Materialist Derangement Syndrome on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 18, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have already coined the term “Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.” See here. Closely related to DDS is MDS (“Materialist Derangement Syndrome”), which pathology Mark Frank aptly demonstrates in this exchange:

Barry: Here is a self-evident moral truth: “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”

Mark Frank:

Usually you define self-evident as leading to absurdity. What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

(We must have held this debate over 100 times on UD by now – but I never saw an answer to this).

Mark keeps asking over and over for someone to demonstrate to him why a self-evident truth is true, when he has been told over and over again that self-evident truths cannot be demonstrated – self-evident principles are not conclusions that one reasons to; they are premises upon which all reasoning is based.

Mark, maybe you will finally get it if you ponder these questions. What kind of absurdity would result from denying that:

2+2=4

That a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

That you are conscious

That a finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts

BTW, you also suggest that William Lane Craig would deny that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. This statement is outrageously false. Do you have no shame sir?

Alan Fox comes in a close second with this gem of MDS:

Comment 57 posted at 3:14: “Moral absolutes, there ain’t!”

Comment 58 posted at 3:20: “all [people] deserved the universal right to life.”

Psychologists talk about the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting beliefs. People cope with cognitive dissonance by engaging in dissonance reduction. Alan appears to be able to deny a concept and then affirm it six minutes later. His dissonance reduction coping strategies must be a marvel to behold. Alternatively, Alan may well be a closet ID proponent shilling as a materialist. That would make sense.

Comments

F/N: incorrigible subjective statements are -- when true -- truths of consciousness. KFkairosfocus_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

PPS: Just so, we see another case of how junk science -- corrected junk science -- joined to media and educators failing to do duties of care to accuracy balance truth and fairness, are serving the cause of injustice under false colours of law.kairosfocus_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PST}

PS: I should note that being black is simply not a moral issue. Requiring me to endorse institutionalisation of questionable sexual behaviour and an associated destructive agenda that subverts the foundational stabilising social institution certainly is. and, to try to slander me for marking that difference as being the moral equivalent of a racist -- the current equivalent to what blasphemy laws once were -- is an utter, unspeakable outrage. All the worse, for coming directly from a judge's bench under false colour of law.kairosfocus_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PST}

DK: Actually, the problem runs the other way around, once we see that:
He who would rob me of my livelihood . . . threatens my life; He who would rob me of my conscience . . . threatens my soul: He who would rob me of my children . . . threatens my posterity.
For, as we speak, under false colours of law and/or regulatory and administrative powers -- across several jurisdictions -- there are serious infringements against those who have principled, freedom of conscience objections to the attempted homosexualisation of marriage, law, education, employment and society. Where, people have now been repeatedly penalised in ways that directly fall under the just listed concerns. And, we have every right to stand up now on the matter and speak out loud and clear that fundamental freedoms and rights are already being violated under false colour of law etc, with sobering onward implications. As just one example (via a CT report):
In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies. "When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said in a unanimous verdict. The court rejected each of photographer's Elaine Huguenin's arguments, particularly one in which Huguenin had argued that her refusal did not discriminate against same-sex customers. Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn't shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage . . . . [I]t is Justice Richard Bosson's concurring opinion, not the majority opinion, that is already getting the most attention. The Huguenins, he wrote "now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views."
This is how I commented: >> All of this is an outrage. The solution to this is very simple, and should have been done before injustice like this was enshrined under false colours of "law" and "rights": consider the asymmetry in impact of the two alternate decisions before the court, in light of impact on right to livelihood and right to conscience. That is, if photographer A, for reasons of principled conscience objects to taking photographs in a given situation -- say, refuses to photograph nudity (and there are nude weddings and there is such a thing as nude photography or even pornography that has been made acceptable under law. . . ) or any other morally questionable event E -- the person seeking a photographer, X, could easily go elsewhere, to photographer B who would be happy to get the additional business. In short, A is doing no significant material harm to X by giving up the opportunity to have X as a customer for event E, as an alternative is readily available. Plainly, A is not sitting on the only source of food or water for miles around in the middle of a desert and is not acting in defiance of obvious and legitimate universal human needs. A is simply saying, that under circumstances E, on principle, I am willing to forgo money as I refuse to endorse E. That is, A is expressing principled freedom of conscience and of conscience-guided speech, at cost to themselves of business foregone. In this case, X -- in the teeth of easily available alternatives -- is obviously saying: I demand that you endorse E, and will resort to force to make you violate conscience, or go out of business or face the force of the state acting under colours of law. This action of X is blatantly wrong. Do I dare call it by name? Yes: CENSORSHIP. And X did go to the state to intervene to enforce such censorship, under what is now so plainly unjust law -- under false colours of "rights." (Where, if you have been taken in by the talking points on how homosexual behaviour and choosing to identify oneself by one's questionable sexual proclivities are genetically innate so a right that justifies a demand for "marriage equality," etc etc, I suggest you take a moment to read here on the "my genes made me do it" claim . . . ) So also, if a Judge, J, now intervenes and demands that photographer A lend her skills and effort to the promotion of that which is offensive to her conscience, or go out of business or suffer penalty under colour of law, that is a direct threat to both livelihood and conscience, as well as to freedom of speech guided by principled conscience. >> So, DK, as this and several other cases show, this is not a matter of live and let live tolerance of what one disagrees with at all. It is a case of radical imposition by naked force and manipulation under false colours of law, that demands APPROVAL of what is inherently disordered and destructive; indeed, arguably a calculated counterfeit designed to supplant and destroy the foundational stabilising institution of human society. (Which will have predictably devastating impacts across time, multiplying those of easy divorce, widespread adultery, fornication, promiscuity and pornography, and more. We live in a very sick, increasingly decadent and self-destructive age.) In short, this is a blatant Rom 1:32 demand that we approve of evil or else. Nor is it isolated, there is a growing pattern of such abuses across already several jurisdictions. (Cf. on two pivotal cases in the UK here, and here on the recent abuse of the US Presidential bully pulpit in support of the same general agenda here. This is a watershed, irretrievably polarising and dividing point for our civilisation.) In reply to all of this, I again cite the prophet Isaiah about this sort of willful moral inversion:
Is 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: “Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!” 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right! [ESV]
KFkairosfocus_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PST}

MF: This is actually quite relevant, given the pivot, what is a self evident truth. 2 + 2 = 4 we can make errors about. That does not change the reality that once we understand it, we see that it is so and must be so on pain of patent absurdity. To illustrate:
Take 2 + 2 = 5 Translate: || || = ||||| Take away || and ||: ____________ = | Absurd, and obviously so
More complex sums are also often in error, but the error/absurdity is not OBVIOUS on inspection. And certainly, one does not cling to it through a preference for what is plain folly! But when it comes to first principles of right reason, or conscious mindedness, or core morality, while the absurdities of rejection are as patent, there seem to be strong motives at work leading ever so many to cling to folly -- often by distracting attention and/or playing with strawmen. As has so often been seen here at UD. For instance, let us turn to:
MORAL ASSERTION 1: it is self evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a child.
Just try to explicitly deny it. Monstrous absurdity. Try to suggest a social order that rejects it: it will collapse into clan blood feuds as men fight for their children and others they care about, and thence chaos and tyranny. And yet, this case reveals ever so much on the absurdity of systems that imply that might and manipulation make 'right.' That is, it points out how we are morally governed, thus live in a world where there is a foundational IS that can bear the weight of ought. But as there is only one serious candidate -- moral government under an inherently good Creator-God -- this is so often fought against tooth and nail. Never mind any analysis that sees that so suppressing moral governance leads to unravelling in a whirlpool of moral chaos, with sexual manifestations as above prominent as the sexual instinct has to be very strong to secure the continuity of the race through sound families. (Indeed, that is at the pivot of the emergence of blood feuds: men will willingly go over the top in the face of machine guns to defend their loved ones.) So, we come back to the inadvertently revealing admission of Dr Dawkins in Sci Am Aug 1995, as he declares on the moral implications of his evolutionary materialism:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Those who adopt such a view or its fellow-travellers, have a serious challenge to address the IS that founds OUGHT. KFkairosfocus_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PST}

Whoops just posted #198 on the wrong thread - please ignore.Mark Frank_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PST}

A paradox just struck me. PVH is surely right that it is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief. Take the paradigm example - 2+2=4. Very young children are frequently wrong about 2+2=4. They are neither lunatics nor liars. Quite sophisticated adults are wrong about more complicated sums which are true for the same reasons as 2+2=4. It is a question of degree – as the maths get simpler and simpler you get more and more confident – but there is always the possibility you were a bit closer to the young child than you realised. Oddly – there is a class of subjective statements which you cannot get wrong e.g. I think, I hate, I have a pain, I am angry.Mark Frank_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PST}

Sexual union done solely for fun? Perish the thought!
It could lead to dancing! ;)Alan Fox_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PST}

StephenB: Sexual union done solely for fun? Perish the thought!5for_{November 26, 2013
November
11
Nov
26
26
2013
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PST}

StephenB #193 I have to say that I think this says more about Anthropology and Sociology than it does about society. They are both disciplines where it is all too easy to let your own culture and politics determine your conclusions. I did a bit of reading about Unwin. He may not have been a Christian and professed to offer no opinion but he lived at a time and in a society where sexual morals were at least on the face of it much more restricted than they are now. I gather that his concept of pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence was very male oriented - women needed to be virginal until marriage, faithful and subservient in marriage. Men, it didn't matter too much. The result is that as well being a darling of the religious right he is also a darling of the anti-feminist movement.) I don't intend to waste time obtaining and reading his books but I do wonder how he accounts for the incredibly successful but polygamous Ottoman empire.Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PST}

StephenB #185 Thanks. I am surprised that these are all part of the NML but I bow to your expertise. I am also surprised that they are all to be found in practice in early Rome. But I will not pursue it any more.Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PST}

Daniel King
That’s your opinion, StephenB, but I don’t see how it follows logically. As a parent, I do not feel threatened by homosexual relationships and if homosexuals wish to marry in my jurisdiction, I do not consider myself relieved of my parental obligations or responsibilities thereby. I doubt if any sane parent would.
Well, if you don't agree with my projection, let's examine the issue in the context of the big picture. From a historical and anthropological perspective, it is primarily a question of what a culture does with its sexual energy. It can either [a] convert that energy into intellectual, moral, and material prosperity, in which case it will flourish, or it can [b] squander that sexual energy through sexual immorality, in which case it will destroy itself. There is nothing speculative about that thesis since it has already been confirmed and tested. It defines every culture that has ever existed. In 1934, J. D. Unwin, who wrote “Sex and Culture,” collected and studied data from 86 cultures. He had no Christian convictions and applied no moral judgment. He writes, "I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness." Though he did not, as they say, have a “dog in the fight,” he reached the following conclusion: "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence." In 1956, Pitirim Sorokin, who wrote The American Sex Revolution, reached the same conclusion. As he put it, "there is no example [in history] of a community which has retained its high position on the cultural scale after less rigorous sexual customs have replaced more restricting ones." Loosening sexual morals in the late stages of Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Mongol, Greek, Roman, and Ptolemaic–Egyptian civilizations were all associated, Sorokin says, with the decline of these civilizations in creative vigor of all kinds. Again, Sorokin writes, “The regime that permits chronically excessive, illicit, and disorderly sex activities contributes to the decline of cultural creativity, [while] the regime that confines sexual life within socially sanctioned marriage…provides an environment more favorable for creative growth of the society than does the regime of free or disorderly sex relationships which neither morally disapproves nor legally prohibits premarital and extramarital liaisons."StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PST}

The civil laws are safeguards for families only insofar as they maintain the meaning of the word marriage. If that definition is changed to include those who, by nature, cannot procreate, then all the obligations and responsibilities attendant to procreation are transferred from the family to the government.
That's your opinion, StephenB, but I don't see how it follows logically. As a parent, I do not feel threatened by homosexual relationships and if homosexuals wish to marry in my jurisdiction, I do not consider myself relieved of my parental obligations or responsibilities thereby. I doubt if any sane parent would. And I'm confident that my neighbors and children would appeal to the civil authorities in my jurisdiction to set me straight if I behaved otherwise.Daniel King_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PST}

Thank you for you comments. Daniel King, Thanks for your response.
“Normalcy” is defined by the majority.
Normal can mean either conforming to a standard or rightly oriented (as I often use the word), but it can also mean, as you suggest, something or someone who is typical or usual. Everything turns on the context. However, I don't think that this problem has come up with my use of the word. I am saying that if the majority of a population comes to consider homosexual behavior as normal (regardless of how many or few practice it), then that society is doomed. That usage would be consistent with your definition, which I agree is a legitimate alternative use.
Marriage between heterosexuals who are unable to procreate is countenanced by our society and safeguarded by our civil laws. There has been no historical requirement for marriage to entail procreation.
. Right, nor should there be. We are discussing the meaning of the principle of marriage. Married couples who are open to the transmission of life, and who, in principle, could by virtue of their nature, procreate, do not violate the natural moral law if they happen to lack that capacity. On the other hand, homosexual unions cannot, in principle, produce offspring. Thus, that practice violates the purpose of sexual union as historically understood and redefines it as something to be done solely for fun.
The civil laws remain the institutional safeguards for families and are not nullified by homosexual marriages or by homosexual relationships outside of civil marriage.
The civil laws are safeguards for families only insofar as they maintain the meaning of the word marriage. If that definition is changed to include those who, by nature, cannot procreate, then all the obligations and responsibilities attendant to procreation are transferred from the family to the government.StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST}

StephenB, Thank you for you comments. "Normalcy" is defined by the majority. Marriage between heterosexuals who are unable to procreate is countenanced by our society and safeguarded by our civil laws. There has been no historical requirement for marriage to entail procreation. The civil laws remain the institutional safeguards for families and are not nullified by homosexual marriages or by homosexual relationships outside of civil marriage.Daniel King_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST}

Daniel King:
I, too, appreciate your grammar lesson. I’m sorry for the miscommunication.
It is my privilege to assist you.
I was expressing my puzzlement at your argument from authority:
You mean this? SB ["In other words, experts like Unwin and Sorokin, who have studied the matter thoroughly, tell us that when a society begins to characterize homosexual behavior as “normal,” it will destroy itself]. Why are you puzzled? I think it is important to know that common sense has been vindicated by the study of Anthropology. Bad behavior leads to bad (and sometimes disastrous) social consequences. It seems logical enough to me.
I’m having trouble understanding how countenancing homosexual relationships is supposed to destroy society considering that most people are heterosexual and will continue to practice heterosexuality happily.
To assign normalcy to homosexual behavior is to say that there is nothing wrong or perverse about it and, by extension, to grant that officially sanctioned gay unions, (expressed in contemporary terms as gay marriage) are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. This destroys the meaning of the word "marriage," which is more than just an exercise in linguistics. From a social perspective, it would mean that marriage, which has existed historically as the only way to regulate the obligations and responsibilities associated with the human capacity to procreate, no longer means that at all. If marriage doesn't mean that, then there is no longer any institutional safeguard, or even regard for) the family.StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST}

DK: As already was pointed out at 171, the target of the radicals is in fact plainly destruction of marriage and the moral frame undergirding it, with social, administrative and increasingly legal sanction against those who would dare object on principle. As is already beginning to happen under false colours of hijacked civil rights law. Remember, the issue is the IS that properly grounds OUGHT, absent which all becomes a brutal might and manipulation make 'right' power game. As Plato long since warned 2350 years ago in The Laws Bk X. So Dawkins' inadvertent admission is the pivotal matter. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

F/N: It seems that, again, we must underscore the inadvertend admission by Dawkins that is being ever so studiously ignored above, an admission that goes to the heart of the matter in the main, and of the way discussion has proceeded from one tangent to the next in particular. Here he is, in Sci Am Aug 1995:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
As in, evolutionary materialism is amoral, and ends up being utterly ruinous. That starts with quite evident absence of a worldview foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. (If they had, it would long since have been gleefully trotted out to triumphant cries that IDiots don't know anything. Studious ignoring of a pivotal point speaks volumes.) So, let us not forget that as we see appeals to ought by such advocates. And, oh yes there were cries of how Irrelevant I was above. Not really. I pointed out that the transition to the principate was itself an acknowledged confession of the failure of the Roman Republic, which was manifested in the utter break down of ruling classes into repeated civil wars and chaos. I also took time to outline a key contemporary analysis of the driving forces of the failure. Turning from the fountainhead of the right leads to loss of self control and ruin. Ruin that -- as sexual motivation has to be strong to energise marriage -- will in particular be evident in this sphere of life. Where also, its twisting out of its natural course speaks volumes. So it is a sign and accelerant. Now, it is demanded of us to explain Rome's success. Rome is one of many City States that rose to their time in the sun, and was fortunate to have a martial people who were amenable to discipline. It had the good sense to incorporate conquered Italian peoples and grew stronger. When it had to confront a largely maritime power, it took hard blows but recovered and took to the sea. Once it was master of the Western Mediterranean, it expanded East, to the natural limits. Some expansion northwards was undertaken -- in key part reflecting ambitious men. Then, even as expansions were yet ongoing, it fell into civil wars, due to the accelerated corruption of its elites and especially youth, much along lines deplored by Plato. Then, in desperation it turned to a dictatorship. By the time of Octavian, it suffered its first strategically decisive defeat. Permanent, significant expansion was over. But all along, the seeds of its destruction were there, growing until c 57 AD, the stunning rebuke already cited was all too deserved. In a few years, Nero -- hitherto hailed as launching a prosperous age [while under tutelage] -- would show just how corrupt the elites were, ending as a suicide in the face of uprising, the first emperor to die by his own hand. Nor should we forget his murder of his mother, first wife [a step-sister it seems] and step-brother [son of the previous Emperor who was probably poisoned by Nero's mother, who was then his wife], another sign of utter family breakdown at the highest levels. I should mention the report that he kicked another wife to death while she was pregnant, though some suggest innocent miscarriage. His affairs speak for themselves, as do the murders that were already swirling around him by 55 - 59 AD, the period of the letter to Rome. Here is a clip from Suetonius concerning Nero that -- cf Google Books here -- should give us sobering pause:
Besides the abuse of free-born lads, and the debauch of married women, he committed a rape upon Rubria, a Vestal Virgin. He was upon the point of marrying Acte, his freedwoman, having suborned some men of consular rank to swear that she was of royal descent. He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife. It was jocularly observed by some person, "that it would have been well for mankind, had such a wife fallen to the lot of his father Domitius." This Sporus he carried about with him in a litter round the solemn assemblies and fairs of Greece, and afterwards at Rome through the Sigillaria, dressed in the rich attire of an empress; kissing him from time to time as they rode together. XXIX. He prostituted his own chastity to such a degree, that (358) after he had defiled every part of his person with some unnatural pollution, he at last invented an extraordinary kind of diversion; which was, to be let out of a den in the arena, covered with the skin of a wild beast, and then assail with violence the private parts both of men and women, while they were bound to stakes. After he had vented his furious passion upon them, he finished the play in the embraces of his freedman Doryphorus 595, to whom he was married in the same way that Sporus had been married to himself; imitating the cries and shrieks of young virgins, when they are ravished. I have been informed from numerous sources, that he firmly believed, no man in the world to be chaste, or any part of his person undefiled; but that most men concealed that vice, and were cunning enough to keep it secret. To those, therefore, who frankly owned their unnatural lewdness, he forgave all other crimes. [Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Nero, XXVIII, XXViX.]
A sad sign of things to come for Rome, and substantiating backdrop for Paul's critique. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST}

Maybe this is the nub of the problem:
Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.
That might be correct, but why can't a society support marriage and monogamy for the majority (as ours does through its civil laws) while at the same time tolerating homosexuality for a minority (as our civil laws increasingly do)?Daniel King_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

StephenB
You are trying to wriggle out of something very simple.
It's not in my DNA to do that.
1) You said that Rome’s decline was due to rejecting the NML. Agreed?
Well, I said that Rome's decline was largely due to sexual corruption, which is certainly in violation with the Natual Moral Law. So, I can give you a qualified yes.
It follows that prior to Rome’s decline its citizens accepted at least some parts of the NML.
Sure, they accepted parts of it implicitly.
All I want to know is which parts.
The Roman Virtues & Belief "These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives." Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria. Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness. Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness. Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride. Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose. Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly. Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness. Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society. Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured. Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work. Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others. Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion. Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness. Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control. Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST}

I’m having trouble understanding how countenancing homosexual relationships is supposed to destroy society considering that most people are heterosexual and will continue to practice heterosexuality happily.
Well, exactly! Perhaps StephenB thinks homosexuality is catching!Alan Fox_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PST}

StephenB @176, I, too, appreciate your grammar lesson. I'm sorry for the miscommunication. I was expressing my puzzlement at your argument from authority:
In other words, experts like Unwin and Sorokin, who have studied the matter thoroughly, tell us that when a society begins to characterize homosexual behavior as “normal,” it will destroy itself.
I'm having trouble understanding how countenancing homosexual relationships is supposed to destroy society considering that most people are heterosexual and will continue to practice heterosexuality happily.Daniel King_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST}

StephenB You are trying to wriggle out of something very simple. 1) You said that Rome's decline was due to rejecting the NML. Agreed? 2) It follows that prior to Rome's decline its citizens accepted at least some parts of the NML. All I want to know is which parts.Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

Mark Frank
StephenB seems committed to ascribing that success to acceptance of the NML. I just wonder how he manages to reconcile that with the kind of society early successful Rome was – violent, cruel, non-Christian, and accepting of homosexuality
StephenB is not committed to ascribing Rome's "success" (whatever that means [longevity? power?) to acceptance of the Natural Moral Law, nor does StephenB believe that Rome always and in every way followed the Natural Moral Law. StephenB does attribute much of Rome's longevity to its association with Christianity, which is what I wrote. Also, there is a big difference between implicitly rejecting the Natural Moral Law (which Rome did in some areas and not others) and explicitly rejecting the entire Natural Moral Law in principle, which the Supreme Court of the United States did in 1947, ignoring the entire moral structure established by the Founding Fathers. That is why the United States is imploding at a much more rapid pace. In any case, we need not rely on my opinions. Earlier, I said this: "In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. Strong families headed by faithful spouses made for bold, prosperous societies. But not one culture survived more than three generations after turning sexually permissive. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.” I am simply following the lead of these experts. So, if you know of anyone who disputes their analysis (and has rational grounds for doing so) I would be open to discussing it.StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

StephenB
What in the name of sense are you talking about? Where did I say that Rome’s acceptance of slavery and abuse was an example of following the Natural Moral Law?
Where did I say that you said that! I asked if the NML condoned these. Obviously the answer is no. As a result I expected you to explain how early Rome was reconciled with the NML - perhaps I should have been more explicit. It would appear from your answer that you believe the citizens of early Rome accepted some aspects but not others. It would also appear that the missing aspects are fairly major - murder and slavery (and incidentally a level of acceptable homosexuality) are rather significant exceptions n'est-ce pas?Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST}

DK @175: Any reader can easily point out that SB, KF & BA have provided an in-depth analysis supporting their assertion with facts and figures. On the contrary statements by you such as ‘I was trying to reassure you..’ is meaningless and is just an opinion which fails when pitted against a well-researched argument that is presented by the likes of SB, BA and KF and when it is not supported by facts, rightfully leading to the conclusion that you really have nothing of substance to say.Chalciss_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

Mark Frank
So presumably during the 600 years when Rome was steadily expanding it accepted the natural moral law. This was a society that accepted slavery, the horrors of the circuses, appalling treatment of conquered peoples, and religious persecution – notably the Jews. Does the NLM condone these?
What in the name of sense are you talking about? Where did I say that Rome's acceptance of slavery and abuse was an example of following the Natural Moral Law? I simply said that rejecting the Natural Moral Law (in the context of homosexuality) diminishes respect for the family and leads to a declining birth rate. It would appear that you think any given society is either all good or all bad, accepting all the virtues and rejecting none or rejecting all virtues and accepting none. No society is totally good and few are totally evil.StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST}

KF #174 An interesting polemic - but entirely unrelated to my comment. I was not discussing the reasons for Rome's decline. I wasn't even discussing homosexuality. I was discussing the reasons for Rome's success prior to its decline. StephenB seems committed to ascribing that success to acceptance of the NML. I just wonder how he manages to reconcile that with the kind of society early successful Rome was - violent, cruel, non-Christian, and accepting of homosexualityMark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST}

Daniel King:
I was trying to reassure you that the odds of such behavior becoming the norm in any society are slim, owing to the preponderance of heterosexuals everywhere.
The word "normalize" has nothing to do with the word "preponderance." nor·mal·ize (nôrm-lz) v. nor·mal·ized, nor·mal·iz·ing, nor·mal·iz·es v.tr. To make normal, especially to cause to conform to a standard or norm--- preponderance When there is a larger amount of one thing than of other. ------------ Notice also that the word "normalize" is a verb and the word "preponderance is a noun. ------------ In other words, experts like Unwin and Sorokin, who have studied the matter thoroughly, tell us that when a society begins to characterize homosexual behavior as "normal," it will destroy itself. Put another way, it is not a question of having homosexuals all over the place. The problem has to do with defining deviancy down. Do you understand the difference?StephenB_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST}

I have no idea what either of you are talking about. Do you have anything of substance to add?
Happy to clarify, StephenB. You had just claimed that "[homosexual] behavior, if normalized, will destroy our society just as it has destroyed others." I was trying to reassure you that the odds of such behavior becoming the norm in any society are slim, owing to the preponderance of heterosexuals everywhere.Daniel King_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply