AF on Religion & Morals as Constraints on Human Conduct

Guys,

Recently, there was a good piece on The Spearhead about how girls are going absolutely GAGA over Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, aka the Boston Bomber.  The post is good, and I would encourage you all to read it; then the comment that follows will make more sense.  While there were a lot of good comments, a chap by the name of AF nailed it-just nailed it.  Here's his comment, with a thought or two from me...

---------------

This is precisely why “never worship false idols” is such good advice.

I’m not Christian, before anyone starts quoting the Bible at me again, but I can see quite clearly that when culture swapped from worshipping divine and therefore perfect images, e.g. Gods, saints, angels etc, and went instead to worshipping human and therefore flawed creatures, e.g. celebrities, rich people, “hot” members of the opposite sex, everything went to hell.

Part of the social engineering plan of the last 50 years or so has been to scrap religion, and to instead idealise and worship sex, relationships and sexually attractive people, to the extent we are encouraged to see these things as almost mystical, transcendental. The overriding message we hear again and again and again is “hot woman + hot man + hot sex = astonishing transformational happiness.”

There is no longer any emphasis on aspiring to anything higher than base physicality. Man as a spiritual creature with higher ideals has been extinguished. We are taught to find our meaning and higher purpose through other, equally imperfect and flawed, human beings, and it doesn’t work.

What you say about the nature of women is more or less true. But then, men have morally questionable lusts too. Women may be attracted to violent men because violence connotes power, and men may be attracted to 15-year-old girls, because youth connotes fertility. Are either of these things morally impressive? No. But they’re just a fact of life, which make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

The fact human nature can often be base and amoral is really irrelevant. “Nature” is given too much credence where it comes to sex. So we’re attracted to unsuitable people, so what? It doesn’t mean we have to do anything about it. The whole point of civilization and of human intelligence is for people to control and channel natural impulses in a way that is most beneficial to them and to their families, society and culture, This represents what most cultures call morality. Living a moral life is and has always been recognised as hard and a struggle – if it were easy, all the major religions wouldn’t have spent so much time trying to control and enforce it.

This brings us to the vital crux of the situation we’re in now; our culture has become morally insane. We have stopped imposing moral limits on anyone’s behaviour, specifically their sexual behaviour, as this would be “oppressive” and “intolerant”. Instead, we practise and preach ‘safe sex’ – which basically means you can behave as immorally as you like, provided it is sterile and hygienic.

Nobody wants to accept that there is an important dimension to sexual behaviour above and beyond the physical ramifications. Nobody wants to confront the notion that doing whatever you like sexually is not okay and is profoundly destructive, even if you don’t get syphilis or an unwanted kid.

Everyone is terrified of stating: “you shouldn’t do this because it’s wrong”. That’s why unfettered sexual licence shouldn’t exist; not because of unplanned pregnancies, not because of diseases, but because it’s wrong; and a first-class ticket to an unseamed and insane culture.

Ah, but to say that something is wrong is to be 'judgmental', and that's bad.  Never mind the fact that those shouting the 'judgmental' epithet are being judgmental themselves!  Ah, the hypocrisy of libtards never ceases to amaze me...

Other posters have suggested that men used to idealise women to enable them to commit and work hard to support the family. This is absolutely wrong. Men committed to women and supported families because it was widely recognised and understood as being the right thing to do, the moral thing to do. This is the same reason women committed. Plus, both sexes had to demonstrate the skills and practical applications to be a good spouse – a job and means to support a family if you were a man, and homemaking skills if you were a woman. Both parties had to be considered to be “of good character” by the other’s family. People couldn’t get married simply because they thought the other one was “hot” or because they were “in love”, as it is now. They had to prove themselves.

This is was the 'social contract' that once existed...

Can anyone honestly think men in the past never argued with their wives, never got annoyed with them, never lusted after anyone else, even after decades of marriage and several kids? Of course they did. Husbands and wives didn’t idealise each other; that is very much a modern invention, necessary after we scrapped religion and God. Any ancient text, be it religious, philosophical or whatever has elucidated again and again the imperfections of mankind and the imperfect ways in which the sexes relate. The point is to find the arrangements that work best.

As I said, the point isn’t what men and women’s “nature” may or may not be. The point is for society as a whole to set moral standards and expect people to adhere to them, with penalties if they don’t. We have given up setting any moral standards, therefore we have given up having a viable culture based on healthy relations between the sexes.

-----------------

I thought that was good stuff, so I shared it with my readers.  Stay tuned; there are more posts on the way!  Until next time...

MarkyMark