Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 195
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex!

  1. #1 It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    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?


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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?
    Yes that is exactly what it is saying...

    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.


    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    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.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior newnothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    226
    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.
    ~ One’s ultimate perfection depends on the development of all the members of society ~ Kabbalah
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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?
    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.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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?
    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.
    Exactly!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    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.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    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.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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.
    I don't.















    TWAZZOCK

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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.
    I don't.















    TWAZZOCK
    Whats a TWAZZOCK?

    I s that a cross between a twit and a wazzock?
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    whats a wazzock?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    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.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: It's immoral to have pre-marital sex! 
    Forum Freshman SuperflyTNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    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?
    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.
    The cake is a lie. I saw it, but it was not really there and merley a trick of the mind...

    If people of the world acted together to make it a harmonous world. We wouldn't need to wait 2000 years for a messiah; we'd save it less than 24 hours...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If I get a girl plastered in attempts to have sex with her, I can be convicted of rape.. =P
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    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.
    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.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    , wahhh .. your worldly view is sooooo messed up ... let me show you what your worldy view outcome will be, read this acticle from yahoo: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090213/...d-45dbed5.html

    soon, this can of thing would be a norm' . there are good resson why you should wait untill you ready for "relationships".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    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?

    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.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    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.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!

    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.
    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.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    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?

    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.
    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. =P
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    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?

    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.
    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. =P
    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!

    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!
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    What does track and field have to do with marriage? You want to make sure they can jump over all the hurdles first?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    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?

    And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit

    Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
    lol



    I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
    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?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Absum! is basically Wiccan.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    What an ugly word fornicate is.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Yeah, unpoetic. Goes with crankshaft and pregnant.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Absum is a girl? Since when? What is up with all these internet chicks... *cough* Paralith *cough*
    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?

    And they argue as if they know, when it's obvious they know jack shit

    Ooohh it makes me cringe with embarrassment for them
    lol



    I found God by praying by my bed each night that they would.
    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?
    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.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    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.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    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.
    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.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    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.
    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.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    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.
    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.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    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.
    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.
    God actually said, "Thou shalt keep thy sex organ from entering they pig's body" ??
    Wow, he really did think of everything..
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,329
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God actually said, "Thou shalt keep thy sex organ from entering they pig's body" ??
    Wow, he really did think of everything..
    Not quite. We need God now to settle the fork or spoon question.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God actually said, "Thou shalt keep thy sex organ from entering they pig's body" ??
    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.
    It's the transitional fossil of utensil's.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    God actually said, "Thou shalt keep thy sex organ from entering they pig's body" ??
    Very nearly so, in Leviticus 18, 23.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    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.
    According to the bible, lilith was never born. God made Eve after he made Adam...
    It just doesn't mention her. Same way it doesn't mention the female children Adam and Even presumably had.

    Contradictions!!!
    And cousin's having sex with cousin's is incestuous.
    Cousin marriages aren't always considered incest. Darwin, for instance, was married to his cousin. It was very common in the 19th century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen View Post
    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 truley what it is saying?
    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?

    It's a mistake to take the Bible...litterally
    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.





    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,846
    IMHO it's a mistake and an immoral act to dredge up a nearly 5 year old numbskull thread.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    chero.
    Please don't reopen 4 year old threads.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    The mistake is getting your morals from a two thousand year old book and not from your own personal viewpoint.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    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.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    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.
    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.

    What do you mean by ethics of reciprocity? What is the evidence for it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    Define "made up". I choose how to behave. I have a set of right and wrong ideals probably unique to myself.

    Do you act as society says you should?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    Define "made up". I choose how to behave. I have a set of right and wrong ideals probably unique to myself.
    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.
    Do you act as society says you should?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    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
    Tranquille likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    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.


    pavlos and Flick Montana like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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).
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    This thread reminds me of this tune....


    Bob Dylan - Things Have Changed - YouTube
    Lynx_Fox and babe like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Define "made up". I choose how to behave. I have a set of right and wrong ideals probably unique to myself.
    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.

    Do you act as society says you should?
    In some ways yes. The default is that I follow society's rules. If it's important to me I break them.

    (* - making the assumption here that your parents did NOT tell you that!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    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.
    Then why do my morals not fall in line with my parents in regards to religion, capital punishment, politics, etc? We've very different.

    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    In some ways yes. The default is that I follow society's rules. If it's important to me I break them.

    (* - making the assumption here that your parents did NOT tell you that!)
    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.
    pavlos likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    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 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.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    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.
    Everybody gets values inculcated and indoctrinated.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If your mother told you some behavior was wrong, you were indoctrinated.
    Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you learned to speak a language, it probably contained some words having moral connotations. You're indoctrinated.
    No. I'm learning a language.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated.
    Only if I accept it without question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you discuss moral issues with your friends, you're indoctrinated.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What do you mean by ethics of reciprocity?
    Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What is the evidence for it?
    Humanity. 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.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Then why do my morals not fall in line with my parents in regards to religion, capital punishment, politics, etc? We've very different.
    Right. You were shaped by your parent's influence, but not determined by it.

    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.
    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 think we all have a moral compass, for lack of fa better term, that develops as we grow and experience life.
    Agreed.

    I don't think we should constrain ourselves to live by a book or even a series of laws.
    We all do it. You have your own personal laws you follow, and as you mentioned you follow general laws of society.

    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.
    They're not; most people's morality evolves with age and experience. But they are based on what you learned when you were young.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If your mother told you some behavior was wrong, you were indoctrinated.
    Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you learned to speak a language, it probably contained some words having moral connotations. You're indoctrinated.
    No. I'm learning a language.
    I think you underestimate the impact of language on your view of the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated.
    Only if I accept it without question.
    What do you call it when you question it then accept it? Didn't the editorial piece still impact your opinion?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you discuss moral issues with your friends, you're indoctrinated.
    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.
    Again, I don't see why you limit it to forced agreement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What do you mean by ethics of reciprocity?
    Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What is the evidence for it?
    Humanity. 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.
    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?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If your mother told you some behavior was wrong, you were indoctrinated.
    Only is she forced it on me, and insisted her view was the only view.
    Why do you define indoctrination only as forcing someone?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can't someone be indoctrinated by a loving teaching and persuasion?
    No! See above answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If not then what would you call the transmission of moral values by loving persuasion?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you learned to speak a language, it probably contained some words having moral connotations. You're indoctrinated.
    No. I'm learning a language.
    I think you underestimate the impact of language on your view of the world.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated.
    Only if I accept it without question.
    What do you call it when you question it then accept it?
    If I question it. Then by default I haven't accepted it in it's entirety.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Didn't the editorial piece still impact your opinion?
    Yes to an extent, but not to just blindly accepting it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you discuss moral issues with your friends, you're indoctrinated.
    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.
    Again, I don't see why you limit it to forced agreement.
    I refer you to my first reply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What do you mean by ethics of reciprocity?
    Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What is the evidence for it?
    Humanity. 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.
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    I never said it wasn't, but we have the wisdom and the ability to choose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This aggressive behavior was also probably instrumental to our survival.
    Agreed. considering we are prey to a lot of creatures.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Why would it be immoral?
    pavlos likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can't someone be indoctrinated by a loving teaching and persuasion?
    No! See above answer.
    I think the above was a non-answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If not then what would you call the transmission of moral values by loving persuasion?
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated.
    Only if I accept it without question.
    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?
    I've never come across a person teaching another the golden rule.
    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?
    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.
    Wait a minute. You're saying that the person is learning from a negative or punitive experience. I thought this was a bad thing.
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    chero.
    Please don't reopen 4 year old threads.
    i didn't and dont know what you are talking about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    chero.
    Please don't reopen 4 year old threads.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    You are cherry picking one definition of the word "indoctrination."
    That's not what the dictionary says Definitions of indoctrinate - OneLook Dictionary Search A Citation is needed, Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It hasn't always had a negative connotation.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You see how language actually affects your thinking?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    Humans are basically mimics, to be accepted, but they do have a choice. When they are indoctrinated they don't. viva la difference!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can't someone be indoctrinated by a loving teaching and persuasion?
    No! See above answer.
    I think the above was a non-answer.
    Of course it was for you. Because you are unwilling to accept that which is slapping you in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If you read an opinion piece in the newspaper, you're being indoctrinated.
    Only if I accept it without question.
    Who do you think accepts things without question?
    People who are indoctrinated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    People have been debating morals since time immemorial. This is just your way of belittling people who believe differently than you do.
    Stating the facts as they are is not belittling anyone. If they are not willing to accept them that is there prerogative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If someone believes differently, then it must be because they just haven't thought it through, right?
    No! It simply means they are of a different opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    I've never come across a person teaching another the golden rule.
    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?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    Wait a minute. You're saying that the person is learning from a negative or punitive experience. I thought this was a bad thing.
    Well of course it is, experience good or bad is still experience, though we would all prefer the former
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    We know it from the onset, but it's not innate? I think you are contradicting yourself.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    How do we know being aggressive isn't going to help us?
    I don't I never said it wasn't necessary sometimes either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If this were true, nobody would ever be aggressive.
    Then we would have not survived as a species
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    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*
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,846
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Ya know....I married my husband as a virgin....
    He was, was he? Does he want everybody to know that?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Ya know....I married my husband as a virgin....
    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*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    That's not what the dictionary says Definitions of indoctrinate - OneLook Dictionary Search A Citation is needed, Thank you.
    The first one on your list has this

    TRANSITIVE VERB:
    in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
    1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
    2. 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.


    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.
    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?
    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.
    See above. The first dictionary definition in your linked web page.
    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.
    Citation needed.
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?
    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.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    Correct. Not every child understands the reasons behind values imparted if they only do so simply because we or someone tells them to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    He can see that Daddy thinks it would be a bad thing to harm someone else.
    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.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    Correct. Not every child understands the reasons behind values imparted if they only do so simply because we or someone tells them to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    He can see that Daddy thinks it would be a bad thing to harm someone else.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    At some point I think you'll have to just say it's wrong and that's that.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All right then, I will play the role of Junior, and ask you,
    That's fine. May I ask what age group does junior belong to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All right then, I will play the role of Junior, and ask you,
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I want to find out why YOU think it's wrong to keep the bike.
    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.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I want to find out why YOU think it's wrong to keep the bike.
    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?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Where does the questioning come in?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If some people do not subscribe to the same rules, what is the reason for that - i.e., is it biological or social?
    As in temperament? I'd said both biological and social influences are present (or absent depending how we look at it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You mentioned empathy before, as an either/or proposition. He either feels empathy or he doesn't, but what if there is a conflict.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.
    Then what decision do you think Junior will make and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    ... you also have to explain why the individual is willing to sacrifice for the group.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    Noted on your observations and your expectations of me. I have no comment on this portion of your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then what decision do you think Junior will make and why?
    With no familiarity with the temperament and personality of the hypothetical junior, I am unable to provide any reasonable answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    You two are having a very interesting discussions with valid points on both sides and no antagonism!! YAHOO!!! Mahaloa!!
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    ... you also have to explain why the individual is willing to sacrifice for the group.
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    Noted on your observations and your expectations of me. I have no comment on this portion of your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Then what decision do you think Junior will make and why?
    With no familiarity with the temperament and personality of the hypothetical junior, I am unable to provide any reasonable answer.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    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.
    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.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    That's not what the dictionary says Definitions of indoctrinate - OneLook Dictionary Search A Citation is needed, Thank you.
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?
    Most certainly how else would they ascertain that it is wrong, without first understanding the concept of right and wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Also, where in the definition of the word does it say they won't question their beliefs?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    See above. The first dictionary definition in your linked web page.
    Which failed. one semi good statement out of Hundreds of negative ones does not make it good, now does it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Only if I accept it without question.
    Citation needed.
    Why! Again brainwashing, indoctrination, inculcation. aren't they enough of a prepondance of evidence for you
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    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.
    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    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.
    Yes. When you teach your child that stealing is wrong, do you want them to question it?
    Most certainly how else would they ascertain that it is wrong, without first understanding the concept of right and wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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?
    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.
    Okay, I get it. When you do it, it's imparting wisdom. When somebody else does it, it's indoctrination and child abuse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.



    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.
    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?

    We have progressed beyond the expectation that women, and men to a lesser extent, do their duty and have sex solely to "make babies".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    We have progressed beyond the expectation that women, and men to a lesser extent, do their duty and have sex solely to "make babies".
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    We should ban infertile people from getting married because MORALS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    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.
    I don't think there is anything immoral about sex between two consenting adults, do you?
    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 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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •