|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 12:25:07 GMT -5
I thought it would be an interesting subject and since I was reading the book thought I would share. I really hadn't thought too much about how much has changed because our superstitions and errors in knowledge gave way when we started to understand the world around us more. It makes total sense of course that more knowledge can help us let go of things we once believed to be true, but I didn't link it to morality like Shermer has. I have heard bits and pieces of the measles issue and we are having some of the same issues here in Canada too. The two sides are so far apart. Some of that is due to scare tactics by those who are against vaccinations and that is sad because young mothers are making decisions based on these instead of actually looking at research presented on each side and then making an informed decision. I think some of the problem is that mothers today didn't live in a time before vaccinations and didn't live through the polio outbreaks, or even heard of the TB sanitariums. My children were young enough that they didn't get the earliest mumps vaccinations, but they got the measles vaccinations. But I saw what can happen when these diseases become quite serious. Yes in the end we have to decide what works for us. I like discussions like this. There is always something we can learn from others. True, we have to decide what works for us but we need to think about what happens if our child with measles exposes another child who happens to be too young yet for their vaccinations.I had the measles as a child and was lucky. I had no sequel from it.
My mother wasn't as lucky.
She had the measles when she was very young.
The sequel left her hearing impaired for life.
Yes I had the measles too. They believe my hearing loss is due to having Rheumatic Fever. Not sure because I have no medical history until I was adopted, and by then I was already deaf.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 12:30:53 GMT -5
Quote - What is immoral about gambling? It's not immoral for me to spend $50 on a few hours of driving a go-cart for fun, and take nothing home. Neither is it immoral for me to spend $10 in a casino for fun, whether I take anything home or not. We all "gamble" but this "gamble" by choice in the hope you can get something from someone else for nothing.Quote - The problem with illegal gambling is that (1) it is illegal, (2) the gamblers can't sue for fraud, (3) it promotes an underground industry (4) which cannot be taxed, which (5) breeds competition for dominance (6) outside the civilized rule of law, which (5) promotes underground wars which (6) increases the violent crime rate. This is looking at the societal ramifications of gambling. I was referring to the fundamental habit.Quote - Where I live normal people can go to a casino and play for fun, the government regulates the odds, and taxes the casino profits (the state's largest revenue source) and regulates who can operate a gaming facility. The government will prosecute people who cheat, and players can sue if they are cheated. The government regulates how the cards are handled and how they are disposed of. Casinos can be prosecuted for such things as loaded dice, tipped tables, and on and on. Same argument applies to the legalization of prostitution and narcotics.Quote - Making something illegal has nothing to do with making things better -- it just allows those who don't believe in something to throw those who want to do it to the crooks and gangsters. Yes, we know about Al Capone and the Prohibition. Trouble is - legalizing everything legitimizes everything. Just watch - we will "legalize" child porn in twenty or so years.One thing about not making things legal is they just go underground where they can't be monitored. Making them illegal doesn't change things, they still happen, just in a more dangerous way. Making things illegal seems to add to it's attraction for a lot of people. It's a lot more complex than it appears at first glance.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 13:41:48 GMT -5
I am reading your response as suggesting that you, too, are having some difficulty seeing "morality being driven by science". Am I reading your response correctly? I hope so, it makes my corner a little less lonely. Absolutely. I see Science as being a really cool tool in the toolbox, but a driver? Never. Still, when I read his book, I may get a better sense for how he means it. Just to be clear, I don't think he ever uses the word 'driven' in his book. It was me that used that word in my opening post. So I want to make sure no one thinks it's something he said. I have put everything that are his words in quotes, so anything outside those quotes are my words, thoughts etc. He mentions Justice quite a bit. That our need for Justice, whether it's our right to vote, marry, adopt children etc. is a huge motivator to 'bend the moral arc' as he calls it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 14:45:49 GMT -5
Quote - "One thing about not making things legal is they just go underground where they can't be monitored. Making them illegal doesn't change things, they still happen, just in a more dangerous way. Making things illegal seems to add to it's attraction for a lot of people. It's a lot more complex than it appears at first glance."
So what do you think of child porn? I mean, if no child is hurt in the making of it, what's the harm? And if not, what about "virtual porn", using computer graphics instead of children? As long as it's not illegal that will be fine?
What about narcotics? Do you believe Nixon's "war on drugs" has failed? So heroin, meth, cocaine, marijuana, ice and all future drugs should be dispensed freely from the government, or farmed out to private enterprise to beat the narcos?
How about pederasty? Can a man marry a pubescent girl? And have a one weekend marriage certificate?
All of the above are coming.
I repeat, whatever "vice" (your parents would remember that quaint word) is made legal becomes a part of the mainstream for everybody. Legality is the signal. And as Bob made clear, we forget these things were ever considered immoral.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 17:12:50 GMT -5
Dmmichgood - there was a time, back in our parents or grandparents days when being on social welfare was shameful; gambling was evil; having a child out of "wedlock" was a scandal; smoking was "worldly"; bankruptcy was dishonorable; porn wasn't something you came across; narcotics were unheard of and no-one wanted to get into debt. That's what it was like up until the 1930's.
You have absolutely NO idea what it was like living in the 1930's!
I was born in 1932, I KNOW what my parents & grandparents lived through!
You know nothing at all about it!They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm."
Nearly all the men I knew smoked.
Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man.
In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression.
There were little porn books the boys use to pass around.
No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt.
Now when you start talking about something that you really KNOW something about besides believing what you want to believe you might be worth listening to.
Bert didn't study much US history, or he would know that tobacco is the real reason why the US ended up being an English speaking country. If the English hadn't discovered tobacco that they could market in Europe as the cure-all fashion, their first colony would have collapsed and left the continent to the French and Spanish. Re: pornography -- there has always been pornography. The invention of movie pictures didn't create human interest in sexual stimulation. Neither did the invention of photography, or the invention of the printing press -- strip shows have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I dare say the vast majority of prehistoric art and sculpture would NEVER make it into modern Christian households. In fact, there was a time when the male statues in the Vatican all had penises, until they decided to break them off. Some mothers undoubtedly wished the Sears catalogue would arrive in a plain wrapper.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 17:48:10 GMT -5
Quote - "One thing about not making things legal is they just go underground where they can't be monitored. Making them illegal doesn't change things, they still happen, just in a more dangerous way. Making things illegal seems to add to it's attraction for a lot of people. It's a lot more complex than it appears at first glance." So what do you think of child porn? I mean, if no child is hurt in the making of it, what's the harm?
You obviously don't believe a child is hurt by being used as a sexual object, so you're not qualified to address the child. The other thing is that sex is a most personal involvement in another person's psyche, and children are not mature enough to be equipped to handle either consequences of sexual activity, and that is why such activity with a child has been made illegal. Some people get off on killing people too, but you're not making a case for that, are you? But it is illegal -- in most places. When is wasn't considered "fine", it WAS legal, but since it's no longer fine, it's been made illegal. Narcotics is a very useful and important drug, and I've benefited from its legal use many times. Abysmally. He is recorded as having invented it to create enough fear in people that they would re-elect him. That's why he scheduled the end of his "war" for some time after the election. Unfortunately he had already introduced military ideology and equipment into police work and the boys refuse to give up their toys. There is a vast difference between "making legal" and "dispensing freely". But in any case, even dispensing freely has proven to reduce addiction and violent crime. Furthermore, fewer people are killed when people know they're actually getting what they pay for rather than some cheap deadly substitute. Anyone can do anything he wants. But pederasty with a minor is legal rape, by the same theory as child pornography is illegal. And who gets to make a legal complaint when it involves two consenting adults? It's much less dangerous that smoking. Assuming that a girl of age 14 is pubescent, at least in one state of the US such a marriage would be legal -- on fundamentalist Christian ideology. Otherwise puberty is not a qualification for marriage. Normally 16 is a minimum age, with parental consent. Actually, I had to get my father's consent to marry when I was 20 and already a college graduate. Is puberty a requirement for marriage where you live? They don't have weekend marriage certificates in any country you've ever been to. And knowing you, you won't be going to the countries where they do have such a thing. But in your country they do have divorce. You are one paranoid critter. [/b] [/quote] I didn't say that. Thankfully, legality and morality are not the same thing. But I do know the word "vice". I have caused some people to have very major problems using vice enforcement officers, but only on "moral" grounds.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 18:51:18 GMT -5
Quote - "One thing about not making things legal is they just go underground where they can't be monitored. Making them illegal doesn't change things, they still happen, just in a more dangerous way. Making things illegal seems to add to it's attraction for a lot of people. It's a lot more complex than it appears at first glance." So what do you think of child porn? I mean, if no child is hurt in the making of it, what's the harm? And if not, what about "virtual porn", using computer graphics instead of children? As long as it's not illegal that will be fine?
What about narcotics? Do you believe Nixon's "war on drugs" has failed? So heroin, meth, cocaine, marijuana, ice and all future drugs should be dispensed freely from the government, or farmed out to private enterprise to beat the narcos?
How about pederasty? Can a man marry a pubescent girl? And have a one weekend marriage certificate?
All of the above are coming.
I repeat, whatever "vice" (your parents would remember that quaint word) is made legal becomes a part of the mainstream for everybody. Legality is the signal. And as Bob made clear, we forget these things were ever considered immoral.Where have I ever said that something that harms another is moral? Or that I condone it. Taking drugs is not immoral. It can be harmful, but usually these drugs are taken as a way of self medicating, to feel better. There are so many layers here that you don't even take into consideration. You just say it's immoral and that's that. If it is harmful it's bad for us obviously, but it doesn't make it immoral. Child pornography hurts the child. So therefore it's wrong because it causes harm. If it doesn't harm a child is it harmful? These matters are not black and white issues. The rule of thumb is are they harming someone? If the answer is yes then they need to be dealt with to stop them from causing harm. Treating people with addictions by putting them in jail is hardly helpful and probably does more harm then good. Is it moral to incarcerate an addict that would get more help in a rehab facility than a jail cell? There are much better ways of handling things than we are doing at the moment. An example of that is the way we to deal with gay people. At one time it was designated as a mental illness and they were put in asylums, sometimes castrated and other such treatments to cure them. Was that right? Not that I can see. But our error was in lack of knowledge and a belief that comes from an ancient book that didn't have a clue. So many things that you consider are immoral because of religious teachings are simply not immoral and they needed changing so that we can become more moral. I really don't like the word 'moral' to define right from wrong. I look at what we do and ask if it causes harm and is it just. If it's not, how can we change that.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 23, 2015 22:24:57 GMT -5
Some would suggest that drug taking is immoral as there is nearly always someone who gets hurt. I am referring to the illegal street scene drugs, but there can often be hurt when legal drugs are abused.
Most people who take drugs can give you a reason why, though this doesn't ameliorate the hurt.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 23:21:18 GMT -5
Some would suggest that drug taking is immoral as there is nearly always someone who gets hurt. I am referring to the illegal street scene drugs, but there can often be hurt when legal drugs are abused. Most people who take drugs can give you a reason why, though this doesn't ameliorate the hurt. Yes that is true. Excessive drug use, excessive alcohol use, excessive gambling and many more on the list can cause harm to self and others. But if you're asking me if someone coming home at the end of a hard day and popping open a beer, or smoking a joint or dropping 50 bucks at a casino is immoral I'd have to disagree with you. None of those things will hurt them or anyone else. Anything in excess seems to be the issue. Probably why the ancients thought gluttony should be a sin. Too much food can also be harmful to the self and put a drain on the healthcare system. But would you say food is immoral? I recognize it is a necessity of life, while a beer and all the rest are not, but it still can cause problems. When you talk about the harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth etc., again these are usually started innocently with the user just wanting to feel better. So while it does harm I still hesitate to say it's immoral because of the addiction aspects of it. It's not black and white for me.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 23, 2015 23:37:32 GMT -5
You have absolutely NO idea what it was like living in the 1930's!
I was born in 1932, I KNOW what my parents & grandparents lived through!
You know nothing at all about it!They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm."
Nearly all the men I knew smoked.
Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man.
In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression.
There were little porn books the boys use to pass around.
No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt.
Now when you start talking about something that you really KNOW something about besides believing what you want to believe you might be worth listening to.
I am so glad you are part of this forum!!! Thank you! That is exactly what it was like. How do I know? I had parents that were old enough to be my grandparents. I was adopted when my mother was 46. So I grew up with a generation that saved every little thing they had because they survived the depression. Debt was a way of life. Not having enough was a way of life. There were no social programs to bail you out and trust me they would have been so welcomed. Our world is a better place because of the options people now have when they are destitute. Women are better off now because they don't have to give up their babies because of the scandal and the stigma. Their 'bastards' are able to walk with their heads held high because there is no longer the stigma attached to being born out of wedlock. I know about that also. My birth mother was one of those 'fallen' women and I was what the religious world labelled as a 'bastard'. So if anyone thinks that it is more moral to not have programs in place to help people who need it, and if you think that it was better when women and children were labelled as fallen and bastards then you go right ahead. But don't try to tell me it was 'more moral' or 'more just' which is Michael's reasoning for morality. Was it just? If it wasn't it was immoral. Many people don't like to see it blamed on religion. Well, what do you think held us back from being just and moral if not religious beliefs that held women who got pregnant when not married as fallen. Who were the ones that withheld pain meds to these women while giving birth? Who are the people that burned witches? Who are the people that are fighting against the rights of gays? Who are the people that are against the right of women to use contraceptives? What is holding us back? Old beliefs that come directly out of an old supposedly moral piece of literature that tell us these things. We are slowly becoming more moral 'in spite of' these teachings. And I'm not saying that people belief these things to be mean. I'm saying they are stuck in a place that they can't escape from because they can't question the beliefs they have been taught that has been passed on to them by the people they trusted and loved. They can't question them because to question God's word is to possibly bring God's wrath down on your head. It's time to understand how these old beliefs are holding us back from being a just and moral society. Sure there are some things that the 'good book' says that make people better, more moral, more just. But there are so many things that are holding us back from being a just and therefore more moral society. I am so glad that we have got past a lot of our past 'errors' of thought and have gotten more moral. But we are still a long way from a truly just world for all. It's a journey for sure. I'm sure many will disagree with what I just said, and that's okay. You are allowed to disagree with me. But these are my thoughts and one of the big reasons I mostly agree with what Michael Shermer is saying in his book, the Moral Arc. You have absolutely NO idea what it was like living in the 1930's!
I was born in 1932, I KNOW what my parents & grandparents lived through!
You know nothing at all about it!They didn't have "social welfare' , our grandparents just had to go to the "poor farm."
Nearly all the men I knew smoked.
Having a child out of "wedlock" was a only a scandal for the woman, NOT for the the man.
In 1930 bankruptcy was not dishonorable, it was the norm for that time. You seem to have forgotten the Great Depression.
There were little porn books the boys use to pass around.
No one wanted to get into debt, because most people were already in debt & had no job where they could pay off their debt.
Now when you start talking about something that you really KNOW something about besides believing what you want to believe you might be worth listening to.
I am so glad you are part of this forum!!! Thank you! That is exactly what it was like. How do I know? I had parents that were old enough to be my grandparents. I was adopted when my mother was 46. So I grew up with a generation that saved every little thing they had because they survived the depression. Debt was a way of life. Not having enough was a way of life. There were no social programs to bail you out and trust me they would have been so welcomed. Our world is a better place because of the options people now have when they are destitute. Women are better off now because they don't have to give up their babies because of the scandal and the stigma. Their 'bastards' are able to walk with their heads held high because there is no longer the stigma attached to being born out of wedlock. I know about that also. My birth mother was one of those 'fallen' women and I was what the religious world labelled as a 'bastard'. So if anyone thinks that it is more moral to not have programs in place to help people who need it, and if you think that it was better when women and children were labelled as fallen and bastards then you go right ahead. But don't try to tell me it was 'more moral' or 'more just' which is Michael's reasoning for morality. Was it just? If it wasn't it was immoral. Many people don't like to see it blamed on religion. Well, what do you think held us back from being just and moral if not religious beliefs that held women who got pregnant when not married as fallen. Who were the ones that withheld pain meds to these women while giving birth? Who are the people that burned witches? Who are the people that are fighting against the rights of gays? Who are the people that are against the right of women to use contraceptives? What is holding us back? Old beliefs that come directly out of an old supposedly moral piece of literature that tell us these things. We are slowly becoming more moral 'in spite of' these teachings. And I'm not saying that people belief these things to be mean. I'm saying they are stuck in a place that they can't escape from because they can't question the beliefs they have been taught that has been passed on to them by the people they trusted and loved. They can't question them because to question God's word is to possibly bring God's wrath down on your head. It's time to understand how these old beliefs are holding us back from being a just and moral society. Sure there are some things that the 'good book' says that make people better, more moral, more just. But there are so many things that are holding us back from being a just and therefore more moral society. I am so glad that we have got past a lot of our past 'errors' of thought and have gotten more moral. But we are still a long way from a truly just world for all. It's a journey for sure. I'm sure many will disagree with what I just said, and that's okay. You are allowed to disagree with me. But these are my thoughts and one of the big reasons I mostly agree with what Michael Shermer is saying in his book, the Moral Arc. Snow! Thank you! I just now saw this!
Don't know I missed it before, but thank you, thank you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 1:26:44 GMT -5
Quote - "Re: pornography -- there has always been pornography. The invention of movie pictures didn't create human interest in sexual stimulation. Neither did the invention of photography, or the invention of the printing press -- strip shows have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I dare say the vast majority of prehistoric art and sculpture would NEVER make it into modern Christian households. In fact, there was a time when the male statues in the Vatican all had penises, until they decided to break them off."
Bob I could just see you saying that in some senate committee hearing on pornography. As if none of us know that porn is forever. Seriously, that's dodging the issue. And the issue is the prevalence, ready availability, intrusion into non-porn people's lives and the persistent offense, particularly to women and religious people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 1:38:27 GMT -5
Quote - "We are slowly becoming more moral 'in spite of' these teachings"
Dmmichgood, I believe you are old enough to remember those 1950 movies. Fast forward to the 2010 variety.
Compare the standard 1960's comedy of "I Dream Of Genie" to "Two And A Half Men."
Let's hear it from Wikipedia, "Censors allowed her (Genie) to be depicted living in a house with an unmarried man (because early episodes made it plain that she slept in her bottle) but would not permit Eden's navel to be seen."
Quick visit to Two and a Half Men: Charlie is drunk and singing "I love boobies" to children. Later scene - a girl calls out "Charlie!" from his bedroom and he replies, "Who is it?" "Boobies!" the girl shouts. Charlie attends to her in a shot. Audience laughs.
And how about the scene where our dear Charlie talks to his penis in a supermarket when he sees a bit of skirt. He wants to shop, his penis wants to go screw that skirt. Audience laughs.
Wonder how long before Sharon Stone's infamous crutch shot becomes standard 6 pm comedic affair?
No, Dmmichgood, we are NOT "more moral", we simply have redefined morality. Recall Lot in Sodom in Genesis? Those citizens wanted to rape the two strangers. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up like that one day.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 1:49:24 GMT -5
Quote - "We are slowly becoming more moral 'in spite of' these teachings" Dmmichgood, I believe you are old enough to remember those 1950 movies. Fast forward to the 2010 variety.
Compare the standard 1960's comedy of "I Dream Of Genie" to "Two And A Half Men."
Let's hear it from Wikipedia, "Censors allowed her (Genie) to be depicted living in a house with an unmarried man (because early episodes made it plain that she slept in her bottle) but would not permit Eden's navel to be seen."
Quick visit to Two and a Half Men: Charlie is drunk and singing "I love boobies" to children. Later scene - a girl calls out "Charlie!" from his bedroom and he replies, "Who is it?" "Boobies!" the girl shouts. Charlie attends to her in a shot. Audience laughs.
And how about the scene where our dear Charlie talks to his penis in a supermarket when he sees a bit of skirt. He wants to shop, his penis wants to go screw that skirt. Audience laughs.
Wonder how long before Sharon Stone's infamous crutch shot becomes standard 6 pm comedic affair?
No, Dmmichgood, we are NOT "more moral", we simply have redefined morality. Recall Lot in Sodom in Genesis? Those citizens wanted to rape the two strangers. I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up like that one day. NO bert! It is YOU that has decided to define MORALITY!
MORALITY ACCORDING TO BERT.
Forget the damn movies & live in the real world! ( Yes, & guess what? I can say damn now, -only a MAN could do that in 1930!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 3:02:27 GMT -5
Here it is from the bible's point of view. Do you know what happened to the Jews after Jesus? They were put through a mincing machine. Two million killed, the rest sold into slavery. Then for generations they endured pogroms, crusades, final solutions and the like. Deprived of their homeland they endured millennium of Jew hating persecution. And why? Here were people in that First Century who were quite moral - they didn't have casinos, didn't go in for multiple marriages, didn't believe in men marrying men or having sex with goats, didn't know what drugs were, weren't that big into porn etc. In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above. Yet why did all this happen to them? Because, as Jesus put it, they "didn't know the time of their visitation." Which begs the question, where do WE stand in God's eyes?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 24, 2015 3:16:46 GMT -5
Quote - "Re: pornography -- there has always been pornography. The invention of movie pictures didn't create human interest in sexual stimulation. Neither did the invention of photography, or the invention of the printing press -- strip shows have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I dare say the vast majority of prehistoric art and sculpture would NEVER make it into modern Christian households. In fact, there was a time when the male statues in the Vatican all had penises, until they decided to break them off." Bob I could just see you saying that in some senate committee hearing on pornography. As if none of us know that porn is forever. Seriously, that's dodging the issue. And the issue is the prevalence, ready availability, intrusion into non-porn people's lives and the persistent offense, particularly to women and religious people.I wasn't dodging anything -- you're just trying to deflect make it look like I did. So, if the issue isn't pornography, but its prevalence, what's to be done about it, short of castrating all newborns? It's a supply and demand economy ... in a highly technical age. And as for saying what I did to a senate hearing on pornography ... I could probably handle that. It can't be any more shocking than hearings I have attended where the regulations for brothels and prostitutes are being discussed and approved. It's the real world out there.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 24, 2015 3:22:12 GMT -5
Here it is from the bible's point of view. Do you know what happened to the Jews after Jesus? They were put through a mincing machine. Two million killed, the rest sold into slavery. Then for generations they endured pogroms, crusades, final solutions and the like. Deprived of their homeland they endured millennium of Jew hating persecution. And why? Here were people in that First Century who were quite moral - they didn't have casinos, didn't go in for multiple marriages, didn't believe in men marrying men or having sex with goats, didn't know what drugs were, weren't that big into porn etc. In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above. Yet why did all this happen to them? Because, as Jesus put it, they "didn't know the time of their visitation." Which begs the question, where do WE stand in God's eyes? The moral first century, huh? You have no idea what you missed. But then, they couldn't teach you that when you were in school. You have to be literate and hang out with academics to get that picture.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 3:29:32 GMT -5
Here it is from the bible's point of view. Do you know what happened to the Jews after Jesus? They were put through a mincing machine. Two million killed, the rest sold into slavery. Then for generations they endured pogroms, crusades, final solutions and the like. Deprived of their homeland they endured millennium of Jew hating persecution. And why? Here were people in that First Century who were quite moral - they didn't have casinos, didn't go in for multiple marriages, didn't believe in men marrying men or having sex with goats, didn't know what drugs were, weren't that big into porn etc. In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above.
Yet why did all this happen to them? Because, as Jesus put it, they "didn't know the time of their visitation." Which begs the question, where do WE stand in God's eyes? Bert are you saying that:"Here were people in that First Century who were quite moral - they didn't have casinos, didn't go in for multiple marriages, didn't believe in men marrying men or having sex with goats, didn't know what drugs were, weren't that big into porn etc. ""In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above."and that was "quite moral?"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 3:44:50 GMT -5
Quote - "Re: pornography -- there has always been pornography. The invention of movie pictures didn't create human interest in sexual stimulation. Neither did the invention of photography, or the invention of the printing press -- strip shows have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I dare say the vast majority of prehistoric art and sculpture would NEVER make it into modern Christian households. In fact, there was a time when the male statues in the Vatican all had penises, until they decided to break them off." Bob I could just see you saying that in some senate committee hearing on pornography. As if none of us know that porn is forever. Seriously, that's dodging the issue.
And the issue is the prevalence, ready availability, intrusion into non-porn people's lives and the persistent offense, particularly to women and religious people. If you want my advice, Bert, I would say that maybe you should do as I do and just don't look at that stuff. Go read a good book, like Iliad or the works of Hugo, or Dickens or Kipling. In fact I have an online book store at Amazon where I sell some of the best at a great price!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 5:44:48 GMT -5
We are at a stage of life where pornography has not only gone mainstream (think Fifty Shades of Grey) but it has saturated our media - magazines, movies, internet. It has become normalized. Recall the children calling out "Boobies!" in Two and a Half Men I mentioned above. I suppose it would be all but impossible for children to avoid the incessant barrage of pornography these days. For women this is clearly intimidating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 5:51:56 GMT -5
Quote - "In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above." and that was "quite moral?"
A question if I may, by way of example. In Brisbane, Australia, there was an issue with crows (ravens) The council policy was to shoot them as they caused headaches for residents and all the other birds in the city. But people who are in the business of shifting moral definitions felt shooting crows was immoral. So crows were protected. At the convention there the noise and racket and filth of these crows was obvious. A Worker used it as an analogy - he said to the effect that we now "tolerate" the crow, but we now must "put up with the crow."
A question if I may (and remember Brisbane has lost of a lot of its small birds) - Who was "moral"? The protector of the crow, or the shooter of the crow? The one who tolerates the problem, or the one who deals with the problem?
(think shifting attitudes towards hard drugs, by way of example.)
This is how one must view societies which don't tolerate what they feel is bad behavior (think Saudi Arabia today)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 13:46:18 GMT -5
We are at a stage of life where pornography has not only gone mainstream (think Fifty Shades of Grey) but it has saturated our media - magazines, movies, internet. It has become normalized. Recall the children calling out "Boobies!" in Two and a Half Men I mentioned above. I suppose it would be all but impossible for children to avoid the incessant barrage of pornography these days. For women this is clearly intimidating. Something wrong with 'boobies' Bert? Children do know they exist. In societies where there isn't such a stigma about the naked body, children don't care one way or another. Do think maybe it's our crazy attitude towards sex and the nude body that causes so much of what you call immorality today? When everything is kept 'secret/covered' it becomes a curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 24, 2015 15:10:51 GMT -5
Quote - "In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above." and that was "quite moral?" This is how one must view societies which don't tolerate what they feel is bad behavior (think Saudi Arabia today) You weren't talking about crows, Bert.This is what you were talking about ' "Here were people in that First Century who were quite moral - they didn't have casinos, didn't go in for multiple marriages, didn't believe in men marrying men or having sex with goats, didn't know what drugs were, weren't that big into porn etc."
"In fact they killed anyone who did any of the above."
BTW, if you want to go & live in Saudi Arabia I'll will contact the King. I'm sure he will let you go there, if You obey the 10 banned things in their country
Top 10 Everyday Things Banned in Saudi Arabia
"In Saudi Arabia there are no specific statutes or laws to govern by.
The sole constitution that is used is the Quran, which all judges have to interpret conservatively.
Many actions that are considered illegal have no actual written laws to ban them – a lot of them are not even addressed in the Quran.
Some of these bans also occur in other countries, but this list is specifically about Saudi Arabia since I was born there and I grew up (along with millions of others) shackled by these laws.
The general rule in regards to the legality of something is that if it is suspected to be “haram” (forbidden or clashing with Islamic law or may lead people astray from Islam) then suspicion alone is grounds for banning it."
Nayef A November 12, 2012
10
Happy Valentine’s
Banned: Selling or wearing anything red on Valentine’s Day
Every February 14th entails the same procedure; flower shops and gift shops are prohibited from selling red roses, anything heart-shaped or red for that matter on that day by the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” (CPVPV) otherwise known as the Religious Police. The penalty for violating that rule would lead to the store being shut down. Also on that day, schoolgirls are prohibited from wearing anything red – not even a red scarf. Any girl that shows up to school with a hint of red is barred from entry and is sent home to change whatever it is that is red. The usual reasoning for banning anything red on Valentine’s Day is to discourage people from celebrating it (as it is not an Islamic occasion and it may lead people “astray”) and to prevent people dating or from having any contact outside marriage.
9
Social Mixing
Banned: The mixing of sexes at malls and restaurants
In many malls in Saudi, only “families” are allowed. And by families, they mean either women visiting a mall by themselves, or men who are accompanied by women. Mall security would not allow a group of men or a single man to enter unless a woman is with them. This is especially true mainly for Saudi men, while many non-Saudi men (especially Western expats) are allowed in with no problems most of the time. As for restaurants, there are typically two sections: one for families and one for singles, according to the same designation as mentioned before. In a mall McDonald’s for example, there would be two separate lines for men and women. In a standalone McDonald’s restaurant, however, there are two completely segregated sections so the men on their own would not mingle at all with the women and men on the other side.
8
The Movies Now that would take care of your dirty movies, Bert! eh in fact all Movies!
Banned: Movie theaters
Movie theaters are prohibited and they are only located within private company compounds, such as theaters at Saudi Aramco residential camps. The usual reason given for banning them is that they allow for men and women to mingle unsupervised, leading to possible immoral actions outside the realm of marriage. For this reason, many Saudis who live close to the island nation of Bahrain drive over there on weekends to watch movies and drink, since alcohol is also prohibited in Saudi Arabia.
7
Bacon! Hope you don't like bacon with your eggs, Bert
Banned: Pork
Since Saudi Arabia operates under Islamic law, all food entering the country must be “halal”. It is a country that considers all its citizens to be Muslim and any non-Muslim expats have to abide by its strict rules as well. Furthermore, because Saudi Arabia contains the two holy mosques, it considers having any pork inside the country desecration. Many other nations have similar laws restricting access to pork but they have never outright banned it, in order to accommodate their non-Muslim citizens and expats.
6
Music School
Banned: Music classes in public schools
Music is legal in Saudi Arabia and there is an active music industry. However, there are no formal schools to teach music. The general attitude for many religious people is that music is forbidden; malls and stores do not have music playing through speakers in order not to offend religious customers.
Because of this attitude, schools and universities do not teach music (curricula have to follow Islamic law). Islamic classes have lessons outwardly proclaiming that music is forbidden. Those who master singing or playing an instrument either teach themselves, are taught by a tutor or learn abroad. Despite all this, there is an underground culture of rock bands and concerts hidden away from the eyes of religious officials.
5
Gyms for Girls
Banned: Gyms and sports for women
For a while, private gyms for women were allowed to operate until the Religious Police decided to close them down for good. In girls’ schools and universities, there are no gym classes or sports teams, and therefore there are no professional women’s teams. Saudi Arabia faces a ban from the International Olympic Committee for never sending out any female delegates and the Saudi Olympic Committee was only able to find two girls, one of whom was born and raised and trained in the United States.
4
Every Other God
Banned: Other religions As a Christian, I'm SURE you would like this one.
It is against the law for non-Muslims to worship in public in Saudi Arabia and there are no houses of worship to cater to non-Muslims. The main reason, yet again, is because the two holy mosques are located in the country and that is would be blasphemous for churches or other places of worship to exist there. If anyone converts from Islam or abandons religion, they face the death penalty. The ban is not just limited to places of worship but even extends to personal religious items such as religious books (Bibles, for example) and symbols, such as crosses and crucifixes. All of this is in an effort to prevent non-Muslims from sharing their ideas with Muslims and possibly converting them.
3
Women At Work
Banned: Women working in certain jobs
Women are not allowed to do most of the jobs that men can do in Saudi Arabia. Industry-wise, the sole company that employs female engineers is Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company in the world. Other companies would not be allowed to hire women as engineers. Most women work in either education or the medical field. Women have only recently been allowed to work as store clerks or at department stores. At the time of writing, a few hypermarkets have allowed women to work at checkout counters and some department stores have allowed them to work there as well. These companies require employed women to cover their faces at all times while working. One notable place of business where women are absent from is the lingerie store, which are still fully staffed by men.
2
Roaming Women
Banned: Women traveling without permission
Over in Saudi Arabia, women cannot travel alone without a specific form or an electronic authorization. This ban is only lifted when a woman turns 45. Women under 45 must either travel with a husband or father or else hold a permission form signed by a male guardian. Recently, an online travel authorization system was initiated in which the male guardian can make these arrangements less bureaucratic. Many male family members are understanding and allow the women in their families full freedom in leaving or entering the country. However, a good proportion of society views freedom of mobility for women as something that could lead to immorality and thus strictly forbid women in their home from leaving the house, let alone the country.
1
Women Behind the Wheel
Banned: Women driving
This is the most notorious ban involving Saudi women. Women have never been allowed to drive unless they drive in the desert or inside private compounds. Otherwise, families have to hire private drivers to take women to work and elsewhere if the men in the household have no time. The main arguments for preventing women from driving are that it may cause women to leave their houses more often than they need to (which is frowned upon); they may have interactions with unrelated males and the need to uncover their faces.
Every few years movements rise up calling for women to be allowed to drive, mostly in the form of a protest in which women dare to go out and drive their cars – risking arrest and job security, among other things. A number of women tried to obtain driver’s licenses, but were shocked to find out that the computers at license offices aren’t able to look up their information when their ID numbers are entered, as the database only includes men.
Bon Voyage, Bert!
have a nice trip, have safe journey, Bert!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 17:57:07 GMT -5
I would imagine that Saudi Arabia thinks it's one of the most moral countries on earth. Yet it breaks so many moral and ethical rules it's amazing. Such a fun place to live!! Not!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 24, 2015 18:52:39 GMT -5
I would imagine that Saudi Arabia thinks it's one of the most moral countries on earth. Yet it breaks so many moral and ethical rules it's amazing. Such a fun place to live!! Not! The moral of the story is that if you have a hard and fast rule about something, you're actually denying a moral decision.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 23:35:39 GMT -5
I would imagine that Saudi Arabia thinks it's one of the most moral countries on earth. Yet it breaks so many moral and ethical rules it's amazing. Such a fun place to live!! Not! The moral of the story is that if you have a hard and fast rule about something, you're actually denying a moral decision. Pretty much. Because life is rarely black and white. Instead of having absolutes that are written in stone, it makes more sense to base decisions on what would work best 'now', do the least harm and contribute to the good of those who are effected by the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 25, 2015 0:17:08 GMT -5
The moral of the story is that if you have a hard and fast rule about something, you're actually denying a moral decision. Pretty much. Because life is rarely black and white. Instead of having absolutes that are written in stone, it makes more sense to base decisions on what would work best 'now', do the least harm and contribute to the good of those who are effected by the decisions. But I wonder how many adults really have the integrity to make moral judgments without having them underwritten by some dictate.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 0:29:50 GMT -5
Pretty much. Because life is rarely black and white. Instead of having absolutes that are written in stone, it makes more sense to base decisions on what would work best 'now', do the least harm and contribute to the good of those who are effected by the decisions. But I wonder how many adults really have the integrity to make moral judgments without having them underwritten by some dictate. Sigh... or need the threat of hell by a judgmental God hanging over their heads.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 25, 2015 0:30:09 GMT -5
Pretty much. Because life is rarely black and white. Instead of having absolutes that are written in stone, it makes more sense to base decisions on what would work best 'now', do the least harm and contribute to the good of those who are effected by the decisions. Here's why that won't work: I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. His obituary reads as follows: Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape. Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering.
Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S. A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet.
C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math. C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus.
In the following decades, his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf.
His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies. Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure.
As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last.
Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.
|
|