@@SamSepiolTheHeretic No, he's obligated to listen, not "willing." Nobody cares about Peter Thiel one bit unless they are cashing paychecks he writes. "Individuals" all die. Almost none of them matter for long while living, much less after their inevitable deaths. Rarer people like Euclid and Newton turn out to be special cases. The future is made of babies and thus baby makers. That's obvious like 2 + 3 = 5 is obvious. Most younger people studiously avoid pondering the obvious inevitabilities of life and death.
Why should he care either way? The speaker is correct imo. Once gay marriage was normalized every ‘taboo’ is up for reevaluation. That said, I have no issue with how people conduct their private lives. Civil unions would have been the best compromise.
@@katl6320 Exactly. A "civil union" is one type of *prepackaged* contract. That's not a bad thing for setting the expectations of "partnering" non-lawyers and non-businessmen. It's funny, but as a businessman I wrote and read far, far too many contracts. Marriage has been conceived (as it were) as "a contract" in writings for millennia, but it has special significance in religious institutions, where Christians and Muslims in particular are 33% and 25% of global humanity respectively (far larger than any state populations). Legalizing prepackaged state "marriage contracts" under the terminology of "gay marriage" was an offensive and needless public disaster. In any case, states and state laws come and go all the time. Americans sadly imagine that the fall of the massive USSR "modern state" won't apply here as well someday. Stay strong.
What if we disagree about this "Dao"? How do we know who is wrong? There is no way to settle such disagreements. Hence either multiculturalism or fascism, and it's clear which side you prefer.
There should be agreement among the citizens of a nation on the core moral principles, with room for disagreement on many lesser issues. If not, then there is literally no limiting principle, and there would be no reason for any law at all.
@@MH-lg1iu There is broad agreement, given that all people are humans with similar needs and biologies and lives, all needing food and shelter and desiring education and society and expression etc. You know, life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and such. But this broad agreement is always marginalized and the focus put on things like gay marriage, abortion, teaching about and addressing extant racism, religious differences, and the freedom to economically exploit others or to foist externalities on them (or to ignore the centuries of history of exploitation and externalities, not to mention colonialism and racism and intolerance). If only we focused on the broad agreements and left room for the less important differences, which would be multiculturalism. Instead, we get fascism.
Well, it can't be settled by power.. that contradicts the original Taoist notion of Tao. So I think some conservative Christians are guilty of appropriating a concept they don't really understand, to fit their imperial Christofascist tendencies. The Tao is immanent in the world, all one has to do is live a life based on virtues like kindness, compassion, and humility, spend time in nature and meditation, and it will be intuitive enough, because you will become one with Tao. There's nothing about two gay men living together in a committed, legally recognize contract of fidelity that prevents them from being sages necessarily, in the same way two straight people could also achieve this kind of wisdom, if they practice classical Taoist virtues. In fact Taoism has gay gods or immortals, like Tu Erh Shen (the Rabbit God), because Heaven is benevolent to everyone. "The sage treats all men as straw dogs", said the Tao Teh Ching, which is akin to "God is not a respecter of persons", in Christian parlance. The tribalistic and bronze age morality nonsense of American Evangelicals and Conservatives has nothing to do with timeless wisdom.
I’m with you. And I was with the speaker before he turned to a conservative Christian stance on marriage that simply doesn’t follow from the prior discussion of the Tao, which I fundamentally agree with.
@@JB-lovin Yup. He doesn't understand Taoism. Actual Taoists aren't concerned with petty moralism, power, or mindless social conformity. That goes against the spirit of Taoism to be concerned with those things. Rather, they are concerned with returning humanity to its original nature of being carefree and at ease. They actually have a gay god, Tu Er Shen. He was made immortal by the Emperor of Heaven, because Heaven is benevolent to everyone. Christians would have a thing or two to learn from that.
I actually agree with natural law as a concept, and I believe I understand Taoism and Confucianism better than Lewis, concerning whom there is no evident problem misusing a sacred concept outside its proper context, which is Lewis's singular failing here in his argument. The problem is that the Catholic conceptualization of natural law, used to condemn gay people, is arbitrary, authoritarian, and doesn't account for the full possibilites of human flourishing in our contemporary context. It is biased by homophobic and patriarchal assumptions about what it means to be a human being, and it's not compatible with modern science, which shows that gay people are a normal feature of human society, and not the result of a personal choice. So it's wrong. Above all, natural law must be compatible with the best of contemporary science, and not dictated by religious authority, which is steeped in traditions devised by prejudiced men.
You have a misunderstanding of Biblical, Fear. It most assuredly involves and necessitates LOVE, because God is love. I fear my father now because I don’t want to disappoint him and before because I know he could punish me. Both of which is because he loves me and I love him. Its not a perfect illustration, but I think gives a summary of the idea.
@@jyerkes94 I see that you understand neither the psychology of fear nor the use of language. Fear is fear and is rooted in NOT believing in yourself or the spirit which you are trying to call God. Love is Love friend, and taking some action because you fear vis a vis believe and know in your Heart is misconception. Live life as an adherent and there is room for nothing but Love.
@@paulrevere47 you don’t seem to understand philosophy and language. You can’t define a word by the same word. Chinese food is food of Chinese origin… You’re not saying anything.
@@jyerkes94 Not a valid critique as all you've done is ad hominem. If you do not 'grok' 'Love is Love' as valid, I question you sense of spirit and faith.
@@paulrevere47 my initial comment was not intended to come off that way. I was not sure as to why you think Love and Fear are at odds. There are far too many scriptures that command us to fear the Lord that I cannot reject it.
Wow what an amazing speach, so clear and forward
Finally someone sees the big picture and isn’t simply reacting to the latest culture war issue
Preach it Brother!!! Amen and Amen, roll it all back!!!!!
Great analysis, and call to action.
Great talk. Thanks!
I will be sharing this on The Jonathan Kogan Show podcast soon…
Hmm, I wonder what Peter Thiel thinks about this speech.
My thoughts exactly.. shows he is willing to listen to people he doesn’t agree with
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic No, he's obligated to listen, not "willing." Nobody cares about Peter Thiel one bit unless they are cashing paychecks he writes. "Individuals" all die. Almost none of them matter for long while living, much less after their inevitable deaths. Rarer people like Euclid and Newton turn out to be special cases. The future is made of babies and thus baby makers. That's obvious like 2 + 3 = 5 is obvious. Most younger people studiously avoid pondering the obvious inevitabilities of life and death.
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic I doubt he's among the crowd.
Why should he care either way? The speaker is correct imo. Once gay marriage was normalized every ‘taboo’ is up for reevaluation. That said, I have no issue with how people conduct their private lives. Civil unions would have been the best compromise.
@@katl6320 Exactly. A "civil union" is one type of *prepackaged* contract. That's not a bad thing for setting the expectations of "partnering" non-lawyers and non-businessmen. It's funny, but as a businessman I wrote and read far, far too many contracts. Marriage has been conceived (as it were) as "a contract" in writings for millennia, but it has special significance in religious institutions, where Christians and Muslims in particular are 33% and 25% of global humanity respectively (far larger than any state populations). Legalizing prepackaged state "marriage contracts" under the terminology of "gay marriage" was an offensive and needless public disaster. In any case, states and state laws come and go all the time. Americans sadly imagine that the fall of the massive USSR "modern state" won't apply here as well someday. Stay strong.
What if we disagree about this "Dao"? How do we know who is wrong? There is no way to settle such disagreements. Hence either multiculturalism or fascism, and it's clear which side you prefer.
There should be agreement among the citizens of a nation on the core moral principles, with room for disagreement on many lesser issues. If not, then there is literally no limiting principle, and there would be no reason for any law at all.
@@MH-lg1iu
There is broad agreement, given that all people are humans with similar needs and biologies and lives, all needing food and shelter and desiring education and society and expression etc. You know, life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and such. But this broad agreement is always marginalized and the focus put on things like gay marriage, abortion, teaching about and addressing extant racism, religious differences, and the freedom to economically exploit others or to foist externalities on them (or to ignore the centuries of history of exploitation and externalities, not to mention colonialism and racism and intolerance). If only we focused on the broad agreements and left room for the less important differences, which would be multiculturalism. Instead, we get fascism.
Well, it can't be settled by power.. that contradicts the original Taoist notion of Tao. So I think some conservative Christians are guilty of appropriating a concept they don't really understand, to fit their imperial Christofascist tendencies. The Tao is immanent in the world, all one has to do is live a life based on virtues like kindness, compassion, and humility, spend time in nature and meditation, and it will be intuitive enough, because you will become one with Tao.
There's nothing about two gay men living together in a committed, legally recognize contract of fidelity that prevents them from being sages necessarily, in the same way two straight people could also achieve this kind of wisdom, if they practice classical Taoist virtues. In fact Taoism has gay gods or immortals, like Tu Erh Shen (the Rabbit God), because Heaven is benevolent to everyone. "The sage treats all men as straw dogs", said the Tao Teh Ching, which is akin to "God is not a respecter of persons", in Christian parlance. The tribalistic and bronze age morality nonsense of American Evangelicals and Conservatives has nothing to do with timeless wisdom.
Yes, Ps 2, there is no uprising against the King of King. Kiss the Son, least his anger be kindled but a little!!!
Very bizarre to see somebody using eastern mysticism to try to push american traditionalism, or monotheism. What a bunch of characters!
I love the Christian values, but am frustrated that gays cannot just live their lives governmentally. I don't want Christian government to be Iran.
It wasn’t Iran before this so I don’t know what you mean.
I’m with you. And I was with the speaker before he turned to a conservative Christian stance on marriage that simply doesn’t follow from the prior discussion of the Tao, which I fundamentally agree with.
@@JB-lovin Yup. He doesn't understand Taoism. Actual Taoists aren't concerned with petty moralism, power, or mindless social conformity. That goes against the spirit of Taoism to be concerned with those things. Rather, they are concerned with returning humanity to its original nature of being carefree and at ease. They actually have a gay god, Tu Er Shen. He was made immortal by the Emperor of Heaven, because Heaven is benevolent to everyone. Christians would have a thing or two to learn from that.
I actually agree with natural law as a concept, and I believe I understand Taoism and Confucianism better than Lewis, concerning whom there is no evident problem misusing a sacred concept outside its proper context, which is Lewis's singular failing here in his argument.
The problem is that the Catholic conceptualization of natural law, used to condemn gay people, is arbitrary, authoritarian, and doesn't account for the full possibilites of human flourishing in our contemporary context. It is biased by homophobic and patriarchal assumptions about what it means to be a human being, and it's not compatible with modern science, which shows that gay people are a normal feature of human society, and not the result of a personal choice. So it's wrong. Above all, natural law must be compatible with the best of contemporary science, and not dictated by religious authority, which is steeped in traditions devised by prejudiced men.
You are a fool. Repent. How does anything but biological sex be of use to evolution?
"Serve the Lord with fear"...NOPE! Serve the Lord with and through L O V E !
You have a misunderstanding of Biblical, Fear. It most assuredly involves and necessitates LOVE, because God is love. I fear my father now because I don’t want to disappoint him and before because I know he could punish me. Both of which is because he loves me and I love him. Its not a perfect illustration, but I think gives a summary of the idea.
@@jyerkes94 I see that you understand neither the psychology of fear nor the use of language. Fear is fear and is rooted in NOT believing in yourself or the spirit which you are trying to call God.
Love is Love friend, and taking some action because you fear vis a vis believe and know in your Heart is misconception. Live life as an adherent and there is room for nothing but Love.
@@paulrevere47 you don’t seem to understand philosophy and language. You can’t define a word by the same word. Chinese food is food of Chinese origin… You’re not saying anything.
@@jyerkes94 Not a valid critique as all you've done is ad hominem. If you do not 'grok' 'Love is Love' as valid, I question you sense of spirit and faith.
@@paulrevere47 my initial comment was not intended to come off that way. I was not sure as to why you think Love and Fear are at odds. There are far too many scriptures that command us to fear the Lord that I cannot reject it.