Night FM

He's said some stupid stuff that doesn't hold water.

Except things related to "sex" was only a small facet of his teachings. You're simply hung up on this conspiracy theory about a boogeyman trying to prevent you for "having sex" for absolutely no reason other than that it's pleasurable, akin to the Grinch trying to steal Christmas. Nope. The destructive behaviors are a reality and not all related specifically to sex or being a "hater". You may even be misinterpreting what's being said here to something along the lines of "sex or romantic relationships being inherently bad". There was no plan to prevent Jews from breeding. The goal was to help people avoid destructive lifestyle choices. That's what I'm going it, and it makes a lot more sense than your conspiracy theory. (Not even mentioning that most of his books were written for the Gentiles, not the Jews).

But the fact remains he did not tell the flock to "not have sex", and the reasons he recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to went beyond the mere fact that sex was "enjoyable". The entirety of went beyond merely recommending people to "not have sex", but to avoid certain lifestyle choices associated with destructive behaviors. You're solely fixated on "sex".

Normal is the key factor. Just pointing out an odd example of a human doing something morally aberrant doesn't negate the fact that there are examples of such behaviors being presumably normal and non-deterred in animal species.

What do you mean "they"? One person doesn't necessarily speak for another. Again, that depends on how well people follow it. Not everyone falls it or fails to follow it to the same degree. That's a rather silly notion. Bertrand Russell mentioned that both modesty and jealousy exist in human cultures. You're assuming that the latter is necessarily the former. Just as Paul never tried to "stop" people from enjoying sex, but merely recommended that it may be preferable not to marry unless you felt that you had to. And obviously there are a lot of factors at play in a marital relationship that go beyond a couple merely being able to "enjoy sex" in a vacuum without repercussions. No sane person things the purpose of life is solely to enjoy harems. If everyone did, then we never would have evolved from the culture of cavemen, since sex was more than readily available, but lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If anything, Paul saw that a meaningful life requires prioritizing higher callings over purely materialistic, instantly-gratuitous pleasures, and that society likely benefits as a result of this. That just sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I'm curious to what degree people think that Islam can be tolerated in the developed world. I'm aware that there are certain xenophobic individuals who simply oppose "foreigners" and that their hostility to "Islam" boils down to the fact that it primarily arrives in the West through immigration from the Middle East. The may use arguments against Islam to rationalize their xenophobia, but it doesn't really amount to much more than that (which is why you won't see the same fearmongering directed toward Christian sects which are known for barbaric, 3rd world practices, such as the FLDS cult). I'm not an expert on Islam and not convinced that barbaric behaviors by Muslims (e.x. jihadists) are entirely derived from the texts of Islam, given that Muslim sects exist (e.x. Sufis) which don't, to my knowledge, interpret texts in a barbaric way. Likewise, the Biblical Old Testament contains actions which would be considered barbaric by modern standards (and likewise, groups which are simply xenophobic towards Muslim immigrants don't direct the same attention to the Old Testament in Judaism or Christianity). I believe that many of the barbaric behaviors that we see in undeveloped Muslim-majority nations relate to the socio-economic conditions of those nations, as similar behaviors can be seen in other parts of the world which suffer from low socioeconomic levels. If, however, Muslim immigrants bring barbaric, 3rd world practices with them (e.x. forced marriage), I'm curious to what extent it can be tolerated, and how much attention should be directed specifically at behaviors perpetrated by immigrants (which seem to generate a lot of emotional hyperbole in news reports on said types of crimes) as opposed to similar acts of barbarism committed by non-immigrants (e.x. racially-motivated terrorist attacks committed by white supremacists, for example).

This isn't the 1950s. Women regularly do work in and outside of the home. This sounds like something an incel would say. The black widow eating their mate is, naturally, more barbaric, and would be punished by law. if a human did it. Voluntarily working at a job you hate to provide for a mate and children you don't love is one's (poor) choice. Rape isn't considered a normal mating behavior in humans and is penalized by law. Presumably, in some animal species, sexual aggression is considered a normal mating behavior and isn't penalied. Likewise, women killing their husbands isn't a normal social behavior among humans, and is penalized by law. No, it's totally to the point. People, under normal, civilized circumstances don't do these things as a matter of ordinary life. While for species of animals, behaviors such as these are presumably a normal, routine part of how they live and breed.

Sexually aggressive behaviors which would be considered rape if humans did them exist in the animal kingdom, as one example. (Unless you have evidence that a given species punishes such behavior when it occurs). https://www.jstor.org/stable/29762596 There are plenty of other examples, such as Black Widow spiders eating their mates after intercourse, and this behavior seems to be a norm for said species, while if humans engaged in it it would be punished by law. Well, that's assuming that people don't adhere to the principles he was trying to convey.

Not at all. Honestly it's common sense, but it can easily be sourced: MSM (men who have sex with men) reported significantly more lifetime partners than heterosexual men and women at all ages (p<0.01 for each age group). The median lifetime number of sex partners among those aged 18–24 was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in UMHS MSM, and among persons age 35–39, was 10 and 67, respectively. (The SEA did not ask about lifetime number of partners.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/#:~:text=MSM reported significantly more lifetime,was 10 and 67%2C respectively.

But it's not deniable that animals engage in behaviors which would be barbaric if humans engaged in them. Likewise, lower socioeconomic levels exist where acts such as murder and rape are tolerated (e.x. Mexican drug cartels).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_schema_theory According to Wikipedia, it is considered social psychology, so you tell me if it's considered medical science or should be elsewhere.

Is gender schema considered medical science here?

On social media, the word "feminism" gets thrown around a lot, often, to my knowledge, without subscribing to much of an academic definition. My perception is that it has almost become a "dirty word" on social media, and often just refers to anything a person happens to dislike (e.x. associating the term with misandry or dysfunctional "whiny" individuals rather than more historical or academic uses. As an example, if a person types "feminist" into Youtube search results, many of the search terms lead to videos of individuals behaving obnoxiously similar to what you would find if you searched for "Karen" videos or for other politically charged terms such as "SJWs"). Some issues that people have negatively ascribed "feminism" to include the tendency of courts to favor women in child custody disputes or to award large alimony payments to women, when in reality, this has little to do with "feminism" and derives more from "traditional" attitudes which assumed that women were more likely to dependent on men's income or that women were more "natural" caregivers. (Some self-described "men's rights activist, for example, seem to have associated this with "feminism" due to a nonsensical usage of the term). So other than a very broad use of the term "feminism" to refer to achievement of equal rights for women, I'd be curious if others would attempt to define it. Likewise, culture will likely play an impact on how people define it (e.x. all of the developed Western world would be considered "feminist" compared to the cultural and legal status of women in Saudi Arabia or Iran).

I have heard conflicting arguments on this. Some arguments, even ones posited by trans advocates themselves have stated that identifying as transgender is essentially just a form of individual expression, which would imply that they aren't born that way. And since there is more than enough evidence that environmental factors such as media can influence people's behavior, exposure to media or social media which promotes identifying as transgender could influence people to engage in those behaviors who otherwise would not do so. However, the other line of argumentation implies that some people are born with the inclination to identify as transgender, and that they may know this from a very young age. With the claim being made that arguing that transgender is merely a form of "individual expression" is something which opponents of trans rights do.

If we use Wikipedia as a source, homosexuality isn't said to derive exclusively from environmental or genetic causes. Most likely it's a combination of factors and no-two scenarios are identical. On social media, however, people will often ascribe purely one or the other. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/sex-activities-and-risk/#:~:text=Anal sex has a higher,chlamydia Anal sex has a higher risk of spreading STIs than many other types of sexual activity. I'm aware that anal sex isn't exclusive to homosexuals, but for obvious reasons, I'm sure that male homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex. And since anal sex between males doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy and males are more likely to take sexual risks than females, male homosexuality is also associated with higher numbers of sex partners. Likely this association of male homosexuality with disease plays a role in why the Biblical Old Testament, to my knowledge, exclusively forbid male homosexuality. I don't totally buy into this, because homophobic behavior isn't exclusive to one religion or culture. As an example, while some Native American societies are said to have tolerated homosexual and transgender behavior, the Aztec Indians executed homosexuals despite having no link to Abrahamic faiths. So, if anything, homophobic behavior seems to be tied to certain types of cultural or socioeconomic groups, and may have some innate origins, such as the link between anal sex (which is associated with male homosexuality) and disease. (This is likely the reason that aversion to male homosexuality seems more common than aversion to female homosexuality). It may also be a mischaracterization to claim that Greeks or Romans were entirely "tolerant" of homosexuality. I've heard that the typical Roman attitude may have been more akin to "prison sexuality", where a man was not considered "gay" if he was the one doing the penetration rather than being penetrated.

On that, the reality is that everyone "sublimates their impulses" to some degree or another simply to live in civilization. Simple things such as not cheating on your spouse or not shooting someone in an act of road rage require some degree of impulse control. If people didn't, then we'd presumably live like animals or savages and have no modern civilization to speak of. This isn't even a specifically "religious" concept, and seems to be Freudian as well, so it's somewhat commonsensical, even if people take it for granted. (e.x. A lot of people wouldn't imagine "themselves" capable of acts of aggression, but in the right circumstances, such as a drunk person starting a fight at a bar, it can occur). So I think Paul's teachings were relevant to how people should live if they wanted to avoid destructive lifestyle choices such as violence, unplanned pregnancies, alcoholism, and so on.

The point is that literate people in ancient times would have been significantly more well-educated than the average person.

The hierarchy also recognizes that some people prioritize needs higher on the hierarchy over lower ones. Obviously if a person starved to death, they would cease being able to meet higher needs, but most people's basic material needs in the developed world are met, and things that people prioritize (e.x. career, hobbies, marriage) encompass needs which are higher on the list.

I'm not talking about average literacy, but very high levels of literacy and fluency.

Unless you honestly believe that a person of average intelligence would be able to calculate the circumference of the earth without any prior knowledge existing that it was even round, then yes I'd say it's rather obvious. The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write, so obviously a highly literate individual ancient times would have had a significantly higher level of intellect. The average person today couldn't independently author the entire philosophical treatises of Aristotle or Plato. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/ancient-greeks-proved-earth-round-eratosthenes-alexandria-syene-summer-solstice-a8131376.html

Paul's views on women were relatively progressive during a day and age when women's rights weren't well-recognized. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. As far as him being homosexual, anyone can speculate. Some speculate that Jesus and John were homosexual, but I don't read into that seriously. From what I can tell, the average person's attitude toward sex isn't particularly "healthy", so even discerning what a healthy view is to begin with is very subjective and not an easy task. I'm not certain that Paul was an ascetic, since simply choosing not to marry by itself wouldn't qualify a person as an ascetic, and many people decide not to marry for a variety of personal reasons.

Not sure what to say, but obviously the average person of today would have a much lower IQ than an intellectual of any historical period. Simply having access to pre-existing knowlege, often merely regurgitated by rote wouldn't be comparable to discovering knowledge or synthesizing knowledge into complex theories. I could easily just assume that I'm "smarter" than Isaac Newton, because he is from a comparatively ancient time and I can read about gravity on Wikipedia, or assume that all of the natural sciences are outdated, since the natural sciences date back to the 1600s and are "ancient" compared to newer areas of science, such as computer science.

What do you mean by "made up"? If you mean did someone institutes laws against murder, then yes, the laws were "made up". But the principles the laws were inspired by (e.x. that murder is wrong) were not made up. So it's a false dilemma.

I'm not sure what your point is, since the intellectuals of ancient times would have had better knowledge relative to their time than the average person today does. (And the authors of religious texts, in an era when most people were illiterate peasants were the intellectuals of their day and age - most of them are obviously more literate than the average person today who only reads at a high school level and only possesses an IQ of 100). Such as how ancient Greek philosophers mathematically calculated that the earth was round, while hundreds of years later common folk still existed who believed it was flat.

Obviously, heterosexuality is nature's default due to its link to procreation. Therefore, I'm curious why homosexuality exists in nature since it doesn't seem to have an evolutionary purpose. I've heard various theories about why it exists, some genetic and some environmental, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions. And regarding "homophobia" or aversion to homosexuality, which seems particularly focused on male homosexuality, my thoughts are that there are various factors at play here, such as the link between male homosexuality and disease.