Declining morals!

[Exegete12]

Huh? What does that have to do with "declining moral values?"

Re-read the threads and you'll understand.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As in the days of Noah, so in the days of when the Son of Man returns. They were practising all sorts of vile acts, which were not frowned upon by the populace.

Such as stoning people for collecting firewood on the sabbath, you mean? Or finding peace of mind by believing that all who do not belong to one's own group will be tormented by the "just" God one worships? Yes, I agree that it is most shameful to attribute such barbarian practices and beliefs to supposedly benevolent supernatural entities.

At least when the Olympic Games are on they compete in clothes, in ancient Greece they competed naked. So we have moved on from there alright.

THAT's you biggest worry? NUDITY? Sheesh...
This reminds me, you know? A couple of months ago, I put a movie still from the TV series "Buffy the Vampire slayer" up as my Character picture here on Christian forums. It showed two female characters exchanging an innocent kiss (as a gesture of consolation, by the way, not in any erotic context whatsoever.) As an European, I couldn't imagine that anybody would take offense at such an innocent picture, but I greatly underestimated the common American prudery. Within a week, the hits on my CF home page increased from barely 40 to over 600, as people came rushing in to take a closer look at the outrage. This voyeurism culminated in a warning from the moderators, for the same people who obviously took such a delight in watching the picture (and interpreting all sorts of lewdness into it) were also the ones who felt a sense of righteous anger at being confronted with such... obscenity.

Or take the debate around the computer game GTA: San Andreas. There was a hidden mod in the game that allowed the player character to participate actively in some heavy petting with the female lead (rather than just hearing the sounds of it through a closed door). The American public figuratively BLEW UP, until the company released a patch that would once and for all eliminate the mini game. Now, my point is not that sex scenes are appropriate entertainment for teenagers. But in the light of the rest of the game, this whole scandal highlights the inherent schizophrenic absurdity of American prudery.
For this small game, moral or not, was the ONLY part of the whole game in which your objective consisted of causing pleasure to another human being. The rest centered on robbing people, shooting them, slitting their throats after sneaking up on them, crushing them beneath your car, immolating them, blasting them to shreds, beating them to death and so on and so forth. Nobody complained about those parts. No one. There was no moral outrage whatsoever at the prospect of having kids play a cop-killing, homicidal gangster - just at the display of a mutually enjoyed sex act.
Can you not see that?

Anyway, my point is that there is nothing even remotely immodest about nudity - unless we imbue it with such immodesty on our own. Nudity in itself can be perfectly "un-sexy", much more so than suggestive clothing. Besides, nudity doesn't kill or harm people - violence does.

 

[Steezie]

Re-read the threads and you'll understand.

Nice dodge, still didnt answer the question

 

[tocis]

According to the humanists' world view, morality is situational and autonomous.
[...]
Consequently, personal pleasure has become the final arbiter of morality.

Standard unsupported assertions. I don't know about the rest of the non-christians in here, but I'm not impressed by this posting of yours.

 

[tocis]

I don't see any relevance in your post....negroes and women rights has nothing to do with morals.

If you honestly can't see a connection here then any further attempt to discuss meaningfully with you, no matter what topic, is futile.

Doing the one right thing now...

*PLONK*

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

*PLONK*? What's that sound? Have you re-attached the plank to Karma2Grace's forehead after trying to take a peek at what's behind it or what?

 

[tocis]

*PLONK*? What's that sound? Have you re-attached the plank to Karma2Grace's forehead after trying to take a peek at what's behind it or what?

Now that you say it, yeah, that would fit too

Actually, "*PLONK*" is a signal word that (as far as I know) originated in usenet to let people know that you killfiled someone. You'd reply to the posting of that someone and just say "*PLONK*" and everyone would know that this was the last posting of that sender you ever got to see.

In other words, I just threw K2G into my ignore list

 

[Karma2Grace]

On the contrary, equality is definitely a moral.

Dude, You are missing the point. It is not sufficient to take couple incidents and claim that we are living in a 'golden' age. I am talking about the trend in morality....

 

[Karma2Grace]

Even if that was true (which it isn't, since equality and/or slavery are moral issues), there's more to my post than just emancipation issues. What about public executions? Stoning? Torture? Child beating as the prime educational method?

Am i supporting these actions in my post? The issue is not just merely taking couple issues in the past and compare.
It is just a strawman that you built

150 years ago, slaves were whipped to death by their "masters", public execution provided entertainment for people of all ages, and children were "educated" by means of physical force, which supposedly stimulated their mental faculties.
There was no time in history when everything was in shipshape. Neither today, nor fifty years ago, nor in Biblical times.

Again it is irrelevent, There may be a fault in the definition of 'mora'l . A society with money and power (like white amaricans against blacks) would have abused morals in the past but moral releativism is very evident and strongly encauraged in this generation only.

Personally, I prefer a society that tolerates homosexual unions (which do not involve any damage to any party involved)

Yes, I know your preference ! but i can also list 10 ugly and beastlike actions which also damages nobody Would you accept it?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

There is no such trend. Broadly speaking, things weren't "better" 20 years ago, nor are they "better" now. Some issues have been successfully resolved, others have appeared on the stage - just as it always has and always will.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Ugly and beastlike", huh? You're a funny one, Karma2Grace.

You proposed that there was a trend towards moral decay. I demonstrated that things weren't better in the past. So your point has been refuted.

Your problem with moral relativism seems to be that you just cannot grasp the concept, but instead equate it with "anything goes"-hedonism.

 

[Karma2Grace]

"Ugly and beastlike", huh? You're a funny one, Karma2Grace.



You proposed that there was a trend towards moral decay. I demonstrated that things weren't better in the past. So your point has been refuted.

OK You Won !
The definition of the moral is changed, You need to refute the human ideology towards morality than simply showing samples.

Your problem with moral relativism seems to be that you just cannot grasp the concept, but instead equate it with "anything goes"-hedonism.

OK Educate me, how do you decide something is "wrong"? What if your wrong is right for other?

 

[Karma2Grace]

It is tru my brother that morals have declined so much in this country, however we can point the blame at so many people. The following are responsible:

1. government- allowing casinos, pornography, strip clubs, poverty, pride

2. parents- divorce, foul language, degradation of values, ungodliness, alcohol, greed, jealousy,

3. children- drugs, sex, lack of education, violence, anger, hatred

4. religious institutions- hipocracy, power, competition, lenient

How do you suggest we attack these problems?

Peace.

It is all fruits of moral relativism.

How about answering
http://www.christianforums.com/t4161283-true-for-you-but-not-for-me.html&page=11

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

OK Educate me, how do you decide something is "wrong"? What if your wrong is right for other?

It is not an arbitrary decision-making process. Relative values exist on the level of a society as a whole, and these are not completely arbitrary, either. Were you able to follow me so far?
My personal take on morality is based on the common denominator that connects all cultures: the potential damage caused by a deed. This includes damage to oneself (addiction), damage to others (most crimes) and damage to the environment (inappropriate waste disposal). No man is an island. Since we are all part of an organic whole, we cannot cause damage to others without ultimately hurting ourselves. And society will protect itself against those who try to damage it. I expand these standards a little further, though. Whereas most societies do not consider it wrong to kill outsiders (and celebrate such killers as "war heroes" or "freedom fighters"), I consider these to be wrong, too, since such violence ultimately damages the "winning" party, too.

 

[Karma2Grace]

It is not an arbitrary decision-making process. Relative values exist on the level of a society as a whole

So if the society approves killing, does't make killing OK?

My personal take on morality is based on the common denominator that connects all cultures: the potential damage caused by a deed.

I am sure homosexuality is not a damage causing 'deed' for you, How about if it is damage causing for the other person?

This includes damage to oneself (addiction), damage to others (most crimes) and damage to the environment (inappropriate waste disposal).

Again all these parameters are relative so it means nothing to another person

No man is an island. Since we are all part of an organic whole, we cannot cause damage to others without ultimately hurting ourselves.

So you don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'

Whereas most societies do not consider it wrong to kill outsiders (and celebrate such killers as "war heroes" or "freedom fighters"), I consider these to be wrong, too, since such violence ultimately damages the "winning" party, too.

Excellent
You defeated your own point , Something cannot be true just because the society approves it isn't?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So if the society approves killing, does't make killing OK?

You still don't understand the nature of moral relativism, do you? I suspected as much.
It makes it okay to a member of that society - but it's doubtful that this society will then survive for long, because it will either self-destruct or else be brought to a quick end by its outraged neighbours.
Repeat: Relative isn't the same as arbitrary.

I am sure homosexuality is not a damage causing 'deed' for you, How about if it is damage causing for the other person?

How so? A monogamous homosexual relationship is no more damaging than its monogamous heterosexual equivalent. Unprotected promiscuity or forced sex acts are a different matter, but again, this extends to heterosexuality as well.

Again all these parameters are relative so it means nothing to another person

Correct. That's why whole species become extinct, people get raped and the heroes of one people are the villains of another.

So you don't believe in 'survival of the fittest'

Survival of the fittest is an observation, not a moral ideal.
If one gazelle runs faster than another, it is more likely to reach adulthood and pass its genes on to the next generation. If bamboo was to disappear, pandas would disappear, too, being so specialized that they cannot do without it. Other animals, however, might be able to survive its passing, being better adapted to the environment. That's the only thing indicated by the phrase "survival of the fittest".

Excellent
You defeated your own point , Something cannot be true just because the society approves it isn't?

And you still do not understand what relativism is all about. I hardly defeated my own point - I strengthened it. If morality was absolute, there could be no such thing as a society that promotes the killing of outsiders.

 

[elijah115]

Immorality, “Certain things are right and wrong, but I don't care!,” has now given way to amorality, which says, “There is no such thing as right or wrong!” According to the humanists' world view, morality is situational and autonomous. This means that what is right or wrong depends solely on the situation and what an individual thinks is appropriate in that situation. Consequently, personal pleasure has become the final arbiter of morality. Although we continue to act and talk like there are commonly accepted standards of right behavior, of fair play, of truth and honesty, of right and wrong, such is simply no longer the case in our culture.

This attack on righteousness or morality has produced the very worse results. Statistics prove there is more crime, more juvenile delinquency, more suicide, more adultery, more divorces, more homosexuality with each passing year. But then someone says, “What do you mean ‘worse’?” You see, when there are no standards, one can ask a question like this and many people will even think the questioner is smart. But, when one replies to the pseudo-intellectual's question with the remark, “By worse, I mean more immoral,” one had better brace for an indignant, “Don't you try to impose your narrow, moralizing views on me.” You see, in today's society, if one wants to convince Americans about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of something, one must not talk about morality. Instead, one must talk the language of a New Age. In other words, talk about health; talk about scientific facts; talk about self-esteem; talk about economic considerations; but don't ever talk about morality!

Any thoughts?

You are right. This is my experience too, I respond by praying to God that I will not merely talk about righteousness but be like him to others. I believe when the love of God radiates through us, it is more convicting than debate and it cultivates more peace and trust in God. I hope I am not sounding foolish by saying that. What do you think about my outlook? Where do you agree and what do you disagree about?

 

[peepnklown]

Any thoughts?

History will give you perspective on your ‘declining morals’ rant.

 

[czach8]

It is all fruits of moral relativism.

How about answering
http://www.christianforums.com/t4161283-true-for-you-but-not-for-me.html&page=11

I was hoping my brother that we can move on peacefully and have a normal dialogue on this issue. If you want me to answer your questions on an another thread before moving on to this thread, then so be it. If that is the condition you place on me, then that is fine. We will meet there shortly.

Peace.

 

[Karma2Grace]

You are right. This is my experience too, I respond by praying to God that I will not merely talk about righteousness but be like him to others. I believe when the love of God radiates through us, it is more convicting than debate and it cultivates more peace and trust in God. I hope I am not sounding foolish by saying that. What do you think about my outlook? Where do you agree and what do you disagree about?

Agreed, but if your point is "a true christian should not talk to others on these issues but be silient and act on it" then i disagree . It should be both