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 07-07-2013, 09:30 AM
 
20 posts, read 10,694 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

The rules are created to lead people to the public happiness. There is a group of people must follow to a happy for the majority. The work, the family are groups of people. Just, we have to choose rules for each band.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2013, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,078 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
I believe it's pretty obvious that neither purehuman nor myself believe this. As such, this is nothing more than a naked assertion from our perspective.


Edit:

So was my original assumption that you do actually operate by divine command theory, in fact true? If so, one must ask where you're getting "GOD's" moral standards from? The Bible, or literature people write about the Bible? Or are you getting these standards from feelings you believe are generated by this god? This is the type of thing that really concerns lots of un-believers, myself included.

On a side note, is there anywhere in the bible (or any religiously produced, original text for that matter) that claims sex only for pleasure is immoral?.
It isn't a naked assertion, it's the truth. I learned the truth through years of personal experience and studying the personal spiritual experiences of others. And it's not solely based on the Bible either. I am not in the business of telling lies. Also, you will have seen that my beliefs and ideals or rather knowledge from intuitive spiritual sources (spirit is intuition not scientific) comes from a background of love, there is no punishment or "God killing a bunch of people", how can God, which is pure spiritual love, do anything like that!? Unlike what people have been told to believe, the Bible is not always a 100% accurate representation of God, and particularly in the Old Testament is full of gross distortions and blasphemy regarding the character of God.

I do not operate by divine command theory, because that implies that God would be telling me what to do and me doing it. That is incorrect. I learn by developing spiritual discernment from my experiences and their results, what to do or not. I could still do what I want to, but the more spiritually developed I become the less likely I am to desire to do what is immoral. If God told us what to do and we had to do it, we would not have been given free will. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for what we do. But we are allowed to do them. There is no punishment from god, god does not punish. There is a universal law in place called Karma, which means, the energy we send out comes back to us. If we send out impure energy, that energy comes back to us. We create our own realities in this way. God observes all this, fully knowing that he gave us free will that we may explore with our create faculties to produce the type of life we want. If it works out badly, we can make the choice to "reunite" with god's level of spiritual purity, in which state we do not need physical desires like sex or other things because the spiritual pleasure of enlightenment is far beyond that - it is completeness itself - banal pleasures are what people seek when they do not have spiritual completeness - which is unity in GOD.

I don't expect anybody who hasn't learned this truth yet to believe it, so you can just go ahead and believe what you want, doesn't bother me at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post

On a side note, is there anywhere in the bible (or any religiously produced, original text for that matter) that claims sex only for pleasure is immoral?.
Do you want the quick answer as to why anything like this for banal pleasures (doesn't have to be only sex) is immoral? Because people only seek these activities in the absence of pure unity with God. Outside of pure unity with God, people desire something to fill the perceived void, because without unity in God people think they have nothing unless they have something such as a partner, or a sex life, or some other kind of pleasures. This is all truth, not fiction, and not a claim. When one has unity in God, he has TOTAL COMPLETE SPIRITUAL JOY, which encompasses ALL, and human things like sex lose all meaning. They simply aren't necessary!

Last edited by Weatherfan7; 07-07-2013 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,078 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post

Someone explain to me what is wrong with being happy and enjoying life? And what is right about begrudging others their enjoyment of life? God forbid that anyone should enjoy life, it's more important to suffer apparently.
The only answer I can give to this is that I have never told anyone what to do or said they are not allowed to do what they want with their life. Any spiritual person knows free will is a universal law we must all obey hence I would never deny that to anyone, or tell them what to do, as you have seen I have said in my posts it does not bother me one bit if anyone believes what I say or not. Really. I have no ego to defend here. Because I have the right to say what I have learned in life etc..... but not to force it upon anyone. I can say what is right or wrong but cannot make somebody not to do it. Not even god does this, he gave you free will. So, I do not "begrudge others their enjoyment in life" (whatever form it may take).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
God forbid that anyone should enjoy life, it's more important to suffer apparently.
.
I've never once said you have to suffer. I've said that when you have reached a level of spirituality whereby you are so filled with joy that you don't need to indulge in lower pleasures, you won't need to. How is that suffering?

Last edited by Weatherfan7; 07-07-2013 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,078 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
God forbid that anyone should enjoy life, it's more important to suffer apparently.
.
I've never once said you have to suffer. I've said that when you have reached a level of spirituality whereby you are so filled with joy that you don't need to indulge in lower pleasures, you won't need to. How is that suffering?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Cloudston, Derbyshire, England
1,032 posts, read 896,078 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
I apologize for the slow response. I believe we've both thoroughly expressed ourselves on the other points, so I'll just refocus on this.


Obviously people would not be having sex (only heterosexual I'm sure) at the rate they currently do for long, because our worlds resources would collapse in just a few years and humanity would suffer a considerable die-off. So alternatively they would have to repress a very natural and strong urge. We have instances, such as the Catholic church, were the facts seem to show that having people suppress these urges doesn't turn out well. Now imagine basically an entire world with its men (and women) in the nearly the same state as celibate priests. We also have instances, like Africa, where restricting contraception leads to massive birthrates, disease transmission and famine. This is the world I believe your repressive idea would lead too.

Biologically, it's probably easier for women to suppress these urges than men. I do not know whether you're male of female, as this may be part of the issue. I'm male by the way.
I don't have to suppress the urge, I don't really get it because I have other things that are more fulfilling to me personally if that makes sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
It's seems some people believe what you describe here exists. Perhaps it does for some, but I highly doubt the bulk of humanity could be convinced to accept this meme, or EVEN be able too. I'd also suggest most who claim to accept this meme, don't really believe it (I'm not suggesting you don't) and understand logically it's an impossible restriction for most.
Sure you don't have to believe or acceept it. You have free will to believe what you want thanks to our just and fair creator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
I'd imagine this includes masturbation? I'm sorry, but this extreme view of sexual repression is lost on me. You've taken a very common natural act and seem to be sanctifying it to near absurdity. Sometimes I think it's really sad our social memes didn't evolved to few sex no differently than sleeping. Both I believe are necessary for our mental and physical health.
Yes it is immoral as well because of the same kinds of reasons. And no it is not necessary for mental or physical health. It is not necessary when you have God.




Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
Of course, this only reinforces my idea that morality is relative. I consider your extremely repressive view of human sexuality as highly immoral (if popularized, would lead to much more suffering and much less happiness). This is sadly an idea so steeped in taboo that it becomes very difficult applying scientific method (even though it could certainly answer the question within a narrow probability range) to the question of who is more correct. I've given some real-world examples of where sexual repression doesn't work (the Catholic church), or leads to great suffering (Africa, mostly because of the same religious organization).
It isn't a repressive view. I didn't say you have to suppress anything. I said you can stop having these immoral thoughts by being more spirituality and with God. That you say that shows you have either not properly read or understood what I have written, which is that when one becomes more spirituality aware as I consider myself personally to be, for various reasons, they do not require or get urges for sexual pleasure. The more spiritually aware you are, the more in-tune with god you are, you are less "immoral" by being more spiritually "pure". So how can my view be immoral? To suggest such is total nonsense. To suggest that saying that the more spiritually pure and therefore less needy of banal pleasures and sex one is, that that view is immoral, is utter hypocrisy and ridiculousness. So going around having one night stands, sex for pleasure etc.. is all more moral than my view is it? By definition the more spiritually pure one is the less immoral they are, by product of their spiritual purity. So what you assert that my view stemming from spiritual purity is immoral is complete warped garbage. Itis a very perverted view of morality indeed, especially coming from an atheist; atheism (denying God) being immorality of the first order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
And a personal anecdote.
I've a relative who probably shares your same ideas. She has 5 children. Her 5 children have so far had an additional 7 children (maybe 8, I've lost track). She's the only one in my family who holds to a similar antiquated notion, and she accounts for 75 percent of the new humans generated by my family on my mother's side. On my father's side, it's just me. Are her children, who have also been taught this meme any happier than the children who have not? I'd say they're demonstrably not as happy and the emotional and physical strain caused by supporting such a large amount of humans is dramatic.


One only need watch the Duggar's, "19 kids and counting" to understand the very possible reality of what you suggest. This is an extreme example to be sure, but it does make my point as they share very similar views on sexuality.
These people are also acting immorally, in another way. Having too many children is immoral if they are unable to bring them up properly because of it and it is the product of imbalanced mental health. Sexual immorality doesn't just end at having sex for pleasure you know.

Last edited by Weatherfan7; 07-07-2013 at 01:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 04:03 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,302 times
Reputation: 105
Awesome post. Thanks for sharing a personal story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Someone explain to me what is wrong with being happy and enjoying life? And
what is right about begrudging others their enjoyment of life? God forbid that
anyone should enjoy life, it's more important to suffer apparently.
I can't explain why anyone should suffer, even though I could probably do a sufficient job of explaining why people suffer and how. Perhaps Weatherfan is up to the task.

Seen from the perspective that suffering is virtuous (thanks for pointing that out to me), Weatherfan's moral standard is probably in direct opposition to my own. He quite possibly believes that suffering is a moral good, while I believe the direct opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 05:32 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,302 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7
I don't have to suppress the urge, I don't really get it because I have other
things that are more fulfilling to me personally if that makes sense.
I believe all humans that say, "I don't have to suppress the urge to have sex" (unless they have a physical abnormality) do not understand that sex is an urge that possibly only humans can and do suppress. Your society and cultural drive you to suppress this urge whether you believe it or not, and in your case to a level most humans don't manifest. You may not believe this suppression is harmful or even difficult, but at some level you're almost certainly doing it.

Quote:
Sure you don't have to believe or acceept it. You have free will to
believe what you want thanks to our just and fair creator.
I don't believe this is the right thread to get into a "free-will" discussion, but I'll say that human volition is most likely causal and only free (not generally under overt compulsion) in a very loose sense of the word.

Quote:
Yes it is immoral as well because of the same kinds of reasons. And no it is not
necessary for mental or physical health. It is not necessary when you have God.
I've read studies that suggest regular ejaculation is important for the health of the male of our species. Your standards would make this hard (pun intended) to obtain.

Quote:
I said you can stop having these immoral thoughts by being more spirituality and
with God. That you say that shows you have either not properly read or
understood what I have written, which is that when one becomes more spirituality
aware as I consider myself personally to be, for various reasons, they do not
require or get urges for sexual pleasure
And yet I don't even know what it means to be "more spiritual" or with "God". When you stop having "immoral thoughts" (can be read as normal, healthly sexual urges) you are in fact suppressing something even if you believe it's a positive thing.

Do you also perhaps believe it's possible to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals?

Quote:
So what you assert that my view stemming from spiritual purity is immoral is
complete warped garbage.
Skip the spiritual talk for a second, because that's going to get us nowhere. I'll be a bit more clear. I believe your excessively repressive (this is the way I see it. It's an opinion) view on human sexuality, if highly adopted by humanity, would lead to a very poor outcome for our species. In this case, poor outcome can be read has highly immoral (very bad). I could be wrong, but what I know about human physiology and social propensities strongly suggest otherwise.

Quote:
Itis a very perverted view of morality indeed, especially coming from an
atheist; atheism (denying God) being immorality of the first order.
Of course it's perverted from your perspective. Understanding that morals are relative would lead one to expect such wildly varying views on this sensitive topic.

I don't deny gods, I don't believe they (especially the anthropogenic gods) exist. This is a very important distinction. It's probably easier to think of my position as simply a person who is not a theist (god-believer).

Guess my forum handle didn't work as well as I hoped



Quote:
These people are also acting immorally, in another way.
I agree, they are possibly acting in the most socially irresponsible way possible. From my perspective however (as their religious ideology appears very similar to what you're suggesting here, and its root is almost certainly, immediately "Christian"), a repressive view on human sexuality is primarily what is driving them to act irresponsibly.

Quote:
Sexual immorality doesn't just end at having sex for pleasure you know.
Except I don't believe that having sex for pleasure is immoral. In fact if I might be so bold, I believe sex, in and of itself is amoral. I believe sex is a simple, natural function with strong evolutionary reasons as to why it brings us pleasure, and no matter what reasons (even if you believe them positive) you give for suppressing these urges, you're still suppressing them. The reasons you give are "spiritual", which I can not accept as a valid reason for various reasons but mostly because I can't comprehend what it is or even means.

I suggested earlier this "spiritual" thing would probably create an impasse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 07:39 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,302 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
It isn't a naked assertion, it's the truth.
It's a naked assertion in the respect that you only have personal anecdotes to back up the assertion. It's the "truth" from your perspective and not mine. That doesn't mean it's lie, which implies you're intentionally telling a mistruth, even though many god believers are willing to intentionally tell mistruths to spread their meme. Conversing with you doesn't lead me, at least initially, to believe you are one who would do this. Again, I could be wrong.

Quote:
There is a universal law in place called Karma, which means, the energy we
send out comes back to us.
I would again call this a naked assertion, especially the "Karma" bit and how it might be a "universal law". However, I do agree humans are reciprocal animals and tend to give back what they get, and visa versa. I don't necessarily believe this is a good and positive trait however.

It would be interesting I think to know how you perceive this "Karma" thing actually functions. Do you believe for instance that "Karma" has intentionality? Does it intentionally send back negative energy to those who do negative things?

Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 07-08-2013 at 08:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 07:49 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,302 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Unlike what people have been told to believe, the Bible is not always a 100%
accurate representation of God, and particularly in the Old Testament is full of
gross distortions and blasphemy regarding the character of God.
Yes, people tend to pick and choose the from the book. Discarding the parts they don't like and reveling the parts they do.

Edit: I might add, how does one go about determining what is "distortions and blasphemy" in the book. If some of it is distortions (untrue), how do we know the entire thing isn't a human fabrication?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2013, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,189 posts, read 9,032,137 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
I do not "begrudge others their enjoyment in life" (whatever form it may take).
I don't know that you personally do that but asceticism in general, which you seem to subscribe to, regards the material world and the physical body as filled with base desires that must be denied rather than just matter of factly letting these things be what they are and not passing judgment on them.

There are some aspects of our being that are evolutionary hold-overs from a completely different environment than most of us now live in, that have not been bred out of us yet; so we do have to do some counter-intuitive things and control some emotional responses (e.g., aggression, some forms of fear, etc) so I get that sometimes our psyches and our bodies get in the way of our best interests.

But this pessimistic view of humanity you seem to espouse where we are all basically big sacks of sin that need to be mortified and punished and disciplined 24/7 is something I find both unhelpful and tiresome and ultimately self-absorbed to subscribe to. As if the universe hinges on one's sex life or something.

Mind you I'm not especially hedonistic, I'm not looking for excuses for orgies and gluttony, I'm a good and decent human being who respects others. But the things you regard as "lower pleasures" that you want to be freed from, I don't get. Recreational sex, though I agree it's rather overrated in the long haul, is to me a completely mundane functional aspect of one's physiology and psychology, not something in a special class that we need to suppress other than to use responsibly and respectfully since it involves Other People. Eating food that you might actually enjoy and look forward to seems benign so long as you eat in a balanced way. Why, in a world full of so much human suffering and want, do you want to limit the palette of options available to people? I have no desire to return to an era when one ate water and gruel 2 times a day and avoided sex because it produced only children you couldn't afford to raise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weatherfan7 View Post
I've never once said you have to suffer. I've said that when you have reached a level of spirituality whereby you are so filled with joy that you don't need to indulge in lower pleasures, you won't need to. How is that suffering?
Well if you are filled with joy, I'm happy for you. It's just that virtually every dedicated ascetic I've met thus far has been a killjoy who was filled with joy mostly through making others as dour as they are ... but I will provisionally accept you as an exception to that rule :-)
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 11:44 PM.

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

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