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.
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)
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'!
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!
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.
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.
That would probably be covered by Jesus' second commandment, huh? If you wouldn't like someone else flying armed drones over your house and killing people, maybe you shouldn't be doing it to others.
Like I said, once one gets those two things from Jesus handled, not much reason for weekly meetings.
You really needed a university course to figure this out?
I frankly don't understand your point- it seems to be chasing after a straw man. Lutherans don't argue that understanding morality is exclusively Christian. Moralism is not the point of our faith.
Additionally, what standard are you using to proclaim an activity harmless?
No, but maybe you do. Apparently, you don't know how to recognize the difference between a Christian community situated in a Western nation where "topless" is problematic and a cultural situation that differs from this, such as it does in one of the many African Tribes residing in Africa. Duh! Moreover, simply referring to how African individuals who live in one of many tribes may conceptualize their mores regarding the female breasts doesn't tell us anything much about how those African tribes ACTUALLY function socially and/or appropriate and apply their moral ideas. It also doesn't mean that they get a free pass on the "morality scale" simply because certain anthropologists and/or sociologists may tell us "such-and-such."
....I mean, it's not like we're not REALLY living in a world of Moral Relativism.
For you to oversimplify the problem by referring to how the female form is thought about among African Tribes says little or nothing about how, say, Americans in the U.S. SHOULD see it or how they should regulate it....or even regulate the male form, for that matter.
You're reading waaaaay too much into it.
I never talked about "should". I didn't say one is better then the other or vice versa.
I was just pointing out cultural difference. And by that, pointing out that there is nothing objectively wrong OR right about naked breasts.
I am just as much a "victim" (by lack of a better word) of our cultural background then anyone else. I too think of naked breasts in a sexual manner. I too would feel uncomfortable walking in the streets and crossing a bunch of naked ladies. I too would be staring and thinking "hubba hubba".
It's just that I realise that I experience it like that, because I grew up in a culture that treats it like that.
Once more, to be extra clear: I never mentioned any "should"s. I never said one is "better" then the other. My only point was that clearly, there's nothing objective about it. It's subjective and based in cultural difference.
Right. Issues like this one are culturally diverse in their expression, appropriation and acceptance. But whether or not some people in African tribes have "no problem?" with this really isn't germane to how we in Western cultures may be having "problems" with social and media driven attitudes that are situated in our own culture and, perhaps, causing us some levels of social dysfunction. Of course, as a Christian, I'd say that they (i.e. attitudes like those of pornographers) are part and parcel of a network of modern social beliefs that run counter to those of the Bible.
What this issue ISN'T is one that has anything to do with supposedly naming and shaming some part of the female anatomy. No, that isn't at issue at all here! Of course female breasts are natural. Of course feeding one's infants with those same God-given, natural breasts ... is natural. Of course, breasts play a part in the sexual intercourse that take place between a husband and wife. So, let's make sure we move that little distinction out of the discussion.
In which case, with what I'm making distinctions about in the issues above, I'm implying that there definitely is something RIGHT (and natural) about female breasts and their place in society (duh!), but that the social, attitudinal, and moral ways in which we may be tempted to display and represent female breasts, particularly in a raunchy or pornographic manner, may be WRONG.
Disagree.
You continue to speak about showing/not showing breasts as if there is an objective right/wrong there.
I completely disagree with that.
I'll agree that there is a subjective right/wrong. And even that is something I struggle with.
I find myself asking the question if "socially (un)acceptable" is really synonymous with (im)moral.
Because I feel like ladies showing their breasts in public is more appropriately called "socially unacceptable", while something doesn't feel right with calling it "immoral".
Because when I'm at the beach, and half the ladies are sunbathing in naked breasts, then it's suddenly pretty much socially acceptable again.
If they get up and then leave the beach to get an ice cream accross the streets, without putting their T-shirts back on, then suddenly it's not socially acceptable any longer.
At what does "morality" really come into this?
It's not clear to me at all.
But anyway, enough about naked breasts, lol.
I'll just agree to disagree here.
Jesus never claimed that when He spoke it He was introducing it for the first time.A lot of christians like to claim that Jesus somehow introduced this for the first time and that it thus is an exclusively christian idea.
I, too, have noted the possibility that there may well be people out there who simply don't want nice things to happen to them which, for them, makes the Golden Rule a bit of a dicey thing thing to burden them with.
But overall I would suggest that the world as a whole would be a much more pleasant place to live if people -did- live their lives by the Golden Rule. It certainly does provide a measuring stick which is always with us as we make our journey through life.
A great many are converted in prisons due to strong efforts to bring the Good News to prisoners, to the lost. Of course, once converted, they are still in that prison until released.
War. Hardcore drug use. Abortion. Bullying. Gluttony. Greed. Selfishness. Conspiracy obsession. Tyranny. Etc.
Really? Interesting. But i wouldn't expect the parole board to be inexperienced or easy to fool. They will probably learn by feedback how and which people they released early went out and committed crimes, over time.Also claiming to be Christian is a good way to get out of jail even though it's biased.
Seems like you are answering your own question.
Activities that cause harm, aren't harmless.
Seems straightforward enough....
Really? Interesting. But i wouldn't expect the parole board to be inexperienced or easy to fool. They will probably learn by feedback how and which people they released early went out and committed crimes, over time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?