[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 13 2006,22:51) Originally Posted by I never said it You say this a lot. It’s interesting that you always put the blame on other people. I think you should re-program what ever function key you have this statement on to read … “I wrote this wrong” or maybe “I miss-spoke myself” if you feel especially non Christian you might even say “please excuse me I had no idea how wrong I was.” Originally Posted by There is simply no comparison between the acceptability of sex vs. the acceptability of violence. And there never will be in a Christian dominated society like America. Aggression is far more paramount in this dynamic to procreation, let alone love. Originally Posted by Oh, and even in desperately wickedly sexually inhibited modern Christian America, kids play "doctor" and most people I know of do not go ballistic over it. You don’t know many people do you. Originally Posted by Kids do not play "prostitute and john", they play "cowboys and Indians" or "GI Joe" and they tend to be pretty white hat/black hat affairs at least among the very young. No but it is telling that the only childish sexual play you can come up with is an illegal act which results in the absolute victimization of the female for your example. Additionally, I think you would be VERY surprised to see how cowboys and Indians were played where I grew up. --Tim

Since Tim has made it abundantly clear that he is talking about me rather than to me, I will aim this reply at Brett as well.

Your refusal to rebut this sort of rhetoric on Tim's part speaks volumes about your supposed separation from his arguments.

These are nothing but trite personal attacks, and they characterize the vast majority of all that he has posted since he invented this name in order to talk about this subject anonymously.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Your refusal to rebut this sort of rhetoric on Tim's part speaks volumes about your supposed separation from his arguments. These are nothing but trite personal attacks, and they characterize the vast majority of all that he has posted since he invented this name in order to talk about this subject anonymously.

You got to love this. You can’t handle either Brett’s or my posts and so you lump us together and cry foul.

I guess Brett, you and I are the Cathars and the Gnostics all rolled into one. I think it is because deep down Shane understands his/her arguments really don’t hold any watter.

And Shane, no, I am speaking too you because it illustrated my point about you. You’re the kind of Christian that circumcised my father when he was six as a form of punishment for speaking Ahnishnabemowin. You are the kind of Christian that then decries proof of that happening all the time ignoring the thousands of people that had similar experiences and never once offering proof your self that it did not happen.

Brett has never once said that Christianity is the root of sexual dysfunction in European cultures. I did and I stand by it. The fact that you just can’t handle the truth helps to illustrate the function of the Christian dynamic … and that is my point.

Brett tried to be reasonable with you. He/she appears to be educated but has taken the moral high ground and never once made reference to your insistence that ONE class in art makes you some kind of authority on history.

I think that it might be that Brett, to some small degree respects you (or maybe just people). I have no respect for Christians until they can prove to me that they have thrown off the yoke of their poisonous Church and actually have some kind of faith not dictated to them by a priest.

You go on and on about how you didn’t say such and such. You cry for “proof”. All the while you offer no proof of your own, absolutely refuse to acknowledge the sources both Brett and I have posted … and you would to ANYONE else that posted something against your beliefs. You cannot hear a different point of view other than your own. All you can do is deny it. I pin that on your church because it is so mundane to it.

You have a very small world that is steeped in the blood of my people. It is the inheritance that your fathers left for you and you accept it every time you find fault in something not to your understanding of Christianity, even if that is vilifying a priest.

You want proof? Go find it. To you and people like you that is the only way you will come to it.

[Shane]

"And Shane, no, I am speaking too you because it illustrated my point about you. You’re the kind of Christian that circumcised my father when he was six as a form of punishment for speaking Ahnishnabemowin. You are the kind of Christian that then decries proof of that happening all the time ignoring the thousands of people that had similar experiences and never once offering proof your self that it did not happen."

My first post to you was an appologetic acknowledgement of that sort of thing along with a statement that I do not believe that such things constitute proof that the majority of the non-Christian world does not also share some basic commonality regarding sex and clothing. I hate that sort of thing. It is indeed sick and twisted, but then again, so is your blind and vitriolic hate of me, a person you have yet to even truly meet.

"Brett tried to be reasonable with you. He/she appears to be educated but has taken the moral high ground and never once made reference to your insistence that ONE class in art makes you some kind of authority on history."

Yet another in the endless stream of untruthfull assertions regarding what I said. Brett stated I should go and research Egypt after I mentioned that the art I have seen that is Egyptian invariably has them wearing clothes. There probably is a lot of Egyptian art out there I have never seen, but the fact that so much of it has them wearing clothes flew in the face of his assertion that Egyptians were largely free of clothing related taboos of any sort. I am still open to real discussion about that, but so far that's where it stands. You assertion of what I said is simply, flatly, obviously demonstrably a false one, which incidentally is why I keep saying, "I never said that," to you, and not because I have some sort of psychotic disconnect with reality that forces me to deny my own culpability in things as you have accused me.

"You go on and on about how you didn’t say such and such. You cry for “proof”. All the while you offer no proof of your own, absolutely refuse to acknowledge the sources both Brett and I have posted … and you would to ANYONE else that posted something against your beliefs. You cannot hear a different point of view other than your own. All you can do is deny it. I pin that on your church because it is so mundane to it."

Another really obvious falsehood. I have offered up China, and India, and the Middle East, and just the world in general with dozens upon dozens of nations and cultures and hundreds upon millions upon billions of people. You and Brett have presented a short list of some of the least known civilizations that exist and asserted that they reflect something very important about how cultures form their values regarding clothing and sex. I have agreed with every single one of both of your points EXCEPT the parts that tend to insinuate that being concerned with clothes or privacy in sexual matters is uniquely and unhealthily related to Christian prudishness. For this one small caveat, I continue to be completely and totally lambasted by you, Tim, and I find it faith affirming.

"You have a very small world that is steeped in the blood of my people. It is the inheritance that your fathers left for you and you accept it every time you find fault in something not to your understanding of Christianity, even if that is vilifying a priest."

Tim, until today I didn't even know you HAD a people. My hands are about as clean of your people's blood as a Chinaman's.

Your supposedly victimized people were active participants in wars since before the horrid white man arrived, and his arrival seems merely to have given your people fresh economic reasons to continue that passtime. In short, your moral outrage is hollow, vapid vanity. You were a proud, fighting people, but your people lost the big gambit for power in North America eventually, and now it's time to move on.

Still having hard times? Deal with it. Time to stop blaming the white man or his twisted churches. If we are so awful, what does it say about your culture that it could not withstand ours?

I'm done with you.

[BrettH]

Originally Posted by Your refusal to rebut this sort of rhetoric on Tim's part speaks volumes about your supposed separation from his arguments.

Actually, I just don't get involved in religious or political arguments that are that heated. It's a policy of mine, but again, you are free to read whatever you like into it. My limit was reached and that's that as far as my involvement is concerned. You'll note I also have not responded to any of your arguments directed to Tim's arguments, for that reason.

---Brett

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Your supposedly victimized people were active participants in wars since before the horrid white man arrived, and his arrival seems merely to have given your people fresh economic reasons to continue that pastime. In short, your moral outrage is hollow, vapid vanity. You were a proud, fighting people, but your people lost the big gambit for power in North America eventually, and now it's time to move on. Still having hard times? Deal with it. Time to stop blaming the white man or his twisted churches. If we are so awful, what does it say about your culture that it could not withstand ours?

It is true that we were and are capable of violence. That is obvious in how we never lost an armed conflict against the whiteman or how Bwandiac took all but two of the whiteman's forts during his war. It is like wise true that the whiteman gained dominance in this country out of lying, just as you are now.

“Moving on” to you and people like you, means forgetting who we were, or that we ever were. Instead of circumcising me to punish me for speaking my language you insist that I am just wrong, worse yet, you insist I am going to hell. It is unfortunate that your lies seep their way into any Indians ears such that they believe you. Brain washing is a powerful force and after the erroneous subjugation of the Odawa the larger population size of the Whitman (at that time) allowed him to force our children into their Christian schools to seed their poison firmly in Odawa people, as well as all Indian people. What does that say about white people? That they have the capacity for an evil that is boundless because it is cloaked in their Christian church. Nothing allows for the kind of evil like righteous condemnation. Not that any white person is bound to this legacy, they can choose to reject it. You have not.

Deal with it? I am, write now. At this very moment. We are YOUR shame and we will not go away. We do withstand you, because I, and others like me, withstand you. At the end of the day … Niinewiddashkohaung ndeznekas. Mukwa ndodem. Bodosega ndojeba minawa Wagankising Odawa ogichida ndaw. Choomokmanodeqway.

I would like to meet you in person, I would like to give you proof, because that proof would tear your heart out. Are we capable of violence? Today words are my war club we have withstood you.

Every time a white person like you says “You Indians get so much from the government”, or any one of a thousand screwed up ideas you buy the legacy your fathers left you. You accepted the legacy. Our blood is on your hands. To you I say do not deal with it. Do not twist it into whatever excuse you can think of … let it sit in your belly and rot. I think that there is a Jewish God that a man named Christ worshiped, I believe that you worship someone else and that the rot of your shame will identify you when you go to the other world. Your denile will not help you there. Nor will the spirits of those whites who have rejected what you have claimed as your own.

[Asaudan]

Originally Posted by If you are going to do that keep it in the bathroom and private no one wants to see you stroke yourself that way. I realy do not believe that you are incapable of understanding what I wrote so please, keep out of the realms of your fantasy and to what was put down.

Oh, I totally understand what you're saying. In fact, I've gone as far as to plan the whole operation out for you!

I call it 'the Second Final Solution'.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 13 2006,19:09) I seriously doubt you read or comprehended the reference to Mcbrien I posted, as you would know that for one, I agree with him on some points, being protestant, but that as far as presenting himself as a Catholic theologian, that is not a very honest position. He consistently is opposed to official Catholic teaching and it is not as if Catholic priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and so forth are uneducated rubes.

That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts. It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief. Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality. Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics. Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion.

For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament. These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance. Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view. Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture.

Originally Posted by Mostly I love Wikipedia because it gets your goat, and because it has withstood the attacks of academics.

Ask John Siegenthaler how accurate Wikipedia is. It is not, and won't be, accepted by academia because it does not possess a legitimate system of checks and balances to ensure accuracy. Academic publication is a rigorous routine to ensure accuracy (and even then, there have been examples of slip-ups). The lack of such means that the data in Wikipedia is suspect because if any biased and uninformed moron can add to it, that's exactly who will.

Take care,

Jason

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 14 2006,09:32) 9--> Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 13 2006,19[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]9)]I seriously doubt you read or comprehended the reference to Mcbrien I posted, as you would know that for one, I agree with him on some points, being protestant, but that as far as presenting himself as a Catholic theologian, that is not a very honest position.  He consistently is opposed to official Catholic teaching and it is not as if Catholic priests, Cardinals, Bishops, and so forth are uneducated rubes. That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts.  It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief.  Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality.  Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics.  Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion. For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament.  These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance.  Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view.  Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture. Originally Posted by Mostly I love Wikipedia because it gets your goat, and because it has withstood the attacks of academics. Ask John Siegenthaler how accurate Wikipedia is.  It is not, and won't be, accepted by academia because it does not possess a legitimate system of checks and balances to ensure accuracy.  Academic publication is a rigorous routine to ensure accuracy (and even then, there have been examples of slip-ups).  The lack of such means that the data in Wikipedia is suspect because if any biased and uninformed moron can add to it, that's exactly who will. Take care, Jason

No doubt one would need to fact check a Wiki entry vs than an actual encyclopedia, but that's not what's been going on here. Tim has simply been attacking the information in it in lieu of presenting his own evidence, or for that matter bothering to look into whether or not the things I posted from it were accurate.

I actually said at one point, "is that or is that not accurate?" The proof that Tim didn't even bother to read it is that it was indeed inaccurate, not because of Wiki but because the Turtle island he was referencing was not the same one I came up with in my search. So he's just skimming and slinging mud and you're defending him on the grounds that Wiki isn't as reliable in some sense as a hardbound copy of Encycolpedia Britanica on your desk.

Well, surprise of surprises, I already understood that too. I just find the fact that people think a piece of paper from a university is the measure of intelligence need a wake up call, and the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are quite accurate, and they do have a system in place for fact checking. It is peer reviewed in that sense, it is simply not the same group of people who are deemed "peers", and academics seem to hate that, and I love every minute of it.

It is always extremely disconcerting to me, and weakens my faith in mankind, when someone like Tim just goes off and normally decent people just sort of stand by and watch.

There's no excuse for what eventually became of this thread.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 14 2006,09:32) That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts.  It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief.  Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality.  Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics.  Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion. For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament.  These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance.  Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view.  Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture.

Couldn't resist.

It is true what you say, but the fact remains that gnosticism is distinguishable from Catholicism which is distinguishable from Protestentism which is distinguishable from Daoism.

The really funny thing about Copernicus is he had no experimental evidence. The scientific community of today would be every bit as skeptical of such a man as they were then, and the utter vitriol that oozes from the scientific community at even the hint of walking outside accepted guidelines regarding such things is as strong or stronger than it ever was under Catholicism.

Imagine someone believing homosexuals have some choice in the matter, given the number of people who chose to practice bisexuality. Scandal!!!!

[Tim]

Carefull Prof.1515 Shane will have you lumped with Brett and I in no time.

Although it does seem like we have softened him/her up a bit for you, at least now the rhetoric is less than the absolute infallibility of church doctrine and Wiikipidia entries. You might even get a cognitive post until you hit a point Shane just can’t accept.

Let me suggest raising the point of the early church’s attempts to suppress the women in their faith. That will tie in nicely with the Gnostics and I am sure the topic will spring Shane’s button.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Tim @ May 14 2006,12:15) Although it does seem like we have softened him/her up a bit for you, at least now the rhetoric is less than the absolute infallibility of church doctrine and Wiikipidia entries. You might even get a cognitive post until you hit a point Shane just can’t accept.

Oh looky! Another lie from "Sex! by Tim."

[Jazuela]

Oh puleeze Tim, get over yourself. If your heritage is THAT important to you, get off the internet and go find yourself a teepee in the woods somewhere. Obviously you have CHOSEN to embrace the rest of the world's modern conveniences. With those, come unpleasantness, such as being influenced by them that evul Christians. You can STILL choose to live as your ancestors did, if you really wanted it. That you are on the internet at all is proof to me that you have no desire, or intention, to reclaim your heritage. And thus, every freaking single thing you have to say about it is a moot point.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 14 2006,11:29) Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 14 2006,09:32) That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts.  It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief.  Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality.  Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics.  Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion. For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament.  These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance.  Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view.  Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture. Couldn't resist. It is true what you say, but the fact remains that gnosticism is distinguishable from Catholicism which is distinguishable from Protestentism which is distinguishable from Daoism. The really funny thing about Copernicus is he had no experimental evidence.  The scientific community of today would be every bit as skeptical of such a man as they were then, and the utter vitriol that oozes from the scientific community at even the hint of walking outside accepted guidelines regarding such things is as strong or stronger than it ever was under Catholicism.

Copernicus could observe and note that the Ptolemaic system did not accurately account for the movement of the stars in the sky with the same simple elegance of the rest of nature. To conform the world to that system required complex formulas and explanations, methods which were not attempts at explaining the movement of the heavens but rather attempts at fitting the movement of the heavens into a pre-existing explanation.

Copernicus therefore operated via a crude form of the scientific method. He observed, gathered data, and only then did he form his hypothesis. Testing of that hypothesis was left to posterity and its success is why we refer to it as the Copernican Theory.

By contrast, Christian beliefs fail the scientific method since they rely on faith, not fact. Faith is irrelevant however since just as easily as you can have faith in one thing, someone else can have faith in the complete opposite, nullifying any justification of your position that "having faith in" can produce.

Another difference between faith and science is that science is willing to alter its views in light of new evidence. By contrast, fundamentalist religions refuse to. That's why they're such a problem. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary and no evidence in support, fundamentalists continue to cling to their outdated and unsupported beliefs.

Originally Posted by Imagine someone believing homosexuals have some choice in the matter, given the number of people who chose to practice bisexuality. Scandal!!!!

You're assuming that they chose to be bisexual. Did you chose to be heterosexual or were you born that way? If you didn't choose to be heterosexual and simply are, why should anyone else's sexuality be any different?

Jason

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ May 14 2006,14:24) Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 14 2006,11:29) Originally Posted by prof1515,May 14 2006,09:32 That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts.  It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief.  Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality.  Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics.  Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion. For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament.  These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance.  Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view.  Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture. Couldn't resist. It is true what you say, but the fact remains that gnosticism is distinguishable from Catholicism which is distinguishable from Protestentism which is distinguishable from Daoism. The really funny thing about Copernicus is he had no experimental evidence.  The scientific community of today would be every bit as skeptical of such a man as they were then, and the utter vitriol that oozes from the scientific community at even the hint of walking outside accepted guidelines regarding such things is as strong or stronger than it ever was under Catholicism. Copernicus could observe and note that the Ptolemaic system did not accurately account for the movement of the stars in the sky with the same simple elegance of the rest of nature.  To conform the world to that system required complex formulas and explanations, methods which were not attempts at explaining the movement of the heavens but rather attempts at fitting the movement of the heavens into a pre-existing explanation. Copernicus therefore operated via a crude form of the scientific method.  He observed, gathered data, and only then did he form his hypothesis.  Testing of that hypothesis was left to posterity and its success is why we refer to it as the Copernican Theory. By contrast, Christian beliefs fail the scientific method since they rely on faith, not fact.  Faith is irrelevant however since just as easily as you can have faith in one thing, someone else can have faith in the complete opposite, nullifying any justification of your position that "having faith in" can produce. Another difference between faith and science is that science is willing to alter its views in light of new evidence.  By contrast, fundamentalist religions refuse to.  That's why they're such a problem.  In spite of all the evidence to the contrary and no evidence in support, fundamentalists continue to cling to their outdated and unsupported beliefs. Originally Posted by Imagine someone believing homosexuals have some choice in the matter, given the number of people who chose to practice bisexuality.  Scandal!!!! You're assuming that they chose to be bisexual.  Did you chose to be heterosexual or were you born that way?  If you didn't choose to be heterosexual and simply are, why should anyone else's sexuality be any different? Jason

Faith is a relative thing. I have more faith in a concrete bridge than some of these rickety wooden things I sometimes find myself driving over out in the country. I think your charcterization of faith as some absolute reliance on fanciful theories spun from nowhere is pretty much your own invention. I don't know many people outside the vocal anti-Christian community that believe this, much as I know very few outside the vocal atheist community (a separate but similar and included group from the former) who compare all of human religion to belief in invisible pink unicorns, for example. I couldn't tell you how many times I have heard that tired comparison, and all I can tell you is if religion was invented, it most certainly was not by me.

I "assume", as you choose to phrase it, that all people have control over their feelings by virtue of having control of their attitudes, much as I do. One could argue that people do not have control over being disgusted by people having sexual relations with kids, yet it was pretty common in ancient Greece for men to do with teenage boys things that would get them landed in jail in modern times. It seems that suddenly the flexibility of cultural mores is now in question since this particular cultural phenomenon we are speaking of now is one that Christianity would indeed have a hard time encompassing, what with all the nastiness in the Bible about putting homosexuals to death in the Old Testament and the insistance in the New of maintaining sexual purity even though most every other purity expactation of the Jewish religion seems to have been abandoned.

More than anything though, what I believe is that to state that there is no problem with a person who has no ability whatsoever to relate sexually with a member of the opposite gender is "normal" in any useful medical sense of the term is just a gross fabrication. At its worst, it results in people who feel they are trapped in a body of the wrong gender to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars so that they can, essentially, become a person trapped in a mutilated and drug-altered body of the wrong gender built to vaguely simulate the other gender.

And oh yes, I have met some transexuals. No, they are not people trapped in the wrong body as far as I can tell. The difference in simple behavior between the typical transexual I have met and any woman are quite marked. Most of them, alas, could also kick my backside, as the drugs they take do not serve to change the composition of male musculature that was formed earlier in their natural development, for example. They are without a doubt men trapped in the fantasy of being trapped in the wrong body, and though I am not sure what the cure might be, I know it's not just another choice that people can make that has no real consequence to themselves or those around them.

Admitedly, I have not met a female-to-male transexual that I know of. Not sure if they tend to pull off the behavior better than men going the opposite direction do or not, but then again all of this is anecdotal as no doubt someone will complain soon enough.

Medical attitudes towards sex in the enlightened 21st century are pretty spooky to a simpleton like me.

[Splork]

Removed...