Outdated Morals?

[Sabre]

This week I have had Christian/s claim that Christ is unquestionably moral. However, they seem to use it as a dogmatic quoting tool, causally ignoring bits they don't like and using to try and force others into doing what they want. Most recently this took the form of "Porn/sex = evil" despite, you know, almost everyone on the planet having enjoyed one or the other.

The question I have for you is this. Do you think morals can go out of date? It is well known that a few paragraphs after the famous anti gay section it also claims people should be stoned to death and no one should have a tattoo. There's also alot of slavery stuff in there too, but these are all casually ignored.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Perhaps so...take for instance the Catholic Church banning "divorce"...although the Catholic Church still frowns on it, I know some Catholics who do get divorced.

[Guest DRL]

Of course Morals can be outdated.

It is just like economy. At one moment

you have a Merchantilist country, and the

next year, a Capitalist country.

Morals can change, of course. To me there

are several 'key' morals that just never

get old, (for example, I think it is bad to

kill someone), BUT, it can be 'modified/overruled'

(if the person to kill in question is, for example,

a raper, I think he should be executed).

Morals, additionaly, vary from person-to-person.

Just as economic policies or politics.

Sure, being too much liberal is not a good thing.

BUT, being too much convservative is not good,

either.

[Sarita]

Oh yeah. As humanity evolves, so should what's considered "right" and "whoawtf."

The example I'm going to go with is Jews that don't keep Kosher. It's just not that big a deal anymore to most Jews. Shrimp and pigs used to be "unclean" and should not be eaten, according to the Bible/Kuran(Quoran?).

Flapper skirts would've caused riots even 10 years before their introduction! (Heck, they were seen as hussies even then). Women's and Civil Rights were big deals with the more open minded people of the time they occurred in. I'd hate to see them trying to happen 100 years earlier!

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Flapper skirts would've caused riots even 10 years before their introduction! (Heck, they were seen as hussies even then).

*drools* :P

[Fira-Astrali]

All you have to do is look at the past hundred years to see that morals are as ever-changing as the cultures they evolve in. The example of the flappers is a good example. What was considered scanalous then is normal and even conservative now (when it comes to skirt length, I'm gunna go out on a limb and say that i wish we'd stayed a couple inches more conservative >.>)

The particular morals that your talking about, the ones that came out of the bible, are probably the last ones to be scrutinized, because they are so engrained in our culture. But I think it's not hard to think that a book thats been written a couple thousand years ago might be a teensy bit outdated. It's perfect for its time, but popular morals have changed. There was a time where homosexuality was a bad thing, and such period writing would have reflected that. But now that minds have become a little more open, that particular moral teaching needs to be re-evaluated.

I've not heard of this particular section that openly said "gays are bad!", what is it?

[Sabre]

All you have to do is look at the past hundred years to see that morals are as ever-changing as the cultures they evolve in. The example of the flappers is a good example. What was considered scanalous then is normal and even conservative now (when it comes to skirt length, I'm gunna go out on a limb and say that i wish we'd stayed a couple inches more conservative >.>)

The particular morals that your talking about, the ones that came out of the bible, are probably the last ones to be scrutinized, because they are so engrained in our culture. But I think it's not hard to think that a book thats been written a couple thousand years ago might be a teensy bit outdated. It's perfect for its time, but popular morals have changed. There was a time where homosexuality was a bad thing, and such period writing would have reflected that. But now that minds have become a little more open, that particular moral teaching needs to be re-evaluated.

I've not heard of this particular section that openly said "gays are bad!", what is it?

There is a line in the bible somewhere (cba to look it up) that says "no man should lay with another man", as wall as the assumption god likes lesbians as much as teenagers, people use it for "God hates fags" protests which you can find in google. Also people use it to stop gay rights ect.

[Vy'drach]

What is acceptable to society is always changing. When it comes to religion, however, it depends what kind of religious person you come across. Some are more open-minded and pliable, while others can be bible thumping zealots, spouting threats of fire and brimstone in your eternal damnation.

[Fira-Astrali]

There is a line in the bible somewhere (cba to look it up) that says "no man should lay with another man", as wall as the assumption god likes lesbians as much as teenagers, people use it for "God hates fags" protests which you can find in google. Also people use it to stop gay rights ect.

maybe this is a dumb, question, but what does cba mean?

[Robert Monroe]

Morality is subjective based on the culture upon which they are based in.

So no, morals don't become "outdated", because that implies they can be "updated". They simply change depending on the context of the society they are in at the time.

Most recently this took the form of "Porn/sex = evil" despite, you know, almost everyone on the planet having enjoyed one or the other.

Off topic some, morality is not based in "enjoyability". Just because you enjoy pornography doesn't mean its more or less immoral. And as far as the Christian moral system goes, pretty much -anything- enjoyable but worldly is immoral, so yeah, take that as you wil.

I personally don't give a fuck but I consider pornography immoral moreso because the exploitation of sex sickens me

[Sarita]

maybe this is a dumb, question, but what does cba mean?

Can't be assed. Or something like that, it doesn't make sense out of context, haha.

[Sabre]

Can't be assed. Or something like that, it doesn't make sense out of context, haha.

Cant be Arsed, cant be bothered basicly.

Morality is subjective based on the culture upon which they are based in.

So no, morals don't become "outdated", because that implies they can be "updated". They simply change depending on the context of the society they are in at the time.

Off topic some, morality is not based in "enjoyability". Just because you enjoy pornography doesn't mean its more or less immoral. And as far as the Christian moral system goes, pretty much -anything- enjoyable but worldly is immoral, so yeah, take that as you wil.

I personally don't give a -F-Bomb- but I consider pornography immoral moreso because the exploitation of sex sickens me

They are updated, all the time, slavery, racism, ect. With morality 2.0 they are no longer morraly acceptable.

The point is, everyone is immoral by christian standards.

How is porn exploitation exactly?

[Vy'drach]

How is porn exploitation exactly?

Well porn is essentially just prostitution that is considered legal, but not all porn is necessarily 100% "willing."

It's not unheard of for some porn stars to be all but slaves, usually kept in check with threats, exploiting an addiction, or just the fact that they really have no where else to go.

[Sabre]

Well porn is essentially just prostitution that is considered legal, but not all porn is necessarily 100% "willing."

It's not unheard of for some porn stars to be all but slaves, usually kept in check with threats, exploiting an addiction, or just the fact that they really have no where else to go.

The whole protitution argument doesnt work unless you are religious and thus believe prostitution is immoral.

As for forcing people to do something. That is unrelated. It's like conscription doesn't mean the army is a bad idea for example.

["User"]

Oh boy...forgive me if I start sounding like a preacher of sorts.

Perhaps so...take for instance the Catholic Church banning "divorce"...although the Catholic Church still frowns on it, I know some Catholics who do get divorced.

The Catholic Church mixes it's own "tradition" with what the Bible teaches and some of what they do is not biblical.  Divorce should never be an option according to the Bible

Shrimp and pigs used to be "unclean" and should not be eaten, according to the Bible/Kuran(Quoran?).

The Law of Moses actually.  It regulated almost every aspect of life in Old Testament times. But with the coming of Christ, God established a new covenant of faith and love with mankind. (Central to the teachings of Christianity) Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. However, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament.

[/endsermon] lol

There is a line in the bible somewhere (cba to look it up) that says "no man should lay with another man", as wall as the assumption god likes lesbians as much as teenagers, people use it for "God hates fags" protests which you can find in google. Also people use it to stop gay rights ect.

God doesn't hate anyone, he hates homosexuality.  You know the own saying:  "Hate the sin, but not the sinner?"  And those God Hates Fags people are completely in the wrong with what they are doing.

The point is, everyone is immoral by christian standards.

Immoral in what way? 

[Guest DRL]

God doesn't hate anyone, he hates homosexuality.

But since homosexuality is a lifestyle,

we can say he hates homsoexuals 'de facto'.

Roman Chatolic envoys have openly opposed

and called on every 'true' Chatolic to resist the

Homosexual marriage law as it was being discussed.

You know the own saying:  "Hate the sin, but not the sinner?" 

I thought it was 'Hate the game, not the gamer'.

:trollface:

["User"]

But since homosexuality is a lifestyle,

we can say he hates homsoexuals 'de facto'.

Only that would contradict with the fact that he loves everyone, hence why Jesus died on the cross for EVERYONE (another principle tenet of Christianity)  No where in the Bible does it state that God hates individual people, he may hate the actions or the "sin" of others but not the person themselves.

[Guest DRL]

Only that would contradict with the fact that he loves everyone, hence why Jesus died on the cross for EVERYONE (another principle tenet of Christianity)  No where in the Bible does it state that God hates individual people, he may hate the actions or the "sin" of others but not the person themselves.

That is one of the reasons why I am

an Atheist: Roman Chatolisism has

contradicted itself a load of times

since I was worn. Religion itself

has become 'outdated', yes.

1000 years ago, homosexuality

was not a public, accepted act.

It was something 'not do that',

and left at it.

["User"]

That is one of the reasons why I am

an Atheist: Roman Chatolisism has

contradicted itself a load of times

since I was worn. Religion itself

has become 'outdated', yes.

1000 years ago, homosexuality

was not a public, accepted act.

It was something 'not do that',

and left at it.

Just keep in mind that Roman Catholicism =/= Christianity.  It seems that the media paints Christians in general as Catholic (at least in Canada) and that couldn't be further from the truth.  I am not Roman Catholic and I am opposed to MANY of their practices and ideologies which are not biblical.  Furthermore, not all people who claim they are Christians are actually Christian, and thus give the rest of us a bad name. 

[Sabre]

Just keep in mind that Roman Catholicism =/= Christianity.  It seems that the media paints Christians in general as Catholic (at least in Canada) and that couldn't be further from the truth.  I am not Roman Catholic and I am opposed to MANY of their practices and ideologies which are not biblical.  Furthermore, not all people who claim they are Christians are actually Christian, and thus give the rest of us a bad name.

What gives christians a bad name is ...well, everything. Not just the extremists. From the pope in Africa, to the never ending crap that infects the daily lives of anyone in the west.

[Guest DRL]

Just keep in mind that Roman Catholicism =/= Christianity.  It seems that the media paints Christians in general as Catholic (at least in Canada) and that couldn't be further from the truth.  I am not Roman Catholic and I am opposed to MANY of their practices and ideologies which are not biblical.  Furthermore, not all people who claim they are Christians are actually Christian, and thus give the rest of us a bad name.

Trouble with us, South Americans,

is that we have two Christian [major]

groups:

1] 'Evangelists' - as we call them around

here - or Protestants, who pester you on

the street to go to their churches and bla,

bla,bla.

2] Roman Chatolic. By far the strongest

Christian group. I do understand that not

all Christians are Roman Chatolic, but they

do have considerably influence in our contries

[reffering to South America, of course.]

NOT to the point were they can pass laws or

interferre with the goverment, BUT, they are

able to make public speeches and get a good

amout of support.

["User"]

What gives christians a bad name is ...well, everything. Not just the extremists. From the pope in Africa, to the never ending crap that infects the daily lives of anyone in the west.

And it's usually the most outspoken "ignorant" ones that give the rest of Christianity a bad name.  That's just the way it goes with most religious/ethic/etc groups.  That being said, people shouldn't be hating an entire religion for the most outspoken activists who are in the minority.

[Sabre]

And it's usually the most outspoken "ignorant" ones that give the rest of Christianity a bad name.  That's just the way it goes with most religious/ethic/etc groups.  That being said, people shouldn't be hating an entire religion for the most outspoken activists who are in the minority.

Hate and having a bad reputation are different things.

["User"]

Hate and having a bad reputation are different things.

Hate is a stronger word yes, but both are related in that they imply negativity.

[Robert Monroe]

Cant be Arsed, cant be bothered basicly.

They are updated, all the time, slavery, racism, ect. With morality 2.0 they are no longer morraly acceptable.

The point is, everyone is immoral by christian standards.

How is porn exploitation exactly?

Again: they don't "update", they only change. Its a coninuous cycle.

And my feeling of pornography being sexual exploitation is my personal feelings on the matter. I don't feel comfortable with sex as a salable commodity.