The views of Jesus are now seen as woke and too left/liberal

ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Because of the association that had sometimes been made in the Bible between sexuality and uncleanliness, St Augustine had to figure out how Adam and Eve procreated without sinful lust.

In City of God, this is the solution he came up with:

“We do in fact find among human beings some individuals with natural abilities very different from the rest of mankind and remarkable by their very rarity. Such people can do some things with their body which are for others utterly impossible and well-nigh incredible when they are reported. Some people can even move their ears, either one at a time or both together. Others without moving the head can bring the whole scalp-all the part covered with hair-down towards the forehead and bring it back again at will.

Some can swallow an incredible number of various articles and then with a slight contraction of the diaphragm, can produce, as if out of a bag, any article they please, in perfect condition. There are others who imitate the cries of birds and beasts and the voices of any other men, reproducing them so accurately as to be quite indistinguishable from the originals, unless they are seen. A number of people produce at will such musical sounds from their behind (without any stink) that they seem to be singing from the region. I know from my own experience of a man who used to sweat whenever he chose; and it is a well-known fact that some people can weep at will and shed floods of tears.”

In other words, given that there were 5th Century equivalents of the following two blokes, Adam and Eve getting it on without ardour is not as improbable as it might seem:





Theology, eh? The so-called 'Queen of the sciences'.

I think some here know that I am a retired teacher of Religious Studies and Philosophy.

You can probably imagine the fun I had teaching this to my GCSE & A Level students using those clips.

The only problem was that I then had to caution them not to mention any of this in their examination answers, as the examiner might not know, not have time to check, and think they were making stuff up and taking the piss.
Click to expand...

Why are many religions obsessed about sexuality? Decidedly odd.
“Every sperm is sacred.”
 
KS55 said:
Why are many religions obsessed about sexuality? Decidedly odd.
“Every sperm is sacred.”
Click to expand...
It’s a great question you’re asking. It’s also one that I am intrigued by myself. Coincidentally, I have recently bought a couple of books by someone who has looked into it, an American academic called Jeffrey Kripal.

Haven’t read either of them yet but here’s an interview with him that you may find interesting:

lareviewofbooks.org

The Queerness of It All: An Interview with Jeffrey Kripal | Los Angeles Review of Books

"Are you suggesting that Jesus was gay?" "That’s an anachronistic question. The safest thing to say is that he was anything but straight."
lareviewofbooks.org lareviewofbooks.org

Got a temporary ban from Twitter for asking ‘Lozza’ Fox when him and his daft mate Calvin Robinson were going to get themselves castrated like Jesus recommended after reading it (as Fox is a committed Christian). Apparently, I shouldn’t have been encouraging them to self-harm.

Should just add that Kripal appears to give credence to all kinds of woo-woo in his writings, whereas I don’t. But he is an intriguing guy.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Why are many religions obsessed about sexuality? Decidedly odd.
“Every sperm is sacred.”
Click to expand...

Just remembered that there's a more straightforward answer to this question that seems plausible to me.

This is from Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek's Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction.

'..evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes.'

At this point in the book, the co-authors are attempting to summarise the thesis of a recent publication on Utilitarianism called Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene.

In that book, Greene argues that our moral judgements largely tend to be instantaneous and are a product of evolution. These intuitions may have proven to be useful 'back in the day' but many have become obsolete in the modern age.

Here is a longer version of the section in the book that discusses Greene if this is unclear:

'We already know that some of our judgements are driven by automatic responses and others by the conscious application of moral principles. We might conclude straightaway that those that come from the automatic responses should not be trusted. Greene thinks that would be too hasty. Some of our automatic responses might have, over millennia of trial-and error, been tested and proven sound. We may do better by relying on them than by relying on our conscious thought processes.

This is less likely, however, when we are making moral judgements in situations about which we could not have developed automatic responses over millennia of trial and-error. Sexual morality, for instance, is an area of conduct that triggers strong automatic responses, none of which originated in an era of reliable contraception. Is it wrong for an adult brother and sister to have sexual intercourse if they use contraception? In many countries, incest between adult siblings is the only voluntary sexual relationship between two mentally competent adults for which you can go to prison. It does not seem that the reason for our hostility to adult sibling incest is based on a considered judgement of the risk of abnormal offspring, for neither the law nor public opinion distinguishes between situations in which there is a possibility of a child being conceived and situations in which there is no such possibility.

It seems much more likely that widespread hostility to all forms of incest is an automatic response that developed in an era when sexual intercourse was likely to lead to pregnancy. If so, we should not consider it a reliable guide when applied to adult siblings who use reliable means to prevent pregnancy. Our intuitive ethical judgements need special scrutiny when we apply them in circumstances that are different from those in which they are likely to have evolved. Even when the circumstances have not changed, however, our automatic responses will sometimes lead us astray. After all, evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes. That does not mean that these sanctions are morally defensible.'
The whole book is also available for free in pdf format here:


Of course, committed members of the monotheistic faiths would be unlikely to concede that an unconscious evolutionary imperative lies behind the issues to do with sexuality that still make them get their knickers in a twist.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Just remembered that there's a more straightforward answer to this question that seems plausible to me.

This is from Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek's Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction.

'..evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes.'

At this point in the book, the co-authors are attempting to summarise the thesis of a recent publication on Utilitarianism called Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene.

In that book, Greene argues that our moral judgements largely tend to be instantaneous and are a product of evolution. These intuitions may have proven to be useful 'back in the day' but many have become obsolete in the modern age.

Here is a longer version of the section in the book that discusses Greene if this is unclear:

'We already know that some of our judgements are driven by automatic responses and others by the conscious application of moral principles. We might conclude straightaway that those that come from the automatic responses should not be trusted. Greene thinks that would be too hasty. Some of our automatic responses might have, over millennia of trial-and error, been tested and proven sound. We may do better by relying on them than by relying on our conscious thought processes.

This is less likely, however, when we are making moral judgements in situations about which we could not have developed automatic responses over millennia of trial and-error. Sexual morality, for instance, is an area of conduct that triggers strong automatic responses, none of which originated in an era of reliable contraception. Is it wrong for an adult brother and sister to have sexual intercourse if they use contraception? In many countries, incest between adult siblings is the only voluntary sexual relationship between two mentally competent adults for which you can go to prison. It does not seem that the reason for our hostility to adult sibling incest is based on a considered judgement of the risk of abnormal offspring, for neither the law nor public opinion distinguishes between situations in which there is a possibility of a child being conceived and situations in which there is no such possibility.

It seems much more likely that widespread hostility to all forms of incest is an automatic response that developed in an era when sexual intercourse was likely to lead to pregnancy. If so, we should not consider it a reliable guide when applied to adult siblings who use reliable means to prevent pregnancy. Our intuitive ethical judgements need special scrutiny when we apply them in circumstances that are different from those in which they are likely to have evolved. Even when the circumstances have not changed, however, our automatic responses will sometimes lead us astray. After all, evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes. That does not mean that these sanctions are morally defensible.'
The whole book is also available for free in pdf format here:


Of course, committed members of the monotheistic faiths would be unlikely to concede that an unconscious evolutionary imperative lies behind the issues to do with sexuality that still make them get their knickers in a twist.
Click to expand...
If I've got this right, the argument is that some sexual morality (against non-reproductive sex) derives from an evolutionary need to reproduce. But then how would homosexuality evolve?

Put it another way. If evolution is about selection of the fittest, once we have evolved enough to have "conscious thought processes" - enough to make a conscious choice about mating partners - how do you distinguish between a morality that derives from "automatic response" and one that derives from thought processes?

Which came first, the moral thinking or the idea of "god"? If God doesn't exist, then all the moral strictures against non-reproductive sex - and some reproductive sex like adultery - derive from human (evolutionary?) thinking and not from divine command and are just projected onto a divine being that somehow humans created in their own image - i.e. they evolved the idea of god.

Addendum:
So if there is no god you can't blame man-made religion for a moral code that must derive from conscious thought processes rather than divine revelation (even if the setters of the moral code reinforced it by claiming that it came by divine revelation). That's then back to Utilitarianism - what is the utility of that moral code?
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Just remembered that there's a more straightforward answer to this question that seems plausible to me.

This is from Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek's Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction.

'..evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes.'

At this point in the book, the co-authors are attempting to summarise the thesis of a recent publication on Utilitarianism called Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene.

In that book, Greene argues that our moral judgements largely tend to be instantaneous and are a product of evolution. These intuitions may have proven to be useful 'back in the day' but many have become obsolete in the modern age.

Here is a longer version of the section in the book that discusses Greene if this is unclear:

'We already know that some of our judgements are driven by automatic responses and others by the conscious application of moral principles. We might conclude straightaway that those that come from the automatic responses should not be trusted. Greene thinks that would be too hasty. Some of our automatic responses might have, over millennia of trial-and error, been tested and proven sound. We may do better by relying on them than by relying on our conscious thought processes.

This is less likely, however, when we are making moral judgements in situations about which we could not have developed automatic responses over millennia of trial and-error. Sexual morality, for instance, is an area of conduct that triggers strong automatic responses, none of which originated in an era of reliable contraception. Is it wrong for an adult brother and sister to have sexual intercourse if they use contraception? In many countries, incest between adult siblings is the only voluntary sexual relationship between two mentally competent adults for which you can go to prison. It does not seem that the reason for our hostility to adult sibling incest is based on a considered judgement of the risk of abnormal offspring, for neither the law nor public opinion distinguishes between situations in which there is a possibility of a child being conceived and situations in which there is no such possibility.

It seems much more likely that widespread hostility to all forms of incest is an automatic response that developed in an era when sexual intercourse was likely to lead to pregnancy. If so, we should not consider it a reliable guide when applied to adult siblings who use reliable means to prevent pregnancy. Our intuitive ethical judgements need special scrutiny when we apply them in circumstances that are different from those in which they are likely to have evolved. Even when the circumstances have not changed, however, our automatic responses will sometimes lead us astray. After all, evolution selects for reproductive fitness, not for moral knowledge or for the highest possible level of well-being. Groups that have sanctions against nonreproductive acts like masturbation, oral sex, and homosexual relationships may have higher fertility and faster growth than other groups without those attitudes. That does not mean that these sanctions are morally defensible.'
The whole book is also available for free in pdf format here:


Of course, committed members of the monotheistic faiths would be unlikely to concede that an unconscious evolutionary imperative lies behind the issues to do with sexuality that still make them get their knickers in a twist.
Click to expand...
Wow. Thanks for that and the stuff on Kripal. Spirituality without religion is, I think, a common position. Some strains of Buddhism fall into this category. Me? I’m just a tree hugging sinner!
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality was common in religious circles in Sumerian times, and very definitely in Greek times (including Alexander in 4th century BC).
The Romans had a more fluid based of dominance.

These predate most modern religions by centuries at least - Judaism would be an outlier. Hinduism is too, but I don't know what that religion's views on sexuality are.

One of the best and most common ways to suppress/influence a conquered people is to ban their cultural/religious practices. Some of the thinking may have been based on that.
 
Vic said:
If I've got this right, the argument is that some sexual morality (against non-reproductive sex) derives from an evolutionary need to reproduce. But then how would homosexuality evolve?

Put it another way. If evolution is about selection of the fittest, once we have evolved enough to have "conscious thought processes" - enough to make a conscious choice about mating partners - how do you distinguish between a morality that derives from "automatic response" and one that derives from thought processes?

Which came first, the moral thinking or the idea of "god"? If God doesn't exist, then all the moral strictures against non-reproductive sex - and some reproductive sex like adultery - derive from human (evolutionary?) thinking not divine command and are just projected onto a divine being that somehow humans created in their own image - i.e. they evolved the idea of god.
Click to expand...
Hi Vic, only just seen this. You're asking some great questions. Unfortunately, am just off out (got a long journey to an evening soccer match*) so I can't write anything today. Am not a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary psychologist but do have one book that might have something on how homosexuality evolved.

Will take a look and let you know tomorrow if it sheds any light on this issue.

*Tonbridge Angels v Dover Athletic
 
Vic said:
If I've got this right, the argument is that some sexual morality (against non-reproductive sex) derives from an evolutionary need to reproduce. But then how would homosexuality evolve?

Put it another way. If evolution is about selection of the fittest, once we have evolved enough to have "conscious thought processes" - enough to make a conscious choice about mating partners - how do you distinguish between a morality that derives from "automatic response" and one that derives from thought processes?

Which came first, the moral thinking or the idea of "god"? If God doesn't exist, then all the moral strictures against non-reproductive sex - and some reproductive sex like adultery - derive from human (evolutionary?) thinking and not from divine command and are just projected onto a divine being that somehow humans created in their own image - i.e. they evolved the idea of god.

Addendum:
So if there is no god you can't blame man-made religion for a moral code that must derive from conscious thought processes rather than divine revelation (even if the setters of the moral code reinforced it by claiming that it came by divine revelation). That's then back to Utilitarianism - what is the utility of that moral code?
Click to expand...

Have now had a chance to read your post with the attentiveness it deserves.

I can only partly address the points you made but where I can't, I think I know where to look for the answers.

First of all, this is from David Buss's The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. As with the other books I will draw your attention to in this reply, I haven't read this title yet, but I have delved into it and so remembered what the author wrote about homosexuality:

'No one knows why some people have a strong preference for members of their own sex as mates. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection theory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when some people served better as aides to their close genetic relatives than as reproducers.

No current evidence exists to support this theory. Gay men do not invest more in their nephews and nieces than do heterosexual men. Other theories point to the mother's intrauterine environment, birth order, and other nongenetic sources. If there exists one single large cause of sexual orientation, it is likely that scientists would know it by now. That the origins of homosexuality remain somewhat of a mystery suggests that the causes of sexual orientation are likely to be multiple and complex.'

For a possible answer to your second question, I would refer you to Joshua Greene's book Moral Tribes (which I have read). Been a while since I looked at it but Greene posits a camera analogy to distinguish automatic responses from conscious decision-making. If you click on the link to Singer and de Lazari-Radek's book and do a search on the word 'camera', you will see how he approaches this issue. Of course, whether he is right is another matter, but the two co-authors certainly summarise his theory accurately.

Moving on to the evolution of the notion of God, in retirement I created a website for students of A Level Religious Studies and Philosophy. This blog entry partly looks at that:

Secularization Part 1: The New Atheism – Course notes and revision materials for students of A Level Religious Studies/Philosophy.

philrsblog.com

Much of the relevant section is based on what I read in this book:

1692197914304.png

Would guess that if you have power and influence, and can persuade people that God (or the gods) demand certain types of behaviour, then that adds considerable weight to your own authority.

tenor-1-gif.59453


Since then, I have acquired (but not read) these two titles, which may offer entirely different perspectives on this issue, as might Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

1692198323092.png

1692198369088.png


So that's as far as I've got. Hope this reply helps.
 
Last edited:
The bible has been read all over the world for thousands of years by believers and non believers alike, I think it helps people and is a fairly accurate/inaccurate book of what life was like five thousand years ago written by people who had no concept of what the actual Universe is.

At school I was fascinated by the Old Testament but as none of us know or cannot prove if a God exists it’s not something I think about very often. I do think that society will suffer from the lack of charitable minds and works (I’m thinking of the boat people crossing the channel) and how less tolerant people are of difference and ethnic backgrounds.
Maybe if they all believed there was a hell and what we do in this life we pay for in the next one,
oh dear! we all have to be good to each other and our neighbours
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
The bible has been read all over the world for thousands of years by believers and non believers alike, I think it helps people and is a fairly accurate/inaccurate book of what life was like five thousand years ago written by people who had no concept of what the actual Universe is. Also, the Bible isn’t exactly a picture of life 5000 years ago, most of it was probably written 3-400 bc at latest. Some may be parallel in time to Homer though. No one believes in those gods anymore.

At school I was fascinated by the Old Testament but as none of us know or cannot prove if a God exists it’s not something I think about very often. I do think that society will suffer from the lack of charitable minds and works (I’m thinking of the boat people crossing the channel) and how less tolerant people are of difference and ethnic backgrounds.
Maybe if they all believed there was a hell and what we do in this life we pay for in the next one,
oh dear! we all have to be good to each other and our neighbours
Click to expand...
To be fair religions tend to create divisions not heal them, look at Norn Iron or the Jews v pretty much every other religion . On the flip side you never hear on the news about athiests rebels carrying out attacks on agnostic strongholds. Not suggesting non believers are not capable of evil but every atheist I know is less of a **** than most religious folk I ken.

The problem with hell is, why would the devil punish you for being bad. Aren’t you doing his bidding, you’re his guy.
 
BobbyJohnstone said:
To be fair religions tend to create divisions not heal them, look at Norn Iron or the Jews v pretty much every other religion . On the flip side you never hear on the news about athiests rebels carrying out attacks on agnostic strongholds. Not suggesting non believers are not capable of evil but every atheist I know is less of a **** than most religious folk I ken.

The problem with hell is, why would the devil punish you for being bad. Aren’t you doing his bidding, you’re his guy.
Click to expand...
Two world wars with no obvious religious cause; Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler's dismissal of religious humanitarianism. It's actually a hard sell for atheism's moral codes.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Have now had a chance to read your post with the attentiveness it deserves.

I can only partly address the points you made but where I can't, I think I know where to look for the answers.

First of all, this is from David Buss's The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. As with the other books I will draw your attention to in this reply, I haven't read this title yet, but I have delved into it and so remembered what the author wrote about homosexuality:

'No one knows why some people have a strong preference for members of their own sex as mates. One suggestion is the so-called kin selection theory of homosexuality, which holds that homosexuality evolved when some people served better as aides to their close genetic relatives than as reproducers.

No current evidence exists to support this theory. Gay men do not invest more in their nephews and nieces than do heterosexual men. Other theories point to the mother's intrauterine environment, birth order, and other nongenetic sources. If there exists one single large cause of sexual orientation, it is likely that scientists would know it by now. That the origins of homosexuality remain somewhat of a mystery suggests that the causes of sexual orientation are likely to be multiple and complex.'

For a possible answer to your second question, I would refer you to Joshua Greene's book Moral Tribes (which I have read). Been a while since I looked at it but Greene posits a camera analogy to distinguish automatic responses from conscious decision-making. If you click on the link to Singer and de Lazari-Radek's book and do a search on the word 'camera', you will see how he approaches this issue. Of course, whether he is right is another matter, but the two co-authors certainly summarise his theory accurately.

Moving on to the evolution of the notion of God, in retirement I created a website for students of A Level Religious Studies and Philosophy. This blog entry partly looks at that:

Secularization Part 1: The New Atheism – Course notes and revision materials for students of A Level Religious Studies/Philosophy.

philrsblog.com

Much of the relevant section is based on what I read in this book:

View attachment 90326

Would guess that if you have power and influence, and can persuade people that God (or the gods) demand certain types of behaviour, then that adds considerable weight to your own authority.

tenor-1-gif.59453


Since then, I have acquired (but not read) these two titles, which may offer entirely different perspectives on this issue, as might Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

View attachment 90327

View attachment 90328


So that's as far as I've got. Hope this reply helps.
Click to expand...
That's more on my must read but never will list. But I appreciate your trouble to survey the literature.

My own bit of study was looking at the historic concept of the just war and applying it to modern conflicts with the aim of regime change. I paraphrase one medieval theologian: "No Prince goes to the aid of an oppressed people unless there's some advantage for himself".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top