Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is a very interesting discussion. The comment was made that "human beings are just animals" and this is indeed the crux of the matter. If human beings are just animals, just chemicals, just dirt, then there is no absolute foundation for morality. If it feels good, do it is the order of the day. And the very next step is The Big Dog Makes the Rules and if the little dog doesn't like them, too bad.
There is no neutral ground here. Rules and laws are based on morality. The canard of liber(al)tarian philosophy that morality has no place in legislation is false. Laws are based on morality - no lying, no stealing, no assault, no murder, no rape, no kidnapping, etc - all based on morality. What some people object to is sexual morality. They want an "anything goes" society with free rein on behavior and promotion and acceptance of such behavior.
There are several problems with this worldview. One, since no sexual experience is completely gratifying, if sexual behavior is not confined by any traditional (aka "real") morals, then gratification divorced from marriage, commitment, love and family becomes more and more prevalent, and more and more extremes are sought. Sex without love and commitment and family degrades the inviduals and thus society as a whole. And who is the most destroyed by a sexually libertine culture? Children. This is obvious.
So, the world view that "we are just animals" is the offspring of Marx, Freud, Darwin and other "great" materialist thinkers of the last century, and there is a war between their bleak, one dimensional, godless and soulless world view, and the world view of theism.
Make no mistake, there is no neutral ground. Either society is founded upon morality which springs from the great monotheist religions of the world (and I include Hindu scriptures as it is in actuality a monotheist religion, and even Buddhism, since it is also founded originally upon Hindu scripture - but particularly the Judeo-Christian) or it is based on "we're just animals and so The Big Dog Wins".
This explains why the homosexual agenda, the free sex/Planned Parenthood agenda, the evolution must be taught as the Absolute Truth with no mention of any planner agenda, elimination of any prayer or mention of God in public agenda - are being pushed upon society with such vigor. They do not want acceptance, tolerance or even equal time. They want a society of beasts, with all mention of God and His laws hidden in the dark corners, in secret. If we tremble with fear and swallow the lie that that atheism and immorality should be the default cultural standard, then the outcome is going to be a violent saturnalia of perversion, excess, exploitation and death that cannot be imagined.
Yup
Modesty is a virtue and one that is not impossible to attain, especially since Our Lord Himself promised:
"Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." (Mt. 5:8).
Well said, lj.
I don’t think the left really wants a society of “beasts” as you write. They think they are creating a better world by getting rid of all these ridiculous morals that limit human freedom. But the truth is we need a moral code, and the line must be drawn somewhere.
This isn’t a simple black/white situation that people on both sides of the issue seem to be writing. It doesn’t have to be a choice between going “Taliban” or being completely libertine.
I’m a Christian. It’s certainly wrong to be sexually immoral, but the immorality comes from within oneself. One could easily lust after someone who is fully clothed or look innocently at someone who is naked. It’s not what man sees that makes him immoral, it’s the thoughts that come out of his mind.
Personally, I wonder why it’s so difficult to accept a middle ground here. People should behave differently in public than they do at home. Common sense tells me one should lean toward the more conservative approach in public. Although that may upset or offend people who want to do their own thing, whatever that may be, the more libertine members should conform to protect the innocent.
For example: there’s no harm in covering explicit materials, like pornographic magazines. Those who want that material can still obtain it. On the other hand, potential harm can be done to children who are not yet ready to view such things.
Again, I don’t understand why this is such a difficult issue.
We are expecting our first, and it will be a major effort to try to keep my child's innocence as long as possible.
What else can we expect in our society when even among conservatives the most important of all, when it comes to female conservative leaders (obviously not male leaders), is looks?