-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Declining morals!
- Thread starter Karma2Grace
- Start date
katautumn
Prodigal Daughter
- May 14, 2015
- 7,498
- 157
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
People who view morality as being personal and objective in nature are not necessarily amoral. Let me give you some exmaples:
1. I can look at pornography without it hurting anyone. It certainly doesn't hurt my husband and I am not addicted to it. I don't even seek it out. The case may not be the same for someone else. Seeking to eliminate access to all forms of pornography to all people is a violation of a person's rights who can view such materials in an environment in which no one will be harmed.
2. Homosexuality does not hurt people, unless by "hurt" you mean your personal discomfort in knowing that two men or two women are engaging in acts you deem "sinful". Homosexuality does not take away from anyone's rights as a human being and a citizen.
3. Drugs are another topic altogether. Almost all narcotics are addictive in nature and, in order to feed the addiction, many people take food off their family's tables. This is a prime example of how drug abuse hurts other people which is a prime reason why they are illegal.
4. Sex is a private matter. Just because a person views pre-marital sex as immoral doesn't make it so.
5. Adultery hurts people. It hurts the person who has been cheated on and children when the family splits apart. This is why adultery is considered unethical, even in what you consider an immoral society.
You blame non-christians for this "moral decay". My response to that is, when churches can turn out completely pure and moral people - a 100% success rate in abstinence from sex until marriage, drug use, smoking, drinking in excess, adultery, viewing pornography, gambling, stealing, murdering, etc., then you can focus the blame on those who are not a part of the church. Until then, you cannot point the finger at any one group of people for society's problems.
1. I can look at pornography without it hurting anyone. It certainly doesn't hurt my husband and I am not addicted to it. I don't even seek it out. The case may not be the same for someone else. Seeking to eliminate access to all forms of pornography to all people is a violation of a person's rights who can view such materials in an environment in which no one will be harmed.
2. Homosexuality does not hurt people, unless by "hurt" you mean your personal discomfort in knowing that two men or two women are engaging in acts you deem "sinful". Homosexuality does not take away from anyone's rights as a human being and a citizen.
3. Drugs are another topic altogether. Almost all narcotics are addictive in nature and, in order to feed the addiction, many people take food off their family's tables. This is a prime example of how drug abuse hurts other people which is a prime reason why they are illegal.
4. Sex is a private matter. Just because a person views pre-marital sex as immoral doesn't make it so.
5. Adultery hurts people. It hurts the person who has been cheated on and children when the family splits apart. This is why adultery is considered unethical, even in what you consider an immoral society.
You blame non-christians for this "moral decay". My response to that is, when churches can turn out completely pure and moral people - a 100% success rate in abstinence from sex until marriage, drug use, smoking, drinking in excess, adultery, viewing pornography, gambling, stealing, murdering, etc., then you can focus the blame on those who are not a part of the church. Until then, you cannot point the finger at any one group of people for society's problems.
Upvote
0
*Starlight*
Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
- Jan 19, 2005
- 75,346
- 1,474
- 39
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
My thought is that saying that something is immoral just doesn't make any sense if you don't say exactly why it is immoral and what kind of harm it causes...
Upvote
0
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Well, Karma2Grace's problem seems to consist of his inability to distinguish between ethics and conventions.
(And of his reluctance to think about the norms that he accepts as "natural".)
(And of his reluctance to think about the norms that he accepts as "natural".)
Upvote
0
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Well, if I had to choose between Kant and the Catholic Catechism or - even worse - the ramblings of some Evangelical who thinks that anything that offends his narrow sense of "morality" must be evil, no matter whether it's homosexuality, "racially mixed" marriages or paper napkins... oh well, let's just say it wouldn't be a hard choice.
Upvote
0
7reeT
Member
Jane, relativism is pure nonesense. If all of society got together, and decided to harvest the organs of the homeless (for utilitarian principals), i would oppose it.
Karma, god doesn't solve this problem either. If he commanded to harvest the organs, I would oppose it, despite God's SUBJECTIVE views on the matter.
So how do we determine how to live in a world where the only absolute form of morality can from yourself, and youcan't cop out of responsiblity by invoking God, "The Common Good", "Society" or a million other imaginary structures people invoke when they are looking to do evil?
By living your life as an individual, with your actions corresponding to that which you find beautiful. There is nothing more you can do, and to do less is just cowardice.
Karma, god doesn't solve this problem either. If he commanded to harvest the organs, I would oppose it, despite God's SUBJECTIVE views on the matter.
So how do we determine how to live in a world where the only absolute form of morality can from yourself, and youcan't cop out of responsiblity by invoking God, "The Common Good", "Society" or a million other imaginary structures people invoke when they are looking to do evil?
By living your life as an individual, with your actions corresponding to that which you find beautiful. There is nothing more you can do, and to do less is just cowardice.
Upvote
0
And how does this (red text) solve the problem too? What you are saying is also relativism or individualism, which is basically do as one feels or sees fit.
Upvote
0
How does tolerance help to rectify the problem? And what would be your basis of determining that it was wrong? What basis would you use to persuade others to join you in stopping what you consider evil? I am only asking since you said that the alternatives to yours aren't really that good. I honestly don't see where yours is any better.
I am still trying to decipher this part of your earlier quote:
Upvote
0
7reeT
Member
You misunderstand me. I am saying that my structure is decidedly Intolerant. I hold my standard to be absolute, and I do not care if there are degnerates who differ in opinion.
I would not start valuing a Warhol at their selling rates, no matter how many people value it such. In the same manner, I would not value a person's ugly morals as equal, either.
I would not start valuing a Warhol at their selling rates, no matter how many people value it such. In the same manner, I would not value a person's ugly morals as equal, either.
Upvote
0
Casstranquility
Potato, pineapple, pickle.
Oh, goody, I believe in nonsense, I seem to do that all the time. Maybe it's because people don't really understand what relativism is. Those of us who believe in it do not have less morals then others, I am quite moral.
Right and wrong are definitely relative. To some, it is right for there to be war. To me, it is wrong. See, relativism. What are the absolutes here? Does war hurt people? Yes. That's an absolute. Tell me, is it moral to hurt people? If we built our world on true absolutes-rather than such terms as right and wrong-which can never be absolute-our world would certainly be more moral.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
