asalimpo:
Your title is misleading and somewhat invalid. You say "there is nothing wrong in xyz". Nothing wrong-is an absolute moral stand. Nothing is equivalent to 0,empty,null etc. Like, saying, there is No light (power), or no credit in my phone. For a balanced argumnt, the issue is in establishing if your stand is valid? To do so, the difficult thing is in defining morality then deriving THE MORALITY i.e the STANDARD of Morality. After this STANDARD HAS been objectively extracted, then the question can be weighed against it? If you say no no this is splitting hairs then you are invariably saying we should simply go by an intuitive subjective informal universal (?) standard of morality? But if we accept that we arent being objective at all? Your stand is actually an attack on the subjective non formal intuitive standard (the kind that makes ppl boil with rage when some1 cons them of their hard earned money. The kind that makes inmates beat up a child sex offender). But your attack uses absolute claims and appeals to a standard ,without expressing this standard or pointing to it. Hence, it is invalid.
Any1 answering you is ASSUMING the STANDARD,often subconsciously, and building his response off from there.

You are splitting hairs. When the OP says nothing he is referring to the rather common objections to porn, not to an absolute standard that completely absolves it of any fault. I will grant you that he is assuming that everyone recognises what he is referring to, an assumption that is rather the norm in our day to day communications.

IAmSabrina:

Its very obvious a huge lot of them just saw the topic and decided to give a knee-jerk response without actually reading the OP

It looks that way.

LordReed:


Nothing you have written here is specific to porn. You listed catchall verses that can be made to cover a variety of actions, depending on which one you want to condemn and which one you want to allow. I have had someone quote these same scriptures at me to condemn Wrestlemania/WWF or violence in movies meanwhile the same person loved detective shows and when pressed on why he would condemn one and not the other, his response was along the lines of, detective shows demonstrate critical thinking while completely ignoring the violence.

Language develops over years. There are words we use today that were not in existence years back. So you don't have to see the word porn to know that the Bible condemns it. If you are aware of a crime and you don't report it, you can be punishes just like the person who committed the crime. If the Bible condemns fornication, then it condemns porn. Most of those involved in it are committing fornication and you taking delight in watching it is equally guilty.

TruthinAction:


Language develops over years. There are words we use today that were not in existence years back. So you don't have to see the word porn to know that the Bible condemns it. If you are aware of a crime and you don't report it, you can be punishes just like the person who committed the crime. If the Bible condemns fornication, then it condemns porn. Most of those involved in it are committing fornication and you taking delight in watching it is equally guilty.

This is exactly what I am saying. You can use it to justify any position or condemn another. The bible itself has some pretty gory stuff in it so does that mean you are guilty of delighting in it?

LordReed:


This is exactly what I am saying. You can use it to justify any position or condemn another. The bible itself has some pretty gory stuff in it so does that mean you are guilty of delighting in it?

Go ahead if you want to. I doubt it if you are born again. Otherwise you won't talk this way about porn that even ungodly people condemn. Make sure you introduce your children into it also. Also permit your children to watch you when making love with your wife or partner. If you are not married yet, permit your younger ones to watch while you have sex with your partner. Also film yourself making love and post on Instagram. Don't be selfish. If you watch others, permit others to watch you also. Also make love in public places. The Bible also never condemned it. At least Adam was naked and not ashamed at the beginning of creation. I am sure you are happy now.

LordReed:


You are splitting hairs. When the OP says nothing he is referring to the rather common objections to porn, not to an absolute standard that completely absolves it of any fault. I will grant you that he is assuming that everyone recognises what he is referring to, an assumption that is rather the norm in our day to day communications.

i am not splitting hairs just being a little more rigorous on the approach to this issue. Without d rigor,a wily questioner will easily take you into many gray areas and lose in dank dark alleys because of the ambiguity inherent in the assumptions of the moral STANDARD. E.G When he says there is nothing wrong-he implies a non-religious standard, because by religious standards such claims fail right out of the door. But by non-religious standards, it's hit or miss. Many hav responded,shooting from the religious observatory-they're quoting bible verses. But they are already wrong nd wasting their typing time because that's not the assumed standards the op is employing.
If he's using the formal legal standards. It's ok.
If he's using semi-amorphous loosely defined informal non-religious humanistic standards,it's hit nd miss. The secular humanistic standard can b back-handed as hypocritical inherited legacy baggage of tradition. People are bubbling with lust yet pretending it doesnt exist.Why not "express" yourself?

TruthinAction:


Go ahead if you want to. I doubt it if you are born again. Otherwise you won't talk this way about porn that even ungodly people condemn. Make sure you introduce your children into it also. Also permit your children to watch you when making love with your wife or partner. If you are not married yet, permit your younger ones to watch while you have sex with your partner. Also film yourself making love and post on Instagram. Don't be selfish. If you watch others, permit others to watch you also. Also make love in public places. The Bible also never condemned it. At least Adam was naked and not ashamed at the beginning of creation. I am sure you are happy now.

I am an atheist who is an ex-christian. Yes I am happy because at least you've admitted that nudity is the default state of man.

asalimpo:

i am not splitting hairs just being a little more rigorous on the approach to this issue. Without d rigor,a wily questioner will easily take you into many gray areas and lose in dank dark alleys because of the ambiguity inherent in the assumptions of the moral STANDARD. E.G When he says there is nothing wrong-he implies a non-religious standard, because by religious standards such claims fail right out of the door. But by non-religious standards, it's hit or miss. Many hav responded,shooting from the religious observatory-they're quoting bible verses. But they are already wrong nd wasting their typing time because that's not the assumed standards the op is employing.
If he's using the formal legal standards. It's ok.
If he's using semi-amorphous loosely defined informal non-religious humanistic standards,it's hit nd miss. The secular humanistic standard can b back-handed as hypocritical inherited legacy baggage of tradition. People are bubbling with lust yet pretending it doesnt exist.Why not "express" yourself?

Look its fine to split hairs sometimes, it makes people realise there is a nuance to life that black or white pronouncements do not capture. I just wanted to chime in with my own hair splitting. LoL.

LordReed:


I am an atheist who is an ex-christian. Yes I am happy because at least you've admitted that nudity is the default state of man.

Ok. I am sure you can sleep with your mother also for the world to watch. Make your sister your sex partner and see nothing wrong with it. Unless you repent, you will not escape the damnation of Hell.

LordReed:


Look its fine to split hairs sometimes, it makes people realise there is a nuance to life that black or white pronouncements do not capture. I just wanted to chime in with my own hair splitting. LoL.

itz alright. Philosophers do it for a living us we earn nothing other than increase nairaland's page counts.

TruthinAction:


Ok. I am sure you can sleep with your mother also for the world to watch. Make your sister your sex partner and see nothing wrong with it. Unless you repent, you will not escape the damnation of Hell.

Abeg go and rest and stop displaying your stupidity to the world.

LordReed:


Abeg go and rest and stop displaying your stupidity to the world.

Time will tell who is the real stupid person. When you land in the pit of hell, you will realize how stupid you were.

TruthinAction:


Time will tell who is the real stupid person. When you land in the pit of hell, you will realize how stupid you were.

Hell will be living with dunces like you for an eternity.

LordReed:


You have articulated a point of view I have been attempting to put into words. The religious objections to porn are mostly based on the uncomfortable nature of talking about sex. The view that it is a private matter not to be exposed to all eyes to see sparks a turmoil in the mind of the religious therefore the god must be correct in being against porn even though no where in their holy books does the god even make reference to porn but somehow they know what the god wants because it just happens to tally with their feelings on the matter.

How exactly would the Bible talk about pornography in modern terms given the times and cultures it was written in? The question would be: is there some way that the Bible addressed the nature of pornography in those times?

The answer is yes.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV

Porneia is the Greek word that is translated "sexual immorality" in this passage and anywhere else in the New Testament. Another word used to translate it is "fornication". The former is a better translation because "porneia" is a larger word than fornication. It was a catch-all for every type of sexual impropriety. It included adultery, for example.

As it is, "pornography" as a word has its roots in "porneia" and "porne", both Ancient Greek words with the latter referring to prostitutes. So, the very practice that it connotes is at least very close to what 1 Corinthians 6:18 talks about. In fact, it is a no-brainer that "pornography" is part of "porneia".

Every sexual behavior or action or thought that is not occurring within the context of marriage is sexual immorality. Within marriage, all sexual activity between a couple to please each other is proper and sanctified (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Outside of marriage, no sexual activity at all is proper. Thus, pornography is a sin.

Now, even a baby Christian knows this. Also, Christians are more troubled by their own strong temptations to disregard the Bible in this than uncomfortable with sex as a thing in itself. In other words, rather than making the Bible say something to justify their discomfort with sex, it is far more to be expected that Christians would try to use it to justify sexual misbehavior. So, you really have things upside down in that regard. Finally, why on earth it is any business of yours what the Bible says about it given your dismissal of it is weird, to say the least. The only way I see to explain it is that you wish to use Christians to justify your own misbehavior.

Is it not enough that you reject the Bible? Since you do, whether it does or does not condemn pornography should be immaterial to you.

As it is, it clearly condemns it. The answer I gave is short. That is because the entire thread is in itself a travesty. A Christian who is deceived by this thread is one who wants to be deceived by it, because even ordinary human conscience tells anyone willing to listen that sexual activity not restricted to a married couple is wrong. The Bible only reiterates this. If it was actually needed - and it isn't - a longer, more comprehensive answer with references to several parts of the Bible could still be made. But if that is necessary at any point, it would probably be a worthless exercise.

Ihedinobi3:

, because even ordinary human conscience tells anyone willing to listen that sexual activity not restricted to a married couple is wrong.

Wrong. Human instinct is driven to procreate, society however teaches us not partake in sexual activity outside of marriage. Your holy book only attempts to reinforce social mores, it does not validate of any sort of conscience or instinct.

As for whether the bible mentions porn specifically one can approach the matter in a variety of ways. Is the god not capable of knowing what is to come in future? Why is it incapable of mentioning specific actions it knows in the future will be detrimental if that it is the way it views it?

Yes, indeed it is immaterial if the bible condemns it or not because it is the encapsulation of the social mores of a certain group of people so it has no authority to dictate to any person who doesn't want to follow its dictates.

LordReed:


Wrong. Human instinct is driven to procreate, society however teaches us not partake in sexual activity outside of marriage. Your holy book only attempts to reinforce social mores, it does not validate of any sort of conscience or instinct.

As for whether the bible mentions porn specifically one can approach the matter in a variety of ways. Is the god not capable of knowing what is to come in future? Why is it incapable of mentioning specific actions it knows in the future will be detrimental if that it is the way it views it?

Yes, indeed it is immaterial if the bible condemns it or not because it is the encapsulation of the social mores of a certain group of people so it has no authority to dictate to any person who doesn't want to follow its dictates.

In so far as we speak of instinct, then as much as we have an instinct to procreate, we also have an instinct to do so in orderly fashion, that is, in clearly delineated families. Social mores, after all, did not happen out of nothing, as you seem to think.

As for porn, your argument, just like the first one, is very ignorant. God was speaking as much to the people of the times in which the Bible was written as to us living today.

Your fantasies about the Bible are well known to me and completely unfounded as always. Clearly, you have a problem ignoring what the Bible says in spite of your claims.

Ihedinobi3:

In so far as we speak of instinct, then as much as we have an instinct to procreate, we also have an instinct to do so in orderly fashion, that is, in clearly delineated families. Social mores, after all, did not happen out of nothing, as you seem to think.

As for porn, your argument, just like the first one, is very ignorant. God was speaking as much to the people of the times in which the Bible was written as to us living today.

Your fantasies about the Bible are well known to me and completely unfounded as always. Clearly, you have a problem ignoring what the Bible says in spite of your claims.

Social mores arise from a need to protect either individuals or societal structure. They are very separate from our instincts even though they can arise from our instincts.

Yes because men like you are telling us what the god says.

It is your holy book that is a fantasy, I am merely reporting the fact of it.

This is garbled - and in so many ways

LordReed:
Wrong. Human instinct is driven to procreate,

The heathen continuously insists on degrading humans to the level of brute beasts. Humans are not driven by instinct...

LordReed:
society however teaches us not partake in sexual activity outside of marriage.

...which is what enables us to develop and maintain sophisticated and complex societies. Of which one requirement is to moderate the sexual urge. And, if possible channel it into something that benefits said society - hence marriage!

LordReed:
Your holy book only attempts to reinforce social mores, it does not validate of any sort of conscience or instinct.

No, the bible instructs and, is a source of objective morality regardless of and without recourse to what society deems acceptable. There are numerous social mores that contravene, contradict or at best, only mimic biblical direction.

LordReed:
As for whether the bible mentions porn specifically one can approach the matter in a variety of ways. Is the god not capable of knowing what is to come in future? Why is it incapable of mentioning specific actions it knows in the future will be detrimental if that it is the way it views it?

So why choose a way that is at best bloody-minded and at worst nonsensical. The bible outlines a clear sexual ethic, the lens of through which pornography is clearly haram.

LordReed:
Yes, indeed it is immaterial if the bible condemns it or not because it is the encapsulation of the social mores of a certain group of people so it has no authority to dictate to any person who doesn't want to follow its dictates.

More heathenish raging. It's immaterial if you choose to disbelieve and disobey the bible. To those that do not it is essential.

Further, contravention of biblical morality always has an outworking - which is clearly evident. Attempting to sanitise perversity by creating an imagined scenario - faulty in itself - which presents it as "harmless", is not evidence of anything but the depths to which human degeneracy can sink.

I may well owe those brute beasts an apology. As dumb as they are, I cannot imagine them indulging in or arguing for an instinctive desire for porn consumption .


Saint
TV

TV01:
This is garbled - and in so many ways

When did I don't agree turn to garbled?

The heathen continuously insists on degrading humans to the level of brute beasts. Humans are not driven by instinct...

Humans are driven by instinct, we have only become more sophisticated because of higher capacity for cogitation. You cannot deny the nature of what you are, if you like call me heathen for telling the bare-faced facts.

...which is what enables us to develop and maintain sophisticated and complex societies. Of which one requirement is to moderate the sexual urge. And, if possible channel it into something that benefits said society - hence marriage!

Civilisation has nothing to do with your bible, it develops inspite of.

No, the bible instructs and, is a source of objective morality regardless of and without recourse to what society deems acceptable. There are numerous social mores that contravene, contradict or at best, only mimic biblical direction.

Let me assume you mean it espouses an absolute morality because objective morality has a different usage where I am coming from. Even the so called absolute morality is broken over and over again in the very same bible, either by the god itself or the agents it "accredits".

So why choose a way that is at best bloody-minded and at worst nonsensical. The bible outlines a clear sexual ethic, the lens of through which pornography is clearly haram.

For which you have to interpret and declare to us the word of the god, yes we know.

More heathenish raging. It's immaterial if you choose to disbelieve and disobey the bible. To those that do not it is essential.

More religious gibberish. Who cares what the bible says? Its dictates are worthless to those who do not follow it no matter how hard you calll us heathens.

Further, contravention of biblical morality always has an outworking - which is clearly evident. Attempting to sanitise perversity by creating an imagined scenario - faulty in itself - which presents it as "harmless", is not evidence of anything but the depths to which human degeneracy can sink.

Again who gives a flying Bleep what your bible says?

I may well owe those brute beasts an apology. As dumb as they are, I cannot imagine them indulging in or arguing for an instinctive desire for porn consumption .

You should. They don't have delusions of self righteousness.

LordReed:


Social mores arise from a need to protect either individuals or societal structure. They are very separate from our instincts even though they can arise from our instincts.

Yes because men like you are telling us what the god says.

It is your holy book that is a fantasy, I am merely reporting the fact of it.

Where does that need come from? Where does the societal structure come from?

Your second paragraph is not clear. What does it have to do with anything?

You are hardly reporting anything but your own fevered dreams, LordReed.

Ihedinobi3:

Where does that need come from? Where does the societal structure come from?

Your second paragraph is not clear. What does it have to do with anything?

You are hardly reporting anything but your own fevered dreams, LordReed.

From men.

It is the trust of my first post. You are interpreting to us what the god says, like its always been done.

LMFAO! I am not the one who believes the universe was flooded.

LordReed:


From men.

It is the trust of my first post. You are interpreting to us what the god says, like its always been done.

LMFAO! I am not the one who believes the universe was flooded.

So, men created this need to preserve individual existence and societal structures? And they also created these societal structures themselves? Are you not speaking of an instinct then? In what way is that not the conscience I spoke of?

Your first post was amply demonstrated to be incredibly ignorant.

Nor am I the one who is confusing himself about needs and instincts.

Ihedinobi3:

So, men created this need to preserve individual existence and societal structures? And they also created these societal structures themselves? Are you not speaking of an instinct then? In what way is that not the conscience I spoke of?

Your first post was amply demonstrated to be incredibly ignorant.

Nor am I the one who is confusing himself about needs and instincts.

I said "From men", did I say anything about creation? Abeg don't rope me into your creationism mantras.

In what way is it ignorant? Your fairytale book or god does not mention porn but you guys interpret it to condemn porn and then say I am ignorant? Of what exactly?

I am glad to be confused of real things, not of magic sky daddy and its cohorts.

LordReed:


I said "From men", did I say anything about creation? Abeg don't rope me into your creationism mantras.

In what way is it ignorant? Your fairytale book or god does not mention porn but you guys interpret it to condemn porn and then say I am ignorant? Of what exactly?

I am glad to be confused of real things, not of magic sky daddy and its cohorts.

I asked you where the need and societal structure came from, and you said, "from men". How does that not mean that the need and societal structure were created by men?

And you neglected to mention that until now even though I explained to you that pornography was addressed as much as any other sexual depravity through the instruction to "flee porneia"? You realize that you are being dishonest now, don't you?

Indeed. A need that came from nowhere and an instinct that is self-existing, well done.

Ihedinobi3:

I asked you where the need and societal structure came from, and you said, "from men". How does that not mean that the need and societal structure were created by men?

And you neglected to mention that until now even though I explained to you that pornography was addressed as much as any other sexual depravity through the instruction to "flee porneia"? You realize that you are being dishonest now, don't you?

Indeed. A need that came from nowhere and an instinct that is self-existing, well done.

I need to avoid uses of creation around you before you start claiming I want to usurp the god's position. Of course needs are not "created" by men, it arises from nature however societal structures are indeed made by men.

Gosh, na wa for this guy. Is porneia a specific mention of pornography? It is you who are telling us that porneia refers to pornography, the writer was not talking about PORNOGRAPHY.

BTW the root of the word pornography is not porneia but pornographos "(one) depicting prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution", related to pernanai "to sell" (from PIE *perə-, variant of root *per- (5) "to traffic in, to sell" + graphein "to write".


LMFAO! Now you've jumped to some absurd nonsense I don't know where you got them from.

LordReed:


I need to avoid uses of creation around you before you start claiming I want to usurp the god's position. Of course needs are not "created" by men, it arises from nature however societal structures are indeed made by men.

Gosh, na wa for this guy. Is porneia a specific mention of pornography? It is you who are telling us that porneia refers to pornography, the writer was not talking about PORNOGRAPHY.

BTW the root of the word pornography is not porneia but pornographos "(one) depicting prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution", related to pernanai "to sell" (from PIE *perə-, variant of root *per- (5) "to traffic in, to sell" + graphein "to write".


LMFAO! Now you've jumped to some absurd nonsense I don't know where you got them from.

So, the nature of human beings themselves is the source of the social mores you spoke of. Good, I agree. As I said before, the human conscience alone is sufficient to tell us what is right and wrong. That is the source of the social mores you are fighting. In other words, it is not some nebulous quantity called society that tells us that pornography is wrong, it is our collective conscience.

Read my first response to you again. I discussed the etymology there.

No, you seemed to be suggesting that social mores have no source. Atheism is always fighting hard to decouple things from a source that forces acceptance of the existence of God. Well, if social mores don't self-exist, they come from somewhere. If they come from human nature, as you have finally admitted, then they are the product of human conscience - which can also be called a set of moral instincts. The human conscience is very strong proof of the existence of a Moral Authority from which source it derives its objective moral imperatives. That Moral Authority is, by definition, God.

Ihedinobi3:

So, the nature of human beings themselves is the source of the social mores you spoke of. Good, I agree. As I said before, the human conscience alone is sufficient to tell us what is right and wrong. That is the source of the social mores you are fighting. In other words, it is not some nebulous quantity called society that tells us that pornography is wrong, it is our collective conscience.

Read my first response to you again. I discussed the etymology there.

No, you seemed to be suggesting that social mores have no source. Atheism is always fighting hard to decouple things from a source that forces acceptance of the existence of God. Well, if social mores don't self-exist, they come from somewhere. If they come from human nature, as you have finally admitted, then they are the product of human conscience - which can also be called a set of moral instincts. The human conscience is very strong proof of the existence of a Moral Authority from which source it derives its objective moral imperatives. That Moral Authority is, by definition, God.

You aren't born with a developed conscience if that is what you are suggesting. Every man has his conscience developed by the environment and people he finds himself.

So now you are going to go to 'read my first post'? I think I should start telling you that and save myself some trouble.

Where did I make such a suggestion?

There is no decoupling going on because it wasn't coupled in the first place.

NnennaG6:
Let's be clear: porn stars are prostitutes. Both male and female, they are paid to have sex. The fact that the person paying them is not the person having sex with them is beside the point. When you watch porn, you are contributing to the payment of these prostitutes even if you are not paying for the service, as someone is paying for your technical capacity to watch the video - typically an advertiser. By watching the video you make the advertiser pay the performers. If you obtained the porn through a service such as BitTorrent, you are both part of the expected overhead for the producer and thus contributing to the payment of the prostitutes, and also guilty of stealing someone's intellectual property.

There is also the matter of 'amateur' porn. If you watch this kind of video, you have no way of knowing that all of the people involved agreed to release it. You may be consuming revenge porn, which is clearly a violation of the person who wanted the material to remain private. Conversely, it may not actually be an amateur production but rather made to look like one in the interests of titillation. There's no way you can tell. And by the way, those girls on the 'casting couch' know exactly what's going on...

It can also be shown that your contribution to this prostitution is wrong.

First is a matter of consent. It's understood that sexual consent must be freely given or else the act constitutes rape - something that is clearly immoral.

That isn't limited to forcible rape. Threats and implied threats also negate consent. And a threat can be positive or negative: "do this or I will harm you" and "do this or I will prevent you from avoiding harm" are morally equivalent.

Most people who go into prostitution - whether on a private basis or for the creation of porn - do so because they feel they have no other choice. Many come from extremely vulnerable backgrounds and are facing personal crises. They may be living with drug addiction, debt, or some other pressing need. I have read that many young women get started in pornography in order to fund an abortion. They smile for the cameras, but that does not mean they are in a happy situation. This means that the sex they are having is not through free consent, but rather in the face of an imminent threat.

It is wrong for society to use prostitution as a safety net for vulnerable young women. If this option were effectively controlled, the citizens of a civilised country would find a way to open up other options for them.

Sex is also a basic human drive, and can be the source of much joy and intimacy. Its beauty stems in part from the fact that it always comes from a free desire on the part of the people involved. This is negated in prostitution, as prostitutes engage in sexual activity that they do not otherwise want, because they are being paid for it. Yes, apart from the consent issues mentioned above they choose to do so, but they should be protected from making this choice in order to be able to enjoy a fundamental part of the human condition.

There is only one circumstance under which you could watch porn and know that you are not violating anyone's rights: if all the people featured in the video are personally known to you, and you are certain they are giving it to you freely. This is an outlier situation, but I would argue that it is still negative because it will make your subsequent relationship with your exhibitionist friends decidedly awkward.

intelligent and detailed. Weldone.

LordReed:


You aren't born with a developed conscience if that is what you are suggesting. Every man has his conscience developed by the environment and people he finds himself.

So now you are going to go to 'read my first post'? I think I should start telling you that and save myself some trouble.

Where did I make such a suggestion?

There is no decoupling going on because it wasn't coupled in the first place.

I am not sure what your first paragraph is saying. Are we born with a conscience, only it's undeveloped? What would that mean exactly? Then again, how do the environment and other people develop the conscience?

If I gave you a discussion of the etymology there, is it reasonable to demand that I address it again now as though I never did before? Still, the point was this: I accounted for what you said there.

In other words, social mores have no source? What really is your position? Do social mores have a source or not?

Ihedinobi3:

I am not sure what your first paragraph is saying. Are we born with a conscience, only it's undeveloped? What would that mean exactly? Then again, how do the environment and other people develop the conscience?

If I gave you a discussion of the etymology there, is it reasonable to demand that I address it again now as though I never did before? Still, the point was this: I accounted for what you said there.

In other words, social mores have no source? What really is your position? Do social mores have a source or not?

It means exactly that, conscience is a developed trait which is influenced by the society and people in your environment. Every child learns first by emulating the people it first encounters, usually the parents then assimilating the culture of the wider society, these are the things that develop the conscience. If a child grows up in a society where eating pork is the norm for example, it will not develop a conscience that tells him/her that it is wrong while the a child who grows up with the notion that eating pork is wrong will have a conscience that niggles him/her whenever pork as food is mentioned.

Yes it is reasonable you discuss it because I have brought new information that counters what you posted before. It is an unreasonable response to ask me to go look at your first post in the light of the new information.

The question was, where did I suggest such a thing? Are you are being dishonest now?

LordReed:
When did I don't agree turn to garbled?

Ok - I don't agree and I found it garbled .

LordReed:
Humans are driven by instinct, we have only become more sophisticated because of higher capacity for cogitation. You cannot deny the nature of what you are, if you like call me heathen for telling the bare-faced facts.

As if this higher cogitative capacity cannot and does not marshal any purely instinctive behaviour – especially given some of the possible outcomes. Speaking of which, please provide examples of this instinctive drive in humans.

LordReed:
Civilisation has nothing to do with your bible, it develops inspite of.

I did not make any such claim. It is man’s God given higher cogitative ability and, the primacy of it, that allows civilisations to form. Don't let your anxiety around the scripture and your discomfort with God befuddle you.

LordReed:
Let me assume you mean it espouses an absolute morality because objective morality has a different usage where I am coming from. Even the so called absolute morality is broken over and over again in the very same bible, either by the god itself or the agents it "accredits".

Either, or - semantics unnecessary. You are free to your view on God and the scriptures.

LordReed:
Again, your view. And you are welcome to it
For which you have to interpret and declare to us the word of the god, yes we know.
More religious gibberish. Who cares what the bible says? Its dictates are worthless to those who do not follow it no matter how hard you calll us heathens.

As you are welcome to yours and to comments about mine - a right I am happy to apply in return.

LordReed:
Again who gives a flying Bleep what your bible says?

You do - clearly

LordReed:
You should. They don't have delusions of self righteousness.

At all - I just don't hide behind instinct and point to dumb beasts, whilst in possession of a higher cogitative capacity and being created in the image of God.


SuperSaintly
TV

TV01:

Ok - I don't agree and I found it garbled .

As if this higher cogitative capacity cannot and does not marshal any purely instinctive behaviour – especially given some of the possible outcomes. Speaking of which, please provide examples of this instinctive drive in humans.

I did not make any such claim. It is man’s God given higher cogitative ability and, the primacy of it, that allows civilisations to form. Don't let your anxiety around the scripture and your discomfort with God befuddle you.

Either, or - semantics unnecessary. You are free to your view on God and the scriptures.

As you are welcome to yours and to comments about mine - a right I am happy to apply in return.

You do - clearly


At all - I just don't hide behind instinct and point to dumb beasts, whilst in possession of a higher cogitative capacity and being created in the image of God.

LMFAO while SMDH. Nothing worth responding to here really except the bolded. Examples: a child knowing how to suck, never missing your mouth when you eat, your eyes noticing movement in your peripheral vision, etc. All of them built from survival mechanics aka instincts.