I'm not American, so no amount of Amendments make much of a difference to me.
That said, I would suggest that giving your particular religion free reign to discriminate, while excluding others from the practice, would in fact be making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and would therefore be in voilation.

I am, of course, no consitutional lawyer, so take that however you will

At this point in the Culture Wars, I'm willing to settle for "being a God and Guns Conservative" being as socially acceptable as "being gay."

You asked for other examples of "it and other moral stances" that I believe have become "more prominent". I provided.
Exactly what subject has been changed?

The questions I asked were as follows:

How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society?

...

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

You can perhaps understand why I'm reluctant to discuss "Pedophilia through the Ages" on a forum that is ostensible PG-13, hgence my vagueness.[/quote]

Sounds like an excuse to avoid a point you can't refute to me.

I do believe though, that I've provided something of an answer previously:

I'm not particularly interested in getting into the weeds regarding a discussion of pederasty and it's historical context, but I would say that it and other moral stances have become more prominent as a result of two major factors.
1. the average layman's ability to participate in the development of the laws and moral standing of the society in which they exist, and the greater accountability of those who lead society
2. the increase in health, wealth, and safety of the average member of society

Simply put, I don't see what that answer has to do with the question.

[Alvecia]

If you believe I'm trolling I would encourage you to report it. I know I can be overly snarky at times.

More however I've recognised that we've identified the line in the sand, so to speak, between your ideology and my own, and I acknowledge that there's nothing said that can change that.

For starters I'm not American, so no amount of Amendments make much of a difference to me.
That said, I would suggest that giving your particular religion free reign to discriminate, while excluding others from the practice, would in fact be making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and would therefore be in voilation.

I am, of course, no consitutional lawyer, so take that however you will

At this point in the Culture Wars, I'm willing to settle for "being a God and Guns Conservative" being as socially acceptable as "being gay."

You can perhaps understand why I'm reluctant to discuss "Pedophilia through the Ages" on a forum that is ostensible PG-13, hgence my vagueness.

Sounds like an excuse to avoid a point you can't refute to me.

I do believe though, that I've provided something of an answer previously:

Simply put, I don't see what that answer has to do with the question.

Well it comes down to a faulty premise, doesn't it.
Your question is "Why should we abandon a thing that has given us X?"
I'm saying "I don't think it has given us X", and am providing my reasoning.

[Catarapania]

Heh. Natural selection is based on who reproduces. The only reason a tendency towards non-reproductive sexual behaviors would be preserved is if it would tend towards increasing the amount of reproductive behavior that occurs. There's no real evidence for homosexuals contributing to fitness via kin selection. Which basically leaves alliance-forming as homosexual behaviors' contribution to reproductive fitness.

That's a very Darwinistic outlook, especially since we humans definitely do not direct our behaviours towards only reproduction, I mean, after all, if only behaviours that contribute towards ones individual amount of offspring had become preserved, we wouldn't have much of a civilization at all as self-less behaviour would be evolutionary rooted out.

There is a thing called "kin selection," and most theorists believe that it explains the origin of altruism.

Christianity or not, if we agree to your principles than why the hell has it become normal for monogamy to become as widespread as it is, if it means reducing the amount of offspring one can potentially have.

Is monogamy widespread? How many sexual partners does the average person have over the course of their life these days?

I am even a living contradiction of your argument as I am Asexual, due to my orientation, reproduction or "alliance forming" in my case is not even possible. I am sorry to inform you, but applying Darwinistic principles to sociological processes doesn't solve everything.

Forgive me if I suspect that this is due to nurture rather than genetics.

[Catarapania]

At this point in the Culture Wars, I'm willing to settle for "being a God and Guns Conservative" being as socially acceptable as "being gay."


Sounds like an excuse to avoid a point you can't refute to me.



Simply put, I don't see what that answer has to do with the question.

Well it comes down to a faulty premise, doesn't it.
Your question is "Why should we abandon a thing that has given us X?"
I'm saying "I don't think it has given us X", and am providing my reasoning.

Alright, can you provide me an example of effectual opposition to pederasty prior to the advent of Christianity?

[The Provincial Union of the Pacific]

Religion isn't having a super hard time right now aside from western civilisation which has deemed themselves "too good for a God".

On the note of a 'resurgence' in the areas where it may die, religion often becomes the strongest in times of hardship or disaster, so if we are faced with a difficult time, which hard times typically come every so often, then people will likely turn again to religion just like many do on their deathbeds.