Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
The Sixties generation thought everything should be free. But only a few decades later the hippies were selling water at rock festivals for $5 a bottle. But for me the price of “free love” was even higher.
I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love. All the sex I ever had — and I had more than my fair share — far from bringing me the lasting relationship I sought, only made marriage a more distant prospect...
And I am not alone. Count me among the dissatisfied daughters of the sexual revolution, a new counterculture of women who are realising that casual sex is a con and are choosing to remain chaste instead.
I am 37, and like millions of other girls, was born into a world which encouraged young women to explore their sexuality. It was almost presented to us as a feminist act. In the 1960s the future Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown famously asked: Can a woman have sex like a man? Yes, she answered because “like a man, [a woman] is a sexual creature”. Her insight launched a million “100 new sex tricks” features in women’s magazines. And then that sex-loving feminist icon Germaine Greer enthused that “groupies are important because they demystify sex; they accept it as physical, and they aren’t possessive about their conquests”.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
"Beloved, we are children of God now; and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, nor has the mind of man conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"
Something wonderful is afoot, that's for sure.
And as for our gal Dawn: since she's a Catholic, no doubt she eats and drinks God. How apart-from-and-external is that?
1. You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: How do you know That You Know that energy is conserved?"
2. Your answer to that is based on the evidence/observation, I know that energy is conserved. I don't care about the technical aspects of energy conservation, what I want to know is how is it that you know THAT YOU KNOW anything. You are carrying your observation/evidence as absolutes, but you are only doing so because of pre-supposed aspects that you are incorporating in your worldview. Essentially, you are pre-supposing universal constants. I've observed 1,000 times that energy is conserved so I'll assume that if I observe it 1 more time, I will get the same result. My point is, at this point you are pre-supposing an aspect that you cannot account for. How do you account for the universal constant of energy conservation? If you say I know that energy conservation is constant because of energy conservation then you are begging the question and committing a logical fallacy. Again, how is it that you know that you know that energy is conserved?
3. The laws of logical are immaterial concepts of thought. God also is immaterial and the laws of logic reflect his Character They are also absolute. So the question is, how do you account for the absoluteness of the immaterial laws of logic? By the way, Gordon Stein, a famous Atheist agreed that the laws of logic are immaterial so if you are going to argue that thought then you'll have to argue it in not only the Christian camp, but the atheist camp as well. Your best argument here would be that the laws of logic are self-verifying, but that doesn't explain how it is that we KNOW them. To say they are self-verifying is to say that the laws of logic verify the laws of logic. Again, we are back at a logical fallacy.
4. My "says who" question was asked regarding your comment which is: The purpose of a moral code is to protect rights. A moral code is a set of rules that protects the rights of individuals. A valid moral code protects the rights of all individuals equally and is independent of authorship. Rights are a claim to those things which identify the particulars of the essence of a sentient rational being, which when violated, destroy the essence of the being. They also include claims of property required to sustain that essence of being. Rights are claims to one's own life, soveignty of will and property.
Who came up with this definition and why should I believe them? Why not a different definition? As a secondary question, what rights do people have and who came up with that definition? Why should I believe that definition? You said thou shall not murder is a moral absolute. You are correct in saying this, but you can only say it by borrowing from my worldview. God has declared murder wrong. You can't say murder is wrong because that's just your opinion and you have nothing to back it up other than your (or somebody else's opinion).
5. It is also written, that man is made in the image and likeness of God. That puts any man An in the same set as God, AG
This is incorrect as well. A quarter is like a dollar in that it has monetary value, but it isn't a dollar. A ten dollar bill is like a twenty dollar bill, but it isn't a twenty dollar bill. They look a lot alike, have similar properties and are even the same size. However, one carries more weight at an exchange. Man is made in God's image, not equal to God.
Lastly, we are back at the same impass we started. You are trying to define the technical realities of our world. You are a thousand times better a scientist than I ever will be. However, you cannot philosophically account for why (not how) things are the way they are.
I answered that it's observed to be conserved and why it's conserved.
"I want to know is how is it that you know THAT YOU KNOW anything."
I can observe and carry on with rational thought, come to logical conclusions, create logical concepts, and make precise and accurate predictions of reality. Now if I observe, ponder, and act to produce effective, or accurate and precise results from that, that's evidence that I know what I know and my knowledge and understanding is true and rational. Many folks can produce evidence that they do know what they know, but their results aren't that good.
"You are carrying your observation/evidence as absolutes, but you are only doing so because of pre-supposed aspects that you are incorporating in your worldview."
Nonsense, I presume nothing.
" Essentially, you are pre-supposing universal constants."
No presumption, just observation.
"I've observed 1,000 times that energy is conserved"
I doubt you've done it once.
"How do you account for the universal constant of energy conservation?"
There's no such thing as "the universal constant of energy conservation". It's called the principle of the conservation of energy, which says energy is always conserved, regardless. It's the way the physics are observed to behave and it's an inherent property of the fundamental element of the universe. That means the energy always was. Nothing can exist w/o being a form, or assembly of forms of energy.
"The laws of logical are immaterial concepts of thought."
No. As I pointed out, logic is an inherent property of the universe. A=A always and never A!=A. Without the underlying physics, there is nothing. Rational thought always occurs in a machine constructed of assemblies of energy forms that provides the capacity for rational thought.
"God also is immaterial"
Nothing exists w/o unlying physics. Regrdless of the physics of this world, the underlying essence of God is the physics of the energy that always existed.
"By the way, Gordon Stein, a famous Atheist agreed that the laws of logic are immaterial "
Don't know him and he's wrong.
Re: rights and the moral code
"Who came up with this definition and why should I believe them? Why not a different definition?"
I told you a sentient rational being, any An. It is the only rational set of rights that identify the essence of a sentient rational being and the moral code is the only set of rules that protects the rights of all An equally. Any other moral code would be arbitrary in that it protects some An more than others. Even if one An's rights were protected more than the others, the code would still be rendered arbitrary, by that action.
"you can only say it by borrowing from my worldview. God has declared murder wrong."
LOL! No!
"You can't say murder is wrong because that's just your opinion and you have nothing to back it up other than your (or somebody else's opinion)."
LOL! No! I explained it in my last post. It is not simply an opinion. It is the only unique and rational code that protects the esssence of every sentient rational being equally. It forbids the violation of Ax=Ax by any other An. That does more than make murder a moral absolute.
"what rights do people have and who came up with that definition?"
Rights are those things which identify the essence of a sentient rational being, that when violated by another An destroy, or partially destroy the essence of that being. There is the right to life, sovereignty of will and property. Since these rights pertain to maintaining the essence of each An equally, no Ax is justified to violate the rights of another.
"This is incorrect as well. A quarter is like a dollar in that it has monetary value, but it isn't a dollar. ... Man is made in God's image, not equal to God.
The analogy doesn't apply. Since man is made in the image and likeness of God, AG belongs in the set with all the Ans that are in His image and likeness. As I said, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, accomplishment ect. are irrelevant with regard to membership in that set. The set consists of sentient rational beings.
"one carries more weight at an exchange."
The only thing that carries weight in an exchange is the truth and rational coherency of anything said between the An. Your attempt to divide the An is arbitrary. If something is real and absolute then it can be observed and any An can discover it, or realize the truth of the matter. An appeal to authority is a method of propaganda, not logic.
"you cannot philosophically account for why (not how) things are the way they are."
I sure can. My original post said:
"These things can be explained quite well and sufficiently w/o referring to God. As to the claim, "God made the world", it can not be shown that He did. It can be shown by observational evidence and logic, that the energy that the world is composed of always existed."
The world/universe appears as a physical phase transition, like a bubble in a pot of boiling water. Just as the cause for the bubble's appearance is known and understood, so can the universe's appearance be known and understood. The cause and why for the world can be seen to arise from the physics that always existed. It can't be said that this is in any way insufficient. It is in fact a sufficient explanation for the cause and why.
As for any claim that some god did it, the god must be observable, or there is no rational evidence for the hypothesis. It is simply a hypothesis with no evidence and unwarranted in the face of sufficient rational explanation for both the cause and why for the world's existence.
In order for there to be any god that has any effect on and in this world, the god must be observable. There is one An that did show up and claim to be God. There is no rational evidence that there is any other god. Those are simply various arbitrary and irrational stories from various An.
AG said in Matt 12:39, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Notice that a miraculous sign would be physical evidence that He exists, other than as His own presence as a man, including that He created the world. The sign of the prophet Jonah, is the Holy Spirit.
In order to understand why things are the way they are, one needs to know what is so some points need to be made clear. God is a trinity and according to Gen 1, so too is man. So each An exists as Mn, Hn and Sn. Where Mn consists of the body, a machine that supports the functions of a sentient rational being in this world. Hn is the Heavenly body that supports the functions of a sentient rational being in Heaven. Sn is the spirit, the knowledge, understanding, wisdom, holdings and values of the being. It is the self of the being An. So, An = Mn + Hn + Sn. That is the only logical description of trinity. It contains what is scientifically known about man, that An = Mn + Sn. Then that is extended to An = Mn + Sn + Hn according to both Gen 1 and the Bible regarding the existence of Heaven. Hn is identified as the soul. The Father = HG + SG. The Son = MG + SG. The Holy Spirit = SG.
Now the story of Gen 3 is parable. Gen 3, Matt 12:39 and Matt 12:32 explain why man lives in this world. In the parable of Gen 3, Adam and Eve attempted to take what was not there's, the knowledge and wisdom of God. The characters Adam and Eve represent each man. The churubim with the flaming sword is the physics of this world. Each man was to create and develop their own spirit, according to their own efforts, values and judgments. Matt 12:39, given above, contains the reason for that.
Matt 12:32 contains the key to where Hn + Sn resides and God's fundamental focus of judgment. Matt 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. It is what is contained in Sn that God judges and thus determines where Hn + Sn resides. Matt 12:32 contains no requirement that one believe in God. Note that He forgives those who curse Him, but that is because they don't know Him. Consider where HGood Samaritan + SGood Samaritan reside. In fact God cautions againt empty belief several times, including in Matt 25. The judgement is based on the holdings, values and judgements of the individual Sn, regarding other An.
So, since the judgemnt of one's spirit is based on how they value and treat others. It's important to know, understand and focus on what's real. That means knowing what a right is, why it is and knowing what the purpose and composition of a rational moral code looks like that's important. Claims made and justified by an appeal to God are empty. SG is a rational being, not an authority figure. No rational person will be drawn by that, they will be drawn by the knowledge, understanding, wisdom, holdings, values and judgments of God. That is the nature of the draw in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
= = = marking = = =
Casual sex is a con: women just aren't like men
Sunday Tines ^ | 14 January 2007
Sorry, I should have prefaced this with the idea of rightness and wrongness within the scope of what is legal. Of course, we as a society have the right to make a law that defines the spraypainter as wrong, but we've left it up to the individual's conscience to stand outside my home in the street, with a picket sign proclaiming his hate for kittens. Repeated such behavior can allow me to avail the law to get a restraining order, if I can show possible harm, but that's my option.
Within the law, people have to make their own determinations of what is right and wrong for them, using their own intellect, education, and experience. I reject the idea that everyone needs some preacher interpreting some ancient book in order to know what is right and wrong.
2. So, anything goes in your worldview, all is relative. You would have no problem if someone came to your house and killed your goldfish.
Ugh, another reference to trespassing, and the destruction of another's property, all of which are fully covered by the law, based on ethical principles of treating others as reasonable persons like to be treated. However, if you want to buy goldfish, and kill them, that's your right under the law, and no matter how much of a goldfish-hugger I am, I don't have the right to do anything but decry your behavior, write books about it, and give interviews where I call you a goldfish murderer. I even have the right to ask my legislators to pass laws protecting goldfish, and they have the right to laugh in my face, if they see fit.
Can you come to moral absolutes without using the opinions of people?
You seem to have a powerful need to have moral absolutes, and be able to stick them on others. Feel free, enjoy being told what to think, and telling others what to think, as well. It's impossible for me to reason with anyone who has a worldview such as your own.
They are out of the norm, and you're right, people who engage in an activity that is harmful to no one (except those who want to control everyone else's private sexual behavior, they seem to get really annoyed about it) are indeed quite common.
if he starts ignoring a willing wife to spend time with porn, then that fellow has a problem with his soul and he is on a path to not spending an eternity in fellowship with God.
As I've said, I agree that a person who prefers solitary activity over AVAILABLE partnered (you'd say 'marital', but we quibble) activity has a problem. In this life.
All kissing leads to lust? I hope not, I give Mom a kiss on the cheek when I leave the house. Sometimes kissing is just kissing, most of the time, it's just a simple way of showing affection. Ms. Eden's even bringing it up in an interview, tells me she's trying to go for some shock value in promoting her book. Modern people are not offended by simple affectional kissing.
There's already plenty of opportunity for that in every new relationship. People have different stimulus needs, response times, and comfort zones. Even two very experienced people are going to spend a lot of time exploring each other's needs, wants, and passion. Starting with a basis of what you know about your own body is a good place to begin that journey.
Memories that otherwise would be lost from taking lessons outside of marriage.
You'll still have those memories when you meet that right someone. And for the vast majority of people, they will strongly prefer couples time over anything solitary they did before they could spend significant time together.
I've seen them. And I agree, because the people who wouldn't get divorced for practically any reason, short of physical abuse (and even not then), are much less likely to live together. The same religious training that causes them to not cohabitate without marriage is the same training that tells them not to divorce for anything but the most powerful of reasons. It's like saying that less Mormons die of alcohol abuse than do Catholics.
There are a lot of religious traditions in the Western world that teach against wanton sex, but the Catholic faith tradition is among the very most restrictive. When I read her words, she reminds me of a rabid ex-smoker. I've observed that people who are trying to get away from something, and pick it's exact opposite, when there is a range of choices in between, then proselytize about it to get others on their bandwagon, are acting reflexively.
I'm having a perfectly fine time reading others' discussions of their beliefs and views. In fact, I find it quite illuminating. I find that the people who espouse religious views here on FR to be far better debaters than the people I've met in real life who do it.
That's more than a quibble. One has to make a commitment to possible children created by sexual congress, recognize the responsibility in avoiding spreading/acquiring disease, and, most importantly, understand that there is a spiritual aspect to sex i.e. it is intrinsically connected to love and that heartbreak exist.
And if you are promiscuous, you will find your heart growing harder and you will lose your ability to love, and if you should die in that state unrepentant you will end up in Hell.
But I'm not going to gather stones and neither is the Catholic church. It is filled with weak people, adulterers and various other sinners. Saying that true eternal evil is real and that particular acts should be avoided is not the same as condemning those who perform them.
Sure. She was seeking external validation by sharing her body with men who didn't love her - now she is seeking external validation by sharing in condemnation of such behavior with church ladies who don't love her.
She's somewhat reserved about after-date kissing. So was I, back in the day, when I was with (1) a date I didn't love, (2) a date who might want to precipitate this into romantic or seductive moves, or (3) a person with whom I, myself might have an urgent yearning for (but not "marriage material.") It was different with my sweetie, my (now) husband-- we kissed to our hearts' desire, oh my, when we were heading toward marriage!
So Ms. Eden is not talking about the kind of hello-kiss you give Mom, the peck on the forehead (and swat on the top of the head) you give your son, or the kind of hug and kiss you might get from a parishioner after church. If you would look a little further into her message, you would know that.
If it is, it is sick.
It should exist but only as a component of something much more meaningful.
Okay, but you will need to collect the following items: A feather, maple syrup, a canister of helium, a scuba suit, 5 strong monkeys, a trapeze, orange marmalade, and the entire nation of Portugal.
You are going to Hell.
You just are.
Don't forget the rubber pants...
There are a lot of religious traditions in the Western world that teach against wanton sex, but the Catholic faith tradition is among the very most restrictive. When I read her words, she reminds me of a rabid ex-smoker. I've observed that people who are trying to get away from something, and pick it's exact opposite, when there is a range of choices in between, then proselytize about it to get others on their bandwagon, are acting reflexively.
In other words, you have no evidence, only supposition.
Religious "traditions"? Kind of like, tree for christmas, turkey on thanksgiving, ham for easter, don't get laid?
I know I am being blunt - scratch that - rude - but I'm just going to go w/ my own supposition and plainly say you need to get a clue. I suspect you have "freed" yourself from the religion of men, but have little knowledge of or faith in God or what He has stated plainly.
The brightest and best angel got it done, eh? (great musician, that one) Got ya to toss out the bath water and not pay attention to what went with it? I think you may be reacting to your perception that she has embraced what you have had to work to reject.
Hope I'm wrong.
I wish you well.
>>It [sex] should exist but only as a component of something much more meaningful.
Absolutely Laza. Absolutely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.