Texas parents don't like nude sculpture

[9th Engineer]

Alright then, from now on I consider myself an Afro-American. My inner black-ness shall not be for others to judge and I will of course, be expecting all perks that come with my newly claimed minority status. Peace out yo.

[Flint]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flint]

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

Please be specific, and provide specific examples.

Otherwise, there is nothing tangible to discuss.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, you don't understand? But you understand Christans....right.

Equating nudity with sex has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with being a deviant.

[Flint]

My theory is that deviance develops when a natural instinct is surpressed. Fill in the blanks...

[9th Engineer]

Civilization and society also seemed to spring from that...

[footfootfoot]

... mothers don't let your babies
grow up to be nude sculptures...

[morethanpretty]

If you say that you are a doctor but have never been to med school and recieved the proper training and liscenses, are you still a doctor because you say that you are?
If a law suppresses violent crime does that make violent crime worse?
If a politician says that they are democratic but always supports republican agendas, is he still a democrat because that is what he calls himself?
If a parent suppresses selfish behavior, does that make the child even more selfish?

Sometimes it is necessary for the better of the world to suppress certain behavior. And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidlines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite. Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

snip ~ And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidelines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite. Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.

Who defines what a Christian is, or should I say what a Christian should be? Non Christians? The "church"?

Most Christian Religious Organizations define guidelines for member churchs.
The Roman Catholics take it further and define strictures for their followers.
But the basic idea is, to be a Christian is to accept God and Jesus as his local rep.

Catholics have their own set up with power at the top but for Protestants the power is at the bottom.
Protestant organizations suggest behavior that they feel will put you in better graces with God when you die.... but concedes it's your choice and in the end, between you and God.
They also suggest you give them lots of money, but hey, business is business.

That said, there are local preachers who take their position to be authoritarian and try to direct peoples personal lives. But in reality, they are employees of the local church and can be replaced if they clash with the congregation. Keep in mind, like any organization, the people that are most active in the organization have more clout than the ones that show up on occasional Sundays, pay their share and leave the rest to others. It's kind of like local government that way.

If you have a local preacher that's all hellfire & brimstone, and active in the community affairs, he's reflecting what his congregation, or at least the vocal members of it, want in their church leadership. If the members of the church, allow people who are bossy, petty and vindictive to control the business end, they'll probably get a preacher that reflects that. Again, like politics.

Christians come in all flavors, you can't pigeon hole them by race, color, ethnicity or behavior. You can't nail them down to what you think their behavior should be..... ain't happenin' baby....they don't listen to each other, why should they listen to you?
The bottom line is, it's an arrangement between them and their God.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

If you say that you are a doctor but have never been to med school and recieved the proper training and liscenses, are you still a doctor because you say that you are?

Doctors are licensed and legally responsible for making life-and-death decisions.
Christians are self-defined as having made an optional lifestyle choice.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

If a law suppresses violent crime does that make violent crime worse?

Did Prohibition stop people from drinking, or did the suppression of that urge create a bigger problem (organized crime)?

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

And if you say you are one thing but act differently than the guidlines that define that thing, then you are a hyprocrite.
Unfortunatly most of the "Christians" today are hyprocrites and therefore not Christians.

I’ve said it again and again, but let me say it once more: I agree 100% with this. My point is one of practicality. We could invent a new word to refer to hypocrites who claim to be Christians, but I am not aware of such a word. Therefore I define Christian to mean the millions of people who call themselves Christians. I assume this to be the standard definition in the demographic sense. Otherwise, we would have millions of people in the "other" catagory of religious preference. If Christianity is a word that means strictly an ideal adherance to a theoretically perfect set of guidelines, and there is an admitted scarcity of people who meet this standard, then does it not lead to the conclusion that Christianity itself is something that exists only in scarcity? Being a realist, I can observe that Christiniaity exists not in scarcity, but at a great magnitude. It's simply a matter of words having clear meanings. When I refer to Christianity I mean the observable Christianity that is defined as Christianity. When I refer to Christians I mean the observable Christians that are defined as Christians. It isn't a theological analysis, it's simply a matter of words having clear meanings.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You can't nail them down to what you think their behavior should be...

I agree, and it was never my intention to do so. It would be ridiculous to stereotype any large group of people in that way.

What I believe that I can make observations of, however, is a standardized set of guidelines having a similar effect on a population of the same species, who therefore have the same psychological mechanisms, and who therefore would react similarly, in theory, to a standardized set of moral regulations. My theory is that when the attempt to regulate morality comes into conflict with biological instincts, the inevitable drive of nature will find one way or another to assert it's dominance, in one possible scenario through the development of undesiarable deviant behavior.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

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

All denominations of Christianity have changed from the original.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That sounds like a wonderful thesis...but

But there is no standardized set of guidelines.
If there were guidelines, guidelines are not rules.
If there were rules, rules are not laws.
If there were laws, a lot of people would treat them like guidelines.

Having wrangled sheep, cattle and people on occasion, I know the herd mentality is strong but there is alway a big chunk of uncertainty when it comes to individuals. More so with people because they have all sorts of social pressures to cope with besides the situation at hand. You never know if the person you're dealing with is on the verge of combustion or a state of grace. Personally, I think the latter is more unpredictable, hence dangerous. Just ask any cop.