Question for religious folk - Morality

[Jerry]

I disagree. I do not view myself as missing a lot, in fact I view it as an "investment" in my future marriage and giving my wife the ultimate gift of sexual purity and having her know that I've waited years for her and have not partaken in sex with any other person. I plan on her being my first and only sexual partner.

I believe in absolute morals. I understand it's my choice and others have their choice and I don't think that should be taken away from anyone. But their choice is wrong, mine is correct. I believe regardless of what they think, they are engaging in sexual immorality and my choice is superior in that regard.

Yeah you're missing out on a lot...you're missing out on paying child support, abortions and BC. And don't forget about the STDs you aren't availing yourself of, or the heart brake of becoming attached to someone who then walks out because they have no investment in you. Yeah, you're missing out on a lot.

 

[Cyrylek]

I have never subscribed to the theory that if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else that something is moral or is to be permitted.

I understand - until you say "not to be permitted". Who the hell are you or I to "permit" or not "permit" this or that to other people?

Of course, if someone is being coerced to do something against their will - that is a crime, obviously - we wouldn't disagree on that.

But if (for example) two consenting adults have a safe, pleasure-oriented sexual intercourse - what exactly they are doing that is so different from having, say, a massage - or an online conversation about morality, for that matter?

Further: Don't you think that the very act of 'not permitting' something that 'hurts no one' is deeply immoral? - coercion, aggression, violation of the Golden Rule - no?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Do you believe that you would be a moral person without your faith?

I believe that other people are wholly capable of being moral under most religions or even without religion, but I don't believe that I would be a moral person without my religion. Knowing that everything I say and do is going to have an effect on my wyrd-- and my family's wyrd-- keeps me from being half the monster I would be otherwise.

 

[ChezC3]

Hello,

I won't sugar-coat the question too much, but it is intended with due respect. Do you believe that you would be a moral person without your faith?

I believe that there is no other reality than the one we have, right now, in this moment, no other possibility of the way things turned out. But if we are playing "What if?..."

Morals and faith are two separate spheres of existence..

Morals are based on logic and rational, they operates on a set of rules and values that can be applied to and that come to logical conclusions. Faith is irrational, by nature.

The moral, ethical sphere puts the needs of the collective above the needs of the individual. How you carry yourself ad interact with others, many times putting your wants and desires in check to appease the collective. To put the individual above the collective is a sin. As it regards faith, the religious sphere, you must put God above everything else, including the collective.

This makes the two spheres incompatible you understand.

Look at Luke 14:26

If any man cometh unto me and hateth not his own father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple

Does this sound moral?

Faith puts the individual above the collective because God is above the collective. Hear, as Kierkegaard puts it;

"Faith is precisely the paradox that the single individual as the single individual is higher than the universal,(the collective) is justified before it, not inferior to is but as superior - yet in such a way, please note, that it is the single individual who, after being subordinate as the single individual is superior, that the single individual as the single individual stands in an absolute relation to the absolute" (God)

my parenthesis


Now, if the individual then rises above the collective precisely because it is not subordinate to the collective, only to God, how than can we say morals stem from faith? We can't, because the person of Faith isn't acting in accord to what the collective wants, following a moral set of rules, that person of faith is acting in a completely irrational manner and is rewarded handsomely for it by being placed above the collective.

This of course looking at from a purely moral, ethical sphere is preposterous and immoral. Because remember, from a moral standpoint, putting the individual above the collective is a sin, and the persons of faith unapologetic sinners!!!

But, I digress, no other outcome could have taken place than the one that did, precisely because it did. But I hope I cleared up a few misconceptions...

 

[Amadeus]

I believe that other people are wholly capable of being moral under most religions or even without religion, but I don't believe that I would be a moral person without my religion. Knowing that everything I say and do is going to have an effect on my wyrd-- and my family's wyrd-- keeps me from being half the monster I would be otherwise.

This is an interesting response, and I notice your emphasis on wyrd (often associated with Norse traditions). May I ask what your faith is?

 

[nota bene]

Good for you.

I mean: You are missing a lot, but it is the same as missing on all the trips you could have taken, to see Patagonia, and Tahiti, and Venice - but instead you are saving money to buy for the house where your children will grow up.

People who make different choices are not more or less moral than you. But that does not invalidate your choice. It simply makes it more yours.

I really like your vacations vs homestead investment analogy. But I'm not sure Digsbe is missing out on much. I can't say this based on first-hand experience because I was very naughty. If I could go back, I would definitely not make most of the sexual choices I made. But I do know two couples whose partners were all virgins at marriage, and they are extremely happy and extremely enthusiastic, if you know what I mean.

 

[Goshin]

I really like your vacations vs homestead investment analogy. But I'm not sure Digsbe is missing out on much. I can't say this based on first-hand experience because I was very naughty. If I could go back, I would definitely not make most of the sexual choices I made. But I do know two couples whose partners were all virgins at marriage, and they are extremely happy and extremely enthusiastic, if you know what I mean.

I know some folks like that too, and they seem very well contented.

 

[Verthaine]

So are you saying that Christianity taught you to be unethical and depressed? Or are you saying that you've got a better handle on ethics than Jesus did, therefore, you don't need Christianity anymore?

With all the backstabbing,crooked business deals,gossiping,adultery,bearing of false witness etc in the Pentacostal Church I grew up in (and on DebatePolitics.com),apparently Jesus didn't teach those people anything also.It wasn't the Jesus that pushed me away from Christianity,it was the poor treatment I received from Christians while growing up.Once I walked away from THAT world,I was free to discover my own life for myself.I married a great woman,had 3 wonderful children by her,stayed with her till she died,remarried to another wonderful woman, built myself a very successful career,and by all accounts have a very good life.I didn't need to be a Christian to do all that.
Hated going to church,I thought (and still think)the Bible is the most boring book ever written,and the hypocrisy of so many of those church goers back then (and a lot of the Christians here)still astounds me to this day.Personally I prefer Buddha and Lao Tzu over Jesus.

What I am saying is that I don't need Christianity telling me how to live my own life or how to have a good life.

 

[Amadeus]

I base it on my theological interpretation of sexual ethics from the Bible.

Sexual pleasure in itself is not immoral. Sexual drive is not wrong nor is sex in and of itself wrong. What is wrong is improperly indulging in that with someone who is not your spouse.

I am almost 23, I am not married. My choice is superior because it is what it right. It's based on self control, respect for my partner's body, respect for my body, a desire to honor God in my relationships, and at the end of it all to give my wife my virginity and living a life of sexual purity. As I said, I believe in absolute morals. People are free to do what they want, but regardless of what they believe they are wrong in what they do.

I have never subscribed to the theory that if it doesn't "hurt" anyone else that something is moral or is to be permitted.

This kind of a turn off. Your values may be right for you, but that doesn't make other people's values wrong. You are not stating an opinion, you are making a moral judgement. Which is not really your domain.

 

[ChrisL]

Yeah you're missing out on a lot...you're missing out on paying child support, abortions and BC. And don't forget about the STDs you aren't availing yourself of, or the heart brake of becoming attached to someone who then walks out because they have no investment in you. Yeah, you're missing out on a lot.

All of this stuff happens to married people too. It's the people involved, not the type of living arrangement that matters. Do you actually think that because you married somebody, it makes all of those things nonexistent?

 

[Goshin]

I hold myself to Christian gentile Biblical morality, and advocate it as the morality God expects of us.


It is a high standard, and one I have often fallen short of, and still do sometimes. Nontheless I hold to it as an ideal and strive to come as close to it as I can.


Would I be moral without it? Complex question, really... theologically speaking I am not moral even with it. "For all have sinned... there is none righteous, no not one." Morality only goes so far. Morality is the mirror that shows you the dirt... Grace is the washcloth that wipes it away.


Absent Christian morals, I probably would not be too terrible... I was raised better than that. But then again, WHY was I raised better than that... oh yeah, because my parents were devout Christians, and so were their parents, and so on.

But part of the problem is the definition of "moral". A theist and a non-theist will not define "moral" the same.


Most non-theists will typically define "moral" as not harming anyone or cheating anyone, or something like that.

To a theist, whether a Christian like myself or an Asatru like Viktyr, "moral" is "what our God requires of us". Moral behavior is doing what our God (in Viktyr's case, gods) says is good, and not doing what he says is bad.

Very different you see.

 

[Goshin]

This kind of a turn off. Your values may be right for you, but that doesn't make other people's values wrong. You are not stating an opinion, you are making a moral judgement. Which is not really your domain.

Actually he is asserting that his religion says that this moral code is absolute, whether one believes in it or not.

 

[ChrisL]

I really find this hard to believe. Are you people telling me that you have NOT had premarital sex?!

 

[Amadeus]

Actually he is asserting that his religion says that this moral code is absolute, whether one believes in it or not.

It looked like he was stating that what other people do/believe are wrong, rather than stating that under his religion they are wrong. There is a subtle but significant difference. In the former, he's asserting his judgement. In the latter, he's referencing God's.

 

[Goshin]

I really find this hard to believe. Are you people telling me that you have NOT had premarital sex?!

Which people?

 

[Amadeus]

I really find this hard to believe. Are you people telling me that you have NOT had premarital sex?!

I'm as pure as the driven snow, but for non-religious reasons.

 

[ChrisL]

Which people?

People who are claiming that premarital sex is a "sin." People like you for instance.

 

[Goshin]

It looked like he was stating that what other people do/believe are wrong, rather than stating that under his religion they are wrong. There is a subtle but significant difference. In the former, he's asserting his judgement. In the latter, he's referencing God's.

While it may have seemed otherwise, I expect Digsbe meant the latter. I've known him a while now, fine young man.

 

[Goshin]

People who are claiming that premarital sex is a "sin." People like you for instance.

Very interesting. Please quote me saying premarital sex is a sin.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm as pure as the driven snow, but for non-religious reasons.

No, if you've had premarital sex or if you enjoy it, you are a dirty skank who is not deserving of love and affection. :roll:

 

[Amadeus]

No, if you've had premarital sex or if you enjoy it, you are a dirty skank who is not deserving of love and affection. :roll:

I certainly wouldn't think that. People are free to do as they choose. I do hope that both males and females respect their sexuality, but it is not my place to judge.

 

[ChrisL]

Very interesting. Please quote me saying premarital sex is a sin.

Perhaps not in this thread, but I believe I've read posts of your's that have least hinted that it is a belief that you hold.

I just find it humorous that people think that if a girl or guy has never had sex before marriage or is a virgin, that this somehow guarantees a better relationship. It's really kind of silly and delusional IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

I certainly wouldn't think that. People are free to do as they choose. I do hope that both males and females respect their sexuality, but it is not my place to judge.

Some people actually do think that you are somehow "soiled" if you've had sex before marriage.

 

[Quag]

Some people actually do think that you are somehow "soiled" if you've had sex before marriage.

I actually knew a guy like that, He really wanted to find the "right" woman but she had to remain a virgin until after they were married. Only trouble was he would dump any girl who wouldn't sleep with him on the first date. He has pretty much doomed himself to a life of solitude

 

[Goshin]

Perhaps not in this thread, but I believe I've read posts of your's that have least hinted that it is a belief that you hold.

I just find it humorous that people think that if a girl or guy has never had sex before marriage or is a virgin, that this somehow guarantees a better relationship. It's really kind of silly and delusional IMO.

I was just pointing out that that is an assumption.


Actually I am inclined to believe that it is a sin, or at least questionable, for those who profess Christianity.

However, as I may have mentioned, I have not always adhered to my own moral code adequately. No one ever keeps it perfectly all their days... and that is part of the point of Christian theology: the imperfection of humanity.

If we were capable of being sinless, there would have been no need of Grace, or of a Savior.