Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[Insidious Rex]

Well ive lost track to where im supposed to be replying to. So ill run through some brief responses on this one just in case.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Also about the Medieval monasteries. You said that that would be caused by genes because it may be better for the organism. However, in the Medieval Ages it was a massive number of people that chose this course. Was it coincidence that it was better for all of them to become monks at the same basic point in history?

sounds like environment to me. human influence is strong. Social pressure. Peer pressure. Also I have read on more then one occasion that for many people during the dark ages the prospect of living within a monastic society was a life saver compared to the life of your average serf. So one could argue that becoming a monk was the way many of these men survived and if their chances of becoming successful breeding males in an era where poverty was the rule was virtually remote then turning to a guaranteed source of food and shelter and companionship and protection was a no brainer both on a human level and on a genetic level. Lets see, what to choose… horrible death from disease or starvation or good bread and even better beer and a beautiful garden up in Belgium somewhere and the respect of many who otherwise would spit on me. Hmm… tough choice huh? Granted this is speculation but it makes sense to me. Furthermore, im going to hazard a guess that those men who would choose to become monks had little else to choose against. I cant imagine there were a lot of monks who came from the richest nobility. Many of them were hopeless socially and without land or title and with no hope of either. What woman would have married them let alone had their children? Back then you married a guy because he had something worth investing in. if you had nothing perhaps your only alternative was a monkish life style. So why not enter in a formal version of that. I don’t think its fair to state that this was some great trend among all the common people. I think it was still greatly among the peripheral of society. Far from average.

This I can accept. You're essentially taking what you don't understand on faith until you gain a better knowledge of how it works. You have seen evidence enough to convince you as far as most of genetics is concerned. It's very complex though, with many factors working at once. That means that some of it you by necessity cannot understand. Some of it doesn't seem to make sense, some of it may appear contradictory on the surface. But with further learning and greater understanding of the subject, those things also may be made clear. Until they do, the evidence supporting their being genetics seems overwhelming enough that you'll take those things on faith.

Is this correct, or wrong in several points ?

Yeah ok I know where you are going with this. But I reject the notion that my view of reality through a genetic lens is the equivalent of our view of reality through a religious lens. Sure we don’t know everything about how genetics translates into behavior but we can certainly connect a lot of dots and get a pretty good sense of things at this point in time. Where as with religion the gaps are massive in my opinion and the leap of faith great enough to truly be called just that: faith. I cant see a soul. I cant measure a spirit. But I can observe a million examples of genetics effecting various organisms in every way shape and form imaginable. You can even break down more mysterious behaviors like altruism and such that would at first blush seems contradictory to the genetic model. With humans, the difficulty is in that our consciousness allows us to speculate on why we do what we do. And its hard to get around that fact that we are aware of our awareness and STILL admit that we act like a machine nevertheless. It seems incongruous and backwards. But if we follow it from point to point to point you can see it. And it follows the very same models we see in nature. You cant do that with spirituality. Spirituality may still be in the equation. But we are going to need to boil down everything else to find that remaining last sliver that we cant break down scientifically. And in the end if such a thing exists I maintain even this we will be able to quantify in a scientific way. And this would be the ultimate prize now wouldn’t it. To understand the immaterial in a material way.

Yes, that is an interesting tangent. I think it is so powerful within us because it mirrors God's nature. God is love. That he should make love the most powerful force in our lives, in the physical universe, make sense.

its amazing how different perspectives can lead to such vast differences in opinion on the very same subject. To you its quite clearly the reflection of gods nature. To me its quite obviously the most important emotion we have because it reinforces the coupling instinct and the protection instinct thus allowing us to breed and pass on our genes. For without love spending all the time and resources and energy it takes to be with a mate and to take care of your offspring would seem ridiculous. So the genes need something awful powerful to keep us bound to our mate and our offspring in a way such that it greatly insures their survival and the successful passage of our genes. Enter love… now if you look at lower animals you can see a primitive form of love. They too defend fiercely their offspring at almost all costs, taking on much larger opponents and going without food for long periods of time just to ensure the that their little package of genes remains safe and strong and secure. Who knows what they “feel� when they do this. I guess you would call it love wouldn’t you? but in us, in our cerebral approach to our being, we experience the profound and powerful tug of love that makes all this just perfectly normal when if you really think about it its quite extraordinary. To spend your entire life with another being (or several other beings) as your primary focus. How many parents here would ever say they come first before their kids. I dare so none. At least not while their children are in fact children. Once they are on their own and out of the house well the nurture instinct isn’t quite as strong but while they are young its unparalleled. And love of spouse can be seen the same way. Intense bonding between the mated couple means the female is more assured of a faithful partner for her child and the male is guaranteed of a female willing to give up the costly investment of a human egg and nine months of her life hosting his genes. Pretty big deal. And jealousy in situations where this bond is threatened. All very animal really. All very natural. We can just label the emotions because we are conscious of them. But even though we are conscious of them we are not immune. It still controls us and shapes us just like it does the animals.

[BeardofPants]

"Dark ages"?? I-Rex, you should know better than to use out-dated colonialist terminology!

[Insidious Rex]

oh sorry. light challenged ages...

[Lief Erikson]

Very interesting post, Insidious Rex. I'm going to enjoy responding to it. I think offhand you made quite a few errors about the Medieval Ages and are minimizing what really was a very big movement. I don't really have time immediately to respond, though. Will do some research and then respond .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

sounds like environment to me. human influence is strong. Social pressure. Peer pressure. Also I have read on more then one occasion that for many people during the dark ages the prospect of living within a monastic society was a life saver compared to the life of your average serf.

I guess it would depend on the monastery. I read that many of them did become economic society centers. Frequently once one became too wealthy, people would leave the monastery and form another one that would be more God focused. This monastery would return to the earlier ways: hard work, study and devotion to God. Many monasteries had crafts studied by the monks. Others focused on intensive physical labor.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So one could argue that becoming a monk was the way many of these men survived and if their chances of becoming successful breeding males in an era where poverty was the rule was virtually remote then turning to a guaranteed source of food and shelter and companionship and protection was a no brainer both on a human level and on a genetic level.

I'll probably want to come back and discuss this point more later.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lets see, what to choose… horrible death from disease or starvation or good bread and even better beer and a beautiful garden up in Belgium somewhere and the respect of many who otherwise would spit on me. Hmm… tough choice huh? Granted this is speculation but it makes sense to me.

Good bread, better beer and beautiful garden . . . that's not the medieval ages.

Originally written in "The Middle Ages," by Norman F. Cantor
The abbot was to be elected by the monks for life, and he was to have absolute authority over the lives and souls of the brothers, who were to take unmitigated vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience to the abbot for life.

The monastic life envisaged by the Benedictine Rule was characterized by a communal life of absolute regularity, with the strictest discipline and unvarying routine.

The monks worked hard, plowed fields, planted crops, etc. It was not relaxation and comfort during the time where the monastic influence was at its highest.

In the ninth century, when the monasteries became more wealthy, it was mainly noblemen that entered in. Aristocrats and other people of high birth made up almost the entire community in the monasteries.

By 800 most monasteries were no longer self-sustaining units, nor did the black monks perform physical labor. The monks were supported by the labor of serfs on their estates, while they devoted themselves to educational and liturgical work. Nor did the membership of the ninth-century Benedictine community represent any longer a cross section of society: The monks were drawn almost exclusively from the class of the nobility, and the Benedictine abbots, by the tenth century, were usually men of the highest aristocratic and princely origin. The Benedictine convents for women, which had begun to be founded soon after Benedict's day, became particularly homogeneous in their social composition. The nuns of the ninth and tenth cent uries were all high-born ladies, and it was almost impossible to be admitted to these convents without being a widowed or maiden relative of an important lord.

So you see, one doesn't see in this picture a bunch of serfs being bounced up to high born privilege. You see a bunch of noblemen taking approximately the same privileges they've always been accustomed to, though perhaps somewhat less. The widespread monasticism during the earlier Medieval Ages was a life of poverty and hard work.

It's also interesting to note that it was when money earning and other more secular things became important focuses of many monasteries that they greatly decreased in influence upon society. This makes sense if most people entering them are aristocrats.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Furthermore, im going to hazard a guess that those men who would choose to become monks had little else to choose against. I cant imagine there were a lot of monks who came from the richest nobility.

I'll have to research further to find out how many were during the time where the Benedictine Rule was really held to.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Many of them were hopeless socially

They didn't move up on the social ladder by entering a monastery. Indeed, the Benedictine Rule was so taxing on the people entering that Benedict created a very tough 1 year admissions program to make sure that people entering the monastic life would be able to handle it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and without land or title and with no hope of either. What woman would have married them let alone had their children?

There were as many poor women as poor men in those ages. People didn't enter monastic life because they had no chances for getting a wife. That's just not the way it worked.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Back then you married a guy because he had something worth investing in. if you had nothing perhaps your only alternative was a monkish life style.

Gosh. I always thought that in the Medieval Ages men weren't the only peasants .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So why not enter in a formal version of that. I don’t think its fair to state that this was some great trend among all the common people. I think it was still greatly among the peripheral of society. Far from average.

Sure it wasn't average. It wasn't most people doing this. I wouldn't claim that. My point was that it was a very large movement, a very large number of people doing this.

Originally written in The World Book
Monasticism became especially influential in Europe during the early Middle Ages. At that time, Europe had thousands of monasteries that were great centers of learning. After about 1200, however, Christian monasticism began to be replaced by orders of wandering friars. It has never regained its former influence.

One admission I'll make: Not all monks or nuns remained true to their vows. While they vowed to abstain from sex, some did not keep this vow. How widespread this was is not known.

During some points of the Middle Ages monasteries were known to become corrupt as well.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
This I can accept. You're essentially taking what you don't understand on faith until you gain a better knowledge of how it works. You have seen evidence enough to convince you as far as most of genetics is concerned. It's very complex though, with many factors working at once. That means that some of it you by necessity cannot understand. Some of it doesn't seem to make sense, some of it may appear contradictory on the surface. But with further learning and greater understanding of the subject, those things also may be made clear. Until they do, the evidence supporting their being genetics seems overwhelming enough that you'll take those things on faith.

Is this correct, or wrong in several points ?



Yeah ok I know where you are going with this. But I reject the notion that my view of reality through a genetic lens is the equivalent of our view of reality through a religious lens.

Simply pointing out some similarities . I don't really know what you mean by equivalent, in this case.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sure we don’t know everything about how genetics translates into behavior but we can certainly connect a lot of dots and get a pretty good sense of things at this point in time.

Yes, I agree with you that genetic research has a lot going for it and current positions on it contain a lot of truth. It seems a huge leap to say that's all there is, though (to me).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Where as with religion the gaps are massive in my opinion and the leap of faith great enough to truly be called just that: faith.

If that's what you believe, it makes complete sense that you're not a Christian. Complete sense. I certainly wouldn't just leap into something that's all faith and nothing else. Ironic it is, for that's exactly what you believe I've done .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I cant see a soul.

Your eyes are still closed. I've seen spirits, and I can provide you with other accounts aside from my own of people that have.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I cant measure a spirit.

I've been able to sense them, discern where they are, what they're doing, whether they're good or evil, sometimes even details about what they look like. Sure, it's not exactly a common spiritual gift. But it does exist. You're lucky to find a firsthand witness .

I can't dissect one of course. Is that what you'd need?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But I can observe a million examples of genetics effecting various organisms in every way shape and form imaginable.

I think it's highly unlikely that you can provide examples of genetics affecting organisms in every way, shape and form imaginable . But your point is well taken. I think there's a lot of evidence supporting genetics as well.

For the record, there are millions of Christian spiritual experiences also. That's not even getting into the vast numbers of spiritual experiences among nonChristians (Buddhists, Hindus, New Ageists and many cults). So yes, there's a lot of evidence for genetics. But for the reality of the spiritual there's an overwhelming multitude of evidence existing from thousands of years ago and carrying right on into modern days.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You can even break down more mysterious behaviors like altruism and such that would at first blush seems contradictory to the genetic model. With humans, the difficulty is in that our consciousness allows us to speculate on why we do what we do. And its hard to get around that fact that we are aware of our awareness and STILL admit that we act like a machine nevertheless. It seems incongruous and backwards. But if we follow it from point to point to point you can see it. And it follows the very same models we see in nature. You cant do that with spirituality. Spirituality may still be in the equation. But we are going to need to boil down everything else to find that remaining last sliver that we cant break down scientifically.

We'll never get that good. I also tend to disagree with you that that's what we'd have to do.

Look at the computer in front of you. It's an incredibly complex machine, and you know virtually nothing about how it works. However, you can enormously appreciate the benefits you receive from it. You can play computer games or operate computer programs to accomplish complex mathematical equations without having to understand all of how the computer works. You gain from it without in your own mind being able to quantify it, slice it apart, know exactly how it ticks. You don't need that knowledge in order to appreciate it and work with it. Other people know how various parts of it work. Probably no one alive knows exactly how every part of it works. Hundreds of different people know how tiny different fragments of it work.

The fact that it does work is enough for you, without all of the dissection, without having to understand every detail of this machine.

So it is with Christianity. Each person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is like a user who owns his own computer. No one who knows Jesus knows everything about himself that he's provided. Everyone knows tiny different fragments of information. They can all use this great computer, they all know that it exists and that it works. Everyone can enjoy knowing Jesus Christ without knowing everything about the Godhead.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And in the end if such a thing exists I maintain even this we will be able to quantify in a scientific way. And this would be the ultimate prize now wouldn’t it. To understand the immaterial in a material way.

It would be interesting to see what science can come up with. But whether this will ever be possible or not, I maintain (with enormous supportive evidence, in my opinion) that currently the spiritual can already be accessed: by using spiritual methods.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Yes, that is an interesting tangent. I think it is so powerful within us because it mirrors God's nature. God is love. That he should make love the most powerful force in our lives, in the physical universe, make sense.

its amazing how different perspectives can lead to such vast differences in opinion on the very same subject. To you its quite clearly the reflection of gods nature. To me its quite obviously the most important emotion we have because it reinforces the coupling instinct and the protection instinct thus allowing us to breed and pass on our genes. For without love spending all the time and resources and energy it takes to be with a mate and to take care of your offspring would seem ridiculous. So the genes need something awful powerful to keep us bound to our mate and our offspring in a way such that it greatly insures their survival and the successful passage of our genes.

That seems a very logical conclusion to me, from your worldview.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Enter love… now if you look at lower animals you can see a primitive form of love. They too defend fiercely their offspring at almost all costs, taking on much larger opponents and going without food for long periods of time just to ensure the that their little package of genes remains safe and strong and secure. Who knows what they “feel� when they do this. I guess you would call it love wouldn’t you?

Probably yes.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

but in us, in our cerebral approach to our being, we experience the profound and powerful tug of love that makes all this just perfectly normal when if you really think about it its quite extraordinary. To spend your entire life with another being (or several other beings) as your primary focus. How many parents here would ever say they come first before their kids. I dare so none.

Actually, the fact that there are plenty of parents that are quite uncaring about their kids would be another evidence for influenced free will.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

At least not while their children are in fact children. Once they are on their own and out of the house well the nurture instinct isn’t quite as strong but while they are young its unparalleled. And love of spouse can be seen the same way. Intense bonding between the mated couple means the female is more assured of a faithful partner for her child and the male is guaranteed of a female willing to give up the costly investment of a human egg and nine months of her life hosting his genes. Pretty big deal. And jealousy in situations where this bond is threatened. All very animal really. All very natural. We can just label the emotions because we are conscious of them. But even though we are conscious of them we are not immune. It still controls us and shapes us just like it does the animals.

The nurturing ties are broken with age . . . wouldn't the love tie between male and female also break after the female ages and becomes infertile? Sure there are examples of that happening, but I think they're pretty small in numbers.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Agh! I really want to respond to this post of yours. Really do. Even if it's not all about the arguments about the soul.

...ok but yer gonna make me fall behind horribly.

It seems then that the system would logically be, "as many as I am capable of taking care of, that's how many I'll take." The richer people are, the more wives they'd then have.

wait why would rich people have more wives? Are you talking a purely polygamous situation where everyone is aware of everyone else and everyone lives with everyone else? I don’t think its so much the rich will have more wives (females can be rich too you know) but that the rich will get the better more selective mates which is what you see in nature. Probably why starlets only marry other movie stars or really rich producers. You don’t see a lot of em marrying joe blow 6 pack down the street. So the richer (more genetically fit?) people are the better (more genetically fit) their mate will be. Makes sense right? And that’s what you see. And as far as taking care of more kids, I think you also need to take into account that normally in nature survival is pretty hard so it pays to have a bunch of offspring because many may end up dieing before they are successfully breeding themselves. Therefore the pattern should be that the rich, whose offspring have a much greater advantage survival wise, will actually produce fewer children on average because these children tend to be much more successful in terms of breeding then the children of the poor. The poor need to churn out tons of kids to counter all the disadvantages they get from being poor. Kind of like how an insect has a million young because only so many of em are gonna make it to breeding stage successfully. So I think what we see in nature (rich having fewer but more successful kids and poor having a bunch of kids who are more likely to die or be less successful) makes sense.

What's really humiliating is that the number of Christian divorces is actually higher in America then it is among nonbelievers. That's what the statistics say. One big reason for that, though, would be that a lot of nonbelievers don't even bother with getting married in the first place. Many more of them have sex without worrying about the marriage.

hey an argument for sex before marriage. Better to try it on first before you buy it after all.

I do believe though that religious convictions are the reason why many people abstain from having sex others.

sure. They are learned and reinforced behavior.

Scientific experiments have been done on some non-Christian monks going into a meditation state. They found that a part of the brain that normally is highly active went completely motionless while the person was at the height of his spiritual experience. Whether this scientific phenomenon was caused by the monk himself or an exterior source is not known

ok but why would this mean anything spiritually. Meditation can alter your brain pattern considerably. It would make sense that normal patterns in say the cerebellum are limited while meditating. The same thing happens while sleeping. Dream state is dramatically different from wake state as far as brain activity goes. Listening to certain sounds, seeing certain patterns all this can directly effect what areas of the brain or active and how they are active. So im not really sure how this would be evidence of an outside source being involved or even some kind of X factor.

[Mercutio]

I think this sort of fits in the conversation.

What is serial monogamy but a form of polygamy?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One admission I'll make: Not all monks or nuns remained true to their vows. While they vowed to abstain from sex, some did not keep this vow. How widespread this was is not known.

yes I did my OWN little research into this and found a lot of references to this. Quite interesting. Have a look:

This is talking about the monasteries of central England. Not just one or two but the vast majority of them apparently:

Why the monks? Well, back in the 6th Century, some bright spark named Benedict came up with the theory that if you lived a life of denial, then you would have a hotline to God. You were, in fact, 'Holier than thou'.

Religious communities sprang up devoted to the three planks of this philosophy: Poverty, chastity and obedience.

Monks (and nuns) renounced all possessions, pledged never to have sex and devoted themselves to a lifestyle of deprivation and prayer.

Well, to start with at least, but before long, things changed.

When they arrived with the Normans, the monks set up religious communities with the most spartan of facilities.

But all that money praying for other people's sins soon added up, and it wasn't long before these communities had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. So they used it to build their magnificent stone monasteries.

These monasteries were the finest buildings in the land, built by hundreds of craftsmen with no expense spared.

Despite their poverty vow, the monks didn't have a problem with having all this money - it was being used in the glorification of God, after all.

Money-making skills didn't stop here, though, as the monasteries had a finger in every pie. As coal and ironstone were discovered, the monks at Lilleshall, Buildwas and Wombridge - another Augustinian Priory near present day Oakengates - were quick to take advantage, raking in money from mining.

In typical fashion, the monasteries of Shropshire were not all built by the same order of monks - in fact at one point there were nine different orders of monks, canons and friars operating monasteries in Shropshire - as well as a single nunnery.

There were Cistercians at Buildwas, Cluniacs at Much Wenlock, Franciscans at Bridgnorth, Benedictines at Shrewsbury and Augustinians at Lilleshall, Wombridge and Haughmond.

That was just for starters, as there were also plenty of monastic 'colleges' set up for specific purposes in Shropshire.

A good example of this sort of arrangement was the college set up on the site of the 1403 Battle of Shrewsbury, in order to pray for the souls of those killed in the battle.

As part of the Catholic church, the first loyalty of the monasteries was to the Pope, which made them immensely powerful.

No king could stand up to the will of the Pope - those who did face excommunication and eternal damnation - and the position in society of the monks seemed secure.

Gradually, they forgot about their vows as the money continued to roll in, but they had to keep up appearances. Behind closed doors the monks lived quite well and, while remaining true to the spirit of their vows, they found ways to get round the rules.

So it seemed these monasteries were in fact money making institutions. I hadn’t known the full extent of it till I started finding all this stuff online. So what a great deal for the monks eh? Sounds like typical human nature leading itself to living well when conditions are right. Perfectly animal.

Heres more:

All clergy generally swore the usual three vows usual to most Christian religious orders of the day: they swore to remain chaste, to remain poor (not to collect worldly goods), and to be obedient. However, many of these religious orders became increasingly rich as the medieval period wore on - many of the high clergy lived as princes - and many monks lived lives of great wealth and often laziness and corruption.

The corruption could, at times, be extreme. For example, the Church investigated a Norman convent in the late 1200s, and this is what the report states:

Johanna kept going out alone with a man named Gayllard, and within a year she had a child by him. The subprioress is suspected with Thomas the carter, her sister Idonia with Crisinatus, and the prior of Gisorcium is always coming to the convent for Idonia. Phillipa of Rouen is suspected with a priest of Suentre ... Margurita [is suspected] with Richard de Genville, a cleric; Agnes with a priest of Guerreville ... All wear their hair improperly and perfume their veils. Jacqueline came back pregnant from visiting a certain chaplain who was expelled from his house as a result of this. Agnes was suspected with the same chaplain. Ermengard and Johanna beat each other. The prioress is drunk almost every night.

extreme you say? Animals!

Perhaps the most interesting of the clerical corruptions are the social ones. It has already been addressed that the vow of poverty had been broken in half, smashed and ground into the dirt. The status of their vow of chastity was in even worse condition. “[T]he nuns of Godstow spread syphilis in England—and, what was worse, they spread it to their neighbors’ husbands. The corruption was remarked at all levels, and there was no form of sin the clergy left untried� (Mee 152). Alexander VI fathered several illegitimate children, four of which were those children of his friend, whom he provided with benefices and spectacular marriages. In comments on medieval men’s and women’s convents, they are described as differing little from public brothels (Durant 20).

my goodness. Strong words there. And im not even gonna get into what someone told me about Chaucer’s Canturbery tails about decedent and corrupt and sinful monks and their hierarchy. Now im sure this was not true of EACH and EVERY monastery and convent of course and there WERE devout people who didn’t fall into temptation but it sure sounds pretty wide spread. And that would CERTAINLY follow the pattern of nature where you take what is available to you. So I don’t know if you want to champion the monastic movement as the supreme example of how humans are way above animals. Seems to me it shows a lot of things you find in nature instead.

Rest of post:

Good bread, better beer and beautiful garden . . . that's not the medieval ages.

when was that then? When I think of monks I think of beer. And theres tons of monasteries up in Belgium that still brew to this day (and some of the best brew around I might add).

So you see, one doesn't see in this picture a bunch of serfs being bounced up to high born privilege. You see a bunch of noblemen taking approximately the same privileges they've always been accustomed to, though perhaps somewhat less. The widespread monasticism during the earlier Medieval Ages was a life of poverty and hard work.

sure but very few monks starved. And im guessing they had better access to clean water and shelter. So basically it wasn’t necessarily the ritz carrlton no but it sure was nice to have a guaranteed four squares for the rest of your life and a roof over your shoulders and companionship. All that is really really important to your typical human. And the monostaries I have seen looked awful impressive. And you would actually be educated! That’s huge. Even many noblemen never learned to read let alone scribe.

Gosh. I always thought that in the Medieval Ages men weren't the only peasants .

but they tended to be the only providers. women weren’t exactly accepted as corporate CEO’s back then.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I think this sort of fits in the conversation.

What is serial monogamy but a form of polygamy?

serial monogamy? well if you are referring to monogamists that cheat I dont think so. polygamy refers to multiple MARRIAGES generally. im not sure how you would categorize cheating spouses really. i usually say something like primarily monogamous but with secretive polygamous tendencies.

[Hemel]

Serial monogamy ..... marrying, divorcing, marrying, divorcing .... like Hollywood stars and our King Henry VIII

Edited to add a quick question:

So I think what we see in nature (rich having fewer but more successful kids and poor having a bunch of kids who are more likely to die or be less successful) makes sense.

Yes, but is that genetic?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Yes, but is that genetic?

To breed as needed and not expend that kind of investment when not necessary? I think so. What do YOU think?

[Mercutio]

Here I go the third time, I hope the third time's the charm. (I lost my entire quick reply message twice already; it took so long to write I was unsigned in when I went to post.)

I was thinking along the lines of monogamists who cheat (I realize that would be loosely using the dictionary definition) but also marriage-divorce-remarriage-divorce-remarriage-etc. (I see now that Hemel mentioned that).

---

You should realize that the articles you quoted above are merely singular exceptions to general monastic life. Some monks were wealthy, contradicting their vows of chasity, however this is some (not all, and not even most). And I just noticed your one sentence "Now I'm sure this was not true of EACH and EVERY monastery." Of course not! It is so easy to dig up examples of corruption in any institution on the internet.

I also saw your third article (beginning "Perhaps the most interesting") is from a free essay website, so I'm a lot less inclined to believe it.

Do you think the monks had it easy? Here is some sample schedules from the Benedictine Order ( http://www.aedificium.org/MonasticLi....html#appendix [I was looking for my Wester Civilizations notes from last year about this but couldn't find them; the websites will suffice]). It looked like they got on average 5 hours of sleep. Constant prayer times; manual labor; 1-2 meals a day; etc. Doesn't look quite so easy to me. You can scroll up to read more about the Benedictines. Remember they were one of the more stricter orders of monks.

Here (from the same website) is an article "Common aspects of monastic life" ( http://www.aedificium.org/MonasticLi...alAspects.html ).

And finally the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on manasticism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm ).

Lief--have you ever seen the movie "The Mission" from the 80's I believe starring Jeremy Irons and Rober DeNiro?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

You should realize that the articles you quoted above are merely singular exceptions to general monastic life. Some monks were wealthy, contradicting their vows of chasity, however this is some (not all, and not even most). And I just noticed your one sentence "Now I'm sure this was not true of EACH and EVERY monastery." Of course not! It is so easy to dig up examples of corruption in any institution on the internet.

I heard about corruption in the source I was reading from as well. Hmm. I wish it was possible to tell exactly how widespread it was. Like you, I tend to believe it was certainly not most monasteries that were like that, but that's merely a belief. It's not enough.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Do you think the monks had it easy? Here is some sample schedules from the Benedictine Order ( http://www.aedificium.org/MonasticLi....html#appendix [I was looking for my Wester Civilizations notes from last year about this but couldn't find them; the websites will suffice]). It looked like they got on average 5 hours of sleep. Constant prayer times; manual labor; 1-2 meals a day; etc. Doesn't look quite so easy to me. You can scroll up to read more about the Benedictines. Remember they were one of the more stricter orders of monks.

I can provide further backing for this from the book I was writing. The monastic order was actually so taxing that Benedict said no one could become a monk until they had gone through a one year program as a novice. That program was designed to discover whether they would be able to endure the rigors of monastic life. If they were capable, they were admitted into the monastic order. Otherwise not.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Here (from the same website) is an article "Common aspects of monastic life" ( http://www.aedificium.org/MonasticLi...alAspects.html ).

And finally the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on manasticism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm ).

Thanks for the links.

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Lief--have you ever seen the movie "The Mission" from the 80's I believe starring Jeremy Irons and Rober DeNiro?

Yes, I did see it and enjoy it. It was a very good film, and very interesting.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
One admission I'll make: Not all monks or nuns remained true to their vows. While they vowed to abstain from sex, some did not keep this vow. How widespread this was is not known.


yes I did my OWN little research into this

I expected you would.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and found a lot of references to this. Quite interesting. Have a look:

This is talking about the monasteries of central England. Not just one or two but the vast majority of them apparently:

I would like to see what information you have that indicates a vast majority being influenced this way. I agree it was more than one or two. I have no problem believing it was a fair number (whatever that is). I'd need hard evidence before believing it was a vast majority though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So it seemed these monasteries were in fact money making institutions. I hadn’t known the full extent of it till I started finding all this stuff online. So what a great deal for the monks eh? Sounds like typical human nature leading itself to living well when conditions are right. Perfectly animal.

The extent to which monasteries became money making institutions I think was quite large. That started around the 900s, as I said in my other post.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
So you see, one doesn't see in this picture a bunch of serfs being bounced up to high born privilege. You see a bunch of noblemen taking approximately the same privileges they've always been accustomed to, though perhaps somewhat less. The widespread monasticism during the earlier Medieval Ages was a life of poverty and hard work.

It's also interesting to note that it was when money earning and other more secular things became important focuses of many monasteries that they greatly decreased in influence upon society. This makes sense if most people entering them are aristocrats.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

my goodness. Strong words there. And im not even gonna get into what someone told me about Chaucer’s Canturbery tails about decedent and corrupt and sinful monks and their hierarchy.

I've heard a pretty shocking example of sexual relations between monks and nuns also. A pool was drained and the skulls of many infants were found at the bottom, young people that had been born from relationships between monks and nuns and then killed in the pool. Really sickening.

However, you want to know something I learned as I studied Economics? The economics instructor was talking about the examples that are given on the news of one person's story being shown by the media. The person (the economist called Joe) has undergone enormous economic hardship. He lost his retirement fund and isn't getting paid his benefits. The economist instructor responded this: "I don't believe in him." Why not? Because he's only one person that the media are using. The economist looks at the statistics and views what they say. Is this guy a majority or a minority? He learns that from them, and then he makes a judgment. Unlike most people that just have time to watch the news, and they make their judgments based upon that single account.

The single account is not good enough. Even though we've got . . . let's see . . . three accounts here so far. Is that enough to judge the entire Benedictine Order? Is it enough to judge the centuries of the Medieval Ages, where thousands of abbeys filled Europe and vast numbers of monks dedicated themselves to following these vows?

I don't think three accounts are good enough, personally.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now im sure this was not true of EACH and EVERY monastery and convent of course and there WERE devout people who didn’t fall into temptation but it sure sounds pretty wide spread.

(Shakes head) Hmm. It's sad how difficult it is to tell, from our current standpoint.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Good bread, better beer and beautiful garden . . . that's not the medieval ages.

when was that then? When I think of monks I think of beer. And theres tons of monasteries up in Belgium that still brew to this day (and some of the best brew around I might add).

Not surprising to me . That's an image in our current culture. I see it in "Where's Waldo?" and R.A. Salvatore's fantasy books. Wandering friars drinking mugs of ale . But it's just utterly different from the medieval reality.

It says in the World Book that after the main time of the monastic order, the remnants dissolved into groups of wandering friars and never regained their former influence. Perhaps the ale toting friar image comes from them?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

sure but very few monks starved. And im guessing they had better access to clean water and shelter. So basically it wasn’t necessarily the ritz carrlton no but it sure was nice to have a guaranteed four squares for the rest of your life and a roof over your shoulders and companionship. All that is really really important to your typical human.

It's tough to make a comparison between the life of a peasant in those days and the life of a monk without information. Neither you nor I have looked into that enough, I suppose. From the fact that Benedict actually ordered a one year admissions program to see if people could handle the rigors of monastic life though, I would guess it wasn't much of a boost in situation at all.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And the monostaries I have seen looked awful impressive.

Like I said, I really think most of that came after the Medieval Ages, during and after the 900s when the monastic order became much more wealthy, gained lands and became filled with noblemen.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And you would actually be educated! That’s huge.

Huge to us now. In that time there was no printing press, and the only book was the Bible.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Even many noblemen never learned to read let alone scribe.

Quote:
Gosh. I always thought that in the Medieval Ages men weren't the only peasants .

but they tended to be the only providers. women weren’t exactly accepted as corporate CEO’s back then.

I just really don't think ability to marry was much of a factor in whether people joined monasteries or not. Sure, it might be for some. But I very highly doubt it was a very influential factor.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I think this sort of fits in the conversation.

What is serial monogamy but a form of polygamy?

I think I'd agree with Insidious, the difference lies in the fact that with polygamy you've got many wives for keeps, while with monogamy you're constantly switching wives. If you mean from a spiritual perspective though, the sin of divorce and remarriage vs. the sin of polygamy, I think there wouldn't be much difference.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Agh! I really want to respond to this post of yours. Really do. Even if it's not all about the arguments about the soul.


...ok but yer gonna make me fall behind horribly.

Okay. Respond to the rest when you can .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
It seems then that the system would logically be, "as many as I am capable of taking care of, that's how many I'll take." The richer people are, the more wives they'd then have.

wait why would rich people have more wives? Are you talking a purely polygamous situation where everyone is aware of everyone else and everyone lives with everyone else? I don’t think its so much the rich will have more wives (females can be rich too you know) but that the rich will get the better more selective mates which is what you see in nature. Probably why starlets only marry other movie stars or really rich producers. You don’t see a lot of em marrying joe blow 6 pack down the street. So the richer (more genetically fit?) people are the better (more genetically fit) their mate will be. Makes sense right? And that’s what you see. And as far as taking care of more kids, I think you also need to take into account that normally in nature survival is pretty hard so it pays to have a bunch of offspring because many may end up dieing before they are successfully breeding themselves. Therefore the pattern should be that the rich, whose offspring have a much greater advantage survival wise, will actually produce fewer children on average because these children tend to be much more successful in terms of breeding then the children of the poor.

I really disagree here. The rich aren't more successful in breeding. They can choose a wealthier mate with greater ease, certainly. That doesn't ensure greater ease in passing on genes though, for frequently this more successful mate isn't even going to be interested in raising children.

The poor are rarely bound by economic constraints from getting married- it happens whether they're poor or not. The rich are failing while the poor in my view are more successful, genetically speaking.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The poor need to churn out tons of kids to counter all the disadvantages they get from being poor.

You don't see this in modern society. The poor are spreading genetically while the rich are not. I agree that the poor have more kids in general. That seems obvious. But those kids don't die off, and the poor have larger families and spread more rapidly. The rich die childless.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Kind of like how an insect has a million young because only so many of em are gonna make it to breeding stage successfully. So I think what we see in nature (rich having fewer but more successful kids and poor having a bunch of kids who are more likely to die or be less successful) makes sense.

The rich don't always have more successful kids, and often they have no kids. The poor meanwhile do have many kids, as you say, but none of them die. All right, some do, but this is a very small percentage that die because of poverty in America. In other countries worldwide it's a much higher percentage.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
What's really humiliating is that the number of Christian divorces is actually higher in America then it is among nonbelievers. That's what the statistics say. One big reason for that, though, would be that a lot of nonbelievers don't even bother with getting married in the first place. Many more of them have sex without worrying about the marriage.

hey an argument for sex before marriage. Better to try it on first before you buy it after all.

I don't buy it .

Have sex before you're married and you're much more likely to get STDs. Condoms, when used properly among teens, only work 50% of the time I've heard. Plus, it would make the marriage all the more special if you've reserved yourself for your mate for life.

Anyhow, I could offer more arguments I expect. And you could respond to them. Should we continue?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I do believe though that religious convictions are the reason why many people abstain from having sex others.

sure. They are learned and reinforced behavior.

Yes, I agree. Just looks a little unhelpful from a genetic standpoint, to me. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Scientific experiments have been done on some non-Christian monks going into a meditation state. They found that a part of the brain that normally is highly active went completely motionless while the person was at the height of his spiritual experience. Whether this scientific phenomenon was caused by the monk himself or an exterior source is not known

ok but why would this mean anything spiritually. Meditation can alter your brain pattern considerably. It would make sense that normal patterns in say the cerebellum are limited while meditating. The same thing happens while sleeping. Dream state is dramatically different from wake state as far as brain activity goes. Listening to certain sounds, seeing certain patterns all this can directly effect what areas of the brain or active and how they are active. So im not really sure how this would be evidence of an outside source being involved or even some kind of X factor.

I agree with your analysis, and the question is also a valid one. This experiment and its results don't seem to be a powerful argument for religious experience coming from an outside source. Like with love, we see the chemical reactions and don't know whether a spirit is causing them or it's all physical.

What I was responding to in posting that was your statement, "we should expect to see some reaction in the human being to a spiritual visitation" (I reworded what you said, hope I got it right ). So I was providing evidence that this reaction you desire is indeed observed. Whether it was a spirit or not is still for others to decide for themselves, after evaluating the evidence.

[BeardofPants]

FM? Are you still going to change the title?

[Lief Erikson]

Eh? Oh my- I thought I already had changed the title. I changed it to "Why you believe what you believe", which would be inclusive of this current soul debate, and of other issues. It's a title RÃ*an was planning to make a topic with. She was debating whether to do so or not. Obviously, the topic still would be quite loose.