Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps. But there's a lack of a causal connection here where you're making a logical leap. Is there more divorce because there's more premarital sex? Or are we more liberal and accepting as a society (especially with women compared to decades ago), thus leading to more premarital sex, and more divorce? I'd argue that saying that both have increased isn't sufficient to draw a causal link, and it's just as possible that the causal link lies with the increased financial and personal freedom women have.Vast minority?! Do you know how many people there are? How much sex there is? A lot /= majority.
Not the same at all. With stealing, there's malicious intent. We can't control outcomes to many things. So the only reasonable judge of morality is intent. If I try to murder someone and accidentally cure cancer, it's wrong. With sex, there's no malicious intent. It's often loving, in fact. A loving or harmless intent that ends badly isn't wrong. It's unfortunate, but it isn't morally wrong, it's not a "sin" as you define it.
Most examples past 21? I beg to differ. By that time, people are adults.
Because, to be clear, you and I are pretty lock-step about teens and sex. That's the wrong place to take a liberal stance, because the dangers are more obvious.
Well, religion isn't a person, so sure, ok, whatever, "religion" has done nothing wrong. That's not the point. The point is, the intensity with which people believe religion allows them to justify hatred. Because show me a faith-based blind adherence that is absolute in its strength and faithfulness, and I'll show you a person capable of any atrocity in the name of a God.
Only a few forces can inspire that kind of reaction, and have that destructive potential. Because take away the hate generated by a religious mentality, and you're only left with a few big world hatreds: race, ethnicity, gender, country.
Again, just look at the news. Take religion away and countless homosexuals wouldn't be shunned, repressed, ostracized, and threatened. Same mentality, same approach, same justification, just not as severe. Take away religion and the problem goes away.
Only when you go in the back door.
fdog
I don't think its that big a jump considering the study earlier that apparently found that couples staying together before marriage were more likely to get divorced. And I'm sure the increased freedom women have accounts for some of the increase in divorce, but not nearly all, since its not like women are the only ones who want divorces.
You would say the majority of all sex that goes on in the world is done with the appropriate caution?
Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.
What does it matter if they are adults? Adults don't make irresponsible decisions?
And if you remove the rape victim from the equation you stop the rape as well. That shows nothing. If you remove all the merchandise from a store you WOULD stop people from stealing it. But that doesn't mean the merchandise is what's causing people to steal, and it doesn't change the fact that the thief was the problem.
Sorry about the set up. I'm actually responding from my phone.
Originally posted by TacDavey
And if you remove the rape victim from the equation you stop the rape as well. That shows nothing. If you remove all the merchandise from a store you WOULD stop people from stealing it. But that doesn't mean the merchandise is what's causing people to steal, and it doesn't change the fact that the thief was the problem.
I'm not sure why you keep making this comparison. These are people who are being told by their religion (their religion, not yours) that they should do these things. If you tell someone to commit rape and they do then you are strongly at fault.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.
I would say murdering under the assumption of the existence and will of a supposed supernatural being doesn't fall under good intentions...it falls under stupidity.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure why you keep making this comparison. These are people who are being told by their religion (their religion, not yours) that they should do these things. If you tell someone to commit rape and they do then you are strongly at fault.
And I already admitted that this does not apply to religions that do specifically demand such things.
Originally posted by Omega VisionI gave an example earlier of a guy who stole something, sold it for more than it cost and gave the money back to the vender. And good intentions and stupidity can exist at the same time. You can have a stupid action done with good intentions.
How exactly do you steal with good intentions?I would say murdering under the assumption of the existence and will of a supposed supernatural being doesn't fall under good intentions...it falls under stupidity.
Originally posted by TacDavey
And I already admitted that this does not apply to religions that do specifically demand such things.I gave an example earlier of a guy who stole something, sold it for more than it cost and gave the money back to the vender. And good intentions and stupidity can exist at the same time. You can have a stupid action done with good intentions.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think its that big a jump considering the study earlier that apparently found that couples staying together before marriage were more likely to get divorced. And I'm sure the increased freedom women have accounts for some of the increase in divorce, but not nearly all, since its not like women are the only ones who want divorces.
To each their own then. I see increased divorce rates as a product of our evolving disposition toward marriage. The idea that it's sacred by God is false, imo, and acts as an irrational deterrent to divorce. Again, as stated, nobody wants divorce, but it's also not a bad decision for many who got into marriage for the right reasons and found the situation wanting.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You would say the majority of all sex that goes on in the world is done with the appropriate caution?
Yes. No question whatsoever. If it weren't, we'd have a LOT more problems than we do now.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.
We're about to get into some grey matter in morality where you and I disagree on fundamental aspects of reality, which will make discussion difficult. With the universe as a causal, inevitable progression of events, I don't hold anyone morally morally culpable for their actions. Any punishment, in my ideal system, is to prevent probable harm based on past action, not as "punishment" for anything.
So technically, within my morality, there's no "blame" or wrongdoing. As such, the idea of "sin" is unfathomable to me. But in a system that punishes as a form of teaching or detterent, yes, a person who thinks they are doing right by murdering, truly, is not at moral fault. However, they would need to legitimately believe that. And society would also be justified in detaining such a person to prevent further harm to anyone else.
More colloquially, yes, something like stealing can be "good" in the right context and with the right intention. It probably flies in the face of what you want to believe, but there's much less black & white in morality than most religions try to paint.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What does it matter if they are adults? Adults don't make irresponsible decisions?
Obviously this is a loaded question, almost beyond answer that won't lead to one of your predetermined conclusions. But your analogies are flawed, especially in reference to rape victims. Removing a person essentially removes them from existence. Removing a religion does nothing bad in and of itself. It's the difference between removing a person and removing a potentially destructive influence. You're trying to equate religion with a rape victim, and I can't abide that line of thinking.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't see what's bad about that. Inconvenient for the vendor, but not "bad".
TD, you seem to have a very consistent approach to morality: "That's bad because it's bad, but just in case you don't believe me let me list a few potential consequences that might happen a lot according to these sketchy statistics and nebulous studies I can quote"
Originally posted by Digi
To each their own then. I see increased divorce rates as a product of our evolving disposition toward marriage. The idea that it's sacred by God is false, imo, and acts as an irrational deterrent to divorce. Again, as stated, nobody wants divorce, but it's also not a bad decision for many who got into marriage for the right reasons and found the situation wanting.
I'm sure it is a product of our evolving disposition towards marriage and sex. The difference is you seem to think this evolution is positive where as I view it as mostly negative. I do think divorce shouldn't be seen as evil in every circumstance. I do, however, see it as something that should be avoided to the best of our abilities. Which means that I view the increase in divorce rates as a negative development, not a positive one.
Originally posted by Digi
Yes. No question whatsoever. If it weren't, we'd have a LOT more problems than we do now.
That's the thing, though. We have A LOT of problems right now. Which you seem to want to avoid admitting. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teen pregnancy statistics.
Originally posted by Digi
We're about to get into some grey matter in morality where you and I disagree on fundamental aspects of reality, which will make discussion difficult. With the universe as a causal, inevitable progression of events, I don't hold anyone morally morally culpable for their actions. Any punishment, in my ideal system, is to prevent probable harm based on past action, not as "punishment" for anything.So technically, within my morality, there's no "blame" or wrongdoing. As such, the idea of "sin" is unfathomable to me. But in a system that punishes as a form of teaching or detterent, yes, a person who thinks they are doing right by murdering, truly, is not at moral fault. However, they would need to legitimately believe that. And society would also be justified in detaining such a person to prevent further harm to anyone else.
More colloquially, yes, something like stealing can be "good" in the right context and with the right intention. It probably flies in the face of what you want to believe, but there's much less black & white in morality than most religions try to paint.
You don't hold people morally responsible for their actions? So a blood thirsty murderer is just as moral to you as someone who sacrifices themselves to save another? This makes no sense to me.
Originally posted by Digi
Obviously this is a loaded question, almost beyond answer that won't lead to one of your predetermined conclusions. But your analogies are flawed, especially in reference to rape victims. Removing a person essentially removes them from existence. Removing a religion does nothing bad in and of itself. It's the difference between removing a person and removing a potentially destructive influence. You're trying to equate religion with a rape victim, and I can't abide that line of thinking.
I think you are missing the point of the example. This isn't about whether it's okay to remove one thing or the other. This is about seeing what the cause of a problem is. My rape victim example was meant to show that removing the rape victim WAS one way of stopping a rape from happening. But that doesn't mean the rape victim is the cause of the rape. You seemed to suggest that, since removing the religion may remove the hate, thus the religion was responsible for the hate. But that's not what that shows at all, since removing the rape victim would stop the rape as well, yet the rape victim was not responsible for the rape at all.
If you don't like the rape example, I also gave a thief and merchandise example which works just as good. Removing the merchandise from the store WOULD stop thefts from happening. But that DOES NOT mean that the merchandise was responsible for the thefts.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify, assuming in this scenario the thief steals the item with the intention to make the vendor more money than he could sell it for normally and give it back to the vendor, then the bad part--if there is one--isn't the theft itself but the fact that the thief went around the vendor and didn't consult him. In that case it's at worst a dick move--or a case of being irrational and not proposing the plan to the vendor to make the vendor more money.TD, you seem to have a very consistent approach to morality: "That's bad because it's bad, but just in case you don't believe me let me list a few potential consequences that might happen a lot according to these sketchy statistics and nebulous studies I can quote"
I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't. Just because it's possible for something to produce good does not automatically mean that the action isn't bad.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sure it is a product of our evolving disposition towards marriage and sex. The difference is you seem to think this evolution is positive where as I view it as mostly negative. I do think divorce shouldn't be seen as evil in every circumstance. I do, however, see it as something that should be avoided to the best of our abilities. Which means that I view the increase in divorce rates as a negative development, not a positive one.
I don't necessarily agree. Is the divorce rate higher because we're less moral (though divorce isn't immoral)? Or is it because women used to have to stay in broken marriages because they wouldn't have been able to support themselves otherwise, or would be shunned by their peers?
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's the thing, though. We have A LOT of problems right now. Which you seem to want to avoid admitting. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teen pregnancy statistics.
Oh good God. This after I went out of my way to admit that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue when it comes to teens. I'm talking about emotionally stable adults having premarital sex. I am not talking about immature teens making mistakes.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You don't hold people morally responsible for their actions? So a blood thirsty murderer is just as moral to you as someone who sacrifices themselves to save another? This makes no sense to me.
This is not an immediately intuitive idea, so let me try to explain.
If you're holding a ball and drop it, what happens? It falls to the floor. There is no choice, it's simply an inevitable reaction given the laws of reality.
Humans are no different, we're just far more complex. We're governed by the same laws, made of the same material, as the rest of the universe. Reality has to be causal, deterministic, or else we violate the laws of physics every time we make a choice. Therefore, every single action, including those that we normally label good/bad/etc. is simply a determined inevitability given the causes that preceded it.
I can no more "blame" a murderer than I can blame a ball for dropping to the floor.
In academic terms, this is called "no-fault determinism." It's a thing, not just something I'm making up. And in it, "freedom" means something along the lines of "the decision is your own, not forced upon you by someone else through coercion, violence, etc." I bring up the definition of freedom because it will become relevant in a moment.
A common complaint to this system is that it absolves criminals. However, advocates of such a system do not espouse that we do not detain or punish criminals. But the motivation for the punishment is different. If we can identify patterns or tendencies that lead to crime, we should take steps to prevent it because crime inherently strips the freedom or happiness of others (the choice no longer becomes theirs, as with murder for example). Further, if there is a crime or a history of crime, detainment (prison, fines, etc.) is advisable to prevent further loss of freedom or happiness for others that the criminal may harm.
So to give a more direct answer, within such a system of morality, actions can be good/bad, but people cannot. And the idea of "sin" becomes obsolete. We can then judge an action based on the intent of the action, whether it intends to rob another of happiness or freedom, and can act accordingly. But the person is blameless - a ball dropping to the floor...meant to be understood and helped if possible.
It's a remarkable worldview. Once it really sinks in, you see that everything in reality is exactly as it has to be given the causes that preceded it. We're then free to accept all of reality as beautiful. And any system of crime prevention and punishment is built solely on promoting the happiness and freedom of all, not based on punishment, retribution, vengeance, etc.
It's really a much higher form of love, imo, than that espoused by most religions, that break reality into warring factions of good and evil.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I think you are missing the point of the example. This isn't about whether it's okay to remove one thing or the other. This is about seeing what the cause of a problem is. My rape victim example was meant to show that removing the rape victim WAS one way of stopping a rape from happening. But that doesn't mean the rape victim is the cause of the rape. You seemed to suggest that, since removing the religion may remove the hate, thus the religion was responsible for the hate. But that's not what that shows at all, since removing the rape victim would stop the rape as well, yet the rape victim was not responsible for the rape at all.If you don't like the rape example, I also gave a thief and merchandise example which works just as good. Removing the merchandise from the store WOULD stop thefts from happening. But that DOES NOT mean that the merchandise was responsible for the thefts.
Both the rape victim and merchandise are not actively encouraging the crime. If you think religion is impotent to influence people one way or another, you're blind. And if you think that anyone whose religion influences them toward evil isn't actually practicing the "true" religion, you're naive. Religion is whatever people believe; it's a tool. And it is often a tool for good, but often a tool for bad actions as well.
I just read a story of (another) gay teen who committed suicide. What do you want to bet his discrimination was religiously motivated? And what do you want to bet that there'd be less homosexual suicides if there wasn't justification for that hatred in the Bible?
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't. Just because it's possible for something to produce good does not automatically mean that the action isn't bad.
You're looking for an absolutist statement. Asking the question "Is stealing bad?" is creating a false dichotomy. Either it is or it isn't. And that's not how life works. Is stealing bad? Sometimes. It depends on multiple factors. But that answer doesn't sit well with most theists, who want to create unwavering maxims like the Commandments that fail to account for all factors of an action.
We can all devise a situation in which we would steal for a greater good, where the intentions and outcomes are purely noble. Or, if you can't, you don't have much imagination. The same can be said for any crime or "sin." Which gets back to my central point, that nothing is bad a priori. It's all contextual.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't.
Just because it's possible for something to produce good does not automatically mean that the action isn't bad.
Now if you can point to one part of this scenario where the thief does something wrong (besides just saying "stealing" because that would be affirming the consequent) then by all means, go ahead.
Originally posted by Digi
I don't necessarily agree. Is the divorce rate higher because we're less moral (though divorce isn't immoral)? Or is it because women used to have to stay in broken marriages because they wouldn't have been able to support themselves otherwise, or would be shunned by their peers?
Like I said, I'm sure that accounts for some of the increase, but I doubt that counts for all of it. Especially since, again, there was an article earlier that made a direct connection between living with someone before marriage and increased chances for divorce.
Originally posted by Digi
Oh good God. This after I went out of my way to admit that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue when it comes to teens. I'm talking about emotionally stable adults having premarital sex. I am not talking about immature teens making mistakes.
Ahem, you said the majority of sex in the world. And even removing the teen examples, I still wouldn't say the majority of all sex that happens is appropriately cautious, though I suppose it depends on what you consider appropriately cautious. I do not see the third date and a condom as appropriately cautious.
Originally posted by Digi
This is not an immediately intuitive idea, so let me try to explain.If you're holding a ball and drop it, what happens? It falls to the floor. There is no choice, it's simply an inevitable reaction given the laws of reality.
Humans are no different, we're just far more complex. We're governed by the same laws, made of the same material, as the rest of the universe. Reality has to be causal, deterministic, or else we violate the laws of physics every time we make a choice. Therefore, every single action, including those that we normally label good/bad/etc. is simply a determined inevitability given the causes that preceded it.
I can no more "blame" a murderer than I can blame a ball for dropping to the floor.
In academic terms, this is called "no-fault determinism." It's a thing, not just something I'm making up. And in it, "freedom" means something along the lines of "the decision is your own, not forced upon you by someone else through coercion, violence, etc." I bring up the definition of freedom because it will become relevant in a moment.
A common complaint to this system is that it absolves criminals. However, advocates of such a system do not espouse that we do not detain or punish criminals. But the motivation for the punishment is different. If we can identify patterns or tendencies that lead to crime, we should take steps to prevent it because crime inherently strips the freedom or happiness of others (the choice no longer becomes theirs, as with murder for example). Further, if there is a crime or a history of crime, detainment (prison, fines, etc.) is advisable to prevent further loss of freedom or happiness for others that the criminal may harm.
So to give a more direct answer, within such a system of morality, actions can be good/bad, but people cannot. And the idea of "sin" becomes obsolete. We can then judge an action based on the intent of the action, whether it intends to rob another of happiness or freedom, and can act accordingly. But the person is blameless - a ball dropping to the floor...meant to be understood and helped if possible.
It's a remarkable worldview. Once it really sinks in, you see that everything in reality is exactly as it has to be given the causes that preceded it. We're then free to accept all of reality as beautiful. And any system of crime prevention and punishment is built solely on promoting the happiness and freedom of all, not based on punishment, retribution, vengeance, etc.
It's really a much higher form of love, imo, than that espoused by most religions, that break reality into warring factions of good and evil.
But if murder is an action that is an inevitability then there isn't really any choice going on, is there? You spoke of "freedom" and the ability to choose, but it doesn't sound like there are any choices at all. You have no more control over your actions than a ball has control over dropping?
Originally posted by Digi
Both the rape victim and merchandise are not actively encouraging the crime. If you think religion is impotent to influence people one way or another, you're blind. And if you think that anyone whose religion influences them toward evil isn't actually practicing the "true" religion, you're naive. Religion is whatever people believe; it's a tool. And it is often a tool for good, but often a tool for bad actions as well.
And again, I did say that any religion that DOES teach such evils is obviously to blame. But if you have a religion that says "love your enemies as yourself" and then someone goes out and bludgeons their enemies to death in the name of that religion, can you honestly place any of the actual fault with the religion?
Originally posted by Digi
I just read a story of (another) gay teen who committed suicide. What do you want to bet his discrimination was religiously motivated? And what do you want to bet that there'd be less homosexual suicides if there wasn't justification for that hatred in the Bible?
And what do you want to bet that the Bible doesn't teach we should be hateful towards gay people? And how much do you want to bet that those who ARE hateful towards gay people are doing the opposite of what the Bible commands?
If I said "Don't steal that apple" and then someone goes and steals the apple and claims to have done it because of me, how much actual fault should be placed on me?
Originally posted by Digi
You're looking for an absolutist statement. Asking the question "Is stealing bad?" is creating a false dichotomy. Either it is or it isn't. And that's not how life works. Is stealing bad? Sometimes. It depends on multiple factors. But that answer doesn't sit well with most theists, who want to create unwavering maxims like the Commandments that fail to account for all factors of an action.We can all devise a situation in which we would steal for a greater good, where the intentions and outcomes are purely noble. Or, if you can't, you don't have much imagination. The same can be said for any crime or "sin." Which gets back to my central point, that nothing is bad a priori. It's all contextual.
I'm fully aware that stealing can be "good" in specific circumstances. Does that mean we should teach or children to steal? As long as they intend to do something good with what was stolen? No. Even if your intentions are good that doesn't mean you can run around taking things that aren't yours. Good intentions do not make an action good.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
About how they're nothing interesting by historical standards in the US or about how the US is still at twice the level of any country rest of the Western world?
I don't know what you mean here. What does the fact that the US is twice that of other countries have to do with what we were talking about? And what do you mean it isn't historically interesting?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
My point is that in this scenario you can't point out where the bad actually is short of saying "it's just bad".
In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not my claim. My claim is that if the action produces good and is done with good intentions then you're hard pressed to call it bad.Now if you can point to one part of this scenario where the thief does something wrong (besides just saying "stealing" because that would be affirming the consequent) then by all means, go ahead.
As I said, in this specific example there was no harm done. That doesn't mean that stealing things is a good idea or the right idea. Just because it's possible for a specific example of stealing to produce no harm, that doesn't mean stealing is an acceptable practice. And just because I do something with good intentions does not mean I am not doing something wrong. That's the point I was making.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Like I said, I'm sure that accounts for some of the increase, but I doubt that counts for all of it. Especially since, again, there was an article earlier that made a direct connection between living with someone before marriage and increased chances for divorce.
Correlation /= Causation. It's an old maxim, but true enough here. You have no way of knowing this. You're just interpreting it to suit your opinion.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Ahem, you said the majority of sex in the world. And even removing the teen examples, I still wouldn't say the majority of all sex that happens is appropriately cautious, though I suppose it depends on what you consider appropriately cautious. I do not see the third date and a condom as appropriately cautious.
I've made it quite clear that I was excluding teens in my defense of premarital sex, and you tried to call me out on teen sex. So, "ahem," do get your facts straight.
And yes, it would depend on one's definition. If you're emotionally stable enough to handle it, and many are, your example of 3rd date sex isn't the worst thing in the world. Not the right choice for many, but also not inherently bad.
Originally posted by TacDavey
But if murder is an action that is an inevitability then there isn't really any choice going on, is there? You spoke of "freedom" and the ability to choose, but it doesn't sound like there are any choices at all. You have no more control over your actions than a ball has control over dropping?
Yes, exactly. But that's why I defined what I meant by freedom. There's no such thing as freedom of choice as understood by most Christians. It's incompatible with a deterministic universe.
So freedom in no-fault determinism isn't your idea of free will, but rather "Is the choice your own?" If an outside influence forces a decision upon you, through coercion, force, violence, blackmail, etc. it is robbing you of your freedom. Your choice may be determined according to the laws of reality, but it should be your own. For a simple example: "I want vanilla ice cream." "No, you'll get chocolate or I won't go to the movie with you." Silly, but you get the idea. More soberly, we could return to the example of rape for an obvious escalation of this idea.
i.e. You don't want {insert choice}. But somebody forces it upon you, directly or indirectly. Or: you want {choice} but somebody prevents you. It's a loss of freedom without ever having to approach the Christian idea of free will.
Originally posted by TacDavey
And again, I did say that any religion that DOES teach such evils is obviously to blame. But if you have a religion that says "love your enemies as yourself" and then someone goes out and bludgeons their enemies to death in the name of that religion, can you honestly place any of the actual fault with the religion?
There's also passages on stoning, violence, slaughter, and arbitrary punishments for things we barely consider crimes anymore. It's all about interpretation, and yours is not the only one.
It just highlights the problem of following a centuries old book, written by numerous people with little-to-no connection between them, over the course of centuries, with even more centuries of editing, cuts, revisions, and translations.
I would be willing to bet that 99% of philosophy or morality books that have come out in the last decade are less capable of inspiring evil than the Bible.
Originally posted by TacDavey
And what do you want to bet that the Bible doesn't teach we should be hateful towards gay people? And how much do you want to bet that those who ARE hateful towards gay people are doing the opposite of what the Bible commands?
I hear that "not lying with another man" line thrown around a lot. Again, it's just about what you want to believe. They aren't doing what you think the Bible commands, but you don't have a monopoly on interpretation.
Originally posted by TacDavey
If I said "Don't steal that apple" and then someone goes and steals the apple and claims to have done it because of me, how much actual fault should be placed on me?
None, but this is nowhere near analogous to the epic, complex, often ambiguous messages in the Bible. If the Bible was this straightforward and non-contradictory, we wouldn't have this problem.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm fully aware that stealing can be "good" in specific circumstances.
A good start...
Originally posted by TacDavey
Does that mean we should teach or children to steal? As long as they intend to do something good with what was stolen? No. Even if your intentions are good that doesn't mean you can run around taking things that aren't yours. Good intentions do not make an action good.
Sure they do. Good intentions don't guarantee the results of the action will be good, it could end up as bad, but if there is TRULY only good intentions, where is the fault?
To answer your question, I'd teach my kids to constantly monitor their own motivations, and to avoid actions that would be considered selfish at the expense of someone else. To say "don't ever steal" would be far too absolutist. I would want to have them think critically about their decisions, not give them unbending rules to follow.
Originally posted by TacDavey
In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.
But most stealing isn't with good intentions. In fact, almost none of it is. You seem to think that by admitting stealing can be good, that you're giving a free pass for people to steal all the time. That is far from the case.
Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said, in this specific example there was no harm done. That doesn't mean that stealing things is a good idea or the right idea. Just because it's possible for a specific example of stealing to produce no harm, that doesn't mean stealing is an acceptable practice. And just because I do something with good intentions does not mean I am not doing something wrong. That's the point I was making.
Perhaps, but you are blameless because of your noble intent.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. What does the fact that the US is twice that of other countries have to do with what we were talking about?
The other vastly more sexually liberal parts of Western world (almost all of it) have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the United States. Only Canada and Russia are even close and both of them have about half the American teen pregnancy rate.
Originally posted by TacDavey
And what do you mean it isn't historically interesting?
The rate of teen pregnancy in the US appears to be neither particularly high or low by historical standards since reliable records have been available. Compared to the 80s and 90s it is extremely low. The peak seen in the 90s was part of an increase that goes back at least to the 70s so its arguably atypical. Before the 70s records only seem to be available for "birth rate", which is dramatically lower than it used to be but can involve various factors (such as increased abortion).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.
I agree. Some Christian sects/faiths are very judgmental and teach it. Others go as far as to call the judging "sinful". The NT admonishes against being judgmental and states that you will be judged based on how harshly you judged.
Basically, it harkens back to the "glass house concept".
If I were to judge someone for premarital relations, I would come under condemnation for having a perverted potty mouth. Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are stupid, imho.
Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.
I would add in just two words to this:
"Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it [can be] a force for good."
A pessimist could re-write what you wrote as follows:
"Anyway, sex is addictive, time-consuming, detrimental to otherwise healthy relationships, stress-causing, and routinely promotes hatred. Practiced responsibly, it can still create large amounts of stress: both physiological and financial."
Originally posted by Astner
What I'm curious about is not so much what people think about premarital sex, but rather your feelings regarding your partner saving him- or herself for you? If not, then what's preferable. How many men or women would you prefer your partner to have had before you?
This is a good question and I like it.
My answer is: it depends on the person. People are different (I know, captain obvious). It may be much more sacred/romantic for one person to save themselves for you over another. Just depends on the personality of the person.
When I get home, I'll comment on this a bit more in detail. Since I am at work, I must censor what I would say.