Single Status Update
Couldn't decide if this was for Blogs or EE, but this was an actual part of my day, so...
This started with me being a mediator of sorts, while two of my friends were having a religious discussion in a diner. The main point of my agnostic/Jewish friend was, "Your religion should not dictate what my rights are". That eventually turned to "religion, while effective in creating a power structure, has to be completely removed from such a society if progress is to be made". The funny thing is that my other friend, a somewhat Christian(let's say run-of-the-mill theist), agreed on most points. They only began to differ on points, seemingly for the sake of confrontation, when their individual belief labels came into the debate. Then it basically became an argument.
A couple of subjects were covered, such as scientific progress in pagan societies, the fall of Rome, the Dark Ages, America's forefathers and of course current events including gay marriage.
It was interesting for me to come to the conclusion that "labeled beliefs" can build a barrier between two people who might as well agree on everything. They even disputed this single fact when I brought it up, only to reinforce it by trying to explain the difference in their arguments. Now, their points DID come from different angles, but there was no real dispute on the above subject. Like I said, it was only when they revealed between themselves the difference in their faiths that they seemingly felt compelled to debunk each other's logic. It was doubly sobering that the cause of this inability to see eye-to-eye was, in itself, the UNDENIABLE PROOF of the above statement.
The main thing I learned today: two people may be fighting for the same exact cause; belief labels destroy that kinship until the best they can do is agree to disagree. Powerful thing, that religion(or absence thereof).
P.S. If you need to know: by laws of debate, the agnostic Jew won.
P.P.S. If I see the makings of a "did Jesus exist" or "God vs. science" flamefest, I'll close the thread immediately. I'm merely looking for thoughts on my conclusion, which is entirely possible without all that extra mumbo-jumbo.
P.P.P.S. There was also a discussion about sex, and asking your girlfriend for "stuff"-- which I don't do. We equated it to wondering which car we'd get when we're rich: they'd throw out names like Viper, Mercedes, Ferrari; I'd just say "I'll buy a car that I look good in and handles the way I like". I'm not into anything disgusting like anal, but what's the point of asking your girlfriend "do you mind if I do this, or if you sit that way, or if you could put your finger in my ass"? Christ, just do it: if she's not into it, don't do it anymore. Also, they were bothered with the fact that I don't like "finishing" during oral sex. So, if I want sex, I'm going to let her suck away until I get off, and then I'm spent? What a waste. Maybe if we're in a public place or in a hurry, yeah, but-- I WANT VAGINA. I really don't feel like taking ten minutes to get into it again, and I'm not giving my best if I'm gratifying her when there's no more anticipation on my part. There's foreplay, then there's fore-then-breaktime-then-more-fore-play for me. Sorry, no two-parter here. I crank it to 11 with no stops along the way, then maybe later if you want more.
So, yeah... whee, multi-subject blog!! Sex and religion: it's like the two were made for each other!