Bouncing between Mr. Atheist and Girl Defined over Raunch Culture!

[2PhiloVoid]

How? How would you arrive at a moral truth?

..................I have a hunch that we could do so by: using all of the our [God-given] human capacities as they coalesce into our human thinking!

I could be wrong, though. Moreover, I think it would be would be ironic for you, supposedly such a one who is in your nameless "position," to then 'teach' me that there is no such thing as truth in morality, let alone morality as being an actual entity of any Real substance---and by Real I mean something that in one form or fashion, and not necessarily in Platonic fashion---we are hit in the face by, or at least we are able to smell its presence in our vicinity, for good or bad.

I'll just give you a hint though as to my praxis: I think it ridiculous that folks want proof for the substance of morality. They claim to want a demonstration, but all that is really needed is an openness to an ongoing exploration of the world of ideas (and people's circumstances) as well as to pay attention to their own pain and to that of others. Of course, I do realize there is that certain 4 or 5 % for whom this probably just won't work. However, I'm sensing that you're not really in that 4 or 5 %, Ana. Am I right, or am I right?

I'm sure you believe it true that it's morally good to wait until marriage before having sex. How would you propose to demonstrate/prove the truth of that?

... why would I need to "prove" this for it to have a force of meaning upon us? Besides, if there is no truth, then what is all of this reference and epistemological overture you're making to the existence of some "thing" called proof, along with the evidence that must surely be defined as a precursor to our other initial epistemological endeavors? [...and no I'm not really asking this with a sense of spite or acerbic candor. It does come across that way, though, I'll admit. But just ignore that. Maybe just take it for what it really is---a friendly Christian nudge that sees your spiritual predicament and would like to help you over the threshold toward accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior.]

Awww...all the philosophy you've read and you never delved into The Prince?? It's a singular work....there's nothing like it.

Nope, and I'll have to admit that in that area of study, I have been duly negligent. I probably don't have a good excuse or alibi for having not read it as yet, and this makes me suddenly feel quite deficient when I compare myself to a couple of 'Sistas' whom I won't name--[@Silmarien, @LaBèlla ] but who I think have indicated they've read it. I do know that there was an excerpt of it in one of my philosophy texts back when I was taking a Social Philosophy class, but my atheist professor chose to skip doing a reading of dear ol' Machiavelli. (Shame on him, I guess!)

With that said, it appears I'm in luck, as luck would have it, because several years ago I picked up an older anthology volume of works of social philosophy at the used book store, sitting on the 25 ¢ close out table. It just so happens that what appears to be the work of The Prince--all 26 chapters of it, I suppose--is in there.

But in all seriousness, do you think I'd gain some additional benefit in reading it? Would you say that The Prince is one of your favorite works? Do you want to discuss its finer points? I don't know about you, but as I thumb through it, it's starting to look somewhat interesting, even chapter 23. Would anything in The Prince in any way apply to various issues in the OP above?

 

[Ana the Ist]

..................I have a hunch that we could do so by: using all of the our [God-given] human capacities as they coalesce into our human thinking!

There's a non answer if I've ever seen one. Making moral judgements isn't the same as proving moral truths. If I judge something good and you judge it bad....how do we know who is correct?

I could be wrong, though. Moreover, I think it would be would be ironic for you, supposedly such a one who is in your nameless "position," to then 'teach' me that there is no such thing as truth in morality, let alone morality as being an actual entity of any Real substance---and by Real I mean something that in one form or fashion, and not necessarily in Platonic fashion---we are hit in the face by, or at least we are able to smell its presence in our vicinity, for good or bad.

I don't think you can. If I were any more convinced, I'd tell you that I know you can't.

I'll just give you a hint though as to my praxis: I think it ridiculous that folks want proof for the substance of morality.

Because it doesn't exist.

They claim to want a demonstration, but all that is really needed is an openness to an ongoing exploration of the world of ideas (and people's circumstances) as well as to pay attention to their own pain and to that of others.

When you say things like this....you make it sound like certain behaviors have certain results for those engaging in them. They do not.

Of course, I do realize there is that certain 4 or 5 % for whom this probably just won't work. However, I'm sensing that you're not really in that 4 or 5 %, Ana. Am I right, or am I right?

No idea what you're talking about here. Please refer to my previous comments about the tone of your posts.

... why would I need to "prove" this for it to have a force of meaning upon us?

It can have meaning for you....it can have meaning for me. We create those and they need not be the same .

Besides, if there is no truth *snip*

Never said truth doesn't exist....I said moral truths don't exist. They are value judgements....which are subjective, even if agree upon.

Nope, and I'll have to admit that in that area of study, I have been duly negligent. I probably don't have a good excuse or alibi for having not read it as yet, and this makes me suddenly feel quite deficient when I compare myself to a couple of 'Sistas' whom I won't name--[@Silmarien, @LaBèlla ] but who I think have indicated they've read it. I do know that there was an excerpt of it in one of my philosophy texts back when I was taking a Social Philosophy class, but my atheist professor chose to skip doing a reading of dear ol' Machiavelli. (Shame on him, I guess!)

With that said, it appears I'm in luck, as luck would have it, because several years ago I picked up an older anthology volume of works of social philosophy at the used book store, sitting on the 25 ¢ close out table. It just so happens that what appears to be the work of The Prince--all 26 chapters of it, I suppose--is in there.

But in all seriousness, do you think I'd gain some additional benefit in reading it? Would you say that The Prince is one of your favorite works? Do you want to discuss its finer points? I don't know about you, but as I thumb through it, it's starting to look somewhat interesting, even chapter 23. Would anything in The Prince in any way apply to various issues in the OP above?

I think that in regards to the quote, he would think you're one of those who bangs his head against what "ought to be" instead of understanding what "is". Yours is a dying religion....losing relevance in an age where it's unnecessary. When I say "unnecessary" I mean that there are those who have abandoned it's values and risen to all heights of success and happiness however one defines such things. Similarly, I could just as easily point to those who have strived to keep it's values and are miserable failures (and vice versa). We are well past the point where such failures in life can be believably blamed on a lack of Christian values. Your time would be better spent changing Christianity into something relevant than trying to convince people of what obviously isn't necessary.

I know that sounds difficult but it's probably a more fruitful endeavor than the same old finger wagging Christianity has done for centuries.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your time would be better spent changing Christianity into something relevant than trying to convince people of what obviously isn't necessary.

I know that sounds difficult but it's probably a more fruitful endeavor than the same old finger wagging Christianity has done for centuries.

Like Pascal, I'd think that being concerned over one's impending death and the possibility of gaining Eternal Life should be sensed by most people as issues of supreme importance. And I'll also go with Pascal's reasoned notion that for an atheist to feel nothing in this regard isn't a strength but a dysfunction. But, what did Pascal know, right?

Anyway, thanks for the nudge toward Machiavelli. I'll be cracking open The Prince this weekend. I'm sure it'll make for interesting reading.

Peace.

 

[dzheremi]

To quote one of my favorite saints of the desert (who may not have said this with this exact topic in mind, but I think it fits, particularly in light of some other posters' musings on what purity and raunch even are in the first place), Amma Sarah said, "If I prayed to God that all men should approve of my conduct, I would find myself repenting at the door of each one. Rather, I pray that my heart may be pure towards all."

Then again, she also said to the brothers, ‘It is I who am a man, you are all women.’ (No, really.) So maybe she was just out to upset the apple cart in general. She was definitely too cool for 5th-century school.

 

[Moral Orel]

No idea what you're talking about here. Please refer to my previous comments about the tone of your posts.

lol He's insinuating that if you don't think morality is objective you're part of the 4-5% of the population that are sociopaths/psychopaths. He hit me with the same thing a couple of weeks ago. I think he's been watching too much Criminal Minds lately. Definitely one of the craziest* ad homs I've ever seen.

*Pun totally intended.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

lol He's insinuating that if you don't think morality is objective you're part of the 4-5% of the population that are sociopaths/psychopaths. He hit me with the same thing a couple of weeks ago. I think he's been watching too much Criminal Minds lately. Definitely one of the craziest* ad homs I've ever seen.

*Pun totally intended.

Look there, you did a "funny"!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To quote one of my favorite saints of the desert (who may not have said this with this exact topic in mind, but I think it fits, particularly in light of some other posters' musings on what purity and raunch even are in the first place), Amma Sarah said, "If I prayed to God that all men should approve of my conduct, I would find myself repenting at the door of each one. Rather, I pray that my heart may be pure towards all."

Then again, she also said to the brothers, ‘It is I who am a man, you are all women.’ (No, really.) So maybe she was just out to upset the apple cart in general. She was definitely too cool for 5th-century school.

Awesome post, dzheremi! I'm nearly speechless. Naw, I'm speechless. (Thanks for posting this!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's a non answer if I've ever seen one. Making moral judgements isn't the same as proving moral truths. If I judge something good and you judge it bad....how do we know who is correct?




I don't think you can. If I were any more convinced, I'd tell you that I know you can't.



Because it doesn't exist.



When you say things like this....you make it sound like certain behaviors have certain results for those engaging in them. They do not.



No idea what you're talking about here. Please refer to my previous comments about the tone of your posts.



It can have meaning for you....it can have meaning for me. We create those and they need not be the same .




Never said truth doesn't exist....I said moral truths don't exist. They are value judgements....which are subjective, even if agree upon.



I think that in regards to the quote, he would think you're one of those who bangs his head against what "ought to be" instead of understanding what "is". Yours is a dying religion....losing relevance in an age where it's unnecessary. When I say "unnecessary" I mean that there are those who have abandoned it's values and risen to all heights of success and happiness however one defines such things. Similarly, I could just as easily point to those who have strived to keep it's values and are miserable failures (and vice versa). We are well past the point where such failures in life can be believably blamed on a lack of Christian values. Your time would be better spent changing Christianity into something relevant than trying to convince people of what obviously isn't necessary.

I know that sounds difficult but it's probably a more fruitful endeavor than the same old finger wagging Christianity has done for centuries.

Machievelli is interesting reading, Ana. I'm kind of surprised thus far by what I find with the Prince. Being that I'm only on chapter 3, I'm sure there'll be more surprises in store.

Needless to say, I do kind of find one statement somewhat problematic, and as it reads it says:

"People should either be caressed or crushed."

Hmmm. That sounds a bit harsh, too harsh really, and being that Machiavelli apparently was inspired by the Romans for his suggested protocols, I'm sure he's not going to tell me what I want to hear.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Machievelli is interesting reading, Ana. I'm kind of surprised thus far by what I find with the Prince. Being that I'm only on chapter 3, I'm sure there'll be more surprises in store.

Needless to say, I do kind of find one statement somewhat problematic, and as it reads it says:

"People should either be caressed or crushed."

Hmmm. That sounds a bit harsh, too harsh really, and being that Machiavelli apparently was inspired by the Romans for his suggested protocols, I'm sure he's not going to tell me what I want to hear.

You understand the context of the treatise don't you? The intended audience isn't you or me.

So with that in mind, what do you think he's saying?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You understand the context of the treatise don't you? The intended audience isn't you or me.

Yes, I understand the general context.

So with that in mind, what do you think he's saying?

Yes, he seems to be saying that an effective ruler should cripple his opponents in such a way that they no longer have the power to enact revenge, and establishing colonies is one way to do this.

So.................it sounds like we need to raise up a bunch of ladies like those of Girl Defined and rush them into Mr. Atheist's life to establish friendship and...make it so he develops a strong interest in them. Then, they can occupy his life with their overwhelming Christian purity values, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I understand the general context.

Yes, he seems to be saying that an effective ruler should cripple his opponents in such a way that they no longer have the power to enact revenge, and establishing colonies is one way to do this.

So.................it sounds like we need to raise up a bunch of ladies like those of Girl Defined and rush them into Mr. Atheist's life to establish friendship and...make it so he develops a strong interest in them. Then, they can occupy his life with their overwhelming Christian purity values, right?

I think to do even that, you'd have to establish a theocracy and grind away any semblance of other faiths. Then you'd have to restrict freedom of speech, punish transgressors and then finally....

You could probably get away with "removing the immoral" from society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think to do even that, you'd have to establish a theocracy and grind away any semblance of other faiths. Then you'd have to restrict freedom of speech, punish transgressors and then finally....

You could probably get away with "removing the immoral" from society.

Yeah....................well, I think we both know that all of that AIN'T going to happen, what with the fact that the book of Revelation says what it says, and all.

With both biblical and just plain ol' practical, democratic political wisdom at hand, it sounds to me that for the most part, everyone will continue to enjoy the mediocrity of moral slouching that is bound to continue on for quite some time, here, there and everywhere in the Modern world. There's just not enough social or legal definition or support that the likes of Girl Defined could ever bring about to move a socio-political wave toward ever establishing a Theocracy over all of Mr. Atheist's compatriots. So, a number of folks will continue to keep hamming society up with Raunch Culture preferences as they see fit to do ...

As for myself, I'll keep reading on in Machiavelli's, the Prince, and see if he has any other tips on "making Christianity relevant" to society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah....................well, I think we both know that all of that AIN'T going to happen, what with the fact that the book of Revelation says what it says, and all.

With both biblical and just plain ol' practical, democratic political wisdom at hand, it sounds to me that for the most part, everyone will continue to enjoy the mediocrity of moral slouching that is bound to continue on for quite some time, here, there and everywhere in the Modern world. There's just not enough social or legal definition or support that the likes of Girl Defined could ever bring about to move a socio-political wave toward ever establishing a Theocracy over all of Mr. Atheist's compatriots. So, a number of folks will continue to keep hamming society up with Raunch Culture preferences as they see fit to do ...

Awww...I guess you and the Girls Defiled are just left with complaints then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Awww...I guess you and the Girls Defiled are just left with complaints then.

At least we still have our 1st amendment rights which afford the following kind of (verbal only) Freedom of Expression (see below) . On the other hand, I'm not really a huge supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. I just love Stryper's new 2018 album! Don't you? I especially like Stryper's assessment of Raunch Culture, or some portion of it! [Of course, for me to assert this implies that you'd have to be willing to listen to the lyrics and apply the 'H' word! Y'know: Hermeneutics! Then again, this last application wouldn't simply be applied to this one song alone but to the overall assessment one would make when engaging Stryper's entire album itself. ] Yow 'ZA!

 

[Ana the Ist]

At least we still have our 1st amendment rights which afford the following kind of (verbal only) Freedom of Expression (see below) . On the other hand, I'm not really a huge supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. I just love Stryper's new 2018 album! Don't you? I especially like Stryper's assessment of Raunch Culture, or some portion of it! [Of course, for me to assert this implies that you'd have to be willing to listen to the lyrics and apply the 'H' word! Y'know: Hermeneutics! Then again, this last application wouldn't simply be applied to this one song alone but to the overall assessment one would make when engaging Stryper's entire album itself. ] Yow 'ZA!

You know....I haven't quite had time for Stryper's new album. I've been listening to Infant Annihilator's new album since it came out....and I'd give you a link, but I don't think they have any songs that wouldn't result in my immediate expulsion from the forum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know....I haven't quite had time for Stryper's new album. I've been listening to Infant Annihilator's new album since it came out....and I'd give you a link, but I don't think they have any songs that wouldn't result in my immediate expulsion from the forum.

..... goodness gracious! I've never heard of that band, but it sounds somewhat provocative, so much so that I'm kind of leery about even googling it. Besides, I think I've had enough of that kind of 'theme' for a while since I've recently been debating some points about Numbers 31 over in the Apologetics section. So, I'll just take your word for it that your new album is a real killer on the ol' eardrums.

Alright. Enough bad jokes for now. Back to reading Machiavelli.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Raunch culture" is more of an artifact of a certain take on Christian ethics. The flip side of "purity culture".

Personally, I don't think our culture tends to respect sex enough, which means I don't favor the typical Christian prudery nor do I think American pop culture is a good guide to a healthy sex life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Raunch culture" is more of an artifact of a certain take on Christian ethics. The flip side of "purity culture".

Personally, I don't think our culture tends to respect sex enough, which means I don't favor the typical Christian prudery nor do I think American pop culture is a good guide to a healthy sex life.

You might have a point if it weren't for the existence of persons like Ariel Levy. So, no, I think the identification of Raunch Culture is bigger than simply being a motif of Christian Ethics, even if it is inherent to various forms of Christian Ethics.