Honesty in Perfection

Briles1207
reply to post by backcase

 

It is relevant to me as I am researching at what age people catch religion and their life leading up to it. Their demographic If you will.

Apologies if I seemed intrusive

My self it was at the age of 33. Prior to that I was a drug dealer addict and drinker no formal religious indoctrination.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'm not so intellectually limited that I require theism to give this world meaning. Ascribing meaning myself is just as potent, if not more so, than taking it from a dusty old book. Please note that I am not calling theists intellectually limited, I'm calling this particular rubbish excuse for being a theist intellectually limited.

The first part of the verse...what is man, is the fundamental concept in the whole verse and the question asked since time immemorial. What is man? Is man an intellect? You are because you think? What does thinking have to do with the universe? I say this because if you don't want to think about God, then you must think you came from somewhere, and that somewhere, according to secular philosophers such as yourself, is that you are simply a product of universal movement. That's all that you can be, a product. So what does intellect have to do with anything?

Are you a human because you have the capacity to think about your capacity to think? And then you have the capacity to think higher thoughts. But does the capacity to think higher thoughts make you a greater product? Are you a better human than someone else who does not have intellect? That's the summation of evolution, survival of the fittest. And if you are more fit, then what does that say for the weaker product? What is your responsibility toward them? And if it is mere survival of the fittest, then that leaves no room for love or compassion. So why love and why demand that others show love?

But the people around me do. Are you so greedy and ungrateful that having your family and friends love and appreciate you just isn't enough? You need a whole universe to care about you too?

Survival of the fittest. And to place a code of morality onto someone else means a consideration of morality comes from somewhere else other than the evolutionary message of survival of the fittest. You believe you are the product of the universe. You have chosen to consider what is against nature, because there's no love in nature, so it would go against nature for your morality or code of ethics. Where is this moral law coming from, that you are demanding? From your own intellect? You think, therefore you are more ethical? Nature doesn't care for ethics. But by your demand of morality, you do believe there is a higher principle other than what guides nature and survival of the fittest. Apparently you are not the fittest if you must rely on morality.

You say I am greedy. By what law of nature says I am greedy? That's a moral preclusion on your part.

I don't need to invent significance in order to feel significant. So yes, I do question your god. Because I question you. I question your motives, I question the devices you don't dare examine for yourself. That's why it's called faith, because your aversion to those answers leaves a void nothing else can fill except for faith. Faith is the Splenda of philosophy. You wanted to talk about honesty? Let's have at it.

You think, don't you? Therefore you are, correct? Again, significance is a moral preclusion. Either you are a product of survival of the fittest, which has no room for significance or you are a human with created conscience that leads you to consider morality.

As I can clearly demonstrate, I need no god to laugh and love and cry and fear and doubt. My rejection of theism has not impaired my ability to appreciate the beauty in the world and those who share it with me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And to ascribe beauty to anything comes from a higher thought. So are you better than me because you thought about what is beautiful? You love, but that's not in the equation of nature. Your rejection of theism comes from your capacity to think higher. But again, what is man? Man is man because he has the ability to love or laugh? Is that what makes a human being? You love, therefore you are? To appreciate beauty is a moral preclusion as well. Am I less human if I don't think what you say is beautiful? How is your definition of beautiful better than mine? And who cares what is beautiful when it comes to survival of the fittest?

Again, all you are demonstrating is that you desire to feel special and significant. You want more than you would have otherwise.

Survival of the fittest. Isn't that what they teach you in evolutionary circles? If I am the top dog, what's it to you? Nature gives no room for your complaints about being insignificant anyway. You thought your way through to answering me, are you implying then that to survive this thread, you are more fit than I am? You prove that is your thought process by simply saying "I don't need your god". Well now, if you don't need my god, then why complain about my god? If you are more fit, then you wouldn't be so quick to fight against Him. But you are fighting against Him to prove you are more fit than Him. It's your struggle, not mine.

exactly who and what they are.

What am I and what are you?

You're trying to make me out like a bad guy or an ignorant fool. It's not going to work because I just pinpointed

What have you pinpointed for me? That you are accepting of a universe of nothingness that produced you, but at the same time ascribing moral character to a God that you don't even believe in?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Before I begin to respond, let me first make clear my intentions. I wish to explore the subject at hand through honesty and integrity, which seems to be the theme of the thread. Honesty leads to integrity, etc. Be that as it may, I am not here to insult, degrade, or other impinge upon your character in any way. I am here to get to the root of the matter, that's all. I feel I may have been a little harsh previously, and if that's true, then I apologize for that. But I will not apologize for doggedly pursuing the truths I feel are buried at the heart of the issue.

Now, continuing...

What is man? Is man an intellect? You are because you think? What does thinking have to do with the universe? I say this because if you don't want to think about God, then you must think you came from somewhere, and that somewhere, according to secular philosophers such as yourself, is that you are simply a product of universal movement. That's all that you can be, a product. So what does intellect have to do with anything?

I am because I think. I have no other proof that I exist. As Rene Descartes has said before, we can only ever prove that we ourselves exist, and even then, it can only be proven to ourselves. I am because I am aware. Even if I am a fabrication or a figment, I still exist because I am self-aware.

And certainly, I may very well be "simply a product of universal movement". No one has the right to tell me that such a facet of my existence renders all other facets insignificant and worthless. I affect lives. I affect the community. I affect people who are just as capable of being hurt or happy as I am. That means something to me, regardless of how accidental my existence was. And yes, my existence was as accidental as alcohol and unprotected sex. I was never planned. But I have no issue with that. Why should I?

To answer your last question in that particular selection, intellect has everything to do with it. I think. I feel. I act. All of these abilities together form the basis for recognizing significance in that which affects me. I don't need a higher power to recognize the power of cause and effect at work in my life. I don't need a higher power to recognize how my life inspires motion in others, whether it be pain or pleasure. And I don't need a higher power to feel responsible for that inspiration. I have empathy, and the intelligence to apply it. That's why intelligence matters.

Are you a human because you have the capacity to think about your capacity to think?

I don't know what it is to be human. I know what it could mean, but not the official meaning of humanity. That's up for debate, a debate I don't particularly care to engage in. As I said, I don't know the answer. Sometimes, I think it's as simple as the inclination to say, "I value this stranger's life more than my own. I will die today so he can see his family." Why? Because any baser animal would have said the exact opposite. I live to survive, so screw that stranger. He is clearly too weak to carry on, and I am strong and deserving.

But we are humans. So we are aware of the choice and what reasons we have to make it. That is one difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal kingdom. We are capable, and many times willing, to give the rules of survival the middle finger and sacrifice ourselves for another whom we owe nothing to. So I guess you could say that our ability to process our ability to process heavily impacts how readily we listen to the deep philosophical questions whose answers give us a reason to do exactly that.

Are you a better human than someone else who does not have intellect?

Is a cup with two handles better than a cup with one handle? Some would say yes, some would say no. They give those answers because they see different purposes and different values in the human condition. It all depends on how you intend to use the human species. If you value science over spirit, then you would say yes. If you value spirit over science, you would say no. As for myself, I would say everyone can serve a purpose.

The problem arises when someone insists that everyone else share their purpose or be labeled worthless regardless of what they have to offer.

Survival of the fittest. And to place a code of morality onto someone else means a consideration of morality comes from somewhere else other than the evolutionary message of survival of the fittest. You believe you are the product of the universe. You have chosen to consider what is against nature, because there's no love in nature, so it would go against nature for your morality or code of ethics.

Christians place their moral code on everyone else. The funniest thing is, their moral code is one of three that come from the same source, yet all three contradict one another. Christians despise the Islamists, Islamists despise the Judaics, and Judaics disagree with the Christians. It's like three children fighting over their father's will despite the fact that it sits right there in front of them in sheer black and white. My code comes from empathy. Imagine yourself in the other's shoes, and ask yourself if you would appreciate being robbed or assaulted or murdered or deceived. Of course, matters change if your empathy is impaired by cultural protocol.

And yes, I have said this many times before. Morals are counter-productive to survival except in the case of a purely moral society. If the majority of the society practices their morals with consistency, it will succeed. If the majority do not practice morality with consistency, the moral components will inevitably be victimized. One could argue that absolute chaos cannot in fact be overcome except through the cessation of motion. In other words, the complete collapse of all affected systems. Like a broken clock that must be pulled apart and completely reworked in order to be restored.

That is why the world is as it is today. Predominant chaos as a result of an immoral majority. Otherwise known as animalism versus humanism. Survival of the fittest vs survival of the civilized. I have not chosen anything. There is no choice for me. There is recognition and ignorance. I have chosen to recognize reality. The reality I just described, otherwise known as revolution.

You say I am greedy. By what law of nature says I am greedy? That's a moral preclusion on your part.

You are greedy in that you are not satisfied with being cared for by your friends and family. If you possessed no significance at all in relation to the universe, the galaxy, or the rest of this planet, but was cared for and loved and cherished by your circle of friends and family, would you be satisfied?

You think, don't you? Therefore you are, correct? Again, significance is a moral preclusion. Either you are a product of survival of the fittest, which has no room for significance or you are a human with created conscience that leads you to consider morality.

If something feels significant to me, then it is significant to me. Being significant to a person is not the same as being significant to all people. Empathy is significant to me because it is the strongest indicator of what I should and should not do.

(continued in next post)

reply to post by WarminIndy


(continued from previous post)

Unless I evolved differently, what feels good or bad to me should feel good or bad to other people. If there is uncertainty in the matter, I can always just ask.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And to ascribe beauty to anything comes from a higher thought.

That is the very definition of subjectivity. Beauty is subjective, which means that something holds value because the stimulation it provides is pleasant. Why do you like chocolate? Why do you like skiing? Why do you enjoy the wind in your hair or the sun on your face or the laughter of your children or the birds in the early morning or a nice cold beer in the late hours of the evening? Study psychology, this will all be made very clear to you. And while you're at it, study Greek philosophy. They had a great deal to say about beauty.

So are you better than me because you thought about what is beautiful? You love, but that's not in the equation of nature.

How many times do I have to tell you that this is not about superiority? This is one of the most annoying things about religious types. It always comes down to a matter of superiority. Something must be better than the other so we know who wears the boots and who bends over. It's a very archaic mentality, hardly fitting in a modern-day setting. These days, we work together. I can do something you can't, you can do something I can't. So we work together and get twice as much done and share the profit. Everyone's happy, everyone's equal, everyone's good.

Your rejection of theism comes from your capacity to think higher. But again, what is man? Man is man because he has the ability to love or laugh? Is that what makes a human being? You love, therefore you are? To appreciate beauty is a moral preclusion as well. Am I less human if I don't think what you say is beautiful? How is your definition of beautiful better than mine? And who cares what is beautiful when it comes to survival of the fittest?

No, my rejection of theism comes from a number of things. My ability to see beyond my personal scope, my ability to hop the fence or even walk straight down it, my ability to recognize the dual nature of any given instance of cause and effect...generally, my ability to set my personal feelings aside and examine what actually is, regardless of whether or not it includes something I don't like.

Man is also a number of things. It is not my place to name them all, but I do register the fact that some ideals or goals are ultimately unhelpful or futile given previous reactions to similar settings, or given the comparison of patterns in nature and how they are handled in relation to one another. If it happens in nature, it will happen to us. Otherwise, either we bend or nature does. Lately, we've been bending nature.

No, you are not less human. You have a different perspective. Your definition of beautiful is not worse or better than mine. Given that your idea of beauty is determined by a different process, a different set of parameters, is like saying an apple is better than a tomato because kids prefer apple juice. It's not wrong. It's just limited.

To your last question there: because beauty is indicative of refinement, of advanced aesthetics. In other words, significance. We long to surround ourselves with significance so we can feel significant. We seem to have a phobia of feeling small and meaningless. Well, some do. I don't. If I change this nation for the better, I will die a happy man. I couldn't care less if this entire galaxy is devoid of life as long as I helped to make the future happier and safer.

Survival of the fittest. Isn't that what they teach you in evolutionary circles? If I am the top dog, what's it to you?

I stay out of your way.

Nature gives no room for your complaints about being insignificant anyway.

Exactly. The significance in my life is no one's business but my own. As I stated in the first half of my reply to you, the problem arises when one person's significance is imposed on everyone else at the cost of them being labelled as worthless or evil if they decline. Hence my contentions with religion.

You thought your way through to answering me, are you implying then that to survive this thread, you are more fit than I am?

No, it merely suggests that your religion isn't the only big guy on the play ground. It says that religion should prepare to share the earth with other ideas and stop pretending to be the king in a room full of traitors.

You prove that is your thought process by simply saying "I don't need your god". Well now, if you don't need my god, then why complain about my god?

Go back and read what I just said about significance. I won't repeat it a third time. I'll just keep reminding you where you can find the answer if you keep asking that question.

If you are more fit, then you wouldn't be so quick to fight against Him. But you are fighting against Him to prove you are more fit than Him. It's your struggle, not mine.

No one was there to fight for the pagans or the wiccans or the Africans or several other societies who are still being both subtly and openly persecuted and manipulated by organizations working at the whim of your so-called god. On their behalf, I am defending the human right to freedom of thought and destiny at the most fundamental level because apparently, you don't care about it. Or at least, you only care as far as having the right to disregard it.

What am I and what are you?

Higher functioning organisms more than capable of discerning between that which is painful and that which is pleasurable, and deserving of the right to decide how we want to think and how we wish to express it. Unfortunately, you seem more inclined to feed your fears with that right than I am.

What have you pinpointed for me? That you are accepting of a universe of nothingness that produced you, but at the same time ascribing moral character to a God that you don't even believe in?

Kindly review this post and my previous post, both of which are the two halves comprising one long and extensive reply which should give you a most in-depth look at my philosophies and why I take contention with the Abrahamic faiths.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Now regarding rejection of theism based on your own personal interpretation, you chose to believe Christians are forcing morality onto everyone. I know where that argument is from, so we aren't going to mention that one, just so we don't spark a huge conflict on here. But I think you understand that I know where it was leading to.

First thing to understand about Christian morality. We didn't write the Old Testament (Torah and Tanahk) in which you find the bulk of moral law and morality. The verse I quoted from Psalms, is from the Tanahk, and just because it's found in the Christian Bible does not mean we invented it. The laws regarding sex are found primarily in the Old Testament, so the early Christians who were recent converts from Judaism still regarded those laws as very important. So if you want to blame anyone for making laws against sexual acts, then blame Moses. The Apostle Paul mentions it twice in the New Testament and Jesus mentions it once in regard to marriage and divorce. So we can assume that it was generally understood by all people in those days and accepted.

So what morality is Christians forcing? We have the morality of then Ten Commandments, which was Jewish to begin with. Do you think it's unfair that Christians should say "thou shalt not kill"? Should that moral precept not be enforced? What about "thou shalt honor thy mother and they father"? Should we not consider that one either?

I think for most people, they don't like the first commandment, so by not accepting the first commandment, they reject the rest of the Bible, that was founded on that first commandment given to Moses. But the very first commandment ever given to humanity was "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". But Satan told a half-truth, Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil to discern right from wrong. All she had was the moral law, but not understanding moral law, broke it and then morality has been broken for all since then.

Christian morality is not based on just telling people don't do this or do that, it gives the implications for breaking moral laws. It's not enough just to say "thou shalt not commit adultery", Christian morality teaches that there are serious ramifications for doing so. And Christian morality teaches that because one breaks moral law, it is destructive. The difference in Judaic and Christian morality teaching, is simply this, the punishment for it. Both sides accept that breaking moral laws is destructive and damaging, both sides accept something should be done about it, but the difference is that Christians believe that we who were ignorant of morality can find grace and mercy. Even Jews believe that. But we find it in Jesus Christ.

Christian morality is no different than Jewish morality, because we have the same foundation, the Ten Commandments. The Jews are not stoning anyone today for breaking the commandments, and I seriously don't think they kill anyone over pork and shellfish, found in the 630 laws of Moses, which by the way are covenant laws. Those 630 laws were given after they made the covenant with God. But non-Jewish people are not expected to follow those laws, unless they choose to and convert to Judaism, because Judaism is a covenant relationship with God. Christians have a covenant with Jesus Christ, so we live according to the terms of the covenant defined by Jesus.

Jesus referred to the ten commandments, Jesus referred to marriage between Adam and Eve. Jesus referred to divorce as being acceptable if adultery were the cause. But all of these references came from the Torah and the Tanakh, of which He read from.

So when you accuse Christians of forcing morality, which moral laws are you having a problem with? Perhaps if you are specific, then we can discuss it. But I think I know already. Christian morality also teaches that we can't stone people to death. We have the covenant through Jesus, and not the 630 laws of Moses. But Jews don't go around stoning people either.

I think you have a problem with this, it's the fact that Christians cannot accept certain things, and because it is so much against what Jesus taught, that Christians are simply intolerant and hateful because of their rejection of certain things. People would probably like us better if we didn't preach against certain things and only talked about free love and do what you want to do. Christianity is not about "do what you want to do" because we see the damage and destruction that comes when people just do what they want to do.

Small children would stick forks in electrical outlets if parents let them. Small children would play in traffic if parents let them and small children would drink bleach if parents let them. But does it make a parent wrong for taking the fork away, for fencing the kid in the yard and for removing the bleach? Good parents say "I don't want my kid to die" so they prevent it as much as they can. So what's the problem with Christian morality?

reply to post by WarminIndy

So what morality is Christians forcing? We have the morality of then Ten Commandments, which was Jewish to begin with. Do you think it's unfair that Christians should say "thou shalt not kill"? Should that moral precept not be enforced? What about "thou shalt honor thy mother and they father"? Should we not consider that one either?

Walking on a bus full of crowded people and letting loose a disgusting fart is not against the law. It is, however, atrociously improper. That is the difference between your ten commandments and the other protocols in the Bible. For instance, homosexuality is not mentioned in the ten commandments. Nor is eating pork, bedding a woman during her moon cycle, and wearing mixed fibers. Yet they are considered protocol in the Bible. Taking it further, we add in people who have decided that there's no actual danger in eating pork or bedding a woman on her moon cycle - depending on the woman, of course.

I think for most people, they don't like the first commandment, so by not accepting the first commandment, they reject the rest of the Bible, that was founded on that first commandment given to Moses. But the very first commandment ever given to humanity was "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". But Satan told a half-truth, Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil to discern right from wrong. All she had was the moral law, but not understanding moral law, broke it and then morality has been broken for all since then.

The first commandments were not actually the commandments you hear about today. They were very different. Something about boiling a goat in its mothers milk? That was one. But you don't hear about that one, because for some reason, between the time Moses came down with the first set and returned for a replacement set, the commandments changed considerably. Given God's supposed omniscience, that's a very suspicious detail.

I have already explained how morals are counter-productive to the survival techniques employed globally by every other species besides homo sapiens. As such, morals are only effective in a society that is predominantly adherent to such policies. Otherwise, morals become a weakness. And I do mean that. Morals become the difference between killing and not killing, stealing and not stealing, seizing an opportunity to further your survival at the expense of another and sacrificing your odds of survival in favor of respecting a complete stranger. This is only a successful approach if that stranger is just as considerate of your desire to live and prosper and be happy as you are of his. How much of that do you see in the world today? How much of the world adheres consistently to morality, as opposed to relying on immorality to get ahead? Immorality is animalism. Killing, stealing, adulterating, deceiving, etc. All techniques by which you brutally batter your way to the top of the chain because if you don't, someone or something else will batter you and take everything you have.

So when you accuse Christians of forcing morality, which moral laws are you having a problem with? Perhaps if you are specific, then we can discuss it. But I think I know already. Christian morality also teaches that we can't stone people to death. We have the covenant through Jesus, and not the 630 laws of Moses. But Jews don't go around stoning people either.

I can't say I have a problem with them, exactly. It's difficult to explain, but I will attempt to do so. Judaic morals are an attempt to reject the fabric from which we are cut. It is the stone's attempt to flow like water, the bird's attempt to breathe water like a fish, the volcano's attempt to withhold its destructive power and remain dormant despite having every reason to explode. The Judaic morals, the morals of all the faiths springing from that of the Abrahamic religion, are our efforts to remake what we are. We are animals. We will behave like animals. The worst thing we can do as animals is pretend we are not animals. The only difference between us and other animals is that we are capable, and sometimes inclined, to give our lives for others. We will deliberately put ourselves to death so that others won't have to. But we are still animals, and no amount of fairy tales will change that about us. I know what these religions are trying to do, but they are taking the wrong approach. They are taking the blanket blackout approach. Ignorance of our animalism as opposed to understanding our animalism. Acting as though rejecting our heritage gives it less of a hold on us. It doesn't.

I think you have a problem with this, it's the fact that Christians cannot accept certain things, and because it is so much against what Jesus taught, that Christians are simply intolerant and hateful because of their rejection of certain things. People would probably like us better if we didn't preach against certain things and only talked about free love and do what you want to do. Christianity is not about "do what you want to do" because we see the damage and destruction that comes when people just do what they want to do.

Yes. You see the damage and destruction and lock yourself in a room with only a picture of the most perfect being a small and frightened animal can imagine. You look at that picture and try to grasp it with your limited mind and you try to emulate something that you can only imagine as being the opposite of everything that you are. Because what you are is weak, finite, ignorant. It leaves you no choice but to make difficult decisions that make life seem like a cruel game of hard ball where everyone loses and the winner eats himself. So be the opposite. Eternal, infinite, all-knowing. That's what you want to be. That's what you idolize because it represents the answers to all of your fears and problems.

Basic psychology.

Small children would stick forks in electrical outlets if parents let them. Small children would stick forks in electrical outlets if parents let them. Small children would play in traffic if parents let them and small children would drink bleach if parents let them. But does it make a parent wrong for taking the fork away, for fencing the kid in the yard and for removing the bleach? Good parents say "I don't want my kid to die" so they prevent it as much as they can. So what's the problem with Christian morality?

I think it is no accident you chose such an example, because it's the safest example you can think of. It is also clear that this example covers but a fraction of the rules and restrictions imposed by the entirety of Christianity. Not to mention that what you're talking about here is not exclusively Christian. It is borrowed. Let's look at the rules that are exclusively Christian...as in, found in only the Abrahamic faiths and no other precedent culture in the world.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I believe I did set the premise up as not being exclusively Christian. OK, I knew where it was leading and since you mentioned "homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament" it very clearly is mentioned in many places in the Old Testament.

The word used that was transliterated by the writers of the Bible was SODOMITES, those who committed SODOMY. Now you might argue that it can't be that because sodomy is found in heterosexual relationships also. The universal understanding back then was that sodomy always referred to homosexual acts.

1 Kings 14:24

24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

Sodomy was an accepted practice outside of the the religion of Israel, it was considered an abomination.

In 2 Kings 23, the practice of sodomy was found in the worship of Ba'al. The houses of the sodomites were next to the house of the Lord, but it had remained empty because people were worshiping Ba'al at that time. Now if you want to accept a spiritualism or religious organization that approved of sodomy then you should consider Ba'alism. There was no restriction within Ba'alism when it came to sex, but also no restriction in Ba'alism when it came to sacrificing children to the fiery god Molech.

In fact, Ba'alism was so celebrated that they had temple prostitution that included men and women for men and women. Can you endorse a religion that has no moral restrictions to the point of burning children to death?

Judaism and Christianity views it this way...children are a gift from God. In order to provide for them the blessing a full life, both physically and psychologically, moral restrictions must be in place to raise them well and to protect them. And if children are taught these moral restrictions, that it is for the community as a whole, then the community as a whole will be blessed physically and psychologically.

Adolph Hitler removed moral restriction when he came to power. The whole of Germany was psychologically damaged and destroyed and people were murdered en masse because moral relativism placed no moral restrictions on them.

Let me ask you this, does allowing children to experience sexualization at young age benefit them psychologically? I think we can agree there is no positive benefit in this. But telling children that there should be no moral restriction in their sexuality, how does that become positive? Can you point out to me one positive aspect of lack of moral restriction in sexuality? Are you going to tell me they will be happier? Does it make people happy to go constantly from one sexual partner to another, then another, then another to the point that sex is no longer romantic or loving, that is has been reduced to mere reaction to stimulation just like dogs humping other dogs.

That's the current state of sexuality, cruise the bars for sexual partners that you don't have to care about or love the next day, you just hit and quit it, who cares about the person?

Sex has been reduced to just if it feels good, do it. But so many people are reaching a point in their lives that they regret having no moral restrictions and lament that they could have had a meaningful relationship based on intimate love. No moral restriction in sexual activity also means that anyone can do it with whomever or whatever they want, because if it feels good, do it. Let's do away with moral restrictions, so let's also do away with laws of punishment against pedophiles. I mean at one time, pedophilia was embraced and endorsed and promoted in Greece and Rome. Hedonism was the order of the day then. Is that the time you would like to live in, complete hedonism?

Hedonism was damaging physically and psychologically, look at Caligula, look at Nero, look at the Marquis de Sade. I don't really think you want to live in a world of no moral restrictions when it comes to sexual activity.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I believe I did set the premise up as not being exclusively Christian. OK, I knew where it was leading and since you mentioned "homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament" it very clearly is mentioned in many places in the Old Testament.

You didn't read as well as you should have. I said that homosexuality is not one of the ten commandments. With that said, I'm just going to skip the rest of your post because you seem to have become fixated on sexuality. I have no interest in discussing that with you. Sexuality has nothing to do with the topic. And it is most certainly none of your concern (or mine) what other people do in their bedrooms.