No way it is coincidence that morality is not taught in schools, Universities

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Anyway, what are morals?

Are they rules that stop a person being true to themselves?
Are they a set of behaviours that benefit society as a whole?
Are they a way of stopping one suffering the mental anguish of regret?
Or, are they religious rules that you have to adhere to, to be part of a club?

Some people automatically equate them to religion because religion traditionally was the place where they were taught, but as many atheists so proudly announce ... you don't NEED religion to be a moral person.

However, you DO need to be taught morals in order to become a moral person because children are born as instinctive creatures, not thinking about anything other than their own self-important little persons. They need to be taught how to think of others besides themselves and respect and consider them. That's what morals are for.

Morals are a set of behavior rules or codes that govern how you act toward your fellow man generally. The most universal (as in just about all religions have this one) is the famous Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Some people automatically equate them to religion because religion traditionally was the place where they were taught, but as many atheists so proudly announce ... you don't NEED religion to be a moral person.

You don't, and I am not an Atheist.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you look at morality from a scientific, biology point of view, then there are some "moral" lessons to follow, but those would be materialistic and ultimately lead to what might be considered pagan, "Satanic" or evil, based on our culture's Christian moral code. Of course those scientific morals could be ignored as well in a relativistic mindset.

"If nobodies right, then everybody's wrong."

"Stop! Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down."

"For What's its Worth" by Buffalo Springfield

a reply to: ketsuko

Ok, I get that, pretty much, but That do unto others thing, pure relativism there. So it opens up a conflict between the absolutists and the relativists, doesn't it?
Not that I have a problem with moral relativism, if someone stays out of my business, I am happy to leave them be mostly.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

What is moral to day may be immoral tomorrow. What is moral yesterday may be immoral today. Hence, moral relativism is true and all morality is colloquial.

Wrong. Scientific theories are proven wrong yesterday and new ones are formed tomorrow. In the future old ones may come back into prominence or politically some theories are suppressed and hidden.
An incorrect scientific theory about black holes such as Hawkings' does not invalidate all of physics.

Just because we have not perfected morality does not mean what we think of as good and evil does not exist.

Excerpt from an old thread.

Is any single life more important than another? What if one was your family member and the other was a stranger? Are your personal needs more important than somebody else's? What if the other person's life depended on it? Are you obliged to help somebody in need of you have the means to? Does it make you wrong or bad if you don't? Would you sacrifice one life to save 10? What if the 10 were convicted felons? What if the one was terminally ill?

a reply to: LesterJust


Well at lest they could ask questions. Like from where do certain political ideas draw the justification for policy directions.

Like is it moral to tax the haves for the sake of the have not's and why or why not? Is it moral to tax folks and then spend the money without their input on the spending? ect

You find a wallet full of cash but there is also ID......so you know who lost it. Is it ok to take half the cash, give the wallet back but tell they guy that you kept half because baby needed formula?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you live your life avoiding everything that is "way too Old testament"?

Fornication does not simply mean sex.

The post is speaking more to spiritual fornication (Old Testament stuff.)

If you really want to understand, I can try explain it to you, but if all you want to do is act like a fool like you usually do, then please don't bother me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I will refrain, I don't want Jesus putting a hex on my weenus.

Everything's a joke.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Do you live your life avoiding everything that is "way too Old testament"?

Pretty much, since Bronze Age barbarism is not my go to for life lessons.

Fornication does not simply mean sex.

The post is speaking more to spiritual fornication (Old Testament stuff.)

What is spiritual fornication?

If you really want to understand, I can try explain it to you, but if all you want to do is act like a fool like you usually do, then please don't bother me.

My mommy said do what you do best, so I'm gonna act the fool AND ask you questions. If they are too hard for you just let me know and I can post them in crayon.

Everything's a joke.

It sure is, even the J-Man.

a reply to: ketsuko

I gave you a good primer for the difference... now that you know the difference; maybe exploring what other ways those lines between the two get blurred? Using law to dictate whom one can love is another example of them being mixed up in collusion from such idiocracy.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

We see how that's working out in chiraq and other liberal paradises.

As usual you make no sense, durp durp the trump train.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
What is spiritual fornication?

You know how you're driven to be sarcastic when you see something that threatens your way of thinking?

That urge that drives your will and way of thinking is a spirit.

When you take in and follow after (practice the will of) ungodly spirits, you practice spiritual fornication.

It is considered fornication because our body's belong to God - we are supposed to take in his spirit (as the Church/Bride) and do his will.

See also: biblehub.com...

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

It's actually pretty easy to understand

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You know how you're driven to be sarcastic when you see something that threatens your way of thinking?

No, not really, maybe you can explain how you feel when you do that.

It is considered fornication because our body's belong to God - we are supposed to take in his spirit (as the Church/Bride) and do his will.

Sorry, I don't need the Church to have any influence in my life to practice morality. Neither do I need to adhere to some dogmatic system of belief that requires you to recognize 'ungodly spirits', the belief in which somehow permitting 'spiritual fornication'. If it works for you, awesome, but this type of religion-heavy system has no place in school being force fed to children who are not yours.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's not about needing church - it's about needing God and being Church.

What you're preaching is the same thing Diana preached, right? Is that who you worship? That's the same spirit you're following. It's not new to preach liberty from God.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: eisegesis

parents seem happy to offload their responsibilities to the system

This is true, I wouldn't necessarily blame the system for this though, although it probably has changed over the years to adapt to it..

I'll revert back to Harvard's economic shock testing, 24/7 personal data collection and developing A.I. algorithms as an example of the creation of a system and it's counterparts, that no matter how non-incidental it appears, was designed around our "needs" or desires in life.

www.lawfulpath.com...

The "system" is an answer to a problem that nobody needs to have. A byproduct of society's lack of self reliance and control, leading us to predefined, government endorsed lifestyles that jive with the status quo. Like a dangling worm on a hook in front of a hungry fish.

With that said, the fish still chooses to take the bait, deciding to leave the open ocean for a government run aquarium, where life is defined by invisible walls. Closure for some, prison for others. We need smarter fish, leading us back to the issue at hand.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: LesterJust

I disagree with the premise of your post. Most Universities have classes in the field of ethics. There are many people who devote their whole lives to studying every facet and aspect of ethics through history. It's a very well thought out and well researched field:

www.philosophy.rutgers.edu...

So because most universities have voluntary courses in ethics that a person may opt to take after having gone through K-5 and junior high and high school ... you consider morals a subject well covered in school?

Please! Our kids get more instruction in the proper fit of condoms than they do in the Golden Rule.

If you think teenage pregnancy is a bad thing and it is a known fact distributing condoms reduces teenage pregnancies, they it's a good think if you want to reduce the number. However, if you think distributing condoms is condoning bad behavior, even though it would increase the number of teenage pregnancies by not distributing them, then distributing condoms is bad thing. It's funny, whether you think it is moral or not is relative to your point of view.

RE: "you consider morals a subject well covered in school?"

It really doesn't matter what students learn in school. What students are learning is learning how to learn. The subject really doesn't matter that much. That's why although I think evolution is clearly scientific fact because I've studied it, I would have no problem to deferring the teaching of evolution as elective in college. There's plenty about biology students can learn that has nothing to do with evolution. I would be okay deferring the teaching of evolution just out of kindness and consideration for those who find it offensive.

Maybe what you are asking is we should allow public schools to teach the Bible again. Although I think the Bible is the word of man, full of inconsistencies and bad translation interpretations, written by goat herders who thought the earth was flat, I would not be completely opposed to allowing Bible study in public schools. As long as math and language arts are still the primary focus of the effort. Again, I don't think it really matters what students learn. School is about teaching students how to learn.

I think prayer in school and teaching evolution are wedge issues. A wedge issue is used by a politician to create political outrage to get voters to vote. In many ways, a wedge issue could be a false flag operation. I would bet many of the issues conservatives find offensive supposedly being advocating by liberals are actual false flag politics promoted by conservative politicians for manipulating public outrage.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
It's not about needing church - it's about needing God and being Church.

What you're preaching is the same thing Diana preached, right? Is that who you worship? That's the same spirit you're following.

I don't worship anything, dude. God doesn't need some groveling, sniveling, obsequious toadies in my opinion.

It's not new to preach liberty from God.

I'll tell you what isn't new, people advocating the adherence of their personal beliefs to others, which is a hallmark of the religiously indoctrinated.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

It's actually pretty easy to understand

Stay on topic, oh and sorry my parents couldn't help people in chicago.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'll tell you what isn't new, people advocating the adherence of their personal beliefs to others, which is a hallmark of the religiously indoctrinated.

You're doing the same thing by trying to spread your "liberty". More, your message doesn't hold up to logic - it's paradoxical garbage. "Listen to me! Don't listen to anyone!"


You asked what spiritual fornication was. I answered.