Last summer Demosthenes and Locke had an involved discussion concerning many of the hottest issues of debate in our society. It was discovered that they held drastically different opinions on most of these. For the purpose of this exposition, the discussion will be analyzed from the perspective of Locke.

        It is not easy to have a moral, political or societal discussion with one who has been brought up in an entirely different environment than oneself. It is not easy to discuss such things with one with whom you fundamentaly disagree. In fact, finding ease in such discussions is most certainly rare even between persons who do agree, and yet it is imperative that we, as members of our society, engage ourselves in these inherently difficult discussions.

        The debate in which Demosthenes and I engaged wore hard on our friendship. I was later reminded, however, that good people are good people no matter what they believe. What is most important is not that everyone agree on morality, but that we each consider moral issues. What leads to a better society is not that everyone agreeing on what is right, but everyone having a belief as to what is right and that each of us follow that belief; that we consider moral issues and base our actions on what we consider to be moral.

        I'm trying to figure out the best way to go about this. What follows is exerps from the discussion. Some stuff I want your opinion on the style of arguing. Other stuff is long exhortations by me that I think are pretty interesting. Some stuff I'd like to know what you think about the opinions expressed. I don't think either Demosthenes or I agree with 100% of the stuff we said. Both of us displayed spouts of immaturity. Do you mind if I cut and paste? I'll break it into parts and color Demosthenes in blue and myself in green. I'll do comments in white, alright? We'll just have to see where all this goes.

TOPICS TO LOOK FOR

 1. Definition of homosexuality
 2. Is homosexuality right or wrong?
 3. Is homosexuality safe?
 4. Arguing and people of views other than our own
 5. Who is right and how do we know?
 6. Absolute vs Relativistic truth.
 7. Reason for arguing
 8. Pluralism
 9. Who is Christian? Interpreting the Bible
10. The Role of Women
11. Where do we get our Morals? Motive for Morality
12. Abortion

PART I

Demosthenes is asked what he would think if I went out with a girl...

	What would that make you?

	What are you talking about?!? It doesn't _make_ me anything. Certainly nothing I wasn't before or else this question wouldn't have come up now.

What do you think of that idea? That if someone does something it doesn't change who they are because the potential was always there.

I know, I know, I'm breaking up my own stuff, but I just wanted to say that I fully believe in the above statement. If I was more presumptuous, I'd say I'm right about what I say in the above statement. But then it would seem that I'm attacking and you would just defend and we'd get nowhere. Even so, you get pretty defensive and turn on the "I am right" light which is tiresome and doesn't accomplish a thing, but still, I don't play that way. I won't play my pieces that way. Homey don't play that.

Note that I'm being patronizing and childish. This is not good.

	Defending your own stuff is never a good idea. It makes you look weak and confuses the bejeebers out of the other person. And why can't I be right? Is there something wrong with that?

There are two things here that I'm interested in.
1. Breaking up/defending one's own argument. My reply to Demosthenes on this would be one can't have an argument without defending oneself whether one does it directly or not. What do you think?
2. What do you think of the "I am right" light in discussions? I put it on myself in that paragraph when I'm being patronizing, don't I?

PART II

I suggest reasons for being homosexuality

	Why not? It's a safe situation in which I could try this. If I don't like it, well, I never have to again. If I do, well, I've made a discovery to file away, and maybe learned something that could keep me safe later. If I don't try it, I might have to later when it's not safe.

	A safe situation?! What is that supposed to mean? It'll keep you safe later? Here, let me try this massive dose of crack. If I don't die, I'll learn never to do it again (and probably be quite addicted to go back). If I do die, well, that's the breaks. You might have to later when it's not safe? What kind or twisted reasoning is this?

I keep promoting the idea because I really want to know what his perception of the situation is.

	Tell me. How is this not safe? I see that a massive dose of crack is not safe, but this is somewhat different than a massive dose of crack.

	Because you're accepting a dangerous path on the premise that "I don't know any better".

I try the direct approach.

	What is unsafe about lesbianism?

	Kinda a gut feeling thing, you know. Obviously, I can't vouch for the truth of that fact based on my own experiences — can't be a lesbian, you know. But anything sexual between the same sex is just wacked out and dangerous on general biblical and moral principles.

	biblical principles as understood by whom? moral principles held by whom?

	It's really fairly clear. What the Bible says goes.

Yes, and what you say the Bible says is the same as what some people say the Bible says, but not the same as what everyone says the Bible says. So aren't you using your judgment to interpret the Bible and to form your morals on whatever information you happen to have? Is human judgement really the best thing to rely on? I know we don't really have other options, but you seem so confident in yours. Why?

Notice my technique here. The argument must be positive on my end "Yes and..." not "No, but..." or even "Yes, but..."

I am presenting these sections issue by issue so each one is chronological, but this doesn't necessarily go before the next issue. The following is one of the last things Demosthenes says in which he admits he might be wrong.

Am I human? Yes, of course. Obviously, I might be wrong. Is human judgement perfect? No, of course not. There's this thing called a 'teacher'. I want to be one; there might be one in your own life you look up to. What they've taught me about the Bible makes a lot of sense. Does that necessarily mean that their way is right? No, but there has to be only one interpretation. God doesn't have it both ways.

1. Do you think there is anything physically unsafe about lesbianism other than obvious things which come with any sexual relationship?
2. What do you think about what he says about the Bible? Not all Christians believe the same thing, right?

Um, you see, I rarely _argue_ for anything which I believe is "right," heart and soul. There's no point in that. If I "know something is right" why argue about it? I don't care if others believe it too. Others can believe what they want to so long as it leaves room for me to believe what I want to. That's just me. I don't think I'm going to change the world by trying to change what other people think by arguing with them.

I'm unclear here. I meant to say that I don't think the right way to deal with people you disagree with is to argue with them. I do care what other people think. I will still try to respect them if they think differently though. I am arguing to change the way I think not the way he thinks.

PART III

Demosthenes brought us into the realm of absolute vs relativistic truth. I think that if there is an absolute truth, I can't possibly know it or know that I know it and neither can anyone else. With this handicap, we then, as humans must treat existence etc as a relative truth, whether it is or not.

In the following it might help any atheists out there to define he word " God" as absolute truth if that helps.

	Ever think that there might be something so important that it is of the upmost need for other people to figure out the truth? Relativistic truth does not work. There _has_ to be an absolute reference point of truth. God, for example. :)

	Yes. And they're not going to figure out any truth if you are going to argue with them.

	They're also not going to figure out any truth if you keep your mouth shut and hole yourself up in a corner. You gotta start somewhere.

	Yes, you accept them civilly into your reality. You let them make their own choices, but set an example by the choices you make for yourself. You do not argue with them by taking an "I am right" stance because that is futile.

The "yes" at the beginning of the paragraph is important because it acknowledges and shows respect for what he has to say and then I go on to say what I think without demeaning what he thinks.

You don't argue because is you try to get other people to see what you think is right, then you are using an ill means to achieve a good end. ("good" is used here because it is good according with your standards.) I don't think that's the right way to do it. They're not going to figure out any truth if you argue with them. They will put up their defenses and not listen for the simple fact that you're arguing. If you start arguing with an atheist about God, or a Satanist, that's exactly what they want you to do. They will argue back and most likely both of you will go away thinking less of the other person and believing you have made your point. Neither party will have made any progress.

	Oh really? Obviously we have different views of the word 'argue'. Maybe 'civilized discussion' would work better.

How willing do you think Demosthenes is to have 'civilized discussions'? It seems to me more like he would _argue_ with people, tell them he's right and when they still disagree, give up on them figuring they're a waste of time. That's how our discussion made me think about him. His patronizing ' oh really's ' are more childish than civilized.

	And you don't necessarily know that neither party has made progress for a fact. They'll think about it, subconsciously perhaps. They'll be more open next time, perhaps. And God willing, they may just come around.

	Same thing goes for you. You'll think about it, subconsciously perhaps, be more open next time perhaps, and God willing, might just come around?

	Come around to what? Why should I give up a perfectly good existence with Christianity to follow what you believe— which you've never completely explained.

Why doesn't he see that whatever he sees as applying to him applies to everyone else too? There are plenty of people who aren't Christian who have no reason to give up their perfectly good existence to become Christian.

	My comment is not in reference to what I think. It's in reference to you arguing with someone when you're both trying to change the way the other thinks. It doesn't necessarily mean that one of you is Christian and the other isn't. There are lots of ways of being Christian. I remember you telling me that your church accepts all Christians. Why don't you?

This is interesting. When he told me he was Christian, I asked him what kind (Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc) saying that I thought it mattered as there are differences in belief. He said it doesn't matter and his church is non-denominational. It sounded good at the time. No it seems he meant not that it accepts all Christians, but all Christians who are the same as those already belonging to the church (hence not Christian homosexuals or liberal Christians or "hot headed Women" :) etc)

	As for what I believe, I'm Christian too. I'm just more liberal.

	'I'm Christian'? A) Do you believe that you are a sinner? B) Do you believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, was fully God and died on the cross as an atonement for your sins? C) Do you believe that He rose again? D) Do you believe that he's coming back?

Obviously his memorized Bible studies. This is good. At least it says something more than "it's all in the Bible. It's very clear." I must say that I am sorry to hear that this is what Demosthenes finds to be important in Christianity. I don't think Jesus existed so that we would learn A B C and D from him. Anyway, assuming these four things are the point of Christianity, they say nothing about uality or Abortion or any of those things that Demosthenes proclaims to know all the answers to because he is Christian. 

	Something tells me that there really can't be any such thing as 'liberal Christian'. Gotta be a right or wrong. No two sides about it.

	Well, that's what you believe: that one can't be a liberal Christian. I don't really care what you or anyone labels me. If you decide that I'm not Christian, it changes you, it doesn't change me.

I was being a little childish I admit. It really shocked me that Demosthenes thought there couldn't be liberal Christians. I know lots of them. I was also really surprised to hear him deciding who is Christian and who isn't. It's not his place to do that.

I like the idea that it changes him not me if he decides to label me.

I keep getting the feeling that you're saying that I'm "not Christian". I don't know if you mean to say that, but it feels like you do. There's tons of stuff written by people (bishops, all sorts of people) about Christianity and such issues as homosexuality . Some of these people have drawn conclusions from the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. Other people have analyzed the same passages and say that "the Bible could be interpreted that way, but it could also be interpreted this way" which they say "is right there for anyone who wants to figure it out". Why are you the Christian who is right? Why are they the Christians who are wrong? I really want to understand this.

This is what I don't understand: How can you be so sure you're right, thereby admitting that people can be right, and at the same time be so sure that everyone else is wrong?

	God. Christianity. And not necessarily everyone else, either.

Okay. Um, here's what I don't understand about this. (Shall we dive in completely?...okay) Not all Christians believe the same thing. Christianity encompasses an incredible scope of different people form different nations with different cultures and so on. There are a few things which you all agree on which makes you Christian. (And me too, but you seem to have already removed me from that box. Don't worry, I'll deal :) There are endless numbers of other things on which you all don't agree. Homosexuality is one of them. So how can you be sure about stuff like that?

I'm making no statement about homosexuality there. Just statements about you using God to justify your opinions.

I was making a statement about homosexuality , but the God part was more important to me. 

	Icthius said something really beautiful once...well, more that once, but once that I want to bring up. I've been wading through e-mails looking for it, but I think I'll just attempt the same idea before losing my eyesight looking for it.

He said: Having been brought up as a Christian, I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between the truth and what is merely tradition.

That thought really struck me. Y'know? Wow! There are so many ways of being Christian, so many different beliefs that people who are Christian hold--are they all right? Or just yours?

It did strike me, but I overemphasize the fact to emphasize my point.

	Someone's gotta be wrong. Look to the Bible as the ultimate authority on earth as the answer. People would be more cohesive in their beliefs if they actually took time to sit down and read the book. It's all fairly clear.

I got really sick of this comment after a while. It's especially annoying since I know that he knows that I've read the Bible.

The people...the human people in the Bible make mistakes often. Even with God's help, people are still people, and we still makes mistakes. The stories which explain God's teachings and the history of Christianity were written down by people. They are read by people. They are taught be people. It seems to me that an awful lot of literary interpretation must go on that has nothing to do with God but with people. The Bible was written down by people hundreds of years ago. We adapt it's teachings to fit modern dilemmas. Every step along the way requires more and more human interpretation. Who knows how way out there we are now? God, yes. God's answers, the answers to everything are in that book, but we're still humans, seems to me we might quite easily have missed the point.

I've noticed that in Christianity, or at least in Demosthenes's version, it's a highly emphasized teaching that "humans are inadequate". I disagree with this. I think that humans are divinely beautiful even when they are immoral. I also believe that they are perfectly capable of being That's the problem right there. No adaption necessary. Should come with assembly instructions or something.

	Are you saying that we should interpret the Bible literally even now that it's hundreds of years after it was written? Shall we strip Women and blacks and all sorts of people of their rights? I'm sure you don't believe that. Still, it's there in the BiblM: sexism, racism, etc.

	This is kind of unrelated to our conversation, but I'll ask it anyway if you don't mind. It's generally accepted that Christianity traditionally and as it appears in the Bible is very male-oriented. Do you agree with that statement? What do you think about the role of Women and just Women and Christianity?

	Yes, it is male-oriented. Do I have a problem with that? Probably not, especially because I'm male. :)

If you, as a man, believed/ believe this, would you say it to a woman?

Do I think it's the Right Thing? Yes. I think Women have a very important role. I'm just not quite sure what it is. Usually when people drag out the 'sexist Christianity' argument, they refer to the passage which talks about wives submitting to their husbands. Coincidently, that's also the passage the Promise Keepers use as one of their tenets. Anyway, people seem to think that's demeaning in some fashion.

However, taking the statement as part of a whole, we see that husbands are supposed to treat their wives with love and respect. Wives submit to their husbands out of love. Husbands submit to God out of love. Everything works out beautifully.

I don't know how you're feeling about this, but I'm sure you can imagine how shocked little me from liberal central of the world was with his statement. I realized that people do believe such things, but due to circumstance, I guess, I had this weird understanding that the only people who believed such things were gross white trash red necks, you know what I mean? And here's this guy who I thought respected me as his equal, telling me that he will always see my role as submissive. Naturally, my reaction was childish.

	How so? We have two open ends here. Who submits to the wives? God? Hey, now it works beautifully!

Hee hee

	Children probably. Why should anyone submit to the wife?

Does that comment tick you off? It does me. I don't think anyone should be doing any submitting,

	I'm a woman and will someday be someone's wife. Need I not submit to God? It just sounds strange the way you put it. If your statement above is accepted, ti doesn't matter if I'm Christian or not so long as I love you guys...one guy, at least...preferably the one I marry. :)

Satanism has a similar place for Women.

That's me still venting. I hope you can see why I needed to. The Satanism thing is true. Satanism is _very_ sexist. Guys get to be the priests and do all sorts of cool stuff. Girls in ceremonies get to be the naked alter etc. Girls do have power in Satanism, but it's sexual power and stuff that revolves around the guys. Unlike Christianity (Demosthenes's Christianity) , in Satanism, no one's pretending to be Women choose to be Satanic, they know what they're in for. The Satanist aren't being hypocritical. Obviously I speak from the position of one who finds the idea of Women having to submit to husbands as immoral.

	"We have to make a distinction between tradition, which is the living ideas of the dead, and traditionalism, which is the dead ideas of the living." --Ernesto Cortez Jr.

I guess the Women thing is especially difficult for me for many reasons, one being that I was under the impression that the people with your ideas about a "woman's place" were extinct.

Now, I want to be a home mom but that's not because I think it's my place. It's just what I want to do. I do think that someone should stay home with children, but it doesn't have to be a woman. The dad's fine too.

PART IV

	Do you value Pluralism? Do you think there is something to learn from people who are different from yourself? Do you think we should stamp out individualism? Shall we manufacture Demosthenes Froyd's with whom to populate the planet?

	I couldn't take more than one of myself. Do I value other people? Yes. Do I think that there are a lot of neat people out there? Yes. Do I necessarily believe there is something to learn from everybody? No. Individualism is a farce and a road to anarchy.

This got a rise out of me too. How can he dismiss other cultures just like that?

Later Demosthenes brought up a story about himself. (I was pleased. 1. He had shown effort. There was something about me worth his time and 2. It backed up some of my points...not that he saw this. I don't know if he did.) Valentine is a friend of Demosthenes's She is Indian (from India). Two important things there" she's female and her family history is from another cultural background.....

	I had a tremendously interesting discussion with Valentine today which really shut me up during work while I thought about it. She believes that what's right for you is right for you and not necessarily for anybody else. Obviously, you can't have that, 'cuz then society falls apart. She understands, begging the point that she is not an extremist, which seems like a sellout to me.

Grr...the "begging" part really ticks me off. Demosthenes just can't put himself on the same level as everyone else. Thing is, he's there already on the same level as everyone else. Why can't he see this?

That's interesting. What sparked the conversation? That's really interesting cuz I agree with her. "What's right for you is right for you and not necessarily anybody else". Excellent! I'd add that because of this we (the people of this society) need to do more accepting and less arguing. So much can be achieved through Pluralism, there's such richness we can get from it culturally that we must embrace it and allow it to flourish. We need to create an environment where people can live together with what they believe and not infringe on the beliefs of others...after all, that's what democracy's all about.

Wow, I sound like a hippie, man.

	The conversation just kinda arose. That philosophy and Pluralism = antipodes. And oh yeah, you're definitely from California. That last bit there just proved it.

If you have such a society (a utopia for yourself), then that's a socialistic type of viewpoint. However, socialism seeks uniformity. Who will rule in your society? By definition, that person will have to "infringe" on the beliefs of others (especially those who don't believe they need a ruler). Thus, there cannot be such a society--without God.

"Without God". I said nothing about it being without God in the first place. I think God wants us to embrace Pluralism, not to all be the same.

PART V

I ask if there is an absolute truth, point out there must be an absolute truth, and she responds 'I don't believe that there is'. Is murder right? No. Why not? Because we have weighed the consequences and determined that one person's right to live is more important than the other person's bloodlust. What about Abortion? Who's to say whether that baby is more important than the mother? (I didn't bring up the Abortion point, but I think it's a really good continuation)

I find it interesting that here he is talking as if it is humans who decide whether something is right or wrong rather than his usual line about God decides what is right or wrong.

	There are so many levels to the issue of Abortion that I tend to avoid using it when making points. I think that the government should allow for people to make the choice (within limits--ah ha! That's where the problems arise, isn't it?) But the society should discourage the choice from being made to have an Abortion.

	Outlaw it, say it's wrong and there's no argument.

There are lots of things which are legal but which people don't do because society says it's a no-no. Not doing something unethical because it's illegal is the wrong reason to go about being What about menstruation? Women are born with over 200,000 eggs. Only 400-500 are released during her lifetime, but they're all potential babies. Obviously a woman's not going to like the idea of having 400 kids (not possible anyway, is it? 9 months per baby or twins or whatever), starting form age twelve or around there. So are those potential babies more important or the mother? Who is to speak for them? So one can get as extreme as one wants, it's all a matter of when one defines a baby as a baby--I'm not asking you to say when you think a baby's a baby, my point is that there's too much room for disagreement to use Abortion as an example...unless you already know that you and Valentine believe the same thing about Abortion. I'm not going to say when I think a baby is a baby and when it has rights either at this point. I will say that I worry a lot more about unwanted babies that live than the ones that die before consciousness. I can't imagine growing up knowing I was a mistake, knowing that I wasn't wanted, being neglected, maybe even abused and so on. That's where our homicidal maniacs and so one come from. (Not all of them obviously) The majority of the people who are going to get pregnant out of wedlock and want an Abortion are not people we want to parent children. That worries me.

	Well, maybe those "unwanted, mistake..." babies need God. Maybe the parents do too. Isn't it so convenient how a lot of problems would clear up society if we turn to God for our answers?

Once again, I am not saying anything about Christianity. I'm not saying that society shouldn't turn to God. Demosthenes accuses me of being idealistic, then brings up solutions like this. I don't see how making Abortion illegal will turn people to God. I think it will turn them to the black market.

More on Abortion

I am pro-choice. I don't know where I stand on tri-mesters etc, but I think Abortion on some level should be legal. It should not be revered by society. I don't think the legal system should determine our values. That demoralizes the whole idea of ethics. Thoughts?

	And then she criticizes me for being narrow-minded and making up my mind before I've read all the 'holy books'. And then...well, it's all rather frustrating. I point out, "Hey, if you're right, and my belief if OK for me and the same goes for you, then I'm OK. If I'm right, you're screwed." And she seems perfectly willing to accept this. Ah well, more prayer on my knees. :)

I don't understand. Why would he want his friends or anyone to be "screwed"? That doesn't sound very Christian. What's wrong with more than one person being right?

I accuse you of the same :) Reminds me of something someone once told me: "If you believe in God and you're right, you live a longs, good life and then spend eternity in paradise. If you're wrong, you live a moderately good life in which you waste one day every week for 70-80 years. If you don't believe in God and you're right you live a life in which you may determine your activities on Sunday and then you die. If you're wrong, you live a short, unhappy life and then burn in Hell for all eternity. Now, all things considered, which choice has the better probability of a good outcome?"

I'm sure you can tell from that that the person I'm speaking of is a confirmed atheist.

	Actually, that sounds like a gussied-up version of Pascal's wager. I wonder why you would be an atheist if you heard that argument. 3:1 odds sound like a pretty good deal to me. Actually, two of the choices don't even matter— it's Heaven or Hell.

I didn't get to have him explain his point here, but I really don't understand it. Doesn't the little story I told sound horribly immoral and hypocritical to you? Do the ends justify the motives? Does it matter why someone is Christian? I think so. One can't be ethical because one weighs the odds and chooses the one that will favor oneself. One shouldn't save a drowning child so that s/he will gain publicity. One should save the kid out of human feelings towards another human being.

PART VI

	I believe in Christianity because it makes sense.

	As do plenty of homosexuals . They don't think God has a problem with them.

	That's their problem. They'd better figure it out soon. Homosexuality is a choice, not something genetically built in by God. Therefore, there must be a right and a wrong way.

My roommate at Stanford was really cool. I told her about the Demosthenes thing and she told me what she thought. She was upset about what Demosthenes had said about other cultures and by the way he had said the stuff about Women--though she did agree that it is in the Bible. She doesn't like homosexuality or Abortions, but she thinks we should still treat those people with love. God hates the sin not the sinner. How could God hate his creation? She said that she thinks Demosthenes misses large parts of Jesus' teachings. Jesus loved the prostitutes and all the "bad" people. He would not go into an Abortion clinic and scream at all the people there, telling them they're going to Hell. He would calmly sit with them and show them that they are loved and that they will still be loved and supported if they choose not to got through with the Abortion. That's the Jesus I know about. Not the God Demosthenes speaks of. She said that she thinks it's people like Demosthenes who give Christianity a bad name.

I have a good many more bits and pieces of our discussion, but the points have been covered, so I'll leave them out for now. You know what the last thing Demosthenes wrote was, the thing that caused me to just take on the attitude 'Fuck him' (I didn't say that), the most insulting and awful thing he said out of everything and for which I cannot forgive him?

	Try trimming your emails down. It's taking me much too long to respond to them.

Someone once said that all you can give is time. I'm not worth his time so bye-bye!

EXIT