Texas parents don't like nude sculpture

[9th Engineer]

You're drawing examples of antisocial behavior by radical Christians and saying that these people dictate the essence of Christianity, care to make the same generalizations with Ali-Q and all muslims? Of course not, muslims are protected within the Black Book of Political Correctness Laws but *thumbs through pages*... yep! Christians aint in here, have at em!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You're drawing examples of antisocial behavior by radical Christians and saying that these people dictate the essence of Christianity, care to make the same generalizations with Ali-Q and all muslims? Of course not, muslims are protected within the Black Book of Political Correctness Laws but *thumbs through pages*... yep! Christians aint in here, have at em!

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're steering. :p

[Flint]

No, I wouldn't care to make generalizations about things I know essentially nothing about. But, observations of things happening right in my backyard, those are fair game to me. Suffice it to say your interpretation is a contrived stretch, and coincidentally a custom fit for your pet rant! What are the odds? You can force a square peg into a round hole, but expect some resistance. I don't own "the book" you mention, and if I did I would use it as toilet paper. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[Flint]

It's nowhere near that complicated, Bruce. I simply think that opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?) and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art. You cite "social mores and religious teaching" as if they exist in a vacuum. I "can't see the difference"? Maybe you "cant see" the connection. I think it's obvious that "social mores and religious teaching" are closely intertwined, so closely intertwined that if ""social mores" caused an opposition to nude art, I would simply point out that if "religious teaching" was the basis for these "social mores" then, would you not say that religion was the initiator? This appears to be self-evident, to me.

This analysis doesn't require me to be "hung up" on religion. I do frequently observe the workings of religion in society, and take an interest in them. This doesn't require me to put forth much of an effort, considering how predominant religion is in all aspects of our lives. How could I miss seeing it's influence? This too appears to be self-evident, to me.

I'm not interested in your aggressive "challenge to prove my manhood" or whatever it is. I will simply keep speaking the truth as I see it, and you are free to offer rebuttal on any tangible point. I won't "defend myself" against character attacks.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Personally, as soon as I saw that she had been a teacher for 28 years I immediately assumed that this was an excuse to screw her out of her full pension, assuming they offer one.

Texas teachers don't have a pension plan in that sense, their retirement pay is based directly on how many years they've worked, be it two or thirty.* More likely it's because the unions have gotten pay scales to be linked to seniority as well, and if they fire her they can hire two young teachers for the same money.

*Note, however, that if they are a teacher for 15 years and something else for 15 years, they may collect either teacher retirement, or Social Security, but not both.

[9th Engineer]

It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing. I'll lay this out flat, all those hundreds of weird demonations in the States? Not Christian. Sort of a bunch of hippie Christian wannabes who are too self absorbed to actually practice the religion. I'm not saying they can't do what they do, its just that what they do resembles Hinduism about as much as Christianity.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing.

I can't state this any more plainly: I'm NOT discussing Christianity on paper - I AM discussing Christianity in practice. If someone calls themselves a Christian then that is who I am discussing. The fact that they are not "true" Christians? I agree with you, they really aren't.

And, it's completely irrelevant. I am not arguing the "concept of" Christianty.

[9th Engineer]

Then why are you calling them Christians!? For convenience? I'm saying it's not even Christianity in practice! It's some sort of religion but it sure as hell isn't Christianity. Just because some loon says he's a Christian doesn't mean anything, 'true' or 'untrue' is irrelevent because if it isn't 'true' then it has no connection with it. The people who beat drums and sing songs are exactly that, people who beat drums and sing songs, not 'Christianity in practice'. I think this is stemming from the assumption that there is such a thing as a concept of Christianity that is separate from what Christians practice. There is what it is, and what is not it. What you are calling the 'concept' is Christianity. What you are calling Christianity in practice is nothing of the sort.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Then why are you calling them Christians!?

Because they call themselves Christians.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

What you are calling the 'concept' is Christianity.

Yes, ideally, or in theory. I'm not discussing theoretical ideas.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

What you are calling Christianity in practice is nothing of the sort.

They call it Christianity, I'm not imposing this definition upon them.


I think it's clear what I mean when I say Christianity: I let them define themselves. I can't imagine what could be more fair (or more clear...)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

It's nowhere near that complicated, Bruce. I simply think that opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?)

No, it is not. Having been raised in a Christian (protestant) Church, Sunday School, age divided youth groups, confirmation, etc, until I left home, I never once was told by any clergy, church official or religious teacher, that sex is bad or the human body is dirty. NOT ONCE.

Since the various religions did not condemn or destroy nude art, but in fact commissioned, paid for and displayed, most of the nude art until the past 200 years or less, your logic doesn’t hold water.

and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art.

Why yes, yes I can....women. When people are naked, men do bad things to women. Keeping everyone clothed reduces men’s propensity to bad behavior against women and by extension, families. It’s about control and distribution of power.

You cite "social mores and religious teaching" as if they exist in a vacuum. I "can't see the difference"? Maybe you "cant see" the connection. I think it's obvious that "social mores and religious teaching" are closely intertwined, so closely intertwined that if ""social mores" caused an opposition to nude art, I would simply point out that if "religious teaching" was the basis for these "social mores" then, would you not say that religion was the initiator? This appears to be self-evident, to me.

The jump from “Love thy neighbor as thyself” to “Naked is Naughty” is self evident? If so, you have a serious problem.

When the whalers returned from Tahiti or Hawaii, to New Bedford and Mystic, women wanted them to behave in a civilized manner.....clothing and temperance helped.

When women moved to the frontier, then to the wild, wild west, they wanted to tame the town to make it safe for themselves and their children......also safer for the bread winner they were so dependent on. The main thrust of their effort was the elimination of drinking and prostitutes. Hard to reason with a drunk or use sex as a weapon when the man had alternatives.

The Pilgrims are often blamed for a repressive US society. However, the majority of the immigrants bypassed Plymouth Plantation, where religion and their social mores were intertwined, for Boston’s looser attitude. Boston flourished and Plymouth died. But the women of Boston worked hard to make it safe for themselves and their children, the only way they could. Fighting things they saw as a threat to the family. Establishing social mores.

Social mores have evolved and will continue to do so, but the teachings of the church haven't changed significantly in a very long time. How can that be? Because they are as separate as any other two aspects of society can be. Everything is connected but not necessarily dependent.

This analysis doesn't require me to be "hung up" on religion. I do frequently observe the workings of religion in society, and take an interest in them. This doesn't require me to put forth much of an effort, considering how predominant religion is in all aspects of our lives. How could I miss seeing it's influence? This too appears to be self-evident, to me.

If you put forth more effort, you'd see that religion is trivial in most peoples daily lives.

OK, you meet Joe Blow and determine he’s an asshole.
Joe went to Central High, does that mean Central High taught him to be an asshole?
Joe was in the Navy, does that mean the Navy made Joe an asshole?
Joe is a Mason, does that mean all Masons are assholes?
Joe says he’s a Christian. So you believe the Christian Church taught Joe to be an asshole. Your observations are misguided.
Professed Christians don't act like Jesus, don't really turn the other cheek, are as likely to screw you like anyone else? What a shocker, they're people like everyone else.

The reality is that going to church on Sunday, is most often just a social function except the dude up front will tell a story about somebody being good or bad and the consequences of their deeds. He will not say sex is bad or the human body is dirty.

I'm not interested in your aggressive "challenge to prove my manhood" or whatever it is. I will simply keep speaking the truth as I see it, and you are free to offer rebuttal on any tangible point. I won't "defend myself" against character attacks.

I didn’t mention, nor do I give a damn about your manhood, so can that red herring.
I’m only addressing your poo flinging attacks, without facts or even anecdotal, evidence.

Occam’s Razor tells us to stick to the facts at hand and not extraneous shit stirring.
Shit stirring will always be challenged.

This post is a replacement for a longer one I made this morning that is apparently floating around the internet somewhere.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

It doesn't matter if someone calls themselves a Christian, if you look up what Christianity was originally and it doesn't match what that person is doing then, I'm sorry, their aren't a Christian. You can't change the original and then claim it's the same thing.

All denominations of Christianity have changed from the original.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

All denominations of Christianity have changed from the original.

Right. It's was called reformation, something the Muslims never had. But even after that, it evolved and continues to do so.

[Flint]

That's just silly. When I refer to Christians, I refer to the millions of people who call themsleves "Christians" and go to "Christian" churches. You know, all the "Christians" - that's who I mean when I say Christians. The obvious, staring-you-right-in-the-face definition of the word. Christians. Who? Christians. Oh, Christians. Who did you think I meant? (We're not discussing Greece, Ukraine, or Pre-soviet Russia...) We're discussing America. Christians in America. Not theoretical Christians. Real, actual Christians. Christians practicing Christianity in America at Christian churches.

[Flint]

Define "poo flinging attacks." Define "shit stirring."

Please be specific, and provide specific examples.

Otherwise, there is nothing tangible to discuss.