# Ultimate Morals...Yemen did not get the Memo



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/child-bride-yemen-dies-internal-bleeding-wedding-night-165832059.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 10, 2013)

Ultimate morals huh?  If morals are relative how do you justify passing judgement on this?  Are you not being a hypocrite?  The groom was just living out morality as he defined it, same as you.  Remember relative morality erases a higher standard in which to appeal to.  You and the groom are equals, one in the same.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ultimate morals huh?  If morals are relative how do you justify passing judgement on this?  Are you not being a hypocrite?  The groom was just living out morality as he defined it, same as you.



Who said I was passing judgement?

The Groom and the entire Country has defined those morals. Your Ultimate moral giver forgot to make a pit stop in Yemen.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Who said I was passing judgement?



So you condone this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Groom and the entire Country has defined those morals. Your Ultimate moral giver forgot to make a pit stop in Yemen.



And this assertion is based on what exactly?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So you condone this?



Never said I did. Just reporting how the real world works.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And this assertion is based on what exactly?



Their actions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

Actually the story leaves a lot of needed info out.  How old was the bride?  Was she sexually abused?  And Signs of physical abuse?  Did she have a bleeding disorder?  Etc.  It just doesn't add up.  Lot of pertinent info missing.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually the story leaves a lot of needed info out.  How old was the bride?  Was she sexually abused?  And Signs of physical abuse?  Did she have a bleeding disorder?  Etc.  It just doesn't add up.  Lot of pertinent info missing.



Literally the first sentence in the article


> SANAA (Reuters) - An eight-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age



3rd paragraph in article


> "On the wedding night and after intercourse, she suffered from bleeding and uterine rupture which caused her death," Othman told Reuters. "They took her to a clinic but the medics couldn't save her life."



SFD I had always had my doubts but now I totally understand why you find it hard to understand the blatantly obvious facts. The story leaves nothing out. You do. I suggest actually reading the article instead of drawing your own conclusions from the headline. You will learn how things really take place. Reality consists of the way it really is, not the way it ought to be because the Bible tells you so.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually the story leaves a lot of needed info out.  How old was the bride?  Was she sexually abused?  And Signs of physical abuse?  Did she have a bleeding disorder?  Etc.  It just doesn't add up.  Lot of pertinent info missing.



She was 8.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

I can say that I hate what happened. It makes me sick to my stomach that an 8 year old girl was basically sold by her own parents to a man that killed her as a result of intercourse. I can hate that ALL I WANT TO... and I can say in the same breath that it would seem that the parents did not find it morally wrong enough not to do it. If you can believe those stats... Then....

BH said it... the ultimate moral giver must have missed the hearts and souls of Yemen. OR... there just is no ultimate moral giver.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Literally the first sentence in the article
> 
> 
> 3rd paragraph in article
> ...



I did miss the age even though I looked for it twice.  My bad.  

Still don't see a problem with this if morals are relative.  However, I do find it morally wrong.  The presence of evil by no means proves the absence of God.  To assert such contradicts the Bible.  Not sure what assertion you are attempting to make.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually the story leaves a lot of needed info out.  How old was the bride?  Was she sexually abused?  And Signs of physical abuse?  Did she have a bleeding disorder?  Etc.  It just doesn't add up.  Lot of pertinent info missing.



So what you've got to say in order to not see the lack of (our) morals is that you believe absolutely nothing about this article. Complete fabrication.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can say that I hate what happened. It makes me sick to my stomach that an 8 year old girl was basically sold by her own parents to a man that killed her as a result of intercourse. I can hate that ALL I WANT TO... and I can say in the same breath that it would seem that the parents did not find it morally wrong enough not to do it. If you can believe those stats... Then....
> 
> BH said it... the ultimate moral giver must have missed the hearts and souls of Yemen. OR... there just is no ultimate moral giver.



Hard to reach people's hearts and souls when they deny you even exist.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

It's morals, not acceptance as your savior. I deny he exists, yet you and I both agree that the things in the article are horrible. Why would that be?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

These morals threads were so much more fun when String was posting regularly.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> yet you and I both agree that the things in the article are horrible. Why would that be?



Because the things in the article _are _horrible by most (all civilized) standards.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

So civilized standards created the morals... Not the 2000 year old preaching of a man or the infinite, ultimate morals of a creator that by definition have been around since the beginning of time... because in that time the civilized standards of today were not yet developed.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Because the things in the article _are _horrible by most (all civilized) standards.



And that is why there is a strong chance that God and religion came about as people became civilized.
In the earliest beginnings of humans we should have been the closest we have ever been to being God's best example of his best work. The humans SHOULD have had their core morals given to them by their Moral Giver instilled in their brains and things worldwide should have been morally basic. Instead we know that early humans were very animal like showing few if any morals(much like many remote groups and entire countries of people today) and the places that claim to have the best or right morals are the more civilized people. Morals evolved as people/society evolved.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So civilized standards created the morals... Not the 2000 year old preaching of a man or the infinite, ultimate morals of a creator that by definition have been around since the beginning of time... because in that time the civilized standards of today were not yet developed.



It's a chicken or the egg argument.....did morals bring about civilization, or vice versa.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And that is why there is a strong chance that God and religion came about as people became civilized.
> In the earliest beginnings of humans we should have been the closest we have ever been to being God's best example of his best work. The humans SHOULD have had their core morals given to them by their Moral Giver instilled in their brains and things worldwide should have been morally basic. Instead we know that early humans were very animal like showing few if any morals(much like many remote groups and entire countries of people today) and the places that claim to have the best or right morals are the more civilized people. Morals evolved as people/society evolved.



How did people ever get civilized without morals?  Isn't that what civilization is?

The question of God is irrelevant to the timeline.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How did people ever get civilized without morals?  Isn't that what civilization is?
> 
> The question of God is irrelevant to the timeline.



Trail and error, experiences, likes and dislikes all factored into the evolution of morals as humans needed to be social to survive.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

Well Yemen has a civilization. They aren't in the stone age. They were operating within moral boundaries. They all have a conscience or whatever you'd like to call it. 

I would think that some morals brought about civilized societies... that still doesn't mean that they were instilled in us by any moral giver or that they are ultimate in any way.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Trail and error, experiences, likes and dislikes all factored into the evolution of morals as humans needed to be social to survive.



IDK that we NEEDED to be social to survive. Some of us were social and it turned in to what we have today. So it was better than not being social, but without us being social, we may very well have survived anyway.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Well Yemen has a civilization. They aren't in the stone age. They were operating within moral boundaries. They all have a conscience or whatever you'd like to call it.



REading the article I get the impression that this is not the norm for their civilization anymore, and there is much movement to transition away from this type of digusting behavior.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So it was better than not being social, but without us being social, we may very well have survived anyway.



The bears would have killed us all.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> REading the article I get the impression that this is not the norm for their civilization anymore, and there is much movement to transition away from this type of digusting behavior.



a word that could replace disgusting is TRADITIONAL. Evolution of their traditions or morals. Just like every else's.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The bears would have killed us all.



I recognize the joke... but there are still bunnies and squirrels and deer. The bears don't get them all.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I recognize the joke... but there are still bunnies and squirrels and deer. The bears don't get them all.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> a word that could replace disgusting is TRADITIONAL. Evolution of their traditions or morals. Just like every else's.



....trending to civilization?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> ....trending to civilization?



They're already civilized. Just not the same way we are. Trending to conform their morals to ours maybe. Which trends to the evolution of morals.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> They're already civilized. Just not the same way we are. Trending to conform their morals to ours maybe. Which trends to the evolution of morals.



If that's the case, we are civilized, and they are getting there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So what you've got to say in order to not see the lack of (our) morals is that you believe absolutely nothing about this article. Complete fabrication.



And I thought believers were the only ones who believed in the depravity of man.  You switching sides TXB?

No I have no reason to disbelieve the article.  It's outside the OP but I was just curious as to the actual cause of death.  That's all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It's morals, not acceptance as your savior. I deny he exists, yet you and I both agree that the things in the article are horrible. Why would that be?



You've already alluded to it.  The depravity of mankind.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And that is why there is a strong chance that God and religion came about as people became civilized.
> In the earliest beginnings of humans we should have been the closest we have ever been to being God's best example of his best work. The humans SHOULD have had their core morals given to them by their Moral Giver instilled in their brains and things worldwide should have been morally basic. Instead we know that early humans were very animal like showing few if any morals(much like many remote groups and entire countries of people today) and the places that claim to have the best or right morals are the more civilized people. Morals evolved as people/society evolved.



Chance?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2013)

Top 10 Least religious countries. 

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Is it a coincidence that secular populations are safer?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You've already alluded to it.  The depravity of mankind.



I am as depraved (is that right) as you are and I deny the existence of your god, the ultimate moral giver. Why am I not  on the same playing field as this culture? I got most of the memo of morals that you have.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> If that's the case, we are civilized, and they are getting there.



They are more civilized than the tribes that eat people and do other things. They herd animals and do some farming. They ARE civilized. They have evolved in lots of ways from hunter gatherers.... they just haven't caught up to our morals yet... If you want to call it as civilized as we are that's fine.. but what that says is that civilizations and their morals evolve.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> IDK that we NEEDED to be social to survive. Some of us were social and it turned in to what we have today. So it was better than not being social, but without us being social, we may very well have survived anyway.



From what I have researched, the majority of humans from our earliest ancestors to nowneed to be social in order to survive.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

Social to the point of family groups? Maybe.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Social to the point of family groups? Maybe.



Read about the effects that Fire had on Human development.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Read about the effects that Fire had on Human development.



We lost all of our hair and invented marshmellows.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

660griz said:


> We lost all of our hair and invented marshmellows.



exactAmundo grizzarelli


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I am as depraved (is that right)



that's correct



TripleXBullies said:


> as you are and I deny the existence of your god, the ultimate moral giver.



Correct



TripleXBullies said:


> Why am I not  on the same playing field as this culture? I got most of the memo of morals that you have.



Not sure I follow


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It's morals, not acceptance as your savior. I deny he exists, yet you and I both agree that the things in the article are horrible. Why would that be?



God stamps his morals on everyone's consciousness.  Not everyone follows those morals, but they are there none the less.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I can say that I hate what happened. It makes me sick to my stomach that an 8 year old girl was basically sold by her own parents to a man that killed her as a result of intercourse. I can hate that ALL I WANT TO... and I can say in the same breath that it would seem that the parents did not find it morally wrong enough not to do it. If you can believe those stats... Then....
> 
> BH said it... the ultimate moral giver must have missed the hearts and souls of Yemen. OR... there just is no ultimate moral giver.



Or the people in Yemen have said there is no ultimate moral giver and done what they wanted, and justified it in their own minds as moral.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Or the people in Yemen have said there is no ultimate moral giver and done what they wanted, and justified it in their own minds as moral.



OR....their Ultimate Moral Giver commands it??????


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 12, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> .. but what that says is that civilizations and their morals evolve.



But, why does the trend become more "civil?"


----------



## 660griz (Sep 12, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Or the people in Yemen have said there is no ultimate moral giver and done what they wanted, and justified it in their own minds as moral.



Or, perhaps they read the Bible. Used it to justify their actions.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Or the people in Yemen have said there is no ultimate moral giver and done what they wanted, and justified it in their own minds as moral.



I do that too though... but I don't have the same actions as they do. WHY?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> But, why does the trend become more "civil?"



I don't really think it does. It becomes more and more like what you and I believe it should, but are the laws being looked at here in the US getting us more civil? Not a lot of them. We feel like we're moving toward losing a lot of our freedom. It seems like in the past that things were moving toward more civil because you feel like we're civil because it's comfortable for you and the past has led up to the present state which is your comfort zone for what civil means. In Yemen, a lot of them feel it's completely civil to do what they do. Others are on the edge of abolishing that stuff, but that's what ALWAYS HAPPENS. There are people that want change and there are people that want change that can actually help it happen. Our current civil in the US won't be the same state of civil in 100 or 200 years, that doesn't mean it will be more civil, just different. And the people used to that state and in their own comfort zone of civility then will feel like we were less civilized... while if we could see it and feel it now, we might very well think it is crazy. Just like integration was in the south. We can't think of there being segregation, but people a couple hundred years ago were fine with it and couldn't think of it being integrated.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> But, why does the trend become more "civil?"




Education?  Affluence?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

Define civil, please... I think that will help.



Thanks for staying in on a morals debate JB!


----------

