U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-26-2013, 08:12 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,856,092 times
Reputation: 1462

Advertisements

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Base most things on that and you can't go too wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2013, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,044,946 times
Reputation: 36073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
All my life I had researched, studied and discerned the truth and false . . .

Sex should only ever be for the pure fulfillment of having children and not for satisfying feelings of lust or physical pleasure..
Can you send me the link to the useful self-help manual that explains how to eliminate all physical plesure while engaging in the pure fulfillment of having children, the way your god intended it to be among his moral flock? What if my partner shows signs of physical pleasure, or embraces me to fill me with base and banal pleasure, what is the moral thing to do? Beat the wench into displeasurable submission? Stone her and cast her out as a harlot?

Please help me here. This thread is about situational morality and virtue, and I need the guidance of someone who all his life has researched, studied and discerned the truth.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-26-2013 at 09:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 05:02 AM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,589 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Can you send me the link to the useful self-help manual that explains how to eliminate all physical plesure while engaging in the pure fulfillment of having children, the way your god intended it to be among his moral flock?

I may have gone to a bit of an extreme saying that all desiring of physical pleasure is wrong but it certainly is if the experience of sex is not formed on a solid background of love, and a lot of sex today is purely for the purpose of indulging one's physical senses.

The entire process starts with purifying your state of mind before everything else, then anything that you do will be more in line with moral principles, naturally.

I can show you quite few links, which are to do with purifying your mind and which are not necessarily religious, which give a lot of useful information about matters and guidance often based on experiences people had, including many non-religious people. It will help you overcome the desire for physical and sensual pleasures if you are willing to take it seriously.

Some of these sites have some useful info:

Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife
Current NDERF Near Death Experiences

These experiences people from all types of different background had, even athiests etc, just show how they were demonstrated the reality of universal morality and god presence through these experiences which all have a lot in common. The first link is particularly good because it has a lot of research material on the matter with lots of articles summing up the conclusions from these types of experiences.

Ascended Master Teachings of the Great Brotherhood of Light

This man had a lot to say about how our thought works from a theosophical perspective.

Theosophy: Power and Use of Thought by C.W. Leadbeater : CWLeadbeater.org

It may seem like total rubbish to most people but that is OK, as I say we are free to believe what we want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
What if my partner shows signs of physical pleasure, or embraces me to fill me with base and banal pleasure, what is the moral thing to do? Beat the wench into displeasurable submission? Stone her and cast her out as a harlot?
Absolutely not, you can't react to immortality with more immorality, or evil with evil, that is not Godly, quite the opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,044,946 times
Reputation: 36073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
a lot of sex today is purely for the purpose of indulging one's physical senses.
With people released from the self-serving edicts of the power-hungry Popes and the Calvinists, "a lot of sex today" is done because it is fun and comforting and relaxing, like swimming or dining out or woodworking. Which by itself does not make it immoral, unless you know something about sex that I don't know.

Are you willing to share with us the ways that you "indulge in physical senses", and explain why they are not immoral? Like, using an umbrella to keep a cold rain off. Isn't that indulging in your physical senses? Or sleeping in on a Saturday morning. Or wearing shoes that fit well, with jell pads in the soles. Or taking a shower after a workout.

Is it your view that a married couple, after they no longer can or want to or feel commanded by God to bear children, are behaving immorally if they "indulge in their physical senses", even hugs and caresses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
Absolutely not, you can't react to immortality with more immorality, or evil with evil, that is not Godly, quite the opposite.
Thank goodness, we agree on something, and we are both in favor of abolishing the criminal justice and penal systems as they exist today in America. As well as the entire defense department and military/industrial complex.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-27-2013 at 08:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,589 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
With people released from the self-serving edicts of the power-hungry Popes and the Calvinists, "a lot of sex today" is done because it is fun and comforting and relaxing, like swimming or dining out or woodworking. Which by itself does not make it immoral, unless you know something about sex that I don't know.

Are you willing to share with us the ways that you "indulge in physical senses", and explain why they are not immoral? Like, using an umbrella to keep a cold rain off. Isn't that indulging in your physical senses? Or sleeping in on a Saturday morning. Or wearing shoes that fit well, with jell pads in the soles. Or taking a shower after a workout.

Is it your view that a married couple, after they no longer can or want to or feel commanded by God to bear children, are behaving immorally if they "indulge in their physical senses", even hugs and caresses?
Well taking a shower is cleanliness - certainly not to be considered immoral - after all, cleanliness is next to Godliness!

I think what I'm talking about is the immorality of indulging in "base desires" which is what I mentioned. Things that offer a basic level of comfort like the shoes and clothes you wear and the use of an umbrella to stay dry, are conducive to a more positive mindset, and anything that is such is not immoral.

The engagement in any activity for the sole purpose of satisfying things like animalistic desire, lust, physical pleasure alone for selfish purposes though is destructive, ultimately, which is why they are immoral. You may have noticed, these types of things, including addiction to power, money, material possessions,food, tobacco, alcohol, are all things that make one want MORE and this feeds the destructive process. It isn't that it's bad because "god will punish you" (which isn't true anyway) or because "society says" it is (and a lot of society actually doesn't, I find much of it far too liberal) but because of the corrupting effects on ones mind that it leads to so subtly that it's impossible to notice on a day to day basis but after a few years well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,044,946 times
Reputation: 36073
So now, your definition of morality includes bathing, and the virtuous can be identified by a sniff test? It is becoming increasingly obvious that your idea of "moral" is nowhere near that which is encompassed by the parameters of any classical discussion of philosophy and ethics.

I understand you now. Base desires are those things that you do not desire. Or desire only in secret because you are ashamed to desire them. And "base desires" are the opposite of a desire for a "basic level of comfort". Do you realize that "base" and "basic" mean the same thing, and you have just destroyed your own argument?

Being sexually aroused and fulfilled does not meet your test of "conducive to a more positive mindset"? Maybe it DOES for those same millions of people who, in your earlier post, comprise "anybody who has a conscience".

Last edited by jtur88; 06-27-2013 at 07:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 08:30 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,427 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Base most things on that and you can't go too wrong.
I would much prefer "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them". The Golden rule is reciprocal morality, while my edited rule would be considered empathic morality. It seems a system of morality based upon empathy, rather than reciprocation, would be a system that would bring about greater happiness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 08:34 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,427 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Is morality and virtue situational?
Yes, morality is almost certainly relative (situational to both time and culture). And we should not confuse legality with morality.


Read up on moral relativism at the wiki page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I consider myself a descriptive moral relativist, with leanings toward the meta-ethical side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,589 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
So now, your definition of morality includes bathing, and the virtuous can be identified by a sniff test? It is becoming increasingly obvious that your idea of "moral" is nowhere near that which is encompassed by the parameters of any classical discussion of philosophy and ethics.
Being hygenic and clean is looking after one's body appropriately, which is moral. How is this outside any "parameters of any classical discussion of philosophy and ethics"? Strange statement to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I understand you now.

I'm sorry but you do not, and with all due respect, given your following "arguments", I do not believe you have the capacity to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Base desires are those things that you do not desire.
No, base desires are things that all people desire, but one has to use ones willpower to resist giving into the temptation to fulfill these base desires. Even I get the desire for such things, and have to modify my state of mind to do something else with my time instead. I'm not perfect and never implied in any way whatsoever that I am.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Or desire only in secret because you are ashamed to desire them.
Wrong assumption I'm afraid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
And "base desires" are the opposite of a desire for a "basic level of comfort".
They are not the opposite, but certainly they are not the same thing, either. A basic level of comfort has nothing to do with selfish indulgence in that which destroys, such as drugs, alcohol, sex, lust, and such base desires. It has no relevance whatsoever to that, as I explained before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Do you realize that"base" and "basic" mean the same thing, and you have just destroyed your own argument?
I'm sorry, but you are attempting to form an argument by taking the words out of context.

Base and basic might mean the same thing on their own but in a sentence, can have totally different interpretations. For example, compare the sentences:

"It was very basic software which lacked the features jimmy needed to make his presentation". In this case, "basic" can be perceived as a negative thing, because it is limited and lacking, not up to the task.

"Because it was Johnie's first day at school the work was fairly basic so that he could get a solid foundation to build up from". In this case, basic is a good thing, because giving a first grader algebra or conjugated verbs would be far too complicated.

So your argument is that which is nonsense... the very same word can take on different meanings on different levels depending on the context - you cannot strip any sentence down to its individual words without losing the meaning almost entirely. Your grasp on the English language is flawed - if you believe this is an appropriate way to commence any kind of an argument.

As such, we can say that "base desire" and "basic comfort" are not the same thing, and that you confuse the two demonstrates a serious lack of moral fibre in yourself. Persuing one or the other of these has drastically different outcomes and consequences, as evidenced in the life of any person and witnessed by myself and many others. Hence they are not the same thing.

To take individual words out of my sentence and orphan them from the other words in order to attempt to prove my argument wrong, is a fallacious tactic, because it removes the entire context and meaning from the sentence.

I have explained "base desires" quite clearly, as being something that result in negative and detrimental consequences for the soul. On the contrary, having one's basic needs taken care of, such as warmth, food, water, etc.. augment one's sense of pure wellbeing, and are not destructive whatsoever. Not because I say so, but because it can be proven to be self-evident in anybody's life.

Why is this? Because having basic physical comfort needs met is about avoiding unnecessary discomfort, as being in a state of discomfort is not conducive to developing a purer state of mind. There is nothing immoral about the genuine need to avoid unnecessary discomfort. Indulging in base desires is taking things one step further - you may already have your basic comfort needs met, but are unnecessarily and selfishly seeking to indulge excessively in that which provides an instant sense of pleasure - by sending the flow of prana energy through your chakras the wrong way - which can be observed to happen by spiritually practiced individuals with etheric vision - and resulting in a draining of vital energy and corruption of your soul.

As such, I have not destroyed my argument whatsoever. I can see the clear distinction between pursuing "base desires" and "basic comfort needs" on a soul level, one is destructive and has such consequences, the other isn't, and doesn't. I've seen this work in my life all the time, and that of others. Yes, it can be quite a grey area particularly in those who's discernment of truth from false is not adequate. It isn't merely a philosophical debate or argument, it is a fundamental truth. Feel free to attack and pervert it and twist what I say, but you are quite incorrect sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Being sexually aroused and fulfilled does not meet your test of "conducive to a more positive mindset"? Maybe it DOES for those same millions of people who, in your earlier post, comprise "anybody who has a conscience".
The catch 22 of this matter is that some things in life can produce a brief pleasurable sensation, that you might interpret as genuine positivity, while causing long term destruction and corruption to the person. Indulgence in sexual pleasures is one of those things. It will not produce a long term positive effect, your soul does not need it and will not benefit from it.

Thankyou anyway for thinking you can attribute this notion to me solely, but oh believe me this is not "my test" at all, it is "the" test. Crack addicts think they feel "positive" when they get high, but that is not genuine positivity, it is mere pleasure indulging in the senses and taking away from the soul, with its destructive consequences. You have demonstrated that you cannot tell the difference between pleasure and a genuine positive mindset. The latter is something you do not have experience of, I can tell through your writing. But don't worry, you are not the only one. More than 99% of people on earth have no concept of spiritual positivity or genuine unconditional love. It is nothing one could imagine and nothing you will probably ever get close to. Very few people have achieved spiritual enlightenment while here on earth.

That is all I can say to you, you will no doubt find endless ways to fiddle and extract my words out of context, and to tell me how wrong I am. But these are fundamental truths, not from any "philosophical belief system" but from the creator - and spiritual reality. I am not personally bothered how you choose to react- your decision, you can either learn something from it, or say it's a load of crap. Not bothered either way. All I know, it works. As such, if you choose to denounce it all as crap or take my words out of context yet again, save yourself and me the time and don't bother, run along as they say.

Last edited by Weatherfan7; 06-28-2013 at 08:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2013, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,044,946 times
Reputation: 36073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
The catch 22 of this matter is that some things in life can produce a brief pleasurable sensation while causing long term destruction and corruption to the person. Indulgence in sexual pleasures is one of those things. It will not produce a long term positive effect, your soul does not need it and will not benefit from it.
Please tell me that this is not based entirely on your own sad and unfulfilling personal experiences, and you can provide some links to support the thesis in the world outside your own personal boundaries or those of a few other anecdotal commentators. I'm on the brink of regarding your posts with nothing but pity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top