Abuse, Sex, Power, in the News

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

Dale:

Mary the mother of Jesus was a teenager when she got married. She may have been as young as 14.


What evidence do you have for this statement about the age at which this particular young woman got married?

I suspect the answer is "none". Yet you make your assertions quite confidently, don't you?
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

asbestosman wrote:If you ask me, 19 is too young for marriage, but the government didn't ask me. I think in a more simple agrarian or hunter-gatherer society that a younger marriage age would be acceptable provided that there was no coercion involved.


How does this statement have anything to do with Mormon adultery?

The age of consent within a monogamous relationship is certainly a seperate issue from that of an old married man and a teen aged girl.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Dale,

Welcome to the board.

As others have suggested, I too do not hold the Bible as a divine document. It is a story of nomadic tribal patriarchal men and their beliefs, laws, ideas, rituals, myths, stories, and practices.

I find the idea that God is pleased with, (not to mention command or demand) men who use and abuse women, sexually and/or otherwise beyond disgusting.

In civilized society we have collectively decided (in spite of what God says in ancient documents), that we will not allow children to be harmed by adults, girls to be sexually used by men, or women to be a commodity. (Granted we are still working on it but at least we have laws in place to protect women and children).

Most animals mate without care for the emotional well being of participants, without concern for love and intimacy, without a sense of what may or may not be harmful, degrading, painful, heart wrenching, or abusive. Males are nothing but sperm donors. As humans have evolved, become more conscious, developed empathy, and become more enlightened we have moved away from this animalistic primitive behavior.

To suggest that God is at the helm of such horrific practices truly makes God a cruel being.

~dancer~
Last edited by Bing [Bot] on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

truth dancer wrote:Hi Dale,

Welcome to the board.

As others have suggested, I too do not hold the Bible as a divine document. It is a story of nomadic tribal patriarchal men and their beliefs. laws, ideas, rituals, myths, stories, and practices.

I find the idea that God is pleased with, (not to mention command or demand) men who use and abuse women, sexually and/or otherwise beyond disgusting.

In civilized society we have collectively decided (in spite of what God says in ancient documents), that we will not allow children to be harmed by adults, girls to be sexually used by men, or women to be a commodity. (Granted we are still working on it but at least we have laws in place to protect women and children).

Most animals mate without care for the emotional well being of participants, without concern for love and intimacy, without a sense of what may or may not be harmful, degrading, painful, heart wrenching, or abusive. Males are nothing but sperm donors. As humans have evolved, become more conscious, developed empathy, and become more enlightened we have moved away from this animalistic primitive behavior.

To suggest that God is at the helm of such horrific practices truly makes God a cruel being.

~dancer~


Amen & Amen! Warm regards ;-) Roger :-)
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Re: Abuse, Sex, Power, in the News

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Ajax.... :-)

ajax18 wrote:I posted this question on an earlier thread TD with no response but it's been on my mind lately and I can't help but restate it.

Does free will exist? Can these "rapist" really help being who they are? Why are they not simply victims of their own genetics and conditioning?

People who lived 1000 years ago were clearly "conditioned," to a different morality than we are conditioned to today? Who decides what morality human beings should be programmed to folllow? Who does this ultimately serve? Is it all just a question of power and who gets to manipulate the puppet? Power obtained through masculine violence and agression, or power obtained through feminine passive agression. They both are ultimately self serving and people using mechanisms.


This is a great post... I forgot to respond so thanks for reminding me! :-)

Does free will exist? GREAT QUESTION! I have no answers but my best guess is, not in the way we think. I think the reasons for our behavior are much more complex than a simple choice. in my opinion, it seems the more we move toward consciousness (I mean serious consciousness not just sentience), the more we can make real choices but the problem is we are just at the beginning of empathy, awareness, and understanding. I have a sense the more we come to reflect and ponder our behavior, and understand how our actions, choices, even thoughts impact others (and our world) we can move towards, (what appears as) choice into a realm of actual conscious behavior.

My personal paradigm is that humans have collectively moved from our animal instincts into consciousness and awareness... some are at various places along the spectrum (smile). Actually I think the idea of Satan is really about trying to understand our primitive, selfish, egocentric behavior as it may oppose our more enlightened sense of empathy.

I think morality is a collective sense of what is good (right/healthy/appropriate), and as we become more enlightened it will change and reflect deeper care and concern for others.

It is clear that since the origin of patriarchy (which replaced a much more balanced society), male domination has been embraced by most of the world, however in my opinion, we are understanding that the world does not well manage without a more harmonious, caring, respectful, and egalitarian paradigm. I think we are slowly moving toward this. Patriarchy didn't emerge overnight and it will take a long time for our world to find respect for women... maybe another thousand years or so is my guess.

Personally, I see more and more men coming to a place where they understand that the male dominance, power hungry, degrade and objectify women type of world view is not in the best interest of life, society, or even themselves as individuals. Similarly, as women begin to see themselves as fully human, with rights and talents and gifts worthy of respect and care they will move away from embracing the subservience and exploitation that has filled our world for the past six millennia. OK, so we have a long way to go! :-)

In terms of Joseph Smith & followers who embrace this very primitive harem type of lifestyle... I think it is nothing more then men engaging their primitive selves, justifying it by using the "God said" excuse, and allowing their unhealthy need for power to supersede their sense of care and kindness found in most civilized human beings.

What do you think?

:-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Inconceivable wrote:
asbestosman wrote:If you ask me, 19 is too young for marriage, but the government didn't ask me. I think in a more simple agrarian or hunter-gatherer society that a younger marriage age would be acceptable provided that there was no coercion involved.


How does this statement have anything to do with Mormon adultery?

The age of consent within a monogamous relationship is certainly a seperate issue from that of an old married man and a teen aged girl.

Monogamy vs polygamy isn't the issue and neither is adultery (where'd you pull that from?). The issue is harmful coercion of the vulnerable. I find such coercion reprehensible and I think most LDS people would agree with me whether they are "chapel" Mormons or "internet" Mormons.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Abuse, Sex, Power, in the News

Post by _asbestosman »

truth dancer wrote:In terms of Joseph Smith & followers who embrace this very primitive harem type of lifestyle... I think it is nothing more then men engaging their primitive selves, justifying it by using the "God said" excuse, and allowing their unhealthy need for power to supersede their sense of care and kindness found in most civilized human beings.

What do you think?

I think justifying one's actions indicates a certain degree of understanding and hence responsibility and even culpability. I know of no animals other than humans which feel the need to justify their actions. Maybe animals are actually more enlightened than we are sometimes?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

You talked about morality being relative to the "collective" good. I think that's what you're getting at, at least that's what I've heard others speak. In other words, what makes the most people happy. Is that what morality is relative to? The only problem I see with this is suppose you're in the minority of people who don't fit the normal mode and this standard of morality doesn't work out in favor of your own happiness. Should you just be overpowered because you're different? Or is it a case where since you're in the minority you're weaker than the majority so might is right and it's right that you be overpowered? What good is happiness even for the majority, if you find yourself a part of the minority (those who the plan doesn't work for). It seems that the common good is of no value to these individuals, and why wouldn't or shouldn't they fight and struggle to change it?

The next point is, "Is it really fair for a woman to judge what should make a man happy?" "Is it really fair for a man to set the bounds on what should make a woman happy?" It seems like we make these judgments on each other all the time, and enforce them inasmuch as we have the power to do so. Marital as well as all other human relationships truly do seem to be a continuum of war and cooperation, with each person making the decision as to how far the other must take advantage of you before you decide that its better to suffer the immediate negatives of war in hope of a better future or improved behavior of your peers, or even their elimination or replacement. I know many people choose isolatio if given the option. Sometimes its not always possible. I would like to believe that the universe has allowed for compensation and justice beyond this cruel predicament in which we find ourselves. To think that justice only exists inasmuch as we have the power to enforce it, is truly depressing. Allowing people to write their own marriage vowels and the abolition of a universal morality in favor of this war and peace cycle is what I think has led to the breakdown of the American family. The war and peace cycle will not keep most relationships together very long in most cases.

While I appreciate that women have been mistreated and in some cases continue to be mistreated, I can't say I would ever subscribe to the feminist ethic. I don't hear them preaching the golden rule very often. Mostly what I hear them preach is "empowerment" "self fulfillment" "self esteem," but I've never heard them preach self sacrifice. How is this passive aggressiveness any more moral than the male dominance we had before? There are just as many men as women now, so I don't see how mistreating men to benefit women is really in the collective good. If all you preach is empowerment, self fullfillment, and self esteem, and not the golden rule, then mistreating men to better the lot of women is really all they're going to achieve. "Two legs good, four legs bad." The sovereign and the slave may have swapped places but ultimately the world is just the same as before.

It's questions like these that keep me clinging to my belief in God, and right and wrong that exists independent of human beings, and the existence of an innate free will within all intelligences. I believe it was Brother Skousen who spoke of the idea of all "intelligences" (not just homo sapiens) crying to God for justice. In other words, this justice cannot be the invention of man or God. It's an independent entity that God respects, adheres to, and ultimately enforces.

If free will does not exists, what gives the controlling majority power the moral right to punish someone for something they're really not responsible for? Or once again is it just a case of the majority acting in the best interest of the majority. If you're in the minority, too bad, you loose. Pray to be reincarnated in the majority.

If this is all just a load of hooey, than how can we not arrive at the conclusions of Korihor that all beings prosper according to their genius, and right and wrong are simply inventions of those powerful enough implement by some form (violence, persuasion etc.) them into the minds of all people.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hey Ajax...

I just have a minute so a couple of responses... :-)

You talked about morality being relative to the "collective" good. I think that's what you're getting at, at least that's what I've heard others speak. In other words, what makes the most people happy. Is that what morality is relative to? The only problem I see with this is suppose you're in the minority of people who don't fit the normal mode and this standard of morality doesn't work out in favor of your own happiness. Should you just be overpowered because you're different? Or is it a case where since you're in the minority you're weaker than the majority so might is right and it's right that you be overpowered? What good is happiness even for the majority, if you find yourself a part of the minority (those who the plan doesn't work for). It seems that the common good is of no value to these individuals, and why wouldn't or shouldn't they fight and struggle to change it?


I think much of the human community is about balancing individual good with the collective good, and certainly we see over the history of humankind a need for a collective agreement on some basic rules. (Although this has altered over the years). For most of human history slavery was accepted, slowly and perhaps one person at a time, a consciousness was awoken that this practice was not moral/right/good/holy/whatever. As our awareness/compassion increased we see "morality" deepen.

The next point is, "Is it really fair for a woman to judge what should make a man happy?" "Is it really fair for a man to set the bounds on what should make a woman happy?" It seems like we make these judgments on each other all the time, and enforce them inasmuch as we have the power to do so. Marital as well as all other human relationships truly do seem to be a continuum of war and cooperation, with each person making the decision as to how far the other must take advantage of you before you decide that its better to suffer the immediate negatives of war in hope of a better future or improved behavior of your peers, or even their elimination or replacement. I know many people choose isolatio if given the option. Sometimes its not always possible. I would like to believe that the universe has allowed for compensation and justice beyond this cruel predicament in which we find ourselves. To think that justice only exists inasmuch as we have the power to enforce it, is truly depressing. Allowing people to write their own marriage vowels and the abolition of a universal morality in favor of this war and peace cycle is what I think has led to the breakdown of the American family. The war and peace cycle will not keep most relationships together very long in most cases.


I'm not sure what you are addressing here. Hmmmm....I do not think it is anyone's place to say what should make others happy. We can embrace the wisdom and experiences of others, and we can look at the human to glimpse what may or may not appear to be healthy but it not a perfect science by any means. I don't get the whole "justice" thing at all actually. I do not see life in a cycle so much as an unfolding as we evolve and bring forth newness to the universe.

While I appreciate that women have been mistreated and in some cases continue to be mistreated, I can't say I would ever subscribe to the feminist ethic. I don't hear them preaching the golden rule very often. Mostly what I hear them preach is "empowerment" "self fulfillment" "self esteem," but I've never heard them preach self sacrifice. How is this passive aggressiveness any more moral than the male dominance we had before? There are just as many men as women now, so I don't see how mistreating men to benefit women is really in the collective good. If all you preach is empowerment, self fulfillment, and self esteem, and not the golden rule, then mistreating men to better the lot of women is really all they're going to achieve. "Two legs good, four legs bad." The sovereign and the slave may have swapped places but ultimately the world is just the same as before.


My experience is much different. I do not know of any woman who believes it is right to mistreat men. Feminism is about being treated as a human being with equal rights like other human beings who happen to have different body parts. I think mistreating others is "wrong". I think the Golden Rule is about as good as it gets in giving us a basic guideline for human interaction. Not perfect but pretty darn good.

It's questions like these that keep me clinging to my belief in God, and right and wrong that exists independent of human beings, and the existence of an innate free will within all intelligences. I believe it was Brother Skousen who spoke of the idea of all "intelligences" (not just homo sapiens) crying to God for justice. In other words, this justice cannot be the invention of man or God. It's an independent entity that God respects, adheres to, and ultimately enforces.


The way I look at it, there is a way to live that is in harmony with life and supports/enhances the furthering of our universe, AND there is a way to live that harms others, thwarts and damages the story of the universe. (I know this is subjective and imperfect and that even the harm seems to bring forth existence, still it is my perception and my best guideline).

Totally disagree about justice. I do not see this "need" at all and think it is a very, VERY human invention. In fact if I had to form an opinion on this I would say the universe works in exactly the opposite way. :-)


If free will does not exists, what gives the controlling majority power the moral right to punish someone for something they're really not responsible for? Or once again is it just a case of the majority acting in the best interest of the majority. If you're in the minority, too bad, you loose. Pray to be reincarnated in the majority.


I do not think too many folks believe free will doesn't exist at all, but even if it doesn't we still have to find a way to function in this world.

It seems to me that yes, based on history, the powerful win. It is not always the majority but it is the powerful, I think this is actually becoming maladaptive but unfortunately this is our history. The way to change things is not to be reincarnated as one of the majority but to help make the minority the majority or powerful. ;-) I actually think actually happens all the time and (although not always bringing forth goodness), is the very way consciousness has evolved and awareness has been brought forth into the human.

If this is all just a load of hooey, than how can we not arrive at the conclusions of Korihor that all beings prosper according to their genius, and right and wrong are simply inventions of those powerful enough implement by some form (violence, persuasion etc.) them into the minds of all people.


If what is all a load of hooey? :-) I do not arrive at the conclusion of Korihor as you describe it.

:-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/09/tex ... index.html

Read that article you fuckin' Mormons, and you tell me that's not how it was back in the day. Tell me, that you feel the Spirit confirm to your heart that polygamy is from God. Tell me, you fuckin' cult-supporting idiots that "She said she'd been beaten by the man, more than three times her age, who had taken her as his seventh wife. Now, her parents were talking about sending her younger sister, 15, to the ranch as well." is simply an anomaly, and that women outnumbered men back in the day, and that only the widows were married because there was no welfare state, or that the little girls that were married off back then went happily so.

Tell me that Joseph Smith didn't “F” little girls and other mens' wives. Tell me he didn't do that.

You are assholes for supporting this cult, that will reinstitute polygamy if given the chance. You are assholes for the pain and misery your cult inflicted upon countless women throughout its history. You are assholes for deceiving others and yourselves by playing down the reality of polygamy and the reality of it in your history.

Shame on you.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
Post Reply