logansrun

Joined

• started 268 topics
• posted 2,970 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by logansrun

• 
  31

  A serious sex thread (seriously)

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, i'm looking through some booklets at school (college, mind you) about sex and abstinence and all that good stuff.

  seems like the department of health really promotes just holding hands and smiling at each other as opposed to mind blowing orgasms.

  this got me wondering.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Thanks Phantom Stranger.

  I'll be sure and get those books. I'm sure they will make for great reading during the dull moments of "Girls Gone Wild."

  Bradley
• 
  31

  A serious sex thread (seriously)

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so, i'm looking through some booklets at school (college, mind you) about sex and abstinence and all that good stuff.

  seems like the department of health really promotes just holding hands and smiling at each other as opposed to mind blowing orgasms.

  this got me wondering.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  So, I'm looking through some booklets at school (college, mind you) about sex and abstinence and all that good stuff. Seems like the department of health really promotes just holding hands and smiling at each other as opposed to mind blowing orgasms. This got me wondering.

  What is it with humankind and sex?

  That's right. Why the hassles? Even in this day and age, in our secular world (and it is secular, folks) and at a secular, public college there is abstinence, "sex might make you feel guilty" booklets being handed out to adult students. Why. WHY!

  Why do humans feel guilty about sex? Don't kid yourself and think it's just the dub's that are so hung up on sex. Nor is it just our Judeo-Christian background that manipulate people's feelings. Seems that sex is a subject which many groups and peoples have viewed with a measure of suspicion and guilt for millenia.

  Plato, Aristotle, Confucious, Marcus Aurelius -- all were not Christians. All held a dim view of sex. It is safe to say that all of them, along with countless other great minds, thought sex outside of marriage was somehow wrong. My question? WHY!

  No, I mean I really want to know. Is it the fact that, up until the last few decades, occassions of intercourse often ended up in pregnancy and all that that entails? That would be my first guess. Is it the fact that sex is so much fun that many have thought it wrong? (Aurelius took a dim view of all pleasures!)

  Where does that leave us? What should/could be a healthy sexual ethic?

  Bradley
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Personally, I'm open to the idea that a "God" exists, whatever that may mean. I think it's safe to say that the only intelligible things that can be said about "God" are comments of negation. In my research and reflextion I feel all right saying:

  1) God is not the god of the Bible or any other deity in any religion I know of

  2) God appears to be non-interventionist. ie, "deistic" in nature. (or, God is so subtle about His interference we would not know one way or the other)

  That's pretty much it! Is God a "person"? I don't know. Is God a "thing"? I don't know. Something in between these two concepts? I don't know.

  Does God even exist? I don't know.

  A very important question -- Is it necessary that a God(s) exists? I would have to say....no. But -- but -- that does not mean it's not a possibility and a "live option" as William James would put it.

  Bradley
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Abbadon,

  You make some good points, although I think you tend to be rather myopic about words and definitions. I respect your thoughts and think you are quite intelligent, although I think you can be a little narrow at times. Next time you get an idea, wait a second or two. Think outside your worldview at times, if just for the fun of it.

  Bradley
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  As I've often said, even if there is no God at least there's sex and beer.

  Bradley
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Watson,

  Of course. But which seems more logical? That the "always existing--never caused" component is infinitely complex or infinitely simple?

  Which seems more logical? To be honest, neither. Hence the will to believe.

  B
• 
  41

  God and Man -- The Paradox....The Choice

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here's the deal: if you are an atheist you still must come to grips with the ultimate question, that is, why is there something rather than nothing?

  even a universe with nothing more than a tiny electron floating about would require a reason as to why it exists.

  our universe is one in which there are, almost literally, but not quite, an infinite amount of electrons (and protons, neutrons, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Abbadon,

  I don't have time now to respond, but let me just say that I absolutely, unequivically do NOT believe in the Bible god or any other man-made deity. I don't buy into anthropomorphism.

  Bradley

  PS -- Excellent thoughts, btw...
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Watson,

  You're getting into a problem of infinite causality. Where does it end?

  Let's say there is no God. You still have the problem of infinite causality. Either way -- First Cause or not -- there are logical conumdrums to tackle.

  Bradley
• 
  47

  The Case For God

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a caterpillar.

  although there are many more examples in nature for wonderment, the caterpillar is spectacularly unique.

  imagine one animal changing into an entirely different species in just a few months;from a multi-legged ugly grub into a stunningly beautiful winged insect.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  Dear Brother Farkel,

  I know I'm being a dickhead...yes, I DO enjoy life and am awestruck by our universe, warts and all. I read this quote by Voltaire once who stated that, when everything is said and done, there is more good in life than bad. I actually tend to agree.

  : But, that would also mean that God would not directly be responsible for any example of beauty and awesomeness in the natural world, including the example of the caterpiller into butterfly. (I believe it is just one species, by the way) You can't have it both ways. Either God is responsible for the good as well as the bad, or he is not responsible for either.

  Incorrect.

  Do you see that fatal flaw in your argument? If not, I will have to spank you. I think however. that you are smart enough to reevaluate the above argument and discover your tragic flaw in that argument.

  If not, I will rub your nose in it. This is my job, you know! :)

  Actually, I was thinking of a way that would reconcile a loving God with natural evil (human evil is an entirely different matter). One could make the case that a deistic God is responsible for the good we have in the sense that, by the creation itself, he made life possible with all it's delights. If I had a child and then tragically died so that I could not take care of her, I still would be responsible for that child's life and any happiness she might experience. Again, this is just a possibility I can think of off the top of my head.

  Martin Gardner, philosopher, mathematicion and skeptic wrote a book entitled, "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener." In it he confesses he is a fideist. His chapter, "Why I Am Not An Atheist" would be of interest to you. Gardner also speculates that natural evil (the parasite, germ, earthquake variety) might be the unfortunate but necessary outcome of having natural law. Human evil might be the necessary outcome from having free will. Clever solution to theodicy, huh?

  All best,

  Bradley
• 
  30

  My mother and her reaction to me being "gay"

  by logansrun in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no, i'm not gay.

  still, this story is interesting.

  recently i began dating a very fine young lady -- my first "girlfriend" ever, really.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  logansrun

  expat,

  Trust me, I'm working on it.

  In due time, my friend. In due time...

  Bradley