The Question of Morality (Original)

[Dawn Moline]

The Question of Morality

How does one define the word "immoral"? For me, when I think of the term, two things come to mind, the twin elements that seem to drive all the societies of the world, no matter what their faith, no matter how secular of non-secular they are: both sex and violence. They are the two most powerful driving forces behind all cultures and religions and equally, the two forces that tend to be the most feared. Laws are passed against them, clergy rail against them, yet they have to be acceptable to some extent because society couldn't exist without them.

Violence is often needed to defend one's territory, or to steal the territory of others.

If lust wasn't acceptable to some extent, we would never reproduce and simply wouldn't be at all.

It is often a fine line we walk here, and standards keep changing over time.

In the Biblical tale of Sodom and Gommarrah, Lot, put forth as the lone man worth saving, takes in two strangers to his home. When the mobs come to his home and demand that he allow them to "know them", his courtesy as a host lead him to offer his virgin daughters up to the mob instead. In Biblical times, this was seen as a laudable act, these days, the act would be seen, by most anyway, as reprehensible.

I, for one, would submit that even Lot was not worth saving, simply by that one act alone. Then, too, that is merely my own judgment.

Morality when it comes to sex is often a slippery slope, often dependent on one's upbringing, sometimes with no clear answers in sight.

Morality when it comes to violence is more stark and absolute. Unlike sex, we are inundated with images of violence to such an extent that some of us have even grown immune to it. Somehow along the way, violence, the more destructive of the two elements by far, has also become more acceptable.

At what point did this happen..?

Why are we more comfortable discussing violence as opposed to sex?

Why is sexual power the last mystique in our cannon of beliefs to fall, and so, be so feared?

If a woman, or a man, has intercourse with multiple partners, we have in our languages, all manner of names for them. By most definitions, sex for the sake of simple gratification is wrong, yet sex done out of love is not. Yet, if they happen to love each of those people, does it still make it wrong?

I would like to know everyone here's definition on morality. This is meant to be a highly interactive topic, and once again, I encourage maximum participation. Mind you, I don't mean for any of us to judge one another, I simply would like for us to understand one another. When I say "society," incidentally, I don't mean just American society, I mean the society of the world. I happen to consider myself a citizen of the world, an eternal sudent, and my main subject of interest happens to be the human soul.

Let us each now define "morality," if only so we can define it, not just for each other, but for ourselves.

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000251;p=1

[Pagan]

Stacy Dohm

Member
Member # 2189

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 09:40 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why just limit it to sex and violence? In my book, anyone who lies, cheats or steals is also immoral. Immoral is anyone who does anything with bad intentions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 341 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Nov 200

[Pagan]

Zodiac

Member
Member # 2231

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 09:52 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ditto to that. I do think that the violence related to immorality tends to get underplayed a bit and tends to be quite a bit worse than the sexual aspect of it.
I just said that, but I happen to think that anything with pedophilia is about as sick as you can get.

You hear that, Michael Jackson??



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 260 | From: the Netherworld | Registered: Nov 2004   

[Pagan]

Calvin Noble

Member
Member # 2238

Rate Member   posted 03-10-2005 10:05 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubtless, the true point of this thread is so that you can somehow get others to question their morals and so, lessen the guilt some of you might feel while you have your depraved, drug-induced orgies, Dawn. You aren't fooling anyone here, even, I imagine, yourself. And don't think I didn't see the mention to Lot, never miss a chance to sneek in a swipe at the Bible, I see. What Lot did was perfectly acceptable, given the context of the times, incidentally. Please read the Old Testament in it's entirety to get the proper framework for this occurrence. Lot's act was one of mercy and generosity.
The devil speaks in pretty sentences. I would encourage all good Christians to stay away from this latest sordid attempt at lessening the beliefs of our culture and to shun all of Dawn's future writings as well. Whether it be knowingly or unknowingly, her questions are not the work of the one true God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 344 | Registered: Nov 2004

[Pagan]

Zodiac

Member
Member # 2231

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 10:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lot's act was one of mercy and generosity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not for his daughters it wasn't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 260 | From: the Netherworld 

[Pagan]

Jennie McGrath

Member
Member # 2197

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 10:32 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My dad ever did that to me, I'd be borrowing the family shotgun. Pronto. Maybe to use on Dad, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 730 | Registered: Nov 2004  |

[Pagan]

Veronica Poe

Member
Member # 2172

  posted 03-10-2005 10:57 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I happen to think that polygamy is immoral. Anyone who has more than one wife (regardless of their religious affiliation) should be put in jail, bar none. Correct, Calvin?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 332 | Registered: Oct 2004   

[Pagan]

Dorian Gray
Member
Member # 192

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 11:16 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica, what about more than one husband?
I don't think polygamy is immoral, if all the parties are over 18, consenting and understand what they are getting into.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3675 | From: Dayton, OH | Registered: Aug 2000  | 

[Pagan]

Baphomet

Member
Member # 2177

Member Rated:
   posted 03-10-2005 11:48 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to say that I believe that only since religion entered the world, did man begin to have any concerns over the thing called considered morality. Ancient man had no such concerns. He had as many sexual partners as he pleased (and she did, too). It wasn't considered immoral or evil, they were simply gratifying a sexual urge. Is your dog or cat considered immoral if it mates with more than one partner? No, only humans hold themselves to such high standards...and why? Often because the clergy in charge of such things are frightened by their impulses and so, try to impose conditions upon others to control that they don't understand, except that it often makes them afraid.
Man, left to his own devices, might still be running amok if we didn't have this thing called civilization.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 173 | Registered: Oct 2004   

[Pagan]

Absonite

Member
Member # 1766

  posted 03-12-2005 08:39 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You have heard the teachers of the law say, `You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every man who looks upon a woman with intent to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. You can only judge men by their acts, but my Father looks into the hearts of his children and in mercy adjudges them in accordance with their intents and real desires."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p140.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2197 | Registered: Dec 2003 

[Pagan]

iwannano
Member
Member # 2255

Rate Member   posted 03-12-2005 02:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absonite, the quote says that if a man looks at a woman with intent to lust after her has already commited adultery with her.
Is that a premeditated intent to lust or after looking does he have intent to lust? The quote seems to say that somehow because the man lusts after her she is an adulterer also.
I must admit to lusting after women other than my wife. I have never acted on it nor intended to lust ,it just happens. These lu****l feelings come and go in a matter of moments. Does that make me immoral in your passage?
As a quick aside to this discussion, at Merck Pharmiceuticals they have the 7 second rule. If you look/stare at someone for longer than 7 seconds they have the right to be offended and have you reprimanded. A stare of less than 7 seconds is okay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 178 | From: River Ridge, La. USA | Registered: Dec 2004   

[Pagan]

Veronica Poe

Member
Member # 2172

  posted 03-12-2005 03:13 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Dorian, I feel that polygamy in any guise is immoral, whether it be many wives or many husbands. If the flame has gone out of a marriage, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to take a second spouse. They should either get a divorce or just fool around. Marriage should be a sacred act, not entered into lightly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 332 | Registered: Oct 2004

[Pagan]

Veronica Poe

Member
Member # 2172

  posted 03-12-2005 03:15 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having just said that, I realize that there is one thing that I happen to loathe even above polygamists: rapists. The worst punishment on a "moral" basis should be reserved for rapists first, polygamists, second.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 332 | Registered: Oct 2004   

[Pagan]

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 03-12-2005 06:07 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica we use to call them "pigamists" 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9843 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002

[Pagan]

Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 03-12-2005 06:43 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual morals of ancient times were different then morals of today.

Actually it would not bother me if a man had more then one mate, or a woman. There were ancient cultures where the woman had more then one husband.

In some cultures even today there are tribes that share mates, it is not immoral to them to be naked either, they are innocent.

again I think the moral laws of the religions came about for health reasons,and that then became socially, or morally acceptable.

The Celts enjoyed sexual freedom. Celtic marriage was a free contract



[This message has been edited by Ishtar (edited 03-12-2005).]

[This message has been edited by webmaster (edited 03-25-2005).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9824 | Registered: Feb 2002