Tainari88 wrote:For me, the most materialistic and immoral are the ones who claim to be Christians and judgmental and get into power positions for very questionable reasons.
Who are your examples? Jim Bakker? Jimmy Swagart? Or do you have other people in mind?
Tainari88 wrote:To serve the society at large and bring positive changes or to take advantage of their positions to enrich themselves and their associates?
That's human behavior, not Christianity. Lots of selfish people try to wrap themselves in some sort of piety whilst pursuing selfish ends. It would not surprise me in the least, for example, if the covid pandemic came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and some communist party officials skimmed money intended for biosafety to line their own pockets. The question is what are your mechanisms for preventing that sort of corruption?
Tainari88 wrote:Both major parties are basically sellouts BJ. To the neoliberal and neoconservative class. Liz Chaney, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, etc are all those kinds of politicians.
Yes. I'm very aware of that.
Tainari88 wrote:Hedonism? Licentious? A bit of a Protestant type of language you use. I come from a colorful and fun-loving celebration-ridden society that loves to dance, sing and have fun in the sun. A dower type of serious Protestant Calvinist culture would see us with disapproval. Being from that culture I can tell you we are emotionally healthy in terms of celebrating life and closeness. Very little about our culture is about secrets and feeling guilt for liking food, wine, and sex a lot.
The medieval Catholics were more of the "deny the pleasures of the flesh" sort. In Christianity, much of that comes from Augustine, not Christ. The Calvinist types thought work was a good thing, and even pushed back on absolutist usury laws--opening some of the foundations of modern capitalism.
Tainari88 wrote:Interpretation of what something is in a particular culture should be examined for bias and lack of truth.
And also for environmental factors, infection vectors, etc. If you want to survive a Northern winter, you need to preserve food and maintain a surplus for the leaner winter months. That's why Northern cultures have so many fermented foods. Cheese, salami, wine, sauerkraut, pickles, kimchi, and so on. If they have a presence of sexually transmitted disease, monogamy is preferred.
Tainari88 wrote:I am glad I am not the property of my father or my husband BJ. That would be very oppressive for me to accept.
Yes, but it is very common. That's why I think of America's efforts to modernize Afghanistan misses so much culturally. In only 100 years, the US has gone from a society where women didn't vote to one where the establishment is horrified by societies where women are not part of the political class.
Tainari88 wrote:If your entire social group is composed of strict Christians with strict moral codes against gay sex? And you are a gay teen trying to figure out how to keep your family and your social circles without being ridiculed, or mocked, or insulted? that entire teen period is dangerous. Too many suicides and such.
Yeah, but depression and homosexuality seem to go hand in hand, because as a homosexual you are different from other people. Homosexuals do not quite understand how heterosexual people feel, and heterosexual people do not quite understand how homosexuals feel. So I think that sense of alienation exists well outside of strict Christian morality.
Tainari88 wrote:You and I will have radically different attitudes and concepts about private property and it will be based on our concepts of what is the function of private property. That is a very interesting subject and maybe we can go at it one of these days? I am sticking to American Christian Nationalism. I think it a flawed way of governing.
I'm not trying to hijack your thread. I just think it's interesting that your sexual morality is libertarian--generally among the most capitalist types around.
Tainari88 wrote:Too many child molesters, child rapists in the RC church, the Protestant churches, and the general Christian church communities in the USA for them to be pointing themselves out as moral authorities on sexual matters to almost all the rest of society.
Well, there's more to that dynamic. Christianity teaches forgiveness, and it appeals to people who are "sinners" for among those reasons, such that they can hide their "sins" behind a mask of piety. Additionally, the Simony reforms weren't intended to deny a family life to priests, but rather to prevent heritable titles within the church--the son of the bishop becomes the next bishop and so forth. They were addressing some of their own problems with corruption.
Tainari88 wrote:At the same time if you have a bunch of women engaging with superficial sex with some men they don't even know the last name of? And find the whole ordeal of raising kids without proper child care in place, extended family in place, a decent paying job, and a partner who is bringing home a steady paycheck? It becomes complicated for them.
Yes, and that's why traditional morality existed/exists. Most liberal arguments against it begin with, "There's no logical reason that blah, blah, blah... " There is a reason. It's just that most people don't know the reason. Much of religion is well-worn if->then inferences without the rigor of the scientific method that have simply held up well over time. When you take away those moral "guardrails" if you will, you end up with huge social problems. This is one of the points that Charles Murray was making in Coming Apart--that the establishment continues to live their lives in traditional structures, but has lost the confidence to project those values on to society as a whole. So we end up with a further gap between rich and poor as the rich live the more conservative traditional morals even if they feign to be liberal, while the poor live lives of marginal morality and economics.
Tainari88 wrote:If you study chimps and gorillas in the wild females who are possible reproductive age ones? Tend to not have sex at all till the group is about composed of 25 members. Why? Safety. In the wild, you die fairly easily and you need other members of your group to raise the young ones if you fail to make it beyond a certain lifespan. Instinctually the primates who are females avoid sex till they have social support.
Ha ha! This is amusing. I'm guessing if I had said this, you would assume I was making a racial argument and then lecture me about the importance of equality. Now, we could flip that around and say that welfare, then, could create the conditions for licentious sexuality and breeding in poor family structures. This is among the issues that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was raising in the mid-1960s.
Tainari88 wrote:It should say something to you about the reasons why some women in society go for abortion.
Yes, but if you think this is instinctual in other primates, why not in humans? Are you going to jump back to humans as tabula rasa and other animals operating on pure instinct?
Tainari88 wrote:People who get more worried about losing their possessions rather than their lovers and relationships?
I'm speaking more to why a government might have a reason to interfere. Preventing bastardy also prevents many social problems that follow. By contrast, making "bastard" into a bad word and providing welfare to unwed mothers may create precisely the type of problems society avoided with traditional morality. More people had guns back then, but there were fewer mass shootings.
Tainari88 wrote:You can take risks safely with the backing of the state via cooperative worker units and earn your leadership in innovation skills via vote by the majority of your fellow colleagues recognizing you as a very innovative and creative and positive force in your field of expertise.
That sounds lovely in theory. In practice, if you don't have methods in place to address human behavior, you end up with problems. The solutions are often non-intuitive, or perhaps seem frustrating or cruel. You can change economic systems, but you are not going to change human behavior. For example, the SEG Plaza Tower in China is a fine example, as probably covid is too. Why have we mostly put such problems behind us in Western Europe and the United States? Banks, insurance companies, and regulators. Banks do not want to lend against a building that is going to collapse. Insurance companies do not want to ensure buildings that short-cut good building standards. Cooperative worker units and majorities are not a guarantee against greed, graft, or corruption.
Shenzhen’s Shaky Tower Is a Cautionary TaleWhen a tower the size of the Empire State Building begins to sway, the tenants panic. Last week, that’s what happened in Shenzhen, China’s top technology hub. Video shows thousands of people sprinting and screaming out of the SEG Plaza, an iconic 20-year-old skyscraper. The sway returned on Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, Shenzhen Electronics Group Co., the owner of the building, closed it to tenants and visitors while inspectors sought to determine the cause.
In Shenzhen, it’s an overdue reckoning. For many years, local authorities turned their backs as entrepreneurs prioritized profits and speed over safety and quality. In one sense, it worked: Over four decades, the area grew from a string of underdeveloped rural towns to a major global tech hub. But as last week’s events demonstrated, it also meant that Shenzhen would be haunted by the accumulated risks for many years to come.
Think about the Great Fire of London or the Great Fire of Chicago. You haven't seen too much of that in 20th Century Western Europe or the United States outside the context of war. They learned from their lessons. China still hasn't. The United States and Western Europe do not prioritize profits and speed over safety when it comes to the construction of buildings, the manufacturing of automobiles, etc.
For years, Shenzhen’s contractors made cement with sea sand. It’s far cheaper than river sand, and for good reason: It corrodes the structural steel that holds up buildings.
Conservatism is preserving this sort of knowledge and experience over time to guard against the impulsiveness of human nature. It's not intended as a buzz kill. It's intended to prevent disasters and build generational wealth, health and well being.
Tainari88 wrote:I think the state should absorb the risk and also allow the entire group to commit to which plan to adopt and execute.
You mean like the housing bubble of the mid-2000s that led to the Tea Party as the government bailed out the banks? If the state is not responsive to the people, it may take totally unnecessary risks.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden