Premarital sex-- immoral?

[Gil]

Awar, the problem is the "survival of the fittest" is getting pretty messed up since modern culture doesn't promote the "fit" to succeed and endorses the "weak" to have the same opportunities. I'm not anti-whatever, i'm just stating that from a social darwinian perspective culture is shaping human minds so that the the fit are no longer those with either brain/muscle capacity but it's almost a chaos-driven mechanism.
Example: A woman says she wants to marry an "intelligent" man. What does that mean? Does she want her offspring to be intelligent since her husband his? What if he has serious disbilities but is at the same time very intelligent?
Hence, the whole "nature will cull the weak" is getting outdated since we have messed up nature beyond any expectations.

[Zyklop]

I´m not religious at all but I consider it impressive if a girl decides to stay virgin until marriage instead of screwing around with every stinking hobo.
I also consider marriage as definite. If one gives his word to someone else he has to keep it regardless of what might come in the future. Modern people are afraid to bear the consequences of their deeds.

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Manji

Awar, the problem is the "survival of the fittest" is getting pretty messed up since modern culture doesn't promote the "fit" to succeed and endorses the "weak" to have the same opportunities. I'm not anti-whatever, i'm just stating that from a social darwinian perspective culture is shaping human minds so that the the fit are no longer those with either brain/muscle capacity but it's almost a chaos-driven mechanism.

There never was a general survival of the most muscular or most intelligent in nature. The survivor survives - it´s as simple as that. Chance plays a big role in evolution.

[Gil]

I think the issue is not morality or lack of it, rather: are humans (by nature) monogamous or polygamous? Most mammals are polygamous simple because that way they can ensure their genes are passed on. Only highly independent animals (and, from a darwinian perspective, very sucessfull) are monogamous since they do not need many different mates to ensure their offspring lives on.
I think we are polygamous by nature and monogamous by culture. Human populations (excepting modern days) have always been somewhat small numbered and sharing females would eventually lead to killing among the males. Also, a social contract like marriage ensures that the male has it's offspring assured (sort of but you get my meaning...) and can devote itself to protection and hunting/gathering/farming...

[Aeternitas]

Promiscuity as wrong - based on what moral standard? Christian morality?

Is it? This is what I also wonder. I don't consider this type of morality necessarily Christian. I am not religious but I personally find it immoral. So do many other people.
Of course, a common argument is "I can't control myself", "I need it" etc.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I merely stated that I was in agreement with the opinion that much of today's "progressive" attitudes could be viewed as rationalising lack of self-control.

Much of it, yes. But, much of it is plain realism, as opposed to religious-style rationalizing for the sake of the clergy to remain in power.

For reproduction, sex is needed.
If you jump off a tower, you'll get splattered on the ground.
If you don't drink water for several days, you dehidrate.

Those are just some of the endless number of natural laws.
Break any of those, and it won't be pretty.

On the other hand, you have the religious laws and rules
which rationalize bad things happening as "mysterious ways of the lord",
or "punishments for sinful behaviour" etc.

Do you really think I'm going to give you anotehr excuse to launch into another Christian-bashing tirade? <yawn>

I'm honestly not anti-christian, as I explained already.

Using self-control to go to extremes?
I would assume you don't need to be partilcularly self-controlled to be promiscous so I assume this is directed solely at celibacy?

Nah, I didn't mean self-control solely. I explained myself badly.

I don't have a problem with celibacy. I understand the theological reasons for it. In a traditional society with large families it wasn't detrimental anyway, quite the opposite. You could consider the clergy as a form of birth-control in itself

Indeed. The non-reproductive clergy which is responsible for removing
a lot of self-control DNA from the human gene-pool.

Have you thought about it?
At a rather long era of christian dominance in Europe,
some of the best people in Europe were gathered by the church, and
willingly deleted themselves from the gene-pool of humanity.

So, if you wonder where has the self-control gone, perhaps it
was biologically deleted.

Ok - promiscuity is stupid. Well, if by that you mean that the lack of self-control can result in broken marriages, unwanted pregnancies, STD's then you could perhaps level that charge.

Promiscuity as wrong - based on what moral standard? Christian morality?

Celibacy as stupid. How so? By suppressing the birth rate? Other aspects of Christian morality counter that easily. By suppressing "natural impulses".
For the majority of people that might be the case. Not everyone has a high sex drive or even any at all (Asexuals). I suppose for them it presents no such problem. Might even be seen as ideal. Not for me though

Celibacy as wrong - Again based against what moral standard?

No 'moral' standard. Just from a civilizational point of view.
There should be balance between civilized/natural. Unfortunately, there isn't one, and I doubt there ever will be.

Supressing natural impulses is something required for civilization to exist.
The fact that supressing most natural impulses is lethal to the body,
the clever people who architected civilization and religion turned to
the non-lethal supression of sexual impulses.

Post-traumatic agreed. But I think where we stand just know is due to trauma from materialism and secularism. I think we differ in that you regard spiritual bankruptcy as being a symptom, where I see it as a cause of much wrongs. I know you disagree but I think the world is tired of atheism and is searching for something else. This to me explains all the New Age movement, interest in other forms of spirituality, occultism, etc.

Atheism is a bad choice for the general populous. I agree.
The thing is, that Atheism is a good, and only fair choice for governments.

Unless you want to live in a world where you get sentenced to death for being 'in cahoots with the devil', or where the insurance company blames your sinful past on the fact that your car got stolen.

The chief reason of religion losing its ground is because of the better
education of the masses, which went along with religions being too rigid
for their own good.

I don't know about Catholics, but, here, I've heard Orthodox priests
say things such as "the dinosaurs didn't exist, they are a part of the anti-christian conspiracy" etc. etc.

This is bound to make the church seem kooky to anyone with an elementary school.

As someone once said - "when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing.......they believe in everything"

I disagree. People always believe in things.

Even the most religious person who has a low IQ, education and low self-conscience will believe in every urban legend he hears.

I always find it funny how few people know the reason
why first you see the flash, and hear the thunder seconds later.

When there's this vacuum in knowledge, it tends to be filled with the loudest explanation, not the most reasonable one.

This is obviously from a non-believing perspective which relegates organised religion to some form of social control mechanism. Fair enough.
Then I agree with your statement. If you don't control people you have anarchy and quite honestly I don't find lawlessness as viable alternative.
In which case "controlling" people by imposing moral obligations on them is likely a more benevolent method than some others that have been tried in the past

I think people would just reset to tribal life, like that of the remaining primitive people on earth. That's hardly lawlesness.

Controlling the masses is for the sake of civilizational progress,
not for benevolence sake.

[Awar]

As we see in the case of Zyklop and BM,
the fact that they are not religious doesn't mean they are free of the influence
which civil society has had on Europe.

But, it's just the last hundred or so years.

If today was just one of the typical years of the era of christianty,
you both would've been married for the last 10-12 years, and have had at least 8 children and no education.

Face it, we're products of our own time.

[Awar]

Of course, what I said has always depended on the social strata to which one belongs to.

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Awar

As we see in the case of Zyklop and BM,
the fact that they are not religious doesn't mean they are free of the influence
which civil society has had on Europe.

I don´t think keeping true to your word is a product of recent times.
Mankind wouldn´t have survived all these hardships if people were not able to rely on each other. That´s how honour evolved.

[bocian]

Originally Posted by Awar

If today was just one of the typical years of the era of christianty,
you both would've been married for the last 10-12 years, and have had at least 8 children and no education.

Face it, we're products of our own time.

Well, I consider myself to be a throw back to times gone by.

Against the flow, if you know what I mean.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Zyklop

I don´t think keeping true to your word is a product of recent times.
Mankind wouldn´t have survived all these hardships if people were not able to rely on each other. That´s how honour evolved.

Well... I like honour, and honourable people, but, usually they don't
fare too well in life. That's one of the things which hasn't changed much
during the last few... eons

The most succesful in nature are the alpha-males;
in civilization, it's the sneaky-deceptive-wise combination...
What the sucessful in nature and in civilization have in common
is the initiative. They take what they want, when the time is right.

Besides, I've heard from many people that
you can trust the people in Saudi Arabia won't ever steal from you,
there's no pre-marital sex there either. Pure paradise

[Aeternitas]

Oh well, I happen to like honor too - even if that may not get me too far in life. Call me anachronical, anti-natural or sue me for it

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Oh well, I happen to like honor too - even if that may not get me too far in life. Call me anachronical, anti-natural or sue me for it

That's the thing. Nobody will sue you for that, or call you bad names, or burn you...

You can safely bet that the dishonourable ones will be the first to infiltrate
the institutions which do get to decide who gets burned at the stake, defamed and shunned.

IMO, it's best to be wise, choose your battles, and choose who you associate with. Treat the people around you as they ought to be treated, with regard to all the aspects of their nature and personality.

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Awar

The most succesful in nature are the alpha-males;
in civilization, it's the sneaky-deceptive-wise combination...
What the sucessful in nature and in civilization have in common
is the initiative. They take what they want, when the time is right.

I wouldn´t call civilization the opposite of nature. Actually, I don´t think there are any unnatural things. Civilization evolved out of nature given human abilities.
Decadence and degeneration also are basic parts of nature.

As for the alpha-males, I think you focus too much on single species (wolves, lions etc.). For many species deception is a vital activity. Cuckoos for example lay their eggs into the nests of other bird species so that they have to breed it out. After the fledgling has hatched, it throws his "siblings" out of the nest so it gets all the food for itself. Cuckoos that are able to produce the most convincing imitation of the hosts´ eggs will logically reproduce the most. This also is "survival of the fittest".

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Oh well, I happen to like honor too - even if that may not get me too far in life.

Honor is never out of season, and will get you far in life.

[bocian]

I really don't like the fact that we are in a sense excusing ourselves by blaming everything on the state of society today. The only people to blame for the way things are, are ourselves, people--humanity.

We are the only ones who can change anything, we have to put family values, honour, good will, at the front of our collective agenda, unless we do that, society will continue on the way it has.

Just because being honourable or starting a family at a young age might bring some hardships, we should forget about them? We should give up? Become just like everyone else? We, us, on an individual basis, should set an example, for everyone else. Maybe a few generations down the road society will look quite different.

Yes, very simplistic, but over-complicating, or making excuses, won't get us anywhere.