Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17195
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian

Just my personal opinion but... I think you should cut Redbeard a break. At least he's speaking what he thinks, and I detect no overt malice.

I'd rather someone tell me what they think than have them talk behind my back or joke about what really is a serious issue.

Again, just my opinion - subject to disagreement. I don't have a dog in this fight.
Ian wrote:
It was a lot of those hardships that made me the hardworking, decisive, resilient person I am.

Interesting point.

But is it the hardship or the specific trait - or perhaps both - that make you whom you are?

Back to biology... One can make all kinds of statements about what is "natural" and "unnatural" along those lines. But one thing that biology favors for DNA survival is genetic diversity. What is a "flaw" under one set of conditions may be an advantage under others. Sickle cell (vs. Malaria) comes to mind. Population health depends on all these genetic and social hiccups for changing times. But that translates to hardship when a specific trait within a group isn't particularly an "advantage" at any one point in time.

Then again... Even at any one point in time, "the mix" can prove to be useful. For example, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is a bit of an interesting metaphor. Does the "queer brain" think differently enough to consider it an advantage in some circumstances? When you look at works like the Sistine Chapel, it really makes you wonder.

Is that kind of thinking too insensitive? I hope not.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Carson is soooo cool.

I think that thing about 'gay guys dress better then straight guys' is BS. I know about 3 gay guys, and all of them would be shunned at a fashion show.

I dont want comment about this topic because, im a democratic socialist, and my view would be bias.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2005 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17195
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
To be without bias is to have no opinion or no personality. :lol:

Even (perhaps especially) the best scientists have bias when they study phenomena. That's why the scientific method was developed. The real question is how good you are at seeing and respecting the perspectives of others. I believe they call that emotional intelligence (Goleman).

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Bill--you're right, I could be cutting RB a break. And he could be cutting me one. I will do my best and have a better chance of succeeding if he's in agreement. Step one in my book is to have controversial discussions carefully. These things occur and they're important. And I think the best advocates of... a group, a theory, a law whatever should be willing to discuss the flaws of their position and engage those who disagree. However, if one is going to have a negative opinion of something I think they should be, as a rule, supported. For example:

Acceptable: "I think TKD is an inferior martial art for street fighting because as taught hand techniques are neglected and if someone closes distance they are out of their comfort range."

Discouraged: "TKD is an inferior martial art."

As for stereotypes, for the third time in recent months someone has thoughtfully offered to set me up with a nice young woman.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17195
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Good points, Ian.
Ian wrote:
As for stereotypes, for the third time in recent months someone has thoughtfully offered to set me up with a nice young woman.

Way to go studmuffin! :lol:

Soo... Why don't you wear a ring? Legitimate question, no? :wink:

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17195
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian

PM to you on an unrelated matter.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
Can't find it... worst case, my hotmail is ianjenkins1975. Danke.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005 5:40 pm 
I agree with redbeard in one sense, from a Christian viewpoint there is no support for homosexuality, scripturally anyway.and if you view marriage as a Christian ceremony, which Christians do then I fully support his argument.
As we've all agreed a Religion is what it is.
I was really disgusted at the ordination of an openly Homosexual Bishop in the Church of England, and that was for two reasons. One because the religion is opposed to it, and two, because the person involved was being very unchristian in allowing himself to take the job, he must of realised the upset he would have caused to the vast majority of people, who are very like Redbeard in their interpretation of Christianity.
However,I can't see anything wrong with a homosexual marriage as a purely Civil ceremony with contractual overtones and all the benefits of a hetro sexual marriage....it's not as if the current situation is going to stop homosexuals living together.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
We need a solution that will offer due respect to both full, equal civil rights and people's relligious beliefs. My position has always been that:

--Marriage is a religious contract, informed by the beliefs of whichever adherents we're speaking about and their texts, and the law should not interfere, except in cases where state issues supersede (say some sect wants to marry children). No church should ever be forced to endorse a marriage they disagree with, or prevented from endorsing one without extraordinary state interest being at play. The state should never give stamp of approval to a religious union.

--Civil unions are a state contract, informed by state interests and civil rights, and they should be blind to inconsequential details about people just as in nondiscriminatory hiring decisions. Moreso, since this is a voluntary union whereas hiring is the company's decision. In other words, you can get your government civil pairing regardless of your political beliefs, color, creed, ancestry, religion, employment, whatever whatever as long as you are a consentable adult. The church should NOT be involved in matters of state. This is not Israel or Iran and thank God for that.

As for the bishop--I am not a member of that church and don't know the details. It is clear no blanket statement of disapproval can be supported BECAUSE the guy was ordained. He did make a choice that upset others, but I've heard that there are many African adherents who are appalled at that choice and wink at all the mistress arrangements common in their heterosexual clergy. Will look for source. Can't a body of people choose their own bishop? And can't the Arkansas Uechi community pick their sensei even if the Alaskan Uechi organization think he/she does waukes funny? Can't taking a controversial position be a good thing for a religion--for example, moving into higher positions in the Mormon church as a black person, one that previously was held by the church to be inferior? Those kinds of things can be said to be in need of change.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17195
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian wrote:
Can't a body of people choose their own bishop? And can't the Arkansas Uechi community pick their sensei even if the Alaskan Uechi organization think he/she does waukes funny?

It depends, and it depends.

There is a quid pro quo with allegience to any organization. Organizations are built around common beliefs, practices, standards, and values. There are benefits to belonging to any organization in terms of recognition and privledges. And those come at the price of maintaining practices and standards of said organization.

You can elect any damn bishop you want, and do your wauke any way you please. But don't expect an organization to accept you just because YOU believe something is "the right" way. You can always find or build another organization that shares your values, or work within the rules of your organization to change the standards.
Ian wrote:
Can't taking a controversial position be a good thing for a religion--for example, moving into higher positions in the Mormon church as a black person, one that previously was held by the church to be inferior?

Controversy for controversy's sake isn't the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Controversy that is a byproduct of principled actions and/or beliefs is fine.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Well said..
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:03 am
Posts: 878
As usual well said Bill..It's like anything it's truly either you're allowed in the clubhouse or not or if you're one of the boys or not in any group or org and you have to play their game by their rules and if you rock the boat then it's likely the majority is going to try to oust you as soon as possible in anyway possible. nobody ever said it was a great system but that's the way it is they give us the take it or leave it under these guidelines and if not then you're out trying to start your own league. I have no problem with this type of thing though and I believe it's human nature to find a place in the pack you want to run with.

Not saying you have to be totally numb and not have any thoughts of your own. Not that by a longshot but your base of beliefs has got to be pretty darn similiar to the groups to maintain the happy marriage. Groups can be positive and strong and supportive also so they have good points to them as well. Finding people similiar to you is always nice.But people trying to change the hardcore groups to reflect ideas that are way off from that groups is a futile effort in my mind. Look at Israel and the Palestinians. We always try to make peace seem so close and rosey but we all know that division has been in place for thousands of years and likely always will be.

To me in all honesty we live in an imperfect world and we have alot of nice times here though but there is always going to be a Hatfield family and a McCoy family and lets face it they will never sit down and have afternoon tea.So pick your side of the fence and enjoy your time there is what I believe like one of my favorite country singers Aaron Tippin says in his song ....You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.. :wink:

We should just get use to the fact we're different and like the beatles sang let it be lol.. :D

_________________
Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
From what I've read of the new Bishop and from what I've heard him say, and what his congregation said, I feel fairly comfortable saying that no one did this just to cause controversy for its own sake, but rather because they believed it was right. And yes, surely the whole group has its rights to hold opinions about the actions of a segment. No one can complain about controversy ensuing when something like this is done--and they're not, as far as i've heard. BUT there is a two way street with minority and majority. Each can be flexible and deferential to the other. I've had karate students who wanted to retain some flavor of a prior art or do something differently for a good reason. And while everyone else was doing it the standard way, there's a good thing for everyone in letting some people be a little bit different.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 7:29 pm 
Well Ian I have to say that Christianity.especially the "old Testament" is pretty anti- homosexual..if you just view the "New Testament" then you can get a different perspective :roll: :roll: ...but who am I to comment :D As I've said I think that this has done a lot of damage to the church...very little empaphy was shown for folks who wouldn't agree with homosexuality............and I really think that a lot of the message of Christianity is about doing things for your fellow man ( bigots and zealots as well......those who find comfort in a very literal interpretation of the scriptures).I guess that you could call it Middle American Christianity ( although the Bible belt folks are a bit scary :lol: :lol: )
My own take on it is the tale of the "Good Samaritan".I always wondered what a " Bad Samaritan" was :? :? .apparantly the Jews take extreme measures in recording the first 5 books of the Bible ( the Torah to Jews the Pentatuech to Chrisitians) i'.e Genesis, Exodus,Leviticus numbers and Deutronomy...and a Samaritan was someone from a line that had not properly translated these books..........they are referred to as the Books of the Law......and yet despite this , by his behaviour this "Samaritan" who didn't follow the law was still eligible for Heaven :lol: :lol: ........and that is my take on Homosexuality, if you are a good person.but hey even if your not there is still a place for you........( In my idea of heaven.anyway 8) )
My own take on folks is if they don't get along with me I leave them to get along with themselves...start a new type of Christainity ( like the "Cathars " did, and the Bogomills and the Paulacians).be true to your own beliefs and don't try to impose something that you believe is "Christian" on an established church that has brought comfort to many people ( African Philanderers or whatever)..by trying to change it.if you really believ something then you should have thecourage to start something new not interferre with something established on set principles.
I'm not anti Homosexual and I wish you well..life can be a cold and lonely place for those who don't know love :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
My third year college roomie was a biblical literalist. Earth was 10k years old, even tho he carbon dated ancient stones in geology. Etc. He believed very firmly that living a gay life--not being gay--was sin, but was very nice about it. We conversed without arguing and learned about each other. Never felt put down and he was very honest that he was imperfect too. Conversations like that and Christian (or muslim, jewish, whatever) friends are always welcome. Anyway, thanks for your support Jorvik.

Two thoughts.

First, I'm not going to go into the Bible in depth (not qualified, not terribly important to me), except to say that gay positive readings of it can be easily googled. In sum, people feel that the old testament was superseded by the new (we ignore the rest of leviticus, right?), that many references (sodom and gomorrah, for example) refer to rape, rituals from other religions, or punishment for losing armies, and not a loving relationship; there is no commentary on what we now think of as gay because no one in that time conceived of such a thing.

Second... the antihomosexuality crowd feels pushed aside by the new bishop. True. Yet... isn't someone automatically going to be pushed aside in this? They are either NOT going to have the bishop they want or the world organization is NOT going to have an all straight bishopry... or whatever you call it. They could take the veto, not elect him, and then I'd be saying to you, the equality side feels pushed aside... The big question is which is more important: the rights of a minority in one area to elect a bishop they want and others disapprove of, or the right of the majority never to have a bishop anywhere they disapprove of. Seems to me if the majority is to want that power, they should have worked a veto system into place ahead of time.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 11:23 am 
Ian,
I am not a christian, more of a spiritual seeker, I've looked at many religions, but I try to let common sense lead me not dogma, or indoctrination. I always think that it is a shame people are brought up in one religion and not left alone to choose their own :roll:
I've read books about the bible and about the history of the Bible, just reading the Bible won't get you very far in understanding, rather like reading Shakespeare, you have to read around the subject.
Redbeard got a couple of things very wrong. The new testament is not history, the history for that period is quite different, and it is not the word of god, even when you take it from christian sources.....however the first 5 books of the Bible are the "word" of God, given to Moses with the 10 commandments. The new Testament is very different from the Old, and you can find contradictory things said...............For example Jesus says to "turn the other cheek" and yet the Books of the Law say an "eye for an Eye".Jesus also says that he " Comes to uphold the law"...and "render to Caeser that which is Caesers and render to God that which is God's
I don't think that you can therefore remove any of the first 5 books of the Bible.......of which Leviticus is one, without changing the religion...You cannot edit the Bible and still remain Christian ( although the Catholics do this all the time...and I know many who believe that Jesus was an only child
it was only when I heard the Beatles tune " Hey Jude" that I heard folks talking about who Jude was, and Jude was one of Jesus brothers :D )
I don't think that this Bishop was the right choice.....in one of our newspapers there is the tale of an openly lesbian Vicar "marrying" a divorced woman.....although I'm not too sure of their church.but it certainly undermines a lot of Christian thought
on the other hand " Cathars" only believe in the Gospel of John are vegetarian ( except they eat fish) and don't approve of procreation...you can Google them on "Good christians", this may suit many Homosexuals, or vegetarians come to that........anyway I'm still searching, for the path and not yet following one :wink:


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group