Religious Morals Invading Our Secular Life

[LuisDantas]

Thoughts?.

Religious morals are not supposed to be separate from secular life.

They are instead supposed to strive to be good enough to be acceptable for secular life.

 

[sayak83]

Weasel words like "seem," "suggest," "appear" "likely," and "may" don't impress.

.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Glaurung]

Many religious prohibitions aren't based of pragmatism. Many derive from conventionalism or from "ickyness."

Have you considered the possibility that this sense of ickyness may be telling you something important about such acts which provoke it?

 

[Kemosloby]

Aside from any physical genetic problems that may occur. I believe there is a spiritual aspect the law is dealing with. Why does the thought of sex with your close relatives cause your insides to twist up like you swallowed a bottle of vinegar? I believe that feeling occurs regardless of whether anyone has studied scripture or not, generally people naturally agree with those religious morals.

God can make exceptions, even though you quote the law, is consistent with Christian teaching that we are guided by spirit rather than a written code.

 

[Father Heathen]

Have you considered the possibility that this sense of ickyness may be telling you something important about such acts which provoke it?

I find incest to be very disgusting and disturbing, but if it's consenting adults and their actions aren't victimizing or violating the rights of others, my negative feelings alone aren't enough to justify making it my business.

Remember, people also try to use the "ickyness" factor as "proof" against homosexuality as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Adam and Eve had two sons, who populated the earth if not through incest?

Noah is a no-brainer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have you considered the possibility that this sense of ickyness may be telling you something important about such acts which provoke it?

Just because I find something icky doesn't mean there is something actually wrong with it. Personal feelings are not good for building social policy.
With consenting adults, we all have better things to do than police the sexuality and sexual behaviors of these consenting adults.

 

[Valjean]

Have you considered the possibility that this sense of ickyness may be telling you something important about such acts which provoke it?

Maybe sometimes, but often it's just a reaction to the unconventional. Many of the food items offered by street vendors in some Asian cities would cause a westerner to blanch, yet to the locals they may be everyday snacks. Similarly, many religiously prescribed codes of dress or behavior seem to be attempting to freeze cultural habits into place for all time.

 

[sayak83]

Aside from any physical genetic problems that may occur. I believe there is a spiritual aspect the law is dealing with. Why does the thought of sex with your close relatives cause your insides to twist up like you swallowed a bottle of vinegar? I believe that feeling occurs regardless of whether anyone has studied scripture or not, generally people naturally agree with those religious morals.

God can make exceptions, even though you quote the law, is consistent with Christian teaching that we are guided by spirit rather than a written code.

Evolutionary instinct obviously.

 

[Kemosloby]

Evolutionary instinct obviously.

That's what they said in Sodom and it echoed all the way through Gamorrah.

 

[bobhikes]

Is it always good?



Thoughts?

.

Sex with family members is easily coerced or worse forced and then denied or protected by the family. The victims and there are victims today with it being a crime in some states, would be hard to find and help. In an effort to save 1 child or 1 rape victim even without religion these acts would be discouraged and some criminal violations enforced by any logical people.

 

[sayak83]

That's what they said in Sodom and it echoed all the way through Gamorrah.

Yeah well, that story is fiction.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah well, that story is fiction.

This.

 

[Glaurung]

I find incest to be very disgusting and disturbing, but if it's consenting adults and their actions aren't victimizing or violating the rights of others, my negative feelings alone aren't enough to justify making it my business.

The probation against incest is pretty much a universal human taboo (yes there are/were niche exceptions but exceptions do not break the general rule) not an arbitrary Christian imposition hoisted upon the culture. Nevertheless I haven't actually said that concerting adults should be thrown in jail.

Remember, people also try to use the "ickyness" factor as "proof" against homosexuality as well.

How does one 'prove' against homosexuality? What does that even mean? I do believe same-sex acts are intrinsically immoral but whether or not you like that position isn't exactly a question of proof. I do find sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual) to be innately disgusting but that is not what this thread is about.

Just because I find something icky doesn't mean there is something actually wrong with it. Personal feelings are not good for building social policy.

You're right, the law should concern itself with immorality per se. Although it is questionable that giving incest a free pass is "good public policy". Nevertheless assuming that everything is in good faith I don't care if people bonk their siblings. I actually agree with you insofar as the law has better things to do.

My point isn't a legal one, it's a moral one. That such sex is anathema to almost every human with at least a degree of moral conscience should leave one to pause for at least a second. I do believe these emotions exist for a reason, even I dare say, for a God given reason.

 

[Father Heathen]

The probation against incest is pretty much a universal human taboo (yes there niche exceptions but exceptions do not break the general rule) not an arbitrary Christian imposition hoisted upon the culture. Nevertheless I haven't actually said that concerting adults should be thrown in jail.

Yes, of course there's a general consensus when it comes to the "ick" reaction, yet my point still stands.

How does one 'prove' against homosexuality? What does that even mean.

I can't answer that since I don't use the "ick" factor to determine "right vs. wrong".

I do believe same-sex acts are intrinsically immoral but whether or not you like that position isn't exactly a question of proof. I do find sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual) to be innately disgusting but that is not what this thread is about.

But this thread is about determining whether or not something is immoral based on an emotional reaction.

 

[Glaurung]

But this thread is about determining whether or not something is immoral based on an emotional reaction.

I thought is more about determining what is legal.

Nevertheless, if you take the position that moral questions should be completely determined within a framework of reductive consequentialist reasoning then you're on the path to justifying pretty much anything and everything. From homosexuality (today) to incest to pederasty to bestiality to necrophilia. Depravity isn't a consequence, it's an innate quality of these things because these things are depraved by nature; no matter how much the loud voices in this culture are hellbent on denying that. There is a reason all these things have always been condemned near universally. There a reason they make us sick.

And the reason humans are sickened by incest is precisely because it is sick. Should an adult go to jail for consensual sex? No, but I maintain that any attempt to justify that depravity with consequentialism is always slimy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're right, the law should concern itself with immorality per se. Although it is questionable that giving incest a free pass is "good public policy". Nevertheless assuming that everything is in good faith I don't care if people bonk their siblings. I actually agree with you insofar as the law has better things to do.

I didn't say the law, I said that specifically "we" all have better things to do than worry about who is porking whom. It makes not one bit of difference in my life, effects me and others not at all (unless someone makes it their business to get worked up over it), giving me no reason to suspect I should judge, point fingers, and condemn.
And even the genetic argument, ultimately most people don't even approach that entirely fully informed, because it would take a generational minute for such things to catch up. European Medieval Royalty, after all, did not become their stereotyped inbred selves after only a generation or two, and today it's incredibly unlikely that such a thing would continue beyond one generation. And then there is also that "good" genes may also be passed on, or nothing at all will happen.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yeah well, that story is fiction.

Yeah, they were saying that in Sodom and Gamorrah too. Ha, Noah, that's fiction.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah, they were saying that in Sodom and Gamorrah too. Ha, Noah, that's fiction.

Obviously Noah is pure fiction.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Many of the food items offered by street vendors in some Asian cities would cause a westerner to blanch, yet to the locals they may be everyday snacks.

Not to mention that some westerners I know, if placed in a survival situation, would probably die of starvation before even thinking of insects as a possible food source. The "icky" reaction is very often culturally driven, is almost never going to be universally applicable, and isn't necessarily helpful.