Thinking Outside the Box

[_maklelan]

What am I supposed to conclude from these questions?

That the nature, frequency, and attitude towards pederasty is not easily summed up and is certainly not well represented by your assertion that

Many find the idea of pederasty inherently immoral, but it was an ideal in ancient Greece

Pederasty, is not paedophillia, and I hope you are not encouraging anyone on this thread to conclude that. 16 and over for the younger and between 20 and 30 for the older....and actually there is good evidence that pederasty did at least 'officially' involve intercrural sex, and well you should know it, unless you want to take a few Greek vases (now widely copied) as your evidence...

And by the way, I also disagree with your first assertion

'many find the idea of pederasty inherently immoral'

In the UK pederastic relationships also have had their place, think Oscar Wilde, public school practices (older student and younger), and indeed on into some of the most prestigious of universities. It's often been a facet of male dominated environments.

Regards
Mary

So the fact that there were a handful of people in Greece means it does not in any way qualify as an "ideal," but the fact that a small portion of a few sections of society in a few countries still practice it renders my statement that "many find the idea of pederasty to be immoral" untrue?

You're grasping at straws. You are forcing two things into my statements that I have not said. First, you have interpreted my statement that "it was ideal" to mean I believe everyone practiced it, which I do not. It existed as an ideal. Universally? No, no ideal has every existed universally. In a majority? Yes. That's unquestionable. In the most influential circles? Yes. Do many people think pederasty is inherently wrong? Yes, beyond all doubt. Most people think it's wrong. are there some that think it's OK? Of course, but pointing that out does absolutely nothing to weaken my argument at all. You've decided that the best way to tear down my argument about changing morals is to disagree with my axioms in some manner or another, so you've interpreted both of my secondary statements for me and have set to try to disprove them. You are wrong on both accounts. Many people (most people, but I said many) find it inherently wrong. That is beyond question. Pederasty was an ideal. These two statements are not debatable. I can't see how you can think that this silly little exercise in semantics is going to make my intitial point any less true. You have, however, shown that you refuse to think outside of your box. You made a conclusion a priori and with nothing but reflections on passive experiences you have had in the past that lightly grazed across the tip of this issue and you've decided to grasp on to that conclusion and fight tooth and nail to make it true. In the end, however, pederasty was an ideal then, and it is thought of by many people as inherently wrong today.

[_maklelan]

RM: Me thinks you're playing semantics here. So be it. I assumed most folks would be cognizant of the not constant up-ward 'mobility', so to speak. Since trial AND error is the learning/evolution/adaptation process it would-be/is rather unknowledgeable to not be aware of this...

You thinks I'm unaware of this, huh? Our societies are not evolving upward, they're just mutating in reaction to whatever trends happen to appear. In the thirties poverty hit everyone. In the forties a world war hit everyone. In the fifties we started to gain affluence because of progress in industrialization and production, and adults had the opportunity to give their kids the things they couldn't have growing up in the depression. In the sixties those spoiled brats went away to the nice schools that their parents couldn't afford and decided that material pursuits were corrupt. War was laso wrong. They'd never seen a world war, and they'd never seen their liberites threatened, so they marched against war. We should be able to do away with war in this world. Kids had everything they needed, so they decided the nest step was to find something they'd never had, which was why drugs and experimental music was popular. We slowly realized war wasn't going to go away so we started to rebel against the source of it: adults and their twisted values. We hated the idea of white picket fences and a mom with an apron on because it represented the values of our parents, the war-mongers and structuralists. We chased after less structure and less rules. The seventies brought new frontiers in sex, drugs and music. Structure and morality was out the window. Morals are for squares. The real morals are whatever you want. If it feels good, do it. The eighties brought more welath, so the kids who wanted to feel good suddenly had the money to do it. Consumerism was huge, and so were expensive drugs. In the nineties the economy relaxed some and the Berlin wall became a thing of the past. Now freedom was the issue. End Apartheid! Riots broke out in LA because the black crowd wanted their turn. People were running out of money, so the new thing was trying to look rich without really being rich.

Human moral history is not a linear progression. It's reactionary, and it can move forward and back. The above is just a brief synopsis, but the sociological research on the causes of these movements and the rise and fall of certain value systems is crystal clear. The idea that we are in a constant state of progression is completely false.

RM: Good questions. "Hostility towards religion" has been with us since Jesus kicked over the temple tables and told the Priest-craft they "didn't know "God". From there, through the Christians-to-the-lions, and on, and on >>>>> Today i venture to say with more enlightenment than ever before. Religions--of most sects--have been the biggest hurdle over which social, and physical sciences have had to contend with. I don't think it necessary to be detailed... "...family breakdown..." is the product of family-dysfunction which has ever been there.

Hostility toward a religion and hostility toward religion are two different things, and only one of them is new. your issue with family breakdown ignores some interesting things, though. Did you know the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians had strict laws regarding family structure? If a man tried to divorce his wife after an affair it was illegal for him to try to marry the other woman. A man who divorced a wife after they had kids had to support them. A man was given an entire year away from work after getting married. The family was the foundation of society back then, and the primary concern of government was the preservation of that building block. Today the family is seen as a choice. Gender roles are depicted as evil, and more and more children are growing up without a parent. Crime rises while education loses value. It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse.

Generally speaking, when things are awry it's cuz we's not living by da simple stuff in the "Good-News". Ya know what i'm sayin'? Religion, Judeo-Christianism, tends to the "Bad-News". Everyone's going to Hell...unless they accept....fill in the blank to satisfy your self. Warm regards, Roger

Let me ask you two quick questions that illustrate that you're thinking in a product of society: What demographic consumes the most welfare money in the United States? What "race" is tallest, on average, blacks, whites, hispanics or chinese?

In other words, Aposticized Christianism, with its rituals, social compromises, wealth indulgence, prejudices and half-truths will ebb away as the 'Gospel'--good-news--is understood to be about HERE & NOW.

And the Greek philosophers said the exact same thing 2500 years ago. The wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

[_twinkie]

Some people like to think ABOUT the box.

[_Mary]

In the end, however, pederasty was an ideal then, and it is thought of by many people as inherently wrong today.

There you go again, making all the same baseless assumptions, you obviously didn't make any serious attempt to answer ANY of my questions.

I'm not convinced of your assumptions, and so far in this thread you have provided no balanced and concrete evidence as to why I should agree with
you, and for what it's worth...I still don't.

[_Roger Morrison]

Good AM Mak, you said, to which i'll interject in bold:

You thinks I'm unaware of this, huh? No, i assumed we both were/are aware. Our societies are not evolving upward, they're just mutating changing in reaction to whatever trends circumstances/conditions happen to appear we encounter. In the thirties poverty hit everyone i was there. In the forties a world war hit everyone. There too In the fifties we started to gain affluence because of progress in industrialization and production, and adults had the opportunity to give their kids the things they couldn't have growing up in the depression. Did that In the sixties those some spoiled brats went away to the nice schools that their parents couldn't afford and decided that material pursuits were corrupt. "Seek not after stuff that rust and feeds moths"?? War was laso wrong. "Blessed are the peace makers."?? They'd never seen a world war, and they'd never seen their liberites threatened, so they marched against war. We should be able to do away with war in this world. According to Jesus!? Kids had everything they needed, except love and validation so they decided the nest step was to find something a substitute for what they'd never had, which was why drugs and experimental music was popular whatever works. We (are You including Mak here?) slowly realized war wasn't going to go away so we started to rebel against the source of it: adults and their twisted values. We hated the idea of white picket fences for some & not for others and a mom with an apron on because it represented the values of our parents, the war-mongers and structuralists while Rosa Parks sat at the front of a bus. We chased after less structure and less rules. To drink at any fountain, attend any school The seventies brought new frontiers in sex, drugs and music and discoveries in medicine and tech stuff AND priesthood to ALL males. Structure and morality was out the window were questioned. Morals are for squares were redefined. The real morals are whatever you want. If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't don't. (The learning process.) The eighties brought more welath, the American dream so the kids who wanted to feel good suddenly had the money to do it. Consumerism was huge, and so were expensive drugs. In the nineties the economy relaxed some and the Berlin wall became a thing of the past. And Europe was left in a mess. Now freedom was the issue. End Apartheid! Of course! Do You suggest otherwise? Riots broke out in LA because the black crowd (tone here?) wanted their turn. People were running out of money, so the new thing was trying to look rich without really being rich. The American night-mare!

Human moral history is not a linear progression. It's reactionary, Would you expect something else? and it can move forward and back. Obviously. The above is just a brief reactionary :-) synopsis, but the sociological research on the causes of these movements and the rise and fall of certain value systems is crystal clear and 'should' lead to addressing the injustices that foster the systemic failures. The idea that we are in a constant state of progression is completely false. As is the idea that we are in a constant state of decline.

IF you are, or will be, a father, i respectfully suggest you not raise your family on such negativity. I can't imagine You cannot find anything good to say about the last 75+/- years!? What has turned You off of faith in humanity to not be influenced by the "light"? Are You in recovery of abuses of sorts? Is it this seemingly anti-social attitude that brought you into LDSism?

Hostility toward a religion and hostility toward religion are two different things, and only one of them is new. your issue with family breakdown ignores some interesting things, though. Did you know the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians had strict laws regarding family structure? If a man tried to divorce his wife after an affair it was illegal for him to try to marry the other woman. A man who divorced a wife after they had kids had to support them. A man was given an entire year away from work after getting married. The family was the foundation of society back then, (and still is, good, bad, or indifferent) and the primary concern of government was the preservation of that building block. Unfortunately, today's governments have different priorities and spend their citizens' money on War stuff. Today the family is seen as a choice. Not all folks make good parents--obviously. Gender roles are depicted as "evil", WOW, that's a power-word! and more and more children are growing up without a parent. Some are better off for it. But, it is an effect that unfortunately can become a negative cause. Crime rises while education loses value. Yes! EDUCATION, not indoctrination, is A key! It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse. I am not as dead-end certain of that conclusion. To each their own.

Yes, i have some awareness of those cultural high-lights. But, as Harmony pointed out before, the aristocracy that practiced such "family" idealism made up a VERY small % of the total social matrix. Similar in our own social caste environment... However 'our slaves' are 'free' to purchase themselves into la-la-land. I personally lay a lot of blame for this disparity, and 'enslavement' at the feet of Capitalistic Christianism. This misrepresentation of Jesus has served to make the rich richer and the poor on a tread-mill for centuries. That some can, and do, make it off of the belt simply reinforces the myth that keeps the wheels of competition grinding... None of which--wealth, power, exploitation--were/are taught by Jesus to bring one the fullness of life.

I 'think' we might share some agreement here? However, while you seem to see the half-empty-glass, i see one that can be topped up--and is--by thinking, feeling, empathetic folks who have "climbed out of the box" and, are continuing to do so. Believe it or not, the climbers are coming from our youth-truth pool! They are not bound by the evils-of-their-fathers. (Like it says in the big book :-)

Seems some kind of inconsistancy that an organization that expounds "Family" could be so negative about the future? No faith in their kids?

Looks like i've lost the connection to your post. Probably, enough-already, already... Warm regards, Roger

[_Mary]

Morning Roger!

If I understand you (and the Dude) correctly, you are arguing that the ethical framework of the cultures that exist today are better than those that existed yesteryear and beyond.

I find the whole subject slightly mind boggling simply because I don't know that we are really in a position to judge how things are and were with any precision therefore how they change for a multitude of very different cultures?

First we have to define the ethical framework at any one time, but how on earth do we do that?
Diverse cultures (with diverse variables) are made up of a multitude of different people who react, experience, respond and interpret it in different ways...
There are unwritten laws and conventions, many of which we probably know nothing of?

Maybe I'm making this too difficult.
Sigh...

In a word, I have a hard time defining the box, let alone thinking outside of it!!!!!

[_harmony]

[snip].. Today the family is seen as a choice.

Agreed. I'm wondering why you think this is a bad thing. Shouldn't children be born to parents that want them? Or are you of the group that thinks children should be born, no matter what, then thrown out on the street to die or for society to pick up the tab?

Gender roles are depicted as evil,

I think evil is too harsh a word. Gender roles are not stagnant from one society to another, but I'll grant you that they are changing, the lines between them are fading and being erased. More fathers are being awarded their children in custody cases. More women are the breadwinners in the family. More fathers are involved in their children's lives, instead of seeing raising children as primarily/only a woman's task. Heck, more men are involved in housework than 50 years ago. I don't see this as evil. Why did you use evil to describe gender roles?

and more and more children are growing up without a parent.

I'm not sure gender roles and children growing sans parents is connected. Yet you connected the two concepts in the same sentence. Why? What do you see as the connection?

You have a romaniticized idea about children and family. Outside of the aristocracy, most children grew up without family ties in the thousands of years prior to today. With the exception of farmers, children were more often than not a liability, another mouth to feed. Farmers needed helpers to share the work, so they tended to want large families. Children were regularly sold or given away as apprentices, or simply tossed out. In some cultures, infants were left to die on the hillside, if they were the "wrong" gender (female). Education was nonexistent. Upwardly mobile meant able to scrounge or steal enough to eat a few bites and find a hole in the wall to sleep in. Even in the aristocracy, children were essentially raised by employees, rarely seeing their parents for even an hour a day.

Crime rises while education loses value.

Crime rises in comparison to when? And where?

And why do you think education is losing it's value? What do you mean by education? Only rarely did a child go to school through the 8th grade less than 200 years ago, let alone graduate from college.

It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse.

Obviously you didn't live in Europe during the Dark Ages. Or in Africa until the last 50 years or so. Nor were you a slave in Celtic Britain. Or a gladiator in ancient Rome. The point is, we have it amazingly easy, in comparison to what people lived in in prior centuries. We live relatively free of disease, we live twice as long as they did, we live in homes with heat and running water and an actual toilet. We no longer throw our human waste out of the window into the street every morning. It's not only getting better, even with all the faults of modern society (and they are myriad), we have it better than we've ever had it, even in the worst hell on earth.

[_KerryAShirts]

I have been accused of being guilty of both crimes, thinking in that cute lil thing, and thinking way too far outside of it......I suspect it is a quite subjective thing..........

Best,
Kerry

[_maklelan]

Good AM Mak, you said, to which i'll interject in bold:

You thinks I'm unaware of this, huh? No, i assumed we both were/are aware. Our societies are not evolving upward, they're just mutating changing in reaction to whatever trends circumstances/conditions happen to appear we encounter. In the thirties poverty hit everyone i was there. In the forties a world war hit everyone. There too In the fifties we started to gain affluence because of progress in industrialization and production, and adults had the opportunity to give their kids the things they couldn't have growing up in the depression. Did that In the sixties those some spoiled brats went away to the nice schools that their parents couldn't afford and decided that material pursuits were corrupt. "Seek not after stuff that rust and feeds moths"?? War was laso wrong. "Blessed are the peace makers."?? They'd never seen a world war, and they'd never seen their liberites threatened, so they marched against war. We should be able to do away with war in this world. According to Jesus!? Kids had everything they needed, except love and validation so they decided the nest step was to find something a substitute for what they'd never had, which was why drugs and experimental music was popular whatever works. We (are You including Mak here?) slowly realized war wasn't going to go away so we started to rebel against the source of it: adults and their twisted values. We hated the idea of white picket fences for some & not for others and a mom with an apron on because it represented the values of our parents, the war-mongers and structuralists while Rosa Parks sat at the front of a bus. We chased after less structure and less rules. To drink at any fountain, attend any school The seventies brought new frontiers in sex, drugs and music and discoveries in medicine and tech stuff AND priesthood to ALL males. Structure and morality was out the window were questioned. Morals are for squares were redefined. The real morals are whatever you want. If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't don't. (The learning process.) The eighties brought more welath, the American dream so the kids who wanted to feel good suddenly had the money to do it. Consumerism was huge, and so were expensive drugs. In the nineties the economy relaxed some and the Berlin wall became a thing of the past. And Europe was left in a mess. Now freedom was the issue. End Apartheid! Of course! Do You suggest otherwise? Riots broke out in LA because the black crowd (tone here?) wanted their turn. People were running out of money, so the new thing was trying to look rich without really being rich. The American night-mare!

I think you understand what I'm trying to say. Society is not constantly moving forward (which you agree with), and nor is it moving backwards (which you appear to insist is a belief of mine). Your earlier posts appeared to espouse the idea that we constantly learn and progress without exception. Now you appear to subscribe to my point that society ebbs and flows in no consistent direction except in response to trends. In that we both agree that things do not always change for the better, I think this whole argument is now irrelevant to the question of whether or not god is right in killing or allowing his children to be killed.

IF you are, or will be, a father, i respectfully suggest you not raise your family on such negativity. I can't imagine You cannot find anything good to say about the last 75+/- years!? What has turned You off of faith in humanity to not be influenced by the "light"? Are You in recovery of abuses of sorts? Is it this seemingly anti-social attitude that brought you into LDSism?

What gives you the idea that I'm being negative? I pointed out social trends without saying I agreed or disagreed with any of them.

Hostility toward a religion and hostility toward religion are two different things, and only one of them is new. your issue with family breakdown ignores some interesting things, though. Did you know the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians had strict laws regarding family structure? If a man tried to divorce his wife after an affair it was illegal for him to try to marry the other woman. A man who divorced a wife after they had kids had to support them. A man was given an entire year away from work after getting married. The family was the foundation of society back then, (and still is, good, bad, or indifferent) and the primary concern of government was the preservation of that building block. Unfortunately, today's governments have different priorities and spend their citizens' money on War stuff. Today the family is seen as a choice. Not all folks make good parents--obviously. Gender roles are depicted as "evil", WOW, that's a power-word! and more and more children are growing up without a parent. Some are better off for it. But, it is an effect that unfortunately can become a negative cause. Crime rises while education loses value. Yes! EDUCATION, not indoctrination, is A key! It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse. I am not as dead-end certain of that conclusion. To each their own.

I believe hostility toward religion is generally getting worse.

Yes, i have some awareness of those cultural high-lights. But, as Harmony pointed out before, the aristocracy that practiced such "family" idealism made up a VERY small % of the total social matrix. Similar in our own social caste environment... However 'our slaves' are 'free' to purchase themselves into la-la-land. I personally lay a lot of blame for this disparity, and 'enslavement' at the feet of Capitalistic Christianism. This misrepresentation of Jesus has served to make the rich richer and the poor on a tread-mill for centuries. That some can, and do, make it off of the belt simply reinforces the myth that keeps the wheels of competition grinding... None of which--wealth, power, exploitation--were/are taught by Jesus to bring one the fullness of life.

And our theology is perfectly consistent with that. By the way, I don't know what you refer to when you say harmony pointed out the percentage of some social matrix. I must have missed this, but if she's saying that in the ancient Near East only a small portion of society practiced the ideals I spelled out above then she is completely and totally wrong.

I 'think' we might share some agreement here? However, while you seem to see the half-empty-glass, i see one that can be topped up--and is--by thinking, feeling, empathetic folks who have "climbed out of the box" and, are continuing to do so. Believe it or not, the climbers are coming from our youth-truth pool! They are not bound by the evils-of-their-fathers. (Like it says in the big book :-)

I don't know where this glass-half-empty idea comes from. I don't believe I've said anything to infer that I'm somehow pessimistic about life or society in any way, shape or form.

[_maklelan]

[snip].. Today the family is seen as a choice.

Agreed. I'm wondering why you think this is a bad thing. Shouldn't children be born to parents that want them? Or are you of the group that thinks children should be born, no matter what, then thrown out on the street to die or for society to pick up the tab?

You've totally misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about abortion at all.

Gender roles are depicted as evil,

I think evil is too harsh a word. Gender roles are not stagnant from one society to another, but I'll grant you that they are changing, the lines between them are fading and being erased. More fathers are being awarded their children in custody cases. More women are the breadwinners in the family. More fathers are involved in their children's lives, instead of seeing raising children as primarily/only a woman's task. Heck, more men are involved in housework than 50 years ago. I don't see this as evil. Why did you use evil to describe gender roles?

You're only selecting the positive things out of the situation and acting as if that's all there is, but you've ignored the households with two working parents where the children are raised by the television. You're ignoring the children who never know their fathers or mothers and grow up to attempt to fulfill those roles with no idea how to do it. You're ignoring the skyrocketing number of divorces that come as a result of not taking responsibilities as husband, wife, or parent, seriously. You're ignoring the children who grow up in orphanages or are raised by babysitters because someone's career is more important to them than their children. There are good things happening, but the homogenization of gender roles does create significant problems.

and more and more children are growing up without a parent.

I'm not sure gender roles and children growing sans parents is connected. Yet you connected the two concepts in the same sentence. Why? What do you see as the connection?

More and more people are deciding that they can fulfill both roles by themselves.

You have a romaniticized idea about children and family.

I think it's an ideal.

Outside of the aristocracy, most children grew up without family ties in the thousands of years prior to today. With the exception of farmers, children were more often than not a liability, another mouth to feed. Farmers needed helpers to share the work, so they tended to want large families. Children were regularly sold or given away as apprentices, or simply tossed out. In some cultures, infants were left to die on the hillside, if they were the "wrong" gender (female).

Please provide a reference for these statements.

Education was nonexistent. Upwardly mobile meant able to scrounge or steal enough to eat a few bites and find a hole in the wall to sleep in. Even in the aristocracy, children were essentially raised by employees, rarely seeing their parents for even an hour a day.

Just which culture are you referring to here?

Crime rises while education loses value.

Crime rises in comparison to when? And where?

Crime rates in the states are higher now than they've been since our country began. A black male in any american city with a population over 5 million between the ages of 18 and 25 statistically had a better chance of surviving through the Vietnam war as an active soldier than in their city today. That's never happened before.

And why do you think education is losing it's value? What do you mean by education? Only rarely did a child go to school through the 8th grade less than 200 years ago, let alone graduate from college.

No child left behind comes to mind. The class moves at the pace of the lowest common denominator. The arts are constantly being dumped in schools as budgets are cut. The football teams have millions of dollars while the academic people are having their money taken away. Penmanship is not taught, and no one speaks the English language correctly.

It's not getting better and it's not the same. It's getting worse.

Obviously you didn't live in Europe during the Dark Ages. Or in Africa until the last 50 years or so. Nor were you a slave in Celtic Britain. Or a gladiator in ancient Rome. The point is, we have it amazingly easy, in comparison to what people lived in in prior centuries. We live relatively free of disease, we live twice as long as they did, we live in homes with heat and running water and an actual toilet. We no longer throw our human waste out of the window into the street every morning. It's not only getting better, even with all the faults of modern society (and they are myriad), we have it better than we've ever had it, even in the worst hell on earth.

[/quote]

All you're doing is highlighting the societies that you can think of that stand in contrast to what I'm saying. You and I obviously have different ideas about what it means for a society to be progressing.