₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
@Deepsight:
For an honest seeker of knowledge, there are no contradictions. Contradictions arise when people take a dogmatic posture on issues. I try not to be dogmatic on any issue since I know not and I know that I know not.

If you read my previous post again, without bias, you will see that i tried to convey that physical matter is just a(highlited) manifestation of energy. That stamement implies that energy is not restricted to physical manifestation.
Again, 4.7 billion yrs of ceasless interaction of energy is enough time to produce degrees of unimaginable complexity. I dont see any homogenous external intelligence, or let me put it this way: an external intelligence was not, in my view, necessay.

If energy manifest in physical and non-physical, then there must be non-physical realities beyond what our sense can perceive.

This is not a an academic paper, it is just my deductions from scientific facts and theories and hypothesis. Since love can be discribed as a sort of magnetic attraction, it makes logical sense that similar DNA finds comfort in each other's company.
I think that spirits, souls etc are non-physical manifestations of the same energy stream.
I dont see how that can be a contradiction simply because i dont believe in an external creator.

N:B: Many of the oriental religions are non-custodial religions. And by now, Deepsight, you should know that our use of the word religion in this forum usually refer to the abrahamic religions because they a re the ones that dominate our environments.

If you assert that there exist other non-physical energies and realities - - - - AND - - - - >

You ALSO assert that all energies are i[b]nterconnected [/b] - - - THEN - - - >

It is an iredeemable contradiction to seek to disconnect the material world from the non-material energies - by asserting that life in the physical realm must have a strictly physical origin. This is not tenable in a scenario where you have yourself contended that all energies are interconnected AND that there are non physical energies.

plaetton:
Ofcourse it is always muh easier to just say that God did it and so and so, that way you dont ever have to worry about energy interactions.
That's why we have a nicely wrapped package called religion.

plaetton:
Ofcourse it is always muh easier to just say that God did it and so and so, that way you dont ever have to worry about energy interactions.
That's why we have a nicely wrapped package called religion.

I think this is a limited view. Many oriental religions are deeply steeped in the many interactions of non physical vibrations in the reality in which we live. They are not lazy in the way you advance: many of such religions have profound expositions on such matters that are mind boggling and amazing in their grasp of laws. Secondly even the conventional judeo Christian religion even though they do not go into such detail, set out very simple principles which are actually based on the same laws and vibrations. Ideas such as "whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself" are all founded on the laws and vibrations at play.

@D sage:
Ok. Let me try.

Energy. Everything is energy. Infact, the universe is a manisfestation of energy. So if you want to say that ebergy is god or that god is energy, thats perfectly fine with me. There are countless variiarions or frequencies of energy thats why we have countless variations of physical matter as well as non-physical(undetectable) matter.

Is all energy strictly physical?

All manifestations of of energy carries are imbued with all the quality qualities, but manifest at different rates of vibration or frequency. Therefore all physical matter, being of the same source and qaulity are hence interconnected and and interact and communicate with each other. All matter, physical and non-physical, draw , exchange and transfer energy amongst themselves.This interaction transcends space and time.

The more complex the atomic configuration, the more the interaction, the more complex the system, the more the interaction or energy exchange.
The human brain is probably the most biological system that we know. Also , the cell of a brain tissue has been found to be made of billions and billions of crystals of super-conducting elements.

Having specific regard to the human brain and it's multiple layered billions of neural connections and capacities, what do you imagine to be the likelihood or possibility of the development or evolution of such an organ in (x) a purposeless universe and (y) without external intelligence whatsoever

The human brain is therefore a super-conductor. Superconductivity is the holy grail of science. Super=conducting qualities are, literally speaking, way out of this world. A super-conductor can transmit enegy over distance without any loss of energy: Meaning, for example, that a super-conducting generator in lagos can supply energy to South Africa or even the moon, without any wires and without any loss of energy. It ttranscends space. It is impervious to the boundaries of physical space and perhaps time.

This would imply that you recognize the possibility or reality on non material aspects to reality.

Now if the above is true and if the human brain is indeed a super-conductor, then our brains are the gateways to the universe. It means that unknowingly, we are both recievers and transmitters of cosmic energy from everything that exists. We are intimately connected to every atom and every particle that exists.

In higher mammals, which we are, the  complexity and frequency of these energy exchanges or interactions reaches  a certain(perhaps mathematical) threshhold, whereby the energy bits recognise themselves and begin to aggregate into  discernable and organized patterns. That is what we call consciousness, self-awareness or santience, from whence ideas and imaginations take root.

And is it your perception that this is a process of chance?

Since super-conductors operate without wires, it begins to make sense why we have certain emotions about ceretain things or certain people. It explains why sometimes, we feel that we can read people's thoughts and emotions,why we have dreams and visions, and feelings of Deva vu, Why we feel unconditional love towards parents and children(similar DNA or energy particle configuration).

I am distressed if you honestly feel that parental or inter sibling love is actuated by similar DNA.

Now  because our super-conducting brain can transcend physical space and time and reach out into other dimensions to intereract and exchange energy, we can say that man has a non-physical compnent as well as his physical body. It is what we term the spirit, or soul and that too comes with its own hierachy of complexity. The brain can also now be called the seat of the spirit or soul.

It would seem very strange to me for you to acknowledge the existence of non physical realms, spirits and souls, and simultaneously posit that life came to be through unguided material evolution only. Actually, that is very very strange indeed.

plaetton:
@Deepsight:
No one is born athiest or thiest so none can be said to be smarter.

But EVERY human being is born with the cosmological paradox of existence implanted as a question in his mind. Why does he exist. For what purpose? Telling a human being that he exists because a prebiotic soup somehow contrived a unicellular organism will eternally remain a deeply unsatisfying answer for most human beings because they have a sense of meaningfulness that such a bald explanation can NEVER meet.

As regards your other comments, I do agree to a small extent that in the past and in certain places, religion has indeed slow scientific progress. But we cannot make a sweeping statement of that: it did not happen in all societies and infact was most heavily concentrated in a certain period of history. I must now ask you how the religion of the Chinese stopped them from evolving pace setting ancient technologies such as gun powder for example. Or can you tell me how Hinduism has stopped the indians from developing several medical technologies. Has Christianity stopped the dizzying pace of technological advancement in somewhere like the USA for example? And yet it remains a highly religious country. Let's think about ancients such as the Egyptians. Such people were crazily religious with the most fantastical beliefs that could be imagined. What effect did that have on their scientific endeavors. It actually made them passionate enough to accomplish astonishing feats such as the pyramids, which modern technology would still have a tough time constructing. So all in all i think it is too much of a blanket statement for you to state that religion retards science. That is too much of a generalization. At all events it remains true that religious people have been and generally remain at the forefront of the vast majority of scientific accomplishments.

As far as scientific development is concerned, surely you are also aware that it is a process in which every discovery leads to many others and so it takes time as it develops. There are also factors at play such as environmental imperatives, demands of war, and many others that compel innovation. It is overly simplistic in my view to say that it's boils down to dissociation from religion. Aside from being for the most part not true.

^ Plaetton definitely insinuated that religion constitutes a stumbling block for science. That may have been true at certain points in history, but is definitely not the case today.

Besides, i see no derailment in my post. It is bang on topic as the thread seeks to question the rationale for atheism.

plaetton:
It is worthy of note that humans began to realise the full potential of their brains when they stopped looking to the sky and stopped cowering from an imaginary god . Much of the progress that we have enjoyed over the past 200yrs in terms of science and freedoms can be directly attributed  to the gradual imasculation of religion.

This is hardly true as a much larger percentage of scientific development has in fact been led by theists than by atheists. Secondly, you will find that on a roll call of the finest scientific brains in this world, up till this day you will still find more theists than atheists.

We needn't pretend that atheists are any smarter than theists. Its not true.

PS - In my opinion, the atheistic stance is quite unreasonable and untenable as it requires omniscience. A more tenable stance is agnosticism. Aside this, the experience of consciousness dictates the eternal question of primordial cause. Ignoring the question does not make it go away. Your child will ask the question and your answers to him may not even be as satisfactory as the answer that may be provided in a church or mosque.

^ God is not said to be self created or self evolved. Being created would imply a beginning. God on the other hand is said to have no beginning. You yourself have alluded to time not having a beginning. God being eternity itself, encapsulates time.

Neither is God said to have evolved. On the contrary - God is said to be immutable/ unchangeable. Thus there is no question of an evolution of God.

These are the positions held by the generality of theists, and not that which you stated.

plaetton:
But if the deisgner self-evolved or self-created itself (as we have been told),

This is not advanced by anybody.

BetaThings:
So a subsistence farmer with 20 children from 4 wives (who are from different parts of Nigeria) require more assistants (personal tailor, hair stylists, cook, therapists, doctor etc)
Than a banker making N50m pa but with only 2 children. Right?
Affordability does not feature, we agree

BetaThings:
So a subsistence farmer with 20 children from 4 wives (who are from different parts of Nigeria) require more assistants (personal tailor, hair stylists, cook, therapists, doctor etc)
Than a banker making N50m pa but with only 2 children. Right?
Affordability does not feature, we agree

No one has suggested that affordability does not feature. Nevertheless every president does indeed require several different aides of varying specialization. The same cannot be said for the office of first lady, which is legally non existent.

^^^ The above article is very telling. Kobojunkie is well known on this board, I am certain, for parading very unreasonable arguments. The point the OP was trying to make is fairly easy to see, once one is open and objective. There is no justification on this planet for Michele Obama's retinue of aides (if true). And it certainly is beyond ludicrous that any person would think that the first lady of the united states ( an admittedly traditional position with exactly ZERO constitutional responsibilities) would or should require more aides than the President and Commander in Chief of the most populous black nation in the world, administering the economy of over 160 million people in a country that is a strategic producer of Crude Oil in today's world - especially when you add the complexity of that country, over 250 ethnic nationalities and languages, not to speak of the hydra headed security challenges posed by Islamist Terrorism.

No rational person can possibly argue that any [b]first lady [/b]anywhere in the world should require more aides than a [b]President [/b]of a nation as large, important and complex as Nigeria.

Now, this is not to say that i in anyway support waste in Government. America is not our concern: we should focus on our country and urge our leaders to reduce waste where ever possible.

It could be several things depending on your fate trajectory, but all of the things that it could be would all centre around new life and fresh energy. It could as logic mind said be babies, but it could also be wealth, ideas, new opportunities, new beginnings, etc. Most likely depending on the state of your life you yourself should have an inkling as to what it refers to.

And under this criteria. . . . . it seems to me that in certain circumstances, something such as a necrophilic act may be morally neutral - that is to say, neither moral or immoral.

It is important that I also state that this does not mean that such an act is not distasteful: it is indeed eminently disgusting and distasteful - and I need further state that in my view not everything distasteful is by that very fact either moral or immoral. A married couple may for example have certain heterose.xual se.xual practices which may be thoroughly distasteful to the generality of people: but that by itself does not render their kinks moral or immoral.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=852959.msg10043160#msg10043160 date=1327485620]Hi Deepsight. Look within yourself and listen to the voice of your spirit. Then you will uncover what already resides in you. Stay blessed.[/quote]My personal feeling is that -

God is life and light. The sum of all eternal harmony.

Thus anything that tends towards life, light and harmony - helping both the individual and common good - is positive and moral.

And thus anything that tends against life, light and harmony - tending towards death, darkness and chaos - destroying both the individual and common good - is negative and immoral.

This might seem to be in line with conventional precepts but in reality it is not necessarily so. Many a thing conventionally considered immoral might actually be moral or neutral under this test: and vice versa.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=852959.msg10038450#msg10038450 date=1327425497]@DeepSight. I think my two previous posts on necrophilia have addressed why necrophilia is immoral. New issues and exceptions that you bring about can be dealt with but I do not think it is of any use. I do not have anything further to add. As always, stay blessed.[/quote]Many thanks for your inputs. My issue is simply that I am looking for the "holy grail" of morality - the simplest principle on which the precept of morality stands or falls. As yet, I have not seen that principle in any of the reasons proferred on this thread, or maybe I have missed it.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=852959.msg10037528#msg10037528 date=1327418456]Whatever experiences that drags the spirit down, preventing it temporarily or permanently from going home (kingdom of heaven) is harmful and thus morally wrong. Necrophilia and all other perversions and propensities chains the spirit to the material world, preventing its ascent into the luminous kingdom of God and thus facilitating its spiritual death.[/quote]Fair enough, but with reference to the stated purpose of this thread, such "perversions and propensities that chain the spirit to the material world" include everything from love of physical food to love of (even legitimate heterosexual) se.xual activities. And yet I am not sure that one can say that love of physical food is immoral.

Let us distinguish here - I very carefully picked my words when i said "love of physical food" instead of saying "gluttony". This is because the scenario in this case that will be analogous to gluttony will be someone who cannot get enough of such se.xual acts and as such gorges himself on them. This is different from someone who merely has a great liking for such acts and indulges in them from time to time. I say this because one single necrophilic act is not analogous to gluttony. As such, we should look at it from the point of view you stated - about the purposes of a physical body in God's creation - and not from the point of view that such can tie a spirit to materialistic things. I say this because even love of physical food and love of normal heterose.xual se.x can equally tie a spirit to matter - and yet this does not of itself render such things immoral.

Is it immoral to love normal heterosexual se.x? And yet you do acknowledge that such can tie a spirit to matter can it not.

I hope you see the point I am trying to make. That it is not necessarily the fact that something inclines one to a materialistic thing that will by itself render such a thing or act immoral.

A necrophiliac cannot prevent the consequences of his actions for he is fee to sow the seeds but the consequences of the seeds or the fruits that will arise from the seeds sown is determined by the laws of God. Thus even if he decreed that his body should be used for necrophiliac acts in a written will, the act still remain immoral. Spiritually, he has no power to decree what is intrinsically immoral to become moral. The will by the necrophiliac cannot abrogate the laws of God and thus can not abrogate the immorality. Consider, does banana become straw belies  just because the farmer decreed it to turn to straw belies. The point I am trying to convey is that what is against or for the laws of God remains so irrespective of the wishes or will or opinions of creatures including man. If one get exposed to an infective viral load of HIV-1 either by consent or without consent, one will develop HIV/AIDS. The harm is not dependent on the consent or lack of consent but on the genetic program that is HIV-1. In a similar way harm caused to our physical and soul bodies  by necrophilia is not dependent on our consent or lack of it but on the "program" that is necrophilia. Even if a state or nation makes such acts legal, it does not abrogate the laws of God.

I am not sure that this goes to the root of the question again, because it merely addresses a law of God that applies to all things in existence - the law of Karma, or attaction of homogenuous species. This does not specifically show why the karma for a necrophilic act will be negative?

Now tell me - what if the purpose for which that person has donated his body is scientific research to help uncover the psycology of necrophiliacs? Will that still be immoral? What if such scientific research involves making his corpse available to such people to use for such acts inorder to study their behavioural patterns and possibly develop psycological treatments? Will that still be immoral? What compass or criterion will govern these instances?

Formation of necrophiliac power centers  and the harmful spiritual pollution that it brings is not dependent on the snapping of the silver chord. Even a person who have not physically engaged in necrophilia but harbors necrophilic thoughts contributes to these power centers and is causing spiritual harm whether or not he is conscious or unconscious of it. As I explained in an earlier paragraph, the use of physical bodies for purposes that chains the bodies to material creation, preventing the ascent of the spirit is immoral for it directly leads to spiritual death except the ignorant soul was able to extricate himself on time. All passions like lust, gluttony, envy, hatred, smoking, etc are wrong because not only do they damage the physical and soul bodies but the chain the soul to matter, narrowing its perception. Since all matter is subject to disintegration, a soul chained to matter assumes the cycle of matter and will be disintegrated with matter with attendant spiritual death. There is nothing more immoral than activities of the body or soul that channels those individuals to spiritual death. I am ware that what I am trying to explain will be nonsense to those that do not believe in God or afterlife and its is for this reason that I stated in my previous post that my perspective is spiritual. All gifts of God including our physical and soul bodies are for our spiritual ascent. That is the purpose for which God gave us these bodies. Any activity that ignores or contradicts this purpose is immoral. As always, stay blessed.

Formation of power centres applies again to everything. The man who loves normal physical heterosex.ual sex also participates in forming power centres for attraction to normal se.x and such power centres will draw alot of people to be overly attached to se.x - which is material - and as such can lead to spiritual death as you have said.

Does this make it immoral to love normal heterose.xual se.x?

Post Script: I have written this in a rush as I am leaving my office now to join a colleague for my daily guiness stout: as such I am not sure that I have articulated my concern properly, but I will still try to do so when i get home.

Just by the way, could my attachment to alcohol thus be said to be immoral as well - given that it will predispose me to a material attachment that could make me unable to detach myself from materiality? I don't drink much - but I must have my guiness stout after hours daily. There is certainly an attachment. Is that immoral?

@ M_Nwankwo - please see my post to 1Godfather above. My comment below is going to be in that context. This discussion is about the moral compass - what makes an act wrong - and therefore not necessarily about the act itself.

For this reason I wish that you understand that when 1Godfather advances a reason such as "ownership" of the body - I will therefore proceed to satisfy that condition by presenting a scenario that discharges that burden (such as a departing soul making a written wish for X, Y or Z acts to be done with his corpse) - and then I must ask if the act therefore becomes moral by reason of the discharge of that condition - or of all conditions indeed?

Here is what I mean  -

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=852959.msg10036130#msg10036130 date=1327407926]My take on this issue will be from a spiritual perspective. Thus people who do not believe in God or in after-life will probably find my views meaningless. Our physical body is a gift that God gave us, an instrument that will enable the spirit to experience in the physical world. Thus, the argument that our bodies are our bodies and we can do with it whatever we so choose is wrong. Of course we can use it in whatever way we choose but we are irrevocably bound to the consequences of the abuse. A man who takes a loan from the bank can do whatever he wishes but if he misuses the loan and thus cannot pay back the loan and the interests, he cannot prevent the bank from taken ownership of his possessions. This is of course is a crude analogy but it faintly reflect the fact that God "loaned" us our physical bodies and it is our sacred duty to keep it pure. The use of our bodies or that of our fellow men in such a way that contradicts the purpose for which the designer (God) made it is immoral. Necrophilia is immoral because such aberration does not just harm the departing soul but also harms the perpetrator of the act as I will explain below.

To have a faint understanding of the harm that is being caused, we have to briefly look at the process of death. Telescoped into the physical body is a body which is finer than the physical body. This finer body which is made of medium gross matter is called the astral body. The soul (a spirit with other bodies apart from the physical and astral bodies) is connected or telescoped into the physical body via the astral body. In other words, the astral body is the link between the soul and the physical body. An elastic ethereal bridge called the silver cord directly connects the soul to the astral body. When a person is clinically dead, the soul is still connected with the physical body via the astral body. In a spiritual sense, a person is really dead when the silver chord have finally been severed.Until the silver chord snaps, it is possible to raise the dead by one who God have given the power to do so. Depending on the maturity of the soul, the silver chord can remain attached to the physical body via the astral intermediate from days to weeks. As long as the silver chord have not been finally severed, what happens to the physical body is transmitted via the astral/silver chord to the soul. Where the silver chord is not severed, the soul can still experience what happens to the physical body including its very disintegration.

Now necrophilia expressed through action or thoughts results in densification of the astral body and thickness of the silver chord that literally traps the soul to its physical body making severance of the soul difficult and extremely painful (especially when the departing soul is ignorant of the ways to free itself from the physical body). This sacrilege is even worse than a physical r.ape.Thus a necrophilia does not just commit an act of r.ape on the body of the dead but also forces the departing soul to consciously experience or witness such depravity. But it does not even stop here, the emanations from this depraved human being also poison the non-material environment surrounding the departing soul. When a departing soul non-physical environment is polluted with human propensities and depravity, spiritual help from servants of God is also hindered and the ability of the departing soul to even receive the help is also diminished. It is difficult to find an earthly analogy that can faintly reflect the torment a departing soul is forced to experience due to the wanton depravity of the necrophilia. The lustful and depraved desires of the necrophilia takes on form, attracts similar forms forms and through amalgamation, necrophilia power centers are formed. From these power centers, the emanations not only intensifies the depravity in the necrophilia but also infects others both in this physical world and beyond this physical world. If the departing soul is not inwardly pure, the effects of necrophilia can also convert him into an earthbound soul such that when the sliver chord finally snaps, the soul is now attracted to places and events where necrophilia is practiced either in thoughts or deeds. There are other possibilities that can create an earthbound soul, for instance the victim may refuse to forgive the perpetrator and follows him about both in this life and in the beyond.

Thus, necrophilia is immoral because it harms the physical and soul bodies of both the perpetrator as well as the victim. The consequence is that the spiritual development of the perpetrator as well as the victim is damaged and it may take years or even centuries for this damage to be rectified. In some cases, it may never be rectified but becomes a downward spiral to spiritual death. Best Wishes.[/quote]The sum of your arguments here rest on one point mainly - the fact that the soul maintains a connection to the body through a chord for a time. Every single scenario you drew up derived from this singular fact.

In the event that the necrophilic acts are performed AFTER that chord has sinced been severed, [u]every single scenario you described would then not arise. [/u]Would necrophilic acts performed in such a situation thus cease to be immoral?

You did however give one first definition of immoral acts in this regard. You said it would amount to using our bodies for purposes not willed by the creator of the body. Although I agree with the spirit behind this statement, it is altogether too broad and vague for the purpose of this discourse. For example, the purpose of our bodies is to house the soul/ spirit during its development in the worlds of matter. Would we say that anything outside such development is thus immoral?

I am not making these arguments frivolously. I am trying to ask or show that these may not necessarily form satisfactory answers as to what exactly makes the acts described in the OP immoral.

That elusive criterion is what this thread seeks, i think.

1Godfather:
I can think of several reasons why the practice of copulating with the dead is wrong, distasteful and immoral.

I am fairly certain that almost everyone who contributes on this subject will agree that such a practice is eminently distasteful. However my understanding of the intention in the OP is to test the moral compass by which we arrive at our decisions in terms of what may be considered moral or immoral. It is a test of moral criterion  - and not necessarily a test of the propriety of necrophilia itself.

It is critial that this point sits firmly in the mind of those who comment on this thread.

1)A s.exual act is generally considered immoral or wrong if it nonconsensual. Proper s.exual intercourse involves people who properly understand the ramifications of the proposed s.exual intercourse and voluntarily give consent without compulsion, force or threats to achieve the s.exual act. This is why it is moral to frown on r.ape, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectum sexuality, s.exual assault or sex slavery, or other extreme forms of s.exual deviancy. There is a nonconsensual element to these paraphilia; if I were to talk frankly, people who find themselves captive to these sexually deviant behaviors ought to seek help for this situation. As such, it is completely muddleheaded to begin to equivocate on what is clearly immoral, unsound and abnormal because persons who are captive to these paraphilia feel like their actions should be excused or understood. A corpse clearly has no way to consent to s.exual advances or entreaties and as such sex with deceased persons is clearly wrong.

In light of the comment I made above - to wit - the fact that this thread should be considered a test of the moral compass - and not just a test of necrophilia alone - let me say that the argument you make above in terms of the requirement for consent must necessarily fail on account that a dead body is not a human being. It therefore ab initio falls outside of the realm of contemplation of such a thing as consent: the very nature of which clearly refers to beings capable of granting or denying consent. A dead body is presumed non-living and as such the question of consent does not arise. 

2)Every individual is endowed by inalienable personal or individual rights which include the right to self-ownership.

A dead body is not an individual.

This means that it is immoral for someone to treat others as if they were chattel or property. Every individual has the right to own his person, his body, his labor and the fruit of his labor—therefore for someone to seek to possess these things or to borrow them for a season, one must necessarily secure the consent of the people who originally own them.

A good case has already been raised to counter this: what happens in the case of a person who wills his corpse to another for sundry purposes - such as science - say for example, research on necrophilic practices?

This will immediately draw the rug from beneath the feet of this argument of yours - because this argument rests on ownership! Now even in terms of legal ownership - the corpse passes perhaps as the property of the next-of-kin or such other person as may have been designated perhaps in a will for instance. What if such a person as legal owner were to grant permission? Better still - what if such a person as legal owner were to be the necrophile himself?

I do not make this argument frivolously or simply to counter you. I make it to show you that the morality of the act cannot rest on ownership as you have argued. Because if it did, then there are indeed legitimate ways around the problem of ownership, as you can very evidently see.

3)Beyond the evident moral reprehensibility of necrophilia lie immediate and pressing health concerns which would immediately highlight the odiousness of such a practice.

That something is unhealthy may or may not necessarily imply that it is also immoral. There are a great many unhealthy things that we all do everyday and I am certain that the fact of such acts being unhealthy alone will not necessarily suffice to brand them immoral. Do you think it is immoral for an obese person to eat a very heavily laden ham burger? Is it immoral to drive a petrol-powered motor car on account of the fact that all such motor cars contribute to global pollution?

Beyond this, the implicit suggestion in the argument of health is that if a perfectly harmless method could be devised to practice necrophilic acts - a method which had no possible health implications - then perhaps some of the immorality of the act would then be discharged?

There is a serious case to be made that the bodies of dead persons should be treated with respect and properly and immediately disposed.

Of course you are correct on this - and every poster on this thread including myself has expressed this exact sentiment. So please do not misconstrue that which I put across to you. What i seek to show you is that the morality or immorality of the act described in the OP does not rest on any of the factors that you advanced.

We thus need to think on the question: what makes an act immoral?

Or better still - what precisely makes any given se.xual act immoral?

^^^ America is actually a predominantly religious society, my friend.

You should understand omnipotence as pertaining to all that exists and all that may logically exist. Illogicalities are outside the purview of existent realities. Omnipotence thus does not extend to illogicalities.

JeSoul:
The act certainly does not physically harm anyone else, but does an act have to be physically hurtful in nature in order to be 'harmful'? our courts make room for those as well.

Certainly, the act needn't be physically harmful inorder to qualify as harm. I certainly did not have physical harm in mind.

But the question is this - if we are to presume that there is no form of harm whatsoever done - would that then make such an act morally acceptable? This is something to think on regarding our definition of morality.

JeSoul:
Anyways, an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines.

I am not certain that I agree there. Societies have been known to sanction as good many obviously reprehensible things whilsts condemning as evil many perfectly innocuous things.

Long time though. How's life coming along.

Very interesting.

Before i make any comments let me place a disclaimer: my belief is that bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect and dignity and no presumptions should be made regarding the effect of actions taken on such bodies: in other words we should not presume that since sich persons are dead, acting on their corpses would be harmless. I believe that we should not make such a presumption because we simply have insufficient knowledge regarding the phenomenon of death and its effects on consciousness as to be able to arrive at a concrete or certain position in that regard.

Having said that: let us assume, only for the sake of principled debate (in order to set out the boundaries of morality lucidly) - let us assume - that the dead body - is what it appears to be - a completely lifeless vessel that has no effect whatsoever on either the soul that inhabited it, or its evironment.

If this assumption were to hold true - would it be immoral to engage in such as is described in the OP? Would it be any more immoral than carrying out similar acts against equally lifeless pillows or cushions?

I ask this question in light of the understanding of morality which comes from the point of view of doing nothing to harm any other person. Does the act described in the OP harm any other person?

If something harms no other person, can it be said to be immoral?

Blood for remission of sins?

Ah well, I have renounced such contentions.

You will find that fierce and vigorous debate is most unwelcome on this board. Just as surely as a people get the leadership they deserve, so surely do boards such as this one merit the quality of posts and posters that attend to them.

God cannot cease to exist even if it wanted to.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=800637.msg10008899#msg10008899 date=1327075266]Any person who gives a child a cosmological lecture on Trinity at 3-6 years in my view does not understand the concept. There is evolution in learning both in material and spiritual things. That is why in our school system, you have pre-primary school, primary, high school, undergraduate, and graduate school. A teacher who starts to discuss the cellular and molecular basis of embryo-genesis and reproductive biology when a five year old child asks how he came to this world is either incompetent or has no knowledge of embryo-genesis or reproductive biology. Why will I teach primary school students the same lecture that I give to graduate students. Is a man who tells a four year old child that an empty cup of tea is empty lying when he tells the same child at 16 years that nature abhors vacuum and that indeed an empty cup of tea is not really empty but contains various gases and microorganisms? Any person who passes spiritual or intellectual information that is far beyond the capacity of the recipient is the person that is causing harm. Try teach calculus to normal 3-6 year old and report your findings.[/quote]This totally zooms in on the point perfectly - especially the bolded!

^ I think the sticking point is about the question as to what age is appropriate for more advanced discourses on such matters with one's offspring - in a context where both parents have very strongly differing views on religion.

Aside this, I am certain neither Nwankwo nor myself advocated lies or pretenses.

I really thought I had seen the worst of the character called Beaf. Not so. It is amazing that he states that these probes vindicate him - even after he had serially condemned the protests and uproar which forced the probes as being worthless protests. This gentleman went so far as to issue vulgar insults to protesters, calling them lazy and unpatriotic "phuckers." There is no doubt that that very uproar and the protests are the singular reason we have all the probes and facts flying around now. And yet this gentleman claims "vindication."

I am certain that till the day that I die, I will never come across a more shameless case of rabid dishonesty.

Whatever thoughtless insult you will issue as a response to this post is duly noted beforehand, so please don't bother.

^^^ Wonderfully conveyed and entirely agreed.

Nigerian unions may have agreed to suspend strike action and call off protests after the government partially caved into demands for the restoration of the longstanding fuel subsidy. But President Goodluck Jonathan is not out of the woods yet.
One unintended consequence of his ineptly-handled decision to remove the subsidy (before persuading the public that he can deliver improved services and better livelihoods), has been to galvanise Nigerians into taking issue with a far broader range of wasteful government habits.

The most egregious of these are now all over Nigerian websites, black berry messenger groups and twitter feeds together with detailed examination of the 2012 budget. The public is taking issue with everything from the president’s food allowance and government travel budgets to the cost of planting shrubs at the Aso rock presidential villa in Abuja.

Civil society groups are also demanding an account of how the fuel subsidy more than doubled last year to a staggering $8bn, without there being a corresponding increase in petroleum products on the market. They want punitive action taken against those fuel importers and officials found to have fleeced the public purse.

Diezani Alison-Madueke, the petroleum minister, pledged a review on Sunday night. If this is conducted properly it could be very uncomfortable both for her and for Mr Jonathan. It would likely expose closely-associated officials and businesspeople – some of them contributors to the ruling People’s Democratic Party election campaigns last year.

The lifting of the fuel subsidy has caused an eruption of anger because it has forced the price of transport and food up and hit the poor in their pocket. But it has also infuriated the public because of the perception that the very people who abused it last year for their own ends are now forcing the public to pay the cost.

Western economists such as Paul Collier writing in the FT and Jeffrey Sachs in the NYT, who leapt in to defend the economic logic of removing the subsidy seem to have misunderstood the nature of the debate and misread the public mood.

The protests gathered momentum, and paralysed the economy not just because of the rise in petrol prices but because of a much broader impatience with government corruption and waste. Below are just a few of the demands made in a draft charter written at the weekend by Civil Society groups, including Occupy Nigeria which has been at the forefront of protests, demanding more comprehensive reform: .

- A return to the pump price for petrol of N65.

- Independent investigation, publication and prosecution of the N1.6 trillion ($9.92bn) payment for petroleum subsidy in 2011, and recovery of at least N1 trillion suspected to be fraud.

- Negotiate with all stakeholders a roadmap for the full deregulation of the downstream oil and gas sector with clear timelines.

- Enact the original, undiluted version of the Petroleum Industry Bill into law within 3 months.

- Explain how the N1.1 trillion deficit in the budget will be financed.

- Reduce the National Assembly budget of N159 billion to not more than N50 billion

- Eliminate or reduce wasteful spending proposals on various security votes, welfare packages, food, vehicles, furniture, software, research and development, travel, etc.

- Reduce recurrent portion of the overall budget to not more than 60%.

- The voluntary donation of 50% of the salaries and allowances of all political office holders in the executive and legislative branches of the government

- Reduction in the number of ministers to 37 – one for each state and the FCT.

Mr Jonathan has been wrong-footed by the unions and his credibility as a champion of the “common man” substantially damaged. But if he is serious about the “transformation” he promised in last year’s election campaigns, he now has a platform to push it through. Nigerians have been united, in a way not seen the dark days of military rule in the 1990s, into demanding more accountable and effective government.

“My worry is that they are not really ready to do all these things they are now saying they are going to do. But they are going to be under a lot of pressure,” says a consultant close to government.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2012/01/nigerian-subsidy-crisis-opens-window-of-opportunity/#axzz1jf08bzGG

dare2think:
@Deepsight

I have always shared the same with you view with regards to spouse/child indoctrination until I came across Nwakwo's post above. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in letting your child know about one's certain reservations with regards to the spouse's religion rather than letting him/her have full control of the child's religious upbringing.

As I said earlier, I very much agree with the general idea of what Nwankwo wrote, but there are very serious reservations. Consider this.

Children are new minds in this world and that which they are taught at formative stages in my mind needs primarily to give them a well centred and stable view of the world and their existence. In an ideal world, one would not be forced to make these sorts of delicate compromises: one would simply teach one's child as one sees fit: but the intricate compromises of marriage and the imperative of ensuring a balanced and stable development for the child necessitate certain well balanced compromises. I will elucidate.

You may know that children are very perceptive. A child easily senses which parent is more permissive and which parent is more strict. Thus as children when we wanted a sugary treat, or permission to play outdoors, we always knew which parent would be more inclined to grant our request. Children therefore are very adept at playing either parent against each other: a child psychologist will tell you that children in this regard can be very manipulative indeed.

Because of this, it is critical that the parents tend to speak with a united voice when they direct their children.

Once a child can detect a splintered view between the parents he will most likely exploit it or in many cases simply become either confused or misdirected: lacking a conviction or grounding in the views advanced by either parent. This is the very simple reason that conventional wisdom dictates that parents should not disagree with one another in the presence of the child. For this reason, traditional parenting methods recognise that if the child is being disciplined by one parent - in the event that the other parent does not approve of the discipline, he or she should not reproach his/ her partner at that point (save of course in the case of physical abuse) - but should take the issue up with his or her partner privately and away from the child. This serves to maintain the authourity that both parents have over the child - for if the reproach is done before the child, such a child will cease to accept or recognise discipline from that parent, and hold a belief that he can always run to the other parent for succour.

Such is the basic mentality of children vis-à-vis parents which makes it very important that the parents generally tend to speak with one voice in directing or disciplining the child.

Now how is this relevant to the issue of religious/ spiritual upbringing? If I am to unreservedly apply that which M_Nwakwo suggests, there could be dire consequences for the harmony of my home and the mindset of my child.

Let's use a simple example.
The child goes to church with the mother. The child is taught that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for his sins. This is a basic teaching in church. The child returns from church and asks me, his father about this teaching.

It will be very dangerous at that very early stage in the child’s development for me to begin to unreservedly tell the child that which i believe. Because if I do, I will tell him that I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God or that Jesus is God. I will tell the child that I do not believe that Jesus died for his sins. This will create a schism in the mind of the child which I am not sure that children of such tender age can cope with.

When next the child proceeds to church he will do so believing that everything that the church and his mother teaches him are lies. The mother will lose her spiritual authourity over the child, and the child will begin to doubt anything that she teaches him. After all, she teaches him that Jesus is God and that Jesus died for his sins and yet daddy very clearly says that these things are not true.

When the child is called upon to go to church the child may even become resistant. Because he can sense the body language of his father. He can see that his father who he respects so much places no importance on church whatsoever. As the child proceeds along this line it is eminently likely that such a child will become terribly confused about much doctrine and dogma at a very early stage - at a stage in his development where he needn't and shouldn't be concerned with such things but should be singing happy carols and putting together lego games.

Such an approach will serve to evaporate the authourity and cohesion of the parents and create a possibly dysfunctional home at a stage so early in the child’s life that such could become destructive in later years.

I am firmly of the view that all of this is unnecessary. As I have set out in my earlier posts, i believe it would make greater sense to support my partner in the path that we will bring up the child - and gently infuse moderation as the child grows. I do not believe that this will be problematic, for as I said, children are brought up to believe a great many myths - such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc. None of these myths are necessarily harmful but the child will outgrow them. It will be a very cruel parent who is asked about Santa Claus by his 3 - 4 year old and begins to lecture such a child on the fact that Santa is a myth etc etc. Such a parent will deprive the child of his childhood. When the time comes, the child will not need to be told that Santa is a myth.

In much the same way, the basic teachings of the church about God creating man, goodness, salvation and all that will not be harmful to a child. As the child grows, an attentive parent can carefully and subtly direct his mind to greater vistas. A well educated child will grow at all events to ask his own questions on all of these matters. My parents were both firmly christian and this did not stop me from asking my questions when the time was ripe. There is a proper time to begin to address such advanced doctrines with one's off spring. In my view, that time is certainly not in early childhood. I can just imagine the spectre of a child that loses the magic of christmas simply because one of his parents has told him that Jesus was a man like any other, and that he was not even born on Christmas day. What a sad sad child that will be.

The most important thing that remains - and which M_Nwankwo also asserts - is that the child should see living examples of virtue, honesty, charity and love within his parents. These living examples will guide him aright beyond any particular religious affiliation. My father never lectured me on such things, but he was such a shining example of humility and love that it made a huge impact on myself and all my siblings.