Labeling harmless actions/things/activities as immoral.

[Robert65]

You're painting Christianity with too broad a brush.

I am useing the brush that Christians have been painting me with for decades. The four examples I used are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all the things I have been called out for that are harmless in and of themselves yet labeled as immoral by many Christians.

The Bible only speaks to one of those things, the length of hair on a man, and that is subject to context. D&D seems to have occultish overtones, which makes a lot of Christians uncomfortable, understandably so. It says nothing about bras whatsoever, and nothing about heavy metal whatsoever. I'm a fan of metal myself.

Thus an object example of the subjectivity of Christian morality. Many I have talked to disagree with your assessment and stand firm in saying a woman going braless is sinful. It is as if some think bras have always been around when in reality they became commonplace during the 20th century, yet somehow humanity survived the many thousands of years previous to the bra being invented and finding common use.

Morality

What is the boundary that separates moral from immoral from amoral?

 

[Robert65]

It's probably too much to say that these things you've listed and designated as "harmless" are indeed this and nothing more. Moreover, it's probably not really equitable to juxtapose these things side-by-side, as if they're all of the same essence, because they're really not.

• Heavy Metal is a category that encompasses a spectrum of different view points among not only bands, but sometimes among band members within the same band. There might even be various viewpoints expressed among different songs that are all on the same album. So it may be right or wrong for a Christian to say "Metal is immoral!" Some of it is immoral; some of it isn't.

• D&D is a game that offers a malleable and variable perspective among its players and participants. So, for Christians to say that "it's immoral" is really nothing less than a gross jump to a conclusion without their having actually looked at the contents of the game. Nothing in the game actually teaches 'Magic.' Nothing in the game requires a person to desire to be 'evil.'

• Long hair on men? This is an interpretation about the length of hair based on a person's assumptions which come by the use of a particularly stilted interpretation of the Bible. So, I wouldn't give this item more than a few seconds thought. I'd be more concerned with whether the guy in question washes his hair and keeps it clean than I would be with measuring its length.

• Women who go braless? As long as they have a shirt on, I'm not sure how this could be construed as either immoral or unnatural in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the public act of breast-feeding a child probably shouldn't be seen as anything out of the ordinary either. But, here we are, in modern day society, concerned about what in Biblical times would be more or less a common, everyday thing. Now, on the other hand, women who jaunt down the boulevard in Manhattan, New York City, sporting bared breasts in support of a "free the nipple campaign" probably do need to receive a morally intoned glance and a raised eyebrow ... or two. Just sayin'!

I agree with almost everything you have said, which is very refreshing. Where I have a different view is on toplessness... in many cases acceptable for men while in few cases acceptable for women. Being in the presence of topless women has never caused me any harm. A woman going topless is certainly outside the social norm but I challenge others to explain to me how it is harmful.

In my opinion only that which causes harm can reasonably justify a label of immorality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with almost everything you have said, which is very refreshing. Where I have a different view is on toplessness... in many cases acceptable for men while in few cases acceptable for women. Being in the presence of topless women has never caused me any harm. A woman going topless is certainly outside the social norm but I challenge others to explain to me how it is harmful.

In my opinion only that which causes harm can reasonably justify a label of immorality.

I'm glad we can agree on a few things. That's always a good starting point in my view.

However, we might want to consider that there are different kinds of "harm" and that various activities or acts which people do may have more potential for social damage than just what is merely observable to us on a physical level. Then again, some of our evaluations are really the reflection of our respective value sets and it is possible that they simply clash at some point.

As for the fact that you're not "affected" by topless women, this may or may not indicate a psychological advantage that you have over [some?] other men. Maybe that is a good thing? But the additional fact that a woman may "decide" to walk topless down the street through a busy Metropolis in modern day U.S.A. may make us wonder just what "kind" of ethics and morality that same woman really clings to. The same kinds of inquiry might then take us back to the kinds of Heavy Metal we choose to listen to and then claim is "harmless." Can we really say that a band like-------------oh, I don't know---------------Pretty Reckless is harmless? I think we might agree that Stryper is harmless, but is Alice Cooper, or Marilyn Manson? By what criteria should be "draw the line"?

 

[Robert65]

I do respect your opinion and perspective regarding the influence (or lack thereof) of music on people's actions. Let me clarify my position – music alone is not the sole contributor to people's (violent or even lascivious) behavior, because other factors are always in play, but rather it can definitely intensify such actions by arousing feelings and thoughts. I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, however!

I still think there is room for agreement here. If others have a psychological predisposition that makes them act out in a negative way when listening to Metal... that is their problem and I should not be judged by their actions. Are not we all responsible for how we act? If so then music is not the cause. In the case of extreme behavior triggered by music, the music is not the problem as it does not trigger all who listen to the music. The problem is much deeper and psychological. The ignorant will place blame upon the music when the blame objectively lies upon the abnormal psychology of the listener who then acts out in a negative way. Music does not drive people to do horrible things, aberrant psycology does.

I am perplexed by your assertion that most people imprisoned are Christians – can you cite some sources to back up this statement?

My apologies, I will have to withdraw the claim of “most prisoners are Christian” as I cannot find an objective source to back the claim. Old belief has been thrown into the trash belief where it belongs. I did however find stats from Pew in the topic of Clergy and a breakdown of the denomination of Christians in prison. With that said it does nothin to change my argument that Heavy Metal is no more responsible for aborant behavior in criminals than Christian Hyms are responsible for Christians who commit crimes.

Thanks for challenging me on this one as it has helped me see where I was wrong. I do not know what the percentage of Christians in Prison is as I can find no objective data on the subject. Time for me to reassess old beliefs and vet them useing my current high standards for source citation.

Pew Research Data.
Religion in Prisons - A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains

Christianity does lack universal agreement on Biblical interpretation, I admit, but that is because believers do not take the time and effort to learn how to study scripture properly according to the universal principles of hermeneutics as agreed upon by Biblical scholars.

I doubt that all those who do the above have come to a universal agreement as to what the Scriptures say. It can be hard to get 2 people to agree let alone a significant fraction of 2.2 billion people. I would however respect any consensus from theologians and academics on religion.

One does not need to attend seminary nor be a scholar to be the student of God's word that believers are called to be. While Christians have good intentions when they earnestly read the Bible, the clergy more often than not fails to teach their congregations such things while much of the laity lacks interest in taking real responsibility for proper learning on their own; many have been overly influenced by secular culture and do more “fluff” study unfortunately. And those who lack the ability (for whatever reason) to do intensive study should be receiving teaching from those who can.

And herein lies the problem. Christianity is suppose to elevate Christians above their baser nature and secular desires, yet in too few cases it does. I can count on one hand and have fingers left over the number of Christians I have met in my 53 years of life who are my moral and ethical betters. I can count many Christians who talk the talk though and would need many more hands and fingers to do that.

I, myself, only learn from and study under teachers who are genuinely called to such a position, that being they have learned both Greek and biblical Hebrew, have taken the time to study the historicity of scripture, and apply the principles of hermeneutics to their teaching and study.

I respect that so long as said study has made you one who walks the talk.

As for your statement regarding the possibility that God doesn't exist thereby rendering the Bible a book of moralistic stories, that is a topic for another thread.

Agreed. Thanks for your perspective.

 

[Robert65]

However, we might want to consider that there are different kinds of "harm" and that various activities or acts which people do may have more potential for social damage than just what is merely observable to us on a physical level. Then again, some of our evaluations are really the reflection of our respective value sets and it is possible that they simply clash at some point.

I agree.

But the additional fact that a woman may "decide" to walk topless down the street through a busy Metropolis in modern day U.S.A. may make us wonder just what "kind" of ethics and morality that same woman really clings to.

The problem is when we fill in the blanks by “woundering” as opposed to walking up to the woman and asking her why she has decided to go topless in a country in which such an activity breaks social norms? I am here talking to you all because I am tired of my bias filling in the blanks in terms of what Christians are and why they do the things that they do. My bias has driven my anger against Christianity for far too long and I no longer wish to be a slave to my bias.

]The same kinds of inquiry might then take us back to the kinds of Heavy Metal we choose to listen to and then claim is "harmless." Can we really say that a band like-------------oh, I don't know---------------Pretty Reckless is harmless?

A good band that I like. How has listening to Pretty Reckless harmed me? If you cannot come up with how it has harmed me then how can we say the music is harmful? At best we can say that some with weaker character may give into their baser nature and act out in an negative way, but that hardly represents all who listen to said band. Music does not cause aberrant behavior, aberrant psychology causes aberrant behavior.

I think we might agree that Stryper is harmless, but is Alice Cooper, or Marilyn Manson? By what criteria should be "draw the line"?

The line should be drawn within the person and not the music. If one feels sinful urges when listening to Metal then perhaps it is best for those persons to avoid the genre altogether.

 

[Sketcher]

I am useing the brush that Christians have been painting me with for decades. The four examples I used are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all the things I have been called out for that are harmless in and of themselves yet labeled as immoral by many Christians.

Did you not know that more reasonable Christians than them exist?

Thus an object example of the subjectivity of Christian morality. Many I have talked to disagree with your assessment and stand firm in saying a woman going braless is sinful. It is as if some think bras have always been around when in reality they became commonplace during the 20th century, yet somehow humanity survived the many thousands of years previous to the bra being invented and finding common use.

Right, the most I can possibly give them is the combination of being bra-less and a light-colored and/or tight shirt can be seen as immodest, and immodesty for either gender is sinful.

What is the boundary that separates moral from immoral from amoral?

Did you mean what is the dividing line between "morally neutral" and "morally wrong?"

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm glad we can agree on a few things. That's always a good starting point in my view.

However, we might want to consider that there are different kinds of "harm" and that various activities or acts which people do may have more potential for social damage than just what is merely observable to us on a physical level. Then again, some of our evaluations are really the reflection of our respective value sets and it is possible that they simply clash at some point.

As for the fact that you're not "affected" by topless women, this may or may not indicate a psychological advantage that you have over [some?] other men. Maybe that is a good thing? But the additional fact that a woman may "decide" to walk topless down the street through a busy Metropolis in modern day U.S.A. may make us wonder just what "kind" of ethics and morality that same woman really clings to. The same kinds of inquiry might then take us back to the kinds of Heavy Metal we choose to listen to and then claim is "harmless." Can we really say that a band like-------------oh, I don't know---------------Pretty Reckless is harmless? I think we might agree that Stryper is harmless, but is Alice Cooper, or Marilyn Manson? By what criteria should be "draw the line"?

In African tribes, women rarely cover up their breasts. The men there don't seem to go completely nuts at the sight of some nude boobs.

So I'ld say that this is just a rather arbitrary cultural thing. Judeo-christian and Islamic culture is, in that sense, kind of obsessed with sexuality. I think the only real reason why "western" men are so obsessed with nude boobs, is because it's presented as "taboo" and "off limits" from a very young age onwards.

And we can see that easily if we draw parallells.
How do you feel for example about women wearing a skirt? Or tight jeans? More then likely, you'll think very differently about that as opposed to naked breasts.

Now consider that men from rural regions in Afghanistan (who only ever see women in Burka's) think about skirts and thight pants pretty much the same thing as how we think about naked breasts.

Our psychological interest in those and our experience thereof as being "sexually arousing", is because of how we deal with that culturally, it seems to me.

But in reality, there is really nothing objectively wrong with topless women.
If you grew up in a society where topless women are socially as acceptable as topless men, then you wouldn't really care about it. You might not even experience naked breasts as being a sexual thing.

 

[Dave-W]

I came across this verse yesterday in my study. I am thinking of adding it to my signature:

Deut 4: 2
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.​

Our Lord criticized the Pharisees for adding to the commands.

 

[Phil 1:21]

What intended design does heavy metal run afoul of?

Like most anything, there is good and bad. Some heavy metal actually promotes what we would call Christian morality. Songs such as:

Anthrax's "Keep it in the Family", "Schism", "H8red", and "Indians" speak of racial equality.

Ozzy Osbourne's "Suicide Solution", Guns N Roses' "Mr. Brownstone", Metallica's "Master of Puppets", and Anthrax's "NFL" speak against drug and alcohol abuse.

Slayer's (yes, even Slayer) "War Ensemble" and "Mandatory Suicide", Exodus' "Fabulous Disaster" and Megadeth's "Polaris" speak out against war.

Megadeth's "Countdown to Extinction" and Exodus' "Chemi-kill" speak of responsible environmental stewardship.

I could go on.

Unfortunately, songs like that are the minority when it comes to heavy metal. For every song like the ones above, heavy metal is inundated by dozens of songs like Slayer's "Reign in Blood", Mercyful Fate's "Burning the Cross", and Exodus' "Toxic Waltz." And it's those images that are prevalent when folks label heavy metal, as a genre, immoral. In reality, heavy metal is no more immoral that pop music songs like Ariana Grande's "Lick the Bowl."

Short answer: It's not the genre that make's it immoral. It's the lyrics of individual songs that makes those songs immoral (like any other form of music).

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus gave us a guideline when he said "Do to others what you would have them do to you". This is simply the golden rule. That is a sufficient basis for ethics.

 

[Strathos]

What harmful activities are labeled as moral or amoral?

War. Hardcore drug use. Abortion. Bullying. Gluttony. Greed. Selfishness. Conspiracy obsession. Tyranny. Etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Jesus gave us a guideline when he said "Do to others what you would have them do to you". This is simply the golden rule. That is a sufficient basis for ethics.

Just for the record....
"Jesus" didn't give us that. At best, christianity borrowed it and / or claimed it as its own. But it's not original to christianity at all.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

 

[RDKirk]

Why does Christianity label harmless action/things/activities as immoral? Examples:Heavy Metal, Dungeons & Dragons, long hair on men, braless women, etc. Secondary question: What is the boundary that separates action from immoral action? If you cannot answer question 2 then how can you know right from wrong in terms of morality?

Note. If you claim something is immoral/wrong/bad, please say why with as much detail as possible.

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying. -- 1 Corinthians 10

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think on these things. -- Philippians 4

let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us -- Hebrews 12

Christians should look at the life Christ has laid before us the way a top athlete looks toward competition.

The question is not, "If I eat that Big Mac, will it cost me the race?"

The question is, "If I eat that Big Mac, will it make me faster?"

Sure, he can eat that Big Mac...but it's not beneficial. Sure he can stay up late and watch that movie instead of getting his rest...but that won't build him up.

The top athlete preparing for competition is always looking for what will make him faster, because ultimately what doesn't make him faster is making him slower--or at best is something that he will have to overcome.

As Christians we need to look closely at each thing and make such a determination.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just for the record....
"Jesus" didn't give us that. At best, christianity borrowed it and / or claimed it as its own. But it's not original to christianity at all.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

Of course the golden rule is found in other contexts but that doesn't negate its significance for Christians.

 

[Halbhh]

Just for the record....
"Jesus" didn't give us that. At best, christianity borrowed it and / or claimed it as its own. But it's not original to christianity at all.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

A key concept to apply:
If something is true -- the best possible solution available -- then it is not 'originated' by someone, but is already true (even before anyone discovers it).

See? 1+1 = 2 even before someone realized the fact. If someone states it, they aren't copying an originator, but simply stating a truth.

The sun already derived it's energy from nuclear fusion even before anyone discovered the fact. It was already a truth, not created by the mental conception.

Put another way, a true fact is never (and cannot be) an original work of art (if it were then it could be differently formed to have different attributes).

If humans have consistent innate attributes of any kind, if humans have a reliable human nature -- then there will be an attribute based best possible way to live, and that way is independent of any discovery. It preexists someone understanding it.

Ergo, the golden rule was not originated by anyone, except from human nature itself.

But, the truth, already existing, can be better stated by someone with better understanding.

The proactive and universal form is not the same as a passive or refraining form.

e.g. "Don't do to others as you would not have them do to you" is only a subset of a greater form:
"Do to others [only] what you would have them do to you."
which itself is only a subset potentially of yet a more universal form:
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you." (to help people realize it's not a limited rule for only certain domains of action)

 

[Phil 1:21]

Ergo, the golden rule was not originated by anyone, except from human nature itself.

I get what you're saying in the context of the quote to which you're responding...but who created human nature?

God.

 

[Rajni]

In African tribes, women rarely cover up their breasts. The men there don't seem to go completely nuts at the sight of some nude boobs.

So I'ld say that this is just a rather arbitrary cultural thing. Judeo-christian and Islamic culture is, in that sense, kind of obsessed with sexuality. I think the only real reason why "western" men are so obsessed with nude boobs, is because it's presented as "taboo" and "off limits" from a very young age onwards.

And we can see that easily if we draw parallells.
How do you feel for example about women wearing a skirt? Or tight jeans? More then likely, you'll think very differently about that as opposed to naked breasts.

Now consider that men from rural regions in Afghanistan (who only ever see women in Burka's) think about skirts and thight pants pretty much the same thing as how we think about naked breasts.

Our psychological interest in those and our experience thereof as being "sexually arousing", is because of how we deal with that culturally, it seems to me.

But in reality, there is really nothing objectively wrong with topless women.
If you grew up in a society where topless women are socially as acceptable as topless men, then you wouldn't really care about it. You might not even experience naked breasts as being a sexual thing.

Agreed. Its the Forbidden Fruit factor.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed. Its the Forbidden Fruit factor.

Personally, I'd rather NOT have a society where women or men run around nonchalantly in the nude just for 'nudeness sake' as if it's a party night at the Playboy Mansion..... just sayin'!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In African tribes, women rarely cover up their breasts. The men there don't seem to go completely nuts at the sight of some nude boobs.

So I'ld say that this is just a rather arbitrary cultural thing. Judeo-christian and Islamic culture is, in that sense, kind of obsessed with sexuality. I think the only real reason why "western" men are so obsessed with nude boobs, is because it's presented as "taboo" and "off limits" from a very young age onwards.

And we can see that easily if we draw parallells.
How do you feel for example about women wearing a skirt? Or tight jeans? More then likely, you'll think very differently about that as opposed to naked breasts.

Now consider that men from rural regions in Afghanistan (who only ever see women in Burka's) think about skirts and thight pants pretty much the same thing as how we think about naked breasts.

Our psychological interest in those and our experience thereof as being "sexually arousing", is because of how we deal with that culturally, it seems to me.

But in reality, there is really nothing objectively wrong with topless women.
If you grew up in a society where topless women are socially as acceptable as topless men, then you wouldn't really care about it. You might not even experience naked breasts as being a sexual thing.

Oh, so you're an expert now on the various moral guidelines and their attending outcomes that make up each individual tribe in Africa? Golly gee! I could have saved some tuition at the university---or maybe I could have just skipped higher education altogether---and just asked you instead!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course the golden rule is found in other contexts but that doesn't negate its significance for Christians.

That confirms its significance for humans.
Not just christians.

As the article says, just about any ethical and religious tradition includes this rule one way or the other.