43Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut it's moral to have girls get their father drunk and rape him to try to get pregnant... according to Genesis 19 32 - 36. Can anyone confirm if that is truely what it is saying?
February 11th, 2009, 03:39 AM
But it's moral to have girls get their father drunk and rape him to try to get pregnant... according to Genesis 19 32 - 36. Can anyone confirm if that is truely what it is saying?
February 11th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Yes that is exactly what it is saying...Originally Posted by verzen
There are many contradictions in the Bible, because it has suffered from a mixed bag of contributions from what appear to be over-zealous and highly imaginative often dogmatic scribes.
Which is why I don't take the bible seriously and simply read it as a book with interesting, sometimes educational, sometimes bizarre, mythological stories.
Incest occurred a lot in Mythology, but it is often used to describe natural processes laws and phenomena. These are personified by the human mind in order to understand and express the natures and relationships of aspects found in the natural world.
Even in the YHVH formula of creation there is incest where the daughter sits on the throne of the mother and receives the seed of the father. It describes the cyclical process of creation.
It's a mistake to take the Bible or any Mythological story literally. It is better to read the story and imagine the Characters as representational and symbolic of something else, which is usually describing a natural force or an aspect of the human psyche
The bible also provides good insight into the mindset and beliefs of it's times.
The unfortunate thing about the Bible are the people which take it literally and use it as a dogmatic rule book of life.
Often the Bible especially Old Testament is more concerned with what is right than what is good. What is right is strict obedience to the commander, whatever His whim, regardless of your conscience. The lessons reinforce a martial attitude. That may not be pretty but apparently it worked... until the Romans.
February 11th, 2009, 05:13 AM
I think the story is presented saying that what the daughters did was a bad thing to do. The problem with most of the pentatuche is that it's a dry accounting of events, without any input by a narrator as to what's a good action and whats a bad action. Just because a protagonist does something in the pentatuche does not mean it was a righteous act. Presumably an oral tradition accompanied these stories and gave the moral lesson.
What was written can be interpreted differently by each individual. But how are we to know the true meaning of what is written when it was written thousands of years ago by somebody? During that time and culture that story may have brought on different meanings.
Now reading the story it is of course immoral for girls to do that. Anyone who thinks that it is right and whatever was written is true should probably go see a psychiatrist.
February 11th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Ah verzen, your stupidity grows with every passing moon!
What makes you think the bible says what his daughters did was morally correct?
It doesn't... it simply states what happened.
February 11th, 2009, 12:08 PM
Exactly!I think the story is presented saying that what the daughters did was a bad thing to do. The problem with most of the pentatuche is that it's a dry accounting of events, without any input by a narrator as to what's a good action and whats a bad action. Just because a protagonist does something in the pentatuche does not mean it was a righteous act. Presumably an oral tradition accompanied these stories and gave the moral lesson.
Ah Sox, your stupidity grows with every passing moon!
What makes you think the bible says what his daughters did was morally wrong?
It doesn't... it simply states what happened.
In all honesty, if the bible says 2 + 2 = 5, people would believe that 2 + 2 = 5. This is a form of blind faith and stupidity imo.
People can and will believe just about anything. But not most people. Many might spiritualize it and still believe the Bible has value. Many will see this as the final proof the the Bible is just BS. But I do have some hope that a lot less people would be able to say that they can stand by a "literal" interpretation of the Bible.
I don't.Ah Sox, your stupidity grows with every passing moon!
What makes you think the bible says what his daughters did was morally wrong?
It doesn't... it simply states what happened.
TWAZZOCK
Whats a TWAZZOCK?I don't.Ah Sox, your stupidity grows with every passing moon!
What makes you think the bible says what his daughters did was morally wrong?
It doesn't... it simply states what happened.
TWAZZOCK
I s that a cross between a twit and a wazzock?
whats a wazzock?
Have you never called anyone a wazzock?
Perhaps It's just a UK thing? Are you UK?
But what is a TWAZZOCK then?
You said it
Anyway
What I'd like to know is this-
If you decide you never want to get married are you then destined to remain a virgin all your life? Is that what Christianity would expect?
I have never been married because I can't see the point. I mean if you love someone and you want to be with them then you are and that's it.
I think people get married for lots of reasons other than love e'g security, to prevent the partner looking elsewhere, tax purposes and financially etc. To me that is so unromantic.
If I'm with a guy and we're not married then at least I know that he really does want to be with me and he's not just staying with me for convenience or to pay less tax! Or because he don't want to fork out for solicitors for a divorce.
February 12th, 2009, 10:50 AM
Yes I read that and thought. WTF.
But:
a: Doesn't say they raped him, just got him drunk enough so he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and a 'lady'.
b: They did it because they could not find anyone else to continue their kind.
Piece of advice, don't take anything in the Bible literally, or without salt pinch metaphorical either. In fact if you even bother reading it just take it like you would a celebrity magazine or an article in a newspaper. Any intelligent person can see the fallacies in reading any of that tripe.
If I get a girl plastered in attempts to have sex with her, I can be convicted of rape.. =P
Marriage, especially in the West, has changed. It used to be a frankly economic deal, initiated and maintained more between families than a "soul mate" thing between lovers. It was about division of labour, generations, social order. Now a combination of public services, individual empowerment, and low birthrate, have eliminated the need for marriage. It's just a minor convenience now. Material motives for marriage are even crass, mostly where they touch individual freedom/self-reliance, which is sacred to Western society above all.
Still people want to marry for tradition's sake. It's a rite and a mark of honour. So we justify it by playing up romantic love. The giddy heights of romantic attachment must equal or exceed the basic uselessness of marriage.
I think you, Absum!, don't marry because you're honest. Marriage is superfluous. And I see you reject marriage for practical gain, so apparently the more you think about marriage, the less attractive it looks. True love is antithetical to self-interest.
But wait: true love is superfluous. Its essence is irrational, and useless. And didn't we just see that marriage now is basically useless? Then marriage is the perfect silly sacrifice of the true romantic. We do it because it's unnecessary.
On the other hand one may be less enamored by individualism. A couple or even yet families may still have use for marriage. A profitable exchange may not be inherently romantic, but it does not exclude romance. Maybe you may have your cake and eat it too.
Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
, wahhh .. your worldly view is sooooo messed up
soon, this can of thing would be a norm' . there are good resson why you should wait untill you ready for "relationships".
What's with all these geeky little school boys on the net who think because they're on a science forum that they qualify for some kind of scholarship?Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit
Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
( before you squeal piggy to a moderator verzen piece of advice, it's fisherman who drop maggots in hoping for a bite.....and there's nothing I enjoy more than to laugh at little boys maggots)
Pong - my parents also put me off marriage.
Arguments & fights 24/7 always threatening to divorce.
I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
They are still together now and yes they still fight and act like they hate each other. (?)
What they showed me was the trappings of marriage and how people exist in a miserable unhappy relationship because they are simply too cowardly, pathetic and weak to get out!
It's a horrible feeling to have to pity your parents when you really want to feel proud of them.
They must have stuck together largely for your sake, at first. All in negative light. How can a child's mind deal with that?
Hey Absum! , let me offer some insight regarding geeky little school boys. An effective writer operates on the reader's level. Youngsters are normally best adapted to gaming forums, so they dumb down for the most childish segment of the audience. Lowest common denominator, you know. It's really inclusive and generous, seen that way. Then they try their skillz here, and fail. They must learn an additional language and habit of thought. Cleanly shifting between these voices takes practice.
Perhaps, what they've shown you but you haven't seen it yet, are the reasons why they got married in the first place. Those are the actual "trappings" you should avoid.
Don't get offended Absum, I was merely making a little joke. I use to play WoW and that was kind of the running joke even though I knew several girls who played it. =PWhat's with all these geeky little school boys on the net who think because they're on a science forum that they qualify for some kind of scholarship?Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit
Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
( before you squeal piggy to a moderator verzen piece of advice, it's fisherman who drop maggots in hoping for a bite.....and there's nothing I enjoy more than to laugh at little boys maggots)
Pong - my parents also put me off marriage.
Arguments & fights 24/7 always threatening to divorce.
I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
They are still together now and yes they still fight and act like they hate each other. (?)
What they showed me was the trappings of marriage and how people exist in a miserable unhappy relationship because they are simply too cowardly, pathetic and weak to get out!
It's a horrible feeling to have to pity your parents when you really want to feel proud of them.
I didn't mean to be rude Verzen, sorry if i was and I'm not offended i just like being cheeky back, feel free to pull my pig tails back!Don't get offended Absum, I was merely making a little joke. I use to play WoW and that was kind of the running joke even though I knew several girls who played it. =PWhat's with all these geeky little school boys on the net who think because they're on a science forum that they qualify for some kind of scholarship?Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit
Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
( before you squeal piggy to a moderator verzen piece of advice, it's fisherman who drop maggots in hoping for a bite.....and there's nothing I enjoy more than to laugh at little boys maggots)
Pong - my parents also put me off marriage.
Arguments & fights 24/7 always threatening to divorce.
I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
They are still together now and yes they still fight and act like they hate each other. (?)
What they showed me was the trappings of marriage and how people exist in a miserable unhappy relationship because they are simply too cowardly, pathetic and weak to get out!
It's a horrible feeling to have to pity your parents when you really want to feel proud of them.
Well Pong that's ironic that they stayed together for me and my sisters so it wouldn't be hard for us considering they put us through hell with it. And they certainly didn't moderate their behaviour in front of us. It was usually us kids pulling them apart and telling them to grow up!
They were simply to afraid to go their own separate ways. They disagree with everything and have totally different ideas about what they want to do with their lives. It's extremely sad that they have wasted their lives fighting. Now they are old and even more afraid to part so they stay together in their misery.
Q - My parents married in the early 60's, then it was the done thing, you got married you got a job and you had kids etc.
My parents hatred for each other has grown over the years from the resentment they feel towards each other. My dad was especially bitter and horrible to us kids as well.
What gave me insight was when i was younger and preparing to go traveling and my dad said 'I had the chance to go traveling once, but then I got married and had you kids'
My dad also was very artistic and never pursued it instead he ended up with a job in a factory because of the pressures of a young family.
By this my parents taught me how important it is to be strong and follow your ambitions and not to get trapped by circumstances and spend your life being miserable. (as well as making other peoples lives miserable!)
I suppose that's one of the reasons i never got married because i know behind the love bug sometimes things go tits up, even with the bindings of marriage. Better to keep the shackles loose so you can make a dash and leg it if you have to.
Nevertheless that hasn't stopped me having some very long good relationships in my life and I might get married one day......if i meet a man who can run faster than me.
Pong I know what your saying about youngsters, I've got a 14 yr old and have a constant backdrop of Wow warzone in my house! I also have teen lingo to interpret and he's as cocky as any other teenager. Sometimes I'm impatient with it and want plain intelligent speak but I am trying not to be!
What does track and field have to do with marriage? You want to make sure they can jump over all the hurdles first?
lolWhat's with all these geeky little school boys on the net who think because they're on a science forum that they qualify for some kind of scholarship?Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit
Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
Are you a christian? I'm a tad confused as this sentence would suggest you are, or at least religious, but then ony my thread about sex out of marriage you think it's ok to fornicate?I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
Absum! is basically Wiccan.
What an ugly word fornicate is.
Yeah, unpoetic. Goes with crankshaft and pregnant.
Oh how we should never act like the animals we are and go against instinct and complain about sex before marriage. She doesn't believe in marriage because it brings pain. It doesn't mean she can NEVER have sex again. Back with "adam and eve" they wern't married, yet they had sex. Then when they committed INCEST they weren't married to their children either. Christian Moral's: Foundation for Arkansas' Legal System.lolWhat's with all these geeky little school boys on the net who think because they're on a science forum that they qualify for some kind of scholarship?Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit
Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
Are you a christian? I'm a tad confused as this sentence would suggest you are, or at least religious, but then ony my thread about sex out of marriage you think it's ok to fornicate?I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
Well Eve was created from Adam's rib, so she was probably more a clone than a sibling. So it wasn't incest, it was masturbation.
there's an story by snorre sturlasson from before sweden was christened,
where a family was slaughtering a horse, and the boy in the family took the horses penis, and started teasing his little sister with it. the mother said, "no, you shouldn't waste something thats useful!" so she took the penis, dried it, and put it in a small box, and started praying to it as if it was a god.
and with every meal, she had the whole family pass the box around and pray on it.
then one day Olav the holy came to this family, and the woman in the house during the meal, started passing the box around, and everyone recited a prayer as usual.
but as the turn came to olav, he did not pray upon the horsepenis.
instead he started preaching about christianity, and how great it was.
the family listened, and though "ok, this sound reasonable, lets all become christians!"
i'm sure if you were brought up from childhood believing that praying on a horse penis would gain good fortune, you'd never really think critically about it, and do it for the rest of your life, bringing the tradition from generation to generation.
and i'm also sure myths around the penis would start to propagate as well, as people start to rationalize why praying on a horse penis would lead to good fortune.
Not that Num, if Adam and Eve were the only two humans on Earth... And they had Children.. Then either their children had to have children (sibling incest) or Adam and Eve would have to have sex with their children.
Ah, but what about Lilith? Adam and Lilith have an undocumented child. Said child has a kid with Eve. Likewise a child of Eve has a kid with Lilith. The two resulting children are cousins, which isn't incestuous. Etc. Etc.
Yeah, most cultures uphold mystical explanations for why they don't eat worms or drink pond water, why they schedule days to assemble together, etc. Jews don't screw pigs or leap from cliffs "because God forbids it." Okay God by your command I'll take the weekend off and love my children.
Cultures populated with socially bound breeding pairs survived while others failed. It's easy to see why, and see how that's changing.
According to the bible, lilith was never born. God made Eve after he made Adam...
Contradictions!!!
And cousin's having sex with cousin's is incestuous.
God actually said, "Thou shalt keep thy sex organ from entering they pig's body" ??Yeah, most cultures uphold mystical explanations for why they don't eat worms or drink pond water, why they schedule days to assemble together, etc. Jews don't screw pigs or leap from cliffs "because God forbids it." Okay God by your command I'll take the weekend off and love my children.
Cultures populated with socially bound breeding pairs survived while others failed. It's easy to see why, and see how that's changing.
Wow, he really did think of everything..
Not quite. We need God now to settle the fork or spoon question.
He already did.. with the spork.Not quite. We need God now to settle the fork or spoon question.
It's the transitional fossil of utensil's.
Very nearly so, in Leviticus 18, 23.
It just doesn't mention her. Same way it doesn't mention the female children Adam and Even presumably had.According to the bible, lilith was never born. God made Eve after he made Adam...
Cousin marriages aren't always considered incest. Darwin, for instance, was married to his cousin. It was very common in the 19th century.Contradictions!!!
And cousin's having sex with cousin's is incestuous.
That is not what is being stated.
NEW ADVENT BIBLE: Genesis 19
Just read the passage and you can come to your own conclusion. it depicts what occurs. never once stating what does happen as being okay or promoted.
Who were the Ammonites?
Ammonite (people) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Moabite (people) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
The people who are listed as having history to the people listed in the pasage were nemies of the isrealites though claiming similar blood line. perhaps this why?
In actuality, it is a mistake to read the Bible, or any mythical what ever - as either literal or other. it must be read in both. Only then can we recognize what was written, how, and why. Much of the Torah (O.T.) is written as a means of documentation. not taking it literal will leave gaps in reading.It's a mistake to take the Bible...litterally
IMHO it's a mistake and an immoral act to dredge up a nearly 5 year old numbskull thread.
Darn, I was just about to comment with links to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible before I noticed that this is a thread from 2009.
chero.
Please don't reopen 4 year old threads.
The mistake is getting your morals from a two thousand year old book and not from your own personal viewpoint.
Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?
As far as the pre-marital sex goes, people who do not have pre-marital sex would probably reduce their chances of contracting a STD quite substantially, as well as providing a two parent family for their children.
Please enlighten us as to how, we don't. The only way I can see that humans don't follow the ethics of reciprocity, is if they have been inculcated or indoctrinated.Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?
Everybody gets values inculcated and indoctrinated. If your mother told you some behavior was wrong, you were indoctrinated. If you learned to speak a language, it probably contained some words having moral connotations. You're indoctrinated. If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated. If you discuss moral issues with your friends, you're indoctrinated.Please enlighten us as to how, we don't. The only way I can see that humans don't follow the ethics of reciprocity, is if they have been inculcated or indoctrinated.Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?
What do you mean by ethics of reciprocity? What is the evidence for it?
Define "made up". I choose how to behave. I have a set of right and wrong ideals probably unique to myself.Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?
Do you act as society says you should?
This isn't really different than people choosing to follow the 2000 year old book or not. And, there have been debates about free will. Generally from what I've seen, many if not most atheists have argued that free will is just an illusion.Define "made up". I choose how to behave. I have a set of right and wrong ideals probably unique to myself.Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?
Society is not a monolithic entity, but yes I generally act as the segment of society with which I most nearly identify says I should.Do you act as society says you should?
its immoral have pre marital sex
OK
I HAVE SINNED
every damned time that i had the opportunity
and enjoyed every single one of 'em
...........
say 3 hail mary's
and all sins are forgiven
Not anymore, the bar has been raised in the catholic church since the last Pope resigned. You now have to pay pre-tax for pre-sex, married or not. Lol.
This isn't really different than people choosing to follow the 2000 year old book or not
Actually it's a lot different.
The old text, even if a completely accurate depictions of their society's standards (which is doubtful), are based on bronze-aged knowledge of human psychology, physiology, sociology, superstitions, no formal reasoning set in extraordinarily caste-based intolerant desert tribalism.
The other is informed by much more accurate knowledge people and the world.
I might disagree with that. I highly doubt any book has moral values which all directly align with mine.
I make my choices on a case-by-case basis, not on a general level. My values may also change over time as my experience in life builds.
Then your values much change as society grows. Mine change as well, but not in accordance with societal ideals (not even with the segment with which I most identify).
This thread reminds me of this tune....
Bob Dylan - Things Have Changed - YouTube
Probably true - but those were shaped by how you were brought up. For example, if your parents had told you "when you are with other kids, take their toys, because you only get one chance in this life to get things*"- your outlook on life would probably be a little different.
In some ways yes. The default is that I follow society's rules. If it's important to me I break them.Do you act as society says you should?
(* - making the assumption here that your parents did NOT tell you that!)
Then why do my morals not fall in line with my parents in regards to religion, capital punishment, politics, etc? We've very different.
I follow general rules of our society. I don't murder, rape, or steal. But I would argue that those are the norm for human behavior, not ingrained by society.
I think we all have a moral compass, for lack of fa better term, that develops as we grow and experience life. I don't think we should constrain ourselves to live by a book or even a series of laws. As our general fund of knowledge grows, so should our outlook on life and, in all likelihood, what we perceive as our morals. The idea that a set of morals can be the same (again, outside extremely general ideals) for a single lifetime, much less 2,000 years, baffles me.
I don't think it was based on bronze age knowledge so much as an attempt to record the mores of the dominant society of the time, which had outlasted many other competing systems. It wasn't consciously designed any more than a biological organism. If a biologist attempted to design an organism, they'd probably screw things up royally, because there's just so much that still needs to be discovered. And biology is miles ahead of the social sciences.
Do you think there is some research in psychology, physiology, or sociology to show that pre-marital sex is to be preferred over abstinence? I'd love to see it.
(Yes, all you smartasses, I know why you prefer it, but I'm looking for a scientific answer.)
If someone hurt me as a child, or kept hurting me, then I would agree that I was inculcated to not wanting to get hurt, and as such would not want to hurt others, because I knew what it felt like. Unless I became a sociopath because of it that is.Everybody gets values inculcated and indoctrinated.Please enlighten us as to how, we don't. The only way I can see that humans don't follow the ethics of reciprocity, is if they have been inculcated or indoctrinated.Do you seriously think you made up your morals all by yourself?Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.No. I'm learning a language.Only if I accept it without question.No. We are merely discussing it. If I'm forced to agree with a set of beliefs uncritically, then I'm being indoctrinated, If I given persistent instruction, then I'm being inculcated.
Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHumanity. We are social animals, and as such must live together, if we didn't have a golden rule. we would have never come out of the jungle. we would have died off as a species.
Right. You were shaped by your parent's influence, but not determined by it.
There have been plenty of societies where such things _were_ the norm. Fortunately we've progressed a lot since then, and nowadays not murdering/raping/stealing etc _is_ ingrained by society - at least for most people.I follow general rules of our society. I don't murder, rape, or steal. But I would argue that those are the norm for human behavior, not ingrained by society.
Agreed.I think we all have a moral compass, for lack of fa better term, that develops as we grow and experience life.
We all do it. You have your own personal laws you follow, and as you mentioned you follow general laws of society.I don't think we should constrain ourselves to live by a book or even a series of laws.
They're not; most people's morality evolves with age and experience. But they are based on what you learned when you were young.As our general fund of knowledge grows, so should our outlook on life and, in all likelihood, what we perceive as our morals. The idea that a set of morals can be the same (again, outside extremely general ideals) for a single lifetime, much less 2,000 years, baffles me.
Why do you define indoctrination only as forcing someone? Can't someone be indoctrinated by a loving teaching and persuasion? If not then what would you call the transmission of moral values by loving persuasion?Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.
I think you underestimate the impact of language on your view of the world.No. I'm learning a language.
What do you call it when you question it then accept it? Didn't the editorial piece still impact your opinion?Only if I accept it without question.
Again, I don't see why you limit it to forced agreement.No. We are merely discussing it. If I'm forced to agree with a set of beliefs uncritically, then I'm being indoctrinated, If I given persistent instruction, then I'm being inculcated.
You have not proven that the golden rule is innate. Behavior is impacted by both nature and nurture- how do you know which it was? It could still be something that is learned and transmitted from person to person. In fact, we do observe people teaching and reinforcing "the golden rule" do we not? Why would that be needed if it's innate?Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHumanity. We are social animals, and as such must live together, if we didn't have a golden rule. we would have never come out of the jungle. we would have died off as a species.
Also, we can observe people behaving aggressively toward one another. This has also been going on since before we came out of the jungle. So why wouldn't you think that is the natural state of humans rather than cooperation? This aggressive behavior was also probably instrumental to our survival.
Because the dictionary meaning and the term itself have negative connotations, the indoctrinated person is not expected to question or critically examine the information they have learnt. indoctrination forcibly or coercively causes people to act and think solely on the basis of a certain ideal, and not take any others into account.Why do you define indoctrination only as forcing someone?Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.
No! See above answer.Doesn't follow. Peoples morals are a choice they may be influenced by the society they live in. But essentially you decide on the morals that suit you. You only have to look at how society has changed over time to see how morals have changed also.
No! Sorry I write and speak several languages. And have lived in several different place around the world with different culture and morals. Words are the same no matter what language is spoken.I think you underestimate the impact of language on your view of the world.No. I'm learning a language.
If I question it. Then by default I haven't accepted it in it's entirety.What do you call it when you question it then accept it?Only if I accept it without question.Yes to an extent, but not to just blindly accepting it.
I refer you to my first reply.Again, I don't see why you limit it to forced agreement.No. We are merely discussing it. If I'm forced to agree with a set of beliefs uncritically, then I'm being indoctrinated, If I given persistent instruction, then I'm being inculcated.
I've never come across a person teaching another the golden rule. How do you teach someone that they don't want to be hurt/harmed. I think it is something we learn and experience and have the wisdom to embrace. Are babies born aggressive. We are all born vulnerable we know from the onset that being aggressive isn't going to help us. I haven't said that the golden rule is innate, however the wisdom to embrace it is.You have not proven that the golden rule is innate. Behavior is impacted by both nature and nurture- how do you know which it was? It could still be something that is learned and transmitted from person to person. In fact, we do observe people teaching and reinforcing "the golden rule" do we not? Why would that be needed if it's innate?Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHumanity. We are social animals, and as such must live together, if we didn't have a golden rule. we would have never come out of the jungle. we would have died off as a species.
I never said it wasn't, but we have the wisdom and the ability to choose.
Agreed. considering we are prey to a lot of creatures.
Why would it be immoral?
I've always regarded "indoctrination" to refer to instilling unfounded or harmful beliefs (or factually incorrect information) into another person.
I suppose I'd call the opposite, "education".
You are cherry picking one definition of the word "indoctrination." It hasn't always had a negative connotation. You see how language actually affects your thinking? I suppose the non-pejorative form today would be "socialization." As a practical matter we could say "indoctrination" is teaching of values I don't believe in, and "socialization" is teaching values I do believe in.
Have you noticed that people from certain countries, or certain parts of a country, tend to have similar beliefs? People in rural areas may tend to be politically different than those in the city. And, it isn't necessarily about the same topics that are drilled into kids in Sunday school. It can be customs like what kind of clothes to wear, how to ask a girl out on a date, when the use of profane language is appropriate, and so forth. This happens without any formal program of instruction.
I think the above was a non-answer.No! See above answer.
Yes, morals do change. Even people who believe in the Bible interpret it differently. I don't see how that affects anything we have been discussing.Doesn't follow. Peoples morals are a choice they may be influenced by the society they live in. But essentially you decide on the morals that suit you. You only have to look at how society has changed over time to see how morals have changed also.
Who do you think accepts things without question? People have been debating morals since time immemorial. This is just your way of belittling people who believe differently than you do. If someone believes differently, then it must be because they just haven't thought it through, right?Only if I accept it without question.
Really? Come on now. There is a form of the Golden Rule in the Bible. That's the very epitome of indoctrination, isn't it?I've never come across a person teaching another the golden rule.
Wait a minute. You're saying that the person is learning from a negative or punitive experience. I thought this was a bad thing.How do you teach someone that they don't want to be hurt/harmed. I think it is something we learn and experience and have the wisdom to embrace.
We know it from the onset, but it's not innate? I think you are contradicting yourself. How do we know being aggressive isn't going to help us? If this were true, nobody would ever be aggressive.Are babies born aggressive. We are all born vulnerable we know from the onset that being aggressive isn't going to help us. I haven't said that the golden rule is innate, however the wisdom to embrace it is.
i didn't and dont know what you are talking about
This thread was created on February 11th 2009, and the last time this thread was active before you necro'ed it was on February 16th 2009. That makes it a total of four years nine months and twenty one days since.i didn't and dont know what you are talking about
That's not what the dictionary says Definitions of indoctrinate - OneLook Dictionary Search A Citation is needed, Thank you.You are cherry picking one definition of the word "indoctrination."It comes from the word "Doctrine", which is a set beliefs held to be true. With the prefix "In" it means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them. Are you trying to tell me that is a good thing.No we effect the language as we create the words and there meaning, such as you are trying to do now. Indoctrination. I'm sorry to say does and has always had negative connotations. unless there is an obscure dictionary or language that has it as positive. but I don't think so.Of course it was for you. Because you are unwilling to accept that which is slapping you in the face.I suppose the non-pejorative form today would be "socialization." As a practical matter we could say "indoctrination" is teaching of values I don't believe in, and "socialization" is teaching values I do believe in.
Have you noticed that people from certain countries, or certain parts of a country, tend to have similar beliefs? People in rural areas may tend to be politically different than those in the city. And, it isn't necessarily about the same topics that are drilled into kids in Sunday school. It can be customs like what kind of clothes to wear, how to ask a girl out on a date, when the use of profane language is appropriate, and so forth. This happens without any formal program of instruction.
I think the above was a non-answer.Humans are basically mimics, to be accepted, but they do have a choice. When they are indoctrinated they don't. viva la difference!
No! See above answer.
People who are indoctrinated.Who do you think accepts things without question?Only if I accept it without question.Stating the facts as they are is not belittling anyone. If they are not willing to accept them that is there prerogative.
No! It simply means they are of a different opinion.
Only if you believe it without question. I don't equate indoctrination with the golden rule the two are mutually exclusive. You can't teach a person the golden rule whilst at the same time enforcing your beliefs on them.Really? Come on now. There is a form of the Golden Rule in the Bible. That's the very epitome of indoctrination, isn't it?
Well of course it is, experience good or bad is still experience, though we would all prefer the formerWait a minute. You're saying that the person is learning from a negative or punitive experience. I thought this was a bad thing.
Ok perhaps I should said we comprehend what is best for the self, we gather it from the sum of our experiences we gain from birth when we start to experience life itself.We know it from the onset, but it's not innate? I think you are contradicting yourself.I don't I never said it wasn't necessary sometimes either.
Then we would have not survived as a species
Ya know....I married my husband as a virgin....my choice...touring has too many temptations and I chose, personally to not go there.
Dammit was I wrong! *laughing*
He was, was he?Does he want everybody to know that?
Bratface....he wasn't!! I WAS!! *L* Biggest damn mistake of my life! *howling*He was, was he?
The first one on your list has this
TRANSITIVE VERB:
in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·natesThere is nothing in the first definition that implies any use of force.
- To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
- To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.
Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it? Do you want them to go out and steal something, then get caught and prosecuted so that they can learn it for themselves the hard way? Also, where in the definition of the word does it say they won't question their beliefs?
It comes from the word "Doctrine", which is a set beliefs held to be true. With the prefix "In" it means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them. Are you trying to tell me that is a good thing.
See above. The first dictionary definition in your linked web page.No we effect the language as we create the words and there meaning, such as you are trying to do now. Indoctrination. I'm sorry to say does and has always had negative connotations. unless there is an obscure dictionary or language that has it as positive. but I don't think so.
Citation needed.Humans are basically mimics, to be accepted, but they do have a choice. When they are indoctrinated they don't. viva la difference!
Citation needed.Only if I accept it without question.
You are going to have to give me an example of someone enforcing beliefs on someone else, so that I can tell what you are even talking about.Only if you believe it without question. I don't equate indoctrination with the golden rule the two are mutually exclusive. You can't teach a person the golden rule whilst at the same time enforcing your beliefs on them.
I'm not going take sides in your conversation with palvos just yet, because I'd like to see how it develops back into the thread topic of morality. But I will weigh in here for the following portion of your post.
Yes, I do want them to question it.
By questioning the values I impart to my children, it allows them to understand the reasons behind these values, and not simply taking it on my word. I will make it a point to explain to them the impact of acquiring items that aren't theirs to begin with and how similar deeds affects the original owners of these items. I will then demonstrate this impact by asking them to perform tasks which at the end yields a reward, and later have this reward taken from them either by force or through the means of theft; but return it to them at the very end of the lesson. A simple example may be doing chores for a time and rewarding them with a bicycle or the like.
Call me old-fashion but for me, it simply isn't enough to impart values without understanding the reasons behind them. If they have both arms and legs, they are able to work and earn their own possessions. This will allow them to appreciate the work they have invested into their possessions without depriving someone else of theirs.
I think in the scenario you described, you have implicitly imparted your values for respecting other's possessions, which he would not necessarily have come to on his own. He can see that Daddy thinks it would be a bad thing to harm someone else. You are not telling him to watch out when you steal something and make sure nobody else is looking. He is going to pick up the fact that Daddy would disapprove because of the simple fact that he is causing harm to someone. I think you would probably be disappointed if the child took away the lesson that it's bad only because he could get caught doing it. Do you want him to question that part of the lesson too?I'm not going take sides in your conversation with palvos just yet, because I'd like to see how it develops back into the thread topic of morality. But I will weigh in here for the following portion of your post.
Yes, I do want them to question it.
By questioning the values I impart to my children, it allows them to understand the reasons behind these values, and not simply taking it on my word. I will make it a point to explain to them the impact of acquiring items that aren't theirs to begin with and how similar deeds affects the original owners of these items. I will then demonstrate this impact by asking them to perform tasks which at the end yields a reward, and later have this reward taken from them either by force or through the means of theft; but return it to them at the very end of the lesson. A simple example may be doing chores for a time and rewarding them with a bicycle or the like.
Call me old-fashion but for me, it simply isn't enough to impart values without understanding the reasons behind them. If they have both arms and legs, they are able to work and earn their own possessions. This will allow them to appreciate the work they have invested into their possessions without depriving someone else of theirs.
Correct. Not every child understands the reasons behind values imparted if they only do so simply because we or someone tells them to.
No.
The point of the lesson with him being the victim is to reasonably ensure that he/she understands the emotions behind having their possessions taken from them by force or theft. If negative emotions are experienced via the lesson of having lost one's possessions, that association sticks via reinforcement. Simply telling them and having an obedient child follow orders isn't sufficient.
Suppose Junior then asks you why he should care about some other person's emotions. Yes, you have demonstrated that Timmy will be unhappy that Junior has his bike. So what, its not little Junior's unhappiness. Besides, Timmy's family is moving out of town tomorrow and will never find out.Correct. Not every child understands the reasons behind values imparted if they only do so simply because we or someone tells them to.
No.
The point of the lesson with him being the victim is to reasonably ensure that he/she understands the emotions behind having their possessions taken from them by force or theft. If negative emotions are experienced via the lesson of having lost one's possessions, that association sticks via reinforcement. Simply telling them and having an obedient child follow orders isn't sufficient.
At some point I think you'll have to just say it's wrong and that's that. And while you have not explicitly told him that, that is the message he will receive just by the way you have presented the lesson.
A religious person might go on to say it's chiseled in stone somewhere, God is watching, or something of that nature. An irrational explanation perhaps, but not more irrational than yours. Unless you want to teach him that it's only because he could get caught. That's rational, but probably not the lesson you want to impart.
Depending on his age; he may be a little too young to understand the concept of mutual reciprocity in a social setting, but I suppose the concept of emotional investment via the expenditure of personal effort in earning one's possessions ought to do for the time being if demonstrated correctly. Assuming junior isn't a narcissist and do possess some degree of empathy, explanations that map out possible outcomes of both positive and negative reinforcements isn't all that hard to achieve.
One only resorts to the above if he/she hasn't thought it through. Even a sociopath with a keen/intuitive understanding of value theory knows that.
It is possible that some lessons do not stick, but the fact that it doesn't does not mean that I am willing to deprive him/her the earliest and future opportunities for critical self evaluation. Yes, I do agree that simply having them follow orders may save a whole lot of effort and possibly frustration, but that also does not mean that reasons for values are absent. It merely reflects their inability to understand the reasons behind values due to their age and mental maturity.
All right then, I will play the role of Junior, and ask you, what is this mutual reciprocity bs and why should I care about it? Empathy, schmempathy. I already said I wouldn't get caught. I'm keeping the bike. Now, go ahead and tell me what I did wrong. I am just exercising the questioning attitude you told me I should have.Depending on his age; he may be a little too young to understand the concept of mutual reciprocity in a social setting, but I suppose the concept of emotional investment via the expenditure of personal effort in earning one's possessions ought to do for the time being if demonstrated correctly. Assuming junior isn't a narcissist and do possess some degree of empathy, explanations that map out possible outcomes of both positive and negative reinforcements isn't all that hard to achieve.
That's fine. May I ask what age group does junior belong to?
I don't know if it matters, because I want to find out why YOU think it's wrong to keep the bike. But if you think it does matter, consider two possible cases. One, he is 5 years old, and one he is a teenager.That's fine. May I ask what age group does junior belong to?
Two word; social contract.
Because it neither satisfies the criteria for ownership of the item even if in my possession, nor does it satisfy the desire for emotional investment in having acquired ownership of the item instead of possession. The distinction here is the difference between ownership and possession.
- If I possess it but not own it, it isn't mine.
- If it isn't mine, and I possess it, it still does not make it mine.
- If my possession of it does not make it mine, I will have to return it.
As I've mentioned earlier, the inability for children to process reasons behind values does not mean that the reasons are absent, and it does not mean "because I say so" is ever a valid reason.
You have stated some rules for a social contract. Where did you learn these rules? Are they innate (instinctive) and if not, who taught them to you? Why do you continue to accept these rules, even in case where it can be shown it would be to your advantage to violate the rules? Where does the questioning come in? If some people do not subscribe to the same rules, what is the reason for that - i.e., is it biological or social?Two word; social contract.
Because it neither satisfies the criteria for ownership of the item even if in my possession, nor does it satisfy the desire for emotional investment in having acquired ownership of the item instead of possession. The distinction here is the difference between ownership and possession.
As I've mentioned earlier, the inability for children to process reasons behind values does not mean that the reasons are absent, and it does not mean "because I say so" is ever a valid reason.
- If I possess it but not own it, it isn't mine.
- If it isn't mine, and I possess it, it still does not make it mine.
- If my possession of it does not make it mine, I will have to return it.
You mentioned empathy before, as an either/or proposition. He either feels empathy or he doesn't, but what if there is a conflict. Say he swiped the bike for his little brother because he felt sorry for him. They can't afford a bike for little Clyde. He feels empathy for Timmy also, but Timmy's family is well off, and they can buy him another. So now the rules are getting a little more complicated, aren't they? It's gone beyond feeling or not feeling empathy.
At the earliest point that I can recall, it was through the tutelage of my paternal grandmother. She explained how the nature of sociality, how the interpersonal relationships and cooperation works in a very general and rudimentary sense. Naturally as a child of a very young age made it somewhat a challenge to both teach and absorb these lessons, but I understood the gist of it in-order to adequately function in a social setting. What she did superbly was lead me through how (what I now consider to be) personal investment leads to a greater sense of personal ownership of one's possessions.
Some aspects of social contracts relies on the ability to empathize with our peers, and others rely on the understanding that abiding by the mutual reciprocity concept tend to be a more efficient expenditure of energy than it is to not abide by it. I tend to view it as not wiping my wet hands after washing it on the back of your shirt if you do not do the same with mine after using the restroom. Not having to constantly watch my back tend to be more efficient than it is to do so every single moment of my life. As part of a social species, our continued survival had once relied on mutual cooperation between individuals, smaller bands of individuals, groups of individual bands, and the eventual sociocultural collectives; it still does.
For the same reasons why you (and some of us) accept the rules of this forum and the governance of both the admin and your fellow moderators. That being said, the application of anarchical expressions does have a place in a wider social setting however.
At the start of our conversation, I have mentioned that me wanting my children to question the values I impart is to allow them the first opportunity to understand the reasons behind said values from someone who both knows and understands it. Simply obeying what I have said blindly isn't sufficient even if they do abide by it. The introspective properties of understanding the reasons behind why we do and don't do the things we do(n't) allows us to establish a foundation that can withstand assailment from both personal and external critiques on our course of action, motivation, and consequence.
As in temperament? I'd said both biological and social influences are present (or absent depending how we look at it).
If the subject encounters a conflict, simple; weigh the values. Positive and negative emotions that influences decision making either result in action or inaction, hence the motivation.
Call me cold, but I do not see it being complicated. It isn't complicated if we plot out the decision making process in what some consider to resembles a flowchart.
I am not satisfied with this explanation, and here's why. It is trivially true that cooperation can be a great benefit to the survival of a group or species. This does not explain the mechanism by which this operates at the individual level. It isn't sufficient to say that the species or group will benefit by this behavior; you also have to explain why the individual is willing to sacrifice for the group.At the earliest point that I can recall, it was through the tutelage of my paternal grandmother. She explained how the nature of sociality, how the interpersonal relationships and cooperation works in a very general and rudimentary sense. Naturally as a child of a very young age made it somewhat a challenge to both teach and absorb these lessons, but I understood the gist of it in-order to adequately function in a social setting. What she did superbly was lead me through how (what I now consider to be) personal investment leads to a greater sense of personal ownership of one's possessions.
Some aspects of social contracts relies on the ability to empathize with our peers, and others rely on the understanding that abiding by the mutual reciprocity concept tend to be a more efficient expenditure of energy than it is to not abide by it. I tend to view it as not wiping my wet hands after washing it on the back of your shirt if you do not do the same with mine after using the restroom. Not having to constantly watch my back tend to be more efficient than it is to do so every single moment of my life. As part of a social species, our continued survival had once relied on mutual cooperation between individuals, smaller bands of individuals, groups of individual bands, and the eventual sociocultural collectives; it still does.
You say it is just a bargain of convenience. I don't wipe my hands on your shirt, you don't wipe on mine. I don't think morals operate that way. That is a cold calculation, such as a one might expect from a sociopath. Conformance to social norms would only be an expedient. Most people don't act that way and I don't think you do either. They internalize the moral behavior. If people only conformed as a practical expedient, you would never see somebody sacrifice their life for another person, for example.
Then what decision do you think Junior will make and why?
Call me cold, but I do not see it being complicated. It isn't complicated if we plot out the decision making process in what some consider to resembles a flowchart.
Sacrifice as defined in OED is as follows.
"3. an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy"
In the context of theft, sacrifice does not apply because the item is neither ours to "give up" because we do not own it, nor is it fair game for ownership through the means of possession because it does belongs someone else.
Articulation through the means of emotional deconstruction yields the raw process down to its bare elements. One neither needs to have sociopathic tendencies nor be a sociopath to understand how value theory fits into decision making process; even in the context of philosophical analysis on morality. It is cold because we strip away the emotional elements to see what resembles an equation, and then reassemble the pieces back together to see where the values reside, which values are higher and/or lower than the others, how unequal values play off one another, how equal values can be unbalanced and sway in favor of a particular decision based on perception, attention, and any additional variables.
Noted on your observations and your expectations of me. I have no comment on this portion of your post.
With no familiarity with the temperament and personality of the hypothetical junior, I am unable to provide any reasonable answer.
You two are having a very interesting discussions with valid points on both sides and no antagonism!! YAHOO!!! Mahaloa!!
Sacrifice in the sense that you pass up an opportunity to possess the article. If you find a wallet with money you return it even if you could have kept it and nobody else would find out. The only thing you receive in return is the satisfaction of knowing that you have been true to your moral code.Sacrifice as defined in OED is as follows.
"3. an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy"
In the context of theft, sacrifice does not apply because the item is neither ours to "give up" because we do not own it, nor is it fair game for ownership through the means of possession because it does belongs someone else.
No, you don't need to be a sociopath, and of course people do make bargains of the sort you described. But it doesn't tell the full story.Articulation through the means of emotional deconstruction yields the raw process down to its bare elements. One neither needs to have sociopathic tendencies nor be a sociopath to understand how value theory fits into decision making process; even in the context of philosophical analysis on morality. It is cold because we strip away the emotional elements to see what resembles an equation, and then reassemble the pieces back together to see where the values reside, which values are higher and/or lower than the others, how unequal values play off one another, how equal values can be unbalanced and sway in favor of a particular decision based on perception, attention, and any additional variables.
The reason I asked the question was that you said earlier that it would not be a complicated moral decision, and could be mapped out in a flow chart. I think it would be complicated, because Junior is weighing his empathy with Clyde against an empathy with Timmy. He's going to use his moral training to come to a conclusion.Noted on your observations and your expectations of me. I have no comment on this portion of your post.
With no familiarity with the temperament and personality of the hypothetical junior, I am unable to provide any reasonable answer.
This is really the core of the issue. Pavlos says it just boils down to empathy or the golden rule. No need to write anything down in a holy book. You will automatically do the right thing.
Do you have proof that it is guaranteed to provide a two parent family for their children, in other words, that it ensures the couple stay married to provide that two parent family for their off-spring?
One of the main issues with abstinence and telling people that pre-marital sex is immoral, for example, is that people end up marrying too young because they want to have sex and/or then they discover they are not sexually compatible. I had someone in my own family do this to their daughter, who ended up getting married at 19 and spent two very unhappy years married, trying counseling and everything under the sun to save her marriage. Both found sex with each other intolerable. She was divorced by the time she was 21. She was brought up to be a good girl, to not have sex, to not even use a condom in case it apparently broke her hymen, because inserting anything 'down there' was wrong. It is something that the pre-marital sex is sin and immoral crowd do often to their daughters and their sons.
Sex is a very important part of a marriage. And not enjoying it with the person you are meant to spend the rest of your life with will result in a very unhappy person in that marriage. Convincing a person that sex is a sin and dirty before marriage and expecting them to have a healthy outlook on sex and even their own bodies and what they are feeling can destroy a person.
Irrelevant, the second however does as do the other 25. I think they all are a preponderance of evidence that indoctrination is negative. To teach is to impart knowledge and allow the pupil to raise questions, to indoctrinate is to enforce a certain set of values and not allow the pupil to raise any questions. I don't see why you continue trying to say that indoctrination can be a good thing.The first one on your list has this
TRANSITIVE VERB:
in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.
There is nothing in the first definition that implies any use of force.
Most certainly how else would they ascertain that it is wrong, without first understanding the concept of right and wrong.Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?Doesn't follow. I would hope that the wisdom I imparted, would make them good adults. In order to be accepted in society we must follow certain social norms, whether we like it or not. We need to do this to feel safe. hence why it is wise to embrace the golden rule.They may, but mostly in silence. How do you think people who returned to there original atheist state, did it. Certainly not without questioning it. But the very nature of indoctrintion is to brainwash it's victims even if the the doctrine being taught appears to be basically good.
Which failed. one semi good statement out of Hundreds of negative ones does not make it good, now does it.See above. The first dictionary definition in your linked web page.
Why! Do you not see that we all wear the same things, we all do the same things, and that we are all human. Although I have seen some people who change their hair and tattoo themselves to look like animals. Why I don't know!Citation needed.
Why! Again brainwashing, indoctrination, inculcation. aren't they enough of a prepondance of evidence for youCitation needed.
A parent teaching it's child, their beliefs from birth without giving the child the time and inclination to get to a point in it's life, whereas it can discern for itself, what it believes or not. Telling a child it will go to hell unless it is good is indoctrination and child abuse.You are going to have to give me an example of someone enforcing beliefs on someone else, so that I can tell what you are even talking about.
There is no guarantee of anything. However it seems likely that an unmarried mother would have a better likelihood of being a single parent than one who at least starts out being married.Do you have proof that it is guaranteed to provide a two parent family for their children, in other words, that it ensures the couple stay married to provide that two parent family for their off-spring?
I am not advocating anything, but just speculating how the prohibition against premarital sex might have arisen in biblical times, and might have contributed to the success of the dominant culture. This has nothing to do with somebody having a "healthy" outlook on sex. In order to contribute to the success of that society, it only had to promote survival and reproduction.
One of the main issues with abstinence and telling people that pre-marital sex is immoral, for example, is that people end up marrying too young because they want to have sex and/or then they discover they are not sexually compatible. I had someone in my own family do this to their daughter, who ended up getting married at 19 and spent two very unhappy years married, trying counseling and everything under the sun to save her marriage. Both found sex with each other intolerable. She was divorced by the time she was 21. She was brought up to be a good girl, to not have sex, to not even use a condom in case it apparently broke her hymen, because inserting anything 'down there' was wrong. It is something that the pre-marital sex is sin and immoral crowd do often to their daughters and their sons.
Sex is a very important part of a marriage. And not enjoying it with the person you are meant to spend the rest of your life with will result in a very unhappy person in that marriage. Convincing a person that sex is a sin and dirty before marriage and expecting them to have a healthy outlook on sex and even their own bodies and what they are feeling can destroy a person.
You haven't been paying attention, apparently. The definition of indoctrination that I am using is just the teaching of moral values. You still haven't given the example I asked for of the forcible indoctrination you keep crying about.
Okay, I get it. When you do it, it's imparting wisdom. When somebody else does it, it's indoctrination and child abuse.Most certainly how else would they ascertain that it is wrong, without first understanding the concept of right and wrong.Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?Doesn't follow. I would hope that the wisdom I imparted, would make them good adults. In order to be accepted in society we must follow certain social norms, whether we like it or not. We need to do this to feel safe. hence why it is wise to embrace the golden rule.
Which says nothing about the immorality of pre-marital sex. After all, a couple could still explore and make sure they are compatible and satisfied in all aspects of their relationships before getting married and having children and the results would still be the same.
Don't you find it ironic that Biblical times ignored the fact that God essentially got a single teenage girl pregnant without her true consent?
I am not advocating anything, but just speculating how the prohibition against premarital sex might have arisen in biblical times, and might have contributed to the success of the dominant culture. This has nothing to do with somebody having a "healthy" outlook on sex. In order to contribute to the success of that society, it only had to promote survival and reproduction.
We have progressed beyond the expectation that women, and men to a lesser extent, do their duty and have sex solely to "make babies".
Sure it says something about immorality. You don't have to accept it but it's a moral value, and I think there's at least a plausible explanation of why it came about. As I said, I'm not trying to convince you to accept any moral values. I'm trying to discuss morals objectively.Which says nothing about the immorality of pre-marital sex. After all, a couple could still explore and make sure they are compatible and satisfied in all aspects of their relationships before getting married and having children and the results would still be the same.
In your eyes it's progress. Maybe you're right. Maybe the biblical values are obsolete. I don't need you to accept any particular values. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, making babies is pretty important. I think that societies and cultures which make babies would probably expand more rapidly than those which do not.We have progressed beyond the expectation that women, and men to a lesser extent, do their duty and have sex solely to "make babies".
I don't think there is anything immoral about sex between two consenting adults, do you?
I think I may view the history of virginity in a slightly different light to you. To me it was a way to control women's impulses and desires, and also men's to a different extent. Remember, back in those days, women were not meant to enjoy sex and may were viewed solely for the services provided by their wombs.
That depends. Do we view each other solely by how many children we are able to have? Is that how we should value each human being?In your eyes it's progress. Maybe you're right. Maybe the biblical values are obsolete. I don't need you to accept any particular values. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, making babies is pretty important. I think that societies and cultures which make babies would probably expand more rapidly than those which do not.
We have seen the effects of over-population. There needs to be a balance and available resources should be weighed in to the equation.
Certainly, making babies is important for our species survival. Demanding sexual purity should not go hand in hand with that, however.
Just my 2cents.
I never got the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't involve procreation, and procreation is important to us. Are we really afraid accepting homosexuality is going to doom the human race to extinction? Do we fear even a drastic reduction in our numbers worldwide? Would there really be a problem with the human population even being cut in half from what it is now? I don't understand the morals OR the logic behind such an argument.
We should ban infertile people from getting married because MORALS.
It doesn't matter what I think, and I don't care what you think, unless you want to discuss it from a scientific viewpoint. This is the "scientific study of religion" forum.I don't think there is anything immoral about sex between two consenting adults, do you?
I think that's a cynical viewpoint. Married couples are and were partners with a common interest in raising their kids. That's why it was a successful arrangement.I think I may view the history of virginity in a slightly different light to you. To me it was a way to control women's impulses and desires, and also men's to a different extent. Remember, back in those days, women were not meant to enjoy sex and may were viewed solely for the services provided by their wombs.
Well, there's a lot of things we don't understand about morals and how they evolved. I don't think it had much to do with procreation. Maybe there was no real value to society in enforcing the taboo, or maybe it had something to do with limiting the spread of diseases.
| « Quote from Darwin | The scientific study of religion. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
