DukkhaWaynhim wrote:rusmeister wrote:I think what you MEAN to say is that 'to imply that a
well-founded hope is a brand..." Then I can say "Yes." For the simple reason that someone here certainly MUST be wrong, and that is what we don't agree on.
When you go on to 'eros', you seem to fail to grasp what I actually see. If the passions can be bent, then there can be such a thing as bent eros. We still, for now (thank God) acknowledge this in the sin of pedophilia, although I expect that may change some day given the course you all advocate. Since we know eros can be bent/misguided/perverted/wrong, it is useless to accuse me of saying that it can be. Guilty as charged. You simpl,y no longer agree that some forms of sexual expression are perverted (in the old, literal, non-emotional sense), and are on a road to eventually deny others as well, for you no longer have a foundational basis, a national morality that all agree on, for preventing those other things. Your words
For one who frequently mentions agape, and is beside himself with dismay that the Wrong People might have eros, your actions paint you as one convinced that the universe truly operates only on tightly regimented storge, because anything else would be unseemly in the eyes of God.
could just as easily be taken by a defender of pedophilia, and will be. Give it a decade or two.
Is anyone else tired of rus equating homosexuality to child abuse? I know I am.
Yet, I can see how one who believes that the Tradition must remain intact lock, stock, and barrel must feel that *any* deviation from it is equally terrible and wrong-headed. It is internally consistent logic, derived from the hegemonical (hegemaniacal?) nature of Tradition. It simply is. Accept it or face the consequences, as everything else is Wrong.
However, for reasoning adults who understand that there are multiple shades of grey between your black and white (which you of course see all the greys as black), it is possible to conclude [using our consciences as guide] that there are some shades of gray that are acceptable, some acceptable under circumstances, and others that are not, and still others that really are black [and all without consulting Tradition]. But not everybody agrees on the greys -- heck, SOME people don't even agree that there *are* greys. Which is why we are locked in this debate.
rusmeister wrote:But of course, there is a definite truth about our existence, and any hope must be based on a correct interpretation of that truth.
No. Let me restate a little more accurately what I think you MEAN to say
But of course, there is a definite Truth[OC Brand] about our existence, and any Hope[OC Brand] must be based on a correct interpretation of that Truth[OC Brand].
The problem is, for those of us that do not buy your
Truth[OC Brand] in its lock/stock/barrel form, the rest rings hollow, even the parts that would otherwise resonate, because that Tradition totally and exclusively denies that there can be any other objective and correct sense made of the universe and its multitude of contents. The fact that the entire Tradition is based on a foundation of subjective determinations makes it humorous. How's that for presumptuous?
I agree that science is not a religion. But, neither is religion a science - as you say, 'natural science' is not opposed to religion, but that's because proper science takes no part in religion. But religion by its very nature sets itself up as the answer to literally *everything*, including science, when clearly there are things that can never be proven/disproven about it. How's that for presumptuous?
I happen to have a well-founded hope, one that is alarmingly aligned with many portions of your
Truth[OC Brand], but is not allowed to claim brethrenship with it because of the hegemony. I am still questing for truth - and have instead so far found a few examples of
Truth that I believe to be needlessly exclusive and thus ultimately misguided, no matter how well-meaning. The RCC and OC faiths seem to be examples of that. I *still* crave the habits of the Catholic Mass - but I no longer feel as if satisfying that particular craving will lead me down a path to enlightenment.
dw
I still have a couple of outstanding posts by Fist, and a good question by Ali to respond to, but have nearly fulfilled my conscientious goal of responding to all and ignoring none. Please remember, again, how heavily I am outnumbered here.
First of all, my goal is not to 'equate' homosexual behavior and pedophilia - although historically we would be the first culture ever to fail to link the two. I'd give us about a decade, once approval of this thing is rammed through, before we begin to conform with the ancient societies that AFAIK always tolerated both together, Whether you speak of ancient Greece or medieval Japan, the one act was commonly performed in conjunction with the other - they were in fact, the same. It is only the remaining shreds of Christian morality in a society that was once openly Christian that temporarily restrain us in relation to teenage boys, a restraint that I do not believe will last because there is no moral basis to restrain it, just as, having removed the moral restraint from homosexuality, we now accept its open practice.
My real goal was to show how one behavior was not approved, and has since become approved, while the other behavior has not yet been openly approved (except by people who refuse to "come out of the closet"). The national mood, which has infected all of western civilization, so far refuses to embrace the latter. My argument is that there is no solid moral basis for not also changing the mood on the other issue, because there is no definite and solid moral basis on which to deny the proponents of pedophilia, except that we happen to disapprove of it at the moment.
Now our instinct in disapproving is right - I say nothing against that. But having denied the religious principle - "God says" - we no longer have anything to restrain human moods, should they desire something. Definitions may be changes as often as one pleases - UNLESS "God says so". This is a rational, not a "religious" argument. You could try to come up with an iron code that would restrain the human appetite - if you could get everybody to adopt it - and you would have the same problems in trying to get them to adopt it as you do getting them to accept the authority of a God over them, rather than having them be their own authority. If you did manage to craft a sufficiently complete code that you could also get people to accept (and it would have to become more than a mere code to achieve such broad, ideally universal acceptance), you would find that you had reinvented a religion not unlike the Christian faith.
The next error you make in presenting my position, Dukkha - and nowhere can I speak more authoritatively than in what exactly my position is - is in assuming that I see no shades of grey. I most certainly do. I would sooner accuse you of seeing no black or white at all, than admit that I saw no shades. I see both, and the shades are measured by the absolutes. Tolkien expressed it wonderfully in the character of Gollum - who was nearly - but not quite thoroughly evil - and for a time he ad a window of opportunity for redemption - which he ultimately rejected. In the character of Boromir, a nearly completely good character, who nevertheless fell to temptation. So I certainly see the shades.
I do agree, though. people who have not yet lost common sense really can tell good from evil and even shades without consulting tradition - because they accept that their own reason is not the highest authority in the world, because they value the traditions of their ancestors, who for the most part loved them and wanted to hand down the best to their children. But people who place their reason above all else do indeed lose their common sense (and at a certain point, even their reason), and so cease to be able to tell those differences.
And no, you got wrong what I meant to say. I did mean to say what I said, and inserting "OC Brand" is not something that at this point I would propose establishing. If you deny truth in general, it is useless to speak of the truth taught by the OC. First we must establish whether there IS such Truth. Only then can we begin to speak about who has it. I said what I meant to say.
Philosophy also, in general sets itself up as something that determines how one understands science, so religion is not unique in that. An irreligious person also has a philosophy by which they understand the things they find in science.
My own path, if I may leave the debate arena for a minute, has been one that has rejected feeling as a particularly reliable guide. I have found that feelings come and go, and that my mood can be strongly opposed to my reason. I remember when I first became Orthodox and approached the Chalice I reminded myself to beware of the artificial generation of feelings, what I called "the factory of feelings". In short, that feelings can motivate me in a wrong direction just as easily as in a right one. And if there are many wrong directions and only one right direction, then feelings are almost certain to lead me astray. So I think your craving to be correct, and your feeling to be the thing misleading you. You may have reasons - I'd question those - but I would never deny your feelings - only that they must necessarily be right.
"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)
"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K. Chesterton
)
rather well. Rus, Fist. Have at it! 
