February 13, 2005

• /flamebait or /flamebate?
• I'm not sure you could call this a debate about the morality of porn in general. The letter-writer is not discussing morals, as much as porn's compatibility with Christianity. And Domai's genre is not quite pornography either. Aside: point-counterpoint on verses of the Bible is such a phony way to debate. Invariably, you'll have one person who likes to think their lifestyle is justified by a book s/he doesn't read, trading interpretations with a person who doesn't believe in the book at all. What a waste of space.
• Stobblehouse had a good idea, but he thinks entirely too much of himself. His philosophical conceits are generally unbearable.
• Contrary to the photographers claims of having invented a new mode of photography that is neither art nor erotica but just plain nakedness withouth any sexual undertones or artfullness, I would like to argue that this is both artfull and erotic. Unfortunately for the most part a little bland in both ways, too. Also: In a future, more enlightened, age people will effectivly stop discrimination of ugly persons by adopting an unisex garnment similar to the Afghan jihab.
• I take morality to be dynamic and situational. The universe is entirely morally neutral, anything possible is permitted but there are consequences. Deciding how to limit our behaviours to achieve more of the real world outcomes that we, either as individuals or as different collective groups, desire is a proper human endeavour. Establishing abstract principles that we value and then deriving a morality that we can apply in our everday interactions is a useful exercise in this sense but only has the meaning we invest in it. None of the above either makes much sense or answers your question, but I'm a bit drunk and enjoyed typing it. Also, God did not make me naked. My mother assures me I was born wearing lederhosen and a shit-eating grin.
• verbose- What is wrong with unbelievers discussing the Bible? If someone thinks the Bible is the final word on every subject then a discussion can't progress unless it includes the Bible. I myself am an unbeliever who thinks there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible that gets ignored by mainstream Christianity. When speaking to another you should try to speak their language.
• I agree. If non-believers cannot discuss the bible, then there will be no one to keep things in perspective. Surely, we are allowed to discuss various cults which seem completely crazy to us without taking as truth their underlying belief that John Major was was the 24th incarnation of Satan.
• I'm with verbose on this, for the most part, although I think her/his statement could be modified from "The letter-writer is not discussing morals, as much as porn's compatibility with Christianity." to 'The letter-writer is not discussing morals, as much as porn's compatibility with one person's personal strain and perception of Christianity.' Henry V. cannot speak for all Christians, and, frankly, anyone who thinks that there's a god who created an Adam and Eve (and their new garments) out of mud and ether is more than a little suspect. As for non-believers discussing the bible, I have no trouble with it. As an atheist, I enjoy the process, because it inevitably ends up frustrating or backing into a corner the bible-quoter. However, I don't think that verbose was saying that it's wrong to do this in general, but that to specifically frame a debate only in terms of how it relates to a book of fiction is remarkably reductionist and silly. We can debate environmental issues as they relate to feminist politics, but we need not limit ourselves to only these options. Morality has exactly nothing to do with Christianity, and to restrict the frame of the debate in such a way is dishonest and facile.
• Verbose wrote: "point-counterpoint on verses of the Bible is such a phony way to debate. Invariably, you'll have one person who likes to think their lifestyle is justified by a book s/he doesn't read, trading interpretations with a person who doesn't believe in the book at all." How else does one get those people to listen? Quoting Hume, Russell, or Bakunin maybe? Oh and Proteus, c'mon, admit it, the Bible is crap: the bad parts outweigh the good parts, and the "wisdom" sparse, paltry, and done better elsewhere. If it weren't for having to debate "Christians" in their own "language" I'd ignore it completely. Even so, yes to what coppermac just said.
• MonkeyFilter: Our philosophical conceits are generally unbearable. Apologies. carry on.
• Big Davey I agree in part. The Bible as God's final word is crap, but it made for a decent starter philosophy for myself. Oh who am I kidding. I wish I was raised a buddhist.
• Quoting Russell works for me, Big Davey. Why I Am Not A Christian is a great resource for all sorts of debates. Bakunin is a little too grounded in reality to be of much use, though, I think. It's crap to me too, but I just see it as a control mechanism blended into a bunch of fairy tales, so it's easy to dismiss. True Believers, though, are sometimes fun to address in domains in which they feel comfortable. Sometimes....
• How else does one get those people to listen? Oh, and you've had success with this strategy? I am reminded by the saying, purported to be Native American wisdom: One cannot awaken someone who is pretending to be asleep. Everyone's piling on me because they enjoy confounding fundamentalists with contradictions in the Bible. I'm an atheist and went to Catholic school and have done my share of that too. But I've come to see how useless that is. The beliefs of everyday Christians are not based on the Bible. Repeat. Not based on the Bible. They are based in the values they received from their community, which they are told emanates from the Bible. Certitude in faith does not come from logical coherence, it is achieved through the emotional experiences they have with the Church, or through their own private intuitions. So, knocking down Bible passages like they were faulty syllogisms is just pointless. The believer has already elevated faith, and trust in authority, over reason. Even if -- particularly if -- you rend their arguments to tatters, you ensure they will retreat to the safety of tradition, and say "I know what I believe, and you're wrong." If someone's had success at convincing a believer based *solely* on Bible passage Crossfire, I'd like to hear it. I do think that one can sway believers, but not in the head-on, smartypants manner suggested. You'd have to make counterappeals to them in the same way their Church made its appeal. That's a whole other post though.
• I juz Liked them there Pitchers of necked girls..hehehehe