Morality

[Mortal]

Reading through the morality post (hey guys) I saw a comment by JungleCat

Its a sin, and its immoral.

I think many people here acknowledge this as truth to some extent. I agree, for one.

But like many people here, I really dont care. And no matter how many times you tell me im doing something 'wrong', it wont make a difference.

I am curious as to the number of people who would agree with that assessment. Is what you are doing on this site immoral? Do morals exist?

[Tribial_Tiger79]

I agree

[Jack]

Since I do not ascribe to views of morality, I voted no.

[loony28]

:twisted: I don't think that the files are immoral. Some of them might come to the brink.

Since I do not ascribe to views of morality, I voted no.

Well that's nice to know. Remind me never to piss you off. :lol: :lol: :lol: My views on morality are, if it doesn't hurt anyone then it's not immoral. And I'm not just talking about physical damage. :twisted:

[Jack]

:wink: It's a very good thing it's a herculean task to even get me annoyed, let alone piss me off.

I think I've posted somewhere, probably in "General Hypnosis" about "The Law": As it harms(mentally/physically/permanently) no entity(mentally/physically/permanently) that doesn't wish(at some level) to be harmed(mentally/physically/permanently), do what thou will. It should also be noted that if you do harm someone, it should be done so that they will be made stronger by it. If you want to discuss codes of conduct(or anything else), feel free to PM me.

[Linja]

I voted no. I believe that there are no morals in the sense of an innate justice, I just believe that morals are decided upon by society. This is shown by some societies doing things that other would consider completely immoral, yet they see no wrong in it.

In the general sense of western culture's morals though, I still don't think that most of the things on this site are immoral. As long as the people using them are aware of the effects, and continue with consent and with no harm of any kind to others, then it's not morally incorrect.

EMG has gone to all lengths possible to ensure the above, and so I believe that nothing on this site is immoral, although some may be used for immoral acts, for which EMG and this site could not be held accounted for.

-Linja

[makidas]

Who decides what's moral or immoral? God? I think not, morality only exists if you feel in your heart you should or shouldn't do something, another word for it is your conscionce(think I spelled it right).

[Linja]

Yeah I agree with that Makidas.

Just out of curiousity, where do you think our conscience comes from? I personally believe that it's from social doctrine. But christians say God gave it to us as a guide to what is right and wrong I think, I'm interested as to your opinion. You always say something that makes me think.

-Linja

[Mortal]

I didn't expect so many people to answer so quickly.

Since I do not ascribe to views of morality, I voted no.

If morals don't exist then how come you have a set of morals that state you can't hurt anyone that doesn't want to be? Wouldn't you consider that your view of right and wrong?

:twisted: I don't think that the files are immoral. Some of them might come to the brink.

I would agree with that. But the poll was about your actions on the site.

[sandy82]

Mortal, I have the feeling that we have met before. Your answer to Jack and Loony 28 has a familiar ring.

You have neatly set yourself up as arbiter and commentator. I don't buy the construct.

It's the same old story: he who chooses the a priori basis for the debate has won the debate before it starts.

I propose an alternative to the tone/substance/direction of this thread.

Pretend you're a Catholic who has never been to confession. Tell us everything you have done, on this site and off, that someone somewhere might consider immoral.

You have up to 10,000 potential jurors to scrutinize your behavior and, more importantly, your thought process. Is it rational? Is it logical? Is it full of preconceptions designed to make you think highly of yourself?

None of us know. And until we do know, no thinking person will allow a total stranger (or at least a new username) to sit in judgment.

So tell us all about yourself. ALL about yourself. We'll make observations and draw conclusions about your own morality and, above all, about the state--and perhaps health--of your mind.

When/if you pass muster, you can go back to your seemingly innocuous--but actually arrogant and self-serving--question.

Note to a poster higher up in the chain: can you start checking the IP numbers now. It may turn up nothing. This may be a genuine newby. But on the other hand, why would someone with only one day's exposure to the site be worrying so soon about the morals of the site and the behavior of its users. As always, forewarned is fore-armed.

[sandy82]

I note that, as of this writing, our supposed one-day-old newby has made three posts.

Two are in this thread.

The third is the second item in Linja's Human Pride thread.

In that one post, Mortal has included a series of unascribed "quotations" that are non-responsive to Linja's theme.

Ecce homo. Behold the man. We have recently seen the same righteous indignation and inability to focus logically.

I carefully note that we may not have seen the same person.

On the other hand, there are the probabilities. Every morning I drop 12 things, and eight of them fall downwards. :wink:

Two out of three ain't bad.

[onewhoknew]

Hell yeah! Wouldn't be half as much fun if it wasn't!

[Mortal]

Mortal, I have the feeling that we have met before. Your answer to Jack and Loony 28 has a familiar ring.

You have neatly set yourself up as arbiter and commentator. I don't buy the construct.

I figured you would think that I was sk5 or No "T" (clever by the way) as you called him. I am here to tell you resoundingly I am not. I also would like to state that I would prefer they do not comment in this thread as they represent what is wrong with Christianity today. I was merely trying to clarify with Jack as to whether or not he was taking the position of makidas.

The reason I started this thread was as I stated JungleCat's comment struck a chord with me as I was not seeing his comments reflected in the arguments by other people.

I am not here to attack or preach. I am not (nor are sk5 or No "t") morally superior in anyway. I was intrigued by the debate I missed and would have found myself on a third side. Deciding that would be too confusing for me to maintain I decided to start a new thread and test JungleCat's theory all at the same time.

In that one post, Mortal has included a series of unascribed "quotations" that are non-responsive to Linja's theme.

The quotes I posted in Linja's thread were relevant to the question regarding human pride and can be attributed to Mark Twain (Who happens to be an admired author of mine.)

To close I am sorry this post is so long.

I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.

[Jack]

Define the word "moral". As in what constitutes a moral in your set.

[Mortal]

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

I would like to reach an agreed upon definition. Can we agree that it means right and just or the judgement thereof?

[Jack]

I did not mean define "moral" as in: moral - that which is right as judged by some entity.

I meant define "moral" as in: moral - a rule or habit of conduct as explained by some entity(s), especially one pertaining to standards of right/good and wrong/bad as judged by some entity(s).


In order to pose a question or a response to a question, one must make clear ones meaning.. unless the purpose of the aforementioned is to obscure ones meaning for some intention(ex: politics).. or the question/response is more coherent than a previous question/response on the same subject of which the individuals involved are consciously aware.

[Mortal]

Perhaps I am not as bright as you but I'm not sure I follow? I thought the 3rd definition from the dictionary defined that. If you want the noun then.

morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

I believe we should use a dictionary as we can not just change the definition of a word because it does or does not agree with our argument. If you have a dictionary definition you would prefer let's use that.

I am curious why everyone seems so defensive this subject. I have not accused anyone of anything. I have stated I am not here to preach. If my definition doesn't suite you than please define moral so we can have a discussion.

Besides that doesn't answer my first question of you which is, doesn't your explaination of your code of conduct (ethics) technically match makidas' definition of moral?

[Carolientje]

I would say yes its immoral, well a large part of it is, since society sets the rules and by most western standards this site and its content would be immoral however by my personal judgement I don`t find it immoral, but as someone on this tread said it can be used in immoral ways

and in advance I apoligize if my grammar and word choices aren`t exactly correct but english isn`t my first language

[Mortal]

Thank you, Carolientje, for an honest perspective. Your grammar is as good as anyone's. Is it then safe to assume that I can put you in the category with makidas and Linja (and Jack).

I believe that there are no morals in the sense of an innate justice, I just believe that morals are decided upon by society. This is shown by some societies doing things that other would consider completely immoral, yet they see no wrong in it.

[AusGar]

The things I do on this site? No, not at all. I have, in the past, felt guilty for liking or participating in the taboo, but this is my body and my mind. I'm not hurting anyone other than myself, and I don't care if society doesn't like it. Even if I was considering society's moral standard, I believe this would still be okay, because of the fact that I'm not hurting anyone.
On the very rare occassion that I give someone in the chat room a trigger (which makes me uncomfortable) I make sure I'm not doing anything they don't like, questioning them extensively beforehand... unless I'm just giving them a wave of pleasure, which I may do without say warning (I mean, that's why they listened to the file and came to the chatroom anyway, so that's a lot more careful than I need to be)
If files I download caused me to hurt another indirectly, by making them upset that I've changed via hypnosis, then things become slightly less clear. Of course, it's still my body, and my own choice, and I think it's still not immoral - just perhaps uncomfortable.
If I were using files from this site to coerce and alter someone against their will? Totally wrong, with very few possible exceptions.

Why yes, I am pretty self-sure and possibly self-righteous. :) I have a very strong sense of universal right and wrong, which also accounts for subjectivity.

[chymos]

I would define an immoral act as any act, the performance of which, would cause you, (the performer of the act), personally, to feel guilt about it afterward. Yes, I realize it seems a rather open-ended definition, however, it seems to fit the definition of moral that has apparently been agreed upon.

Now, morals are a very subjective and individual thing, unique to each individual. It was said that a society defines what's considered "moral".....this is not quite entirely true. The individuals within the society define what that society considers moral, this by virtue of what the majority of the individuals personally feel is moral.

So.....if you've done anything on this site that you felt guilty about later, then you've done something immoral :)

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them (this is a bad form of control, such as cults use. Not to start any flame wars or anything, but the concept of guilt is one the Catholic church has been exploiting since its inception.)

Anyway, enough of that 8)

I myself have done nothing that has caused me to experience guilt, therefore I've done nothing immoral.

OTOH, the only regrets I have (a totally different subject, but I feel like mentioning this anyway) are the things I wanted to do but didn't for whatever reason *other* than those acts that would induce feelings of guilt on my part.

In the sense I've described, your personal morals *do* form the ruler that your conscience operates with.

SO......who here has a guilty conscience? :D

[Carolientje]

Hehe not me and I doubt many people on this site have, or else we wouldn`t come here, since it natural for you to avoid the things you feel guilty about

[Mortal]

I would define an immoral act as any act, the performance of which, would cause you, (the performer of the act), personally, to feel guilt about it afterward. Yes, I realize it seems a rather open-ended definition, however, it seems to fit the definition of moral that has apparently been agreed upon.

My question then to you is what about psycopaths and company's that pollute the oceans and rivers and feel no guilt as a result? If I were to kill my neighbor's dog and not feel guilty would that be a moral act?

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them (this is a bad form of control, such as cults use. Not to start any flame wars or anything, but the concept of guilt is one the Catholic church has been exploiting since its inception.)

If you lead a truly virtuous life that would never be a problem.

Why yes, I am pretty self-sure and possibly self-righteous. :) I have a very strong sense of universal right and wrong, which also accounts for subjectivity.

It is interesting that you are the first I have heard mention a universal right and wrong.

It has been brought to my attention that I have not shared my views for your inspection. I believe morals are a universal truth. Not set by society or individual as that would make them flawed. This does not mean that they had to come from God. Regardless of how you come about it a sense of morality has existed throughout time. Some commonly agreed on rules have changed, others have not. Some societies understandings are different then others even currently, human understanding of something doesn't change the base. Physics have not changed over the years but our understanding of it has. My belief is that there is a universal code of right and wrong and making it relative is what gives people power. A firm unchanging set of rules strips power as it puts everyone on the same playing field.

Your thoughts?

[chymos]

quote]chymos wrote:
I would define an immoral act as any act, the performance of which, would cause you, (the performer of the act), personally, to feel guilt about it afterward. Yes, I realize it seems a rather open-ended definition, however, it seems to fit the definition of moral that has apparently been agreed upon.

My question then to you is what about psycopaths and company's that pollute the oceans and rivers and feel no guilt as a result? If I were to kill my neighbor's dog and not feel guilty would that be a moral act? [/quote]

In *their* eyes, it's moral. But to the rest of society, it's highly immoral. Theoretically, the easiest way to see what a society considers proper moral behavior can be seen in the laws of that society. In practice, however, the laws more often reflect the priorities and views of the people who have the real power and/or the people who are most forceful in getting their personal agendas through the lawmaking process. In the US, unfortunately, those would be big business and those people who have nothing better to do than to push lawsuits until the Supreme Court decides to review their case, respectively. :(

chymos wrote:
Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them (this is a bad form of control, such as cults use. Not to start any flame wars or anything, but the concept of guilt is one the Catholic church has been exploiting since its inception.)

If you lead a truly virtuous life that would never be a problem.

Ahh, but who exactly defines "virtue"? Who says what's virtuous and what's not? It seems to me that virtue, like morality, is a highly subjective and individual concept, though many people codify what they consider to be virtuous within the dogma of their chosen religious and/or spiritual belief system.

It seems to me that the post which I'm responding to is a trolling attempt, Mortal. Please, before you get defensive, let me state that I'm not trying to insult, offend, or flame you, I'm just pointing out that that was the impression I got from it. :)

A firm unchanging set of rules strips power as it puts everyone on the same playing field.

I have to disagree with you on that, at least with regard to actual practice. In theory, you *may* be correct, however, in practice, rules grant certain people power, and who exactly gets the power, how much they get and for how long depend entirely on who's making the rules.

[Mortal]

In *their* eyes, it's moral. But to the rest of society, it's highly immoral. Theoretically, the easiest way to see what a society considers proper moral behavior can be seen in the laws of that society. In practice, however, the laws more often reflect the priorities and views of the people who have the real power and/or the people who are most forceful in getting their personal agendas through the lawmaking process. In the US, unfortunately, those would be big business and those people who have nothing better to do than to push lawsuits until the Supreme Court decides to review their case, respectively. :(

Well then pollution output of factories should still be where it was in the '70's. If morality is that flexible and control of the US is in big businesses hands then how come Lake Eerie has life again and is not still burning. Don't get me wrong I believe many big businesses hold too much power but the argument doesn't seem add up to me.

Ahh, but who exactly defines "virtue"? Who says what's virtuous and what's not? It seems to me that virtue, like morality, is a highly subjective and individual concept, though many people codify what they consider to be virtuous within the dogma of their chosen religious and/or spiritual belief system.

Well that may be interpretted that way. However, I humbly submit that if you want to measure virtue you must look toward your service and sacrifice to your fellow man. I can't find a system that doesn't believe in that. It is the blueprint to society. If everyone focuses solely on themselves society crumbles, if they focus externally society flourishes beyond all measure.

It seems to me that the post which I'm responding to is a trolling attempt, Mortal. Please, before you get defensive, let me state that I'm not trying to insult, offend, or flame you, I'm just pointing out that that was the impression I got from it. :)

I will not get defensive as I have nothing to defend. This is merely an exchange of ideals. If you can show me that I am wrong then I must re-evaluate my ideas. Likewise, I am not here to fight or belittle so if I say something which you believe to be an attack I would ask that let me know so I can clarify.

I have to disagree with you on that, at least with regard to actual practice. In theory, you *may* be correct, however, in practice, rules grant certain people power, and who exactly gets the power, how much they get and for how long depend entirely on who's making the rules.

Ahh, I believe the difference between you and I may be that In my experience if you hold yourself to a defined code which you know is not humanly possible to honor, at all times, and when you lapse you vow to try harder next time and always improve, then no one has any power over you.

[joe]

i voted no.

the things i would do to alleviate the repression of NOT doing them would be immoral. as repression has done to everyone who's experienced it, through history.

[chymos]

Well then pollution output of factories should still be where it was in the '70's. If morality is that flexible and control of the US is in big businesses hands then how come Lake Eerie has life again and is not still burning. Don't get me wrong I believe many big businesses hold too much power but the argument doesn't seem add up to me.

I didn't mean to imply that the gov't was entirely corrupt. I apologize for not making that clear. There *is* a limit to the power big business and the like have. It's called lobbyists and elections. Not to mention those among our elected officials who *are* honest, honorable, and trying to do the job that our constitution intended them to do. :P

Well that may be interpretted that way. However, I humbly submit that if you want to measure virtue you must look toward your service and sacrifice to your fellow man. I can't find a system that doesn't believe in that. It is the blueprint to society. If everyone focuses solely on themselves society crumbles, if they focus externally society flourishes beyond all measure.

Here you imply that submission (ie, service and sacrifice) is a "universal" virtue......which of course, makes domination/dominance bad/wrong/evil. However, in Asatru (the faith of the people of northern Europe (Norse, Germans, Icelanders, Teutons, Franks, Visigoths, Gauls, Huns, etc) before Christianity converted them through a combination of bribery, manipulation, coercion, and outright corruption of their leaders) service/sacrifice/submission has no place as a "virtue". You are expected to be your own man, honorable, valorous, dignified, and with integrity. Respect and loyalty towards those in a leadership position, sure. But only so long as those leaders hold honor, valor, and so forth. They even stood before their gods as equals, rather than bowing down meekly. Asatru, though having a small following, is still practiced today, in reconstructed form.

Now, don't get me wrong, selfishness is *not* considered a good thing, but neither is bowing down to someone just because they're considered to be "in charge" or "of higher rank". Also, personal responsibility is considered of paramount importance. (Something sorely lacking in today's society)

You are correct in that society relies on people to take care of each other and help each other as needed. This doesn't necessarily mean service or sacrifice on your part. If someone is struggling honestly, and you give them a hand up, bravo. If someone is hurting due to their own actions/choices, and tries to deny responsibility for the situation they put themselves in, then you're under no obligation to help them in any way. They made their bed, let them lie in it.

[Mortal]

Here you imply that submission (ie, service and sacrifice) is a "universal" virtue......which of course, makes domination/dominance bad/wrong/evil.

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them

Absolutely not! service and sacrifice to your fellow man has nothing to due with submission. I submit to no one but I also try my hardest to approach every situation humbly. For me service and sacrifice means trying to think of someone else before my own selfish desires. Instead of watching TV or surfing the 'net, is their something I can do to make someone else happy? If that can be construed as wrong in any way I would like to know how.

However, in Asatru (the faith of the people of northern Europe (Norse, Germans, Icelanders, Teutons, Franks, Visigoths, Gauls, Huns, etc) before Christianity converted them through a combination of bribery, manipulation, coercion, and outright corruption of their leaders) service/sacrifice/submission has no place as a "virtue". You are expected to be your own man, honorable, valorous, dignified, and with integrity. Respect and loyalty towards those in a leadership position, sure. But only so long as those leaders hold honor, valor, and so forth. They even stood before their gods as equals, rather than bowing down meekly. Asatru, though having a small following, is still practiced today, in reconstructed form.

I can't comment in great detail about Asatru as I don't know much about it yet. I'll be sure to research it a bit during the week. It is interesting however that you bring up a (almost) dead religion that was killed (by your own admission) with the lack of virtue it lived under. The me first and you last attitude seems to be what allowed the (probably) Catholic church to bribe/coerce/corrupt them into changing.

Now, don't get me wrong, selfishness is *not* considered a good thing, but neither is bowing down to someone just because they're considered to be "in charge" or "of higher rank". Also, personal responsibility is considered of paramount importance. (Something sorely lacking in today's society)

Here we are in total agreement

You are correct in that society relies on people to take care of each other and help each other as needed. This doesn't necessarily mean service or sacrifice on your part.

How are society and you or me seperate from each other? Let me ask you this. When you pay taxes do you ever get a good feeling all over or do you feel like someone else should be doing more? I always feel like that should be someone else's job. However, when I help someone personally I get a high like none other.

If someone is struggling honestly, and you give them a hand up, bravo. If someone is hurting due to their own actions/choices, and tries to deny responsibility for the situation they put themselves in, then you're under no obligation to help them in any way. They made their bed, let them lie in it.

Great Point! How can a huge group of people decide that finitely who truly needs a helping hand and who is taking advantage? That seems to me like it needs instinct and intuition involved in the decision. When you group people together instincts clash and you end up "helping" everyone.

I hold the position that "helping" people the wrong way hurts them.

[Mortal]

i voted no.

the things i would do to alleviate the repression of NOT doing them would be immoral. as repression has done to everyone who's experienced it, through history.

Again, maybe I'm not smart enough but I don't follow you.

To clarify which definition are you using for repression?

1. The act of repressing or the state of being repressed.
2. Psychology. The unconscious exclusion of painful impulses, desires, or fears from the conscious mind.

[chymos]

Absolutely not! service and sacrifice to your fellow man has nothing to due with submission. I submit to no one but I also try my hardest to approach every situation humbly. For me service and sacrifice means trying to think of someone else before my own selfish desires. Instead of watching TV or surfing the 'net, is their something I can do to make someone else happy? If that can be construed as wrong in any way I would like to know how.

You are correct in stating that service and sacrifice are not necessarily submission. However, the example you provide, to me, is an example of service as a form of submission, possibly better stated as "being of service". Service in a nonsubmission sense, to me at least, is more along the lines of providing a service, for example, a mechanic, a doctor, an architect, and so forth.

And for the record, I never said that those forms of service and sacrifice were wrong.

Sacrifice, well, that's a tough one to explain, but I believe it's a contextual basis. Sacrifice in the sense of "making a sacrifice in order to better be of service" would be a submissive type of sacrifice. I think a more nonsubmissive form of sacrifice would probably be along the lines of willingly tolerating/dealing/putting up with, for example, the consequences of taking an unpopular stand on some issue that you feel strongly about. (An extreme example would be dealing with a lynch mob that formed because someone didn't like what you stand for/believe in. The Inquisition comes to mind, as do issues such as racism and so forth, particularly a century or two ago.)

I can't comment in great detail about Asatru as I don't know much about it yet. I'll be sure to research it a bit during the week. It is interesting however that you bring up a (almost) dead religion that was killed (by your own admission) with the lack of virtue it lived under. The me first and you last attitude seems to be what allowed the (probably) Catholic church to bribe/coerce/corrupt them into changing.

First, let me thank you for admitting your ignorance (read: lack of knowledge/information) on the subject of Asatru. Now, first I would like to mention that it's far from "(almost) dead" in that yes, it has a small following and isn't well known, however, as more people learn of it and learn about it, the numbers are slowly growing. In fact, as far back as the 1970s the Icelandic gov't declared it a living religion and officially recognized it.

Now, a bit of warning on what you may find in your online research. There are those who claim to follow Asatru who put forward racist/supremist views. These people do not truly follow Asatru. Rather, many of them follow the results of people like Hitler who corrupt and twist everything they come into contact with so that they can use it as a tool for their vile ends.

And to address what I see as a miscommunication: Asatru doesn't have a "me first" attitude. It's more of a communal/tribal spirit that actually has a very strong sense of individual worth and responsibility and the peoples who originally practiced it before the conversions perhaps had one of the earliest forms of democracy known.

Anyway, enough discussion of religion (for now, at least). If anyone decides to research it online, as with most things on the internet, most things you read should be taken with a rather large barrel of salt and sifted through with a fine-tooth comb to find the grains of truth that are interspersed within the opinions and ideas that people state. Above all, take the time to think through and decide for yourself what's what in your research.

[Mortal]

You are correct in stating that service and sacrifice are not necessarily submission. However, the example you provide, to me, is an example of service as a form of submission, possibly better stated as "being of service". Service in a nonsubmission sense, to me at least, is more along the lines of providing a service, for example, a mechanic, a doctor, an architect, and so forth.

And for the record, I never said that those forms of service and sacrifice were wrong.

Sacrifice, well, that's a tough one to explain, but I believe it's a contextual basis. Sacrifice in the sense of "making a sacrifice in order to better be of service" would be a submissive type of sacrifice. I think a more nonsubmissive form of sacrifice would probably be along the lines of willingly tolerating/dealing/putting up with, for example, the consequences of taking an unpopular stand on some issue that you feel strongly about. (An extreme example would be dealing with a lynch mob that formed because someone didn't like what you stand for/believe in. The Inquisition comes to mind, as do issues such as racism and so forth, particularly a century or two ago.)

To clarify when I mention sacrifice I mean self-sacrifice so let's defin these key words.

self-sacrifice - Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause
submission - The act of submitting to the power of another
service - 1. )The performance of work or duties for a superior or as a servant
2. )Work done for others as an occupation or business
definitions not pertinent were removed

I can follow you on service if you take the wrong definition. Service can be either service to an individual or service for an individual. Service to an someone/something is submission but not what we were talking about. Service for someone/something is choice and thereby not a submission. I can back out of service at any time.

I fail to see how self-sacrifice is any form of submission. I'll be interested to hear you're explaination

[chymos]

To clarify when I mention sacrifice I mean self-sacrifice so let's defin these key words.

self-sacrifice - Sacrifice of one's personal interests or well-being for the sake of others or for a cause
submission - The act of submitting to the power of another
service - 1. )The performance of work or duties for a superior or as a servant
2. )Work done for others as an occupation or business
definitions not pertinent were removed

I can follow you on service if you take the wrong definition. Service can be either service to an individual or service for an individual. Service to an someone/something is submission but not what we were talking about. Service for someone/something is choice and thereby not a submission. I can back out of service at any time.

I fail to see how self-sacrifice is any form of submission. I'll be interested to hear you're explaination

So we're agreed that "service" can be either of a submissive nature or of a non-submissive nature, based upon context?

Sacrifice (and self-sacrifice) can easily be a form of submission. It depends on the motives involved, which of course, again makes it a matter of context, albeit in a possibly different way. Going off of the definition you've provided, sacrifice can be a form of submission if the cause for which you are making the sacrifice is based on submission. Indeed, the cause for which the sacrifice is made can itself, *be* submission.

[Mortal]

So we're agreed that "service" can be either of a submissive nature or of a non-submissive nature, based upon context?

Sacrifice (and self-sacrifice) can easily be a form of submission. It depends on the motives involved, which of course, again makes it a matter of context, albeit in a possibly different way. Going off of the definition you've provided, sacrifice can be a form of submission if the cause for which you are making the sacrifice is based on submission. Indeed, the cause for which the sacrifice is made can itself, *be* submission.

It is interesting you will pose examples of what is not submissive but no examples of what is submissive sacrifice and service. Of course the cause can be submissive but that doesn't mean the sacrifice or the service is. I ask for an example of self-sacrifice that is a form of submission. I ask that submit or any synonym if it not be used in the example though.

Which brings me to my example of submission. The prevailing theme of this site plays to carnal desires and lust. I argue that when entertaining yourself using these instinctual means you are submitting to them and allowing some measure of control over you. To illustrate this all you need to do is turn on the television or pick up a magazine. Count the ads that use lust to sell things and the ads that use self-sacrifice or service to sell. Also, you may ask any mopst beautiful "high-maintenance" women could tell you the same.

I must ask why "adult" themed websites are so profitable and churches and charities have to beg for money.

I was in a hurry earlier and also forgot to make the point that I was not saying you said sacrifice and service were wrong I was asking for an example of ways to construe it to make one feel guilty.

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them

[chymos]

I was in a hurry earlier and also forgot to make the point that I was not saying you said sacrifice and service were wrong I was asking for an example of ways to construe it to make one feel guilty.

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them

Ahh, now you're snipping bits and pieces from earlier unrelated portions of the conversation and placing them into an entirely different context that has nothing to do with the post they were snipped from.

At this point, I must say adieu, monsieur troll. *tipping my hat and bowing graciously as I take my leave of this topic*

[sandy82]

Congrats, chymos. Spoken like a true son of Richmond--or perhaps, Columbia--County. And spoken very well indeed.

Mortal, I have been quiet, as you requested; but I have seen nothing new and little worthwhile. I have seen a lot of patronizing from someone without enough education or talent to warrant such an attitude.

I hope you will show the entire text of this thread to the organizer who sent you here. Perhaps your next missionary position will be in Uzbekistan. I hear it's fun to be seen as attempting to convert Muslims.

You mentioned earlier your awareness that you had not told anyone about your background, interests, and reason for being here. You then glided neatly past answering the question that you yourself raised.

I find it time-consuming and fruitless to try to nail jelly to the wall.

Let me ask a few clear questions.

1. What denomination did your natural parents belong to when you were born?

2. What do you call the first church ceremony in which you were a participant?

3. To what denomination do you currently belong?

4. Have there been any intervening denominations between No.1 and No.3?

5. What brought you here? Who sent you here?

6. Describe in detail your belief system. I am very patient and I enjoy the fine points. Here are some questions, but don't feel that they limit you.

--do you believe in the Apostles' Creed? Nicene Creed? Athanasian Creed?

--do you believe in infant baptism?

--do you believe that the words "christening" and "baptism" describe exactly the same ceremony?

--do you take part in the Mass, Holy Communion, Eucharist, Lord's Supper?

--if so, which term(s) best describe your belief system on this service?
transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorial, Luther's explanation that the Body and Blood of the Lord is in the bread and wine, as the heat is in the iron.
--does your denomination use wine with alcoholic content or grape juice; are you permitted as a lay person to drink the consecrated wine?

--do you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God?

--do you believe that any other books have an equal or similar dignity to the Bible?

--do you believe that after his resurrection Jesus visited the Indians of North America? Do members of your religious group believe that?

--how many sacraments are there, in your view? what is the specific scriptural basis for each sacrament claimed?

--Church Councils: which do you believe were legitimate and why? Do you think any went off the tracks; if so, which one(s) and why.

--what is your opinion on the filioque clause?

--do you subscribe to the concepts of the church militant, church expectant, and church triumphant? What shorter names are these normally associated with?

I believe that when one proselytizes, one should have a clear understanding of what his/her sect believes.

I'm old-fashioned on this point. I believe that if my car is broken, the mechanic should be able to repair it.

I know that certain denominations of both high and low ritual believe that lies are permissible if they advance the aims of the denomination and its members. I hope your answers will be as clear, as full, as non-evasive, and as convincing as possible. You have a high bar to cross. Both information and honesty.

If you feel competent to lecture others, then surely you are in a position to answer these and other questions off the top of your head. No need to consult dictionary.com. No need to take more than several hours to give full, informative, reasoned, educated, and--above all--honest answers.

I, as well as others, await your answers with interest.

If you wonder whether there may be additional questions or a measure of skepticism, if deserved, you would be right to wonder.

Ahh, now you're snipping bits and pieces from earlier unrelated portions of the conversation and placing them into an entirely different context that has nothing to do with the post they were snipped from.

At this point, I must say adieu, monsieur troll. *tipping my hat and bowing graciously as I take my leave of this topic*

[Mortal]

I find it time-consuming and fruitless to try to nail jelly to the wall.

Let me ask a few clear questions.

1. What denomination did your natural parents belong to when you were born?

2. What do you call the first church ceremony in which you were a participant?

3. To what denomination do you currently belong?

4. Have there been any intervening denominations between No.1 and No.3?

5. What brought you here? Who sent you here?

6. Describe in detail your belief system. I am very patient and I enjoy the fine points. Here are some questions, but don't feel that they limit you.

I believe that when one proselytizes, one should have a clear understanding of what his/her sect believes.

I'm old-fashioned on this point. I believe that if my car is broken, the mechanic should be able to repair it.

I know that certain denominations of both high and low ritual believe that lies are permissible if they advance the aims of the denomination and its members. I hope your answers will be as clear, as full, as non-evasive, and as convincing as possible. You have a high bar to cross. Both information and honesty.

If you feel competent to lecture others, then surely you are in a position to answer these and other questions off the top of your head. No need to consult dictionary.com. No need to take more than several hours to give full, informative, reasoned, educated, and--above all--honest answers.

I, as well as others, await your answers with interest.

I am flattered that you are interested in my beliefs I though maybe they did not matter. In politcal correct society you don't know ho you might offend by talking openly about your beliefs. :D

I will answer your questions as I have nothing to hide. The reason I haven't before is simple, no one asked.

1. My mother is Lutheran my father a Catholic and as is Catholic tradition in order for them to get married my mother had to agree to raise us Catholic. AS she wasn't a "devote" Lutheran this was no trouble to her.

2. Following Catholic tradition the first ceremony was baptism

3. I currently do not belong to a denomination. I find that organized religion plays too many politcal games with life and the bible so I can not follow one.

4. Officially no I have never joined another church although I have attended many. I think it's easier to name the ones I didn't attend or at least talk to a priest/reverend/etc about and they would be scientology and Jehova's witness. Although I have talked to many Jehova's Witnesses

5. I came here of my own volition. I have always had an interest in hypnosis by itself and I located this link from somewhere in cyberspace. It was back before the site had changed. I have come back from time to time mainly because I had questions that nagged at me. I was looking for something and I wasn't sure what it was. I've read many posts, I've read the journals and I couldn't seem to figure out what was bothering me.

6. My belief system is extrememly simple. I believe we as humans are greedy and spend way to much time on ourselves. We do not Love each other the way we are intended. I believe the only truly important part of the new testament is at the last supper when Jesus said this is my commandment Love one another as I have Loved you. Couple this with the 7 virtues (yes I am aware they are not listed in the bible anywhere) to form a set of morals. Anything that is not moral by definition is immoral therefore anything not in accordance with the 7 virtues is an immoral act. For me that means that even the act of watching TV is immoral and while I am weak and do spend time doing it I try to spend my time more productively. I believe sin is equal and what Jesus wants from us is to recognize and acknowledge when we sin and repent for it. If you truly want to get into it I don't care whether someone accepts Jesus or not and I don't believe that is the onyl ticket to heaven. I believe if you try to be as moral as you can and when you are weak you recognize it and try harder next time you are working through Him.

Only through me can anyone reach the kingdom of heaven.

The rest are preferences and traditions which don't matter. They have set churches apart and made Christians break the one true commandment. I wasn't here to get anyone to do anything they didn't want. I was simply here to question people and try to get them to question themselves. I believe (even before the Pope decried it) the Kingdom of heaven is open to all if they just try and move in the right direction.

I must say if there are any questions I missed that you would like a specific answer too please reply back with them as I did not mean too. I would like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion as you have helped shape my beliefs for the future I would love to continue any discussion is anyone else would like. Also thank you to those who just read and never posted it makes me feel good to know my thread was a fairly popular one. I also have a hotmail account I set up if someone would like to emailfor any reason. MereMortal82@hotmail.com

May I ask what areas you feel I need to study up on so that I can have this discussion intellegently?

If anyone feels I have tried to deceive them I truly apologize and I did not. I have been trying and would like to know where I went wrong. I truly enjoyed this discussion

Thank you for your precious time.

[sandy82]

Mortal,

A much fuller response than I had anticipated...although I had hoped for some answers to Question No. 6. :)

You asked for suggestions, and therefore I will offer one or more.

There are several ways to conduct a debate/discussion, and the methods vary according to the purpose of the organizer. At the Oxford Union, the teams mean to win; second place is oblivion. In a senior seminar, a professor uses the technique to draw out students, express a variety of viewpoints, and not plump for one or another favored solution.

For my part, I don't favor discussions whose method is to suck in people with a seemingly non-controversial opening gambit...and from then on everything follows uphill (or downhill) with inescapable logic. That's what I meant in my original post in this thread: the a priori underpinnings of a discussion determine the winner before the first word is uttered.

I don't offer my view as a suggeston; I mention it as an example in contrast to the foregoing. I think it is factual. Morals in the western world are built primarily on Moses' Ten Commandments and Jesus' two commandments. There is explanatory commentary to fill entire libraries. St. Paul imported Greek notions of moderation and order; he was a Roman citizen with a Greek education. The 10/2 are the basis for most laws and ethical standards in the West, as they touch on moral values. With the spread of European empires in the 17th-19th centuries these Biblical/Greek/Western values became the basis of laws on much, perhaps most, of the planet. That's a process quite different from virtually identical values springing up in the souls of men the world over.

The empirical evidence for the former position is such areas as Papua New Guinea: anthropologists are reasonably certain what happened to the flesh of Nelson Rockefeller's son, but they haven't discovered his bones. I don't mean to sound macabre, but perhaps they have been made into earrings.

A fair discussion, in my view, presupposes a level playing field. On the question of morals, I would be upfront...as in the two preceding paragraphs. If I were to be excessively concerned that people might not take part, then I would be slouching toward the very proselytizing and
intellectual nimbleness (I do not use the word "dishonesty") that I had wanted to avoid.

I happen to believe that proselytizing, in its usual forms, is a sin. It presupposes that the instigator believes he knows better than others, that persuasive techniques of various abstruse kinds are permissible. Much of this proselytizing is, in equal parts, unchecked enthusiasm, pride, and guile. Often the guile is provided by a higher level to the foot soldiers, who may not even recognize it themselves.

I saw elements of this in your explanation of the source of morality. It's filled with non-sequiturs caused by your unwillingness to mention God too prominently, caused in turn by your eagerness to convince. You wound up with a construction parallel to that PR marvel called "intelligent design"--whose purpose, it seems to me, is first to undermine Darwin and second to reimpose the Genesis account of creation.

I am leery of such people and their hobby-horses. I grew up in a rural area where memories of the Blue Laws are still fresh. Under state law, you could buy band-aids in the drugstore on Sunday. But no candy bars. They were a violation of the state criminal code. Such laws used to prevail in a majority of states...and not so long ago.

If this country is supposed to have no established religion, why was the sale of candy bars on Sunday a violation of criminal law...while sale of candy bars on Friday and Saturday were just fine. Dare I say it: the majority in most state legislatures didn't give a rat's about Muslim or Jewish voters. And the majorities in certain Protestant denominations, believing that they hold the keys to the only true religion, thought that was fine and dandy. So much for tolerance and empathy.

Scratch the skin of a proponent of proselytizing and intelligent design and, chances are, you will find a former supporter of the Blue Laws. I part doctrinal company with such people early and often. They believe in only one sin associated with alcohol: it is evil to drink it. I believe in two. First, absent medical or age considerations, it is a sin not to drink alcohol. 8O Second, it is a sin to get drunk. Are French and Italian 10-year-olds destined to go to hell for drinking weak wine with their meals?

As to this site. I have not seen anything in the layout or management of this site that I would consider immoral. In fact, the opposite is true. If a file may cause dependence, it is labeled. If there is a "curse", it is labeled. Frankly, there's a dollop of humor in much of this. But the point is that the labeling is up front. And if someone believes that the present-day equivalent of an old cassette recording is going to turn them into a cat or a dog, well nobody--not even Jesus--can protect the invincibly ignorant from their own imaginations.

We live in a real world where all choices are less than perfect. By way of example, listening to a hypnosis tape for 30 minutes is far to be preferred to spending an equal amount of time eating mercury-laced canned tuna. It's more moral too, when one considers the imperative to protect the mind, body, and soul.

My suggestion. Be upfront with people. Be more interested in the process of discussion than in your desired results. Check constantly to ensure that your belief systems are not affecting the way you deal with others.

I received your "Apology" via PM. No apology was appropriate, sought, needed, or desired. I noted your complimentary close. I hope your sentiments were genuine, but I don't accept "Love" from strangers...even if they intend for me to construe it as an expression of agape on their part.

Forgive me for impugning your veracity on at least one point. I don't think you're acting alone or without direction. I expect my view to become clearer in the weeks and months to come.

I offer best wishes. I suspect you have learned at least as much as the particpants and readers of your thread.

By the way, the University of Michigan has a website containing the entire King James Version of the Bible. It is indexed by every single word and phrase. It beats dictionary.com.

[Mortal]

Quite mouthful to be sure.

I had to amend this so if someone read the long version I apologize for the change.

It was genuine and the reason I put it I'm not sure but was moved to express love. Maybe it was to ensure I stayed humble but I digress.

The reason I had not used the mention of God was that no one else used the word God. This from the beginning was a discussion on peoples beliefs. It would be arrogant for me to ask a question and then answer it myself. I chose to listen to others and ask questions to see if I can follow their line of thinking. Use of dictionary.com was necessary to consolidate capture the true meanings of words so misinterpretations could not be used. I would challenge you to find a place I accused anyone of anything and did anything but ask questions. I never forbid anyone from asking me that question and I've answered it for you when asked. If someone has another question for me I will answer it willingly.

On to your opinions. Isn't it weak to talk about tribal cultures and compare them to the modern technological age. While Africa may have a a sense of moral relativity their culture has not shown itself capable of handling modern day society. By these comparisons I come to the conclusion that to advance further than we are now (and to avoid falling backward) we must adhere even more strictly to a moral code than ever before as they have to adhere to one to move to the modern era.

[Jack]

People guard themselves differently and speak differently when in the presence of "one of those".

And you don't guard yourself when in the presence of non-believers who may or may not share your position?

You might also be surprised to know that although I would disagree with any such laws I also respect the Constitution to know that a local law like that is perfectly legal (as long as the state and even more the federal governments didn't adopt them "Congress shall make no law").

Seeing as how freedom is one of the basic principles upon which the US is founded, aren't such laws unconstitutional? Such as segregation; banning abortion; restricting religion. Does the government have the right to tell any individual what they can and cannot do to/with their own body/mind?

[Mortal]

People guard themselves differently and speak differently when in the presence of "one of those".

And you don't guard yourself when in the presence of non-believers who may or may not share your position?

I admit at times I do. I did not intend that as an insult but a statement of observation.

You might also be surprised to know that although I would disagree with any such laws I also respect the Constitution to know that a local law like that is perfectly legal (as long as the state and even more the federal governments didn't adopt them "Congress shall make no law").

Seeing as how freedom is one of the basic principles upon which the US is founded, aren't such laws unconstitutional? Such as segregation; banning abortion; restricting religion. Does the government have the right to tell any individual what they can and cannot do to/with their own body/mind?

While I would love to argue the ins and outs of the constitution which we could start another thread to. I would like to try to keep this thread on topic but please start one and I will participate. Also, I apologize for changing my post it just didn't say what I wanted properly.

[sandy82]

Jack, I think you're onto something.

As a son of Texas, you are familiar with states' rights and local government. And you probably know all of this. There are only two sources of sovereignty in the U.S.--the federal government and the state governments. Local governments have no independence or jurisdiction except those that the state government delegates to them. The First Amendment was made applicable with full force to the states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ever notice how religious zealots don't like a free debate conducted on a level playing field. They start with the notion that they are Right From The Start. Hardly a useful way to have a discussion.

I'm glad you included the quotations from the "longer" edition. They show that these were in fact very different documents. I also hear that the first one condemned the Vikings. Well, why not? They figured out when St. Patrick's Day and robbed the Irish pilgrims like clockwork every year. Apparently they noticed things. The Catholic Church noticed them, too. It included a line in the Litany against them.

And now they are Lutherans. Funny thing, that.

If anyone made a copy of the "longer" edition, why not post it. Then all of us can decide for ourselves whether the replacement is merely a shortened version. The comparison may also give us insight into the depth of commitment to the truth.

[Jack]

---Mortal---
If you read sandy's posts you'll find at least one reason why she's so bitter/defensive/whatever when it comes to topics like this one. Way to edit that question out by the way.

I intended my question as an observation of your own behaviors.

As far as being on or off topic.. you did bring it up in a post under this topic. Way to avoid the point.

Dictionary.com is good as a general outline for definitions. But for a lot of words, a lot of people have individual definitions that go beyond or differ from the ones present there.

Just because a culture is now dead or on the brink of being so, that doesn't mean that it's any less relevant.

---sandy---
Sorry, I didn't have the foresight of saving the original post, just of quoting it. In the future I will though. For some reason, I never expect that people will delete what they've already posted, but will add to their posts, as I have just done with this sentence.

[Mortal]

I will post it myself as I have nothing to hide. The reason for the change was in my arrogance I realized I answered a litany of questions that were unasked of me. When I reread it it didn't suit me so I changed it. However, I know I cannot escape my sin and so I will repost it.

Quite mouthful to be sure.

It was genuine and the reason I put it I'm not sure but was moved to express love. Maybe it was to ensure I stayed humble but I digress. My unwillingness to mention God is an attempt to explain my position to people who may not understand it. In my experience the words of God and Jesus have a tendancy to turn people away and dismiss whomever spoke them as "one of those". People guard themselves differently and speak differently when in the presence of "one of those".

I must state that I have no desire to replace darwinism as I truly believe in evolution and the big bang. I don't discount science as I feel that is foolhardy. You might also be surprised to know that although I would disagree with any such laws I also respect the Constitution to know that a local law like that is perfectly legal (as long as the state and even more the federal governments didn't adopt them "Congress shall make no law").
If you want to get into these things I also agree with stem cell research (as long as we make sure we are never aborting babies for the purpose of the research) and that without categorical evidence that a baby is alive in the womb (which means first trimester is the only time) abortion should not be outlawed but is immoral.

As for the 2 commandments of Jesus they are one in the same if you following the proper priority system.

I must ask if morals are Judeo-Christian principal, spread by western society please explain why the Hindu and Buddhist speak about nearly the same.
Let us go back to our previous example of lust. Buddah found that to reach enlightenment (the goal for a buddhist) one must shed sensual desires this is translated to lust. Granted, some translate this to molestations and rapes and such. But the history of Siddhartha(Buddha) prior to his enlightenment is that he had a wife and concubines. But it said nothing of rapes and molestations so one would have to question how he would know to shed such things.
Hindus believe wisdom comes from rejection of selfish desires. Lust is one of the primary selfish desires in hinduism and is to be avoided.

Hinduism and Buddhism have been around longer than Christianity and long before Marco Polo so where did these origins come from.

If we must talk about obscure religions and tribal cultures in a serious talk about society I must point out first that none of the mentioned in any previous posts (Vikings, Cannibals) have stood up to modern times and conviences. I contend that if everyone wants to live in the stone age then morality and moral relativism don't matter very much at all. However, I would enjoy going to tribes throughout africa and see what their views on hypnotic suggestion for the purpose of sexual gratification would be. My guess is they wouldn't have much idea as to what you might be talking about as they have bigger concerns. Namely survival. Perhaps we should add a new poll that asks how many would give up modern conveniences for sexual gratification.

If someone can site cases of a society (usually means more than a tribe) surviving modern times without my basis for a moral code please I would love examples. However, I feel the examples used so far as extremely weak and far reaching.

I was interested in discussion for that sake of learning, both on my part and on others. That requires other opinions, the mention of God also happens to stem them and get people defensive. I have now learned you don't even have to mention God to do this. I must ask why this is so heated when never have I condemned anyone. I have been humble, courteous, and honest. Most have been likewise. From you I get a sense of bitterness, I am accused of lying and insulted. I must ask you Sandy why they hostility? What have I done to warrant it. Because you didn't agree with my way of having a discussion? Others joined in so why does it matter to you. You could have participated but you weren't forced to read it either. Are the people on this site too dumb to have a discussion in any form other than the way you described? Do you have to speak for them and protect them from my questions?

I hope the people reading these things aren't too bored as we were getting a good number of views. I truly apologize to any sleepers for the long posts. I know what one considers interesting and important another thinks is a waste of time and boring.

[Mortal]

---Mortal---
If you read sandy's posts you'll find at least one reason why she's so bitter/defensive/whatever when it comes to topics like this one. Way to edit that question out by the way.

I intended my question as an observation of your own behaviors.

As far as being on or off topic.. you did bring it up in a post under this topic. Way to avoid the point.

Dictionary.com is good as a general outline for definitions. But for a lot of words, a lot of people have individual definitions that go beyond or differ from the ones present there.

Just because a culture is now dead or on the brink of being so, that doesn't mean that it's any less relevant.

---sandy---
Sorry, I didn't have the foresight of saving the original post, just of quoting it. In the future I will though. For some reason, I never expect that people will delete what they've already posted, but will add to their posts, as I have just done with this sentence.

Now I find myself trying to respond too quickly to too many people. I didn't bring up that point Sandy did. I chose to ignore it in the edit because it wasn't a question but a comment.

True people define seperately but that doesn't mean they change the word. I can believe the world is square but it's not.

[sandy82]

Many thanks, Mortal. I have reposted for archival purposes.

You have been arrogant since your private post to me. Worse, it seems you don't even realize it.

There's no reason to go into a great amount of detail with you. You have more exuberance than data. I mention something in passing. You have the two commandments backwards. The one you didn't mention is the more important...it is unequivocal and it has no wiggle room.

Anybody can post anything they want. And they do. I have learned a lot here from a large group of mostly very pleasant people. You don't have to apologize for the length of your posts. People know perfectly well that the flip side of freedom of speech/press is their right to ignore other people's speech and writing. Thank God, literally, for that flip side.

I entered the discussion when one level-headed and well-read individual called you a troll and left. I should have waited until it was clear that others also had left.

Quick thought: I used Papua New Guinea as an example, because the highlands were one of the few areas virtually untouched by colonialism. It had developed its own rules of human interaction.

Now, you can go back to whatever you were doing. Cheers!

I will post it myself as I have nothing to hide. The reason for the change was in my arrogance I realized I answered a litany of questions that were unasked of me. When I reread it it didn't suit me so I changed it. However, I know I cannot escape my sin and so I will repost it.

Quite mouthful to be sure.

It was genuine and the reason I put it I'm not sure but was moved to express love. Maybe it was to ensure I stayed humble but I digress. My unwillingness to mention God is an attempt to explain my position to people who may not understand it. In my experience the words of God and Jesus have a tendancy to turn people away and dismiss whomever spoke them as "one of those". People guard themselves differently and speak differently when in the presence of "one of those".

I must state that I have no desire to replace darwinism as I truly believe in evolution and the big bang. I don't discount science as I feel that is foolhardy. You might also be surprised to know that although I would disagree with any such laws I also respect the Constitution to know that a local law like that is perfectly legal (as long as the state and even more the federal governments didn't adopt them "Congress shall make no law").
If you want to get into these things I also agree with stem cell research (as long as we make sure we are never aborting babies for the purpose of the research) and that without categorical evidence that a baby is alive in the womb (which means first trimester is the only time) abortion should not be outlawed but is immoral.

As for the 2 commandments of Jesus they are one in the same if you following the proper priority system.

I must ask if morals are Judeo-Christian principal, spread by western society please explain why the Hindu and Buddhist speak about nearly the same.
Let us go back to our previous example of lust. Buddah found that to reach enlightenment (the goal for a buddhist) one must shed sensual desires this is translated to lust. Granted, some translate this to molestations and rapes and such. But the history of Siddhartha(Buddha) prior to his enlightenment is that he had a wife and concubines. But it said nothing of rapes and molestations so one would have to question how he would know to shed such things.
Hindus believe wisdom comes from rejection of selfish desires. Lust is one of the primary selfish desires in hinduism and is to be avoided.

Hinduism and Buddhism have been around longer than Christianity and long before Marco Polo so where did these origins come from.

If we must talk about obscure religions and tribal cultures in a serious talk about society I must point out first that none of the mentioned in any previous posts (Vikings, Cannibals) have stood up to modern times and conviences. I contend that if everyone wants to live in the stone age then morality and moral relativism don't matter very much at all. However, I would enjoy going to tribes throughout africa and see what their views on hypnotic suggestion for the purpose of sexual gratification would be. My guess is they wouldn't have much idea as to what you might be talking about as they have bigger concerns. Namely survival. Perhaps we should add a new poll that asks how many would give up modern conveniences for sexual gratification.

If someone can site cases of a society (usually means more than a tribe) surviving modern times without my basis for a moral code please I would love examples. However, I feel the examples used so far as extremely weak and far reaching.

I was interested in discussion for that sake of learning, both on my part and on others. That requires other opinions, the mention of God also happens to stem them and get people defensive. I have now learned you don't even have to mention God to do this. I must ask why this is so heated when never have I condemned anyone. I have been humble, courteous, and honest. Most have been likewise. From you I get a sense of bitterness, I am accused of lying and insulted. I must ask you Sandy why they hostility? What have I done to warrant it. Because you didn't agree with my way of having a discussion? Others joined in so why does it matter to you. You could have participated but you weren't forced to read it either. Are the people on this site too dumb to have a discussion in any form other than the way you described? Do you have to speak for them and protect them from my questions?

I hope the people reading these things aren't too bored as we were getting a good number of views. I truly apologize to any sleepers for the long posts. I know what one considers interesting and important another thinks is a waste of time and boring.

[Mortal]

I humbly ask for forgiveness of my arrogance. Thank you for a wonderful discussion. I will still be checking this forum if anyone has any questions for me. or anyone wants to continue our discussions. Maybe I'm wasting my time but as I said it has been a tremedous learning experience for me and I wouldn't change it for the world.

Again, Sandy I am sorry for my arrogance. Just know I work hard to try to stem it at all times.

[makidas]

Would it be fair to agree on one universal law? "And it harm none, so mote it be," in otherwords if you aren't hurting anyone, then go for it. Is that not fair? Does it not encompass morality and even more?

[Mortal]

Would it be fair to agree on one universal law? "And it harm none, so mote it be," in otherwords if you aren't hurting anyone, then go for it. Is that not fair? Does it not encompass morality and even more?

To a degree that works but I would have to ask then doesn't the absence of help hurt someone, somewhere. Let me explain my position differently.

In life there is only 1 positive and everything else is negative. For example is 3.01 = 3 no is 2.99 = 3 no you can change the question and get a yes answer but it doesn't change that only 3 = 3. This being applied to morals there is only 1 way to be moral and everything else is by nature immoral. The problem with your definition is it tries to define the immoral and make everything else moral and that isn't reality.

Does that make sense or is it just the ramblings of an idiot?

[makidas]

It seems to me, and I'm not flaming here, that you're confusing morality with ethics. I could be wrong, it would be unethical to leave a wounded person alone if they wanted and/or needed your help. I have to disagree with your one postive thing. 3.000000 is still equal to 3, 18/6 is equal to three. I guess the point I'm getting at is there is more than one solution to any problem. There is no divine truth. Also, you're not an idiot, although you could have picked a better site to hold a morality debate on.:) All for now.

[Mortal]

It seems to me, and I'm not flaming here, that you're confusing morality with ethics. I could be wrong, it would be unethical to leave a wounded person alone if they wanted and/or needed your help. I have to disagree with your one postive thing. 3.000000 is still equal to 3, 18/6 is equal to three. I guess the point I'm getting at is there is more than one solution to any problem. There is no divine truth. Also, you're not an idiot, although you could have picked a better site to hold a morality debate on.:) All for now.

There is more than one way to come about a solution but that does not change the answer. I hold true that if you want to be moral follow the seven virtues everything else (including possibly this very conversation) would by nature be immoral. if you don;t like that analogy use a square a rectangle is close to a square but nto. A triangle is not. You can take the method of jack and say I define a square differently but unfortunately that is a manipulation and doesn't change the facts.

If you'll bear with me a few moments let me explain.

I truly understand the reason for so many to feel the need to justify their sins and try to call them something else. However, in reality there is no need. Sin and immorality are a part of human nature and like it or not we are all human. I believe the only reason any sin is worse than another is because of the shame that is associated with it. In other words if a sin carries a great deal of shame you go to great lengths to hide that sin. This hiding forces you to redfine words and try to justify which just causes more guilt and eventually starts to corrupt the mind. Accept that you sin and repent for that sin. This holds true whether you repent to a God or just to yourself. All that is required is saying yes, I sinned and I am human I will try next time to make a better use of my time and then do it. Give to charity, or better yet volunteer and you will be amazed how you feel afterward.

If you don't believe that. Then I'm truly sorry but consider it. I know I was there.