Labeling harmless actions/things/activities as immoral.

[Halbhh]

Not sure about in prison, just going by what the common belief is wether it actually helps or not. Also it definetly does outside of it, just have to see every time a politician or pastor or celeberty does something morally wrong they just come out and say they prayed to jesus, or found god and suddenly people act like they never acted wrong. It seems for many a convient get out of jail free card, even if it's post jail.

For any that don't sincerely repent (for real)--
Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

 

[loveofourlord]

For any that don't sincerely repent (for real)--
Romans 2:6 God "will repay each one according to his deeds."

well the problem is it's a good con, and many christians fall for it.

 

[Dave-W]

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).

One that I never understood was why they said normal guitar tuning was ok but “drop D “ tuning was evil.

 

[stevevw]

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.

I think Christians label these acts as immoral because they are looking at the consequences and not just the act itself. The consequences of these acts are that this is the road to an unGodly life which has repercussions such as not being saved and other problems that are said to go with this lifestyle. But I would be asking if these things have a basis for being immoral in the first place. It seems that these depictions are stereotyping people rather than actually being morally wrong.

I think it is hard to make a case for whether something is morally wrong especially for Christian morals because they call for a higher moral standard. But for me, the measure of whether something is immoral comes down to whether it affects human well-being. Morals are based on what effect they have on others and yourself so they can be measured through the science. We now have sophisticated methods for measuring the different physical, psychological, mental and emotional effects on people. Effecting human wellbeing is wrong except in very rare situations that may be trumped by a greater moral wrong.

 

[Strathos]

funny I see alot of that coming from the right latly.

the whole war mongering we see so much.

selfishness and greed define the rights feelings about economy.

Conspiracy theories is sort of a mix bag, but just have to look at trump and alex jones to see all the insane conspiarcy obession latly.

On bullying it's a weird thing, as adult's it's frowned upon, as kids it's seen as building character and teaching kids the harsh truths about reality, and shouldn't be punnished.

What point are you trying to convey here?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Christians label these acts as immoral because they are looking at the consequences and not just the act itself. The consequences of these acts are that this is the road to an unGodly life which has repercussions such as not being saved and other problems that are said to go with this lifestyle.

Long hair is ungodly how exactly? Somebody should have told that to Jesus.

The truth is that these are all just manmade religious rules that social conservatives come up with to try to control other people.

 

[loveofourlord]

Alot of these things are more cultural then anything else, like with clothing hair styles and such.

 

[RDKirk]

Long hair is ungodly how exactly? Somebody should have told that to Jesus.

The truth is that these are all just manmade religious rules that social conservatives come up with to try to control other people.

Even as Paul preached about hair to the gentile Christians, he was certainly aware of the requirements of the Mosaic Law that would have kept Jews with long forelocks.

I think as someone mentioned earlier, Paul's use of the term "nature" in that day and age did not separate what was considered long socially proper from what was purely genetic. Short hair for men is the way Romans wore their hair. If he'd been speaking to Jews in Judea, he might well have said that long forelocks were "natural."

But it's important to understand what Paul was really getting at here. It wasn't actually a different point from Romans 13. I think Sam Johnson said it a great way:

"Never offend with style when you can offend with substance."

The Church was already going to be offensive enough to the world with:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

"Greeks and Jews, slaves and free, males and females, living together--mass hysteria!"

Why give them silly things like outlandish hair styles to prosecute you over when you were giving them real issues?

But in fact, even today, it's much easier to promote a morality based on surface procedures like short hair for men rather than weightier matters like making sure everyone in the Body of Christ has food, shelter, and clothing.

 

[Samaritan Woman]

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 psychology does.

Would Kip Kinkle have acted out violently without the influence of music? I don't know – given that the music literally glorified killing only God knows...and that's the thing, I honestly don't know what the threshold of influence of music goes in a listener's mind. If someone who is not predisposed to violence (such as yourself) listens to Metal, then I'm sure he will not become violent. However, if someone who is mentally and/or emotionally stable living within a toxic environment and is feeding his mind with such music, it might push him over the edge. But that is a statement backed up with no scientific data. But what about satanically-laced metal like Black Sabbath, or music written by satanists/occultists such as Jimmy Page? What about Rhianna glorifying bondage in her videos or Madonna dressed up as the Baphomet at her Super Bowl performance? While I'm sure none of Ozzie's listeners tried to bite the head off a bat, all of the above mentioned performers have one thing in common – they influence their listeners/worshipers to be adverse to anything holy or of Jesus Christ's message because it feeds the fallen nature. Plain and simple. And by the way, I can attest to this in my own life, pre and post Christianity.

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

I did a look-over of the Pew survey of prison chaplains; inmates do come to know Christ while incarcerated which is awesome. Jefferey Dahmer was one of them after his father witnessed to him; he came to faith and repentance before being killed in prison. I think I just opened up a can of worms here...

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.

While 2+ billion people call themselves Christians, a bulk of them are Roman Catholic and Orthodox which I have MAJOR issues with but this is not the place for such discussion. I myself am a die-hard Protestant who believes the gospel message, and I practice my faith daily. Among the world are people who call themselves Protestants but have only a said faith and lack any grasp of what the gospel is (I gleaned this from viewing Pew and other polls). So when you whittle all that down, there is not as large of the world's population who would be expected to agree. I know that doesn't excuse the issue, but I just wanted to provide some perspective on it.

There are many theologians and leaders in the (Protestant) church who disagree on secondary issues but agree on the fundamental primary ones, those issues which deal with salvation, the gospel, the Trinity, Christ's deity, and some others. Beyond that, believers are free to politely disagree on issues such as full immersion vs. sprinkle baptism as in certain areas scripture is less prescriptive and more vague. Does that invalidate Christianity? I don't think so, because if someone respects the Bible by giving it a decent read (more than just a few books/letters/verses) these fundamental issues should be apparent.

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 see your perspective on this, believe me. To begin with, many people who say they are Christians are not truly "born again" and "gospel believing" persons. Many were raised attending church but have never come to saving faith and thus lack the ability to inwardly transform. I will attest to the fact that becoming a Christian who possesses a witness of stature takes years to develop; it requires regular study of scripture coupled with confessing sin to grow one's intimacy with the Lord. When I got saved in 2000 at age 24, I was an absolute mess as a person with a terrible witness for years. It bothered me immensely that I was a poor witness as a Christian but I had to just keep plugging away at addressing my sin and other garbage for I was very immature and proud; eventually maturity started to come to fruition and my witness improved gradually. Now after 18 years at age 42 I can attest that my lifestyle, speech, and other areas in my life much more reflect my faith as Christ would have it. I know that this mini-testimony doesn't excuse all "bad" Christians out there, however. Sometimes it's difficult for me to understand how certain believers I come in contact with can be blind to their sin in a particular area, but that's the fallen nature. I will say that if a person leads an immoral lifestyle and lacks a repentant attitude over their sin, then I might question their faith.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Seems like you are answering your own question.
Activities that cause harm, aren't harmless.

Seems straightforward enough....

Different people view what harms them differently. For instance, there are some that believe that they are harmed by having someone express a view they do not agree with. As there is not a completely objective universally accepted measure for what is or is not harmless I am curious to know with some precision what harmless means to you so I can understand what about some Christian's view of morality you find wanting. I would expect that those Christians you are criticizing for talking a moral stand against things you see as harmless would not find the same things harmless that you do.

 

[Robert65]

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

Yes. Just not sure if they are the exception or the rule.

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

Sure, a suitable synonym. So what is the boundary that separates "morally neutral" from "morally wrong".

 

[Sketcher]

Sure, a suitable synonym. So what is the boundary that separates "morally neutral" from "morally wrong".

I'd look at the presence or absence of Biblical instruction, who in the situation involved is responsible for what/whom, who the action affects, and how. There may be other factors.

 

[Robert65]

Christianity doesn't do that at all. You are conflating a few Christians with Christianity.

How do you know that the bad examples of Christianity are the exception rather than the rule?

Additionally, what standard are you using to proclaim an activity harmless?

My own subjective standard relevant only to me and those who agree with me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

while I agree, the issue comes from what is the definition of harm

I don't really see that as an issue either.
To me, that sounds like asking what the difference is between "healthy" and "sick".

, many Christians would say the above stuff is harmful along with being gay

They'ld say that, but they wouldn't be able to show how that is the case.
Claiming something is harmfull, doesn't mean the thing is actually harmfull.

Harmfull are those things that cause harm (ie: objective decrease in well-being and/or increase in suffering).

, or worshipping other religions and such because it leads you away from god and goes to hell.

That's again what they believe, but not what they can show.
And obviously, if they are wrong and another religion is right, then they'ld be the ones going to the "hell" equivalent of another religion.

The point is: it can't be shown that such things are actually harmfull. So how can they be labeled as such?

The problem isn't definition of harmful, it's what qualifies as harmful.

Again, seems pretty straightforward to me.
Harm is a very real, very observable effect of actions or decisions.

If something can't be shown to being harmfull, then how can you say it is such?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Different people view what harms them differently. For instance, there are some that believe that they are harmed by having someone express a view they do not agree with.

They can believe what they want. The fact is, that there is not demonstrable harm there.

As there is not a completely objective universally accepted measure for what is or is not harmless

Perhaps not in the sense of exactly measurable in a unit, like "distance in meters" or something. But nonetheless, it's quite clear, no?

Sure, it gets subtle here and there, primarily in the sense of "indirect harm". But overall, I'ld say it's pretty easy to distinguish that which is harmfull from that which isn't.

Like if I break your arm. There's no discussion about that, isn't there?

I am curious to know with some precision what harmless means to you so I can understand what about some Christian's view of morality you find wanting.

Harmless are those things that do not decrease well-being and/or don't increase suffering.

I would expect that those Christians you are criticizing for talking a moral against thigs you see as harmless would not find the same things harmless that you do.

And I expect that all those things would not be demonstrably harmfull. They would not be talking about things that have demonstrable harmfull effects. But rather harmless effects that they believe will happen, in context of their religion.

There's no demonstrable harm there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you know that the bad examples of Christianity are the exception rather than the rule?



My own subjective standard relevant only to me and those who agree with me.

I disagree that concluding harmfullness, is a subjective exercise.

If I break your fingers with a baseball bat, I am objectively causing you harm.
If I steal your money, I am objectively causing you harm.
If I con you for your money, I am objectively causing you harm.
If I throw away plastic in the river, I am objectively causing harm to life in that river and the environment at large through pollution.

If I let my hair grow long, I'm not causing any harm to anybody.
If I am gay and in a homosexual, consensual, relationship, I am not causing any harm to anybody.

I think that what does and doesn't cause harm, is a pretty objective thing. Because the difference between well-being and suffering, is a matter of objective standards.
Just like the difference between healthy and sick.

I don't think this is a matter of subjective interpretation at all.

 

[grasping the after wind]

They can believe what they want. The fact is, that there is not demonstrable harm there.

If one is spreading NAZI propaganda would you not see that as harmful? And I suppose that a NAZI would see spreading anti NAZI propaganda as harmful. Yet the NAZI and those of us that would oppose them would both see our opinions as harmless or more likely contributors to well being.

Harmless are those things that do not decrease well-being and/or don't increase suffering.

And people's opinions on what qualifies as decreasing well-being and /or doesn't increase suffering differ greatly. Well being is as subjective an idea as there is. My idea of well being might be your idea of perdition and vice versa. You are basically criticizing Christianity for its opinion on what causes harm ( even though Christianity is not one monolithic hive mentality institution). You seem to be assuming that everyone would just agree upon what is and is not harmless when it is obvious to me and possibly to many of us that there is no general agreement on, let alone an objective standard to determine, what harms and what is harmless when it comes to every issue one comes across. Though there are certainly things one can say the vast majority of people would agree upon such as murder or rape being harmful, other things are less easily characterized as they may seem harmless to some but harmful to others like abortion or recreational drug use. Alcohol consumption seemed so harmful to a large enough group of people at one point that a Constitutional Amendment was passed to restrict it but later seemed harmless enough to enough people that the Amendment was repealed. To contend that something is harmless because I personally see it as harmless, or perhaps just want to see it as harmless, is not going to be applicable for people that are not me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If one is spreading NAZI propaganda would you not see that as harmful?

Demonstrably so, yes.

And I suppose that a NAZI would see spreading anti NAZI propaganda as harmful.

But not demonstrably so. The point.

Yet the NAZI and those of us that would oppose them would both see our opinions as harmless or more likely contributors to well being.

But only one side would be able to reasonably rationalise the position.
The other side will have to engage invalid argumentation at some point. There is no valid argument you can make, for example, to argue that all individuals of a specific ethnicity are to be killed, just because of their ethnicity. You'ld necessarily have to rely on fact manipulation, false premisses, etc to make that case.

And sure, you could say that a Nazi would say his logic is valid. But he'ld just be wrong.
A flat earther would also say his logic is valid. He'ld be wrong also.

I don't see this is any different.

And people's opinions on what qualifies as decreasing well-being and /or doesn't increase suffering differ greatly.

Not really, unless you simply rape the concepts.
I completely disagree that "well being" and "suffering" is up for subjective interpretataion. And I do mean completely.

For me, it's the same as "sick" and "healthy". That's not up for subjective interpretation either. Sure, there are "gray" area's. Like for example a glass of red wine every day. Is it good or bad? Some specialists will say it's good for this and this reason. Other specialists will say it's unhealthy for that and that reason. So which is it?

I guess it then depends on a case by case basis. If it's bad for the heart, and you have a heart condition, then the con's will outweigh the pro's.

The harmfull/harmless bit is the same.
In general, it's quite clear. In gray area's, it's a case by case basis.

Well being is as subjective an idea as there is

Disagree.

You are basically criticizing Christianity for its opinion on what causes harm ( even though Christianity is not one monolithic hive mentality institution).

No. I'm critizising christians. And not all of them, only those who are indeed taking their opinions, which they can not demonstrate, and try to impose them on other people.

If you wish to label something as harmfull, then show how it's harmfull. If you can't SHOW how it's harmfull.... then how is it harmfull?

Ow, you just "believe" it to be? Good for you. I don't.
If you want me to agree with you that X is harmfull, you're going to have to bring something more then "i believe it".

You seem to be assuming that everyone would just agree upon what is and is not harmless when it is obvious to me and possibly to many of us that there is no general agreement on, let alone an objective standard to determine, what harms and what is harmless when it comes to every issue one comes across.

I'm sure you can find examples of disagreement if a thing is harmless or not. My point is, one of you will be wrong.

Take climate change. One group thinks spewing trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is harmless. Another group thinks its harmfull.

One of both is incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion where nobody is wrong and everybody correct. This is not like "liking pizza more then burgers". This is not a matter of les gouts et les couleurs. This is a matter of objective fact. Does action A cause harm, yes or no. If your answer is "yes", you must be able to demonstrate the causal link between A and the harm being done, as well as identify the harm that is being done.

Though there are certainly things one can say the vast majority of people would agree upon such as murder or rape being harmful, other things are less easily characterized as they may seem harmless to some but harmful to others like abortion or recreational drug use. Alcohol consumption seemed so harmful to a large enough group of people at one point that a Constitutional Amendment was passed to restrict it but later seemed harmless enough to enough people that the Amendment was repealed. To contend that something is harmless because I personally see it as harmless, or perhaps just want to see it as harmless, is not going to be applicable for people that are not me.

You seem to be confusing ethics with harm.

I'm talking just about harm. Not about the ethical repurcussions thereof.
I also think that ethics is about more then just that what causes harm or not.

So how alcohol consumption is regulated (a matter of law) is not really relevant here. Mayonaise is harmfull to, but won't really become illegal... Nore is it "immoral" to eat it on your sandwich.

 

[Dave-W]

I think Christians label these acts as immoral because they are looking at the consequences and not just the act itself.

What are the "consequences" of using drop D tuning as opposed to regular guitar tuning?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What are the "consequences" of using drop D tuning as opposed to regular guitar tuning?

None of "moral" relevance.