Sex

[2ndRateMind]

Having got your attention by nefarious means, I am not entirely going to disappoint you!

This thread has something to do with sex, even if not a lot.

Do you think sexual morality (eg., sex outside of marriage) is more important than economic morality (eg., people dieing of poverty) ? Or less important, or equally important? And in any case, why?

Thanks for your insights, 2RM.

[Matchmaker]

Personal morality is a choice you can make and something that you have total control over. You can't stop most people in other countries from dying of hunger because you can't control what your donations are used for once they leave your hands. One concern you have control over, the other you don't, but it is still good to try to make a difference in decreasing world hunger when you have resources to give.

[davedan]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-poverty ... 1445986205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Wall Street Journal says getting married would make the biggest difference on poverty than any other thing.

Immorality in society creates poverty.

[Cherish]

As I've grown older and lived & learned a bit, I see sexual morality becoming less of an urgent issue due to so many modern contraceptive options available. In the past, religions & conservative societies placed so much emphasis on sexual morality for the sake of the children being born. Best to be born in a loving, solid family than to be born accidentally, and unwanted, and cared for poorly.

Now we have birth control options. There are fewer unwanted children in the developed world, fewer orphans, fewer in foster care, and greater TLC being provided for all children these days.

So in your arbitrary contest between two very different matters, I'll play along and say that economic morality is a more pressing issue than sexual morality. Because the only bandaids for economic immorality are lying, cheating, bankruptcy, and prison time. Not as easy as birth control :p

[zionminded]

See my thread "What is Sin" I just posted it.

[Fiannan]

As I've grown older and lived & learned a bit, I see sexual morality becoming less of an urgent issue due to so many modern contraceptive options available. In the past, religions & conservative societies placed so much emphasis on sexual morality for the sake of the children being born. Best to be born in a loving, solid family than to be born accidentally, and unwanted, and cared for poorly.

Checked the rates of sexually transmitted diseases lately? Are you aware that the birthrates of Europe and the USA are dangerously low?

Now we have birth control options. There are fewer unwanted children in the developed world, fewer orphans, fewer in foster care, and greater TLC being provided for all children these days.

Yada, yada, yada. Prove it. Also your comment could be construed to be racist. Are you saying that a mother in Honduras with five kids loves her kids less than a white career woman with one?

So in your arbitrary contest between two very different matters, I'll play along and say that economic morality is a more pressing issue than sexual morality. Because the only bandaids for economic immorality are lying, cheating, bankruptcy, and prison time. Not as easy as birth control :p

[/quote]

Many children today are born without knowing who their father is. How is that fair? Many kids wind up aborted. So much for sexual immorality and then covering it up by killing a kid in the womb.

[Dash jones]

Personally, I think they are equally important.

In the New Testament we are constantly reminded of how the poor are the ones that are truly righteous as opposed to the rich and powerful (Pharisees, Scribes, Lawyers, etc). It is pointed out time and time again in the LDS scriptures how one needs to care for the poor and a truly Christlike civilization is one where there are no poor. I think what it boils down to is whether one truly has charity (the true love of Christ) or whether they are not one in Charity.

I suppose one way to view it is the first two greatest commandments. Morality shows a love of self and the Lord. Charity shows a love of the Lord and others. Both show your love of the Lord. Charity envelops both the first and second commandments.

In addition, many of those who feel that morality is needed, but charity for the poor is not violate several other items of the Beatitudes and Sermons when they say the poor bring it on themselves, or the poor are lazy, or the poor are not worthy. They violate the idea of not calling your brother Raca, or forgetting who the Beatitudes bless vs. those who the Beatitudes don't bless (normally it's NOT the middle class or rich that are called out as Blessed in the Sermons and Beatitudes...just a heads up).

Too often we forget that these are both important items. How we care for the poor and needy are directly reflective upon how Christlike we are as a society. I believe it also reflects how Christlike one is as a person. You can be perfectly chaste, which is good, but if you lack the Charity that shows your love of the Lord and others...it is missing the point.

I think this is demonstrated in the US two party system too often. People view the Democrats as evil but the Republicans as good. This is seen due to the Democrats pushing immorality, but ignoring that the Republicans ignore OTHER parts of the Law that are just as equally important. This is not as I've seen it, and it actually a rather great fallacy. The Democrats are evil in that they push the lack of morality, the lack of chastity, and the acceptance of sin in their party values. The Republicans are evil in that they push the utter lack of charity, caring, and despise the poor whilst upholding and worshipping the rich. Both are evil in how they conduct themselves and neither is truly representative of what the Bible would have us do.

The Republicans cater towards religious audiences more, but in some ways I see them leading many astray. What would be needed perhaps in the US are other parties, one where democrat and republicans come together to form a new party which has morality as a centerpiece, but also Charity as one, and freedom (as the US constitution shows) in regards to religion and other aspects that seem to slowly be disappearing in the US as paramount to it's ideals.

At least that's what my thoughts are, that both are important and you really shouldn't ignore one just to focus on the other.

[gclayjr]

2ndateMind,

The nice thing about "Economic Morality" is that it can mean anything, or nothing. It more often than not is a POLITICAL term to use the misfortunes of our fellow men to promote an evil totalitarian dogma.

Is following the 10 commandments important including Do Not commit Adultery important? ... yes

Is following Jesus' command to love one another important? ... yes

But since "Economic Morality" is often a dodge to moralize a political philosophy, I challenge 2nRateMind to give a clear definition of "Economic Morality", then let's determine how much to wager that it is actually political moralization.

Regards,

George Clay

[setyourselffree]

It really all about different positions. Some like to be on top of things economically speaking. While some like to be on the bottom sexually speaking of course.

[Fiannan]

Most people ignore that the Parable of the Talents is an economic allegory.

The guy that does not want to take risks winds up with his little account confiscated and given to the one who did.

[Teancum]

Now we have birth control options. There are fewer unwanted children in the developed world, fewer orphans, fewer in foster care, and greater TLC being provided for all children these days.

<SARC>Yes, much greater TLC with a hole drilled into the skull and a vacuum applied, or chemically "gassed" with poisons etc. Its only because we have greater TLC that they get stabbed with a coat-hanger. X( </SARC>

In my view, which counts only for those who cheer this view also (let you figure out who that might be), it boils down to agency.

The war in heaven was over agency (ability and power to choose), which war continues today. Father proposed that we be given agency, and lucifer sought to take away the agency of man. Becuase of the seriousness of his two faced choices (desiring to use his agency to rob all of Father's children of theirs), he and his followers were cast out of Heaven.
When a life (individual) is created through sex, there is one of Father's spirit children given the opportunity to express that agency and learn to use it in this mortal probation. Because of the factors of having direct control over someone-else's agency, some of the most serious of sins become murder and sexual transgressions.
Those sins rob or seriously hamper an individual (child of God) of their ability to utilize their agency and those sins then directly support or side with the efforts of the devil and his followers.

Anything economic we do is seconary to these, in my view, becasue it really has a bearing most upon ourselves and our own agency, not so much on another's. Yes, there are economic implications that do extend to many lives being lost or ended prematurely, but because economic actions do not immediately cease the useage of agency, they are not as horrendous.

[zionminded]

Sex has been used as a weapon by churches and religions over many hundreds of years (if not longer). Look at how muslim women are treated.

There is nothing wrong with Sex.. there is something wrong with the misuse of sex (let me count the ways).

We're talking about sins of commission vs sins of omission by enlarge. If you have an affair, and destroy your family, that's pretty hurtful, and "bad". If don't do your part of donating money to a charity to take care of the poor, that's bad too, but not nearly as much, if at all, though you're missing a good opportunity there.

If you are 40 years old, and not married and sleeping with your fiancee, that's not nearly as bad, and frankly, not bad at all really IMO, UNLESS: you've made temple covenants to not do that. So there is a broad range of problems.

In short there are violations of covenants, then there are the telestial standards.

Now that's the fast version (and WAY to brief).

[2ndRateMind]

2ndateMind,

The nice thing about "Economic Morality" is that it can mean anything, or nothing. It more often than not is a POLITICAL term to use the misfortunes of our fellow men to promote an evil totalitarian dogma.

Is following the 10 commandments important including Do Not commit Adultery important? ... yes

Is following Jesus' command to love one another important? ... yes

But since "Economic Morality" is often a dodge to moralize a political philosophy, I challenge 2nRateMind to give a clear definition of "Economic Morality", then let's determine how much to wager that it is actually political moralization.

Regards,

George Clay

Dear George,

I assure you I am not trying to promote any evil totalitarian dogma! (You should know me better than that, by now). As for your challenge; why, I would say that any wealthy person, who cannot bring themselves to part with some portion of their wealth, even to save a life, loves their money more than they love their neighbour, and is therefore guilty of 'economic sin'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[butterfly]

From the church's standpoint, it seems they would say that sexual morality is more important because you can get excommunicated for having sex outside of marriage but I've never heard of anyone getting excommunicated for not giving to the poor.
However, if you look at the scriptures, it seems the Lord talks more about the serious obligation we have to care for the poor more than He address sexual purity.

[zionminded]

In general that's true, but some sexual sins for the individual can really harm you.

[Fiannan]

From the church's standpoint, it seems they would say that sexual morality is more important because you can get excommunicated for having sex outside of marriage but I've never heard of anyone getting excommunicated for not giving to the poor.
However, if you look at the scriptures, it seems the Lord talks more about the serious obligation we have to care for the poor more than He address sexual purity.

And yet in the days of Jesus they still stoned people for sexual immorality but not for giving to the poor.

Also, poor is a relative term.

And as for guilt, the whole "Why aren't you giving more?" irritates me. Guilt is evil and can cause far more harm than good. Also, ingratitude is one of the worst forms of disrespect for God. If people feel guilty for what they have then that is showing contempt for God's blessings in life. It is recognition of that which then people can extend a helping hand in a true godly sense.

[Dash jones]

From the church's standpoint, it seems they would say that sexual morality is more important because you can get excommunicated for having sex outside of marriage but I've never heard of anyone getting excommunicated for not giving to the poor.
However, if you look at the scriptures, it seems the Lord talks more about the serious obligation we have to care for the poor more than He address sexual purity.

And yet in the days of Jesus they still stoned people for sexual immorality but not for giving to the poor.

Also, poor is a relative term.

And as for guilt, the whole "Why aren't you giving more?" irritates me. Guilt is evil and can cause far more harm than good. Also, ingratitude is one of the worst forms of disrespect for God. If people feel guilty for what they have then that is showing contempt for God's blessings in life. It is recognition of that which then people can extend a helping hand in a true godly sense.

And as you can see, they also crucified their Lord. I'm no so certain using their rules for stoning people in his days is the best example, especially when we consider the woman caught in adultery.

Remember what he stated were the greatest commandments. He did not say, you shall be chaste...He said they were to love the lord and love your neighbor as yourself.

Now being chaste is VERY important. I am not trying to decrease the importance of it at all. I think it is a very significant thing, but I think we are missing that it is not the ONLY important thing. I think one needs to be chaste, but that is not the end of it, nor is it even the complete idea.

Jesus was all about forgetting your money and relying on the Lord instead. Money was seen more as that for the world (Caesar's) than anything dealing with Heaven. Those who were to be his servants were to basically not worry about money (inclusive of apostles...and that rich man who couldn't do without), but to rely on him. He constantly ragged on those who were rich and who did not help the poor, and instead would go to the poor and needy in his preaching.

It's not guilt...but the fact that even the LDS scriptures state that there should be no poor among you (and there are PLENTY of Poor LDS Mormons...along with poor Christians for that matter...and Catholics obviously). Mosiah speaks rather significantly on what riches should be used for, and what you should do upon meeting the beggar (something many would refuse to do these days...I myself am probably guilty of the same so yes...that would make me a hyporcrite...if I were Mormon...or even as a Catholic as the New Testament basically says the same thing).

The Jews lived the Old Covenant. We are to live the New covenant (or with Mormons the lower and higher laws). Chastity IS VERY important...don't get me wrong...however...sometimes the focus is so much on chastity that we forget that there are other equally important laws out there.

The worship of money (idolatry) in the West is at an all time high, and we seek to justify our love of it so much that we reason why the poor deserve to be poor (despite the words of Christ, and remember also, that he himself appears to have been living the life of poverty in the New Testament [though it is not proof that he actually WAS poor, they could have been rich but living as the poor, they had a boat afterall...but at the same time, even with the ability to use a boat they must have lacked some money as Judas was willing to sell out for a mere 30 pieces of silver] and urged those of his closest followers to forsake money in their preaching.

Interestingly enough, for those who see parallels between his life and our lives...the one that actually controlled the money, the one that handled it and managed it was the one who betrayed him.

I think we try to make excuses (that includes me) of why we don't give as we should to the poor and why we are justified. However, what if Christ were one of those asking for food or shelter for the night or day? Would we simply say, they get what they deserve? Or would we rush to try to give him that food and shelter that he needed?

If you would rush to help him, or that is your answer, remember that if you do it to the least of these you have done it unto him.

[2ndRateMind]

And yet in the days of Jesus they still stoned people for sexual immorality but not for [not*] giving to the poor.

Indeed, they did. How wrong can you be? How much do we need the Messiah?

Also, poor is a relative term.

Not necessarily. One can be absolutely poor, and many are. They have so little money they cannot feed their children, or educate them. They cannot afford medicine, to cure their ills. They have only dirty, contaminated water to drink, and nowhere secure to house themselves. These are all absolute measures of poverty, not relative, and they need resolving, or we are not Christian, at all, just pretending to the name.

And as for guilt, the whole "Why aren't you giving more?" irritates me. Guilt is evil and can cause far more harm than good. Also, ingratitude is one of the worst forms of disrespect for God. If people feel guilty for what they have then that is showing contempt for God's blessings in life. It is recognition of that which then people can extend a helping hand in a true godly sense.

God gives, and so should we. Giving is not contempt for God's blessings, but the recognition of them, and the natural expression of that recognition, as you say. But if you don't give, or give ungenerously and reluctantly, and feel guilt, well, I would see that as a deserved manifestation of conscience. I cannot help wondering, sometimes, if the republican distaste for an egalitarian distribution of wealth is no more the psychological denial of this guilt, and the republican desire to control other people's sex lives is not the manifestation of an uneasy conscience misdirecting and diverting from the more moral, economic, cause, for purely mercenary, acquisitive reasons.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*edited for clarity of meaning

[Fiannan]

I cannot help wondering, sometimes, if the republican distaste for an egalitarian distribution of wealth is no more the psychological denial of this guilt, and the republican desire to control other people's sex lives is not the manifestation of an uneasy conscience misdirecting and diverting from the more moral, economic, cause, for purely mercenary, acquisitive reasons.

Ah yes, the egalitarian distribution of wealth. Sorry, that only works in small groups of people who have a shared ideological or religious ideal. It did not work very long for BF Skinner's "Walden" groups and can not work on a macro-economic scale unless you force people to be good by the barrel of a gun, and we know what entity supported that in the pre-existence, don't we?

Guilt? Why should I feel guilt for what God has given me or my family? I have no uneasy conscience, in fact I give thanks to God every day for what He has blessed me with. And look, too much empathy is a dangerous thing, as is inflicting yourself with guilt.

As for sex, the underpinnings of a successful society are adequate waste disposal and a social network that supports marriage and family and thus reproduction. The former reduces pathogens that could threaten the health of the society and the latter is required or the people die out. Sexual license destroys the mental and physical attributes of people that are necessary for pairing off of men and women and those same men and women being willing to sacrifice for the betterment of their children.


2ndRateMind, where do you get your assumptions anyway, Slate and Alternet?

[2ndRateMind]

Ah yes, the egalitarian distribution of wealth. Sorry, that only works in small groups of people who have a shared ideological or religious ideal.

We don't actually know this, because the voluntary redistribution of wealth has never been tried on an international scale.

Guilt? Why should I feel guilt for what God has given me or my family? I have no uneasy conscience, in fact I give thanks to God every day for what He has blessed me with.

I am truly glad you are blessed, and know that for truth.

Sexual license destroys the mental and physical attributes of people that are necessary for pairing off of men and women and those same men and women being willing to sacrifice for the betterment of their children.

And your evidence for this assertion might be...?

Believe me, I am not against anyone sacrificing anything for the betterment of their children. I just wonder what the objective difference between our own children, and other people's children, actually is. Do you think God sees them differently? Do you think any sacrifice you make on behalf of some African or Asian child will be penalised by God, come the end of days?

2ndRateMind, where do you get your assumptions anyway, Slate and Alternet?

Never heard of either of them.

Cheers, 2RM

[Fiannan]

We don't actually know this, because the voluntary redistribution of wealth has never been tried on an international scale.

Tell you what, you go first. Yeah, sell everything and give the money to the poor. But then don't ask the rest of us to bail you out when you are without.

And your evidence for this assertion might be...?

Psychology and history. Don't they teach these things in whatever courses you might have taken?

Believe me, I am not against anyone sacrificing anything for the betterment of their children. I just wonder what the objective difference between our own children, and other people's children, actually is.

Well, help your own toddler change his clothes and that is okay. Help the neighbor's child change and you go to jail.

Do you think God sees them differently? Do you think any sacrifice you make on behalf of some African or Asian child will be penalised by God, come the end of days?

We are given our individual responsibilities and those come first. Would you not prioritize your own children? If not, please, make an appointment at a nearby clinic and make sure you won't have any children in the future.

Never heard of either of them.

You haven't? Then do you rely on Colbert and The Daily Show for your "information?"

[2ndRateMind]

We don't actually know this, because the voluntary redistribution of wealth has never been tried on an international scale.

Tell you what, you go first. Yeah, sell everything and give the money to the poor. But then don't ask the rest of us to bail you out when you are without.

here's the link to my proposals

And your evidence for this assertion might be...?

Psychology and history. Don't they teach these things in whatever courses you might have taken?

And which study, and which text? Or, do you think the whole canon somehow relevant to the question?

We are given our individual responsibilities and those come first. Would you not prioritize your own children? If not, please, make an appointment at a nearby clinic and make sure you won't have any children in the future.

Well, it won't surprise you, I'm sure, to learn that I have no children. So, while I can understand your favour for your own blood offspring, I do not share it for any rug-rat of my own. Consequently, I can take an impartial view of humanity, and humanity's children, such that they each seem equally precious, to me.

You haven't? Then do you rely on Colbert and The Daily Show for your "information?"

No, never heard of these, either. I do listen to the BBC, on the radio, often enough, though. And I was educated (despite my best efforts!) as a Christian, in my youth. So it is from these sources my philosophies are derived.

Cheers, 2RM

[Fiannan]

Well, it won't surprise you, I'm sure, to learn that I have no children. So, while I can understand your favour for your own blood offspring, I do not share it for any rug-rat of my own. Consequently, I can take an impartial view of humanity, and humanity's children, such that they each seem equally precious, to me.

You realize how dangerous your views (and that of this gal) are? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edj8Z_mdvw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Sure, psychopaths have done a lot of damage over the centuries but people with a I-know-what-is-best-for-everyone-and-I'm-here-to-help have been responsible for much more suffering and carnage.

[2ndRateMind]

I am not sure of the point you are seeking to challenge, with your accusation that my views are dangerous. Quite how the idea that all children are precious translates to subversion requires some explanation, I think. How you think this attitude might degenerate into suffering and carnage is lost on me. Perhaps you merely wish to distract attention from the status quo, whereby many less fortunate children of absolutely poor parents are malnourished and vulnerable to death by preventable conditions like diarrhoea, malaria and TB. This situation is no mere danger; it is reality, and reality now.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Fiannan]

I am not sure of the point you are seeking to challenge, with your accusation that my views are dangerous. Quite how the idea that all children are precious translates to subversion requires some explanation, I think. How you think this attitude might degenerate into suffering and carnage is lost on me. Perhaps you merely wish to distract attention from the status quo, whereby many less fortunate children of absolutely poor parents are malnourished and vulnerable to death by preventable conditions like diarrhoea, malaria and TB. This situation is no mere danger; it is reality, and reality now.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Collectivist ideas are dangerous. It always ends badly.