Why did Paul suggest that people should not marry?

[Night FM]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

“Normal” wasn’t part of this. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?”

Appending “normal” to this is a straw man (in case you’re not sure: that’s not something you should be doing)

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.

[NobelPrizeLaureate]

5 minutes ago, Night FM said:

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 "enjoying sex" in a vacuum without repercussions.

That just sounds like a conspiracy theory.

No, I am not assuming anything of the sort....where does it say in my post that I do? Yes, that's precisely how Paul would have done it, to wrap the sentiment of celibacy in a profound sounding scripture and then thrust it upon the flock. He was using his vantage point of authority as a priest to push the propoganda....like if he was going to do it, that's how he would have gone about telling people not to have sex.

It might be a conspiracy theory, but it's supported by enough facts, like, were the romans in favour of euthanising Jews, or not? The Paul Technique could have been a brainchild of Ceaser, he was a mastermind. 

[Night FM]

2 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

No, I am not assuming anything of the sort....where does it say in my post that I do? Yes, that's precisely how Paul would have done it, to wrap the sentiment of celibacy in a profound sounding scripture and then thrust it upon the flock. He was using his vantage point of authority as a priest to push the propoganda....like if he was going to do it, that's how he would have gone about telling people not to have sex.

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".

2 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

It might be a conspiracy theory, but it's supported by enough facts, like, were the romans in favour of euthanising Jews, or not? The Paul Technique could have been a brainchild of Ceaser, he was a mastermind. 

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".

Edited October 14 by Night FM

[NobelPrizeLaureate]

4 minutes ago, Night FM said:

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".

He didn't SPECIFICALLY tell them not to 'do', but THAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF HIS SPEECHES. Like....when you play chess, you don't immediately checkmate, you play the pawn to e4. But checkmate is the goal. 

OK think about it....if he had gone about telling peolpe directly 'dont have sex' they would have thought he was just a hater and ignored him.

He allowed THEM to do the math. He dug deep into their psychology and showed em, pros and cons of not having sex. Like....in the end, the plan was so brilliant they just 'didnt have sex' it came FROM WITHIN. 

The lifestyles, the destructive behaviours, telling em all that was part of the masterplan to prevent Jews breeding 

 

 

Edited October 14 by NobelPrizeLaureate

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Night FM said:

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.

You don’t get to change the parameters of someone else’s question just because it’s inconvenient 

[Night FM]

45 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

He didn't SPECIFICALLY tell them not to 'do', but THAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF HIS SPEECHES. Like....when you play chess, you don't immediately checkmate, you play the pawn to e4. But checkmate is the goal. 

OK think about it....if he had gone about telling peolpe directly 'dont have sex' they would have thought he was just a hater and ignored him.

He allowed THEM to do the math. He dug deep into their psychology and showed em, pros and cons of not having sex. Like....in the end, the plan was so brilliant they just 'didnt have sex' it came FROM WITHIN.

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.

45 minutes ago, NobelPrizeLaureate said:

The lifestyles, the destructive behaviours, telling em all that was part of the masterplan to prevent Jews breeding 

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).

Edited October 14 by Night FM

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

What do you mean "they"? One person doesn't necessarily speak for another.

I mean humans. It was tight there in the sentence. They don't have to speak for one another in order to commit crimes, brutalities and atrocities, which they do. Humans, in case you're still not sure. 

 

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Again, that depends on how well people follow it. Not everyone falls it or fails to follow it to the same degree.

So? Has savagery been eradicated from the christian world? No. People were good and bad before Paul; people are good and bad after Paul. He made no difference to human behaviour.

Which part of this are you unable to understand?

 

Edited October 14 by Peterkin

[Trurl]

At everyone.

If sex is bad then why can humans do it on command while animals wait till mating season?

That is just what the nature show on PBS said.

I think the strong desire for sex in humans is so the species reproduces. But men treating women badly is more than about sex.

I think here it is the culture versus Christianity. It isn’t the religion it is the beliefs a person has. Just on 60 Minutes the Priest was selling babies to the U.S.

The Priest is Christian and probably thinks he is doing right. To him these babies were from unwed mothers.

But religion aside we are all making decisions that may seem right but aren’t.

We have the capacity but we also have the decision power to not be animals.

But what if your environment forces you to become animalistic? Someone in war will be forced to become a killer.

So it comes down to what we think and make the decision.

Me and iNow discussed mis-information and subliminal ads. How can we stay sexually pure with everything around us promoting sex? All the ads and websites; and sex is just a small fraction of our lives.

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, Trurl said:

If sex is bad then why can humans do it on command while animals wait till mating season?

 

All apes can mate all year, including bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons.

Also, humans are animals.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Trurl said:

At everyone.

If sex is bad then why can humans do it on command while animals wait till mating season?

That is just what the nature show on PBS said.

I think the strong desire for sex in humans is so the species reproduces. But men treating women badly is more than about sex.

I think here it is the culture versus Christianity. It isn’t the religion it is the beliefs a person has. Just on 60 Minutes the Priest was selling babies to the U.S.

The Priest is Christian and probably thinks he is doing right. To him these babies were from unwed mothers.

But religion aside we are all making decisions that may seem right but aren’t.

We have the capacity but we also have the decision power to not be animals.

But what if your environment forces you to become animalistic? Someone in war will be forced to become a killer.

So it comes down to what we think and make the decision.

Me and iNow discussed mis-information and subliminal ads. How can we stay sexually pure with everything around us promoting sex? All the ads and websites; and sex is just a small fraction of our lives.

It seems to me St. Paul is to blame for -ve Christian attitudes towards sex. There's practically nothing in the OT or the gospels about it being "bad". It's a misconception, (hahaha), to think that the Fall or Original Sin had anything to do with sex. That's just been read into it, by puritanical-minded people, later.)  

Unfortunately St Paul has had almost as much influence as Jesus on the way the religion has developed. 

Having said all that, it is natural that sexual activity should have been the subject of control by society, because the human baby is very demanding to take care of, for a very long time indeed. So  creating babies is something that should be done responsibly, in a stable environment in which they can be reared satisfactorily.  Sometimes I think that we, living as we do nowadays in an era of easy access to contraception, don't recognise why there had to be social means of controlling sexual activity in the past.  

 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

How can we stay sexually pure with everything around us promoting sex?

Perhaps ”purity” shouldn’t be our goal at all. Perhaps instead we should seek sexual acceptance for ourselves and those around us. Perhaps a better focus would be on mutual consent and healthy practices around sexuality (both physical and mental).

 

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

sex is just a small fraction of our lives.

Listen, I’m working on it, okay? 🙃

[Night FM]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:34 PM, zapatos said:

All apes can mate all year, including bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons.

Also, humans are animals.

I'd argue, no, that's just an arbitrary zoological classification, and we could just as easily classify humans as separate from the animal kingdom, if the axioms which said classification is predicated on is changed entirely.

So, in other words, humans are not animals unless someone decides they are for some reason or another. Simply having shared biology with animals doesn't beget such a classification anymore than should a battleship and a kitchen knife be put in the same arbitrary category simply by the virtue of them both being "made of metal".

On 10/15/2024 at 6:15 AM, iNow said:

Perhaps ”purity” shouldn’t be our goal at all. Perhaps instead we should seek sexual acceptance for ourselves and those around us. Perhaps a better focus would be on mutual consent and healthy practices around sexuality (both physical and mental).

Well "purity" is subjective, and obviously what a specific culture's definition of "purity" is will vary (e.x. what might have been considered "pure" in the Victorian era or in an Islamic country wouldn't necessarily be the same as today in a Western country).

Regardless, I think some common sense can be applied. For example, if a person devoted themselves to a lifetime of participation in hook-up culture without any desire to form deeper romantic bonds with a person, various issues could result from this, especially if everyone in a given society did.

So we don't want to conflate the ethical issues regarding "consent" with the other issues, ethical and otherwise which could be posited. Generally, is something is consensual, this merely means that we don't believe the law should be involved in regulating it, regardless of what other ethical issues could come up that aren't within the realm of the of the law (and even then, this principle is not absolute. For example, certain types of incestuous relationships are illegal in many states even if "consensual").

Edited October 20 by Night FM

[zapatos]

34 minutes ago, Night FM said:

we could just as easily classify humans as separate from the animal kingdom, if the axioms which said classification is predicated on is changed entirely.

So if things were different they wouldn't be the same. You got me there.

Just because you avoid violating the letter of the rules while continuously violating the spirit of the rules, doesn't mean you get to avoid being labeled a troll.

[Night FM]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So if things were different they wouldn't be the same. You got me there.

Just because you avoid violating the letter of the rules while continuously violating the spirit of the rules, doesn't mean you get to avoid being labeled a troll.

No, as I said, the classification of humans in the animal kingdom is arbitrary and ignores the differences between humans and animals. In other words, the "things don't matter", since there are plenty of other, arguably more significant things which are being ignored. Humans decided to call humans "animals". They don't have to; they could decide differently.

People can classify things and infinite number of ways based on an infinite number of similarities and differences. People simply invented the term "animals" and classified various living things into it based purely on biological similarities, when in reality, they could just as well change the classification or the axioms which the entire system of classification is based on to begin with.

(As an example, we could classify creatures into categories based on how philosophical they are, or the types of technologies they create, rather than based on biological similarities and differences, and if we did this, then humans would likely be in a category purely of their own compared to other living things).

Edited October 20 by Night FM

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'd argue, no, that's just an arbitrary zoological classification

And you’d be wrong

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

I think some common sense can be applied.

Common sense suggests we should focus on acceptance and health, exactly as I suggested. 

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

we could classify creatures into categories based on how philosophical they are, or the types of technologies they create, rather than based on biological similarities and differences

Yes, and that would be stupid to the point of useless.  

[Night FM]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

And you’d be wrong

No I would be right. People aren't animals. Or apes. Or anything of the sort. The definition of "animal" was made up by people, and it's a bad one inasfar as it ignores the differences between mankind and other living things.

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, Night FM said:

No I would be right. People aren't animals. Or apes. Or anything of the sort. The definition of "animal" was made up by people, and it's a bad one inasfar as it ignores the differences between mankind and other living things.

And here again we have left any resemblance of science.

[Night FM]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And here again we have left any resemblance of science.

It's not my fault the science is wrong due to being based on bad definitions.

The vast differences between humans and other living things are more than obvious. The biological similarities are irrelevant to this point. So a reductive definition which simply groups living things together based solely on biological similarities while ignoring the differences is very often a bad one indeed.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

No I would be right. People aren't animals. Or apes. Or anything of the sort. The definition of "animal" was made up by people, and it's a bad one inasfar as it ignores the differences between mankind and other living things.

No, it doesn’t; it’s why we’re a separate species. What your claim ignores is the existence of ancestors to humans, and how they are related to other species. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor, and hominids have a common ancestor with other families.

When you go back far enough in the fossil record, there are no homo sapiens. 

[Night FM]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn’t; it’s why we’re a separate species. What your claim ignores is the existence of ancestors to humans, and how they are related to other species. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor, and hominids have a common ancestor with other families.

When you go back far enough in the fossil record, there are no homo sapiens. 

Having a common ancestor is irrelevant to the fact that humans are significantly different than other members of the animal kingdom, such as in their ability to create arts, sciences, philosophies, technologies, and so forth. Often, whether intentionally or unintentionally, referring to humans as "animals, apes", and so on is being done to reduce humans to the status of lesser animals.

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Having a common ancestor is irrelevant to the fact that humans are significantly different than other members of the animal kingdom, such as in their ability to create arts, sciences, philosophies, technologies, and so forth. Often, whether intentionally or unintentionally, referring to humans as "animals, apes", and so on is being done to reduce humans to the status of lesser animals.

This is a prime example of making up definitions. Yours is that you think humans are unique and therefore are a different category. All other animals are less (less what?).

The scientific definition is based on relationship and has a fairly stringent basis that is not randomly pulled out of someone's posterior. Another hint: if you look broadly, all animals are to some degree unique. The idea that humans are entirely separate is entirely driven by ideology and religion.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

Having a common ancestor is irrelevant to the fact that humans are significantly different than other members of the animal kingdom, such as in their ability to create arts, sciences, philosophies, technologies, and so forth. Often, whether intentionally or unintentionally, referring to humans as "animals, apes", and so on is being done to reduce humans to the status of lesser animals.

Vanity is not a valid scientific reason for a special classification. The differences you point out are few compared to the similarities, and tied into humans having bigger brains, but it’s still brains, not some unique gland.

[Night FM]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

This is a prime example of making up definitions. Yours is that you think humans are unique and therefore are a different category. All other animals are less (less what?).

Less complex.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

The scientific definition is based on relationship and has a fairly stringent basis that is not randomly pulled out of someone's posterior. Another hint: if you look broadly, all animals are to some degree unique. The idea that humans are entirely separate is entirely driven by ideology and religion.

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough to be classified as separate based on definitions outside the scope of mere biological similarities.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Vanity is not a valid scientific reason for a special classification. The differences you point out are few compared to the similarities, and tied into humans having bigger brains,

Not necessarily so. And a "few" large differences can be more significant than "many" small ones.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

but it’s still brains, not some unique gland.

That depends on if you define a human brain as "just another brain" as opposed to a unique gland.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough to be classified as separate based on definitions outside the scope of mere biological similarities.

You are not arguing from a valid scientific perspective, then.

 

3 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That depends on if you define a human brain as "just another brain" as opposed to a unique gland.

There are many unique brains in the animal world, including larger and more complex in certain areas. You start from the assumption that humans must be unique and then build your classification around that.

[Night FM]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You are not arguing from a valid scientific perspective, then.

Science is irrelevant since zoological classifications don't take into account things that humans create, such as arts, sciences, and so forth.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There are many unique brains in the animal world, including larger and more complex in certain areas.

I'm not buying the explanation that the differences seen in humans are reducible to the brain to begin with. And regardless of what role the brains of humans play in the things they create, we don't see animals with "larger" brains building supercomputers.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You start from the assumption that humans must be unique and then build your classification around that.

That's a good place to start from. I'd argue it's self-evident enough.