You’re lecturing me on the real meaning of Maslow’s Hierarchy when you’ve probably not taken any classes beyond Psych 101.[/quote]
At least I got the 101 part right. Love isn’t a basic need and people can routinely and whimsically turn the pyramid on it’s head.
Contrary to whatever gay barstool you fell off of to learn Maslow, what you’re talking about came about in subsequent revisions of Maslow’s Theories. I suggest you read Alderfer’s theories. Then take a deep breath and learn about a guy named Frederick Winslow Taylor. Ironically enough, psychology has some of the poorest (least complete may be better) understanding of human motivation of all the sciences.
Weird how my examples support my assertions. It’s almost like I had an argument and was supporting it with ideas and evidence. You cited Maslow incorrectly, and Maslow is only tangentially relevant to the discussion.
If people can choose higher order needs over lower ones, it’s quite conceivable that one could quite easily choose self-actualization through a deity over sex. Given the voluntary nature of the servitude and the ease of ‘sacrifice’ involved, celibacy is hardly cruelty or torture any more than taxation. Both of which pale in comparison to self-sacrifice on the battlefield or in the streets of Saigon.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Per your own example, people can even choose higher order needs over lower order needs, based on their values. You know, like paying taxes in order to serve a greater good.[/quote]
Wait, what? Not on an individual level, that’s for sure. “Choose?” “Based on their own values?” How is that, you know, like taxes? Uniformed fellas with guns will come pick me up if, based on my own values, I chose not to pay taxes.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Love isn’t a basic need…[/quote]
Yet you claim to undersand Maslow, gotcha. Icing on the cake:
Lol. Maybe you should stick with subjects you actually know something about…Wiki doesn’t count. That’s all I’m going to say on this, since the discussion is verging into personal attacks.
Scarecrow, I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I did exactly that for 20 years of my life.
The point, again, is that artificially forcing someone to make this kind of choice is both unnecessary and unhealthy. There’s absolutely no reason why a priest should be required to go through life without the joy of a wife and children. A strong argument could be made, in fact, that the wisdom, love, and experience gained as a husband and father would facilitate his capacity to serve his flock rather than detracting from it. Ministers in many other religions prove this to be the case.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Wait, what? Not on an individual level, that’s for sure. “Choose?” “Based on their own values?” How is that, you know, like taxes? Uniformed fellas with guns will come pick me up if, based on my own values, I chose not to pay taxes.[/quote]
I was referring to people who willingly pay taxes in the interest of the greater good. You’re right that people who only pay taxes against their will wouldn’t fit into the category of sacrificing a lower need to meet a higher need.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Wait, what? Not on an individual level, that’s for sure. “Choose?” “Based on their own values?” How is that, you know, like taxes? Uniformed fellas with guns will come pick me up if, based on my own values, I chose not to pay taxes.
I was referring to people who willingly pay taxes in the interest of the greater good. You’re right that people who only pay taxes against their will wouldn’t fit into the category of sacrificing a lower need to meet a higher need.[/quote]
Noone is given the opportunity to “willingly” pay taxes. That decision has already been made for us, and is backed by actual force. Force, by any and every meaning of the word. And, yes, one might think not paying taxes serves the greater good. Especially when one sees what the government has done with the money. But, of course, since it involves real force, one can’t just walk away from participation, and reclaim that portion of one’s own labors and limited time of life.
I willingly pay taxes, because I support most of the ways my money is used. Just because there is a punishment associated with not paying taxes doesn’t mean that is the only reason people pay taxes.
That said, I would probably pay a lot less than I do if it was entirely voluntary
[quote]forlife wrote:
But that’s what you believe, isn’t it? Those silly Lutherans have it all confused, and don’t know the real Jesus, otherwise their doctrines would be identical to yours.[/quote]
No and no. For being formally religious you truly have no idea how religion actually works. One does not need categorically the same beliefs down the line for both to be in communion with the same God. This is some farse you created in yourself to support your agnosticism. It is a false belief that you hang on to despite the fact that it isn’t and never has been true.
Some people like Porsche’s because they are pretty, others like them because they are fast, others still like them because they handle well, but they still all like the same car.
[quote]pat wrote:
No and no. For being formally religious you truly have no idea how religion actually works. One does not need categorically the same beliefs down the line for both to be in communion with the same God. This is some farse you created in yourself to support your agnosticism. It is a false belief that you hang on to despite the fact that it isn’t and never has been true.
Some people like Porsche’s because they are pretty, others like them because they are fast, others still like them because they handle well, but they still all like the same car. [/quote]
It might make you feel better to say you’re all praying to the same god, but most fundamentalist churches present their truth as the truth, and consider the contradictory beliefs of other faiths to be flat out false.
For example, the Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. They believe that the communion literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. Gross, but that is official church doctrine, and wars have been fought over it.
My own church taught that unless a person is baptized by someone with the priesthood (i.e., an ordained Mormon male), the ordinance is meaningless and the person can’t be saved. Seems that it might be kinda important to know whether or not that belief is true or false.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
No and no. For being formally religious you truly have no idea how religion actually works. One does not need categorically the same beliefs down the line for both to be in communion with the same God. This is some farse you created in yourself to support your agnosticism. It is a false belief that you hang on to despite the fact that it isn’t and never has been true.
Some people like Porsche’s because they are pretty, others like them because they are fast, others still like them because they handle well, but they still all like the same car.
It might make you feel better to say you’re all praying to the same god, but most fundamentalist churches present their truth as the truth, and consider the contradictory beliefs of other faiths to be flat out false.
For example, the Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. They believe that the communion literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. Gross, but that is official church doctrine, and wars have been fought over it.
My own church taught that unless a person is baptized by someone with the priesthood (i.e., an ordained Mormon male), the ordinance is meaningless and the person can’t be saved. Seems that it might be kinda important to know whether or not that belief is true or false.[/quote]
We already know you’re not Catholic. You’re not even christian. So, what’s the point in telling us how you feel about our doctrines, or about our orders? What does it have to do with this thread? At this point you’re just flailing around for an issue…
For example, the Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. They believe that the communion literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. Gross, but that is official church doctrine, and wars have been fought over it.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We already know you’re not Catholic. You’re not even christian. So, what’s the point in telling us how you feel about our doctrines, or about our orders? What does it have to do with this thread? At this point you’re just flailing around for an issue…[/quote]
You’re not gay, so what’s the point in telling me how you feel about gays?
[quote]forlife wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Curious. Which wars, exactly?
Ever hear of the Inquisition?
The Inquisition of Rome is concerned above all with the mass. It is in Ratzinger’s words, “the heart of Christian life”. He talks of crisis. “In the crisis of faith we are experiencing, the critical issue seems to be increasingly the correct celebration and the correct understanding of the Eucharist”. This is the “critical” issue for Rome. The Inquisition fights the fight of the “correct understanding” of the mass. That fight is today against ignorance and indifference but at the time of that former crisis in the history of the church, the Reformation, it was against the huge inroads of Protestantism. The mass defines the great Reformation divide which brought down the anathemas of the council of Trent upon the Protestants, and Rome pursues the matter with the same vigour now.[/quote]
You seem to suggest that transsubstantiation was the catalyst and main issue that brought about the Spanish Inquistion?
Fail.
If you’re going to continue to wage war on the Catholic Church, its doctrine, its congregation, and its traditions, you should at least correctly understand its history. Perhaps a book or two?
As Forlif tries to spin his way out of his most recent error - the “Inquisition of Rome” was not a war - if you are interested in the source Forlife cut and pasted:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
You seem to suggest that transsubstantiation was the catalyst and main issue that brought about the Spanish Inquistion?[/quote]
I said that doctrinal disagreements like transsubstantiation have been the cause of conflict, persecution, and bloodshed for as long as religion has been around. Pat’s statement that “we all believe in the same god” is ridiculous, because it ignores these differences and the bloody aftermath of zealots trying to force their religious perspective on others.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Ah, there is only one way to do it. But you cannot be ordained to the Holy Orders as married…I bet your really confused now…
So why not allow all priests to get married after they’re ordained?[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We already know you’re not Catholic. You’re not even christian. So, what’s the point in telling us how you feel about our doctrines, or about our orders? What does it have to do with this thread? At this point you’re just flailing around for an issue…
You’re not gay, so what’s the point in telling me how you feel about gays?[/quote]
