Why Is Polygamy So Controversial?

jillio said:
Actually, it is more about putting 100% faith in what someone interprets as what the Bible says for you.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Wirelessly posted

If you choose to not believe then the Bible wouldn't make sense.
It is not the case whether not someone believe or not; the Bible is not even explicit to people who have accepted Jesus. True believers have had waged wars over which branch of Christianity is right without the participation of non-Christians: Black Forest of present-day Germany, Ireland, Scotland (more specifically Glosglow), France, 30 Years Wars, Mormon Wars, the Croatia-Serbian War, Ugandan genocide... All these are Christians declaring wars upon another branch of Christianity over doctrines. If the Bible is clear, as you stated, then these "Just Wars" would had not been declared.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
You are an academic in sociology. I would hope that you had studied Marx in that context.:lol:
Click to expand...

ofc i have, and more...Paulo Freire, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Erving Goffman, Jurgen Habermas, the list goes on... my favs are Marx, and Goffman and Freire...theres hundreds of wonderful thinkers, Faucault, Bauman they are hineously esoteric
 
Grummer said:
ofc i have, and more...Paulo Freire, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Erving Goffman, Jurgen Habermas, the list goes on... my favs are Marx, and Goffman and Freire...theres hundreds of wonderful thinkers, Faucault, Bauman they are hineously esoteric
Click to expand...

I am a fan of Max Weber, myself as well as Durkheim.
 
deafskeptic said:
I need to brush up on Philosophy.
Click to expand...

I blame philosphy for my plight.

The post-modernist relativism really messed me up in university, and I am not even sure how it managed to infiltrate all the departments at the time. Taking Philosphy courses didn't really make it better either.

I was flailing for a long time until I found Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene and Sagan's Cosmos.

Now I see the whole relativist agenda has been hijacked by the undereducated to stick it to the man. I don't blame them, academic authorities really did screwed over the middle class. But there's a limit to applying such philosophical basis.
 
souggy said:
I blame philosphy for my plight.

The post-modernist relativism really messed me up in university, and I am not even sure how it managed to infiltrate all the departments at the time. Taking Philosphy courses didn't really make it better either.

I was flailing for a long time until I found Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene and Sagan's Cosmos.

Now I see the whole relativist agenda has been hijacked by the undereducated to stick it to the man. I don't blame them, academic authorities really did screwed over the middle class. But there's a limit to applying such philosophical basis.
Click to expand...
I have read some works of Dawkins though not the Selfish gene and I don't think i have read Sagan's Cosmos in a long time.. I'l have to reread it again..
 
It's a good book. He explained why humans are such social creature who are willing to sacrifice themselves for friendships, which is opposite of what we were led to believe under the old interpretation of Darwin. Basically the book sparked neo-Darwinism.

It's too bad the conservatives hijacked it to justify their social Darwinian agenda without reading the book.
 
jillio said:
I am a fan of Max Weber, myself as well as Durkheim.
Click to expand...

doing Durkheim right now on the funeral essay..

Max Weber wrote interesting things about how society its trapping itself...
Marx's ideas are good but dont see it happening not even 1,000 years from now
 
Grummer said:
doing Durkheim right now on the funeral essay..

Max Weber wrote interesting things about how society its trapping itself...
Marx's ideas are good but dont see it happening not even 1,000 years from now
Click to expand...

Marx's ideas work theoretically. Practically they are almost impossible to apply. The whole circular trap is one of the things I like about Weber. I tend to agree with his theories.
 
souggy said:
It's a good book. He explained why humans are such social creature who are willing to sacrifice themselves for friendships, which is opposite of what we were led to believe under the old interpretation of Darwin. Basically the book sparked neo-Darwinism.

It's too bad the conservatives hijacked it to justify their social Darwinian agenda without reading the book.
Click to expand...

Darwinism is another one of those totally misunderstood concepts.:roll: People think Darwin=monkey=godless. That is as far as they ever consider it. And that is generally based on what someone no more informed than they told them it was about. Or worse yet, what someone with an agenda (religious) misrepresented it as.
 
jillio said:
Darwinism is another one of those totally misunderstood concepts.:roll: People think Darwin=monkey=godless. That is as far as they ever consider it. And that is generally based on what someone no more informed than they told them it was about. Or worse yet, what someone with an agenda (religious) misrepresented it as.
Click to expand...

Well, under the old school of thought, nature is ruthless, red with teeth and claws. One can see why the religious have had issues with this. However the religious right are right about Darwin, he did struggle with being an atheist and kinship with apes during the latter half of his life in his letters. But to write such ideas in the Origins of Species was suicidal during Victorian time. So he left it open for interpretation by the scientific community.

However what Dawkins did was find examples where nature isn't as cold and bleak as early evolutionists wrote about, which was a huge contending issue for creationists. He wrote about altruism, mutualism, kinship, symbiotic relationships and the promises it hold for our future. It's sort of a democratic socialist take on Darwinism actually.
 
What is the topic of this thread?
 
Back
Top