Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[acbytesla]

The nihilist struggles to object on moral issues (obviously) - certainly they cannot demur in any objective sense; which is why we are where we are at.

This is nonsense and very much is not true. I don't struggle at all.

Morality to me is tied to well being. It is immoral for to hurt or kill someone because it objectively goes against their well being. But guess what? Even that is not necessarily true. Maybe the person is in a lot of pain and wants the suffering to end. And sometimes it is necessary to actually hurt someone to help them get better. A shot causes pain, but the medicine will help.

If we agree to that which leads to the well being of individuals and society, it is fairly easy to objectively conclude what is moral and what is not. But there is no "inherent" reason to tie well being to morality. Just as there is no reason to tie God or anything else as the objective reason. Religious people rely on what they think what God wants. But how do they actually know what God wants? And who's God? The Muslim God? The Norse, the Egyptian, the Roman, the Hindu Gods?

I challenge Poem to present why he believes in objective morality. And to tie it back to thread, is it objectively immoral to watch porn? Why and who decided that it was objectively immoral. And doesn't that make it subjective?

 

[arthwollipot]

Clearly, the message of porn is to encourage sexual restraint and monogamy - values that aid child rearing and societal cohesion.

I deny this premise. Love and compassion and consideration for others are the values that aid child rearing and societal cohesion. I've seen too many families destroyed when the commandments of sexual restraint and monogamy have been broken.

 

[acbytesla]

I deny this premise. Love and compassion and consideration for others are the values that aid child rearing and societal cohesion. I've seen too many families destroyed when the commandments of sexual restraint and monogamy have been broken.

I want to know what Poem thinks is objectively moral and immoral. And more importantly how did he decide?

Did he look to Bible? Isn't that subjective? And if he looked to Bible, I assume he's OK with slavery. Arranged marriages, Stoning unruly children. And grooms killing their brides if they discover them not to be virgins. And killing someone working on the Sabbath, or eating shellfish, pork or cheeseburgers. All of which is prohibited.

 

[arthwollipot]

I want to know what Poem thinks is objectively moral and immoral. And more importantly how did he decide?

Did he look to Bible? Isn't that subjective? And if he looked to Bible, I assume he's OK with slavery. Arranged marriages, Stoning unruly children. And grooms killing their brides if they discover them not to be virgins. And killing someone working on the Sabbath, or eating shellfish, pork or cheeseburgers. All of which is prohibited.

You do remember that modern Christians do not hold to Old Testament law, right? Are we going to do this again?

 

[acbytesla]

You do remember that modern Christians do not hold to Old Testament law, right? Are we going to do this again?

You do know that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jewish law ceased when Jesus arrived. In fact in the Gospel of Matthew says that not a jot or a tittle of the law is to be changed until heaven and earth is no more. Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn slavery. Not a single verse does it says that it is immoral to own other human beings as property.

And if God changed the law, how could it be objectively moral or immoral at one time and all of a sudden being objectively the opposite?

 

[arthwollipot]

*sigh* I see we are doing this again.

You do know that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jewish law ceased when Jesus arrived.

In how many words do you want the Bible to say that Jewish law ceased? Just a few?

Romans 10:4, good buddy. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Not enough words? Here's a few more:

Galatians 3:23-26. "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

And if you want to get excessively wordy:

Ephesians 2:13-18. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

Paul, who was the originator of Christianity, clearly stated in its founding documents - the Pauline Epistles - that Christians are not subject to Jewish law. He said it repeatedly. It was almost like it was important.

And if God changed the law, how could it be objectively moral or immoral at one time and all of a sudden being objectively the opposite?

Because the law existed solely to bring the Jews to a position where they could be saved by Christ the Messiah, of course. Once the law was fulfilled, Jesus's two commandments were all the law. Matthew 22:35-40: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

But don't panic, because Paul also said that they can still hate the gays, so that particular part of the Old Testament is still good. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

 

[acbytesla]

*sigh* I see we are doing this again.



In how many words do you want the Bible to say that Jewish law ceased? Just a few?

Romans 10:4, good buddy. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Not enough words? Here's a few more:

Galatians 3:23-26. "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

And if you want to get excessively wordy:

Ephesians 2:13-18. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

Paul, who was the originator of Christianity, clearly stated in its founding documents - the Pauline Epistles - that Christians are not subject to Jewish law. He said it repeatedly. It was almost like it was important.

Why should anyone follow Paul? He's not God or the son of God. He's just a guy who came around 20 years later. All of those verses are the words of Paul not Jesus.

Because the law existed solely to bring the Jews to a position where they could be saved by Christ the Messiah, of course. Once the law was fulfilled, Jesus's two commandments were all the law. Matthew 22:35-40: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

That doesn't say to stop obeying the law.

But don't panic, because Paul also said that they can still hate the gays, so that particular part of the Old Testament is still good. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

None of those verses are in the Gospels. Jesus said nothing to suggest the law no longer applies. It's called Christianity. Not Paulinity.

Again, choosing not to obey the law is a subjective choice.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why should anyone follow Paul? He's not God or the son of God. He's just a guy who came around 20 years later. All of those verses are the words of Paul not Jesus.

Paul literally founded Christianity. He was the guy who created the religion. Before Paul there were no Christians - only Jews and Gentiles. Paul built the Christian church. On a rock, apparently. And Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians were its foundational documents - letters from Paul to various groups to tell them how to be Christian.

 

[acbytesla]

Paul literally founded Christianity. He was the guy who created the religion. Before Paul there were no Christians - only Jews and Gentiles. Paul built the Christian church. On a rock, apparently. And Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians were its foundational documents - letters from Paul to various groups to tell them how to be Christian.

I know. He is the Joseph Smith/ L Ron Hubbard of the first century.

 

[Lithrael]

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the Porn Room!​

 

[acbytesla]

Paul said porn was ok.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know. He is the Joseph Smith/ L Ron Hubbard of the first century.

Essentially, yeah. He wrote the rules of Christianity, and they included Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament laws so that Christians wouldn't be bound by them. Pretty smart move, actually. Some of those laws were pretty barbaric.

Paul said porn was ok.

Thank Christ for that!

 

[Poem]

I deny this premise. Love and compassion and consideration for others are the values that aid child rearing and societal cohesion.

I'm not disagreeing, And you sound like a Christ-follower.

I've seen too many families destroyed when the commandments of sexual restraint and monogamy have been broken.

Obviously it is a complex subject with many elements that would take some exploring.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not disagreeing, And you sound like a Christ-followOK.

Do you think Jesus was the only one to advocate those values? Or even the first or one millionth?

Obviously it is a complex subject with many elements that would take some exploring.

Yes it is. But you've boiled it down to porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not disagreeing,

I'm disagreeing with you, though. Sexual restraint and monogamy do not contribute significantly to child-rearing or societal cohesion. At best, they do so only when they are combined with love and compassion, which is not always the case.

And you sound like a Christ-follower.

Ex-, actually. Did quite a bit of deep study before coming to my senses.

Obviously it is a complex subject with many elements that would take some exploring.

If you would like to make a thread for it, I'll meet you there.

 

[Poem]

I'm disagreeing with you, though. Sexual restraint and monogamy do not contribute significantly to child-rearing or societal cohesion. At best, they do so only when they are combined with love and compassion, which is not always the case.

Sounds about right.

Ex-, actually. Did quite a bit of deep study before coming to my senses.

Ok.

If you would like to make a thread for it, I'll meet you there.

Porn is, generally speaking, an assault on stable relationships. No, that won't always be the case and there will obviously be myriad elements that contribute to such relationship breakdowns. Sex outside of a relationship (or the equivalent through porn) will still be a deal-breaker for many folk. That is not good for any children involved and, therefore, not good for society.

We are back to that Spanish proverb: Take want you want - take it and pay for it.

 

[Poem]

This is a perfect example of the lazy Christian who knows they have no evidence so they shift the burden of proof.

Nothing irrelevant about it. In fact it is why you are on this crusade. You believe in that stupid fairy tale.
...........

Apologise.

 

[acbytesla]

Porn is, generally speaking, an assault on stable relationships.

I know you think that. But it is nonsense.

You're making a claim without evidence. And a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I'll give some. I was with the same woman for 30 years. We watched porn separately and together. Are you saying our relationship wasn't stable?

No, that won't always be the case and there will obviously be myriad elements that contribute to such relationship breakdowns. Sex outside of a relationship (or the equivalent through porn) will still be a deal-breaker for many folk. That is not good for any children involved and, therefore, not good for society.

It's a deal breaker for you. It is hardly a deal breaker for everyone.

 

[Poem]

#3,957

 

[acbytesla]

Apologise.

I apologize for calling you lazy. That was uncalled for. But I feel I must stand by the rest of it. It is a stupid fairy tale with no evidence supporting its major premises.