If You Reject The Religion, Why Do You Still Accept Their Definition Of Morality?

[Suzy]

i believe in many of the morals of christians such as: dont steal, dont murder, dont rape. I also believe that monogamy is best for the family. i also believe that abortion is murdering. i believe in the death penalty in theory. i dont believe in gay marriage. (well technically i dont believe any marriage is a legal matter and there should be no government rewards for marriage)

But monogamy is not a Christian value. Even the New Testament only requires monogamy from bishops. Monogamy had to come from somewhere else because the Bible doesn't order it!

 

 

Don't steal, don't kill, don't rape aren't exclusively Christian values either. They are the foundations of all human societies, even in those which are not based on Christianity. These are basic human morals which are probably evolutionary heritage. (Besides the Bible says "don't kill" in one verse and then in another God orders his people to massacre....)

 

As a Xtian I was against gay marriage, but I don't have anything against it now. Homosexuality was always a part of human nature, it seems to me (it was no big deal in ancient Rome or Greece, for example), until the Abrahamic religions didn't become oppressive of it. Other than religion I can't see why I should condemn homosexuality or not give the same rights to gay couples as to straight ones. What harm does that do to anyone? And I don't think being gay is a moral issue. You are what you are. It's not immoral to be black or white. So it's not immoral to be gay or straight.

 

Abortion is a bit more tricky. I have to say this is the area where I too remain stuck with "Christian values", although I acknowledge there may be cases where it's absolutely necessary. Still I would never feel comfortable with doing it myself and I would feel it as "killing".

 

Death penalty. My country doesn't have the death penalty, nor does the EU. Still the crime rates, especially violent crimes, murders etc. are lower here than in the US.... So I don't think the death penalty solves or prevents anything. Although there are certainly cases where I feel it's deserved. (For someone like Timothy McVeigh, for example.) On the other hand some argue that life-long prison may be a bigger punishment than death.

 

 

[SilentLoner]

^Funny how the christian church didn't have much of a problem with abortions until the 1800's. Back before that if the abortion were done before "quickening" (movement) occured, it was not a sin. If that were the norm still today would you go along with the "xtian values?"

[Suzy]

^Funny how the christian church didn't have much of a problem with abortions until the 1800's. Back before that if the abortion were done before "quickening" (movement) occured, it was not a sin. If that were the norm still today would you go along with the "xtian values?"

 

 

It depends on what you consider the beginning of life. Conceiving seems to be right to me. It's just that I wouldn't go for abortion. Well, of course there may be situations where I perhaps would - for example health risks -, but there would have to be a really strong reason for it. For example, I wouldn't consider it a good enough reason that the father of my child left me and he isn't willing to participate in the upbringing of the child. He'd be a bastard for that, but to me that wouldn't be a good enough reason to have an abortion. I'm just talking about me, how I feel about it for my own life.

 

Having said that I don't judge anyone who goes for abortion with a good reason (and it's not just that she is f*cking around with everyone without even considering protection). Acually my great-grandmother was in jail back in the 50s for helping a woman to get to an abortion doctor. At the time abortion was illegal here. This woman was married to a drunkard and they already had some handicapped kids. So she wanted an abortion and since it was illegal she went to a doctor who carried out abortions illegally. And my great-grandmother helped to get this doctor for her. Unfortunately it all went wrong as there were complications and the woman had to be taken to hospital. So they were all arrested and put to jail, including my great-grandmother.

 

So I'm well aware of the dangers of it if it's made totally illegal. Whoever wants it will still go for it, but the dangers of complications are bigger. I don't want it to be illegal but I hope people don't take it too lightly either as if it's nothing, and they'd take care of themselves before it could come to this. We have dozens of methods for protection now, so it doesn't have to be this way.

[chosendarkness]

Either way, I want my wife to be faithful to me. That was true both when we fundies and now we are both atheists.

I think people give Christianity way more credit than it deserves.

[hereticzero]

Morals are a natural human reaction. This why one does not have to be religious to be a moral person. Humans cooperate in order for a civilization to exist. I do what is best for my family. I did not have to have a religion to tell me I should be providing food and shelter and clothing for my family. The only religious morals I am required to keep are the Sunday School lessons passed in disguise as law, such as marijuana laws. They were passed to protect feeble religious beliefs.

[Onyx]

Morality, in my opinion, doesn't simply come from religion, but from the strenuous testing of people who live together e.g in cities and that I think morality is innate - with variants of course - every person will have a common morality (don't kill and steal) but even the commonest morality is subject to context and situation.

Moralities are subject to evolution but in a different way.

For example, it was considered perfectly fine to execute a person who wears cross material dresses, now we think it might - with an emphasis on the might - be okay to execute major criminals such as serial killers. That is still subject to the process of changing morality, there is an anti death penalty movement.

 

I think because we moved from executing persons whose offenses are superficial,

to executing persons whose offenses are not superficial but substantial enough to incur it,

to being able to give these people a second chance are the probable result of a widening circle of empathy.

"How would we feel being not given a second chance were we in their circumstances?

Would we feel despondent because we deserved to die without being considered?

Would we feel forgotten probably because the law considered us guilty but that we're actually innocent?"

From such questions morality can be considered and changed.

 

That was what happened with the civil rights movement of the 60s.

It probably started with this question: "Why is that we whose skin colour is black are considered inferior to the people whose skin colour is white?

Why does the "superior race" get the better deal whilst we only have ghettos and such like?" BOOM. A revolution in equality starts.

 

I think if religious people lay claim to the sole morality, they have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask: "Am I so sure I can't steal because of God?" They should also consider Sweden, tribes of Africa and the everyday businesses of people who aren't religious. And then explain that in spite of there being more people who aren't religious and whose religion is not Christianity, how the world haven't gone to the dogs.

 

Especially when it comes to sexual morality. That's the most embarrassing part for the religious person because why is that in spite of having gay marriage that the Netherlands and South Africa haven't gone to seed. How the world doesn't end because of a lot of couples who indulge in BDSM. And why is that in spite of "gays being corrupters" that their prominent anti-gay leaders are so often caught in a toilet and sometimes with a page boy? Before arguing that religion confers on only morality, the religious people should ask themselves these questions.

[Deva]

But monogamy is not a Christian value. Even the New Testament only requires monogamy from bishops. Monogamy had to come from somewhere else because the Bible doesn't order it!

 

Maybe its not in the Bible but that was sure what I was taught growing up in the Baptist Church! It never, ever occurred to me when I was young that there were other acceptable ways to live.

 

The question of sex is rather twisted in Christianity and it was so from the very early Church Fathers. Same with the role of women- which CAN be derived from the Bible.

 

I think my ideas about sex came more from my mother than from any teachings in the church. She was very plainly ashamed of her sexuality and her body and this transferred. I think she used the church as a refuge to be among people who felt the same way and I suspect it predated her conversion to Christianity.

 

It really did not come from the church, but it was modeled at home. Children tend to take on the modeling unless there are strong contrary influences. Myself, being timid and eager to please, was especially vulnerable. Consequently I like to keep myself well covered and dress modestly. I would not feel comfortable otherwise.

 

I don't accept all the Christian ideas of morality I was raised with. I think the idea of no sex before marriage is ludicrous. I deplore the death penalty, whereas the Christians were for it.

 

Some of the political right-wing stuff the church was into or my family was into (they were all for the Vietnam war) I think is actually not Christian. At least not entirely depending on which part of the Bible you read!

 

I was taught homosexuality was wrong but never had any clear idea of what a homosexual was until after high school! They were evil but I didn't know any homosexuals and didn't really know anything about it. I had this prejudiced idea in me and it was not until well into adulthood that I was able to understand and overcome it.

[lunaticheathen]

To echo many posters, I think it's a sticky combination of culture and parenting. One can drop the belief system, but still be entrenched in their idea of "morality" with little to no good reason. In some people, the critical thinking just doesn't address those kinds of prejudices, and sexuality, in particular, is one of the most taboo subjects in our heavily puritanical culture. There is no proper place for it, so that's why it's either not talked about, or overblown to idiotic proportions in the media. Basically, there's not much room for rational discourse on WHY people feel the way they do about sexuality.

Personally, I was a strange kid, and asked my mom early on about prostitution. I remember, I was 7, and I asked what a prostitute is. She answered with just the facts, and said it was illegal. I, very puzzled, asked why - wasn't sex fun for adults, and who has the right to say someone can't do what they want with their bodies, their one possession from birth no one can take? My mom got a little flustered, and started to trot out the feminist line - pimps take control of young girls, it's not safe, a proud woman wouldn't do that, blah blah. She did accept my idea, that, in theory, any person should be able to provide services for pay, as long as no harm comes to anyone, but still is, to this day, shaky on legalization of it all. I now know more about how other countries deal with prostitution, like Denmark, and completely support the legalization of prostitution. Drugs as well, because who the fuck is the government to tell me what I can do with my body - basic same reasoning.

As for gay marriage, that's just plain old ingrained prejudice on the part of anyone who doesn't think they deserve the same rights as hetero couples.

This holdover of "christian morals" was never a problem with me - maybe because I never really swallowed their idea of "morals" in the first place.

[Galien]

I think prositution should be legalised too, I think it is in Australia. Having said that though after being a prostitute myself when I was younger I do think a lot of the negative things about it are true. A lot of the women are from abusive backgrounds, most have self esteem and emotional/mental health/substance abuse issues that make them especially vulnerable. This is why it is a good idea for it to be legalised and organised with a prostitutes union

[Suzy]

But monogamy is not a Christian value. Even the New Testament only requires monogamy from bishops. Monogamy had to come from somewhere else because the Bible doesn't order it!

 

Maybe its not in the Bible but that was sure what I was taught growing up in the Baptist Church! It never, ever occurred to me when I was young that there were other acceptable ways to live.

 

 

Once the pastor of my church was asked about it and he had to admit it's not in the Bible that poligamy is wrong. He said in theory it would be acceptable on biblical standards. He said actually it's more accaptable, according to the Bible, than to have sex outside of marriage. If you marry the woman, it's OK, even if she is your 5th wife. That's actually the biblical moral about it....

 

That we now think poligamy is wrong is not based on biblical values and even if people think of it as a Xtian value that perception is wrong. Besides we have many non-Xtian cultures where poligamy is considered wrong. Again that doesn't come from the Bible.

[SilentLoner]

Either way, I want my wife to be faithful to me. That was true both when we fundies and now we are both atheists.

I think people give Christianity way more credit than it deserves.

 

Agreed. Lets not forget that the ten commandments were likely ripped off from the 42 Commandments of Ancient Egypt. IMHO its a way better list.

 

THE 42 COMMANDMENTS OF ANCIENT EGYPT

 

I.

Thou shalt not kill, nor bid anyone kill.

 

II.

Thou shalt not commit adultery or rape.

 

III.

Thou shalt not avenge thyself nor burn with rage.

 

IV.

Thou shalt not cause terror.

 

V.

Thou shalt not assault anyone nor cause anyone pain.

 

VI.

Thou shalt not cause misery.

 

VII.

Thou shalt not do any harm to man or to animals.

 

VIII.

Thou shalt not cause the shedding of tears.

 

IX.

Thou shalt not wrong the people nor bear them any evil intent.

 

X.

Thou shalt not steal nor take that which does not belong to you.

 

XI.

Thou shalt not take more than thy fair share of food.

 

XII.

Thou shalt not damage the crops, the fields, or the trees.

 

XIII.

Thou shalt not deprive anyone of what is rightfully theirs.

 

XIV.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, nor support false allegations.

 

XV.

Thou shalt not lie, nor speak falsely to the hurt of another.

 

XVI.

Thou shalt not use fiery words nor stir up any strife.

 

XVII.

Thou shalt not speak or act deceitfully to the hurt of another.

 

XVIII.

Thou shalt not speak scornfully against others.

 

XIX.

Thou shalt not eavesdrop.

 

XX.

Thou shalt not ignore the truth or words of righteousness.

 

XXI.

Thou shalt not judge anyone hastily or harshly.

 

XXII.

Thou shalt not disrespect sacred places.

 

XXIII.

Thou shalt cause no wrong to be done to any workers or prisoners.

 

XXIV.

Thou shalt not be angry without good reason.

 

XXV.

Thou shalt not hinder the flow of running water.

 

XXVI.

Thou shalt not waste the running water.

 

XXVII.

Thou shalt not pollute the water or the land.

 

XXVIII.

Thou shalt not take the god's names in vain.

 

XXIX.

Thou shalt not despise nor anger gods.

 

XXX.

Thou shalt not steal from the gods.

 

XXXI.

Thou shalt not give excessive offerings nor less than what is due.

 

XXXII.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

 

XXXIII.

Thou shalt not steal from nor disrespect the dead.

 

XXXIV.

Thou shalt remember and observe the appointed holy days.

 

XXXV.

Thou shalt not hold back the offerings due the gods.

 

XXXVI.

Thou shalt not interfere with sacred rites.

 

XXXVII.

Thou shalt not slaughter with evil intent any sacred animals.

 

XXXVIII.

Thou shalt not act with guile or insolence.

 

XXXIX.

Thou shalt not be unduly proud nor act with arrogance.

 

XXXX.

Thou shalt not magnify your condition beyond what is appropriate.

 

XXXXI.

Thou shalt do no less than your daily obligations require.

 

XXXXII.

Thou shalt obey the law and commit no treason.

 

[chosendarkness]

I think prositution should be legalised too, I think it is in Australia. Having said that though after being a prostitute myself when I was younger I do think a lot of the negative things about it are true. A lot of the women are from abusive backgrounds, most have self esteem and emotional/mental health/substance abuse issues that make them especially vulnerable. This is why it is a good idea for it to be legalised and organised with a prostitutes union

 

I don't know if this is offensive or not, but I like the idea of legalizing prostitution because of all the people who can't get laid any other way. I had a disabled friend back in my Christian days who wanted it so bad that it was making him crazy. He believed he'd get a girl one day when god healed him, but of course he never was and died a sad man.

[lunaticheathen]

Agreed. Lets not forget that the ten commandments were likely ripped off from the 42 Commandments of Ancient Egypt. IMHO its a way better list.

 

I think you mean what's called the "Negative Confessions", of which there are several questionable translations, and don't come to "shalt nots", but, when said, "I have not" - and they were instructions of purity for priests. They were to be spoken when passing into the Duat and onto the Weighing. The speech, as well as the honest intention to not do these things, worked as "heka", which is "speech" and "magic" and related things, to purify one of past wrongs. Ancient Egyptians didn't buy the whole "you do X once and into the maw of Ammit you go."

 

But I do agree that it's a better list, and more practical list than any list in the bible of "shalt nots."

 

(here ends ancient culture lecture)

[Xerces]

I think prositution should be legalised too, I think it is in Australia. Having said that though after being a prostitute myself when I was younger I do think a lot of the negative things about it are true. A lot of the women are from abusive backgrounds, most have self esteem and emotional/mental health/substance abuse issues that make them especially vulnerable. This is why it is a good idea for it to be legalised and organised with a prostitutes union

 

I don't know if this is offensive or not, but I like the idea of legalizing prostitution because of all the people who can't get laid any other way. I had a disabled friend back in my Christian days who wanted it so bad that it was making him crazy. He believed he'd get a girl one day when god healed him, but of course he never was and died a sad man.

 

Sounds like a good idea to me, the sooner we rip apart religious based laws in this country the better.

[Vomit Comet]

I had a disabled friend back in my Christian days who wanted it so bad that it was making him crazy. He believed he'd get a girl one day when god healed him, but of course he never was and died a sad man.

 

Oh man, that's so fucked up! And I remember the feeling well, except that I was only psychologically disabled and the main thing keeping me from getting laid was Jesus. That poor, poor bastard....

[sdelsolray]

I have been amazed in the last eighteen years since my deconversion and subsequent divorce, by the people I have met who, though they don't go to church, and see numerous things wrong with Christianity and Christians, whose conditioning is still so strong that they still buy into the general worldview. I really think that people here in the US are so steeped in the so-called Christian way of thinking about things, that even though they aren't practicing Christians, they still accept the Christian worldview and definition of morality. For instance, why is lifelong monogamy and strict fidelity the only way? How is morality in any way only about sex? Why are only certain sexual practices the norm, and right only? What is wrong about pornography? Prostitution? For me this brings to mind what a pastor of one of the churches I attended before I "saw the light", said in one of his sermons. He said it was his belief, that each person should only see naked one other person in his or her life. That is, his wife, or her husband. Needless to say, gays were the worst of sinners, in his view. But, to me, most people here in the US still buy into this general way of thinking. If you don't think so, show me how.

 

No religion, including Christianity, has any patent, copyright or trademark on morality. Human morality is what it is - complex, pervasive and evolving.

[hereticzero]

He said it was his belief, that each person should only see naked one other person in his or her life.

Wow! He just made a bunch of sinners out of every High School gym class in America!

[ireckinso]

I think prositution should be legalised too, I think it is in Australia. Having said that though after being a prostitute myself when I was younger I do think a lot of the negative things about it are true. A lot of the women are from abusive backgrounds, most have self esteem and emotional/mental health/substance abuse issues that make them especially vulnerable. This is why it is a good idea for it to be legalised and organised with a prostitutes union

 

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand this law either. During my 20s I slept with a lot of women. Some of which were married, one who was even pregnant. I slept with a mans wife while he was there because he was impotent. Do I regret it? Not a bit. I was honest and they knew I was only interested in sex. I enjoyed pleasing them as well. Most of these women were so dissatisfied with their sex lifes that they had horrible relationships and were depressed. I would get calls to meet one here or there just for sex. I would have loved to get paid for it but hey, I was enjoying it too. I mean what is marriage really? Take the emotions out of it...(most don't have any in them) In a one income marriage the woman is basically getting paid to have sex with the man by him working and paying all the bills. This could also be the other way around if the woman worked and the man didn't. I know this is going way basic but you get my meaning. Whats wrong with someone getting paid to allow someone to satisfy them sexually? I pay a massuese to please me by giving me a back rub. I don't understand how you can govern if a man wants to pay a woman for sex or visa versa. Where is it the place of the government to interfere with two consenting adults?

 

By the way I am monogamous now and married to a wonderful woman who enjoys sex as much as I do. We have been very open and understanding of our pasts but see monogamy now as a way of becoming closer to each other, and way safer with all the std's going around.

[Yrth]

I have been amazed in the last eighteen years since my deconversion and subsequent divorce, by the people I have met who, though they don't go to church, and see numerous things wrong with Christianity and Christians, whose conditioning is still so strong that they still buy into the general worldview. I really think that people here in the US are so steeped in the so-called Christian way of thinking about things, that even though they aren't practicing Christians, they still accept the Christian worldview and definition of morality. For instance, why is lifelong monogamy and strict fidelity the only way? How is morality in any way only about sex? Why are only certain sexual practices the norm, and right only? What is wrong about pornography? Prostitution? For me this brings to mind what a pastor of one of the churches I attended before I "saw the light", said in one of his sermons. He said it was his belief, that each person should only see naked one other person in his or her life. That is, his wife, or her husband. Needless to say, gays were the worst of sinners, in his view. But, to me, most people here in the US still buy into this general way of thinking. If you don't think so, show me how.

 

I tried to respond earlier but I should have provided more explanation. I do agree with you that most critics of Christianity irrationally adhere to its worldview and morality. That is, they've lost their main reason for thinking and acting the way they do, and, in the event that they recognize this and seek to find new reasons, they're hard pressed to do so. 'Conditioning' is a good way to characterize people who don't even reflect on their reasons, coupled with an understanding about how morality draws from learned emotions as well as social expectations. Of course there is a difference between explaining such conditioned social behavior and an individuals justifying the behavior to themselves. That's where the "God is dead" reference becomes somewhat relevant.

 

Personally, I'm afraid I've become a bit of a nihilist. It's really, really hard for me to become worked up about the justice or injustice of something. Consequently, I am myself amazed when I see people who do. (mostly RE politics or personal events). I blame my Christian upbringing 100% for linking my sense of morality with the reasons it provides as opposed to a foundational sense of empathy for others. That, by contrast, was hammerred down to a nub of nothing by accepting doctrines like the hell and the Calvinist Elect. :[

 

More from Nietzsche, courtesy of wikipedia

"God is dead" does not mean that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who first existed and then died in a literal sense. It may be more appropriate to consider the statement as Nietzsche's way of saying that the conventional Christian God is no longer a viable source of any absolute moral principles. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."[1] This is why in "The Madman", a passage which primarily addresses nontheists (especially atheists), the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

 

The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is that for which Nietzsche worked to find a solution by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the "will to power" that he described as "the essence of reality."

 

Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He may have seen himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra, Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical orientation to future generations to overcome the impending nihilism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

[MWLarry]

Hey, how's it going? I am taking a CATIA V5 class at WSU right now. Anyway, what you said above is EXACTLY what I was getting at, and what a lot of people (atheist and otherwise) don't seem to realize. Who's Antlerman?

 

 

 

Christianity isn't just a belief- it's a culture. And you can't entirely get away from the culture in which you were raised... it's deeply embedded within your psyche. You can critique your own culture, come to disagree with it on many points, rail against it, seek new ideas... that's all good and healthy IMO. But you will still harbor more linguistic assumptions, attitudes, unspoken rules, etc. than you can shake a stick at.

 

I was pretty amused the other day when Antlerman pointed out that I was just a christian without 'god'. I can't deny that that's the case. I'm not particularly happy about it, but I can't change it any more than I can change my ridiculous Tennessee accent.

[RankStranger]

Christianity isn't just a belief- it's a culture. And you can't entirely get away from the culture in which you were raised... it's deeply embedded within your psyche. You can critique your own culture, come to disagree with it on many points, rail against it, seek new ideas... that's all good and healthy IMO. But you will still harbor more linguistic assumptions, attitudes, unspoken rules, etc. than you can shake a stick at.

 

I was pretty amused the other day when Antlerman pointed out that I was just a christian without 'god'. I can't deny that that's the case. I'm not particularly happy about it, but I can't change it any more than I can change my ridiculous Tennessee accent.

 

Hey, how's it going? I am taking a CATIA V5 class at WSU right now. Anyway, what you said above is EXACTLY what I was getting at, and what a lot of people (atheist and otherwise) don't seem to realize. Who's Antlerman?

 

I don't suppose the class you're taking is ME637? That's the Catia class that I'm finishing up right now.

 

Antlerman is a mod around here. Hell of a guy. Lately he prefers broad, airy, philosophical discussions that don't fit within my limited attention span. But I'm a big fan just the same. He frequents the Colosseum and the Exchristian Spirituality sections.

 

 

BTW- check your PM's.

 

[Noumena]

I live my life based on what I value.

 

For example..I am not a prostitute because I do not value the lifestyle it produces. I would not like to always be worrying about whether my next "John" would be someone who finds satisfaction in torturing, raping, then murdering me and disposing my body in such a way that I may not be found for a days or months....and I'd rather not worry about what my pimp might do to me if I don't produce the money he is expecting (because you have to have someone? "looking out" for you while you are constantly putting yourself in danger, right?). I do not value having an open relationship because I am not keen on the idea of sharing the person I love with anyone else, but Ashton Kutcher/Demi Moore and many other people find value in it. And I may be wrong, but I believe that most people do-what-they-do because they find some value in it.

[Dhampir]

I have been amazed in the last eighteen years since my deconversion and subsequent divorce, by the people I have met who, though they don't go to church, and see numerous things wrong with Christianity and Christians, whose conditioning is still so strong that they still buy into the general worldview. I really think that people here in the US are so steeped in the so-called Christian way of thinking about things, that even though they aren't practicing Christians, they still accept the Christian worldview and definition of morality. For instance, why is lifelong monogamy and strict fidelity the only way? How is morality in any way only about sex? Why are only certain sexual practices the norm, and right only? What is wrong about pornography? Prostitution? For me this brings to mind what a pastor of one of the churches I attended before I "saw the light", said in one of his sermons. He said it was his belief, that each person should only see naked one other person in his or her life. That is, his wife, or her husband. Needless to say, gays were the worst of sinners, in his view. But, to me, most people here in the US still buy into this general way of thinking. If you don't think so, show me how.

 

DAMN. I swear I would have stripped naked and walked out of that sermon.

[MWLarry]

Hey, I got laid off by Hawker Beechcraft, and got a job back in Seattle area, so will be leaving Wichita. Good luck in future!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christianity isn't just a belief- it's a culture. And you can't entirely get away from the culture in which you were raised... it's deeply embedded within your psyche. You can critique your own culture, come to disagree with it on many points, rail against it, seek new ideas... that's all good and healthy IMO. But you will still harbor more linguistic assumptions, attitudes, unspoken rules, etc. than you can shake a stick at.

 

I was pretty amused the other day when Antlerman pointed out that I was just a christian without 'god'. I can't deny that that's the case. I'm not particularly happy about it, but I can't change it any more than I can change my ridiculous Tennessee accent.

 

Hey, how's it going? I am taking a CATIA V5 class at WSU right now. Anyway, what you said above is EXACTLY what I was getting at, and what a lot of people (atheist and otherwise) don't seem to realize. Who's Antlerman?

 

I don't suppose the class you're taking is ME637? That's the Catia class that I'm finishing up right now.

 

Antlerman is a mod around here. Hell of a guy. Lately he prefers broad, airy, philosophical discussions that don't fit within my limited attention span. But I'm a big fan just the same. He frequents the Colosseum and the Exchristian Spirituality sections.

 

 

BTW- check your PM's.

 

[LivingLife]

Some real excellent posts and deep thoughts.

 

I am not sure if I have said it here, but the entire morality issues of the xian church is 100% related to sex.

 

In the GoE story, we have them seeing their nakedness and being ashamed, countless stories like Onan for coitus interruptus, to the denigrating of women to be the guiltier of the species due to Eve fucking up first.

 

This "sense" of morality is what still fucks with the minds of folk today and has been related on this thread. We are brought up to be ashamed of our sexuality and the way our bodies react to attraction. The male response is obvious but the ladies response relatively hidden.

 

A hypothetical scene of naked attractive folk (for the 1st time) see each others nakedness, the males would (or should) get woodies. Yet we as males are somehow made to feel ashamed and hide this. The ladies are made to feel that they should not tempt the male with their beauty and this cover up to some extents to totally hide their sexuality except in private. Obviously pheromones play into the equation and we pick up on it with the attraction suggesting to proceed to coitus. Whatever the parts of the anatomy of the opposite sex turn each other on, stuff happens to our genitals we cannot control, men get woodies and women get moist amongst other things. This is all natural and part of the process of reproduction attraction.

 

We have invented a lot of platitudes and rules for sex which society as a whole embrace. We really do not fuck in public like out in the open for all to see but if we all hypothetically did it this way (like dogs and cats) would that not be deemed natural too?

 

Obviously men do not walk around all day with woodies and the women are not in a permanent state of readiness either.

 

We meet in private, make out in a car, get the juices flowing and yet we are expected to NOT take it to the natural conclusion. Now we have condoms and BCP's and as such we can w/o risk of unwanted pregnancies.

 

I think most can attest to the exuberance of youth and being fully turned on, logic flies out the window and doing the dirty deed is all that matters. Obviously for the ladies, the consequences are long term if they are not on BC and unfortunately, it is usually the women that have to keep a level head and ensure protection is used either by insisting he uses a condom or carries one herself just in case.

 

We are but a few of the species that have recreational sex.

 

I just find it difficult to see that folk think we humans have not always been horny.

 

The religious expect abstinence only as a valid BC method but it is really a head in the sand approach. My wife is far more conservative than me but when I was a single in my 20's many girls I had sex with did it for the sex and not for love or any long term objectives. Society expects us to view such girls as sluts or whores yet the male has no equivalent derogatory titles for wanting to get laid by as many women as he can. Gigolo is far less insulting and even conjures up a meaning of conquest.

 

I brought my kids up with proper sex ed and so much so my son showed me his collection of condoms, is not embarressed when I ask him if he is sexually active with his GF, my daughter was not embarrassed when I told her if she wants to she can go on the pill now that she is out of school, obviously, my discussions with her are not the same as it is with my son. At 22 and 19 there are no unwanted pregnancies and no STD's and I know neither are virgins. I am OK with that as they are not ashamed of their bodies and urges. That said, they both are in relationships and are not merely screwing around, I would like to think that, that is something they learned from the example my wife and I set.

 

The moral code of course leads to the aspects of teen pregnancies and abortion which are the red meat issues of the xian right. Proper sex ed and embarrassing-free access to condoms and BCP's is the logical step to reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

 

Passion does not have an OFF switch.