The new commandments (Christian, Christ, demons, moral)
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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by perry335654
What do you mean new, people were saying that ridiculous statement back in the 1970's, at least the"If it feels good do it" , that action could land one in the slammer
But I see you totally ignored the qualifying second part.
"If it harms you or someone else, don't".
Are we being honest in our debate here, or are we reverting to the pattern developed discussing strange bible passages?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
So voyeurism is acceptable as long as you don't get caught? Got it.
Explain yourself. There are numerous ways someone is harmed, but I need to now how your approaching this. Not that there is anything in the original 10 commandments that address voyeurism by a single person, although arguably, there is some indication they would cover a married one.
Explain yourself. There are numerous ways someone is harmed, but I need to now how your approaching this. Not that there is anything in the original 10 commandments that address voyeurism by a single person, although arguably, there is some indication they would cover a married one.
Voyuerism complies with both standards of these new commandments, so therefore should be embraced as good and moral behavior.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Nietzsche's "will to power" concerned the goal of a person to do what he felt best for himself, without obeying another's moral expectations, and thus crafting for himself his own "will to power" - and not necessarily power as violence. More of an idea that one's will is forced upon the world. Of course, this does not take into consideration the feelings of others - but it does boil down to a system of secular humanistic ethics that is not beholden to any religious system. As a matter of course, harming ones self would be out of the question.
It seems to me that his "will to power" was manifested in all sorts of relationships, not just the political ones, and certainly not necessarily physical. There appears no mitigation, which the second part of construct has.
Quote:
Aleister Crowley's maxim of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" took the philosophy of Nietzsche and its humanistic outlook in rejecting traditional religious values and morals and applied it as THE law - or similar to how you phrased it "Forget the ten, you only need [one]". Still, what is missing is the part of not harming others. The occult has no bearing on the above philosophy.
We interpret Crowley very differently; I see a direct call to the occult. And agreed, again the do no harm principle is missing. It is an intregal part of the construct, so one can't compare Crowley to it.
The important part is not to concentrate on the first part of the construct, but recognize that the second part is integral to the whole.
No it doesn't. The person being viewed privacy is being invaded as well as sense of well being and safety.
The second part of the construct is not being met.
Your example = #fail. But nice try.
Incorrect. People cannot, by definition, be 'harmed' without awareness of it. Harm involves something negative happening to someone, such as physical or emotional damage. Please provide proof of harm in the case of voyuerism.
Also, you mentioned privacy. I see no reason why privacy would be a morally right thing to respect as long as it follows the two commandments. I fail to see the logic here.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Incorrect. People cannot, by definition, be 'harmed' without awareness of it. Harm involves something negative happening to someone, such as physical or emotional damage. Please provide proof of harm in the case of voyuerism.
Also, you mentioned privacy. I see no reason why privacy would be a morally right thing to respect as long as it follows the two commandments. I fail to see the logic here.
I await your response.
There is nothing in the existing constructs presented in the bible that would not allow voyeurism, is there?
A persons right to privacy and right to feeling safe is fundamental. Although your right, if the person being viewed never finds out, it could be argued there is no harm done to that person. However, as invariably happens, the person being viewed does discover the voyeur, and the psychological impact is significant and negative.
So, your bible is silent on voyeurism, period, in all cases, whether discovered or not. This construct deals with that.
I wonder why the bible does not?
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.
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.
