2006-01-13 Reaction to Religion discussion
Part 1: Vee opens a dialogue; Tene responds
| 10:21 | * -!- Vee | changed the topic of #religion to: discussion/ learning about religious topics and beliefs. All religions/beliefs welcome. Things said here are personal beliefs; each person is entitled to accept or reject what's offered. |
| 10:23 | <!Vee>: | Just in case anyone is around.... Here's a good question :) Are science and religion mutually exclusive? Can you believe both at the same time? |
| 10:33 | <!Tene>: | to me, I don't quite understand how that could be a point of contention |
| 10:34 | <!Tene>: | Kind of like asking if science and cooking are mutually exclusive |
| 10:34 | <!Tene>: | all Science is is a way of looking at the world |
| 10:35 | <!Tene>: | A method of understanding things and making sense of what you see and experience |
| 10:36 | <!Tene>: | "Science" is no more specific to something like "particle physics" than cooking is to "chocolate truffles with chocolatey chocolate filling and a chocolate topping, but only the really tiny kind" or something |
| 10:36 | <!Tene>: | "cooking" is "making sense of the food around you", in a way |
| 10:37 | <!Tene>: | some people just let others do all the cooking and some people just let others do all the thinking |
| 10:38 | <!Tene>: | but it's a method of thinking, and just like everyone can eat an apple, everyone can see cause and effect in everything, even religion |
| 10:39 | <!Tene>: | You can say "I suspect that if I throw this ball in the air, it will come back down." |
| 10:39 | <!Tene>: | That's scientific thinking. |
| 10:39 | <!Tene>: | If you say "I believe that if I follow the teachings of this religion, my life will be better", that's also scientific thinking. |
| 10:40 | <!Tene>: | You're making a hypothesis about the world and then you test it, whether by throwing things in the air or by living your life according to the teachings of a particular religion. |
| 10:41 | <!Tene>: | The passage in the book of mormon saying "Don't take my word for it, try these things out for yourself, live them and test them and see if they work for you" is describing a scientific method. |
| 10:41 | <!Tene>: | It's describing experimentation. |
| 10:41 | <!Tene>: | When someone makes a discovery in physics, they publish how they did it, so that other people can do the same thing and verify their results. |
| 10:42 | <!Tene>: | This is exactly the same. "I have found truth here. This is true and good. I ask you to try it out yourself because I want to share it with you." |
...
| 10:45 | <!Vee>: | I basically agree with you |
| 10:46 | <!Vee>: | I think that religion and science are like apples and oranges as the cliche goes. |
| 10:46 | <!Tene>: | I personally would consider Religion to be just as much a valid scientific field as Chemistry. |
| 10:46 | <!Vee>: | But I am asking for discussion on the topic because I am repeatedly faced by the contrary position. |
| 10:47 | <!Tene>: | Howso? |
| 10:47 | <!Vee>: | Here are examples that have recently been brought to my attention |
| 10:47 | <!Vee>: | "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer... The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God... The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature." -- Einstein, from a 1939 essay |
| 10:49 | <!Vee>: | "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -- Einstein |
| 10:50 | <!Vee>: | "It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama. " -- Feynman, 1959 Interview (From Genius by James Gleick)
{{chatline|10:54|!Vee|Feynman in particular has quite a number of statements that say, well, in effect, that science has on a number of basis disproven the Biblical description (as well as other religious descriptions) of historical and metaphysical things |
| 11:03 | <!Tene>: | My personal feeling about that is that it looks just the same as if they were talking about the ancient beliefs of the human body being governed by the Four Humours or that matter is composed of the Four Elements. |
| 11:03 | <!Tene>: | I do agree with the majority of those statements. |
| 11:03 | <!Tene>: | All of them, in fact. |
| 11:03 | <!Tene>: | And they in no way conflict with my religious beliefs |
| 11:04 | <!Vee>: | And that a scientist will have a less strong religion than a non-scientist, because the conflicts on those subjects will make him question the rest of the religions teachings |
| 11:07 | <!Vee>: | :) |
| 11:08 | <!Vee>: | I agree with TenE |
| 11:08 | <!Tene>: | For Historical matters, I believe that there are Issues with translations and record-keeping of the Bible and other such works. |
| 11:08 | <!Tene>: | I don't know what the 'metaphysical' issues are. |
| 11:09 | <!Vee>: | a) I don't think that God usually uses "non-law of physics" methods to influence the order of things..... He just knows the "laws" a lot better than we do. |
| 11:10 | <!Vee>: | hence no "magic" is necessary |
| 11:11 | <!Vee>: | as for the orderliness of the universe..... I think that speaks much more strongly for an intelligent agent than the operation of chance |
| 11:13 | <!Vee>: | if "science" has disproven the need for "unnatural intervention", then mathmatics has proven its necessity |
| 11:15 | <!Vee>: | and lest "reason" has driven out the need for "other explanations" I would like to remind everyone that the "Laws of Physics" as currently written by humans conflicts with itself |
| 11:16 | <!Tene>: | I wouldn't say an intelligent agent, necessarily, as that seems to speak of someone choosing to move all of the objects around consciously. |
| 11:16 | <!Tene>: | but... that's more a semantics issue |
| 11:16 | <!Tene>: | so I shut up. |
| 11:17 | <!Vee>: | so do I disbelieve in science? no. It is a human disapline that strives to detect the order of the universe and facilitate the use of natural law to human benefit. And I believe it does just that |
| 11:18 | <!Vee>: | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Feynman, Address to the National Science Teachers' Association |
| 11:18 | <!Tene>: | To me, religion is just as much part of the universe as anything else. |
| 11:18 | <!Tene>: | And it has to be, or else it is meaningless. |
| 11:18 | <!Vee>: | *nods* |
| 11:19 | <!Tene>: | I do believe that the statements you have quoted *do* apply to many major religions. |
| 11:19 | <!Tene>: | And those are, in fact, some of the reasons I follow the LDS church. |
| 11:20 | <!Tene>: | Because it is the only religion that makes sense to me. |
| 11:20 | <!Vee>: | :) I agree |
| 11:20 | <!Tene>: | I also follow it because of personal experiences that have shown me that it is true in ways that I can not deny. |
| 11:20 | <!Vee>: | :) again I agree |
| 11:22 | <!Vee>: | as for scientist[s] not being able to believe in religion because of the conflicts between their science and religion.... some of the most religious people I know are scientist[s] |
| 11:24 | <!Tene>: | I would say that they are unable to believe in untrue religions in just the same way that most sane people cannot follow bizarre cults. |
| 11:24 | <!Vee>: | My father grew up disbelieving in religion until long after he became a particle physicist when he joined the LDS church |
| 11:25 | <!Tene>: | I am unable to follow or believe any religion that any of those earlier statements would apply to. |
| 11:25 | <!Vee>: | :) |
| 11:26 | <!Tene>: | However, I do assert that there is at least some degree of truth, often quite a bit, in the vast majority of religions. |
| 11:26 | <!Tene>: | Probably All. |
| 11:26 | <!Vee>: | metaphysical - what things are, where they come from, what man is BTW |
| 11:26 | <!Tene>: | Yes, but I don't know what the Issues there are. |
| 11:26 | <!Tene>: | is more what I meant. |
| 11:26 | <!Tene>: | The disagreements. |
| 11:27 | <!Tene>: | but I didn't say it well. |
| 11:29 | <!Vee>: | so essentially Feynman says that science disagrees with religion about what man is (a sack of carbon based protiens, bones and tissue vs a spiritual entity) where he came from (evolution vs creation) and why were here (random occurance vs a purposed existance) |
| 11:30 | <!Vee>: | perhaps where we are going (recycled back into the particle soup of the universe vs an afterlife) |
| 11:32 | <!Vee>: | an historical "events" like creation, the lengthening of the day by Joshua, the flood, the migrations of the human family, the formation of languge, etc. |
Part 2: Woozle reads the scrollup and responds
Woozle notes:
- I still need to summarize the relevant bits of this; I may well end up moving the trascript to a separate page and putting only the summery here
- Times are in MST (Mountain Standard, 2 hours earlier than Eastern)
{{chatline|12:18|@TheWoozle> Yep, that's them.
{{chatline|12:18|@TheWoozle> They look like *total* Young Republicans.
{{chatline|12:18|@TheWoozle> Only more so, if that's possible.
{{chatline|12:19|!Vee> so let me get this straight.... It is their lack of individuality and relaxness that scares you and convinces you they are brainwashed and or the Borg?
{{chatline|12:20|@TheWoozle> Well... to overstate my POV...
{{chatline|12:20|!Vee> (brb I have a demand for juice)
{{chatline|12:20|@TheWoozle> I'd rephrase it as "...makes me worry that..." or "...causes an emotional reaction along the lines of...", perhaps both.
{{chatact|12:20|StoryTime thinks he's looking through the wrong handbook thing.
{{chatline|12:21|@TheWoozle> Otherwise: yes.
{{chatline|12:21|StoryTime> Well, have you seen the sister Missionaries?
{{chatline|12:21|@TheWoozle> And I'm not so much worried about brainwashing, even though it does press those buttons a bit.
{{chatline|12:21|@TheWoozle> ST: no -- I was kinda wondering...
{{chatline|12:21|StoryTime> Their nametags say "Sister <blahblahblah>" and such.
{{chatact|12:22|TheWoozle nods
{{chatline|12:22|!TeneIsATaquito> And they're female.
{{chatline|12:22|StoryTime> And I've never seen two dressed the same.
{{chatline|12:22|@TheWoozle> So... boys get to be elders, but girls only get to be sisters?
{{chatline|12:22|!TeneIsATaquito> "only"?
{{chatline|12:22|@TheWoozle> And the boys generally have to dress the same, but the girls don't?
{{chatline|12:22|@TheWoozle> "sister" = sibling = peer
{{chatline|12:22|StoryTime> You try getting to women to wear the same outfit *winks*
{{chatline|12:22|@TheWoozle> "elder" = older = superior
{{chatline|12:22|@TheWoozle> That's the associative imagery *I* get, anyway.
{{chatline|12:23|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatact|12:23|Vee goes looking fo rpicts
{{chatline|12:23|!Vee> hmmm
{{chatline|12:23|!Vee> my scanner isn't set up
{{chatline|12:23|@TheWoozle> So... the boys wear the same outfit because they can be cowed into doing so, but there's enough flexibility that the girls (who won't bow to authority) are allowed to dress how they want?
{{chatline|12:23|StoryTime> Well, the title of "elder" refers to a office in the melchezidek (spell?) preisthood.
{{chatline|12:23|StoryTime> Nah, that was a joke.
{{chatline|12:24|@TheWoozle> (That would be my favorable interpretation of the most recent stuff ST said...)
{{chatline|12:24|StoryTime> The point is that you're supposed to dress formally.
{{chatline|12:24|@Harena> and girls can't carry that title?
{{chatact|12:24|StoryTime is pursuing two lines of thought at once.
{{chatline|12:24|@Harena> ah, & in formal attire, there is room for more variety for women in general so there you go?
{{chatline|12:24|StoryTime> Yeah.
{{chatact|12:24|Harena is doing too many convo's at once as well & it's frying her wee ferret brains ;D
{{chatact|12:24|TheWoozle is also allergic to strict gender roles... probably more so than to uniforms, even.
{{chatact|12:24|StoryTime comforts Harena.
{{chatline|12:24|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatline|12:24|!Vee> 
{{chatline|12:25|@TheWoozle> Less scary, by a good margin.
{{chatline|12:25|StoryTime> Well, we believe that gender is an inherent part of your spiritual identity. Men and women are naturally born with different spiritual gifts and such.
{{chatline|12:26|StoryTime> If you're allergic to the concept that men aren't women and women aren't men, prepare to do lots of sneezing.
{{chatline|12:26|@TheWoozle> What does the... uhh, whatever you call it that defines what "we believe"... say about people whose mental gender is different from their physical gender?
{{chatline|12:26|StoryTime> Gospel?
{{chatline|12:26|!TeneIsATaquito> Doctrine, mayb.
{{chatline|12:27|!TeneIsATaquito> maybe, even
{{chatline|12:27|@TheWoozle> Gospel, dogma, scripture, doctrine... yeah, doctrine.
{{chatline|12:27|StoryTime> Yeah, lots of terms.
{{chatact|12:27|TeneIsATaquito shrugs.
{{chatline|12:27|@TheWoozle> (Doctrine: n. a small doctor.)
{{chatline|12:28|StoryTime> Your gender is part of who you are. By saying that someone has a different "mental gender" from their physical gender is kinda' silly to me.
{{chatline|12:28|@TheWoozle> (Doctrino: n. a subatomic particle exchanged between a physician and patient which causes the patient's bank balance to vanish within the billing department's event horizon.)
{{chatline|12:28|StoryTime> I've none some feminine guys and some masculine girls, but they were still guys and girls.
{{chatline|12:28|!Vee> where now we get to a topic I think we've covered before
{{chatact|12:29|TheWoozle has some educatin' to do...
{{chatline|12:29|@TheWoozle> Not really prepared to do it right now, tho.
{{chatline|12:29|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatline|12:29|!Vee> :)
{{chatline|12:29|@TheWoozle> I'm (tentatively) planning to start a wiki on the subject of gender; it's that complicated.
{{chatline|12:29|StoryTime> I'm familiar with the concept, I think, Woozle. ^^
{{chatline|12:30|StoryTime> Gender identity and stuff is pretty complicated.
{{chatline|12:30|@TheWoozle> There's lots of evidence that gender-identity, while *usually* aligned with physical identity, is not always the same. (Just to summarize)
{{chatline|12:30|!Vee> I could say that as the church goes gender doesn't bug me nearly as bad as the rest the world's gender views
{{chatline|12:30|StoryTime> Yeah.
{{chatline|12:31|@TheWoozle> Which, in a nutshell, means that any doctrine that has firm opinions on gender roles etc. is going to need to be able to deal with those exceptions.
{{chatline|12:31|StoryTime> Having a different gender identity doesn't make you a different gender.
{{chatline|12:31|@TheWoozle> That's a matter of definition, I think.
{{chatline|12:31|!Vee> wait!
{{chatline|12:31|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatact|12:31|TheWoozle waits...
{{chatact|12:31|StoryTime waits
{{chatline|12:31|!Vee> :)
{{chatact|12:31|TeneIsATaquito waits
{{chatline|12:31|StoryTime> Yay for waiting!
{{chatact|12:31|TheWoozle looks at wristwatch... two hairs past a freckle...
{{chatline|12:32|!Vee> I think we've established that to Woozle, gender identity is an important concept
{{chatline|12:32|@TheWoozle> Having a different gender identity means you might not be comfortable with the default gender role(s).
{{chatact|12:32|StoryTime nods.
{{chatact|12:33|StoryTime also notes that we might need to clarify definitions of gender roles too, but that it can also wait.
{{chatline|12:33|@TheWoozle> So there needs to be flexibility, in order to allow for that.
{{chatline|12:33|!Vee> As I have stated in the past, I don't think that xy/xx has much to do with football watcher versus shopaholic
{{chatline|12:33|@TheWoozle> A friend of mine was very into Morris Dancing.
{{chatline|12:34|@TheWoozle> She had a troupe of Morris Dancers, and they were very good.
{{chatline|12:34|!TeneIsATaquito> Wooz: does there need to be "flexibility" or would it be okay for that to be "not an issue"?
{{chatline|12:34|@TheWoozle> And then they went to England, for a Morris Dancing competition.
{{chatline|12:34|@TheWoozle> Now... in England, Morris Dancing is a men's thing.
{{chatline|12:34|!Vee> I think that what is and isn't gender specific is precisely at the heart of thise discussion
{{chatact|12:34|StoryTime nodnods.
{{chatline|12:34|@TheWoozle> They were all incensed that this bunch of women would be competing in a men's field, and they were basically rude and dismissive.
{{chatline|12:35|@TheWoozle> Now... that's an example of a gender role that is probably more or less arbitrary.
{{chatline|12:35|@TheWoozle> Which isn't to say that all gender roles are arbitrary.
{{chatline|12:35|@TheWoozle> I would agree that most women are probably more interested in nurturing and keeping the nest clean than are most men.
{{chatline|12:36|@TheWoozle> (For example.)
{{chatline|12:36|StoryTime> My mom is our ward's primary president. She's in charge of organizing and coordinating activities for all the kids in our ward. Typically, this is a "leading and whatnot" kinda' role which some old stupid gender roles would place as a mans job. My dad is a teacher in that same primary. He teaches lessons to a class of 11-year-olds.
{{chatline|12:36|@TheWoozle> But making that into a role which everyone has to follow... is less good.
{{chatact|12:36|TheWoozle reads ST's bit...
{{chatline|12:36|StoryTime> Does this clear up the fact that the existance of gender roles is not necessarily a restrictive concept inline with say.. medieval society?
{{chatline|12:37|@TheWoozle> Well... it opens the door for flexibility; I just don't know enough about LDS's ideas about gender roles to say whether they really bother me or not.
{{chatline|12:37|@Harena> in my two marriages (albeit as bad as they were), it was my hubby's that got the cooking stuffnthings & i who got the hardware & power tools ^_^
{{chatline|12:37|@TheWoozle> I've heard a few suggestions/hints that did worry me, but I may have been misreading them.
{{chatline|12:37|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatline|12:38|StoryTime> Our church has nothing against women using power tools, though the men still do it more often than the women.
{{chatline|12:39|@Harena> and in general q public too *nod* ;)
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> Lemme see... the cut and dry issues on gender in our church...
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> Q?
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> Ah.
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> Well, men can't be mommies.
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> That's the woman's job.
{{chatline|12:39|StoryTime> And women can't be daddies.
{{chatline|12:40|@TheWoozle> "Woman was given to man as an helpmeet."
{{chatline|12:40|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatline|12:40|StoryTime> I heard a talk on that once.
{{chatline|12:40|StoryTime> Do you know what "helpmeet" actually means?
{{chatline|12:40|@TheWoozle> Do tell...
{{chatline|12:40|!Vee> :)
{{chatline|12:40|StoryTime> It's a partner, not a servant
{{chatact|12:40|TheWoozle was objecting more to the "given to man" part.
{{chatline|12:41|StoryTime> Ah.
{{chatline|12:41|!Vee> (me uses the power tools around here and serif does the cooking)
{{chatact|12:41|StoryTime likes to cook.
{{chatline|12:41|@Harena> (see? Vee *is* my twin!)
{{chatline|12:41|!Vee> :)
{{chatline|12:41|@TheWoozle> Maybe most women are comfortable wearing that sort of mantle, but I definitely know a few who would be... highly allergic to it.
{{chatline|12:41|StoryTime> Mantle?
{{chatline|12:42|!Vee> woozle
{{chatline|12:42|!TeneIsATaquito> Fireplace.
{{chatline|12:42|@TheWoozle> Mantle as in having the role of being given to someone else, to help with their stuff -- rather than having their own initiatives.
{{chatline|12:42|!Vee> the scriptures also refer to the man giving himself to his wife
{{chatline|12:42|@TheWoozle> Yes, so why don't they say that at the first?
{{chatline|12:43|@TheWoozle> You can't say "God made women and men to be for each other" and still have the story of the Garden of Eden, I suppose.
{{chatline|12:43|!Vee> I think it is sematics myself
{{chatline|12:43|@TheWoozle> If you've got the GoE, then man came first; end of story.
{{chatline|12:43|StoryTime> Heh.
{{chatline|12:43|StoryTime> So?
{{chatact|12:44|StoryTime doesn't think it's a seniority rule...
{{chatline|12:44|@TheWoozle> Well... that implies a lot of things, whether they're meant to be implied or not.
{{chatline|12:44|@TheWoozle> And if they're not meant to be implied, then there should be clarification.
{{chatline|12:44|@TheWoozle> It implies that men are primary, somehow.
{{chatline|12:44|!Vee> the scritptures indicat often that family matters are a joint effort and that it is a work to do together, both parents for a common goal
{{chatline|12:45|@TheWoozle> Right... but they always start with the woman being there for the man. First came Adam, then Eve -- who was only a small part of Adam that God inflated somehow.
{{chatline|12:45|StoryTime> In traditional Hebrew society, iirc, a father "gives" his daughter to another man to wife.
{{chatline|12:45|@TheWoozle> It's a common denominator of many religions.
{{chatline|12:46|StoryTime> Why shouldn't a story passed down by such people phrase it the same way?
{{chatline|12:46|@TheWoozle> Umm... I'm not sure what your point is...
{{chatline|12:47|@TheWoozle> They all phrase it the same way because they all believe more or less the same thing -- that women are meant to be secondary.
{{chatline|12:47|!TeneIsATaquito> We don't believe that.
{{chatline|12:47|StoryTime> They phrase it that way because that's the way they talk.
{{chatline|12:47|@TheWoozle> So why is it still phrased that way?
{{chatline|12:47|@TheWoozle> It's misleading, then.
{{chatline|12:47|StoryTime> Because people don't like changing the bible.
{{chatline|12:48|!Vee> I know for a fact that in practice that the men at church in their own meeting are constantly being reminded to make sure that women in their house are free to attend their meetings and to take care of their own needs for recreation and a break by watching kids or whatever
{{chatline|12:48|@TheWoozle> Gotta go pick up podlings, speaking of the sacred role of men and women. :-P
{{chatline|12:48|StoryTime> Okay, I was reading in Ephesians chapter 5 yesterday...
{{chatline|12:48|!Vee> :)
{{chatline|12:48|@TheWoozle> back in an hourorso
{{chatline|12:48|StoryTime> Okiday.
{{chatline|12:49|!TeneIsATaquito> We are specifically advised to avoid any thoughts about men being superior, specifically because of that common idea.
{{chatline|12:49|!TeneIsATaquito> well, not "thoughts"
{{chatline|12:49|!TeneIsATaquito> but, like... things... and stuff...
{{chatline|12:49|!Vee> (I wonder if that made anysense what I just said..... basiccally "guys watch the kids and let your wives get out of the house and do stuff")
{{chatline|12:49|StoryTime> Heh
{{chatline|12:49|!TeneIsATaquito> Although that could still be considered the same thing.
{{chatline|12:50|!TeneIsATaquito> That Women need permission from men to get out of the house.
{{chatline|12:50|!Vee> no!
{{chatline|12:50|!TeneIsATaquito> but that's probably more semantics.
{{chatline|12:50|!TeneIsATaquito> like...
{{chatline|12:50|!Vee> just that men have an obligation to facilitate it
{{chatline|12:50|!TeneIsATaquito> nodnod
{{chatline|12:50|!TeneIsATaquito> I get stuck on words ><
{{chatline|12:50|!Vee> :)
{{chatline|12:51|@serif> as an aside, the bible starts with men and woman being created together as "mankind"
{{chatline|12:52|StoryTime> Yay.
{{chatline|12:52|@serif> and when Eve is introduced, the statement is that the man leaves his family and "cleaves" unto his wife, not vice versa
{{chatline|12:53|!TeneIsATaquito> also, just because it's vaguely kind of related, the word "woman" doesn't derive from the word "man" >.>
{{chatline|12:53|!Vee> serif!
{{chatact|12:54|Vee huggles serif
{{chatline|12:58|@serif> (also note that there is no such word as "his" in hebrew - there are no possessives in the language)
{{chatline|13:01|!Vee> (and that there are indications that the original hebrew text was less man oriented on the laws and such.... basically that the laws applied to everyone reguardless of their gender)
{{chatmsg|13:06|mode/#religion [+o Dhraakellian] by Moose
Part 3: Woozle returns and responds some more
this part needs formatting
{{chatline|13:45|@TheWoozle> Ok... the thing about how "it's just phrased that way for traditional reasons, and doesn't really mean it that way"... it may be understood within the community that this is so, but anyone outside that community is going to assume that something means what it says, as written... {{chatline|13:46|@TheWoozle> ...which can lead to hostility, if what it *seems* to be saying is something some people find oppressive. {{chatline|13:46|@TheWoozle> Even if that's not what is intended by the community saying it. {{chatline|13:47|@TheWoozle> "A family needs a father to anchor it." Why? {{chatline|13:47 <@TheWoozle> "All human beings?male and female?are created in the image of God." ok, that much sounds like an affirmation of each gender's value. {{chatline|13:48 <@TheWoozle> "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families... and .. provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." Why? {{chatline|13:49 <@TheWoozle> "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Well ok, if that's what they're good at -- but what if the man is a better nurturer? What if another woman would enjoy the job better than the mother? (Mind you, I'm aware that my ideas on family structure are wacky by normal standards... but still: why not?) {{chatline|13:49 <@TheWoozle> (And you could read that as "why shouldn't children have a nanny who is the primary nurturer?", too.) {{chatline|13:50 <@TheWoozle> "The father is the head in his family." same song again... {{chatline|13:51 <@TheWoozle> "Fatherhood is leadership, the most important kind of leadership. It has always been so; it always will be so." That's BS; not all societies have been patriarchal, and to assume that past patterns must always be repeated seems narrow-minded to me. {{chatline|13:52 <!Vee> :) {{chatline|13:52 <@TheWoozle> (reading through this one passage, another issue comes up -- "there is too little religious devotion, love, and fear of God in the home..." The whole idea of fearing God seriously bothers me too, but that is another subject.) {{chatline|13:53 <!Vee> what are you reading? {{chatline|13:53 <@TheWoozle> It's in frames, so I'm not sure of the URL... I think I can puzzle it out; hang on... {{chatline|13:54 <@TheWoozle> tinyurl not responding, so here we go -- {{chatline|13:54 <@TheWoozle> http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20may%202004.htm/fatherhood%20an%20eternal%20calling.htm {{chatline|13:55 <!Vee> :) {{chatline|13:55 <!Vee> wow.... where to begin {{chatline|13:55 <@TheWoozle> "The Lord has charged men with the responsibility to provide for their families in such a way that the wife is allowed to fulfill her role as mother in the home." What if those roles don't fit? {{chatline|13:56 < StoryTime> Define "don't fit" {{chatline|13:56 <@TheWoozle> For example: the mother has a career. {{chatact|13:56 * StoryTime just got back to the conversation and is still reading back over stuff. {{chatline|13:57 <@TheWoozle> The father likes to stay at home and write books -- which doesn't bring in a steady income, although it might eventually. {{chatline|13:57 <@TheWoozle> Or the father is the nurturer of the family. {{chatline|13:57 <!Vee> Woozle: I realize that for you, you do not like structure nor "should"s nor most affixing of "roles" so the great majority of what you are reading is spoken to a different audience {{chatline|13:58 <@TheWoozle> You've just reminded me of the other thing I was going to say... {{chatline|13:58 <!Vee> And you are taking most of it in its worse possible connotation {{chatline|13:58 <@TheWoozle> In response to ST's saying I was going to be sneezing a lot... ;-) {{chatline|13:58 <@TheWoozle> It's true that I do unfortunately end up sneezing a lot. {{chatline|13:58 <!Vee> :) {{chatline|13:58 <@TheWoozle> But I'm not the only one. {{chatline|13:59 <@TheWoozle> Which leaves the Church of the Holy Allergen with two choices: either somehow embrace the people who are allergic to its views, and accomodate them somehow, or else decide that it is better off without them. {{chatline|13:59 < StoryTime> Okay, done reading all that. {{chatline|13:59 < StoryTime> Wow, you're really pushing out on this toward the end here, aren't you? {{chatline|14:00 <!Vee> There is no end to examples from the same people to the effect that there are situation that do not premit the wife to stay home {{chatline|14:00 <@TheWoozle> Vee: I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be reading it, then. {{chatline|14:00 <@TheWoozle> ST: not sure what you're referring to... {{chatline|14:00 <!Vee> The current echonomic structure hardly allows a women to stay home if she wishes {{chatline|14:01 <!Vee> the two income household is the norm {{chatline|14:01 <@TheWoozle> Vee: true. It should be *possible*, I'll agree, and it's bad that it often isn't. {{chatline|14:01 < StoryTime> Heh. Moving from a discussion and quotations from above to talking about acceptance and rejections of allergens. {{chatline|14:01 <@TheWoozle> (Although I will say that not having kids makes a single income family quite affordable... but I suppose most people wouldn't call that a family.) {{chatline|14:01 < StoryTime> I'd just assume figure out what's bothering you before you sneeze it out. {{chatline|14:02 <@TheWoozle> ST: Ok, I was trying to be too clever with words. {{chatact|14:02 * TheWoozle rephrases about the C of the HA... {{chatline|14:04 <@TheWoozle> We're talking about a church whose doctrine holds rigid roles for gender, in at least some ways. I said earlier that I tend to be highly allergic to such things; you said that I was probably going to end up sneezing a lot. I added (just now) that this is true, but I'm not the only one. My final point was that a church expressing such views is going to bother a lot of people, and therefore must choose between somehow accomodating them or else excluding them. {{chatline|14:04 < StoryTime> And yeah, one income can support two people. If large enough, it can support more. I can cite examples of my uncle who supports a family of... *counts* seven quite comfortably. {{chatline|14:04 <@TheWoozle> When I was working on contract, I could easily have supported Harena's current load of kids. {{chatline|14:05 <@TheWoozle> Her monthly income from her mom is less than I made on salary in 1990. {{chatline|14:05 < StoryTime> Indeed. What the above says is that when the mother can be at home, it's better, iirc. *rereads to make sure he's thinking of the right statement* {{chatline|14:06 <@TheWoozle> ...how about "when there is a nurturing parent who can stay at home, it's better." Why only the mother, once we're past the breastfeeding stage? {{chatline|14:06 <@TheWoozle> Clarification: I'll even agree that in *most* cases, the mother is by far better suited to the task. {{chatline|14:06 < StoryTime> Maternal instincts, spiritual gifts... {{chatline|14:06 <@TheWoozle> That's in *most* cases. {{chatline|14:07 <@TheWoozle> Taking a norm and making it a rule isn't a good idea, however. {{chatline|14:07 <!TeneIsATaquito> Random item, not sure if it applies here... {{chatline|14:07 <!Vee> Woozle: And this isn't mandatory in all cases, there are examples of LDS men who care for the children promarily {{chatline|14:07 <!TeneIsATaquito> and I'm not really comparing the two... {{chatline|14:08 <!TeneIsATaquito> and... upon further thought... that wouldn't be taken well... so nevermind {{chatline|14:08 <@TheWoozle> heh {{chatline|14:08 <!TeneIsATaquito> Very Badly Stated {{chatline|14:08 <!TeneIsATaquito> and would imply a lot of thing sI don't want to imply {{chatact|14:08 * TheWoozle objects anyway! On principle! {{chatline|14:08 <!Vee> It is assumed in my comment that both parents are responsible for the children {{chatact|14:08 * StoryTime sees lots of "primarily"s and such above and isn't sure why woozle has a problem. {{chatline|14:08 < StoryTime> You're saying "generally true" but not the rule. {{chatline|14:08 <@TheWoozle> Well... not in the bit I was reading. {{chatline|14:08 < StoryTime> I'm just going on the bits you quoted. {{chatline|14:08 <@TheWoozle> It was generally stated flat out "daddy rules, mommy nurtures, cuz God says so", no exceptions. {{chatline|14:09 < StoryTime> Heh. {{chatline|14:09 <@TheWoozle> And I'll apologize also because I realize I have a lot of anger on this subject. {{chatline|14:09 <@TheWoozle> (Although I do think it comes from somewhere.) {{chatline|14:10 <@TheWoozle> Maybe LDS is generally tolerant towards being flexible in these roles, but too many people use those same words to enforce rigidity. {{chatline|14:10 < StoryTime> "<TheWoozle> "The Lord has charged men with the responsibility to provide for their families in such a way that the wife is allowed to fulfill her role as mother in the home." What if those roles don't fit?" This is taking it to an extreme, but... "God has commanded you not to kill people." What if I have a mental disorder and I'm a homicidal maniac? {{chatline|14:11 <@TheWoozle> Killing people is bad. How is not fitting a role bad? {{chatline|14:11 < StoryTime> How is not fitting the role of a nonmurderer bad? {{chatline|14:11 <@TheWoozle> Because you kill people, and that's bad. {{chatline|14:11 <!TeneIsATaquito> Heh, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt {{chatline|14:11 <!TeneIsATaquito> >.> {{chatline|14:12 < StoryTime> I'm aware that this is very extreme, but bear with me. Bare? Bear. i dunno {{chatline|14:12 <@TheWoozle> Bear. {{chatline|14:12 <!TeneIsATaquito> "bear" {{chatline|14:12 < StoryTime> Okiday. {{chatline|14:12 <@TheWoozle> As in "bear left" or "bear down". {{chatline|14:13 <!TeneIsATaquito> That's approximately what I was going to say earlier in response to "making a norm a rule" {{chatline|14:13 < StoryTime> Anyway, I've heard people complain that our church is very restrictive. Lots of commandments. "Do this" "don't do that" {{chatline|14:13 < StoryTime> "But it's so hard to go to church on a weekly basis. Other people only go twice in a year." {{chatline|14:14 < StoryTime> "But I like smoking pot. It's my own body. Who cares?" {{chatline|14:14 < StoryTime> "Premarital sex never hurt anyone if you're careful." {{chatline|14:14 < StoryTime> And so on. {{chatline|14:14 <@TheWoozle> There are certain fundamental things which most people believe are right or wrong, and you can't really argue about them; you just have to recognize that people have different ideas about them. {{chatline|14:14 <@TheWoozle> For me, killing people (except in self-defense) is one of those. {{chatline|14:15 < StoryTime> My mommy puts it this way: {{chatline|14:15 <@TheWoozle> Not being a nurturing mom, or failing to be a Provider as a dad, are not. {{chatline|14:15 <@TheWoozle> Smoking pot also is not, though for other personal reasons I don't do it either. {{chatmsg|14:15 -!- Harena [~Harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] {{chatline|14:15 < StoryTime> Can I finish? That's not what I'm gonna' say. {{chatline|14:15 <@TheWoozle> yeah, sorry, go ahead. {{chatline|14:15 < StoryTime> Okiday. {{chatline|14:16 < StoryTime> As my mommy says: {{chatline|14:16 < StoryTime> (not an exact quote) {{chatmsg|14:17 -!- Harena [~Harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has joined #religion {{chatmsg|14:17 -!- mode/#religion [+o Harena] by Moose {{chatline|14:18 < StoryTime> I tell my kids not to play in the street, because they're safer that way. I tell them not to fight, because they won't hurt each other that way. They say they're bad at school? I tell them to go to college, because they'll be better off in the long run. A three year old doesn't know why he shouldn't drive a car, but mommy knows and the three year old is better off for paying attention, and when eh grows up, he'll understand. {{chatline|14:18 < StoryTime> (Don't think I need to finish, but here goes) {{chatline|14:19 < StoryTime> God doesn't make rules because he wants us to be certain ways, or conform, or whatever. He makes rules 'cuz God is daddy and daddy knows best. If you try it, you'll see that it works. If it doesn't work, then the instructions must not have been from daddy after all. {{chatline|14:19 <@TheWoozle> Those are all things a parent would tell a child. I'm talking about adults. {{chatline|14:19 < StoryTime> God is a daddy to the grownups too, Woozle. {{chatline|14:20 < StoryTime> 'cuz he's been there and he knows what happens. {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> Ok, well, that's your philosophy, but I can answer that too, I think... {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> The roles don't work from me. {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> So those instructions must not be from God, right? {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> *Don't work *for* me {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> (bleh) {{chatline|14:20 < StoryTime> So you're bad at school and don't want to go to college? {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> No... we were talking gender roles, yes? {{chatline|14:20 < StoryTime> Yeah, I'm aware. {{chatline|14:20 <@TheWoozle> Though actually, that's also true. {{chatline|14:21 <@TheWoozle> I was bad at school, but went to college because parents said I should. {{chatline|14:21 <@TheWoozle> And it was a mistake. {{chatline|14:21 < StoryTime> How so? {{chatline|14:21 <@TheWoozle> If, perhaps, I had waited a few years, it might have been not a mistake. {{chatline|14:21 <@TheWoozle> But at the time, I was horribly depressed. {{chatline|14:21 <@TheWoozle> And I did Very Badly there too. {{chatline|14:22 < StoryTime> So you're worse off with bad college grades than with no college education at all? {{chatline|14:22 <@TheWoozle> And I decided (partly because of how badly I did, though there were other reasons) that I wanted nothing further to do with it. {{chatline|14:22 <@TheWoozle> I'm worse off having gone in when I wasn't ready and then having sworn off it altogether. {{chatline|14:22 <@TheWoozle> (Is one interpretation.) {{chatline|14:23 <!Vee> I don't really understand what part of the gender roles Woozle doesn't agree with {{chatline|14:23 <@TheWoozle> I'm worse off having gone in when I wasn't ready and thus being strongly averse to it ever after (is another interp). {{chatline|14:23 < StoryTime> I could also say that if you would have kept listening to mommy and daddy and kept going to college, then you still would have been better off. {{chatline|14:23 < StoryTime> But that the problem came when you stopped listening. {{chatline|14:23 <@TheWoozle> They didn't say I should keep going, after that. {{chatline|14:24 <@TheWoozle> They agreed that it was a good idea to stop. {{chatline|14:24 < StoryTime> True. {{chatline|14:24 < StoryTime> Do you think that was a good idea, in retrospect? {{chatline|14:24 <!Vee> I would interject here that God is a better parent than earthly parents {{chatline|14:24 < StoryTime> Stopping, I mean. {{chatline|14:24 <@TheWoozle> And I think it was. It would have been absolutely pointless to keep going; I would have been expelled soon anyway -- they don't let you stay when you're failing most of your classes {{chatline|14:24 < StoryTime> Aww... I was getting to that one, Vee. {{chatline|14:24 <!Vee> He is smarter adn wiser and a lot older. {{chatline|14:24 <!Vee> :) {{chatline|14:25 <@TheWoozle> God had no advice for me, unless God was the source of my strong feeling that I didn't belong in college. {{chatline|14:25 <!Vee> maybe He was {{chatact|14:25 * TheWoozle shrugs {{chatline|14:25 <!Vee> Did you ask? {{chatline|14:25 <@TheWoozle> Ask God? {{chatline|14:25 <!Vee> yes {{chatline|14:26 <@TheWoozle> And that's done through prayer, right? {{chatline|14:26 <!Vee> Sure. {{chatline|14:26 <!Vee> Where prayer equals talk to God. {{chatline|14:26 <@TheWoozle> How do you know if you're talking to God? {{chatline|14:27 <@TheWoozle> How do you know the difference between talking to God and just feeling a strong intuitive sense that something is true/right? {{chatact|14:27 -!- StoryTime [~ace@bf6674e.285ef2b1.slkc.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds] {{chatline|14:28 <@TheWoozle> (End of storytime...) {{chatline|14:29 <!Vee> Sometimes you can't tell. {{chatact|14:30 * TheWoozle nods {{chatline|14:30 <@TheWoozle> I never can. {{chatline|14:30 <@TheWoozle> It could be God, but I have no way of knowing. {{chatline|14:30 <@TheWoozle> I do know that when I really do that deep introspection, I tend to come up with better answers. {{chatline|14:31 <!Vee> Practice gives you some sense of the difference between a "prompting" from God verses a totally independant idea. {{chatline|14:31 -!- StoryTime [~ace@bf6674e.285ef2b1.slkc.qwest.net] has joined #religion {{chatact|14:31 * StoryTime mutters about spontaneous power outages. {{chatline|14:32 < StoryTime> What'd I miss? {{chatline|14:32 <!Vee> I am sorry, but really have to get going. It is time to help at school. {{chatline|14:32 <@TheWoozle> ok {{chatline|14:32 <@TheWoozle> ST: what was the last bit you saw? {{chatact|14:32 * StoryTime waves. {{chatline|14:32 <@TheWoozle> I can PM you the rest {{chatline|14:32 <!Vee> :) {{chatline|14:32 < StoryTime> Umm... I don't remember, actually. {{chatline|14:32 < StoryTime> My computer turned completely off and I don't keep logs. {{chatline|14:33 <@TheWoozle> Ahh. {{chatline|14:33 < StoryTime> Oh, Vee was talking about how she didn't understand what Woozles problem with gender roles was. {{chatline|14:33 <@TheWoozle> I'll PM you from the last bit you said. {{chatline|14:33 < StoryTime> And then I might have said something... {{chatline|14:33 < StoryTime> Okiday. Thanks. {{chatact|14:34 * TheWoozle is trying to find an old email about introspection and coming up with good solutions... {{chatline|14:34 < StoryTime> Heh. {{chatline|14:35 < StoryTime> And I need to do laundry and stuff. Brb. {{chatline|14:35 <@TheWoozle> yarr {{chatline|14:37 <@TheWoozle> Ok, I think this is it. {{chatline|14:37 <@TheWoozle> I shall now post some quotes, as sort of philosophical muzak for the enjoyment of those reading their scroll-up some minutes from now. {{chatline|14:38 <@TheWoozle> From July 19, 1995: {{chatline|14:38 <@TheWoozle> "I should explain our schedule a bit better. We usually get up between 9 and 10. If we hurry, we have from then until a bit before noon to get something (anything) done. Then it's lunch, and then L goes into work right after lunch. She arrives home (or I pick her up; doesn't matter) anywhere between 6 and 10, though it's usually in the 7-8 range. There is usually an hour or two of scanning to do, then we have to arrange supper, which somehow always takes us past 11 (usually past midnight), which is why we get up so late.
"Yes, burnt out, absolutely. It was hard enough before, with all these extra tasks to do and not being able to afford my usual entertainment for relaxation (books and records), but now in addition to that I can't even sit down and play guitar or piano to relax -- while Anna's awake, she won't let me divert my attention, and when she's asleep it wakes her up (though, oddly, recorded music helps her get to sleep & stay that way) -- nor can I just sit and think things over while I'm with her; sitting and thinking things over, I've found, is a very powerful tool for eliminating major problems in one's life, and not being able to do it means it's very difficult to eliminate them (thus compounding the problem)."
"Lastly, there are many days when this { frustration at not being able to do anything all day while knowing that it's absolutely vital that I work my butt off and try to get caught up } just builds and builds and I really don't like the person I become (or act like) at the end of the day." {{chatline|14:39 <@TheWoozle> Here's the bit about introspection: {{chatline|14:39 <@TheWoozle> (Well... the second bit, anyway.) {{chatline|14:39 <@TheWoozle> "Usually in intolerable situations like this one, I will sit down and think for awhile -- sometimes a few minutes, usually longer -- and decide which parts of it I really need to ditch. My usual habit is not to commit myself to anything I'm not sure I can handle, and (really) just to avoid commitments altogether." {{chatline|14:40 <@TheWoozle> "But here I've gone and somehow managed to get myself committed directly to at least one huge project (Anna) and sort of implicitly in a dozen others (more about which later), and there isn't really any way I can wriggle out of any of them without disappointing a whole bunch of people including myself." {{chatline|14:40 <@TheWoozle> And that's all for now; bon appetit. {{chatline|14:42 < StoryTime> Back again. {{chatline|14:42 <@TheWoozle> yay! {{chatact|14:42 * StoryTime reads. {{chatact|14:45 * StoryTime nods. {{chatline|14:45 < StoryTime> Thinking was never a bad thing. {{chatline|14:45 <@TheWoozle> yarr. {{chatline|14:45 < StoryTime> And is indeed a very good thing. {{chatact|14:46 * Harena likes to think (hee) so! {{chatline|14:46 < StoryTime> So, by thinking, we can eliminate unecessary bits of our timeschedule in order to make our lives more relaxed. Am I correctly interpreting the point of all that? {{chatact|14:46 * TheWoozle figures Vee will relate to the whole demands-of-children thing, too... as minimal as it was compared to hers. {{chatline|14:47 <@TheWoozle> Well... it's a bit of a digression, mainly intended to illustrate the flavor of the sort of introspection I was talking about... {{chatline|14:47 < StoryTime> Ah. {{chatline|14:47 <@TheWoozle> ...which might or might not be the same thing as talking to God. {{chatline|14:47 < StoryTime> It's related. Lemme get a reference link here... {{chatline|14:50 < StoryTime> http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/8 {{chatline|14:50 <@TheWoozle> k... {{chatline|14:50 < StoryTime> Introspection and pondering and a crucial part of gaining answers to any question. {{chatact|14:50 * TheWoozle nods {{chatline|14:50 < StoryTime> Verse 7 is important too. {{chatline|14:51 < StoryTime> Although I only had eight highlighted there. {{chatline|14:51 <!TeneIsATaquito> "Don't ask for answers, ask if answers are correct." {{chatline|14:51 < StoryTime> Heh. That too, Tene. {{chatline|14:51 <@TheWoozle> "9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me." {{chatact|14:52 * TheWoozle Has Stupor! ^_^ {{chatline|14:52 < StoryTime> Yay! {{chatline|14:52 < StoryTime> That's usually a no. {{chatline|14:52 <@TheWoozle> In my case, it's more like "got interrupted too much & wasn't able to obtain the necessary clarity of mind"... {{chatline|14:53 < StoryTime> Being confused, at least for me, generally indicates that the answer I'm trying to receive isn't the one God is sending to me. {{chatline|14:53 <@TheWoozle> ...which you could interpret as "couldn't get a connection on the God phone". {{chatline|14:53 < StoryTime> Yeah. {{chatline|14:53 <!TeneIsATaquito> well... not really... {{chatline|14:53 < StoryTime> But the problem isn't on his end. {{chatline|14:53 <@TheWoozle> because I've found that the "stupor" feeling just means you need to take the question apart further. {{chatline|14:53 <!TeneIsATaquito> more like "asking God for confirmation will result in a feeling of certainty or a feeling of doubt and confusion" {{chatline|14:54 <@TheWoozle> Which of course takes deeper introspection, as well as trying to see the bigger picture. {{chatline|14:54 <@TheWoozle> Or something. {{chatline|14:54 < StoryTime> Heh. Maybe the problem is that you're doing too much introspection without praying and doing your praying without enough introspection. {{chatline|14:54 <@TheWoozle> Usually if the answer is "no", I get a feeling that it's "no", not a stupor. {{chatact|14:55 * Harena gets, "i don't know!" most of the time :/ {{chatline|14:55 <@TheWoozle> You could also interpret the stupor as "you're asking the wrong question". {{chatline|14:55 < StoryTime> This is true. {{chatline|14:56 < StoryTime> Really, all it says is that if you pray and are left in a stupor, what you prayed for isn't right. {{chatline|14:56 < StoryTime> Doesn't specify why it's not right. {{chatline|14:56 <@TheWoozle> Sounds like you're talking about a prayer where you're hoping for something in particular to happen. {{chatline|14:56 < StoryTime> Or for guidance. {{chatline|14:56 <@TheWoozle> If I can be said to pray at all, I don't think I do that kind. {{chatline|14:57 < StoryTime> Like if you really want to do something, and you're asking God if it's a good idea. {{chatline|14:57 <@Harena> . o O (i do the "whine & cajole & tantrum" kind >.>) {{chatline|14:57 <@TheWoozle> My introspections/meditations/whatever are generally about trying to find the right path. {{chatline|14:57 <!TeneIsATaquito> Maybe the communication medium between us and god is inherently quite tenuous, and most of the time we're not very good recievers, so replies can't be very detailed at all {{chatline|14:57 <@TheWoozle> Yah. {{chatline|14:58 <@TheWoozle> Also... "path" isn't really a good metaphor, because once you're on a path it's generally assumed you have to go forward or backward; you can never change direction just a little. {{chatline|14:58 <@Harena> nah, i think there would be forks & stuff {{chatline|14:59 < StoryTime> All roads have forks. {{chatline|14:59 <@TheWoozle> But I think you can always change direction, even if it's just where you say to yourself "I need to go more southward -- so next time the road splits or there's a gap in the woods, I'll do that." {{chatline|14:59 <@Harena> but i know what you mean. {{chatline|14:59 <@Harena> yar. {{chatline|14:59 < StoryTime> The one that leads to where you're going is just the right combinations of turns. {{chatline|14:59 <@TheWoozle> You can also be prepared for a turn instead of assuming you will always go straight or whatever. {{chatline|14:59 <@TheWoozle> So you don't miss the turn when it shows up. {{chatline|15:00 < StoryTime> Leaving from Oregon, there are lots of nice roads, but they dont' all lead to Albequerque (spell?) {{chatline|15:00 <@TheWoozle> But that's getting rather heavily metaphorical. {{chatline|15:00 < StoryTime> Heh. {{chatline|15:00 <@TheWoozle> And people say I analyze everything too much... {{chatline|15:00 <@Harena> . o O (looks right to me) {{chatline|15:00 < StoryTime> Okiday. {{chatline|15:00 <@TheWoozle> "Albuquerque" {{chatline|15:00 <@Harena> *coughHeDoescough* {{chatline|15:00 <@Harena> >>> {{chatline|15:00 <@Harena> <.< {{chatline|15:00 < StoryTime> Ah. That's right, it's a u. Figures it'd be the part I'm supposed to know that I mess up on. {{chatact|15:01 * Harena never could spell that city ;) {{chatline|15:01 <@TheWoozle> (So... that means analysis is different from introspection?) {{chatline|15:02 < StoryTime> Analysis is different from introspection, yeah, but I'm not sure what is meaning that in this situation. {{chatline|15:03 <@TheWoozle> We've agreed that introspection is pretty much always good, but there also seems to be this idea that too much analysis is bad. {{chatline|15:03 < StoryTime> Where do you get that idea from? {{chatline|15:03 <@TheWoozle> Whereas I never really saw a difference between them. When I introspect, I analyze; when I analyze, I'm introspective. {{chatline|15:03 <@TheWoozle> Where do I get the idea that too much analysis is bad? {{chatline|15:04 < StoryTime> Yeah. {{chatline|15:04 <@TheWoozle> "<Harena> *coughHeDoescough*" {{chatline|15:04 < StoryTime> Ah. {{chatline|15:04 <@TheWoozle> and also at least one other person has said I do it too much. {{chatline|15:04 <@Harena> well, i was half joking. {{chatline|15:04 <@TheWoozle> uh-huh. {{chatact|15:04 * TheWoozle looks skeptical {{chatline|15:04 <@Harena> but i think i mostly have issues with what you call "gathering more info on a subject" and "arguing" ;) {{chatline|15:05 <!TeneIsATaquito> I can answer the analysis thing, wooz, but not right now. {{chatline|15:05 <!TeneIsATaquito> my brain isn't worky {{chatline|15:05 <@Harena> or debating. {{chatline|15:05 < StoryTime> Well, I suppose if analyze to the point of redundancy or analyze a speaker's text beyond the intended meaning, then you might be overanalyzing in some circumstances. {{chatline|15:05 <@Harena> aww... *feeds Tene's brain cheese* {{chatact|15:06 * TheWoozle overanalyzes Tene's brain until nobody understands it! ...Oh wait, that's normal. {{chatline|15:06 < StoryTime> Analysis is good, from my experience, unless it's wasting time or being counterproductive {{chatline|15:06 <@TheWoozle> There are different kinds of analysis, I suppose. I always loathed the kind of literary analysis we were taught at college (and high school, for that matter). {{chatline|15:06 <@TheWoozle> But obviously I don't do too much of *that*. {{chatline|15:07 < StoryTime> E.g. "1+1=?" "okay, the one is clearly stated, but is it referencing the value or the actual symbol? And is the + a summation or a joining? Are both 1's the same thing or does each have a unique meaning?" etc. {{chatline|15:07 < StoryTime> That's overanalysis. {{chatline|15:08 <@TheWoozle> Or "it depends on what you mean by 'is'"? ;-) {{chatline|15:09 <@TheWoozle> (I probably do the 1+1 thing sometimes, but usually as a joke.) {{chatline|15:09 < StoryTime> Or alternatively "I gave you a pencil for Christmas." "What? By saying 'you gave' rather than 'the pencil was my gift' are you trying to imply that you have some inherent retentive ownership of the pencil? That it is still your right to manipulate its destiny in some way? Or is it but a pencil of the mind? A false creation proceeding from the heat oppressed brain?" {{chatline|15:10 < StoryTime> Without the shakespeare. {{chatact|15:10 * TheWoozle nods {{chatline|15:10 < StoryTime> But as long as you're not being crazy with analysis like that, you're fine. {{chatline|15:11 <@TheWoozle> Well... I can come up with things that sound a bit like that... {{chatline|15:11 < StoryTime> Heh. {{chatline|15:12 <@TheWoozle> F'rinstance, Anna's grandma gave her this piece of jewelry for Christmas one year... {{chatline|15:12 <@TheWoozle> ...and then, as soon as Anna had opened it and started to put it on, started making rules about when she could wear it. {{chatline|15:12 <@TheWoozle> Superficially, my analysis of how this was not fair might sound like the overanalysis example you gave {{chatact|15:12 * StoryTime eyebrows. {{chatline|15:13 <!TeneIsATaquito> yes, but that's in a situation where there is reason to believe that those things are important and different from normal. {{chatline|15:13 <!TeneIsATaquito> If Harena gives you a Carrot, would you do the same thing? {{chatact|15:13 * StoryTime is very lost. {{chatact|15:14 * Harena wonders where she got the carrot from. {{chatline|15:14 <!TeneIsATaquito> You got it from the moose. {{chatline|15:14 <@Harena> was the moose sent by god? {{chatline|15:14 <@Harena> or am i over-analyzing? >.> {{chatline|15:14 <!TeneIsATaquito> Nope, it's just a moose. {{chatline|15:15 <@Harena> huh. wonder what a moose was doing with a carrot {{chatline|15:15 < StoryTime> Yeah, you're definitely overanalyzing that. {{chatline|15:15 <!TeneIsATaquito> Being a moose. {{chatline|15:15 <!TeneIsATaquito> Just a moose, that's all. {{chatline|15:15 <@Harena> hehe {{chatline|15:15 <@Harena> sometimes a moose is just a moose. {{chatline|15:16 < StoryTime> Indeed. {{chatact|15:16 * StoryTime could draw this out in so many ways, but shouldn't. {{chatline|15:16 <@Harena> hehe {{chatact|15:17 * TheWoozle gets back from answering the door, and sees no need to add anything further {{chatline|15:17 <@TheWoozle> (1+1 being plenty) {{chatline|15:17 <!TeneIsATaquito> 1+1=moose {{chatline|15:17 <@Harena> with a carrot? oh, wait. no. 'cause he gave me the carrot. got it. {{chatact|15:18 * TheWoozle doesn't carrot all. {{chatline|15:18 < StoryTime> 1+1=Moose(carrot) where carrot is equal to 0? {{chatline|15:18 <@Harena> ^^ {{chatline|15:19 <@TheWoozle> 1+1 = Moose(carrot) for all values of carrot not greater than or less than 2/Moose {{chatline|15:19 < StoryTime> But is moose a variable or a function? {{chatline|15:19 <@TheWoozle> (as x approaches senility) {{chatline|15:19 <!TeneIsATaquito> is there a difference? {{chatline|15:19 < StoryTime> There might be. {{chatline|15:20|@TheWoozle> Does moose have a knob, or little colored bands? {{chatline|15:20|@TheWoozle> That's how you tell. *nods* {{chatline|15:20|StoryTime> Does the presence of knobs and bands indicate greater functionality or the lack thereof? {{chatline|15:21|@TheWoozle> bands usually means greater precision; a knob means variability. {{chatline|15:21|@TheWoozle> So it depends which functionality you value more. {{chatline|15:21|StoryTime> Can the two be combined for a greater function moose(carrot) for smaller values of carrot? {{chatline|15:22|!TeneIsATaquito> So you want me to imagine... a moose holding a really tiny carrot? {{chatline|15:22|StoryTime> Or fewer carrots. {{chatline|15:22|@TheWoozle> And an equally tiny stick! {{chatline|15:22|@TheWoozle> And talking loudly! {{chatline|15:23|@TheWoozle> (Actually, I meant those to be question marks, but having made the first error I decided to stick with my program and be resolute.) {{chatact|17:07|Harena_Atria [~harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has joined #religion {{chatact|17:07|-!-|mode/#religion [+o Harena_Atria] by Moose {{chatact|17:09|Harena|[~Harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has quit [Client closed connection] {{chatact|17:16|Harena|[~Harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has joined #religion {{chatact|17:16|-!-|mode/#religion [+o Harena] by Moose {{chatact|17:19|Harena_Atria|[~harena@poingy.ferret.at.ooh.whats.THAT.add] has quit [Quit: _-~poing~-_ _-~poing~-_ _-~poi-CRASH!!!] {{chatact|18:52|You're|now known as TeneIsPathetic {{chatline|18:54|!Vee> wait.... so that ends the discussion of talking to God and gender roles or lack thereof but what happened to the religion/science question? Did I miss woozle's and story's and Harena's thought on that? {{chatline|18:55|!TeneIsPathetic> I'm not sure... {{chatline|18:55|@Harena> oh, um, dunno. & i've lost my scrollup :/ {{chatline|18:56|!TeneIsPathetic> Oh, no, Wooz said some stuff that I see... {{chatline|18:57|@TheWoozle> I didn't actually finish going through the scrollup, but it's scrolloff now. {{chatline|18:57|@TheWoozle> But bits of what I had in mind are coming back to me. {{chatline|18:57|!Vee> hmmmm |}
Woozle Posted 2006-01-13
Ok, there's a problem with this whole thing of "you must accept the whole doctrine or none of it" thing. There's nothing in science that's like that. Isaac Newton got some stuff wrong; so did Einstein.
Newton's laws of motion were found to be wrong when you get very small or very fast. Does this mean everything Newton said was wrong? Or that the Laws of Motion are wrong? No; it means that the Laws of Motion are right for most practical purposes, but they're now a special case of General Relativity (or something like that) which is much more complicated but remains accurate for very small things and very fast things (and very heavy things, etc.).
So... who is to say that just because Joseph Smith's hand was divinely guided, everything he wrote is correct? I mean, I understand the thinking: God is perfect and cannot make mistakes; God was writing through Smith; so everything written was perfect and without error.
I'd say that just means we don't have a theory to explain how error could have happened.
Let's postulate that God is in fact incapable of error, and did in fact guide the hand of Joseph Smith during the writing in question.
So... theory: what if God *deliberately* put some errors in? (For reasons we don't yet understand, that is.)
I could start coming up with theories for why He might have done so, but that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to swallow a doctrine whole or reject it entirely.
Response from Vee
|
To expound on that, a random group of teachings by humans would have some good points and some bad points. One item of the collection would be no more related to the other parts than the items in a stamp collection, different worths, different sources, different qualities. Any social group would have such collection.
Truth is a very different thing. There are plain and simply a set of facts that simply are. Whether humans live or die, whether they know those facts or not, whether they are believed or not, whether the sun expires destroying earth, those facts continue unaffected by those external events. That also means that there is exactly (one and only one) set of facts. Contradictory theories are false. Each flavor of religion claims a different set of facts, and usually a different source of discovering those facts. Not that there are not overlaps, simply that a religion is only true in the amount that it overlaps the real unaffected facts.
As such, science is just as much a religion as Christianity, Judism, Islam, Hindu, Wiccin, Pantheism et al. Not that science is any more false than the others, its just another method of discovering truth and to the extent it succeeds it is true.
Personal compliance with truth yields a true life.... I believe that a true life is one in tune with our nature, one that has peace and happiness in spite of personal circumstance and hardship, one that expands us, enlightens and lifts, and is itself a reward, as a fine instrument tuned to a perfect note.
The rest of the argument makes little sense when argued against truth. The only arguement left is what is truth and where do you get it.
- * Tene also asserts Vee's statement and compliments her on her eloquence.
- <Tene> few comments...
- <Tene> We believe that our current doctrine is... kind of a superset of earlier doctrine
- <Tene> that people then weren't ready for
- <Tene> hmm...
- * Tene looks for something
- <Tene> http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/9
- <Tene> We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
- <Tene> err... in ""s
Vee continues Any other comment I could make comes from the biased perspective of my method of gaining truth. As Woozle so adeptly put it the other day, the main differences between our beliefs is our core foundation of beliefs. We arrive at truth very differently. Not that we don't often arrive at the same place (the same truths) from different directions. But that we both have pointed out the potential for error in the other's method. Woozle has pointed out that I may be misled by a "false prophet" (aka someone claiming truth from God but who is actually spreading psuedo-truth that suits their agenda). I have pointed out that reason and discussion can be swayed by charismatic debaters, that the believibility of human arguements is more dependant on linguistics and talent in oral skills than on facts.
I have countered that I need not believe on another's word alone, that I may ask God myself if the concepts are true and expect an answer (one not unlike those he recieves through introspection). I can further "test" a concept by putting it into practical application. A true principle will (as before stated) enlarge, enlighten, bring happiness and peace, and by inference from other truths I have already learned, neither hurt me nor anyone else. Yes, truth agrees with other truth and can be derived from known truths.
Woozle has countered that he need not believe on the merits of a persuasive arguement alone. Science is built to test such theories, and he is free to change his mind if future evidence counters a current belief.
Subsequent Dialog
| TheWoozle | <(cuz there's more meat to what you said, but I want to get straight on this point first.)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <From what Tene said, it sounds like there are fundamental tenets (at *least* in LDS's doctrine, though this seems to be a common feature of most or all religion) which can't effectively be questioned while remaining part of that religion.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <I mean, sure, in an open-minded group like LDS nobody's going to kick you out for questioning the beliefs -- but you're not really going to be considered one of the faithful, yes?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <...if you up and decide, that is, that you really can't swallow, say, the idea that everything Joseph Smith wrote has to be true because it was the word of God.>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <You'll probably get called to repentance or whatever, yeah.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <I want to make sure Vee doesn't have a different take on this...>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <Okiday.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <actually, I disagreed with TenE just a bit on that point. In practice any given congregation is going have people that range the gamet from believe all kinds of things including some that aren't really established facts to those who believe little more than they maybe should try to go to church>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Hmm.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <But would such a person be considered welcome in discussions of doctrine?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <That is, would they be part of the church's search for truth?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Part of the dialogue by which that search takes place?>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <oh yeah..... I have listen to just such discussions.... everyone is allowed to talk in our church>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <So we've got two nays on that point and one yea...>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <It's a rather key point.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <the second question has a different answer>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <The church does not search for truth>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <It has it ;)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <And everyone in the church understands it already?>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <no>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Ok, then -- "the church community's quest to understand the truth [already possessed by the church]".>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Better?>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | * cues "threefold mission of the church." | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <:)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <no>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | * is pulled away by a technical matter... back shortly... | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <A great many truths are available to anyone who cares to receive them, but for the most part it is not requist that you do so to be part of the church or participate in church>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Ok. So anyway...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <:)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <If, as Vee suggests, you really *are* allowed to question the doctrine without being excluded in any significant way, then a large part of the difference between science and [this particular] religion does kinda melt away, I think.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <hmm>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <"<TheWoozle> If, as Vee suggests, you really *are* allowed to question the doctrine without being excluded in any significant way,...">: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <you are allowed to question anything. You are allowed ask God, allowed to try out the doctrine, even allowed to voice your ideas in church discussions such as Sunday School.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <There is a point though, when you significantly advocate things contrary to the church that you may be removed from the membership.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <So in that way TenE and Story are right>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Yah.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Well... I could *see* how you could argue the same for science.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | * returns again | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <However...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <You could still go to church and still continue to discuss to your heart's content>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <By the way>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <science does the same thing>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <This is true. It's more a case of preaching different beliefs than expressing them to get removed though, as I understand it.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Because if you start proposing wacky theories that really don't make sense in light of previous understanding, you'll stop being taken seriously as a scientist.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <*However*... I would still say there is a core difference...>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <flat earth>: | {{{3}}} |
| Harena | <. o O (Discworld?)>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <(hehe)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <If you got up in a science conference and as part of your otherwise logical discussion particle behavior suggested that fairies propell eletrons....>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <...because questioning and coming up with new answers -- that disagree with the old ones, even -- is a fundamental part of science.>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <and going to a conference of... yeah. that works betterer.>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <(invisible dragons move the sun and planets!)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <they would kick you out>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <But you see my point?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <It's *expected* that every now and then some new understanding will come along, and the whole "doctrine" will get turned on its head.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <(It's called a paradigm shift.)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | * <3 paradigm shifts | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <It happened at the beginning of the 1900s, with quantum physics.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <That's probably one of the best known examples, but there are others.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Like, when we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <And then when we realized that the sun wasn't the center of the universe.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <so science religion believes in unveiling new informaition that has never been supposed..... and occasionally God reveals a truth that has never before been known>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <The two processes seem superficially similar...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <the difference really is in the source>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | * nodnods. | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <...but the difference is where the initiative is coming from.>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <Vee keeps beating me to saying things.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <science knows it doesn't have all the answers. ;)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Harena | <tha's 'cause she's smooooooth ;)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <I think most scientists would say that nobody can know all the answers, because there are an infinite number of questions.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Every question you answer turns up a dozen more questions.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Saying that new answers have to come from God supports the mindset that you should just sit around and wait for new answers, rather than exploring.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <But God isn't human, and if we are right, God does know everything>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Woozle: also, God reveals things as we are ready to accept them and able to understand them>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <and no it does not>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <not just on random whims>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <(that was to Woozle)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <(nodnod)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <TheWoozle: Saying that new answers have to come from God supports the mindset that you should just sit around and wait for new answers, rather than exploring.>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <Science presumes a finite brain capacity and an infinite amount of knowledge.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Vee: ok, I'll buy that past arguments I have heard which used God as an excuse to suppress scientific exploration were basically from a standpoint of religious/spiritual ignorance, and not within the scope of the type of religion we're discussing>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <God promotes right in the scriptures that people should pursue truth>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Ok.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <that includes investigating claims already made and pursuing questions not before answered.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <You are aware that our leadership aren't paid right?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <No, I wasn't...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <And that they all have careers outside of the church>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Perhaps that's why LDS seems more benevolent than many flavors of Christianity...>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <(in spite of the wacky doctrine (-; )>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <And some of the leadership *are* scientists>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <:)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <However, power doesn't have to involve money.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <That is true>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <At least, not in the form of a salary.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <But what power do they receive?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Well... from what you're saying, this *may* not apply to LDS... but in many churches, the power to determine how doctrine is interpreted and applied to daily life -- or even just to heavily influence people's thinking about it -- is, well, power.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <If they themselves advocate that you should ask God and question whatever they say?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <If they're honest, they'll say that.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Does that mean that if they say that, they're honest?>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <If they're less honest, they might kinda downplay that point.>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <Tene: I'd say that admitting you can be wrong is a large part of intellectual honesty, though there are other ways to be intellectually dishonest.>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Hmm... I could make a decent analogy between the LDS church and the internet...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Maybe another time>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <(Off the top of my head I can't think of any, but that just shows how seriously you should take the top of my head.)>: | {{{3}}} |
| TheWoozle | <And it's dinnertime.>: | {{{3}}} |
| StoryTime | <Heh>: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <Woozle: *and* most positions of authority are temporary and you serve a certain time and then you get a new job, teaching the 3 yo maybe :)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Positions of authority are basically "we need organization">: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <My last bishop served for 5 years and now he and his wife run the nursery (the 18 month to 3 yos in our congregation)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <(is that a decent way of putting it, Vee?)>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Not "you'll do what I say">: | {{{3}}} |
| Vee | <yeah>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Also, isn't it true that all callings are requests, not commands?>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <aye, you can turn them down>: | {{{3}}} |
| FrozenTrout | <be like "No.">: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <Come to think of it, I can't think of any place in the church where authority is really "authority" so much...>: | {{{3}}} |
| Tene | <except, like, excommunication and disfellowship and such>: | {{{3}}} |
Woozle Adds
(This was getting too long for chat.)
I have to wonder if this explains a lot of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. A scientist looks at the facts and sees a lot of evidence pointing to the idea that Evolution is how we came to be here. An Intelligent Designist comes along and says "Oh, but wait! Your theory doesn't explain this!" (Pointing to, say, lack of fossil evidence for an intermediate organism between humans and their immediate ancestors.) "Therefore Evolution is wrong!"
But that's not how it works. Science is not all-or-nothing; it's "best fit". Religion tends to be all-or-nothing, and I think it's because that's how it propagates; dogmatic doctrine, where you either agree with all of it or are excluded from the community, forms a thick line of separation to prevent anyone in the community from asking too many questions.
and I don't think I'm done with this, but I have to do some other stuff for a bit, so I'm saving what I've written so far and will come back to it later. --Woozle 13:41, 13 January 2006 (EST)
Woozle Adds Some More
Posted in #religion, 2006-01-15:
<TheWoozle> o/ I went to the doctor, I went to the mountain /o <TheWoozle> o/ I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain /o <TheWoozle> o/ There's more than one answer to these questions -- pointing in a crooked line. /o <TheWoozle> o/ And the less I seek my source for some definitive -- the closer I am to fine. /o <TheWoozle> -- Indigo Girls
(We were talking about how the church has The Truth, and all we humans can do is try to understand it. I find that the less you try to find The Truth, especially from one source that claims a monopoly, the more sense it makes when you do find it. Or something like that.)