Religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until it created it.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

There is a definite difference between guilt and shame, although it's interesting that you'd use them interchangeably.

To feel shame or ashamed is "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous"

To feel guilt or guilty is "feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime,wrong, etc."

I know there's overlap in the definition, but there's also a nuanced difference when you explore the differences through etymology and contextual usage.

 

 

I agree there is a difference but I am not sure the distinction matters in this context.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Thank you both for illustrating my point so quickly and eloquently, without even acknowledging the possibilities I previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

The possibility that it is healthy to record sexual intimacy and distribute it? I acknowledged it and discounted it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

One being testable through repeatable, double-blind testing... and the other not!

It can be tested and is regularly. Unfortunately the final data results are beyond death which does not help us much unless someone there tells us about it somehow.

Edited December 13, 2016 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what i've seen, atheists use science and study to prove that problems with porn are very real.  Looking at it from that angle (and moving away from porn), how does one prove that a problem doesn't exist?

Because it kind of seems like the criteria is "if I don't believe a problem exists, then it doesn't"  Is there more to it than that?  I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone has answered this question already and I missed it.

The concept of "problems" is very broad, and I'm not sure I understand your invocation of the term.

Also, it seems that your use of the term "porn" itself is vague and very broadly defined.

Perhaps it would help narrow the conversation and increase my understanding of what you're saying if you could define what you mean by "porn," "problems," and share the scientific studies you're referring to.

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The concept of "problems" is very broad, and I'm not sure I understand your invocation of the term.

Also, it seems that your use of the term "porn" itself is vague and very broadly defined.

Perhaps it would help narrow the conversation and increase my understanding of what you're saying if you could define what you mean by "porn," "problems," and share the scientific studies you're referring to.

 

Atheists point to scientific evidence to show that problems stemming from the use of porn do in fact exist.  They have reasons for believing the problems are real and those reasons are more than "I don't think the problem exists".  My questions focus on this idea of the existence or non-existence of problems in general. (I don't want to get into a discussion on the merits of watching other people have sex.  I was just using evidence stated by atheists of the existence of a problem that you deny even exists as an example of the issue).  

You said-I didn't say and don't believe that ONLY religious paradigms create problems that don't exist...  The fact that non-Faith-based organizations or individuals can also see and promote problem-paradigms where none necessarily exist doesn't negate the possibility that religiously-based institutions can and do do the same.

Focusing on the bolded part of your statement, how do we know whether or not a problem exists.  You said these statements as if they are statements of fact.  As if you have proof that certain problems don't exist.  The OP is based on the idea that the bolded statements above are true.

I'm asking, how do we know the bolded statements you made (as they relate to any problem being discussed and not specifically porn) are factual?  How do we know if a problem exists or not?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Whether we are religious or not, we buy into certain moral codes.  If God is not real, then all morals are arbitrary anyway.  They are entirely subject to individual will or judgment. 

No, with or without God, morality is not arbitrary. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. There is reason behind morality. 

Even within the LDS paradigm, we don't have the kind of "objective" morality that most religious people talk about. In Mormonism God is just another subjective homo sapiens, albeit one who operates on a higher level than we do. God is not objective.  Sometimes it's thought that morality is just a self-existent property, not unlike traditional notions of God. If true, that doesn't remove the subjectivity of our own attempts to understand it. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Thank you both for illustrating my point so quickly and eloquently, without even acknowledging the possibilities I previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

 I am surprised that objectification of humans is acceptable to you.

[Daniel2]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 I am surprised that objectification of humans is acceptable to you.

This is a classic example of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

I haven't said, nor do I believe, that the objectification of humans is acceptable to me.  Thanks for the chance to clarify.

[Calm]

My definition of porn includes individuals engaging in sex, not out of love for each other, but out of love for money.  And in those instances, porn is definitely an objectification of other humans...both by participants and observers as they are using each other and each could be easy replaced with another, individuality is nothing.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Calm

[Thinking]

It's interesting how many of you are quoting scriptures to back up your point.

Tell me what there is outside of religion that would cause man to say to himself, "Hey, I am a fallen being and need salvation."

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The usefulness of porn is one great example of the theme of this thread.

Conservative religion casts ANY porn in the role of a destructive villain which threatens marital relationships, is addictive, and relationship-ending.

Liberal religion can accept and promote the possibility that responsible and mutual appreciation of at least some types of non-exploitative porn which can expand, enrich, deepen, and support healthy intimacy and sexuality within committed marital relationships.

I don't think I constitute a follower of conservative or liberal religion. Not sure how those are defined anyways. Similar to how porn has a loose definition at times. I don't have a major grudge about porn. But from what I've seen the positive results are often fairly small and can often be found in other ways. And the amount of porn that fits your parameters is extremely marginal. And most partners that I've seen porn has not had a positive effect. And some it's had a very negative effect. This is anecdotal of course and the research is still....mixed. But for what I've seen the feasible benefits generally don't outweigh the costs. And I'm particularly concerned with how our society is permissive to the easy access available to minors. There are a number who have a number of sexual relational problems that stem in part from porn and they all have a similar risk factor: frequent porn use starting around the age of 10-12, if not younger. In fact I'm getting to a point that I can write the story for them. I honestly don't think that specific example is the greatest. But I don't have time today to elaborate. 

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This is a classic example of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

I haven't said, nor do I believe, that the objectification of humans is acceptable to me.  Thanks for the chance to clarify.

So for you pornography does not objectify people.  Ok we disagree big time.   Have a nice day.  As you said, another example of the difference between us.

[waveslider]

10 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's interesting how many of you are quoting scriptures to back up your point.

Tell me what there is outside of religion that would cause man to say to himself, "Hey, I am a fallen being and need salvation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7L2pPvRChc

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Thank you both for illustrating my point so quickly and eloquently, without even acknowledging the possibilities I previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

It stands for all to see and evaluate for themselves 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's interesting how many of you are quoting scriptures to back up your point.

Tell me what there is outside of religion that would cause man to say to himself, "Hey, I am a fallen being and need salvation."

Religion is the means that such is discovered.  It's kind of like asking someone to explain how they discovered that atoms exist without using science to back up their point.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's interesting how many of you are quoting scriptures to back up your point.

Tell me what there is outside of religion that would cause man to say to himself, "Hey, I am a fallen being and need salvation."

In fact, anyone who joins a 12 step program needs to understand that exact point.  Anyone who is out of control with their feelings fits the bill

Do atheists abstain from 12 step programs for anti-religious reasons?

Yep you definitely need to visit LA's skid row.  Blocks and blocks of tents and cardboard boxes and naked people, in many cases literally.  All you need in LA weather is a good sleeping bag and some food from a passerby.

It's great stuff.  Maybe they don't need God according to you, but are they fallen beings in need of salvation?  I think that is indisputable.

That is exactly what the Salvation Army does and what we should be doing if we were actually believers in Christ.  Do you see me down there?  Nope.  I am just as guilty of the blood and sins of this generation as anyone.

As part of society, are you doing more?  Should you be doing more?   Do you feel bad about not doing more?   What does that have to do with religion?  that was Waveslider's point I think, eloquently stated in music

Edited December 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't think I constitute a follower of conservative or liberal religion. Not sure how those are defined anyways. Similar to how porn has a loose definition at times. I don't have a major grudge about porn. But from what I've seen the positive results are often fairly small and can often be found in other ways. And the amount of porn that fits your parameters is extremely marginal. And most partners that I've seen porn has not had a positive effect. And some it's had a very negative effect. This is anecdotal of course and the research is still....mixed. But for what I've seen the feasible benefits generally don't outweigh the costs. And I'm particularly concerned with how our society is permissive to the easy access available to minors. There are a number who have a number of sexual relational problems that stem in part from porn and they all have a similar risk factor: frequent porn use starting around the age of 10-12, if not younger. In fact I'm getting to a point that I can write the story for them. I honestly don't think that specific example is the greatest. But I don't have time today to elaborate. 

 

With luv,

BD

As a former bishop I have seen first hand the inability to relate to real humans.  Those afflicted seek perfect matches for their fantasies, which do not exist,  and sex becomes devoid of intimacy, but pure objectification in some cases becoming a literal attraction to objects in fetishes.  I know you have more experience in these areas as well.

The effects are horrendous, or at least can be.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It's interesting how many of you are quoting scriptures to back up your point.

Tell me what there is outside of religion that would cause man to say to himself, "Hey, I am a fallen being and need salvation."

 Self-awareness and a bit of self-reflection.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the notion of shame, it's definitions, causes, and effects on the individual and relationships, I'd recommend carefully reading Healing the Shame that Binds You by John Bradshaw.  Among other things, he distinguishes between toxic shame (a conviction that you are defective, a mistake, and if anyone knew, they would reject you which leads to a fundamental inauthenticity not only in relation to others, but also in self-concept) and healthy shame (the recognition that you are human, make mistakes, and therefore, need boundaries).  While Bradshaw does at times, report biographical incidents in relation with his Catholic faith and his family life that involved unhealthy does of toxic shame, he eventually makes the interesting observation that healthy shame can and should be the foundation of a person's spiritual life.

I have noticed in political and social discourse the common posture that says essentially "Shame on Mormons for shaming people because shaming people is bad, except for shaming Mormons for shaming people."  The exception, I notice, reveals a lack of introspection, which brings to mind the importance of removing the beams one one's own eye first, "then shalt thou see clearly."   This goes with the 4th and 5th steps of 12 step recovery, the searching and fearless moral inventory and disclosures necessary as part of healing, and which have the practical effect of both exposing and healing the in-authenticity of toxic shame, and endowing the individual involved with a healthy sense of their own capacity to make mistakes and need for boundaries, that is, a healthy shame.  Rather than saying to God, "If ye loved me, ye would let me make my own commandments, and then see to it that I suffered no negative effects from my actions," we actually ask him, "What lack I yet?"  I find it interesting that the searching and fearless moral inventory of the four step turns out to function like the life review reported in near-death accounts.  And that this sort of thing also shows the that it's not the angel that makes the difference between Laman and Lemuel and Alma, but rather that where Laman and Lemuel justify themselves in making a moral inventory of other people in relation to their own perceived self-interest, Alma looks at the beam in his own eye, and sees himself clearly. 

Briefly

Quote

Consider that Laman and Lemuel saw an angel, but did not change in the way Alma does.  Alma’s encounter involves a complete moral inventory (compare Alma 36:13-14 and Steps 4 and 5), his coming to believe that God could help him (Alma 36:18 and Steps 2-3, and 7). Alma demonstrates an ongoing amends and obvious spiritual awakening (Steps 8, 9 and 12).  Laman and Lemuel, in direct and obvious contrast, and very much in line with the insights of recovery literature, focus on fear of Laban, resentment of their younger brother trying to direct their lives, their shame at the eccentricities of their father compared to the appeals of popular thinking, their grievances at their personal sacrifices and social compromises, and their own desires to increase their personal and political power, and to enjoy unrestrained pleasure without judgment or consequence.

From my A Mormon Rashomon essay at Square Two.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 13, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

No, with or without God, morality is not arbitrary. Arbitrary means based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. There is reason behind morality. 

Morality without God would be arbitrary in the sense that it is, as I mentioned before, subject to individual will or judgment (as defined by dictionary.com). It is "contingent solely upon ones discretion".  In other words, without God, there is no objective, absolute, eternal principle that makes morality good.  It is only good if you decide that it is so.    Sure, morality can be based in reason or systems (non-arbitrary), but without eternal, absolute, and objective law, those reasons and systems are themselves arbitrary.  There is no universal reason or system that dictates morality.  It is entirely subjective to the individual who chooses to buy into the reasons and systems suggested by others, but in the end morality only exists if you believe it does - arbitrary.  Elements and energy are amoral, you cannot combine them in a specific way to create morality.  It either exists eternally, objectively, and absolutely, or else it is entirely arbitrary.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Even within the LDS paradigm, we don't have the kind of "objective" morality that most religious people talk about. In Mormonism God is just another subjective homo sapiens, albeit one who operates on a higher level than we do. God is not objective.  Sometimes it's thought that morality is just a self-existent property, not unlike traditional notions of God. If true, that doesn't remove the subjectivity of our own attempts to understand it. 

That is true depending on how Mormonism answers the Euthyphro dilemma as postulated by Plato.

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz describe the Euthyphro dilemma  it this way:

Quote

It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things.

In Mormonism, it can be argued and is frequently taught that truth, morality, and good exist eternally and independent of God.  That he is subject to these objective, absolute, and eternal laws of morality, or else he would cease to be God - and is therefore not arbitrary.  

Edited December 13, 2016 by pogi

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Morality without God would be arbitrary in the sense that it is, as I mentioned before, subject to individual will or judgment (as defined by dictionary.com). It is "contingent solely upon ones discretion".  In other words, without God, there is no objective, absolute, eternal principle that makes morality good.  It is only good if you decide that it is so.    Sure, morality can be based in reason or systems (non-arbitrary), but without eternal, absolute, and objective law, those reasons and systems are themselves arbitrary.  There is no universal reason or system that dictates morality.  It is entirely subjective to the individual who chooses to buy into the reasons and systems suggested by others, but in the end morality only exists if you believe it does - arbitrary.  Elements and energy are amoral, you cannot combine them in a specific way to create morality.  It either exists eternally, objectively, and absolutely, or else it is entirely arbitrary.

That is true depending on how Mormonism answers the Euthyphro dilemma as postulated by Plato.

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz describe the Euthyphro dilemma  it this way:

In Mormonism, it can be argued and is frequently taught that truth, morality, and good exist eternally and independent of God.  That he is subject to these objective, absolute, and eternal laws of morality, or else he would cease to be God - and is therefore not arbitrary.  

I think again the word arbitrary is wrong. Morality, even without God, is intersubjective, systematic, and rational. It is not solely about individual discretion. Morality instead might be said to be a systematic process wherein we seek to maximize the well-being of living things. That doesn't mean it's objective, but it does mean it's not arbitrary. 

I would agree that according to the BOM at least, morality exists independently of God, not at the whims of God. That would seem to suggest that it's objective. But, under that framework we still don't need God to have morality. Morality continues to exist even if God ceases to exist. It might be said that morality and existence ARE God, since they have the characteristics traditionally attributed to God. That is to say, they are uncreated and in a sense are the first cause of everything that exists, including the God Elohim. 

If indeed morality is objective, we don't seem to be able to access it directly. Our own morality comes to us in evolutionary fashion. Our morality is unfolding and improving, but we never have a clear picture of any ultimate objective morality anyway. Our experience with morality remains subjective and incomplete.

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

Morality instead might be said to be a systematic process wherein we seek to maximize the well-being of living things. That doesn't mean it's objective, but it does mean it's not arbitrary. 

Ultimately, you cannot get around the fact that element and energy is amoral.  Attributing morality to such things, or any combination of such things, is nonsensical.  We are essentially random chemical reactions.  Any imagined morality is simply illusory.  

Again, any "systematic process" would be entirely arbitrary without God - the result of random chemical reactions.  At the core of it all is randomness.  If "arbitrary" is not the right word for things that are determined by chance, I don't know what is.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by pogi

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ultimately, you cannot get around the fact that element and energy is amoral.  Attributing morality to such things, or any combination of such things, is nonsensical.  We are essentially random chemical reactions.  Any imagined morality is simply illusory.  

No, that doesn't follow. Law is something that human beings made up. That doesn't mean that law is illusory or arbitrary. 

 

Quote

Again, any "systematic process" would be entirely arbitrary without God - the result of random chemical reactions.  At the core of it all is randomness.  If "arbitrary" is not the right word for things that are determined by chance, I don't know what is.

 

 

No, there's nothing random about our notions of morality, and it has nothing to do with random chemical reactions. Morality is systematic, with or without God. And again, under the Mormon paradigm, it appears that morality does not need God to exist. Morality just is, like gravity.

Perhaps another way to think of morality is the way we think of healthcare. Eating too much fatty foods is unhealthy. We didn't arbitrarily decide that it's so. That's just the state of our being. Morality could be considered to be a kind of spiritual and emotional healthcare. Morality might be thought of as those practices which holistically improve the human experience, or more expansively, the experience of all living things.  

Edited December 13, 2016 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:02 PM, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

Yup Religion manufacture's the sin, drills into you how you should feel should you commit the so called sin...then invented the means to escape from the guilt the religion caused you to have from the sin they invented...

[Glenn101]

On 12/12/2016 at 4:02 PM, canard78 said:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

There is a difference between creating a problem and becoming aware of a problem.

Glenn