View Poll Results: Is morality absolute

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 26.67%
  • No

    28 62.22%
  • Other (please elaborate)

    5 11.11%
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 153

Thread: What is morality? Is it absolute?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    11-05-2011 @ 02:45 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Ethnicity
    Whatever
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Posts
    579
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Breedingvariety View Post
    In absolute sense- morality is absolute. In relative sense- morality is relative. Absolute is more true than relative.
    Ok, show me morality. Since you speak of this philosophical abstraction as though it has a palpable/physical existence then please post an example of it so convincing that it removes all doubt as to its existence by all who see it.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    01-15-2015 @ 04:32 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Neo-European
    Ethnicity
    White American
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Posts
    2,264
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 15
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Yes, morality is absolute & reflects the immutable nature of God. At base, what pleases God is moral & what displeases him is immoral.

  3. #13
    ШИПТAP Sturmgewehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    05-09-2022 @ 03:06 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Illyro-Thracian
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Macedonia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1c / I-Z17855
    mtDNA
    V7
    Taxonomy
    Nordic/Dinarid
    Politics
    Liberal Socialism
    Religion
    Agnostic Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    1,410
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 170
    Given: 107

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Morality is Relative, by the sole fact that Morality is a social construct and it exists only among people, Morality concerns matter and behavior between people.

    Found this interesting Article:

    What is morality? Most people pay only cursory attention to the somewhat intimidating philosophical concept called Morality. They erroneously presume that a precise examination of morality is the domain of philosophers.

    Most people acquire a somewhat vague sense of morality, a sense of how we should or should not behave, from their parents, their social group, their political environment or their religious affiliation. They believe that they have a sufficiently clear understanding of morality to meet their needs and they do not try to analyze a subject that is seemingly fraught with contradictions.

    Why should we analyze the concept of morality if every human being knows that it is immoral to kill other people or to steal the property of other people, except under special circumstances. As adults, we act intuitively with regard to morality. We absorbed fundamental aspects of morality during the early days of our youth. Do we really need to know more about morality?

    Most persons have acquired the basic tenets of their morality from others and have accepted them as true and valid, without further questioning. However, how will we know if an unexamined idea, imposed on us by others, is actually true and beneficial to our well-being? Can we improve our lifestyle, including our interactions with others, if we enhance our understanding of the nature of morality?

    Knowledge is power and the extent of our knowledge of Objective Reality directly determines our standard of living and our happiness. Our happiness is determined by our degree of alignment with Objective Reality, with truth, The more facts we have at our disposition, the more closely we can align ourselves with reality, the fewer conflicts we will have in dealing with reality and thus, the more happiness we will reap. How does morality really work?

    The term Morality covers the vast arena of human conduct that examines our interaction with other human beings. Morality touches every aspect of our life, every moment of our life. Our morality governs all of our contacts with members of our family, with our co-workers, with our church, and with all aspects of our government. Morality determines our attitude to politics, to war and peace, to our children, to our parents and to spiritual questions such as life after death.

    When we discuss morality we do not talk about an obtuse philosophical concept, we talk about the totality of our everyday existence. If we want to be effective in our interaction with other human beings, it behooves us to understand the concept of morality with all its nuances and implications. A clear understanding of morality is of extreme importance to all of our interactions with our environment and thus, to our attainment of happiness.

    The more precisely our thought processes and our emotions are aligned with our environment, the more advanced will be our ability to avoid painful conflicts with reality and the more enhanced will be our ability to achieve happiness. We will not find much happiness if we do not understand the basic nature of man and the ebb and flow of human interactions as governed by human morality. If we do not fully understand what morality is and how morality affects human beings, we will encounter many conflicts in life

    Human beings are constantly interacting with two principal spheres of their environment. The inanimate world, such as trees, houses, cars, is distinctly separate from the domain of human interactions. Morality does not concern itself with our inanimate environment.

    Neither does morality refer to the interaction between man and other animals. Human beings have no social contracts with other animals. Other animals, aside from fellow human beings, exist solely at our pleasure. We kill animals for sport, or we eat them at our pleasure and convenience. If other animals, such as mosquitoes, bother us in any way, we poison them in vast numbers.

    Morality concerns itself exclusively with interactions among human beings. The human concept of morality has been the subject of controversy and has provided fuel for many heated philosophical discourses during the entire range of human history. Morality provides the rules by which people love each other, fight with each other and interact with each other in every conceivable way.

    Many people have killed each other, fighting over the alleged superiority of their respective morality, without a clear understanding of what they were fighting for. What is morality? In order to address this question, we have to go back in time about 4 billion years.


    All living organisms, including bacteria, fish and human beings have developed from inanimate matter through the process of evolution. Evolution, and life itself, is due to the ability of a complex chemical compound to sense a threat to its continued existence and to react upon such impulse with an attempt to negate any incipient threat. We know this instinctive, automatic interaction with the environment as the survival instinct.

    This instinct must be present in all living things and is the basic emotion from which all other emotions evolved. Over eons of time, man has enhanced the survival instinct imbedded in his genes, by developing complex emotions, such as love, hatred, hunger, despair, fear, joy and many other powerful feelings. The nerve centers dealing with these ancient emotions are physically located in the deepest layers of the human brain, particularly in our brain stem, our so-called reptilian brain.

    Deeply imbedded instincts and emotions govern all animal behavior, including human behavior. However, during the past two million years of hominoid development, man has developed a new mental faculty that sets him aside from other animals. This ability superimposes rational, logical thought processes on our primitive emotions.

    Our rational mind applies a thin veneer of logical thought processes over the raw emotions that govern our interaction with our environment. Emotions control the preponderance of basic human needs and behavior patterns. Emotions determine when we are hungry, when we feel sexually aroused, when we are afraid, when we feel a sense of well-being.

    The evolution of our newly developed rational mind greatly facilitated interaction among human beings. Our instincts and our emotions still initiate the human sex drive but our rational mind imposes beneficial restrictions as to the circumstances under which the sex drive can be satisfied.

    Unlike dogs, humans do not meet their emotional sex drive by copulating at street corners. Instead, humans go through a rational mating process that enhances the survival of the offspring that often results from sexual activity. Thus, rationality greatly enhances the survival and perpetuation of rational, intellectual beings.

    Our rational mind has similarly enhanced many other human interactions, such as our ability to influence or to manipulate other human beings: We have learned how to cause other people to do what we would like them to do. All of human existence is a constant process of manipulating or influencing other persons with different degrees of subtlety. The degree of subtleness usually depends on the respective intelligence of the manipulator and the manipulated person.

    The arena of morality is one of the primary spheres where human beings utilize their rational mind to manipulate other human beings. We may refer to another person as evil in order to prod him to mend his ways and to modify his behavior to our liking. We may also refer to another person as evil if we wish to prevent other persons from emulating him or associating with him.

    We may even go further and refer to another person as evil in order to justify depriving him of his property, or to kill him. This manipulative strategy is an integral part of propaganda during periods of war or during religious conflicts.

    We frequently obfuscate the term morality by the clever use of words. Morality becomes somewhat more transparent if we replace the emotion-laden word morality with the emotionally neutral synonym Code of Conduct.

    In this context, it becomes clear that our discussion of Morality revolves around the manner in which persons conduct themselves in relation to other people. Morality pertains to concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral. Our morality tells us how to act under specific circumstances.

    It is important to differentiate between morality and related terms such as ethics and legality. We may apply the term ethics synonymously with morality but this word may also refer to laws or to quasi-laws, such as the ethics of a particular profession. Some varieties of ethics may convey merely an informative context, such as the lack of ethics of a politician. Other designations of ethics have the force of laws. The ethics of the legal profession, if flaunted, can result in disbarment.

    The term ethics can be ambiguous and it is best to avoid it in the context of moral issues. We should also avoid any potential confusion of morality with actual laws, either common laws or codified laws.


    Morality and laws are definitely not synonymous: A specific act may be moral, valued and lawful in one country, while the identical act may be punishable by death in another country. This disparity in moral values is evident in many conflicts arising from divergent religions. Salman Rushdie discovered this truth when he published the "Satanic Verses".

    A society of persons, in the sociological context, is the conglomeration of individual human beings who have come together for their mutual protection, welfare or communality of interests. All such individuals search for individual happiness in their own way, as is the nature of all individuals.

    One person may wish to pursue a tranquil lifestyle; another person may be intent on accumulating wealth. In order to function smoothly, society must apply common denominators, common values that large numbers of people share, in order to achieve order, safety and predictability for all of its members. The emotional and physical well being of a society and its members depends on a common code of conduct, a common morality among all of its members.

    It is not necessary for all members of a society to subscribe to the identical morality. However, it is important for all individuals to be aware of any differences in conduct that may exist among various groups. This consensus enables individuals to cope with, not only other individual members of their own society, but also with groups of non-conforming persons beyond their own society.

    In the interest of the internal cohesion of a society, it is imperative that all individuals and groups within the society adhere to fundamental rules of moral conduct, which we will call the Three Natural Laws of Morality. We call these laws natural, not because they are immutable Laws of Nature, but to indicate that these laws have evolved from the innate nature of man.

    The most fundamental law of the Three Natural Laws of Morality is the dictum: All persons within a society must refrain from killing or injure other members of the society, except in self-defense. This law is so simple and self-explanatory that all societies throughout human history have adopted it and vigorously enforce it. The other two natural laws of morality are set forth in detail in subsequent sub-chapters. These laws are concerned with the right of all members of society to be free from enslavement and to hold property.

    In an attempt to consider all relevant issues associated with the all-pervasive impact of morality on human affairs, it is helpful to view this subject from several different perspectives. The basic issue that divides all discussions of morality revolves around the question, is morality an evolutionary human concept? Is Morality a relative and subjective concept, or is morality imposed on humans as an absolute, universal and objective imperative?

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Online
    11-05-2011 @ 02:45 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Ethnicity
    Whatever
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Posts
    579
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odoacer View Post
    Yes, morality is absolute & reflects the immutable nature of God. At base, what pleases God is moral & what displeases him is immoral.
    How do you know God is a him? Did he flash you his junk?

  5. #15
    Ötzi's great [...] great-grandson askra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    11-08-2020 @ 11:42 PM
    Location
    North Sardinia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Sardinian
    Ancestry
    25% Logudoro 25% Anglona 25% Sassari 25% Goceano
    Country
    European Union
    Region
    Sardinia
    Taxonomy
    http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?145257-Classify-and-guess-ethnicity-of-this-guy
    Religion
    agnostic
    Gender
    Posts
    2,589
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 755
    Given: 293

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    no, it's not absolute. the concept of morality is different for different societies and cultures, and it's changed many times in the course of history.

  6. #16
    ШИПТAP Sturmgewehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    05-09-2022 @ 03:06 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Illyro-Thracian
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Macedonia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1c / I-Z17855
    mtDNA
    V7
    Taxonomy
    Nordic/Dinarid
    Politics
    Liberal Socialism
    Religion
    Agnostic Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    1,410
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 170
    Given: 107

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Also I read this posted by a guy in another forum in the same Topic:

    A moral is a true sentence containing a moral predicate. Therefore, since the sentence 'it is morally acceptable to kill babies' is false, that sentence does not count as a genuine moral. Therefore, your counterargument does not apply to moral realism.

    But OK, you've made it plain that you don't think that "morals" are true sentences containing moral predicates. Then I repeat my question: what are morals?

    You say they are not concrete. You say they are not pie-in-the-sky. Are they abstract entities then? Platonic forms? If there were no humans, would absolute morals still exist? Where do they exist if not in this universe?

    You say morals are not definable, yet they can be "reached" through logic and reason, but really, the only justification you've given so far is a pragmatic one: it's good for society if people believe in morals, and they are more likely to believe in morals if we say they are absolute. So basically, morality is in our enlightened self-interest, so we should believe in morals, and we call them "absolute" in order to get more people to believe in them. But enlightened self-interest has never been an adequate foundation for ethics, and pragmatism is but one step removed from relativism. Relativism says do what you want. Pragmatism says do whatever works--for you! So, until you can come up with better logic and reason, it seems you're stuck in the same boat as you say I'm in.

    But I'm not stuck in the same boat as the relativists. Just because ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies, it does not follow that the moral realist position that the sentence 'it is wrong that someone tortures babies' is not objectively true. I can only speak from my position as a person raised in a modern, English-speaking civilization, but you are probably correct that if I was raised as an Aztec, I wouldn't have a problem with human sacrifice. Yet, according to moral realism, it would still be morally wrong that I participated in human sacrifice notwithstanding that I actually sacrificed humans. Like I said earlier, there are moral cripples. According to moral realism, a human-sacrificing Aztec would be a moral cripple--though not necessarily evil because they just didn't know the difference between right and wrong. If you were to say that human sacrifice was moral--for Aztecs--THAT is moral relativism. But surely that's not your position. . . .

    To use your own analogy, just because someone is brainwashed into believing that 2 + 2 = 5, it does not follow that someone taught through repetition that 2 + 2 = 4 did not learn the truth. Similarly, if someone was raised to think that sacrificing babies to Satan is morally good, it does not follow that someone properly brought up to think that it is morally wrong to sacrifice babies did not learn the objective truth. Just because repetition is involved in learning falsities as well as truth, it does not follow that truth learned through repetition is not truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Regarding the indefinability of the moral predicates: as you say, words are intended to represent something. Some words represent simple things, and some words represent complex things. Thus words representing complex things can be defined using words that represent simple things. For example, I could define the word 'horse' as meaning the same as 'a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped'.

    Alas, it is not so easy with words that represent simple things. Take for example, the word 'yellow'. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines 'yellow' as 'a color like that of egg yolk, ripe lemons, etc.' But what kind of a definition is THAT? Does 'yellow' mean the same as 'egg yolk', or does 'yellow' mean the same as 'ripe lemon'? I don't think it's either. Rather, if you want to know the definition of 'yellow' the dictionary instructs you to find an egg, crack it open, and look at the yolk, then find a ripe lemon and compare the two, and you will see for yourself the one thing that the egg yolk and the ripe lemon have in common: YELLOW!

    Oh my God! Repetition! Again! !Que horrible!

    In other words, the dictionary itself gives an ostensive definition (look it up!) for the word 'yellow'.

    And so it is with the moral predicates. The predicate 'morally wrong' is intended to represent something. The problem is that something is simple, just like yellow is simple. So moral terms cannot be defined using nonmoral terms, in the way 'horse' can be defined using nonhorse terms. So, to say, as you have come close to saying, that 'that which is morally good is that which is conducive to survival' commits a logical fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, first identified by G.E. Moore in his 1903 Principia Ethica. Similarly, some animal rights activists would like to define 'morally wrong' as 'causing suffering'. But this is like saying that 'yellow' means the same as 'lemon'.

    So, moral predicates like 'morally wrong' cannot be defined in nonmoral terms. All I can do is show you suffering, murdering, cheating, mutilating, raping, wasting, vandalizing, etc. But 'morally wrong' does not mean the same as 'suffering', nor does 'morally wrong' mean the same as 'murdering', etc., nor does 'morally wrong' mean all those things taken together. Rather, 'morally wrong' is that quality that all those things have in common, just as 'yellow' represents that quality that egg yolks, ripe lemons, and ripe bananas all have in common.

    Sorry, that's the best I can do. But it's also the best anyone else can do. . . .

    And a final note, the ostensive definition of 'morally wrong' is absolutely NOT based on a "gut reaction", as you have suggested. Of course feelings of outrage are present upon witnessing a man beat a cripple in a wheelchair. However, feelings of outrage are also present in situations where there is no reason to suppose that something immoral has happened, as when one is caught in a traffic jam.
    ...
    So, the question is, how do you know that 'it is morally wrong to torture babies' is true? I maintain you know it's true the same way I do, and that is empirically. In past posts you have vaguely alluded to the fact that bad s*** has happened to you in the past (I think that's why you believe that mere survival is the highest good). So you don't need anyone to tell you what 'moral wrong' means, because you have directly experienced it for yourself. And there's no point in seeking a proof of this knowledge, any more than seeking a proof for the fact that dandelion flowers are yellow.
    From the same poster, here's the main problem with moral realism:
    My main problem with moral absolutism is two-fold: (1) it doesn't provide an account as to how we know the truth of morals like 'it is wrong to torture babies'; and (2) the excess baggage of the connotations of totalitarianism and unrevisability that 'absolutism' carries with it.

  7. #17
    Inactive Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    11-28-2011 @ 12:53 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Gone.
    Ethnicity
    Gone.
    Gender
    Posts
    2,657
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 29
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odoacer View Post
    Yes, morality is absolute & reflects the immutable nature of God. At base, what pleases God is moral & what displeases him is immoral.
    Be careful of this approach; it is true, but it expresses the truth in such a simple way that less spiritually aware persons may misunderstand it. "God" should not be understood as an anthropomorphic being who has desires and pleasures or happiness, since all of these are purely human. Rather, God is eternal, ineffable, and transcendent. Morality is absolute because, in a way, it is God, not because it is "pleasing to God". Nothing is pleasing to God, nothing is displeasing to God - God is not happy and sad, God is and so is morality. What is moral, is God; what is not, is not God - thus evil must be understood not as a positive quantity, but as a void of that which is eternal. Indeed, even when one says God is good, God cannot be good in the human sense, because good can be better or best, while God has no degrees. Nothing can be better than God, nothing can be measured against God, therefore God is not good; God is, however Good, in the sense that "Good" here is not descriptive but synonymous. Morality functions in more or less the same way.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    01-15-2015 @ 04:32 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Neo-European
    Ethnicity
    White American
    Country
    United States
    Gender
    Posts
    2,264
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 15
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    Be careful of this approach; it is true, but it expresses the truth in such a simple way that less spiritually aware persons may misunderstand it. "God" should not be understood as an anthropomorphic being who has desires and pleasures or happiness, since all of these are purely human. Rather, God is eternal, ineffable, and transcendent.
    Lay the charge to God himself, then, for he revealed his nature with anthropomorphisms. I'm not interested in making everything a philosophical abstraction for the sake of the "less spiritually aware." Indeed, abstract philosophizing is usually far less useful when speaking to those who are sincere.

    Morality is absolute because, in a way, it is God, not because it is "pleasing to God". Nothing is pleasing to God, nothing is displeasing to God - God is not happy and sad, God is and so is morality. What is moral, is God; what is not, is not God - thus evil must be understood not as a positive quantity, but as a void of that which is eternal. Indeed, even when one says God is good, God cannot be good in the human sense, because good can be better or best, while God has no degrees. Nothing can be better than God, nothing can be measured against God, therefore God is not good; God is, however Good, in the sense that "Good" here is not descriptive but synonymous. Morality functions in more or less the same way.
    It appears we are agreed that God himself is the standard of morality.

  9. #19
    Inactive Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    11-28-2011 @ 12:53 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Gone.
    Ethnicity
    Gone.
    Gender
    Posts
    2,657
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 29
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odoacer View Post
    Lay the charge to God himself, then, for he revealed his nature with anthropomorphisms. I'm not interested in making everything a philosophical abstraction for the sake of the "less spiritually aware." Indeed, abstract philosophizing is usually far less useful when speaking to those who are sincere.
    This is why tradition is important, and the institution of the church, to make sense of the anthropomorphisms and parables that are not clear immediately. God must be understood in his absolute form, and not in human terms. As Eckhart said, "as long as you want more and more, God cannot dwell or work in you"; God is sufficient in Himself, he has not want or need, no pleasing or displeasing.

    "God's being is like nothing: in it is neither image nor form,"(Ekhart, Sermon 65) for "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (Jn. 1:1-5) The Word was both with God and was God, and through the Word all things were made, thus through God and by God all things were made. God penetrates all, transcends all, is all.

    God's totality, His ineffability, and the sublime unity of His being must be made clear in these times of heresy, or else Christians risk sinking into blind fundamentalism and lack of sight. The light shines forth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not; for in the darkness, God is made into shapes and things that can be understood - these are symbolic, they represent God, but they are not God. No one can understand God in his being; we can only conceptualise what that being is by ascribing heavily limiting terms to it. As long as the faithful understand this, they can come to realise God. If they do not, they will never realise God, for they shall seek Him in the idols they have made in their minds for Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odoacer View Post
    It appears we are agreed that God himself is the standard of morality.
    I don't think this particular point can be debated. By definition, God is the only thing or being that is in His entirety and totality Eternal and Whole, and since morality is defined in terms of the Eternal, it must come from or, as I said, be one with, the Godhead.

  10. #20
    ШИПТAP Sturmgewehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    05-09-2022 @ 03:06 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Illyro-Thracian
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Macedonia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1c / I-Z17855
    mtDNA
    V7
    Taxonomy
    Nordic/Dinarid
    Politics
    Liberal Socialism
    Religion
    Agnostic Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    1,410
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 170
    Given: 107

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    Be careful of this approach; it is true, but it expresses the truth in such a simple way that less spiritually aware persons may misunderstand it. "God" should not be understood as an anthropomorphic being who has desires and pleasures or happiness, since all of these are purely human. Rather, God is eternal, ineffable, and transcendent. Morality is absolute because, in a way, it is God, not because it is "pleasing to God". Nothing is pleasing to God, nothing is displeasing to God - God is not happy and sad, God is and so is morality. What is moral, is God; what is not, is not God - thus evil must be understood not as a positive quantity, but as a void of that which is eternal. Indeed, even when one says God is good, God cannot be good in the human sense, because good can be better or best, while God has no degrees. Nothing can be better than God, nothing can be measured against God, therefore God is not good; God is, however Good, in the sense that "Good" here is not descriptive but synonymous. Morality functions in more or less the same way.
    wait a second wait a second.

    So u saying what is moral is god and what is not moral is not god???

    then how did the immoral came to be >?? isn't everything created by god ???

    If u say what is Immoral is not God then that means there is something that created Immoral where god had no control over that which makes God not the only creator and ur whole Monotheistic god thing ends up in the garbage.

    If as u say everything is god and based on ur logic the universe and everything in it is God since God is the creator of EVERYTHING then if Immorality is not God, who created it ??? If Immorality is not God that means god has no power over Immorality which also ur All powerful god goes somewhere in the Contradiction container.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    This is why tradition is important, and the institution of the church, to make sense of the anthropomorphisms and parables that are not clear immediately.
    Let me translate this for u, That is why it is important to stop questioning things and accept them as served to u by the so called Traditions and Institutions such as Churches and Mosques which are Brainwashing tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    God must be understood in his absolute form, and not in human terms.
    that is true and as I said in a post previously there is NOTHING absolute in this world or universe or beyond it, the only thing absolute is God which means everything in the Universe even Morality and Immorality are relative.

    Do you think the Sun gives a shit about Morality do u think when a Black hole swallows us or destroys a star gives a crap about Morality ??? I don't think so.

    If there were no Humans there would be no Morality.

    For something to be Absolute it has to apply to everything in the universe not just to Humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    As Eckhart said, "as long as you want more and more, God cannot dwell or work in you";
    So u saying god CAN'T???

    I thought God CAN everything, he is almighty all powerful all merciful all knowing all hearing etc etc... but he can't dwell in you if u want more and more, how much more can a human being want????? I mean do you read what u write or u came to throw a bunch of contradictions here ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    God is sufficient in Himself, he has not want or need, no pleasing or displeasing.
    Then why did he create us ????

    Why is he gonna punish us for our sins ??? Why did he need to create us and then tests us and then burn us in hell???

    I mean what are our sins to him ??? is it really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    "God's being is like nothing: in it is neither image nor form,"(Ekhart, Sermon 65) for "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    This is where I expected to get u.

    How is it possible then that whatever is Moral is god and whatever is immoral is not God????

    in the beginning there was only him the word and god as u say and he created everything which means in the beginning there was no Morality of course cuz there was only him and he created everything which automatically means everything that exists comes from him and I would have u agree on this since u think Morality exists like a hole in the ground so then does Immorality and everything that exists comes from god and if u disagree then u are simply too stupid to breath and u should be hanged by ur balls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (Jn. 1:1-5)
    This is All metaphor and Symbolism don't just take everything literally.

    So in the beginning there was Darkness which means Darkness existed before god I think in this case Darkness is a synonym for Nothing and instead of using Nothing they used Darkness but if in the beginning there was Darkness it means there was something, OK I know u will say Darkness is the Absence of light yeah but who gives a fuck cuz u can say the same about Light too, Light is the Absence of Darkness and Darkness exists and light can't exist without Darkness cuz if it did it would lose the whole meaning of light and so on and on.

    So in the Beginning there was Darkness and God in the dark???

    that stuff must be some kind of Metaphor cuz it contradicts itself in so many levels.

    in Order for Darkness and Light to exist u need Space and time, which means there was space and time cuz darkness can't exist in no space and neither can light exist in no space and no time, even though we can debate that time doesn't exist and we made it up but still the space thing is enough of an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    The Word was both with God and was God, and through the Word all things were made, thus through God and by God all things were made. God penetrates all, transcends all, is all.
    If this is true then Morality Exists and u can't say Immorality doesn't exist cuz if immorality doesn't exist then why the fuck will u go in hell and if Immorality doesn't exist them Morality makes no sense and would lose its meaning and if this what u say is true that means Immorality came from god too, didn't it ????

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Eckhart View Post
    God's totality, His ineffability, and the sublime unity of His being must be made clear in these times of heresy, or else Christians risk sinking into blind fundamentalism and lack of sight.
    Oh the Irony.
    Last edited by Sturmgewehr; 10-04-2011 at 09:11 AM.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. classify absolute beauty
    By aherne in forum Taxonomy
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 07-19-2019, 07:02 PM
  2. What is Absolute Truth?
    By Brännvin in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 08:01 PM
  3. The Morality of Survival
    By Mighty Atom in forum The Bookshelf: Articles & Ebooks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-26-2011, 06:15 PM
  4. A Study of Morality
    By newnature in forum Religion & Spirituality
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-16-2011, 01:54 AM
  5. Absolute Rubbish
    By Fred in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 10:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •