I don't think you can rest it. It died of exhaustion several posts ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Printable View
I don't think you can rest it. It died of exhaustion several posts ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
This is demonstrably incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Hindus, christians and muslims and judaism all have widely divergent beliefs, however, I do note that each and every one has the "one true word of god" in its book.
There are even wider differences between sects within each group and while you may not be aware of the difference between the Anglican and Pentecostal churches, I'm very surprised that you're not aware of the schism of Shia and Shi'ite islam.
I just wish it wasn't taking quite so long for the rest of the world to catch up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Fortunately, religion's not much of an issue here, although it has grown in rceent years in both voice and influence. Secular humanists and the like point to a decline in census believers overall, but the profile of the believer in census terms has changed from someone who was told as a kid that a god exists and never questioned it, to someone who has Jesus as a best friend and who must tell everyone about it all the time.
I confess to being deeply disturbed at the fact that while "moderate" christianity - Rowan Williams' mob, for example - has been in steep decline, the barking mad, young-earth-creationists who swear that all science is a conspiracy of Satan are the ones which are growing very quickly.
That looks entirely sensile on the face of it, but which morality and which church gives the appropriate role model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
The RCC, with its paedophilia revelations of the actual pope having been involved in cover-ups? (I won't even go into gayness and the RCC)
Penetecostal/Southern Baptist, where virginity is so special that dads and daughters sign contracts where daughter agrees not to have her hymen broken until marriage? (I find that so sick I do actually feel sick thinking about it.)
Maybe Methodist? No, we tried in that in USA during Prohibition - I think it diodn't go down too well.
Islam? Islam could work.
As long as you use it as a way of saying, "Let's base our morality on the exact opposite of that prescribed in the quran". That'd probably work out ok!
Actually, talmudic judaism would work as well, but I just don't see it catching on. Amazing how the Jews created the perfect religion, based on love and respect and still manage to use it for evil.
I really suspect our current morality laws and culture has been achieved in spite of religion rather than because of it.
Sure. There's many a derelict would be in the gutter tonight were it not for the Sallies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
That's not civil rights - it's a simple legal matter. Child porn is illegal everywhere, as is any coercion of women.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
That some countries do not enforce, or are unable to enforce, the law, does not make it a human rights issue.
Child marriage, under islamic laws in countries where it's allowed is a civil rights issue. Kidnapping kids or using them for child porn is not.
This is unfair and incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Google and Yahoo! are not making any money at all from child porn - they are both highly involved in combatting child porn. Paedophiles don't find material in search engines, they exchange graphic image through file-sharing sites.
You make a telling point without realising it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
Why are there cops? Do they suddenly expect busloads of gay men to start rioting to loot fashion and interior design stores?
Or, is it more likely the cops are there because some people are so warped as to do them physical violence, simply for being gay?
Yes, the growth of extremist groups East and weat is disturbing, as are the cover ups and attitudes to gays etc etc.
I don't follow the religions you mention, and I feel sorry for the sincere ones that have to carry the stigma cast by the hierarchies and self indulgent individuals.
I really suspect our current morality laws and culture has been achieved in spite of religion rather than because of it.
I agree. Good old bad old Henry VIII. He did us a big favour seperating the UK from the Roman church, though many suffered because of it, (I think many would have suffered under this bloated monarch whatever course he took). It was easier to then displace the church from power and get on with the morality laws and culture you mentioned.
I think the modern democracies have a good record on human rghts and fair civil laws.
Religion, Sex and Vulgarity
Cue: Marquis de Sade
And just for the blondes:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/...ectid=10637654
:D
Gentlemen prefer blondes.
Thank you for that link my friend.. if only you knew. :crazy: Not to take from the mystery, you will have to return as a blonde to find out, perhaps as Marilyn Monroe.. wouldnt that just tickle your fancy. After all being a dumb blonde she had no clue how much power she actually held did she?
Coming back to the OP. So we all know those vulgar sexual phrases and the blasphemy used in producing a heated argument? So I guess the real question lies in why does it offend so many so much? What is it that makes our blood boil when we hear some youngster/adult use obscenities publicly? Why does it freak so many of us out personally if it is not already part of us? What I mean is, we always reflect what is already within us.. but what if cursing is not in us, what is it that we are reflecting then?
Is it only our past conditioning that makes us uncomfortable or is there a deeper reason behind all this? Isnt it easier to just ignore it, but how is that done while tempers flare? After all some cultures swear more than others and are judged accordingly, so why not just let it be and put it aside as simply not part of ourselves? Beats me, but I am one who would grab the earplugs to eliminate all of it.
As you say, some cultures swear more than others. I'll elaborate on that from my own perspective as foreign English speaker.
In fact, the division of swearing versa not swearing should not so much be sought in English and other languages but even in English itself, or more to the point the English/Anglophone class system.
It is a well-known sociological phenomenon that morals and values are more rigid in the middle classes. Why? Because they are neither part of the upper class of society nor of the working classes. They need to distinguish temselves from the plebs somehow. Not by having money, because that is what the upper classes also have. Not by working, because that is what the working classes do as well. So, their playing field is morals and values and has been since the middle classes came into existence as a feature in society with the industrial age if not before.
From the middle classes comes the rigid Victorian morals and values we know so well from literature. The morals in the working classes and upper classes were not so rigid as some controversial material proves (among which Byron for example as a very early version of it). Other than that, we all know that menhad mistresses an that women had lovers because they were married out of interest; we all know that illegitimate were born amongst the working classes. The ideal of virginity, chaperonnes, the life-long marriage for love without mistresses, was a middle class invention. Mostly it had disastrous consequences for partners who didn't suit, but we still have it rooted in our minds.
So, the swearing. I was astonished to find that the late princess Margret of the UK used to swear with the f-word quite regularly. I was equally surprised when I saw in a documentary with John Prescot (a senior UK politician) an upper class gentleman with accent and all swear five times with the f-word in five minutes. The working classes don't seem to care about swearing either. It has come so far that I know with my in-laws with whom I can swear and with whom not. All of the people I cannot do it with, are incidentally, middle class.
It is only the English middle classes who continue to take offense at words like sh*t, f*ck and worse. Even 'crap' one cannot say anymore. The queston is what is wrong with that. I wonder when we are going to put outside the 'r*bb*sh' or 'tr*sh'. They do not want to see those words on TV at all, not even when a working class person or swearng American is being portrayed.
Point is, I have ceased to care about swearing. They should learn that swearing is an expression of sheer frustration and that frustration should be expressed in something more than 'oh dear' or 'oh no' or 'oh my God'. And frankly, I do not see what is offensive about faeces. They exist, you see them when you have to change your baby. I might just use the word 'faeces' next :D. Or maybe I can do it in French, though, or in German, they wouldn't understand. Altough 'scheisse' they might still work out. 'Merde' would be a lot more difficut for them.
I find the whole thing about swearing hypocritical and against human nature. Which is not to say, of course, that one should swear in every sentence. That is just an utterance of inability to express one's feelings properly. Prime example: Gordon Ramsey.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
God speaks with one tongue only and his words are the same to all nations throughout history .
The Atheist let us be clear although I said this before . When I say religion I mean the heavenly messages of God in" holly books " . OK ?????Quote:
This is demonstrably incorrect.
Hindus, christians and muslims and judaism all have widely divergent beliefs, however, I do note that each and every one has the "one true word of god" in its book.
There are even wider differences between sects within each group and while you may not be aware of the difference between the Anglican and Pentecostal churches, I'm very surprised that you're not aware of the schism of Shia and Shi'ite islam.
Others are the invention of men . So plz don't mix others with it .
I know It would appear as offensive but it is my duty to mention what is written in the holly Qur'an . Otherwise I would be a hypocrite who says one thing and does believe within himself in another thing .
For instance , God's said in the Qur'an : Distort the speech .... and twist their tongues so you would think this is from the book but this is not from the book and they say this is from God but this is not from God and they write the book by their own hands ...."(Alnesa', 64 )
Again and Again the differences are because they distorted , changed God's words which are the same to all nations . Moreover the different deeds , sects , churchs are because : Authority Corrupts Religion . Each wants to garantee the power for him under the name of God , so they distorted, interprate God's words so that each party could support his case .
Religion unite human beings and human beings divide themselves .
All I feel when it comes to religion, sex and vulgarity in the spirit of dizzydoll's original post. In fact there is nothing guilt in it, in sex and or relating some of our religious or cultural or ethical issues to religions or vulgarity. Religions at times confine us or totally reduce us to ethereal existences. That means religion has planted in us an appalling idea in us about sex. Most or all books of religions are full of dos and don'ts, and that cripple human impulses. I was told in my childhood that having an affair with an opposite sex is a sinful thing and one should live the life of austerity. I have some friends who run to a temple or to a holy shrine after making love or a woman must draw on penance after an intercourse. These guilt conscious humans are miserable and they are psychologically depressed beings. Of course today in most countries, if not in all sex education is in vogue, yet in some countries the word sex is an offensive term and it is indelicate to intone this word in society.
This topic interests me for I have already gone thru such circumstances and instances and I want to analogize it under different situations. Of course the ideas shared here by different people representing different social, religious, cultural backgrounds fascinate me very much.
Some consider the feeling of guilt as tragic and sympathetic , why ??!
Those people feel so because they know that the real tragedy which is really sympathethic is there not here.
Here there is just some lines .
Gee Caddy, I dont understand your post at all. Please can you rephrase it.
I think I understand your first sentence tho and here is a snippet of what wiki says about guilt,
look at the link to read the rest.Quote:
Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realises or believes—accurately or not—that they have violated a moral standard, and bear sole responsibility for that violation.[1] It is closely related to the concept of remorse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt
Your analysis of the Middle class is somewhat outdated in my opinion. It's less about class/ money, and more about job type now. I'm from a working class background - but I qualify as middle class because of my job. The references to victorian values are less relevant too. Where have all the working class, industrial workers gone? More of them are in blue collar work due to the changing nature of the uk economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
As for swearing, it has different purposes. Pain relief is one - when you stub your toe, or trap something etc
Another purpose is as a phatic phrase. Some people use eff in the spaces where their brain is catching up with what they are talking about. Prince Charles protracted Errrrrrrr is in place of some one swearing or saying "like", or y'know. Have you ever talked to someone who says "d'you know what I mean?" constantly. I advise answering their rhetorical question every time. It will confuse them.
The other, very important, function of swearing is to tell someone exactly what to do, or to express an opinion efficiently and strongly. The situation needs a certain gravity that the strength of the swearword provides.
Fascinating :D
On top of which, swearing is grown-up and clever - like smoking and writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Ha, ya I'm not so sure the class thing holds up completely.
My father comes from a solidly working class upbringing, he was born on a farm, worked as a miner, a railway man, and finally a plumber. He hardly ever swears, and when he does it's usually no more than damn or some other mild blasphemy.
My mother, on the other hand, is a university educated accountant and swears like a sailor.
Part of why and how someone swears is cultural, but I don't think there is such a solid cultural barrier between economic classes today.
I forgot to add that it can be very funny too. My mates of old and I would routinely abuse each other, in comically exrtreme terms. to general hilarity.
I know some people don't like it.
Oh, no, I did not at all mean that classes are defined in the same way as they were 100 years ago. You do not stay working class, upper class, middle class. It all depends on your job, but it is mostly not the guys in their manors who resent swearing, or not the people on the social estates, it is the people in their terraced houses who are shocked at every remotely possible swear word. Even 'crap' is forbidden now.
But the whole thing started with what I said. In the meantime people are more mobile in society, but still their attitudes change. The guy from the social estate who now works in the City will not want his children to say 'sh*t' although he might have said it in his childhood.
And that phenomenon not only is apparent in word use, but also accents (the vocalised R for example) and other moral values.
I think teaching context is important. As parents we didn't swear at all in front of my kids when they were young - although we all knew that it went on in the playground with their friends. Similarly, we didn't swear in front of their grandma, my wife's mother - and still don't. Neither did they.
Now they are a lot older, we are in different territory. I now don't mind them hearing that I swear for purpose - usually pain, but sometimes for humour in front of them. They in return swear for purpose too. None of us offensively to the other though.
It's been a kind of natural development.
Hello caddy, I am pleased you signed up because its better that we learn freely from each other on a site like this. I learn from many different cultures and I disagree with some, its allowed. Human life must be like nature, it must be allowing.. surely. Anyway I would like you to watch and consider this message. Please watch:Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy
He was a man of vision. You dont have to agree, just consider his understanding.
I agree with that, though sme tend not and tend to object to anyting swearing, whether for purpose or not. Even when the purpose is to show that swearing without a purpose is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Only in the sense that talking without a purpose is stupid. I tend to be much more offended by people talking crap politely than by any amount of swearing in an interesting or intelligent or entertaining conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Thx for the video Dizzy. I've watched it . What he is giving us is another belief system. Isn't it ?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
[QUOTE=kiki1982;877670]TAXI DRIVERS :incazzato::incazzato:Quote:
It all depends on your job,
oh God!!
Its not another belief system caddy, its always been there. He was born into a Hindu background, and thats probably the oldest faith in the world, altho some would argue and the Tao te Ching [China] is the oldest, either way these two share many similarities. Being from the west myself, I love the diversity of it all. :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Old or new no problem . We can consider him as our enemy too since he is providing us with ideas , thoughts , whatever to believe in and follow as a system!!:biggrin5:
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
"Verily, Grasshopper - don't subscribe to ideas put to you by people who appear to know what they're talking about."
"Hey - that's a great idea! And you appear to know what you're talking about! I'll subscribe to that!"
I couldn't understand that fear of any system . Throughout history we have shown natural appeal or tendancy towards different types of system (s) . Anarchy is against human nature . We've developped towards more and more organization to our life . We are part of the solar system and everything around us follow a prescribed system . Giving us a belief system living according to it provides us with a sense of harmony with our universe and it's a proof that we belong to a universal system .
I've never felt that it is not inherent in my own nature . What's against my nature is the opposite .
Why is someone our enemy if they have a different belief system to us? Everyone is allowed to follow their own belief system. No one is better than any other, as all belief systems were devised by man.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I think there is a fear of the imposition of a belief system. I am lucky in the UK to be able to believe and practice whatever system I like. There are countries where this is not possible, and the suspicion is that in the countries where it is possible, it is disliked by certain facets of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
You misunderstood me Dizzy . I was commenting on OSHO words . Osho is against any belief system . Plz correct me if I misunderstood him . So he is contradicting himself cz his is also a belief system . Do u get my point now ?
I didnt misunderstand you caddy, firstly Osho is no enemy and over and above that he has a very firm understanding of how God fits into our lives [he touches on it in this youtube clip]
OSHO: Anybody Who Gives You a Belief System is Your Enemy
His point is that we should follow what feels right to us, rather than following what we are told to feel by others. Simple enough message and if more people followed his message there would be less friction between religion groups.
I am quite happy if everyone just respected and accepted everyone else's belief system. If this were the case there would be less conflict in the world.
The problem with Feels what's right to us is that it might not feel right to others in a radical way. I'm sure the prosecutors of the Inquisition felt it was right, and that extremists feel it is right. A belief system does give you a measure of your own feelings and inclinations - if they are way out of kilter, then it needs some looking at.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
I'm with Paul. It's very rare that human beings do anything other than what feels right to them. Every dictator and tyrant in history did what felt right to him. I'm sure Pol Pot woke up every morning looking forward to another sunny day of doing what felt right to Pol Pot.
So people should absolutely not do what feels right to them, especially if it involves doing to other people something that the other people don't feel is right to them.
I'd go along with that, apart from one tiny flaw: it is demonstrably the case that Abrahamic theists will try to force their belief and morality systems onto everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzydoll
The term is more properly Semitic belief systems, and in an historical context, these systems cannot be ignored; they made important contributions to the advance of human civilization, and whether they are now fossils remains to be seen. The huminoid links in the chain go back roughly 2.5M, making religious systems developed by true humans relative infants, and while I do not like having a proscribed stairway to heaven, I do not quite dismiss the metaphysical issues involved in Semitic/Western triumphalism and Eastern stoicism. I use stoicism for lack of a better phrase to emcompass Hinduism/Bhuddism and Asian pragmaticism.
Materialism is accurate to such and such a degree, but, if the human animal is self aware of the fact that it is a machine, then maybe the machine isn't simply a biological marvel unto itself. That assertion might be used to defend divinity but I am not positing that--just that maybe being human essentially became the ability to move beyond certain forces inherent in evolutionary pressures.
I think we're more than our meat, and I actually think Mitchell believes that too, despite how often he shows how we grind our meat throughout history in his work, and that we eschew vulgarity may be an indicator of our own awareness of that.
What about those of us who don't eschew vulgarity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Well, we're all just more fun, likely to get banned, and in general have a better time--but there is a difference between having a nice scatological discourse and implied bigotry--although I have a secret disguise to hide the fact that I'm actually SPASTIC FASCIST, and truly believe that people with cerebral palsy are smarter, better, and will one day rule the world.:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
"to force "is not an Accurate word .Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd go along with that, apart from one tiny flaw: it is demonstrably the case that Abrahamic theists will try to force their belief and morality systems onto everyone else.
look what God asked the believers to say to the disbelievers :
"Al-Kafiroon
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Say: O disbelievers! (1) I worship not that which ye worship; (2) Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3) And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4) Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6) "
Does this mean to you imposing by force on others ??!!!
Moreover look what God said to prophet Mohammad when he asked his uncle who was on his death bed to repent :
"Lo! thou (O Muhammad) guidest not whom thou lovest, but Allah guideth whom He will. And He is best aware of those who walk aright."( AL_KASAS,55)
No one could open the heart of anyone to the words of God and guide him to His path . Faith lies in hearts and God wants truthfull hearts . And this could not be by force .
I hope u won't consider my argument any kind of force , too !!
No, because that would leave out christianity. The Abrahamic beliefs neatly cover all of the major religions which have the sky-daddy/Allan/God/G-d as their boss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Quite right; they should be every bit a part of history in the way that Odin, Osiris, Baal, Vishnu and Zeus are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Oh, I don't expect them to go away any time soon, and there's no question they have contributed to human civilsation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Whether for the general good or bad is hard to say.
Maybe you misunderstood my point - I'm not saying the god-thing forces people to do anything, because I don't believe there is any entity which is at all godlike.Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
I'm saying people. in the name of their religion, try to force others to believe the same thing, a fact which is just indisputable, as under:
Here is a list of countries where written blasphemy is illegal.
Basically every single word I write on the subject of religion and god/s is considered blasphemy in those countries, although the degree to which the laws are pursued differ widely.
Do you honestly believe I would be able to write scathing comments about the "sky-daddy" if I lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or many other countries?
There are still eight states of USA which have laws prohibiting atheists from some offices and functions! (They're unenforceable constitutionally, but it shows the lengths people go to, to try to achieve their aims.)
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by caddy_caddy
Not at all!
I'm not accusing all believers of being that way, but it is a very repetitive fact of human history that churches will attempt to force their beliefs.
I said earlier that if people stuck to their worship, I don't have an issue with any kind of theism.
Atheist, while Christianity has basically morphed into sometimes unrecognizable denominations, it is still Semitic in origin, and some scholars who I have not read claim that we have Paul to thank for making it an international faith, and not Jesus, but both men were still ethnic Hebrews.
In a mild defense of Jewish believers, however, most do not practice missionary conversion in the evangelical style of those terribly frightening Protestants ;). It might surprise you to learn, however, that most Catholic theologians with power are atheists just like you--and I am a bit tired of taking it all too seriously.
I think "terribly annoying" is more accurate than "terribly frightening."
Well, some of them scare me Juniper, not that I don't understand zealotry a little, since I can be obsessive--