If you believe in a soul and God, then please read on. If you don’t, then feel free to consider the possibilities.
In the soul we are all the same. We all have the same needs and desires. It’s just the unspiritual have grown calloused to certain spiritual aspects. That’s why God (as Jesus) brought us the Holy Spirit. To heal the soul into something similar of the innocents and purity of a new soul. For Jesus said the kingdom of heaven was that of a child.
In this, God doesn’t want the soul to grow bias toward worldly things, including sex. Sex as an expression of love insures your priorities are about a spiritual connection over physical bodies colliding. Sex is a reward for getting a relationship to work.
Sexual immorality can be defined as a learned behavior rewarded, and reinforced with a biochemical reward. Every time your body goes through cycles, your sexual part of the brain is stimulated; all your sexual memories are brought up. With child molesters and fetishes, your imagination fills the void of a real relationship. And your brain is biasly dominated by perverted thought. You then have to rewire your impulsive reactions to memories you have learned.
Love is a selfless act. We are more worried about our partner then what we get from it. Or just as worried about our partner as yourself (depending on your level of love). In this it is unbias in that your only fetish is your partner.
But the biggest proof against altruism is homosexuality. No proof of that yet.
What other ideology would say that altrueism is wrong???
They have proven that men will have brains like women after taking estrogine pills and testosterone blockers. This will change the sections of the brain in order to make them bigger or smaller. This allows biasness toward gender spacifics allowing them to be a dirrectional force. Thus men and women are different by nature. Love between the sexes forces us to look beyond our bodily differences. Yet CBS news picks the scientists that are willing to say that it’s normal for homosexuals to be bias toward a sexual difference. They even said that homosexuals will come from mothers who have more then one son. That the younger son is exposed to a chemical that gives them antibodies to testosterone. Yet identical twins will have one be gay and one not. To them this means that they don’t yet understand why. Yet… no proof of an antibody haveing this cause and effect in people. And no proof of a selective chemical bathh that would effect one twin or another.
How is this science having bias assumptions. Psychology. Homosexuals are right brain dominate people. Thus their imagination side is dominate. Thus when they grow up, they define themselves in comparison to their older brothers. If their brother is an agressive personality, and they are passive agressive or agressive passive, they will imediatly feel different. Now the mother is more likely a passive personality, thus the child will bond differently with the mother then the brother. Thus they will be emasculated from birth.
Now what cause and effect will homosexual science blame to cause emasculation?.. Well it’s noted that as right brain dominate people they are less likely to be lawyers or mathmatical scientists. They will be theoretical scienists,… witch means they start with an assumption and try to prove it with parrellel facts. So they have noted that homosexuals will have an enlarged audio section of the brain. Well, As right brain dominate people they are likely to have an enlarged auditory section of the brain. Through conditioning, they may develope a photographic like audio memory. It is shown that dislexia is a visual memory that gives them problems with none visual things (math reading). So they probably have an enlarged visual section of the brain. Yet this wasn’t parrelleled to the gay thing because it wasn’t convienant. And just because you like music, it doesn’t mean your gay. So cause and effect isn’t forced by DNA or a chemical bath. It isn’t a choice. It’s a biasness of lifestyle. If you love someone you’d learn to love doing things for them. If you identify yourself with someone, you’ll be sypathetic to them, and be open to doing the things they do. You’d accept them and live bicariously through them. You’d use your imagination to hear them tell stories.
They did a study showing homosexuals react to same sex pharamones. Yet they omited bisexuals from this study. Bisexuals would have shown you can react to both pharamones equally. Yet this would mean a controlled cause and effect. Well did DNA cause your brain to biochemically react to pharamones? Or did you learn to associate pharamones with sex, and release endorphines at that memory. No one knows.
They even noted that homosexual males have extra physical memories in the sexion of the brain that has to do with ?sex? Yet I’m sure this is 100% conditioned. Yet that was never even mentioned. Your willing to admit that the mother can become conditioned to having male children (I’m sure it helps ease the child bearring tolls),… but your unwilling to admit that homosexuals can become conditioned to being homosexual. If you fill your section of the brain with only one kind of memory, then every time you have a sexual impulse, your brain will bring up these memories. Witch brings to subject, homosexuals are more likely to be child molestors then straights (by percent). Witch shows that all it takes is trying it to learn to like it.
One does not have to believe in God to be selfless. In honesty, I would argue that the man who does not believe in any God and is selfless is the greater man than he who is selfless because he believes in God. This is because the man who has no faith has no behavioral, moral, even heavenly restrictions, yet he does it still.
Secondly, to ask the question 'what other reasons are there to deny it' can simply be asked for the opposite as well. What reasons are there to deny selfish behavior? You might choose to answer quickly with your own personal view on what is good and what is bad. To be selfish, in universal truth, is neither less good nor more good than to be selfless. All that is in the earth and in the universe is neutral.
It does not follow from the Theory of Psychological Egoism that love is selfless. I think we’ve got to clearly define ‘love’ before you can make any statements about it. Is it robust concern? Something else?
And one of the reasons why I think the idea of God can be important, because it does often help cultivate these beneficial ideas. Though I do agree that they would be purer if they were rooted in humanity rather than God, but ultimately the difference is slight.
Now, the radical neutrality of the second half of the post is where I will part ways with you. To set everything as neutral is to destroy the conversation. Now, I do think that we create our own meanings, but that doesn’t mean that those created values aren’t important or real – to argue that they aren’t real is as absurd as arguing that polyester isn’t real.
But then if we take it a step further, we have to ask what is meant by us having created those values. In many cases, I think that those values have been instilled in us through our existence as social beings, preceeding even our humanity.
And when you have to trace something that far back to see when it was created, well, I’m not so sure that we can call it ‘neutral’. After all, there seems to be a universal moral code that is inborn. People can lose sight of it, and cultures manifest it in different ways, but there seems to be a universal moral grammar that is encoded in us.
Ideas, morals, opinions, and thoughts - they would all dissapear from the universe if the human race became extinct. These things originate in the mind. They are real to you and me in our civilations, but to the universe, they would not exist without our constant persistance. Each one an intangible opinion.
What is good and bad can only be determined by the mind of each man. There is no universal truth to learn from. These are concepts that we define, individually. I believe the values man has today is a result of the struggle of his ancestors. The ultimate goal of all living things is to survive. For instance, if we all steal from each other, then we will all be angry and kill each other. We cannot survive with this danger. Therefore, stealing is bad. However, in truth, stealing is neither good nor bad. Does a black hole ‘steal’ when it absorbs it’s surroundings? The universe has no interest in such things. We are responsible for deciding all this, and therefore, is subject to the opinion of each man. In our society, rape is bad. However, in a society where females hate men and do not need men to reproduce more females, then rape would be the only way for man to survive. In that situation, in man’s mind, rape is good. In honesty, rape is neither good nor bad. We indentified rape and labeled it, for valid reasons, but the universe and nature has no such values.
All is neutral, we proclaim the rest.
I can agree that we all are born with instinct, however, this is a direct result of the physiological evolution of life on Earth for survivability. A snake, recently hatched and without tutelage or mimicry, will hunt and kill within minutes. I assume this would be the same for any ideological leniances.
I have to ask what isn’t neutral in your situation then? Since we can only know things from a human perspective, what you are arguing is that there can only be neutrality. This includes things like speed of light and the gas constant. This includes things like the sun.
To me, a definition that is so broad-sweeping needn’t be used because it isn’t useful.
Likewise, I am unsure about how it maintains its neutrality after humans have assigned value to it. Ideas like money, or race are terribly arbitrary concepts (the why this and not that has no rhyme or reason), yet they clearly have had an impact on human life and continue to do so today. This concept carries over to something like polyester. Under your system is cotton ‘neutral’ but polyester value-possessive because it was created by humans?
I generally tend to think that human ideas are more like polyester, in that while they may be constructed by man they are as real as any other idea. Especially since a good deal of moral concerns seem to be in-born, further blurring the line between what is an endowment from nature and what is an endowment from man. If such a seperation can even be said to exist (I think you’ll find the answer is that we created one).
If you don’t believe in God and are selfless. Then more power to you. Yet, God can prompt you to work on other areas of your life that you may know nothing about.
As for the secondly… Selfish behavior can be putting yourself above others. SO that you would hurt others to help yourself. Or even hurt yourself for a selfish impulse like drug abuse.
Componets of love are Respect Joy and Trust. To keep love you have to work on those things. To gain love you have to give those things. To fall in love is admiration of their soul’s energy.
Witch latency are you talking about. The latent behavior that makes you hate CHristians. Or the latent behavior that that makes you deny science unless it fits your agenda. Life isn’t easy,… and the truth hurts. Deal with it.
The Holy Spirit heals the soul into the innocents and purity of a new soul. Calousness toward love is the biggest problem in all gaps in understanding eachother. Or even understanding God.
The soul gives us feelings that prompt us to take action.
The hate of pain tells us to stop pain when brought on by others.
I assume you are Christian. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Why must God threaten all of mankind with punishment and suffering if we deny to worship him?
If I were God, I would be loving, compassionate at all times. I would not threaten the men who do not believe in me with eternal suffering and punishment. I would shrug my shoulders and say, “well, you have the right to believe what you want” It seems God is quite arrogant and jealous.
Why does he become angry?
I can point you to the most calm and wise men on this planet. They will forgive you and understand your human frailty. You would not be able to arouse their anger and they would denounce vengeance. However, God becomes quite angry and vengeful.
It appears that God is quite human. If you study how God behaves in the Bible, it becomes obvious that the mind of a man created it.
Ask God to exstingish your soul. Then maybe you’ll prove your point. The fact I feel pain is enough. To like pain to become calous toward the void of pain and therefore love.
You have given a mute point because life is real, and the void of life is the void of debate. It’ll naver happen. Plus there is evidence of the soul. So the soul is real past life. Yet isn’t physical but has physical side effects. At least that’s where the evidence points.
So to kill the souls energy would be to create what???
Individually we put our perspective on universal truth. Yet this means our perspective is limited,… hence the need for God.
pain is bad because it hurts. They killed in order to steal. The lose of a loved one invited emotional pain that wasn’t imagined.
all energy is recreated into another energy. Therefore isn’t stolen but changed.
I bet he’d hate the fact he had to rape, and longed for a better way.
rape is to ignore another persons rights for your own desires and therefore is bad. I defined what they did and then it helped me see it was bad. They created the energy of pain.
Neutral is no effect.
Hunger drives us to eat. Yet what drives us to love???
Scientific explanation. When you die, your energy is absorbed by your surroundings. Just as when you were growing in your mother’s womb, she ate food filled with energy (all originating from the Sun) and you absorbed it into you. You are a collection of energy from everything you ate and everything you have done. When you die, you give it back. Energy cannot be destroyed… this is how I see it.