Night FM

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.

If God inspired people to institute it, then it can.

It may have, but, for the most part, I believe that science and understanding the universe is an end in and of itself, and something that scientists on some level simply find to be enjoyable. Animals may not "know how procreation works", but they know how to do it, and have been doing it successfully for millions of years, just as how humans lived as hunter-gatherers for most of human history and did not need detailed knowledge of how procreation works to be successful at it. This would correlate with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the fact that mere survival is near the bottom of the hierarchy, while creative pursuits such as science are higher on the list. Therefore, rendering statements that life itself is about survival or procreation factually incorrect. If anything, procreation is just a way for society to further its creative pursuits, such as scientific theories which have developed over many years by many generations.

While my understanding of the Biblical text isn't all-encompassing, God seems to have given Adam and Eve different instructions after departing from the Garden of Eden. Some of these, such as requiring them to cover their nakedness may be easy to recall. God also did not give Adam and Eve permission to eat meat until after the fall of man, and prior to that they were presumably vegans, only being given permission to eat the fruit of the trees. Regarding childbirth, God instructed Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" while in Eden, but after the Fall of Man, stated that childbirth would be a source of suffering (and if we skip to the New Testament, of course Paul stated that it would be better not to marry unless one could not avoid doing so). This implies that Eden was the ideal set of conditions for having children, and that, as a result of departing from Eden, childbirth would become a source of sorrow.

Lots of things are "made up", that doesn't mean they aren't true or valid. Laws that prohibit murder and rape are "made up" by people. That doesn't invalidate them or the principle that murder and rape are morally wrong. Hinduism is very diverse, so I have no idea what to say.

Paul mentioned that hardship could come from marriage, and recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to (and most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church). My thoughts are that he recommended this because he was aware of dysfunctional and abusive relationships being a reality, as well as the dysfunctions caused by poorly-planned childbirth, particularily in a day and age where most people lived in comparative poverty and deaths in childbirth were likely a reality. I'd argue that this also renders the teachings of many religious sects heretical as far as the Bible is concerned, such as the Catholic Church treating marriage as a Sacrament, when in reality, the Bible states that it is something to be avoided unless a person feels they must.

Not sure. How can evolution be used to support Nazism and social Darwinism?

A majority of voters? No.

Well, no, you put it in what you've been told is "evidenced" by authority figures, and only be very specific standards and axioms for "evidence", not what you have actually evidenced yourself. Dreams are "imaginary" but are still real, in the sense that they actually exist. I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking, especially if the consequences exist after death and the only way to "evidence" them would be to return from the dead, or possibly have a near-death experience. There are plenty of cases where the minority overrules the majority, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, in the Jim Crow era the majority of white people may have wanted the minority of black people to use separate water fountains, something which could be overruled by a minority of justices on the basis of Constitutional law. Well, the majority of people in America believe in God, so what if the majority agreed to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools? Not really. It's just as apt an analogy, and nothing's been given to substantiate why one analogy fits but the other doesn't. "I don't believe in evolution for the same reason that I don't believe in green radioactive mutants who eat people's brains".

That's basically a conspiracy theory. The idea that rules against murder, theft and such aren't about the observable harm they cause and are part of some secret cabal's desire to "control people" just for jollies is worthy of Alex Jones. "Controlling people" isn't necessary a bad thing, especially if they won't control themselves. That's why we have laws. Right, the larger group of society doesn't accept murder and rape, and the subgroup who commits murder and rape gets outnumbered. That's a good thing. And in reality, that scenario isn't even accurate, as there would likely be plenty of instances where the group making and enforcing the rules is the minority. I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them. There's nothing within Christianity or the Bible that says similar principles can't exist elsewhere. If anything the ubiquitous of them argues in favor of them being universal. Likewise, the Bible says that sin is "common to man", so I'd argue this further substantiates the idea of universal principles of right and wrong behavior. And while I'm not an expert on Buddhism, whether or not it specifically invokes a God, it more or less argues in favor of ultimate truths about how people should or shouldn't behave. Right, but there are examples of social groups (e.x. drug cartels) who have little to no respect for these rules, and this type of behavior would be easier to justify by holding a purely materialist worldview. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that "most people don't" commit extremely atrocious crimes, but, in theory, they could justify doing so much easier from a particular worldview.

The rules in religion have an intent behind them, just as the rules of law in modern society do. Even if you want to argue that they are bad or unnecessary, it would be odd to think that people invented them for "no reason". Do you really think people made laws against murder just because "they felt like it", as opposed to the observable harm caused by murder?

That doesn't substantiate why that's a fitting comparison. One could just as easily say that believing in evolution is akin to believing in little green men from Mars.