Trying to eliminate guilt

[Carico]

Since the late 60's when the sexual revolution began, humans have tried to justify it by claiming that if we don't act on our feelings we are repressed. that's simply a bogus rationalization for undisciplined behavior and a license to act out. Secular psychologists have encouraged this licentiousness by coining the term "repression." But all repression is is a smoke screen for trying to eliminate guilt.

The problem is, that the capacity for guilt is what's called a conscience. No guilt, no admission of wrongdoing, np conscience. But since the secular world denies Christ, then there's no place to put their guilt. So they try to get rid of it. That has caused the following;

1) Confusion over what's right, wrong, moral and immoral, true or false

2) The ability to sanction killing unborn babies with no more conscience than killing a gnat

3) Denying that an unborn baby is a human being

4) A lack of understanding of self-respect and respecting authority

5) Trying to redefine marriage so that it has now become nothing more than a legal contract for sexual services

6) Confusing lust with love

7) Allowing our children to do anything they want, including killing their unborn babies to avoid responsibility for their sexual behavior

8) Justifying pedophilia. The "Hate Crimes" Bill that just passed the House voted down an amendment that would keep pedophilia illegal.

9) Rewarding illegal aliens for entering our country illegally

And many more licentious behaviors. Does society care? Not in the least. Most people don't know why the above are wrong because society is losing its conscience.

[McCulloch]

Confusion over what's right, wrong, moral and immoral, true or false

Ethics is a confusing and difficult subject. Epistemology is also confusing and difficult. If you do not find this to be so, then you are not looking deeply enough and you accept overly simplistic answers.

A lack of understanding of self-respect and respecting authority

Americans gave up their claim to respect authority when they rebelled against the God given authority of King George.

Trying to redefine marriage so that it has now become nothing more than a legal contract for sexual services

Yes, the original definition of marriage is more like a bill of sale, the wife being sold to the bridegroom by the father.

Confusing lust with love

I have no confusion here. However, the current Christian purity movement does. Their message, "Save yourself for marriage" implies that girl's total self worth is contained in their sexual choices.

[Carico]

Ethics is a confusing and difficult subject. Epistemology is also confusing and difficult. If you do not find this to be so, then you are not looking deeply enough and you accept overly simplistic answers.

It's only confusing without God because without God, man's sinful nature has no clue what's right and wrong, moral and immoral. Without God, man wants to justify his desires like lust, greed, pride, etc. And that's exactly what's happening in society to an ever-increasing degree, even to the point of killing babies. Most people don't know what marriage is, when life begins, or that a pregnant woman is carrying another human life inside her. So man is confused even about the most elementary things without God. That alone proves that man is not a moral creature without God.

[bernee51]

Ethics is a confusing and difficult subject. Epistemology is also confusing and difficult. If you do not find this to be so, then you are not looking deeply enough and you accept overly simplistic answers.

It's only confusing without God because without God, man's sinful nature has no clue what's right and wrong, moral and immoral.

I am without god and I certainly have an understanding of what is considered right and wrong.

Without God, man wants to justify his desires like lust, greed, pride, etc.

I recognise these as unskilful actions that lead to suffering – no god required.

And that's exactly what's happening in society to an ever-increasing degree, even to the point of killing babies.

Yes – killing babies is definitely a ‘wrong’

Most people don't know what marriage is, when life begins, or that a pregnant woman is carrying another human life inside her.

‘Most people’? On what do you base this claim?

All you seem to do in your posts is make claims you cannot support.

So man is confused even about the most elementary things without God.

Man has invented many concepts of god. Why is yours right?

Why do you reject the Krishna? He is mentioned in the Bhagavad-Gita.

That alone proves that man is not a moral creature without God.

No it doesn’t – all it does is show why you believe as you do.

[McCulloch]

Ethics is a confusing and difficult subject. Epistemology is also confusing and difficult. If you do not find this to be so, then you are not looking deeply enough and you accept overly simplistic answers.

It's only confusing without God because without God, man's sinful nature has no clue what's right and wrong, moral and immoral.

You are correct to the degree that a belief in a God and a belief that you possess the authorized communication from God, provides an ethical short-cut. Believers in divinely revealed religions don't have to do any deep analysis or thinking about the fundamentals of ethics. I is written is their starting point. But even with that unwarranted short-cut, their religion does not always provide guidance. For example, there is a rather famous set of thought experiments involving tracks, switches, runaway trams, bridges, a fat man and groups of people in the path of said runaway tram. One rather interesting result of this study is that the answers to these hypothetical ethical dilemmas are not significantly different between those who profess to believe in the revealed God of the Bible and those who do not.

However, you have failed to address my second, and perhaps more important point. Epistemology. It is a long word representing a difficult topic seldom addressed adequately by believers in God's revelation. How do you know what you know? Why do you believe that God has inspired the Bible?

[cnorman18]

Since the late 60's when the sexual revolution began, humans have tried to justify it by claiming that if we don't act on our feelings we are repressed. that's simply a bogus rationalization for undisciplined behavior and a license to act out. Secular psychologists have encouraged this licentiousness by coining the term "repression." But all repression is is a smoke screen for trying to eliminate guilt.

The problem is, that the capacity for guilt is what's called a conscience. No guilt, no admission of wrongdoing, np conscience. But since the secular world denies Christ, then there's no place to put their guilt. So they try to get rid of it. That has caused the following;

1) Confusion over what's right, wrong, moral and immoral, true or false

2) The ability to sanction killing unborn babies with no more conscience than killing a gnat

3) Denying that an unborn baby is a human being

4) A lack of understanding of self-respect and respecting authority

5) Trying to redefine marriage so that it has now become nothing more than a legal contract for sexual services

6) Confusing lust with love

7) Allowing our children to do anything they want, including killing their unborn babies to avoid responsibility for their sexual behavior

8) Justifying pedophilia. The "Hate Crimes" Bill that just passed the House voted down an amendment that would keep pedophilia illegal.

9) Rewarding illegal aliens for entering our country illegally

And many more licentious behaviors. Does society care? Not in the least. Most people don't know why the above are wrong because society is losing its conscience.

Your posts seem to be based entirely on (1) arrogant pontification on what is right and wrong on various subjects, including the interpretation of Scripture; (2) gross ignorance of the subjects you presume to pontificate upon; and (3) an apparent claim of the ability to read minds - i.e., stating baldly and with no hint of justification what others want, think, intend and hope.

Your baseline assumptions seem to be that you know the mind of God and absolutely have the right to speak infallibly and correctly for Him; that you know the minds of all other humans as well; that anyone who claims to think differently is a lying hypocrite; and that you are absolutely right about everything in every respect, and are obligated to do no more than repeat your infallibly correct opinion to prove your case.

"I'm right, you're wrong, and that's the end of it" isn't debate. It's not even conversation. It's sheer egotistical arrogance.

I don't often advocate use of the "ignore" button, but since you rather clearly have no intention of engaging in actual debate, for you I'll make an exception. I see no point in attempting to debate anything with one who claims to be right because he is right, others are wrong, and needs no other reasons.

[Carico]

I am without god and I certainly have an understanding of what is considered right and wrong.

that's what everyone without God says. Even serial killer, Eileen Wornos, said she was a good person even though she killed 8 people! It's called moral relativism; the belief that everyone is right and moral because he says he's right and moral. People do that because they want to pretend they aren't guilty...except of breaking their own code of conduct which suits their own desires. Even psychopaths have their own code of conduct as I've shown. Eileen Wornos didn't break her own code of conduct so she believed she wasn't guilty and instead, a good person.

That's why humans aren't capable of judging our own guilt any more than any criminal defendant in any society is allowed to judge his own guilt. Criminal defendants are too interested in trying to save their own skin to be honest and objective enough to determine what sentence they deserve.