Sure, I agree. — Noble Dust

Good. Keep it up.

I think musical composition would have to be more intuitively integrative and experiential than literary or plastic arts, because the composer has to know what a voice can and can not do, as well as what a violin, kazoo, gong, french horn, oboe, piano, guitar, or whatever the instruments are that one is going to compose for can and can not do.

All creators of art have to know what they get away with--as Warhol or McLuhan said, "Art is whatever you can get away with."

The point I want to make is that it’s not so clear whether certain works have actually “stood the test of time”, given all of those factors we both mentioned. And, to stay on topic, perhaps the same goes for philosophical works and concepts. — Noble Dust

Well, right, just because there are several editions of Plato on the shelf, doesn't mean Plato stood the test of time for everybody that walked into the bookstore, or even bought one of the editions of Plato, or even read some of it. Shakespeare hasn't stood the test of time for a lot of people, because his large volume of work in early-modern English is at least something of a challenge for many to read, and there is a lot of it.

McLuhan thinks that the real art of our time is advertising, and at least to some extent I agree. One of my favorite shows is the British Television Advertising Awards that plays every year at Christmas time, at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. The best of the ads are truly inspired, and are intense little nuggets of artistic creation.

I disagree. Of course an artist or philosopher builds off of what comes before. It’s well known who was influenced by who. — Noble Dust

And if influence is a hair too obvious, then we sneer dismissively, "Derivative".

But it doesn't matter whether we think the arts make progress or not -- all of us put together can not tell anybody how to produce the next masterpiece.

But what makes it compelling now can’t be what made it compelling then; the focal point of interest changes over time, and the same is true of philosophical concepts. — Noble Dust

Of course, some hermeneutical effort will be needed to get the maximum value out of the thing, and we will never be THE intended audience. But I liked it when I read it, and if a dunce such as I was when I read it can get something out of it, then many others can too. It was better than some contemporary experimental literary works I have had the misfortune to come across.

You are an artist? Musician? Somebody here is, I forget. But let's say you sit down at your clean, shiny, carved oak desk (no distracting pile of mail on it), ink well, quill, and paper in front of you to write a novel, poem, play... whatever. Want a candle? Add a candle. Sure, you will be influenced by what you have read previously. You will know, for instance, that the lines of a poem can have, may have, should have (depending) rhythm and rhyme. You will know (maybe) that a novel benefits from having an intriguing plot, very interesting characters, and lively dialogue. You'll know before you begin that plays are divided into acts, are all talk, but you get to provide stage directions. You will have poems, novels, and plays floating around your head, which you will want to keep at bay so you don't end up writing something too similar to last week's very popular episode of the horror show, Writer's Cramp on Amazon.

For the most part, though, you are on your own. YOU have to come up with all the amazingly good ideas, clever comments, exquisite word choices, etc., and no amount of familiarity with literature is going to help you very much. Evidence: how many Professors of English Literature (or any other literature) are also published authors of poetry, fiction, or drama that people actually enjoy? Few, few, few. Conversely, how many prize winning authors dump writing so they can teach at your average debased university English department?

Now, why do philosophy, art, literature, etc. not progress? Is it because they lack a goal towards which to direct their energies? Or? — Agustino

It's the nature of artistic creativity: It comes out of an individual's particular history, and that is unique to each person. Even if I study all prior literature extensively, when I write a novel it isn't a summation of all the previous novels, plus my special innovations. Philosophers, artists, writers--creative workers in general, start from scratch. And when they succeed, they all succeed equally well (or not).

An inventor of a mechanical object might also start from scratch -- creating a kind of device that had not existed previously. More likely he will pull together pieces of existing technology and create something new, using the features of the components. Telephones, televisions, and computers are examples.

There is no absolute rule to originally in either the arts or mechanics.

Some philosophers did build on pre-existing systems, and extend them. Chaucer didn't invent the idea of people telling stories to make a long trip pass more quickly. Boccaccio's Decameron did the same thing a few decades before the Canterbury Tales, and before Boccaccio there was... and some inventors have come up with de novo ideas, which I can't think of just off hand. X-rays? Close, but it was more of a happy-chance discovery. X-rays having been discovered, the inventor of an x-ray machine can't claim complete originality (and nobody will thing less of his invention for all that).

But cameras definitely made progress between Daguerre and the latest digital camera. (Wikipedia says Nicéphore Niépce is now usually credited as the inventor of photography and a pioneer in that field. News to me.) Serial tale-telling hasn't improved since Boccaccio and Chaucer.

Another aspect of progress, A play like Lysistrata is as good now as it was 2400 years ago. The epic of Gilgamesh is 4000 years old. Still works. Same for Homer's 3200 year old Iliad and Odyssey. Some very basic tools are as good now as they were 2 and 3 thousand years ago. A Roman's copper pan will fry an egg just as well now as it did 2500 years ago. Man's first good fishhook looks pretty much like the last fishhook I baited. I could skewer a TPF moderator just as well with a an ancient Greek blade as with a brand new bayonet. (I won't elaborate on the desirability or pleasures of doing so.)

But sexual advances, wanted and unwanted, are an ordinary part of life and not in themselves bad, regrettable or traumatic. — jamalrob

They are a part of life, and people with normal cognitive processing are able to distinguish between "a sexual advance", wanted or unwanted, and rape.



A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, and has nothing in common with the latter. Similarly, verbal requests for sex are not the same as rape. By collapsing all undesired sexual suggestion, touching, innuendo, humor, and so on into "assault" along with forced sodomy and rape, and then "catastrophizing" a joke of which a woman might disapprove, #metoo has created a movement which will burn out on flimsy grievances.

You are not actually digging yourself out of the humorless hole you put yourself in. You should probably drop the shovel.

If it's an attempt at humour then it's pretty damn tone deaf (and still nonsensical). — Michael

More evidence confirming diagnosis.

NOTE TO MICHEL: References to your diagnosis and lack of treatment options are mostly a joke, which, of course, you don't, won't, can't get, owing to your funny-bone impairment.

Here are three more jokes, cartoons. Please describe your cognitive processing of these cartoons.

He doesn't get it. Impaired sense of humor. Not treatable. Next case, please.

Clinically interesting.

unfortunately — praxis

It's a joke; like, "I am still a virgin, unfortunately." The preceding example is also a joke, fortunately.

Good dog. Welcome to the Philosophy Forum.

that would be 100 times better than — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Honesty is always better, of course, but you'll be just as crapped on, they'll just be frank about it.

they are dismissed as homophobic, xenophobic, racist, nativist misogynists. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That is an interesting list. GLBT, immigrants, non-whites, and women are the groups presumed to be oppressed by the masses of straight, native, white, males. An essay in this on-line magazine Quillette notes that this is straight out of feminist theory, and asks why anybody pays attention to stuff like that. The article is entitled "Why No One Cares About Feminist Theory". Quite good. I also like AREO MAGAZINE. Note, it's "areo" not "aero".

I have never heard of such a thing. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The state of MN collects income and sales taxes and some other taxes and fees. MN cities and counties collect property and/or sales taxes to pay for municipal projects and services such as schools, road repair, fire and police, etc. Property taxes in many cities, like Minneapolis, are quite high because the level of services is generally pretty good. Because the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the cities and counties, a deal was worked out whereby the state will refund up to a 45% of one's property taxes whether one pays the tax directly or one's landlord pays the tax. You do have to file to get the refund, and how much you get depends on how much income you have and how much rent (or tax) you pay. Being poorer means a larger refund.

The state allocates property tax relief as a budget line item. The legislature decided quite a few years ago that helping to stabilize housing for individuals and families was an important social good, so the rebate is tilted to people who are more likely to have difficulty paying for housing. The elderly, poorer people, and people living in cities with high property tax (like Minneapolis and Saint Paul) are the main beneficiaries. Wealthy people, people living in rural areas, and low-tax cities and counties all get much, much smaller rebates, if any at all.

Minnesota is a high-tax state and has a good economy, most of the time. This enables the state to carry out programs like this. Low tax states, regardless of the economy, can't.

I don't think Philosophy makes progress, but neither does literature, music, or art. Which doesn't mean within these non-progressing fields there is never anything new or improved. Technology can make progress, because yesterday's tools can be remodeled, combined, and given new applications. A waterwheel can be replaced by a better waterwheel or better gearing. A higher dam can be built. Eventually the waterwheel can become a turbine and extract even more power out of falling water. That's "progress".

Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. Sophocles, Shakespeare, or Miller and Mamet all hit the target of drama. From the earliest music to today's latest, music soothes us savage beasts (or stirs us for the battle). The early philosophers take on what makes a life good may not be the final answer, but it a good answer that one is likely to get.

Here are two good sites for thoughtful folk:

Aero and Quillette

Collision with Reality: What Depth Psychology Can Tell us About Victimhood Culture (Quillette)

I like this formulation, "The Christian church frames its creed not with "God exists," but instead with "We believe."

"fundamentalists want all of us to act as if God exists" as a fact.

One of my objections to Christians (fundamentalist or mainline) confidently claiming that God is a trinity of persons, or that God is omnipresent, and so on, is that they end up tying themselves in knots trying to explain these terms or justifying the existence of concepts like the Trinity in the first place.

On Sunday (at the post-worship Lutheran Coffee Hour) I suggested to a couple of seminarian types that we should just get rid of the Trinity. Gasp! But that would mean losing the Holy Spirit?

"Why would it mean a loss of anything", I asked. "Surely God almighty, the infinite, all powerful being that we claim God to be, can manage the function of the Holy Spirit without having to spin off a separate person."

1. I care about polygamous marriage because there are people who would like to enter into relationships involving 3 or more people, and it promotes freedom and equality. — RepThatMerch22

I believe polygamous marriage would require freedom and equality to exist prior to it's being adopted.

2. The merits of polygamous marriage are that it promotes freedom and equality, and that it does not inherently infringe anyone's rights.

Their group marriages would be more a demonstration of freedom and equality, less a promotion of freedom and equality. I don't think it would infringe on anyone's rights.

What I do not see in your answers is any consideration for polygamous people themselves. What is the current state of relationships among people who want to marry more than 2 people? How do these relationships work? What kind of problems arise in these relationships? How are problems resolved?

3. I support gay marriage absolutely for the same reason I support polygamous marriage. You should have already gathered this given my earlier posts. I am not against gay marriage at all, and the fact that you seem to think I am already reveals your bias.

I didn't think you were against gay marriage. Your posts made it quite clear that you were in favor of gay marriage.

I would prefer that gay rights not be linked to the rights of people who are not gay BECAUSE the various sexual minorities (gays, bisexuals, transgendered people, etc.) have their own unique issues, which they should deal with, and which are not synonymous with the unique issues which gay people have.

I have been both a believing Christian and a non-believing 'cultural Christian'. I used to pray, and I tried very hard to hear some kind of response. Never did. Which, by the way, I never interpreted as evidence that God didn't exist, because Christians don't expect an unmistakable audible response. Indeed, I found/find believers' testimonies about God arranging very happy coincidences in response to prayer highly disingenuous.

My guess is that the psychology of people who pray to Allah, Jesus, YHWH, Buddha, Krishna, or Jupiter is pretty much the same. It feels good to get one's earnest prayers off one's chest, and so one feels at least that Then bad headaches go away, someone dies in peace, the sick get better, one doesn't get evicted onto the street, or one does get evicted and then immediately finds finds a total dump to move into, but one is at least saved from living under a sheet of plastic, one's lost cat returns, one catches several fish, and so on--whatever it was that was earnestly taken to the Lord in prayer.

Prayer is supposed to make one feel better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ritual works that way. Sometimes ritual is about all people have got.

So, my belief is that all 10 people in the room are all on the phone to the same Absence, whatever his or her name is. All 10 lines hear the same static, and think it is the music of the spheres, containing the message from god.

God is our creation, and we have set God up just being our reach. God can't be too specifically described, addressed, or thought to be in communication with us. It would be like our dreams calling us.

How so? In the animal kingdom there is no clear indication that animals desire to achieve anything more than the equilibrium set by nature. — Fumani

What about you? You are an animal, and apparently have desires behind the equilibrium set by nature.

Schopenhauer notes that "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." Desires, wants, arise without our conscious will.

I am in every privileged biological category. Heterosexual. Male. White. Cisgender. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I can claim male, plus certified WASP status. It's a moderately satisfactory comfort.

I am sure that if I wanted to play the game I could succeed at it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants. Schopenhauer.

We all need to earn our own fatigue.

Now show me the gene that says "I'm English" — charleton

Don't look at me; I'm not claiming Englishness, Frenchness, or any-thing-else-ness is genetic. Clearly, identity is learned from one's parents, peers, community, and culture. As it happens, intergenerational continuity is sufficient to build and maintain a somewhat consistent national identity over time.

The people of any given place on earth have a history of movement, and those movements (great or small) will be reflected in their genetic inheritance. Genes don't govern culture. They govern the biology of the animal -- human, canine, or insectish. Culture? Not genetic.

So we agree about that.

How is it that the Celtic language was completely replaced even if the people remained. — schopenhauer1

The language of a given group of people may disappear IF it is advantageous to abandon one's own language for someone else's. Take the languages spoken by immigrants to the United States in the 19th century: German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Croat, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Greek, Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, French, Czech, and so on. The first generation kept their native language. The second generation tended to be bilingual, the third generation tended to be monolingual in English.

Immigrant groups usually tended to abandon their native languages because the dominant culture in the United States was English speaking.

In reverse, an influx of a new language group which belongs to a dominating/dominant culture may cause the native speakers to abandon their language. In South America, many native Amerindian languages were abandoned in favor of Spanish or Portuguese. Probably the same thing happened over time in the British Isles. There was an advantage for non AS speaking people to learn Anglo-Saxon, and eventually lose their own.

@Charlton: Just so you can classify this properly, I not repeating myth; this is sheer speculation.

I have a degree in ancient history and archaeology and a Masters in Intellectual History. — charleton

That reminds me of the National Public Radio satire, Mr. Science: "He knows more than you do. He has a Masters Degree –– in SCIENCE"

a myth that there are such things as races and that races somehow determine behaviour — charleton

You are the only one using the word "race" in this thread, so far. So... why are you belly aching about it?

Being "English" is a myth with arbitrary characteristics not carried by eggs or sperm, it is wholly mythical and learned. — charleton

It will probably surprise millions of people who have been calling themselves "English" that it is really just a myth. Likewise, the French will be annoyed that they are mythic. Also the Icelanders, Russians, Tutsis, Inuit, Koreans, et al.

I am talking about whether polygamous marriage has merit. — RepThatMerch22

You are doing a remarkably bad job at it. If you want people to engage with you, you would do well to be more forthcoming about what you think in support of your main idea and why. Mostly what you are doing is sparring. Sparring is OK if it is done with clever wit. I don't see any sign of with in your responses, which makes interaction with you tedious.

You clearly have the capacity to be more engaging, but I'm not seeing it here.

If you want me to continue this conversation, tell me this:

Why do you care about polygamous marriage?
What do you think the merits of polygamous marriage are?
What is your view on gay marriage, and why do you make support of gay marriage (as an extension of freedom) bound up with whatever views you have about polygamous marriage?

Drink lots of fluids, take some ibuprofen, or whatever single medication you prefer for discomfort. Don't mix a bunch of different flu/cold meds -- you can end up with an overdose of OTC medications which can be quite dangerous, especially for the liver. Rest. Eat some food as you feel able. Just accept that you feel horrible and that it will last for a while, then it will go away. If you don't feel better in 10 days, you might want to call your clinic for advice.

Perhaps my solipsistic thread is too solipsistic. No replies. *Despairs* — Posty McPostface

I would hop on you solo solipsistic soul train but I am just too busy being me to boss all the nonentities I once spawned and who now linger on. I have spawned throngs. I comprise worlds. — Bitter Crank

Whether or not it is a "real issue" to you is subjective. — RepThatMerch22

The criteria that you have set out for something to be a "viable issue" is arbitrary and bizarre. — RepThatMerch22

I don't much care what you think it is arbitrary, subjective, or bizarre.

I set up a minimal standard of interest to indicate whether an proposal was a viable political issue. Whether you like it or not, there are viable political issues and political issues which are non-starters, non-viable, DOA. This changes over time, mostly owing to advocacy or some kind of crisis event plus advocacy.

If you support gay marriage because it promotes freedom, you must logically support polygamous marriage as well if it is between multiple consenting adults of sound mind. — RepThatMerch22

I do not have to agree with you that gay marriage is ultimately about freedom, or that gay marriage is somehow inextricably tied to the marriage of multiple partners. You could extend that formula to "if you support gay marriage because it promotes freedom, you must also logically support the marriage of [fill in here whatever absurd combo you like].

No, I don't have to do that, and I won't. Changes in the right to vote, the right to enlist in the military, the right to marry, and various other civil acts have been made BECAUSE people advocated for those changes, organized around those changes, made a legal case for those changes, and convinced a majority (sometimes more than a majority) to agree. There was, never is, a guarantee that advocacy, organizing, and legal work is going to lead to success.

You may be aware that politics is not an exercise of in logic. Maybe you think it should be, but it isn't.

Consistency doesn't come into play until a group has actually advocated for change, organized to achieve change, and made a legal case for change. IF XYZ group makes a case as compelling as the cases for women's suffrage, the right of citizens to enlist in the military (provided they meet physical and psychological standards), or the right for gays to marry, THEN there is a question of consistency. And at that time I, you, and everybody else, can be subjective and inconsistent if they so wish, and still not agree. Like it or not, that's how politics works.

It is illogical to demand logic where opinion rather than logic rules. That's politics.

My understanding is that Europe has been infused with new populations moving east to west several times. If I remember correctly (and this may not be the case) the Celts were at one time the dominant western European group. They were pushed westward by various early Germanic tribes. By the late years of the Romans, the dominant Celtic areas would have been Gaul and Britain (including Ireland).

Population movements were not, as I understand it, a scorched earth program. Rather, new tribal groups moved into an area. Some of the then native peoples moved westward, and some remained and mixed into the new population.

The Celts remained the ethnic dominant group in parts of France, Ireland and Scotland. There were: Britons (Cornish, English and Welsh), Gaels (Irish, Manx, Scots) and the Bretons.

The Romans probably made some sort of contribution to the genes of England, but that was maybe 60 generations back. After the Romans, there were various groups who moved across the channel and settled. They brought with them several Germanic tongues, Angle, Saxon, Frisian, Old Norse, Old French and so on, which melded together to form Old, then Middle, then Early Modern, and finally Modern English in the 17th Century. The Norman Invasion most affected the Anglo-Saxon land owning elite. William replaced English occupancy of estates with his own people. But this was a change at the top. The much larger population who were ruled by the elite did not experience a major change in their lives, or initially their language. A substantial vocabulary of Anglo Saxon can be found in modern English.

Terms like 'black smith', 'iron', 'anneal', and so on are Germanic terms in Old English. 'Forge', on the other hand, is derived from Latin fabrica through Old French. The core of English is Anglo Saxon. Open Lord of the Rings, and much of the Tolkien's text is derived from Anglo Saxon -- from maybe 75% to 90%. The remaining 10% to 25% is derived mostly from the Norman French contribution. (The words) beef and pork are derived from French. Hog and mutton are Celtic; pig, chicken, and cow are Germanic; grass is Germanic, lawn is Celtic, garden is French. And so on.

The percentage of all words in the language that are Anglo Saxon (more or less) has declined steadily since the Norman invasion. After 1066, French words began to become more common. By Chaucer's time, a lot of French words had been added to the vocabulary. During the 16th and 17th centuries, a lot of new words were added by coining words based on Latin and Greek. Shakespeare coined quite a few words.

English borrowed words from various languages as new products arrived (sugar, chintz, cotton, tomato, maize, coffee, etc.). The process continues up to the moment. But what has stayed the same is the core of the language: grammar, prepositions, articles, and all 6,000 + &/or – a couple thousand AS words which are the most commonly used words in the language.

Good idea.

I think the best case is freedom.

You should have the freedom to commit suicide if you want to. — RepThatMerch22

And really, you do have the freedom to commit suicide if you so wish. Get a gun, learn how suicide by gun is best carried out, and then pull the trigger. Or get a rope, or use some other method.

A very large problem arises when one wishes to commit suicide but is no longer mobile enough to carry out certain steps--like obtaining a gun. As far as I know, Amazon doesn't sell guns and ammunition by express delivery. A friend of mine maintained for decades that she would commit suicide rather than suffer debilitating disease. Well, when debilitating disease finally happened and it became very difficult for her to move about, her options were slowly lost. Had she still been mobile, she could have arranged to jump out of her 18th floor window, but once she became immobile, that was no longer possible. (We discussed other means, but in the end she decided to let a cancer run its course without treatment, which was a slower but effective method.)

This thread is about state-assisted suicide, which is another kettle of fish altogether. Once one wishes to invoke state permission, assistance (or connivance) the issue of freedom is down the drain.

You are willfully misreading what I am saying here.

The beauty of democracy is that there is free speech, something you obviously don't like. — RepThatMerch22

I adore free speech, but I didn't say anything to the contrary. I did not address whether polygamous marriage was good, bad or indifferent. I addressed whether it was an issue at all, and what it was that would make it a real issue.

The fact that you claim that the majority of people in Australia do not support polygamous marriage is not a sufficient rebuttal. — RepThatMerch22

No, I didn't say anything about "a majority" supporting polygamous marriage. Majorities are needed to enact laws. Political viability can be achieved with much smaller percentages. I referenced 1% or 1/2 of 1%, or even less than that; how about 500? If 500 people asked for polygamous marriage, it would be closer to being a "viable issue". Political viability isn't about consistency, it's about at least minimum numbers of interest. In 1975 or 1985, maybe even in 1995, gay marriage was not a politically viable issue because too few gay people, let alone straight people, supported the redefinition of marriage to mean two people, whether of the opposite or same sex.

The question is whether people who support gay marriage should also support polygamous marriage to remain philosophically consistent. — RepThatMerch22

It is consistent to support heterosexual and gay marriage IF one defines marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people. It remains consistent to support heterosexual and gay marriage, and oppose polygamous marriage, IF one defines marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people.

It would be inconsistent to define marriage as a legal arrangement between two people, and only two people, and at the same time define marriage as a legal arrangement among several people.

More than the issue of polygamous marriage's political viability or logical consistency, I wonder what it is that you wish to achieve in this discussion about what is, for all practical purposes, a NON-ISSUE.

Apart from what is logically consistent and politically viable or not, my own take on marriage makes me an outlier. This has nothing direct to do with your hobby horse of polygamous marriage.

As a gay liberationist, I never bought the idea that the term "marriage" had the inchoate meaning of "between any two people, whether a male and a female or two people of the same sex". I have always thought that marriage was a heterosexual institution, designed to facilitate stable families in which to rear children. Two-parents-of-the-opposite-sex families that are stable and enduring are critical to a healthy, stable society.

Gay liberation asserted that homosexuality was both good and not the same as heterosexuality. In practice, homosexuals had developed an assortment of living arrangements ranging from solitary to long-term, stable couples of two males or two females, with various alternatives in-between. There was never any reason to not continue to promote the range of homosexual relationships, EXCEPT that assimilationists wish to portray homosexuality as essentially the same as heterosexuality, and could/should include "marriage and child rearing".

Of course, it is possible for a homosexual couple to provide 1/2 of the genetic requirement for a baby, and obtain the other half from a surrogate. It is done, and there are other arrangements such as adoption or foster care whereby a homosexual couple can provide a family for a child to grow up in. I don't consider it a priority (or even a desirability) for gay people to duplicate the institutions of heterosexuality.

I would prefer that gay people who wish to form enduring relationships do so on the basis of mutual commitment, without legally binding documents defining the relationship. Gay relationships can last decades (ours lasted 30 years until death intervened) because the two people want them to continue, without any inconvenient legal framework to make it difficult to quit. But relationships don't have to last for the rest of one's life, whether that be 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or more years into thee future. They don't have to last the rest of the week, and many gay people have had very short term relationships (a matter of days, weeks, months) which were very good. So do heterosexuals, of course.

I cannot consistently support the idea of polygamous marriage because I think it means "two heterosexual people". But I have no objection to people attempting to devise polygamous relationships, and if they do, more power to them. They don't have to receive the imprimatur of normative heterosexual society to be valid. They either make it valid themselves, or it isn't valid at all.

PS: a quote from the State Assisted Suicide thread:

That is the same reason why people were against gay marriage, until there was enough social advocacy that it became a popular idea, at least in Australia and the United States. — RepThatMerch22

I'm somewhat cognitively impaired at the moment. — JustSomeGuy

What time zone are you in? Go back to bed, get some coffee, cook some oatmeal, or open a couple of Mountain Dews, whatever it takes to get your cognitive facilities functioning again.

What is it about the texts of the old and new testaments that spawned such encompassing religions based on them? — JustSomeGuy

Of course, it isn't just those texts. Christianity, in particular, acquired and kept a lot of pagan stuff that its members like a lot. Christmas trees and Easter bunnies have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, except they were picked up from German and Anglo Saxon pagans. Islam picked up the flavor of Arabs, naturally.

it does't make sense to compare it to another religion with almost just as many followers. — JustSomeGuy

Sure it does, because similar approaches produced similar results. If you look at the world's major religions, those that actively go out and recruit new members (rather than depending on reproduction) are higher in number and exist in more varied societies.

This is, in some ways, quite unfortunate because some of the non-evangelizing religions might be better for the world, in the long run. But... we have got what we have got.

People get around this problem by interpreting sacred texts as they like, a perfectly normal procedure.

The Koran and the Bible are quite different books, composed by quite different methods. How many believers there are is a separate matter, not related to how the books were composed or compiled.

In a nutshell, Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions. That is, they believe they can, should, and ought to convert people. Judaism is based on blood: one is born a Jew. One can convert to Judaism, but that hasn't resulted in many new Jews in the world.

Both Christianity and Islam were aggressive in their missionary efforts. They both employed a lot of talented people to go forth and spread the word, one way or another.

Dank, thanks. Back to the bluejay.

What is it about the texts of the old and new testaments that spawned such encompassing religions based on them? — JustSomeGuy

The Old Testament is a book that reflects the growth and formation of a religion and a people (the Jews) over an extended period of time. Judaism probably started out as a one of several cults in the mixed populations on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It either started as, or became, monotheistic, which was something of a novelty. Animal sacrifice was likely the central religious act of the cult, which developed into temple worship.

Judaism produced a number of leaders (prophets, kings, priests, etc.) who were vigorous preachers whose preaching and teaching was intensely meaningful and valuable for the solidarity of the Jewish people, and were preserved. Again, the religion preceded and developed along with it's sacred texts. The texts didn't come first. The cult came first.

There is a difference between the religion of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome: The Greco-Roman gods were vested with great power, but their theogony (founding myth story) is much more "human" than the invisible, solitary, ethically demanding god of the Jews.

The Jews were independent at various times, but a good share of their history was spent either under threat of various enemies, or under the thumb of much larger powers. Their history naturally affected the shape of their religious story.

No one can say whether there was a more inspiring religion than the Jews, because most of the competing religions did not survive--they were crushed by the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, Christians, and Moslems. Zoroastrianism (ancient and native to Persia) has survived, while the various religions of south Asia have survived and flourished.

There isn't a lot of religious writing from the ancient world that we can compare to the OT or NT. (There was likely a large body of religious material in the ancient world, but, like the once-extensive literature of Greece and Rome, very little has survived.