What is morality? Is it absolute?

[Hevneren]

I've been wondering about people's take on morality. I had a brief discussion about morality in another thread, where it was suggested that morality is absolute and not dependent upon laws or or what we personally agree or disagree with.

I wondered how morality could be something constant and absolute, when society's views on right and wrong have changed a lot. We abolished slavery in the West not long ago. Was slavery moral when it was legal, but it isn't now, or was it always one or the other?

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, then who gets to decide what that entails? There are things most human beings can agree on, like not killing each other in cold blood or not raping children, but then there are matters such as loans and interests (moral?), abortion in the case of rape (moral?), letting 10 strangers die to save a loved one (moral?), using stem cells from fetuses to help severely ill people (moral?) etc. There are many things for which the conventional wisdom of past centuries have no answer.

If absolute morality doesn't exist, does that mean that morality is arbitrary and doesn't have any kind of framework upon which to build upon? Does it mean that our actions are not determined by right or wrong but by what we feel to be right and wrong? And if that's the case, then how great is the disparity between what we personally think and feel, and what the "rule book" says?

I think my personal perspective on morality is that we form our morality based upon what is good for the greatest amount of human beings, and that we form this morality based on this understanding and based on our own conscience. What is your perspective on morality?

[Saturni]

Morality isn't a "thing in itself." It has no independent existence. It is simply a thought.

Contrary to what some religious minded folks will like to tell you, there is no universal morality, no cosmic model of good and evil, no summum bonum/malum residing out there in ether.

Nietsche, I think, summed up all moralities best when he wrote,

What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.

[Curtis24]

Morality is "whatever does the most good for one's community". Behaviors associated with morality can very drastically depending on the environment.

For instance, in ancient Greece it was considered highly moral to aggressively attack a city-state, enslave its people, and enrich and empower one's own city. Men who could pull this off, were considered the moral equivalent of Gandhi. Of course, in the modern day, such actions are atrocities and violation of international law...

[Hevneren]

Morality isn't a "thing in itself." It has no independent existence. It is simply a thought.

Contrary to what some religious minded folks will like to tell you, there is no universal morality, no cosmic model of good and evil, no summum bonum/malum residing out there in ether.

Nietsche, I think, summed up all moralities best when he wrote,

What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.

So, power is always good and the lack of it always bad? How about the notion that power corrupts?

[Sturmgewehr]

Morality is a concept just like rights they are imaginary cute concepts but that is about it.

Morality is relative just like everything else in the universe except god if one believes in god.

What could be moral for a culture can be immoral for another culture.

Take polygamy, in the Middle east it is a Normal thing it is moral and no one is gonna call u crazy if u practice it, ok I know u would say it is a muslim thing but no it is not true, take European Muslims like Albanians, Bosniaks, Pomaks (Bulgarian Muslims ) and Torbeshs(Macedonian Muslims), all this ethnicities consider polygamy immoral and if u practice polygamy here you are insane so it is all up to cultures and people's mentality and morality differs from place to place and so on.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I don't like it when all faith in a universal morality is cast in doubt, all morality relativized, and all simple contentment destroyed, by those who abstractly criticize just so far as to question the most basic foundations of social order, but not so far as to uphold them.


If there is such a thing as absolute morality, then who gets to decide what that entails? There are things most human beings can agree on, like not killing each other in cold blood or not raping children, but then there are matters such as loans and interests (moral?), abortion in the case of rape (moral?),
There's obvious universal morals and there are grey moral areas. Both can exist at the same time.


If absolute morality doesn't exist, does that mean that morality is arbitrary and doesn't have any kind of framework upon which to build upon?
It exists in some areas and not in other areas.


Does it mean that our actions are not determined by right or wrong but by what we feel to be right and wrong?
Depends on the situation.


And if that's the case, then how great is the disparity between what we personally think and feel, and what the "rule book" says?

There is no rule book.

I don't understand why people keep talking about a single moral code for everything- like it can only be an extremely abstract moral code or an extremely definitive code- why not multiple moral codes depending on the situation.


Contrary to what some religious minded folks will like to tell you, there is no universal morality, no cosmic model of good and evil, no summum bonum/malum residing out there in ether.
Nietsche, I think, summed up all moralities best when he wrote,

So when you see a hurt child and you have the option to help him and there are no other effects, not helping him isn't evil? No, this is a case when an obvious universal morality comes into play- either good or evil.

Nietzsche was a mad man.

[Saturni]

So when you see a hurt child and you have the option to help him and there are no other effects, not helping him isn't evil? No, this is a case when an obvious universal morality comes into play- either good or evil.

Nietzsche was a mad man.

Nope. Nor do you have a legal duty to help anyone in distress.

Universal morality is the stuff of Sunday morning sermons. Each man is the maker and breaker of his own morality.

As for Nietzsche, he was a prophet,if there ever was one.

[Saturni]

So, power is always good and the lack of it always bad? How about the notion that power corrupts?

And just who came up with the notion that power corrupts? Certainly not the power who are exercising that power.

[Magister Eckhart]

Morality is absolute and eternal. Morality is by definition the sense of righteousness that descends from Truth, above which there is no else and besides which there is nothing purer. It is derived from what is eternal within a man; to will against it derives from what is unhallowed and mortal in man. No argument against morality is therefore valid or can be made without utter and absolute denial that man has anything eternal in him, and no argument for morality can be made or is valid which does not recognise the eternal in man.

Morality is unchanging and untouchable, no matter what a man does morality does not change, no matter what he feels or how he thinks or what he opines will touch it, for feelings and thoughts and opinions may touch the eternal but do not belong to that species of things which are eternal. To make an argument based on what society views as "right" today and what society viewed as "right" a century ago is therefore not a discussion of morality, but a discussion of sentiments and opinions which, though they may touch the eternal, are ultimately unhallowed and as corrupt as any man to whom they might occur.

This of course creates a problem, for how does one detect the difference between that which is eternal and that which merely touches the eternal? History and tradition have handed down to us living today an answer to this in the means by which Uncreated Truth contacts Creation, which has been called the λόγος; the singular being and person which could be this λόγος is Christ; the answer therefore resides in the faith and teachings of he who is called this, namely Christ Jesus.

I'm not expecting much agreement with any of the above, as most respondants to this thread are as a stubborn and pig-headed in their hatred of Christianity as I once was. Only time, reflection, and education can ever overcome the wilful ignorance that produces anti-Christian sentiment.

[Breedingvariety]

In absolute sense- morality is absolute. In relative sense- morality is relative. Absolute is more true than relative.

[Saturni]

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.

[Odoacer]

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

[Sturmgewehr]

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?

[Saturni]

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? :D

[askra]

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.

[Sturmgewehr]

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.

[Magister Eckhart]

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.

[Odoacer]

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.

[Magister Eckhart]

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.


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.

[Sturmgewehr]

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.


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.


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.


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 ???


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 ?


"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.


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.


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 ????


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.

[Saturni]

Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
-Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human.

What do you do with Theists? Pat them on their heads and send them on their merry ways.

Nothing can be gained by trying to reason with them, for they are beyond, or perhaps it is better to say below reason. For them, their "god" exists beyond proof and is, therefore, impervious to scientific examination.

It must also be remembered that Theists are not of the "Master Class." For if they were, what use would they have for Jehovah's yoke?

[Odoacer]

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.

There's nothing immediately unclear about the idea that some things are "pleasing" to God & others are "displeasing." Indeed, there is much support in tradition for such ascriptions. What's unclear is why this sort of language, which is rooted in biblical revelation, should rather be avoided in favor of philosophical abstractions. Did my statement actually result in misunderstanding on the part of unbelievers or spiritually immature persons? I don't think it did.


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.

It is true that we must understand that God is infinite, transcendant, eternal, self-sufficient - holy, separate from his creation, fundamentally unlike us. But man cannot understand God "in his absolute form," for the simple reason that man is finite & God is infinite. However, God, in pity, condescends to man's capacity for understanding.


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 is all? Now there's an unclear statement, which smacks of pantheism - ever a problematic tendency with mysticism. I don't think you are a pantheist, though.


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.

To be frank, I think you are addressing these concerns to the wrong person.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Originally Posted by: Saturni
Nothing can be gained by trying to reason with them, for they are beyond, or perhaps it is better to say below reason.

You do the exact same thing. I pointed out earlier in this post that it is possible to have situations where a clear universal good or evil exists. And you told me that my statement was wrong, not because of my logic, but because Nietzsche was a prophet.

Look into the mirror.

[Odoacer]

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.

Immorality is not a positive substance: it is a corruption of morality (which is itself eternal). As such, immorality is not "created." Its existence is wholly derivative.


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.

This is absurd. Inanimate objects have no will; they cannot do anything that is "wrong." So what? How does that mean that morality isn't absolute? To say that morality is absolute is to say that it is not relative & not subject to change. Inanimate objects are not "moral" any more than they are "rational."


Then why did he create us ????

For his glory.


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.

If God is morality (to put it that way), then morality exists eternally as God exists eternally. Morality thus isn't "created."

[Odoacer]

Nothing can be gained by trying to reason with them, for they are beyond, or perhaps it is better to say below reason. For them, their "god" exists beyond proof and is, therefore, impervious to scientific examination.

Uh-huh:


As for Objectivity, this is an illusion, Nothing has an objective existence.

Is this statement of yours pervious to scientific examination?

[Saturni]

You do the exact same thing. I pointed out earlier in this post that it is possible to have situations where a clear universal good or evil exists. And you told me that my statement was wrong, not because of my logic, but because Nietzsche was a prophet.

Look into the mirror.

I did look in the mirror and was awed by the sight of the god that was being reflected back at me.

As for this universal good and evil, show it to me. Post it here for all to see.

Short term memory loss is a bitch, no? You opined that Nietzsche was a madman. I responded that he was a prophet or as close to one as he had in recent memory.

[Saturni]

Is this statement of yours pervious to scientific examination?

I'm not sure I understand your sentence. Would you like to rephrase it so it makes more sense?

[Odoacer]

I'm not sure I understand your sentence. Would you like to rephrase it so it makes more sense?

Your assertion that objective existence is an illusion is impervious to scientific examination.

[Sturmgewehr]

Immorality is not a positive substance: it is a corruption of morality (which is itself eternal). As such, immorality is not "created." Its existence is wholly derivative.

Neither is Morality a positive substance it is an idea and a concept.

Immorality would never exist without morality cuz as u know if one didn't exist the whole meaning of it would lose sense.

I am not quite sure what u trying to say but also Morality is derivative, it comes from man, just as immorality can't exist without Morality same goes for Morality, if there was no mankind there would be no morality and morality is derivative of mankind and the psychological processes going on in our head and mind.


This is absurd. Inanimate objects have no will; they cannot do anything that is "wrong." So what? How does that mean that morality isn't absolute? To say that morality is absolute is to say that it is not relative & not subject to change. Inanimate objects are not "moral" any more than they are "rational."

for one to be absolute it needs to apply to the whole universe, like God, god is everything and everywhere, it needs to apply on everything.

u said inanimate objects have no will, so then will is related to morality and if will changes morality will change.

And as we know which is a fact Morality changes and varies from place to place and time to time, this is a fact.

Man is not Eternal, man will be gone and Morality dies with man, Morality without mankind makes 0 sense so when mankind is gone Morality will end up in the shit house as well and morality changes if u wanna change it, if u decide today that something is moral which was immoral yesterday then u do it, if something is absolute u can't change it.


For his glory.

Now that is stupid and makes no sense, sounds humalike.

u need more elaboration on that cuz that is plane lame.




If God is morality (to put it that way), then morality exists eternally as God exists eternally. Morality thus isn't "created."

Who said God is Morality?? I didn't, your friend said that and I was showing how big of contradiction he has.

And if Morality is Eternal then so is Immorality, if Morality is God then so is Immorality since god created everything.

But we know god is not Morality, god is god and Morality is something mortals deal with and change from time to time thus morality is created cuz God doesn't need Morality we need Morality and Morality was created either by god or us still created and whatever is created is not absolute cuz it has a beginning and an end which means it changes :).

Absolute:

ab·so·lute/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot/
Adjective: Not qualified or diminished in any way; total: "absolute secrecy".
Noun: A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.

[Saturni]

Your assertion that objective existence is an illusion is impervious to scientific examination.

Is it? Then please explain how.

[Oreka Bailoak]

As for this universal good and evil, show it to me. Post it here for all to see.
I already gave an example.


Short term memory loss is a bitch, no?
No, it's not.


You opined that Nietzsche was a madman. I responded that he was a prophet or as close to one...

This was my point.

[Odoacer]

I am not quite sure what u trying to say but also Morality is derivative, it comes from man, just as immorality can't exist without Morality same goes for Morality, if there was no mankind there would be no morality and morality is derivative of mankind and the psychological processes going on in our head and mind.

No, morality isn't derivative in the sense I mean. Now, I will agree with you that men call different things "moral," so in that sense the variety of moral codes which men hold are indeed derivative. But morality proper has to do with the nature of God, which is uncreated & unchangeable. In this sense, immorality is not a creation, but is merely a corruption of morality. Therefore immorality as such did not need to be "created" by God.


for one to be absolute it needs to apply to the whole universe, like God, god is everything and everywhere, it needs to apply on everything.

I wouldn't say that God "is everything." He is everywhere, yes. Anyway, morality is everywhere & at all times the same, regardless of what opinions individuals or societies hold - that's what is meant by calling it "absolute."


u said inanimate objects have no will, so then will is related to morality and if will changes morality will change.

The possession of a will - that is, the ability to make choices - is a necessary precondition to moral behavior. A rock has no will, & therefore cannot be described as "moral" or "immoral." By the same token, the possession of a mind is a necessary precondition to rational thought. A rock has no mind, & therefore cannot be described as "rational" or "irrational."


And as we know which is a fact Morality changes and varies from place to place and time to time, this is a fact.

What's a fact is that different individuals & societies have different understandings of what is moral or immoral. This tells us nothing about the nature of morality proper, only that human beings are inconsistent. For example, it is always wrong to steal (a moral rule which is absolute). Some individuals don't feel they need to abide by this rule (at least in certain circumstances), & some societies may permit theft to varying degrees. But, since stealing is always wrong, these individuals & societies are wrong to treat theft as moral in any circumstances. That's what is meant by morality being absolute. Your personal disagreement with moral absolutism isn't a refutation of it.


Man is not Eternal, man will be gone and Morality dies with man, Morality without mankind makes 0 sense so when mankind is gone Morality will end up in the shit house as well

Then this is also undoubtedly the case with reason or logic.


Now that is stupid and makes no sense, sounds humalike.

u need more elaboration on that cuz that is plane lame.

Perhaps you can elaborate why it "makes no sense."


Who said God is Morality?? I didn't, your friend said that and I was showing how big of contradiction he has.

I was showing you that Magister Eckhart did not contradict his own premises. On the premise that "God is morality," when God existed alone in the beginning, morality also existed.


And if Morality is Eternal then so is Immorality, if Morality is God then so is Immorality since god created everything.

This isn't so. While immorality is not possible without morality, the opposite is not the case. Immorality is a corruption of morality, therefore morality preexists immorality. There are some other things like this, e.g., truth, goodness, & beauty.


But we know god is not Morality, god is god and Morality is something mortals deal with and change from time to time thus morality is created cuz God doesn't need Morality we need Morality and Morality was created either by god or us still created and whatever is created is not absolute cuz it has a beginning and an end which means it changes :).

And we've disputed precisely these notions.


Is it? Then please explain how.

It's not falsifiable.

[Saturni]

I already gave an example.

An example of an absolute? Really? You gave an example of an irrefutable absolute?

I went back and checked, but I didn't see anything approaching an absolute. Guess I just lack the capacity for blind faith in a god to have appreciated this exemplar of an absolute you gave. Oh well. Hell, I'm sure, will be full mean old doubters in absolutes like myself.

[Magister Eckhart]

There's nothing immediately unclear about the idea that some things are "pleasing" to God & others are "displeasing." Indeed, there is much support in tradition for such ascriptions. What's unclear is why this sort of language, which is rooted in biblical revelation, should rather be avoided in favor of philosophical abstractions. Did my statement actually result in misunderstanding on the part of unbelievers or spiritually immature persons? I don't think it did.

On the contrary, to say things are pleasing or displeasing to God makes God's nature unclear and confusing, since he neither wants nor can be pleased or displeased. The concern I am expressing is that the metaphors for God might begin to be taken as God. This is my concern, a concern I cannot believe you as a Christian do not understand. Especially as a heretic of your ilk, the idolatry implicit in worshipping metaphors of God as if they were God doesn't bother you?


It is true that we must understand that God is infinite, transcendant, eternal, self-sufficient - holy, separate from his creation, fundamentally unlike us. But man cannot understand God "in his absolute form," for the simple reason that man is finite & God is infinite. However, God, in pity, condescends to man's capacity for understanding.

It is not beyond man's understanding to understand that God is absolute, merely beyond his understanding to understand what absolute truly means.


God is all? Now there's an unclear statement, which smacks of pantheism - ever a problematic tendency with mysticism. I don't think you are a pantheist, though.

Meaning God is totality, not that all things are God (the latter being pantheistic). God is everything, He is in everything, and all Creation dwells in Him, but that does not mean that all Creation is Him in the sense that it can be regarded and worshipped as Him. Indeed, this is what Paul critiques when he calls on the Greeks to turn away from worshipping creation (κτίσις) and begin worshipping the creator (τον κτισαντα). But when one worships God in the metaphoric forms he is given in religious teachings, one is ultimately worshipping creation rather than creator: this is my concern.


To be frank, I think you are addressing these concerns to the wrong person.

Well I'm certainly not going to waste my time on the godless and immoral relativists here; it would be an exercise in futility anyway, as you are finding out. They need to learn for themselves where they are in error, just as I did. I can be hard on them and attack them, but they have no fear so it would be useless; I can be soft on them and recommend them to read, but they have no respect so they would mock me as condescending. I probably have too little patience for them; I resort to prayer, when I should probably put forth more effort to bring them back to righteousness and away from the evils with which they now cavort.

You and I, however, both desire strongly to be good Christians, do we not? We accept that there is a good sort of religion and a bad sort of religion; and therefore the using the word "heresy" is not meaningless to you. Certainly my concerns over mental idolatry cannot fall on deaf ears?

[Odoacer]

On the contrary, to say things are pleasing or displeasing to God makes God's nature unclear and confusing, since he neither wants nor can be pleased or displeased.

Again, lay the charge to God himself:

And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness (Num. 24:1).

Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day (Deut. 10:15).

For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people (1 Sam. 12:22).

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Sam. 15:22).

And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing (1 Kings 3:10).

Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the LORD loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice (1 Kings 10:9).

I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness (1 Chron. 29:17).

Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives (Ezra [1 Esdras] 10:11).

Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant (Ps. 35:27).

Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar (Ps. 51:19).

Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure (Ps. 103.21).

But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased (Ps. 115:3).

Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places (Ps. 135:6).

The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy (Ps. 147:11).

For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation (Ps. 149:4).

A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight (Prov. 11:1).

They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight (Prov. 11:20).

Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight (Prov. 12:22).

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight (Prov. 15:8).

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:1).

The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable (Isa. 42:21).

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isa. 46:10).

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10).

Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married (Isa. 62:4).

Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not (Isa. 65:12).

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not (Isa. 66:4).

But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD (Jer. 9:24).

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek. 33:11).

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy (Mic. 7:18).

Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD (Hag. 1:8).

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mt. 3:11).

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him (Mt. 17:5).

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12:32).

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Cor. 1:21).

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace (Gal. 1:15).

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself (Eph. 1:9).

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell (Col. 3:19).

Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power (2 Thess. 1:11).

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God (Heb. 11:5).

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev. (Apo.) 4:11).


The concern I am expressing is that the metaphors for God might begin to be taken as God. This is my concern, a concern I cannot believe you as a Christian do not understand. Especially as a heretic of your ilk, the idolatry implicit in worshipping metaphors of God as if they were God doesn't bother you?

"Pleasure" & "displeasure" are not themselves "metaphors for God" (obviously; how could they be?). They are rather analogies to describe one aspect of God's relationship to his creation. I am not aware of any other means of describing that particular aspect than by this analogy; & the analogy is anyway authorized by God's self-revelation. Likewise "Father" & "Son" are analogies to describe the relationship between those two persons (person: another analogy) of the Trinity. Should I refrain from worshipping the "Father in heaven" or the "Son of God" because this might be construed as worshipping metaphors? Your concern is overwrought.


It is not beyond man's understanding to understand that God is absolute, merely beyond his understanding to understand what absolute truly means.

It is beyond man's capacity to understand God "in his absolute form," which you had said we must do. It is not impossible to understand that God is absolute, no.


Meaning God is totality, not that all things are God (the latter being pantheistic). God is everything, He is in everything, and all Creation dwells in Him, but that does not mean that all Creation is Him in the sense that it can be regarded and worshipped as Him. Indeed, this is what Paul critiques when he calls on the Greeks to turn away from worshipping creation (κτίσις) and begin worshipping the creator (τον κτισαντα). But when one worships God in the metaphoric forms he is given in religious teachings, one is ultimately worshipping creation rather than creator: this is my concern.

Again, your concern is overwrought. I find far more troubling the idea that I should avoid the use of biblical language in preference for theological & philosophical jargon which was developed by men. Not that the latter is unnecessary or unimportant (quite the contrary), but it is always secondary to God's self-expression.


Well I'm certainly not going to waste my time on the godless and immoral relativists here; it would be an exercise in futility anyway, as you are finding out. They need to learn for themselves where they are in error, just as I did. I can be hard on them and attack them, but they have no fear so it would be useless; I can be soft on them and recommend them to read, but they have no respect so they would mock me as condescending. I probably have too little patience for them; I resort to prayer, when I should probably put forth more effort to bring them back to righteousness and away from the evils with which they now cavort.

There is a time for holding back pearls, to use a metaphor. ;)


You and I, however, both desire strongly to be good Christians, do we not? We accept that there is a good sort of religion and a bad sort of religion; and therefore the using the word "heresy" is not meaningless to you. Certainly my concerns over mental idolatry cannot fall on deaf ears?

Not on deaf ears, no. But I don't believe that what I've said about morality is tantamount, or even anywhere close, to the mental idolatry you are describing. Did I not clearly state that morality is absolute, reflecting God's immutable nature, even before I mentioned pleasure & displeasure? Thus your objection - particularly its interjection into this discussion - puzzles me.

[Sturmgewehr]

No, morality isn't derivative in the sense I mean. Now, I will agree with you that men call different things "moral," so in that sense the variety of moral codes which men hold are indeed derivative. But morality proper has to do with the nature of God, which is uncreated & unchangeable. In this sense, immorality is not a creation, but is merely a corruption of morality. Therefore immorality as such did not need to be "created" by God.


Why would Morality be nature of god??? God doesn't need Morality, why would god Need Morality ???? Why would Morality be nature of god ??? who does he have to be Moral to ???

Plus what is nature of God anyways ????

and what is Morality Proper, does anything like that Exist???

If morality is Absolute it should apply to everything in the universe, sun, stars and everything, something that doesn't apply to everything in the universe and that is dependable on different factors is not Absolute, only god is Absolute cuz his existence is not dependable on anything, Morality depends on mankind and if there is no mankind there is no Morality.

God doesn't need morality thus Morality is not part of god or nature of God cuz he has no need neither use of it and it doesn't apply to him, Morality applies only to human beings.




I wouldn't say that God "is everything." He is everywhere, yes. Anyway, morality is everywhere & at all times the same, regardless of what opinions individuals or societies hold - that's what is meant by calling it "absolute."

I wouldn't call god is everything either but I would call god Absolute cuz if God is everything then everything is Absolute and that is not the case, god is God the absolute one and he created man and everything with him.

Morality is not eveywhere and all the times.

Imagine if there was a shepherd with his SHeep in an Island, would Morality apply to him in Isolation ?>?? no it wouldn't cuz Morality is something between people in groups or at least 2 people, there cannot be Morality if one lives in Isolation, so Morality is Relative, if there are people there is Morality, morality is so relative that it can't exist with only one person, u need 2+ people for Morality to make sense and exist.

How can Morality be everywhere if Morality doesn't apply to the sun, Black Holes and 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of the universe???

makes no sense.


The possession of a will - that is, the ability to make choices - is a necessary precondition to moral behavior. A rock has no will, & therefore cannot be described as "moral" or "immoral." By the same token, the possession of a mind is a necessary precondition to rational thought. A rock has no mind, & therefore cannot be described as "rational" or "irrational."

Then how come u claimed that Morality is everywhere at Every time??? is it in a Black hole ?? in the sun ??? cuz u seem to contradict urself, there is no need Morality to be everywhere, only god is everywhere nothing else in the universe is everywhere, and why would morality be everywhere ??? makes no sense.



What's a fact is that different individuals & societies have different understandings of what is moral or immoral. This tells us nothing about the nature of morality proper, only that human beings are inconsistent. For example, it is always wrong to steal (a moral rule which is absolute). Some individuals don't feel they need to abide by this rule (at least in certain circumstances), & some societies may permit theft to varying degrees. But, since stealing is always wrong, these individuals & societies are wrong to treat theft as moral in any circumstances. That's what is meant by morality being absolute. Your personal disagreement with moral absolutism isn't a refutation of it.

It is always bad to steal is not an absolute moral Rule.

What if your kids are starving to death and your only option is to steal food to feed them.

Let's say ur life depended on lying or someone else's life depended on lying, would u lie to save ur life or others ??? what is a bigger deal lying and saving life/lives or telling the truth and getting everyone hanged ?????

So u gonna tell me it is moral to tell the truth and get everybody killed then lying??? then where the hell is sanctity of life, and that is how much u value life as much as a lie ???

Or that is how much stealing means to god that he won't allow someone steal a piece of bread to survive ???

It is better to starve to death than stealing a piece of bread ????

if u say it is better to tell the truth and get a bunch of people killed or not stealing and die then u gotta be out of ur mind.



Then this is also undoubtedly the case with reason or logic.

deductive and inductive logic??? ring a bell, those make logic not absolute when thinking that way BUT there are many views to this, some say Logic is absolute because of the mere fact of the existence of anything at all, automatically puts existence into a relationship with non-existence.

Now did Logic Exist when there was nothing only god and nothing existed, I don't think it did and I don't think Logic is an Attribute of god, god must be beyond that, beyond logic.


Perhaps you can elaborate why it "makes no sense."

I already did, I said it is too humanlike. now it is ur turn.


I was showing you that Magister Eckhart did not contradict his own premises. On the premise that "God is morality," when God existed alone in the beginning, morality also existed.

yes he did, he said whatever is Morality is God and whatever is not Morality is not God which means that immorality wan't created by god and god has no control to immorality.

How did morality exist in the beggining alone when Morality hardly makes sense even if 1 person Existed????

Morality can't exist without mankind, that is a fact.


This isn't so. While immorality is not possible without morality, the opposite is not the case. Immorality is a corruption of morality, therefore morality preexists immorality. There are some other things like this, e.g., truth, goodness, & beauty.

yes it is, lol.

Goodness & beauty >?? really ???

LOL.

How do you decide something is beautiful if u don't have anything else to compare it with ???? Goodness ??? how do u know something is good if u don't have other things to compare it too.

what could be beautiful for you can be ugly for someone else, beauty is a social construct so is goodness as is morality and these things can't exist without mankind as well they fall in the same category.


And we've disputed precisely these notions.

How ?

[Monolith]

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.
All human beings, with the exception of sociopaths, instinctively know "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" etc. So I'd say the basic human morals have always been absolute. You can't relativize murder.

Our very nature is that of cooperation (which is why human race is successful as a species), hence our empathy and compassion.

[Sturmgewehr]

All human beings, with the exception of sociopaths, instinctively know "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" etc. So I'd say the basic human morals have always been absolute. You can't relativize murder.

Our very nature is that of cooperation (which is why human race is successful as a species), hence our empathy and compassion.

yeah but u can kill in Self defense, can't u ???

Taking a human life is wrong but u can take one in Self defense but it is still taking a life isn't it ????

Though Shall not steal, but people still if it was instinctive not to steal why would people steal >???

yes people relativise murder such in war or in self defense etc etc...

[Monolith]

yeah but u can kill in Self defense, can't u ???
Ever killed a man? You talk as if it's a piece of cake. Which was exactly my point, it's not easy to take life, even that of your enemy, because we know it's wrong.

Though Shall not steal, but people still if it was instinctive not to steal why would people steal >???
I didn't say our instincts will necessarily stop us from stealing. I said humans instinctively know that harming other humans in any way is wrong. Now, this is not to say we can't suppress that or become numb to other people's sufferings.


yes people relativise murder such in war or in self defense etc etc...
Killing someone and murdering someone are two very different things.

[Odoacer]

Why would Morality be nature of god??? God doesn't need Morality, why would god Need Morality ???? Why would Morality be nature of god ??? who does he have to be Moral to ???

Plus what is nature of God anyways ????

and what is Morality Proper, does anything like that Exist???

If morality is Absolute it should apply to everything in the universe, sun, stars and everything, something that doesn't apply to everything in the universe and that is dependable on different factors is not Absolute, only god is Absolute cuz his existence is not dependable on anything, Morality depends on mankind and if there is no mankind there is no Morality.

God doesn't need morality thus Morality is not part of god or nature of God cuz he has no need neither use of it and it doesn't apply to him, Morality applies only to human beings.

Do you need so many question marks????? Please, one question mark at a time is sufficient. :p Anyway, it's not about God "needing" morality. God doesn't "need" to be good or just, either, but he is good & just by nature. In fact, he is the very standard of goodness & justice. The same applies to morality. Saying that inanimate objects cannot be moral has absolutely (;)) nothing to do with whether morality is "absolute." I'm really at a loss as to where you get this idea. Maybe there's some communication barrier here since English isn't your native tongue.


Imagine if there was a shepherd with his SHeep in an Island, would Morality apply to him in Isolation ?>?? no it wouldn't cuz Morality is something between people in groups or at least 2 people, there cannot be Morality if one lives in Isolation, so Morality is Relative, if there are people there is Morality, morality is so relative that it can't exist with only one person, u need 2+ people for Morality to make sense and exist.

False. You do not need two people for morality. It is always everywhere wrong to worship something other than God. Say this shepherd decided to worship his sheep. It would be immoral for him to do so, even though there are no other people involved. It is always everywhere wrong for humans to have sex with animals. Say this shepherd decided to have sex with his sheep. It would be immoral for him to do so, even though there are no other people involved.


How can Morality be everywhere if Morality doesn't apply to the sun, Black Holes and 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of the universe???

makes no sense.

Sorry, but this objection makes no sense. Put a couple people on the sun &, assuming they aren't incinerated immediately, they still have a duty to behave morally there just as much as they had on earth. So, morality still applies everywhere, even though the sun itself is not a moral thing.


Then how come u claimed that Morality is everywhere at Every time??? is it in a Black hole ?? in the sun ??? cuz u seem to contradict urself, there is no need Morality to be everywhere, only god is everywhere nothing else in the universe is everywhere, and why would morality be everywhere ??? makes no sense.

Let's try another analogy. There are no humans on Pluto. Does logic apply there?


It is always bad to steal is not an absolute moral Rule.

What if your kids are starving to death and your only option is to steal food to feed them.

This situation is merely hypothetical. In reality, the choices for obtaining food, where there is food to be found, are never so limited. Be that as it may, it would still be wrong to steal food that doesn't belong to you. The intention (to feed your family) makes no difference as to the wrongness of the act.


Let's say ur life depended on lying or someone else's life depended on lying, would u lie to save ur life or others ??? what is a bigger deal lying and saving life/lives or telling the truth and getting everyone hanged ?????

So u gonna tell me it is moral to tell the truth and get everybody killed then lying??? then where the hell is sanctity of life, and that is how much u value life as much as a lie ???

Truth is more valuable than life.


Or that is how much stealing means to god that he won't allow someone steal a piece of bread to survive ???

It is better to starve to death than stealing a piece of bread ????

if u say it is better to tell the truth and get a bunch of people killed or not stealing and die then u gotta be out of ur mind.

:shrug: I guess I'm out of my mind, then.


deductive and inductive logic??? ring a bell, those make logic not absolute when thinking that way BUT there are many views to this, some say Logic is absolute because of the mere fact of the existence of anything at all, automatically puts existence into a relationship with non-existence.

Now did Logic Exist when there was nothing only god and nothing existed, I don't think it did and I don't think Logic is an Attribute of god, god must be beyond that, beyond logic.

I think logic is in the mind of God. So yes, it would have existed with God in eternity. For example, the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction would apply regardless of whether God created anything outside himself.


I already did, I said it is too humanlike. now it is ur turn.

I don't see why it's too humanlike, & I don't see why that would make it nonsensical anyway. So your objection is not really explained.


yes he did, he said whatever is Morality is God and whatever is not Morality is not God which means that immorality wan't created by god and god has no control to immorality.

No, this doesn't follow from Magister Eckhart's premises.


How do you decide something is beautiful if u don't have anything else to compare it with ???? Goodness ??? how do u know something is good if u don't have other things to compare it too.

what could be beautiful for you can be ugly for someone else, beauty is a social construct so is goodness as is morality and these things can't exist without mankind as well they fall in the same category.

None of this addresses the point. Goodness & beauty are defaults. Evil & ugliness are deviations from these. The inability of mankind to be consistent in what is regarded as good/evil or beautiful/ugly has no bearing on the matter. I note you left truth alone. Is it impossible for there to be truth unless there is also falsehood?

[Saturni]

All human beings, with the exception of sociopaths, instinctively know "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" etc. So I'd say the basic human morals have always been absolute. You can't relativize murder.

Our very nature is that of cooperation (which is why human race is successful as a species), hence our empathy and compassion.

Actually, people are taught right and wrong by their parents or other similar authority figures. No one is born with "morality" hardwired into their brains.

And yes, the ability to cooperate is what put humans at the top of the food chain, but it should also be remembered that humans are also the most vicious and sadistic animals on the planet.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I went back and checked, but I didn't see anything approaching an absolute.

I'm starting to get pissed off.

So now you read my argument and think it's not worth commenting on even though it totally dismantled your argument that there are no clear-cut good or evil and in replying back to me you said nothing concerning the logic of my argument but you went on to say I'm wrong because "Nietzsche is a prophet". Ridiculous.

So when given the opportunity to save a dying child and no other effects (opportunity costs etc.) are given, then if you let the child die you aren't making an immoral decision. Talk about totally throwing all common sense out the window.


Guess I just lack the capacity for blind faith in a god to have appreciated this exemplar of an absolute you gave. Oh well. Hell, I'm sure, will be full mean old doubters in absolutes like myself.
Arrogance.

Why are you presuming that I believe in blind faith of a god simply because I stated an example of a situation where a clear good or evil exists?

That jump in logic is totally irrational.

I'm not trying to invent irrational arguments to save my god. Because I don't believe in any of the major religions.

If anything has been discerned through our argument it's that you have blind faith in a madman - your self professed prophet- Friedrich Nietzsche.

[Saturni]

I'm starting to get pissed off.

So now you read my argument and think it's not worth commenting on even though it totally dismantled your argument that there are no clear-cut good or evil and in replying back to me you said nothing concerning the logic of my argument but you went on to say I'm wrong because "Nietzsche is a prophet". Ridiculous.
You said you gave an example of an absolute. Well guess what, your example does not meet the criteria of an absolute.


So when given the opportunity to save a dying child and no other effects (opportunity costs etc.) are given, then if you let the child die you aren't making an immoral decision. Talk about totally throwing all common sense out the window.
Talk about empty Xtain moralizing! The Xtian god who demands his servants sacrifice their children to him, who kills first born children by the droves, and who wipes entire cities off the face of the Earth, these are the "moral" actions that we, as his most dutiful servants, should be emulating?!?


Why are you presuming that I believe in blind faith of a god simply because I stated an example of a situation where a clear good or evil exists?

That jump in logic is totally irrational.
Because good and evil is the parlance of beadmumblers.


I'm not trying to invent irrational arguments to save my god. Because I don't believe in any of the major religions.

If anything has been discerned through our argument it's that you have blind faith in a madman - your self professed prophet- Friedrich Nietzsche.
Appreciating the literary/philosophical works of an author hardly qualifies as blind faith.

[Oreka Bailoak]

You said you gave an example of an absolute. Well guess what, your example does not meet the criteria of an absolute.




Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.


Principle - Needlessly letting a child die that you and only you could have helped without any cost to yourself other than reducing free time.

Example, driving down a road in the middle of the desert and you see an injured child and you weren't planning on doing anything for the rest of the day.

Choice 1) Help the child
Choice 2) Don't help the child

1 is clearly moral and 2 is clearly immoral. Good and evil.

[Supreme American]

Morality for white people should primarily be centered on loving and caring for our own first.

[Saturni]

Principle - Needlessly letting a child die that you and only you could have helped without any cost to yourself other than reducing free time.

Example, driving down a road in the middle of the desert and you see an injured child and you weren't planning on doing anything for the rest of the day.

Choice 1) Help the child
Choice 2) Don't help the child

1 is clearly moral and 2 is clearly immoral. Good and evil.

Is abortion immoral?

[Oreka Bailoak]

Is abortion immoral?


I was arguing that there are areas that are clearly immoral or moral, that would be agreed upon by every rational person. I wasn't arguing that every single area is immoral or moral.

Abortion is a grey area which isn't agreed upon by all rational members of society. But the example I posted earlier is not in the grey area and is agreed upon by all rational members of society.

There are areas that are "beyond good and evil" and there are areas that are "either good or evil".

The fact that both areas exist is my purpose of pointing this out. Not that one area is supreme over the other.

My own personal opinion on abortion is of no importance to this argument.

[Saturni]

I was arguing that there are areas that are clearly immoral or moral, that would be agreed upon by every rational person. I wasn't arguing that every single area is immoral or moral.
Clearly moral/immoral to you alone. Your personal morality is not a universal absolute.


Abortion is a grey area which isn't agreed upon by all rational members of society. But the example I posted earlier is not in the grey area and is agreed upon by all rational members of society.
Why is it a grey area? In the example you gave, allowing a child to die was immoral. How is abortion any different than the example you gave?


There are areas that are "beyond good and evil" and there are areas that are "either good or evil".

The fact that both areas exist is my purpose of pointing this out. Not that one area is supreme over the other.
And what is "beyond good and evil?"



My own personal opinion on abortion is of no importance to this argument.
Personally, I think abortion is great.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Clearly moral/immoral to you alone. Your personal morality is not a universal absolute.

Why is it a grey area? In the example you gave, allowing a child to die was immoral. How is abortion any different than the example you gave?



Ridiculous. You aren't even following my train of thought. I created a strong argument for my case and now you're just throwing general statements around- not even talking about my arguments- and totally ignoring the gravy train I've built up.


And what is "beyond good and evil?"

I thought you read Nietzsche. In beyond good and evil he says that morality is neither good or evil but in grey areas. Obviously this is not always the case, which is my point.

If I were to agree with you then logically, saving the child in the example I gave previously is only moral in my opinion and I should agree with you that for all people saving a child isn't good but just moral or immoral depending upon the person who saves the child- for some people saving the child's life could be immoral. Do you not see the insanity of such a stupid argument you are making? There are clearly areas that are universally moral or immoral.

I've been repeating my arguments over and over again in post after post. I have no idea why these aren't computing with you. If you could just phrase your critique of my argument more logically then maybe we can reach an agreement.

[Magister Eckhart]

Again, lay the charge to God himself:

And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness (Num. 24:1).

Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day (Deut. 10:15).

For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people (1 Sam. 12:22).

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Sam. 15:22).

And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing (1 Kings 3:10).

Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the LORD loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice (1 Kings 10:9).

I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness (1 Chron. 29:17).

Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives (Ezra [1 Esdras] 10:11).

Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant (Ps. 35:27).

Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar (Ps. 51:19).

Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure (Ps. 103.21).

But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased (Ps. 115:3).

Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places (Ps. 135:6).

The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy (Ps. 147:11).

For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation (Ps. 149:4).

A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight (Prov. 11:1).

They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight (Prov. 11:20).

Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight (Prov. 12:22).

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight (Prov. 15:8).

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:1).

The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable (Isa. 42:21).

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isa. 46:10).

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10).

Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married (Isa. 62:4).

Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not (Isa. 65:12).

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not (Isa. 66:4).

But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD (Jer. 9:24).

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek. 33:11).

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy (Mic. 7:18).

Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD (Hag. 1:8).

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mt. 3:11).

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him (Mt. 17:5).

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom (Lk. 12:32).

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Cor. 1:21).

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace (Gal. 1:15).

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself (Eph. 1:9).

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell (Col. 3:19).

Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power (2 Thess. 1:11).

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God (Heb. 11:5).

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev. (Apo.) 4:11).

"Pleasure" & "displeasure" are not themselves "metaphors for God" (obviously; how could they be?). They are rather analogies to describe one aspect of God's relationship to his creation. I am not aware of any other means of describing that particular aspect than by this analogy; & the analogy is anyway authorized by God's self-revelation. Likewise "Father" & "Son" are analogies to describe the relationship between those two persons (person: another analogy) of the Trinity. Should I refrain from worshipping the "Father in heaven" or the "Son of God" because this might be construed as worshipping metaphors? Your concern is overwrought.

The problem here is absolute dependence on scripture that is itself interpreted even by being written down. Scripture free of context and tradition twists one's view of God and drives one away from the pure substance of religion by itself pretending to be so pure. This is mostly true of the Old Testament, which is outmoded and completed by the New; it exists in Christianity only to serve in understanding the Covenant of the Eternal and Living God through the Word that is Christ. This Covenant of which I speak is the New and Everlasting Covenant, renewed in Christ and perpetuated in the fulfilment and replacement of the tribal Law of the Jews which interpreted God with the Eternal Law of God, which is God.

The Jews had a very small view of God that Christ came to expand; they still have a very small view of God. But it is not without purpose: that God was revealed to this tiny tribe has preserved God unadulterated by fellow "gods". He never became "one among many" for the Hebrews because He was perceived as jealous. All things have their purpose, and humanity's imperfections can be made to serve God's perfect Will. Christ illuminates the World because Israel has failed to be the light of the nations.

Since you love the scripture dearly, as all Christians should, let me illustrate it from Christ's words rather than my own:


There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Therefore to put so much weight and emphasis on an understanding of God that belongs to those husbandmen who have been cast out of vineyard makes little sense. Rather, one can trust Christian theologians better than Hebrew scholars, for they have born the Lord better fruit.



It is beyond man's capacity to understand God "in his absolute form," which you had said we must do. It is not impossible to understand that God is absolute, no.

Indeed, I agree. I was correcting my wording.


Again, your concern is overwrought. I find far more troubling the idea that I should avoid the use of biblical language in preference for theological & philosophical jargon which was developed by men. Not that the latter is unnecessary or unimportant (quite the contrary), but it is always secondary to God's self-expression.

Let me resort to Saint Augustine, who anticipated the antipathy toward philosophers when he wrote,


It is, we say, with philosophers we have to confer with respect to this theology,— men whose very name, if rendered into Latin, signifies those who profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom is God, who made all things, as is attested by the divine authority and truth, Wisdom 7:24-27 then the philosopher is a lover of God.


He [Varro] finds fault with nothing in this kind of theology which they call physical, and which belongs to philosophers, except that he has related their controversies among themselves, through which there has arisen a multitude of dissentient sects. Nevertheless he has removed this kind from the Forum, that is, from the populace, but he has shut it up in schools. But that first kind, most false and most base, he has not removed from the citizens. Oh, the religious ears of the people, and among them even those of the Romans, that are not able to bear what the philosophers dispute concerning the gods!


There is a time for holding back pearls, to use a metaphor. ;)

I shall err on the side of scripture, however I might misinterpret the words, to answer:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."


Not on deaf ears, no. But I don't believe that what I've said about morality is tantamount, or even anywhere close, to the mental idolatry you are describing. Did I not clearly state that morality is absolute, reflecting God's immutable nature, even before I mentioned pleasure & displeasure? Thus your objection - particularly its interjection into this discussion - puzzles me.

Please, don't take what I've said as personal criticism, merely warning against using such logic to preach and teach. Our disputation has been one of method in serving Christ as his sword retainers, not about the legitimacy of one or the other's oath.

[Loddfafner]

If absolute morality doesn't exist, does that mean that morality is arbitrary and doesn't have any kind of framework upon which to build upon?

Morality is neither absolute nor arbitrary. It is situational. It is within situations that we make sense of things and can act upon the world. Ultimately, I believe, morality is shaped by the consequences of our actions - to ourselves, to others, to the viability of the situations we act within, and to the world as a whole. Of course, consequences can be unforeseeable, and there are situations where all alternatives are negative, but we act as responsibly as we can.

It is good for society to have grave disagreements about what is moral. If everyone agreed on what is moral, then tyrants can easily mobilize around mass indignation. Moral disagreement is part of the overall system of checks and balances that make for long-living, powerful states such as the USA.

Gods have nothing to do with morality. The Judeo-Christian-Sandnigger god is one of the most obnoxious, immoral beings in all of world literature. If he existed as described in those texts, he is a tyrant who should be disobeyed. The gods of the various pantheons are amoral beings who envy mortal humans for what we make of our short lives.

[Sturmgewehr]

Ever killed a man? You talk as if it's a piece of cake. Which was exactly my point, it's not easy to take life, even that of your enemy, because we know it's wrong.

No, never killed anyone, lately I been very sensitive and i feel sorry even if I killed an animal, when I was a kid I would kill animals without any problem and now I have a problem with it.

Look Moral or no moral when it comes to defending urself or family u gonna kill so what is the use or Morality when u gonna do it anyways, u just gonna feel bad of course cuz u have been brainwashed all of ur life that killing is bad this and that what if u were brought up as a killing machine ????

That is all a matter of feelings inside u triggered by chemicals that make u feel that way and doesn't really have anything to do with universal morality or whatever.


I didn't say our instincts will necessarily stop us from stealing. I said humans instinctively know that harming other humans in any way is wrong. Now, this is not to say we can't suppress that or become numb to other people's sufferings.

Hey, I think stealing is instinctive to humans and they don't know if it is good or bad if they did then why is there the need to tell ur kid not to steal, I remember when I was a kid I would walk down the street and have no problem take something I liked but then I would get the crap kicked out of me from my patents.

I stole many toys when I was a kid even though my parents used to beat me and hide them somewhere else and never felt any remorse about that but then as I grew up I learned that it is bad cuz u r around people that tell u stealing is bad so u kind of go with the flow.

And if we can suppress those feelings that stealing is bad this just proves that it is another emotional bullshit we made up, that just proves it is something humans made up in their own benefit, when a Lion takes the food from other animals it is not stealing, people have this complexes not animals if Morality was absolute it would apply to Animals as well but it doesn't and if u can suppress it then it just proves how it can be overcome and something absolute is not done like that.

If u grow up in a society where everyone is stealing then you would steal as well and brought into a society where no one steals would be weird and u would have to adopt.


Killing someone and murdering someone are two very different things.

I don't think they are, it is taking Life.

U kill someone to steal his money

U kill someone in Self defense.

in both cases u take a life.

Sanctity of life, where is it ????


Do you need so many question marks????? Please, one question mark at a time is sufficient. Anyway, it's not about God "needing" morality. God doesn't "need" to be good or just, either, but he is good & just by nature.

He doesn't need to be good or just but he is good or just by nature ???

Good or Just has no meaning to him, good and bad is just our thing.

How can u be good or how can good have any meaning when there is no bad ??? How can u tell good if u don't have bad, if there is no bad then good loses it's meaning it is like a process in nature like Photosynthesis it is not good neither bad it is just what is it, photosynthesis a freaking process and what defines good???

Good can't exist just like that, it is impossible, good must be defined by something, u need to set some norms of what is good which proves me that good is social construct cuz u have to define what good is.

So now God has nature????

If he is good and just then how is it possible that all this messed up things are going on in the world???

and if u see how good is defined u will see that Good = Morally desired and what makes something morally desired ??? preset norms of what is good and bad cuz if u don't have preset norm of what is good or bad then u don't have morality.

U gonna say good is nature of God, ok then, so what are all those punishments in the bible about???

What about the 10 Plagues sent over Egypt and various disasters, isn't a wrong thing wrong, now the source sent disasters and plagues over Egypt:


Moses negotiated the Exodus from Egypt with Pharaoh leading to the Ten plagues.
When Pharaoh enslaved the Children of Israel, the Egyptians appointed conscription officers over the Israelites to crush their spirits with hard labor. The Israelites were to build up the cities of Pithom and Ra'amses as supply centers for Pharaoh. The Egyptians started to make the Israelites do labor designated to break their bodies. They made the lives of the Israelites miserable with harsh labor involving mortar and bricks, as well as all kinds of work in the field. All the work they made them do was intended to break them. then he issued decrees to kill all the Israelite males God hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not allow the Hebrews to leave, and then God sent various disasters onto the whole of Egypt. The cycle ends with the story of the killing of every firstborn child in Egypt as the final punishment for having enslaved the Israelites.

Exodus 1:11-14
Exodus 1:15-16
Exodus 6-14



So now if I did something like that, let's say someone is enslaving someone and I kill him or start stealing from him, hurting him this and that all that bad stuff u would call me it is wrong and u will justify this by saying that I am corrupt, ok what about when God does it ?????? Like he did many times, you say he is good and just and that Evil doesn't exist only Good exists and evil is the corruption of good, what about in this case ????? are you trying to say that god can be corrupted too ?


God killed Onan for "spilling his seed" on the ground.

Genesis 38:5


What if I killed someone for Spilling his Seed ???? how would u call me ???

Monolith Argued that Killing and Murder is not the same thing, I think they are the same exact thing with a different packaging, if taking life is wrong then what makes Killing different from Murder ????

In some cases taking life is ok and the action of taking life we classify as Killing in Self defense, whereas if u steal to feed ur family from not starving to death that is a biiiig sin, why is it a bigger sin, or if u lie to protect ur family or friend it is wrong in any case and there is no justification for it a wrong is a wrong.

Get real man.


The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder
Adultery
Bestiality
Rape
Engaging in sodomy
Picking up sticks on Saturday
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding
Worshiping other gods
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking God's name in vain or cursing God's name
Cursing a parent
Kidnapping

Leviticus 20
Deuteronomy 22
Leviticus 18 and 20
Numbers 15:32-36
Deuteronomy 22:23-4
Deuteronomy 22:13-22
Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10
Exodus 22:20
Leviticus 24:16
Exodus 21:15, 21:17
Leviticus 20:9
Mark 7:10
Exodus 21:16



Now this is what god says, this is from the bible, and don't try to argue out of this cuz the only way u know about a Good and Just god is from the bible and Abrahamic Religions

Let's say in there is a Person holding someone a slave and u go and kill him which is u murdered him because it was not in self defense, that would be justified cuz god sent many disasters over Egypt and many people died cuz that is the whole meaning of disaster, now if u steal to feed ur family it is wrong.


By semantic analysis the common definition seems to be quite simple at first glance:

Good: Moral excellence, moral admirability
Evil: Morally objectionable

Well that's simple enough, a bad guy is something you don't agree with. I don't believe the slaughter of innocent people is acceptable, so Hitler must be evil, right? That makes sense only if you believe an opinion is the definition of fact. Unfortunately, to someone that actually stops and thinks for a few seconds, it doesn't matter if one person believes Red is the best colour or one million, it's only an opinion. It's the same with the concept of Good and Evil.





In fact, he is the very standard of goodness & justice.

yeah, tell me this after u read what I wrote up here ^^^^

If he is the very standard of good and justice then it is ok to kill people that are holding other people slaves or torture them send them disasters etc etc....

Don't tell me not to take bible for it's word cuz as I told u the only way u know about a Monotheistic god with this attributes are Abrahamic Religions and don't bring new Testaments to play and other new bibles printed in some basement 3 years ago cuz that is crap cuz something that is good as u say in general doesn't need to be changed through history as bible has, that is why u have many bibles because people tried to adopt the bible to the standard and the society they live so the bible fits there otherwise they wouldn't have left out KILL THE FAGGOTS, KILL SOMEONE THAT INSULTS THE PRIEST, and this is done by people don't tell me Jesus came and rewrote the bible again.


False. You do not need two people for morality. It is always everywhere wrong to worship something other than God. Say this shepherd decided to worship his sheep. It would be immoral for him to do so, even though there are no other people involved. It is always everywhere wrong for humans to have sex with animals. Say this shepherd decided to have sex with his sheep. It would be immoral for him to do so, even though there are no other people involved.

No I am not false, Morality in this sense makes no sense.

You know why u say it is immoral to worship other god and have sex with animal because u have set those standards for moral, it is not absolute if u can decide for something what to be, cuz tomorrow u can decide the other way around is moral, all u have to do is say THIS IS MORAL and u do it which means are preset standards for morality, just like where stealing and lying is never justified but Taking a human life is because u preset standards for it.

Taking Human life is justified by giving it 2 packages:

Murder: taking someone's life that hasn't done anything bad to you or whatever.

Killing: taking someone's life because he wanted to kill you.

So in this case Morality is relative and I believe so to be all the time like this, stealing is same.

Stealing is taking something that is not urs:

Stealing money from a rich Banker or from someone for personal interest is bad.

Stealing food to keep ur family alive is bad too.

Oh man, if u can't see the defect in this logic then I don't know what to say.


Sorry, but this objection makes no sense. Put a couple people on the sun &, assuming they aren't incinerated immediately, they still have a duty to behave morally there just as much as they had on earth. So, morality still applies everywhere, even though the sun itself is not a moral thing.

NO it doesn't, Morality doesn't apply where there is NO mankind.


Let's try another analogy. There are no humans on Pluto. Does logic apply there?

What does this shit have to do with morality ??????

Logic is totally different from Morality and has nothing to do with it, leave logic alone, we discussing Morality which is a product of Logic and Human brain.


This situation is merely hypothetical. In reality, the choices for obtaining food, where there is food to be found, are never so limited. Be that as it may, it would still be wrong to steal food that doesn't belong to you. The intention (to feed your family) makes no difference as to the wrongness of the act.

oh and ur hypothetical Situation with the dying child is valid, like there are not more than 3 Million Children dying of Hunger every year.

so stealing food that doesn't belong to u is always wrong because u preset those standards whereas Taking a Human life is not always wrong because we set different standards, don't tell me no cuz the bible tells u otherwise, or telling the truth, I mean in the end all this DON"T STEAL, DON"T LIE, DON"T THIS DON"T THAT are stuff to protect human life and interest, so in one case Human life is protected so u can't take it and in another case it is not because u can kill to protect more lives but u can't lie or steal to protect more lives.

Morality?? more like Insanity.


Truth is more valuable than life.

:D :D :D

This is what I expected u to say from the beginning.

Why is truth more valuable than life???

Truth makes no sense if there is no life, Truth doesn't matter to inanimate objects as u say, truth is only important to human life and humans and without human life there is no truth cuz no one except us is concerned about the truth, not the animals not the inanimate objects either.

Also not to Forget it depends what u mean by TRUTH.

like Truth in accordance to Facts, Truth can also contradict with Morality.

as I said u hiding some Jews in ur basement and SS Troops come to u and ask you if u have seen any Jews cuz they need to execute them, would u tell them the Truth ???

In this case Truth is bad and immoral because it is gonna lead to the death of many people and the whole point of Morality is to be righteous and good and by telling the Truth in this case u will just cause the death of many people.

So Truth is here to serve us for our good and it is relative, otherwise in that kind of situation if u told the truth that means u killed many innocent people :) so truth is bad here.

There won't be any Truth and no one would be concern about Truth if mankind didn't exist, I mean truth would exist cuz there is no such a thing as non existence but who would give a shit about Truth??? the stars ??? the inanimate objects ??? NO ONE because truth is related to logical beings and their situation, no other thing in the universe has any use of the truth or harm from the truth except we humans and don't tell me Truth matters for inanimate Objects because it doesn't, they can't logic they can't feel or anything similar to that.


I guess I'm out of my mind, then.

After saying Truth is more valuable than life I have no doubts about this.


I think logic is in the mind of God. So yes, it would have existed with God in eternity. For example, the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction would apply regardless of whether God created anything outside himself.

I don't think logic is in the mind of god, since god is above all logic and understanding.


I don't see why it's too humanlike, & I don't see why that would make it nonsensical anyway. So your objection is not really explained.

yes it is, because it is too humanlike and god is not humalike, god has no human attributes, God is God and he created humans and everything in the universe by his own way.


No, this doesn't follow from Magister Eckhart's premises.

yes it does.


None of this addresses the point. Goodness & beauty are defaults. Evil & ugliness are deviations from these. The inability of mankind to be consistent in what is regarded as good/evil or beautiful/ugly has no bearing on the matter. I note you left truth alone. Is it impossible for there to be truth unless there is also falsehood?

yes it does address cuz standards for beauty are preset, plus where do these deviations and corruptions come from ??: they come from Beauty or Morality itself which means the source of Immorality and ugliness are beauty and Morality.

[GeistFaust]

The question to whether morality is absolute or not is possible to answer with a concrete answer. I personally think that morality more or less is merely situational. This means there are only a few instances in which morality is an absolute imperative which every rational human being is obliged to obey. Specific acts that violate human dignity such as murder, sexual promiscuity, and thievery are good instances of specific acts which are necessarily morally absolute. The great deal of morality is based on the situation or the circumstance in which the individual finds himself and the judgments he makes regarding the situation.



Morality will adapt and conform itself to the rules and principles which our rational judgments lay down for us in the task of attempting to be moral in specific situations and circumstances. This is to say that in a sense we invent and create morality as we go along through life and it will change according to the different situations and circumstances we are presented with in our ordinary day to day life. In a way morality obliges the individual to find a way, regardless of the way which is find in most cases, to preserve his survival.



This is to say that morality is inherently something predicated by a "specific" evolutionary dynamic in the human mind which necessitates humans to secure advantages over other humans. This means that an individual will attempt to his advantages to out compete another more disadvantaged individual in order to survive and this process of competition is justified in the context of needing to survive. The imperative to survive and the will to survive which coincides with this imperative play an essential part in grounding the foundation for morality.



It might seem more moral for a certain individual with a numerous set of evolutionary advantages to aid or allow the less advantaged individual to borrow some of the resources and supplies which the advantaged individual gains for himself. The morality of this is brought into question because perhaps the individual who is disadvantaged in some way will misuse the products and supplies which the advantaged individual gifts freely to them. This is a matter of situational morality and in it are predicated different degrees based on the judgments of the individual as how one can be moral or not moral in so far as it concerns the need to survive.



It is necessary to realize that the morality as judged on the terms and conditions of the individual are unconsciously influenced by previous generations dispositions towards morality as well as the morality of the culture around him. Individual family units play an essential role from a young age in shaping the moral disposition of the individual and the moral disposition of the individual is shaped by relativistic understandings regarding morality more or less.


The individual to whom the morality is being encrypted will perceive the morality "transferred" to him as being objective when in fact its only objective on the grounds of relativistic determinations all of which had in mind a need to survive. Its also important to realize that the moral disposition of the family unit in society reacts to the moral disposition of society as a whole. The moral disposition of a society in general is determined in certain standards and norms.



These standards or norms "specify" and "define" the nature of a culture both from a strictly social standpoint and a moral standpoint. They also have the power to influence our perception in general of situational and non-situational morals. It is important to realize that these standards and norms even though they apply themselves to the masses and are applied by them accordingly are relativistic. It appears that morality itself can never escape the bonds of relativism except in a few cases where it has predicated itself as being absolute.


The "relativism" of morality is logically necessary and inherent not just to give the individual a choice to obey certain imperatives but to recognize the intrinsic uniqueness which an individual possesses. This uniqueness is self-reflective in the personality and psychological disposition of the individual and it could be said that morality understood as being situational is the realization and consciousness of the internal personality of that individual.


The individual and humanity as a whole has the power to change and adapt his internal personality to certain principles and rules that he lays down for himself in accordance with the fundamental nature of morality. The great issue with morality in a historical context is that the average man has had many a misconception and misunderstanding regarding morality. These misconceptions and misunderstandings endanger both the relativistic and imperative nature of morality.


It is common for the common man to intuit that a certain projection of conscious thoughts, behaviors, and actions validate the fundamental origins of morality itself. This is to say the common confuses his relativistic determinations and beliefs as being absolute this is the base nature of man. The absolute itself is something which is not relativistic but which depends on relativism in order for it to constitute itself nature and order.


This is to say the absolute imperative of murder, sexual promiscuity, or thievery as being morally invalid can only be comprehended or realized at a materialistic level. In terms of materialistic level I mean the reality which is determined by our senses and which coincide with the relativistic determinations of our reason. This is to say that morality not just in the situational sense but in the absolute sense is predicated within the context of the matter of our experience.


Absolute morality only becomes an imperative when the individual has come to a certain age of psychological awareness concerning his reality. This is because when a person has reached a certain level of psychological awareness there reason is most likely developed to the point where they can make decisions regarding "different" kinds of morality. If the individual choice to be capable of not abiding or abiding by "specific" imperative principles and rules was not present within the psychological orientation of most human beings than absolute morality and situational morality would vanish.


This means that situational morality in general depends on an absolute form of morality even though it is "differentiated" from it per se. This is due to the fact that our absolute morality coincides with the form of our situational morality even though it does not necessitate itself in every situation. Even though it does not necessitate itself in every situation it still remains a discrete possibility which probably from a deterministic standpoint necessitates itself in the way in which we "compile" a comprehensive understanding of situational morality.

[Hevneren]

Morality is absolute and eternal. Morality is by definition the sense of righteousness that descends from Truth, above which there is no else and besides which there is nothing purer. It is derived from what is eternal within a man; to will against it derives from what is unhallowed and mortal in man. No argument against morality is therefore valid or can be made without utter and absolute denial that man has anything eternal in him, and no argument for morality can be made or is valid which does not recognise the eternal in man.

How do we know that something eternal exists to which we can credit our morality?


Morality is unchanging and untouchable, no matter what a man does morality does not change, no matter what he feels or how he thinks or what he opines will touch it, for feelings and thoughts and opinions may touch the eternal but do not belong to that species of things which are eternal. To make an argument based on what society views as "right" today and what society viewed as "right" a century ago is therefore not a discussion of morality, but a discussion of sentiments and opinions which, though they may touch the eternal, are ultimately unhallowed and as corrupt as any man to whom they might occur.

So, if a lot of people get morality wrong, as you seem to suggest, how do we know what the right morals are? Since morality is eternal, there must be an objective way to figure out right from wrong.


This of course creates a problem, for how does one detect the difference between that which is eternal and that which merely touches the eternal? History and tradition have handed down to us living today an answer to this in the means by which Uncreated Truth contacts Creation, which has been called the λόγος; the singular being and person which could be this λόγος is Christ; the answer therefore resides in the faith and teachings of he who is called this, namely Christ Jesus.

Christ is the only true moral authority then? What does Christ say about paedophilia? What does he say about slavery? What about abortion? Indeed, being a man from the Semitic Bronze Age, Christ wouldn't have anything to say on modern moral dilemmas like stem cell research or copyright infringement. What do we do in the cases where Christ has no answer?


I'm not expecting much agreement with any of the above, as most respondants to this thread are as a stubborn and pig-headed in their hatred of Christianity as I once was. Only time, reflection, and education can ever overcome the wilful ignorance that produces anti-Christian sentiment.

I don't know if it's being "anti-Christian" to question absolute morality. I'm curious to know how you propose we implement biblical morality into modern society, and also how you'd fill in the gaps between the Bronze Age teachings and modern moral dilemmas that could've only arisen in modern society. Will you be willing to explain more about your thoughts on this subject?

[Hevneren]

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

I'm curious what this morality entails?

[Saturni]

I'm curious what this morality entails?

Check the Old Testament. It's still good for laughs.

[Hevneren]

All human beings, with the exception of sociopaths, instinctively know "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" etc. So I'd say the basic human morals have always been absolute. You can't relativize murder.

Our very nature is that of cooperation (which is why human race is successful as a species), hence our empathy and compassion.

Indeed, humans with a functioning conscience know not to kill in cold blood or steal, and so forth, but there are situations in which killing or stealing is not only justified but even required to stay alive. So, even "do not kill" or "do not steal" isn't quite as clear cut, because if a burglar enters your house and is about to rape your 7 year-old daughter, and you happen to have a very sharp ax handy and you catch the burglar pulling his pants down, I have a feeling you'd be willing to kill the sick SOB before he hurt your child.

By the way, there is a nuance of difference between "killing" and "murdering". You might kill a deer in order to provide food for yourself and your family, but you don't murder the deer.

[Hevneren]

Killing someone and murdering someone are two very different things.

I agree, but the commandment "Thou shall not kill" doesn't make that distinction.

[Saturni]

Indeed, humans with a functioning conscience know not to kill in cold blood or steal, and so forth, but there are situations in which killing or stealing is not only justified but even required to stay alive.
So humans are born with morality hardwired into their brains, is that what you're saying? And if they are, are all people born with this same morality, or are only certain peoples. Are Blacks, for instance, born with the same innate degree of morality as Whites?


By the way, there is a nuance of difference between "killing" and "murdering". You might kill a deer in order to provide food for yourself and your family, but you don't murder the deer.

And Meat isn't Murder?

[Hevneren]

So humans are born with morality hardwired into their brains, is that what you're saying? And if they are, are all people born with this same morality, or are only certain peoples. Are Blacks, for instance, born with the same innate degree of morality as Whites?

I think humans that have a normally functioning brain, have the ability to feel bad about certain things, but I never said that we were born with the ability to understand the rules of right and wrong. I think we have the tools to understand what society defines as moral, but not the "rule book" itself.

I've read that what we describe as a conscience (i. e. the ability to feel bad when we do something society sees as wrong), is something humans develop at the age of 6-7, and that this is based in how the brain develops. Thus, we can gather that a) we're not born with a conscience and b) conscience is dependent on how our brain functions in order to reason, understand consequences and understand the difference between right and wrong from a societal perspective.

If there are neurological mechanisms that allows us to learn and reason based on what society tells us is right and wrong, then there must be an evolutionary explanation for this, right? If we didn't have a need for this, it wouldn't exist.

[Monolith]

Look Moral or no moral when it comes to defending urself or family u gonna kill so what is the use or Morality when u gonna do it anyways, u just gonna feel bad of course cuz u have been brainwashed all of ur life that killing is bad this and that what if u were brought up as a killing machine ????
Brainwashed? I was contending that human beings are supposed to know instinctively that it's wrong to kill other humans, without any form of conditioning. Naturally, in some instances I guess it's justifiable to kill another human being (like in self defence), but don't confuse this justifiable with good. It's wrong to kill anyone, that's why it's so hard to do. I often hear stories of veterans who fought in our Homeland war, how they killed their enemies while defending their towns, villages, suburbs etc. Even people who blindly hated our enemies (e.g. with their own families or relatives being killed or worse) often felt remorse later.


That is all a matter of feelings inside u triggered by chemicals that make u feel that way and doesn't really have anything to do with universal morality or whatever.
I have much higher hopes for myself than to be compared to a biological robot of sorts.


Hey, I think stealing is instinctive to humans and they don't know if it is good or bad if they did then why is there the need to tell ur kid not to steal, I remember when I was a kid I would walk down the street and have no problem take something I liked but then I would get the crap kicked out of me from my patents.
I reckon a child cannot be compared to a fully grown individual, having that children are lacking not only physiological, but also psychological and emotional development.


And if we can suppress those feelings that stealing is bad this just proves that it is another emotional bullshit we made up, that just proves it is something humans made up in their own benefit,
I sincerely doubt you can 'make up' an emotional (and consequently, physiological) response when you harm another human being.


when a Lion takes the food from other animals it is not stealing, people have this complexes not animals if Morality was absolute it would apply to Animals as well but it doesn't and if u can suppress it then it just proves how it can be overcome and something absolute is not done like that.
Can lions discern right from wrong? Anyway, how could morality apply to lions when they are animals? They are guided by their instincts and experience rather than by their conscience.


If u grow up in a society where everyone is stealing then you would steal as well and brought into a society where no one steals would be weird and u would have to adopt.
Probably. That says nothing about the morality of stealing though.


I don't think they are, it is taking Life.
Cross-checking dictionary entries should do the trick, methinks.

Indeed, humans with a functioning conscience know not to kill in cold blood or steal, and so forth, but there are situations in which killing or stealing is not only justified but even required to stay alive. So, even "do not kill" or "do not steal" isn't quite as clear cut, because if a burglar enters your house and is about to rape your 7 year-old daughter, and you happen to have a very sharp ax handy and you catch the burglar pulling his pants down, I have a feeling you'd be willing to kill the sick SOB before he hurt your child.
Absolutely. I think I mentioned something like this above in my post.


By the way, there is a nuance of difference between "killing" and "murdering". You might kill a deer in order to provide food for yourself and your family, but you don't murder the deer.
Indeed.

I agree, but the commandment "Thou shall not kill" doesn't make that distinction.
The original Hebrew word used in it is pretty vague, since it includes both 'murder' and 'kill'. However, I think that commandment is in most cases viewed as the commandment against murder (as in 'shedding of innocent blood').

As far as I know, legitimate defence is depicted as justifiable in the Catechism, even if it proves lethal for the adversary, as long as one's intention is not to kill.

[Monolith]

What does Christ say about paedophilia?
Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a millstone was hung around his neck and be cast into the heart of the sea.

[GeistFaust]

How do we know that something eternal exists to which we can credit our morality?



So, if a lot of people get morality wrong, as you seem to suggest, how do we know what the right morals are? Since morality is eternal, there must be an objective way to figure out right from wrong.


Christ is the only true moral authority then? What does Christ say about paedophilia? What does he say about slavery? What about abortion? Indeed, being a man from the Semitic Bronze Age, Christ wouldn't have anything to say on modern moral dilemmas like stem cell research or copyright infringement. What do we do in the cases where Christ has no answer?



I don't know if it's being "anti-Christian" to question absolute morality. I'm curious to know how you propose we implement biblical morality into modern society, and also how you'd fill in the gaps between the Bronze Age teachings and modern moral dilemmas that could've only arisen in modern society. Will you be willing to explain more about your thoughts on this subject?

This is the great paradigm of existence and I think a lot of philosophers have approached it in the wrong way. You could make the argument that we should not credit our morality to an eternal being but it only appears to hold universality or absoluteness because humans are habitual creatures.

This means we are blinded by human habit to associating the continuous cycle of morality throughout the course of history to a divine being. I think it might be more adequate to see it from this point of view but if you want to say that morality is something that is merely based off the subjective opinions of people this would be fallacious. It would be fallacious even though it contained ironically a partial truth.


Most of the time a person's understanding of right is based off of their sentimentality, environment, and other moral forces that are near at hand. This means we can not control all the time whether we approach morality in a right or wrong way although a few basic absolutes should be understood as being necessary as I laid down above.

A lot of people fallaciously believe that the subjective rules and principles of another whether it be laid down by lawmakers, previous generations, or parents is understood as subjective. This seems to throw a major issue at the concept of morality because if morality is merely an illusion for the most part created by the brain in correlation to our relative and subjective determinations than it seems that the essence of morality is nothing other than the invention of humanity.


Than again I could not see how we could validate this because I think morality is clearly a psychological issue and the capacity to achieve an objective end to morality depends on the innate psychological capacity of the individual.


I think its not being anti-Christian if its done in the proper context. The issue with morality is that wishes to throw out imperatives with a sublime weight attached to them. These imperatives are based strictly off dogmatic prejudices and biases yet the masses who belong to a specific religious institution want to believe that they are objective.

A lot of people think a thing is objective just because it correlates with a fundamental basis of something. Morality as an objective reality "exists" but not in a literal sense but a rather metaphorical sense which actually makes it impossible for us to make some moral decisions. It could be said that the "gods" which determine objective morality in a sense determine our psychological sentiment towards morality.



If morality is merely an illusion cast on us by our brain than our senses are at fault from the beginning and if not morality itself remains "scattered". This is to say there are a few basic laws of morality which the general public abides by and which call upon themselves an imperative duty. But even if this is so than the issue we run into is that morality in and of itself is constantly ignored and neglected in the context of our social situations and this could bring the absolute validity of the few absolute forms of morality into question.


Morality is a complex matter and its a dynamic which directly coincides with Darwinian concepts. I also disagree with Magister that morality is changeless and undetermined in a sense morality "changes" and determines itself in a non-subjective change although one could say the "change" in the form of morality has been marginal at best.

[Saturni]

I think humans that have a normally functioning brain, have the ability to feel bad about certain things, but I never said that we were born with the ability to understand the rules of right and wrong. I think we have the tools to understand what society defines as moral, but not the "rule book" itself.
I would put it to you that "conscience" is not something we are born with but learn as we mature emotionally and become socialized.

I, too, believe we are born, to a certain extent, as clean slates. And barring any sort of congenital brain defects, we learn from our parents, guardians, and fellow citizens the "rules" of societal conduct. I do not, for a second, believe, as here have suggested, are born with anything resembling a "Buddha Nature."


I've read that what we describe as a conscience (i. e. the ability to feel bad when we do something society sees as wrong), is something humans develop at the age of 6-7, and that this is based in how the brain develops. Thus, we can gather that a) we're not born with a conscience and b) conscience is dependent on how our brain functions in order to reason, understand consequences and understand the difference between right and wrong from a societal perspective.
I would only say to this that I do not think a "conscience" develops per se at age 6-7, but the faculties to learn conscience manifest at that age.


If there are neurological mechanisms that allows us to learn and reason based on what society tells us is right and wrong, then there must be an evolutionary explanation for this, right? If we didn't have a need for this, it wouldn't exist.
Exactly. A conscience is beneficial in that it keeps our baser, more destructive impulses in check. But I also think that the ability to develop a conscience is not a universal attribute among the human species. Blacks and Hispanics, I believe, lack the cognitive sophistication of Whites. That, coupled with their demonstrably inferior sense of impulse control, make them the crime prone nuisances they are.

[GeistFaust]

I would put it to you that "conscience" is not something we are born with but learn as we mature emotionally and become socialized.

I, too, believe we are born, to a certain extent, as clean slates. And barring any sort of congenital brain defects, we learn from our parents, guardians, and fellow citizens the "rules" of societal conduct. I do not, for a second, believe, as here have suggested, are born with anything resembling a "Buddha Nature."


I would only say to this that I do not think a "conscience" develops per se at age 6-7, but the faculties to learn conscience manifest at that age.


Exactly. A conscience is beneficial in that it keeps our baser, more destructive impulses in check. But I also think that the ability to develop a conscience is not a universal attribute among the human species. Blacks and Hispanics, I believe, lack the cognitive sophistication of Whites. That, coupled with their demonstrably inferior sense of impulse control, make them the crime prone nuisances they are.


This is all very well said and I believe that a more developed conscience is psychologically and spiritually superior by coincidence though. I think we are not born with blank states necessarily but that we already have innate potentials and possibilities which are "represented" by our imagination and fantasy worlds at a young age. In a sense this means that all individuals will have different genetic orientations which will lead to them being intellectually and psychologically different.

It could also cause some to be more advanced or disadvantaged by birth and for some to develop at a faster rate than some other people. Than again one has to realize the relativistic influences which the society, culture, and environment are going to have on the intellectual and psychological development of the individual.


I think the black and Hispanic cultures keep an individual that is possibly innately intelligent from being capable of intellectually and psychologically developing to the maximum. In a sense this means that the group conscious present in a specific society and culture are essential for shaping the average individual's disposition towards issues corresponding to morality or to morality as it is in and of itself.

[Sturmgewehr]

Brainwashed? 1. I was contending that human beings are supposed to know instinctively that it's wrong to kill other humans, without any form of conditioning. 2.Naturally, in some instances I guess it's justifiable to kill another human being (like in self defence), but don't confuse this justifiable with good. It's wrong to kill anyone, that's why it's so hard to do. 3. I often hear stories of veterans who fought in our Homeland war, how they killed their enemies while defending their towns, villages, suburbs etc. Even people who blindly hated our enemies (e.g. with their own families or relatives being killed or worse) often felt remorse later.

Yea Brainwashed, now brainwashing is not necessarily a bad thing, everything is brainwashing, education at home from ur parents, Religion etc etc.... it is all brainwashing but not necessarily bad.


1. Tell that to this guys:

Exocannibalism (from Greek Exo-, "from outside" and Cannibalism, 'to eat humans'), as opposed to endocannibalism, is the practice of eating human corpses from people outside one's own community, tribe or social group—most notably their flesh and some organs such as the heart. Generally it takes the form of ceremonial sacrifices or the ritual consumption of the rival's flesh in order to absorb their vitality or some other valuable trait, as well as a symbolic expression of the domination of an enemy in warfare. Such practices have been documented in such cultures as the Aztecs from Mexico, the Carib and the Tupinamba from South America.

Other islands in the Pacific were home to cultures that allowed cannibalism to some degree. In parts of Melanesia, cannibalism was still practiced in the early 20th century, for a variety of reasons — including retaliation, to insult an enemy people, or to absorb the dead person's qualities. One tribal chief, Ratu Udre Udre in Rakiraki, Fiji, is said to have consumed 872 people and to have made a pile of stones to record his achievement.

The ferocity of the cannibal lifestyle deterred European sailors from going near Fijian waters, giving Fiji the name Cannibal Isles. The dense population of Marquesas Islands, Polynesia, was concentrated in the narrow valleys, and consisted of warring tribes, who sometimes practiced cannibalism on their enemies. W. D. Rubinstein wrote:
"It was considered a great triumph among the Marquesans to eat the body of a dead man. They treated their captives with great cruelty. They broke their legs to prevent them from attempting to escape before being eaten, but kept them alive so that they could brood over their impending fate. ... With this tribe, as with many others, the bodies of women were in great demand. ...

PEOPLE DON"T JUST KILL, THEY KILL AND GO BEYOND THAT

Not everyone is like u and me to feel sorry for taking a life or whatever.



2. That is why all this Morality Intellectual Acrobatics here by some users that say Morality is absolute is Bullshit, what u say is totally not True, if someone is raised up among cannibals or war he would become a killing machine which once more proves that Morality is not born or created it is gained while u live in a society that tell u what is moral and what is not or in a family that brings u up telling u this is right this is wrong and slapping the back of ur hands if u try to steal something, Morality is a Social COnstruct THUS not Absolute and it changes from Culture to culture and from period to Period, you have to be really blind not to see this.

3. Yeah because those war veterans were raised and tought that killing is wrong even in healthy societies you still have people that don't consider killing wrong, remember those 12 Serbian and 9 Croatian War Mercenaries killed in Lybia just a while ago??? I think they didn't get to kill enough in Yugoslav wars they had to go and do more of that shit.

Yes u r right some people are very conscious and have a highly developed subconscious but not the average Joe Sixpack, if Joe Sixpack was brought up in Congo he would hunt and eat people.


I have much higher hopes for myself than to be compared to a biological robot of sorts.

You are a biological robot weather u like it or not, deal with it, the sole fact that you were created by a god and put in a planet where there are certain barriers to u and u r limited that makes u a Biological Robot u just have to deal with it, the fact that u hope u r something beyond this doesn't mean anything, of course u can still hope but that is as far as u can get.


I reckon a child cannot be compared to a fully grown individual, having that children are lacking not only physiological, but also psychological and emotional development.

= Morality is a social Construct, you LEARN morality in your own society by others telling u what is good and bad or by norms preset in your society, if morality was Absolute then Kids would be born with Morals and they would know from birth all that crap but matter of fact is that it is not like that, people make morals and society makes morals and u just proved it by saying this.


Can lions discern right from wrong? Anyway, how could morality apply to lions when they are animals? They are guided by their instincts and experience rather than by their conscience.

Exactly for something to be absolute it needs to apply to everything in the universe like Birth and Death, everything gets born and dies, Humans, Animals, stars and even the universe one day.


Probably. That says nothing about the morality of stealing though

You just said enough, Morality or Stealing ??? ok now we got it.


Cross-checking dictionary entries should do the trick, methinks

u thinks wrong.

[Odoacer]

How can u be good or how can good have any meaning when there is no bad ??? How can u tell good if u don't have bad, if there is no bad then good loses it's meaning it is like a process in nature like Photosynthesis it is not good neither bad it is just what is it, photosynthesis a freaking process and what defines good???

Good can't exist just like that, it is impossible, good must be defined by something, u need to set some norms of what is good which proves me that good is social construct cuz u have to define what good is.

I don't know why this dualism must be. There's no reason that good can only be defined in opposition to evil. For example, it is good to love your wife. Does that mean there must be men to hate their wives, or else we simply can't understand what is "good" in this case? No, of course not. Evil only exists as a corruption of good. Ergo, good precedes evil in every case.


So now God has nature????

Anything that exists has a nature (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nature#English):

nature (n.)
2.The innate characteristics of a thing. What something will tend by its own constitution, to be or do. Distinct from what might be expected or intended.


If he is good and just then how is it possible that all this messed up things are going on in the world???

Because mankind fell into sin.


U gonna say good is nature of God, ok then, so what are all those punishments in the bible about???

What about the 10 Plagues sent over Egypt and various disasters

Justice.


So now if I did something like that, let's say someone is enslaving someone and I kill him or start stealing from him, hurting him this and that all that bad stuff u would call me it is wrong and u will justify this by saying that I am corrupt, ok what about when God does it ?????? Like he did many times, you say he is good and just and that Evil doesn't exist only Good exists and evil is the corruption of good, what about in this case ????? are you trying to say that god can be corrupted too ?

What if I killed someone for Spilling his Seed ???? how would u call me ???

These analogies aren't adequate. You aren't a legitimate authority so that you can personally exact retribution against an evildoer; God, on the other hand, is King & Judge of the entire world.


Monolith Argued that Killing and Murder is not the same thing, I think they are the same exact thing with a different packaging, if taking life is wrong then what makes Killing different from Murder ????

Monolith is correct. To kill another person is not necessarily murder. Murder is intentionally to kill an innocent person. A soldier who kills an enemy soldier in the course of a battle is not committing murder. An executioner who kills a convicted murderer to carry out the punishment required by law is not committing murder. A man who unintentionally kills another man in an auto accident is not committing murder.


In some cases taking life is ok and the action of taking life we classify as Killing in Self defense, whereas if u steal to feed ur family from not starving to death that is a biiiig sin, why is it a bigger sin, or if u lie to protect ur family or friend it is wrong in any case and there is no justification for it a wrong is a wrong.

Get real man.

I never said it was a "biiiig sin." That's your spin on it. In fact there are gradations of severity to sin. Stealing food to feed your starving family or lying to protect your life or the life of another is not necessarily as bad as, say, lying to prevent yourself from being rightfully charged with money-laundering. But the actions are still wrong.


Let's say in there is a Person holding someone a slave and u go and kill him which is u murdered him because it was not in self defense, that would be justified cuz god sent many disasters over Egypt and many people died cuz that is the whole meaning of disaster, now if u steal to feed ur family it is wrong.

No, I wouldn't be justified in killing some stranger because he was holding slaves: 1) I'm not God & 2) I'm not some other lawful authority who has the right to exact retribution against evildoers.


yeah, tell me this after u read what I wrote up here ^^^^

Okay: "In fact, he is the very standard of goodness & justice."


No I am not false, Morality in this sense makes no sense.

You're the one who keeps arguing that morality is merely something that humans invent. The fact that many humans have had moral codes in which, for example, it is wrong to have sex with animals, obliterates your idea that morality can only be where there are two or more human beings.


You know why u say it is immoral to worship other god and have sex with animal because u have set those standards for moral, it is not absolute if u can decide for something what to be, cuz tomorrow u can decide the other way around is moral, all u have to do is say THIS IS MORAL and u do it which means are preset standards for morality, just like where stealing and lying is never justified but Taking a human life is because u preset standards for it.

This is sheer nonsense & not an argument at all against moral absolutes. Someone can be insane & think that it's good to shoot a machine gun at babies in the hospital. Just because he's insane doesn't mean moral absolutes don't exist. Just because people have different opinions about what behavior is moral doesn't mean that moral absolutes don't exist.


Taking Human life is justified by giving it 2 packages:

Murder: taking someone's life that hasn't done anything bad to you or whatever.

Killing: taking someone's life because he wanted to kill you.

So in this case Morality is relative and I believe so to be all the time like this, stealing is same.

Stealing is taking something that is not urs:

Stealing money from a rich Banker or from someone for personal interest is bad.

Stealing food to keep ur family alive is bad too.

Oh man, if u can't see the defect in this logic then I don't know what to say.

The logic is really more like this:


Taking a human life:
GOOD: Killing a person who is trying to kill you in your own house.
BAD: Killing an innocent person who never did anything to harm you.

Taking possession of property which isn't yours:
GOOD: Taking possession of property which isn't yours by buying it.
BAD: Taking possession of property which isn't yours by stealing it.


NO it doesn't, Morality doesn't apply where there is NO mankind.

Morality applies everywhere God is. Since God is everywhere that man goes, morality applies.


What does this shit have to do with morality ??????

Logic is totally different from Morality and has nothing to do with it, leave logic alone, we discussing Morality which is a product of Logic and Human brain.

In both cases, a mind is needed to determine what is moral or what is logical. If there are no human minds around on Pluto, why should logic apply there? If humanity suddenly disappeared, where would logic exist?


oh and ur hypothetical Situation with the dying child is valid, like there are not more than 3 Million Children dying of Hunger every year.

I didn't bring up that hypothetical.


This is what I expected u to say from the beginning.

Why is truth more valuable than life???

Because God is truth & the source of life.


Truth makes no sense if there is no life, Truth doesn't matter to inanimate objects as u say, truth is only important to human life and humans and without human life there is no truth cuz no one except us is concerned about the truth, not the animals not the inanimate objects either.

Also not to Forget it depends what u mean by TRUTH.

like Truth in accordance to Facts, Truth can also contradict with Morality.

More nonsense. If there were no humans alive, it would be TRUE that there were no humans alive. Truth doesn't cease to exist because humans cease to exist.


as I said u hiding some Jews in ur basement and SS Troops come to u and ask you if u have seen any Jews cuz they need to execute them, would u tell them the Truth ???

I might tell it to them directly or I might remain silent, or perhaps some other action depending upon the specific circumstances. There are different actions which can be taken which do not involve telling a lie. It is not always a requirement to reveal everything, either.


In this case Truth is bad and immoral because it is gonna lead to the death of many people and the whole point of Morality is to be righteous and good and by telling the Truth in this case u will just cause the death of many people.

So Truth is here to serve us for our good and it is relative, otherwise in that kind of situation if u told the truth that means u killed many innocent people :) so truth is bad here.

The truth, in this hypothetical, is that I'm hiding Jews in my basement. The situation imposed by the Nazis coming to my door doesn't change the truth of the matter, regardless of what action I decide to take.


There won't be any Truth and no one would be concern about Truth if mankind didn't exist, I mean truth would exist cuz there is no such a thing as non existence but who would give a shit about Truth??? the stars ??? the inanimate objects ??? NO ONE because truth is related to logical beings and their situation, no other thing in the universe has any use of the truth or harm from the truth except we humans and don't tell me Truth matters for inanimate Objects because it doesn't, they can't logic they can't feel or anything similar to that.

Replace "truth" with "morality" & then remember that humans do exist.


After saying Truth is more valuable than life I have no doubts about this.

Booga-booga! I'm a madman! :fcrazy:


I don't think logic is in the mind of god, since god is above all logic and understanding.

No, God is not "above all logic." God is God (law of identity). If God is God, then it is not true that God is not God (law of noncontradiction). So, God is not "above" all of logic. God is beyond human understanding, but this has to do with man's finite nature & God's infinite nature, not logic as such.


yes it is, because it is too humanlike and god is not humalike, god has no human attributes, God is God and he created humans and everything in the universe by his own way.

That doesn't explain why it is "too humanlike" for God to create the world for his own glory.


yes it does address cuz standards for beauty are preset,

No, it doesn't address what I said. If standards of beauty are "preset," that means beauty is not defined principally with reference to ugliness.


plus where do these deviations and corruptions come from ??: they come from Beauty or Morality itself which means the source of Immorality and ugliness are beauty and Morality.

Precisely so. Which means that immorality only exists because morality precedes it, & ugliness because beauty precedes it. In other words, beauty's existence doesn't require there be ugliness & morality's existence doesn't require there be immorality.

[Odoacer]

I'm curious what this morality entails?

It entails obedience to God. :thumb001:

More specifically, one could set out the Ten Commandments as a summary of our moral duties:


I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
V. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

(Protestants (apart from Lutherans) & Eastern Orthodox generally agree on this numbering, as found in Philo & Josephus. Roman Catholics & Lutherans reckon I & II as part of the same commandment, while dividing X into two separate commandments, following St. Augustine. The content is in any case the same, though as always interpretations differ.)

Jesus Christ further summarized these under two commandments concerning our duties to God & our duties to other men: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

There's more that can be said, but this is sufficient for the time being. I'm sure someone will start quoting Leviticus at me about now.


I agree, but the commandment "Thou shall not kill" doesn't make that distinction.

That's only a matter of translation. Most modern translations (correctly) render it "You shall not murder." It's clear in any case from the passages which follow shortly afterward that killing as such is not what's being prohibited.

[GeistFaust]

I don't think there is a valid proof for this because based off the way you presented this issue evil can as well precede goodness. But in essence neither precedes the other because in essence that which we define as good or evil on a daily basis is relatively understood. The few things which actually intrinsically good or evil are things which coincide and necessitate a "direct" opposition with each other. In goodness itself the potential for evil is predicated and this theoretical possibility is actual more or less in our current mode of reality.


Although the innate characteristics of a thing make an expectation or intention in and of itself possible this is not possible unless all innate characteristics whether they be based on some relativistic system of morals or an absolute morals are grounded in the phenomenal representation of the thing.


In the human or more or less the general possibility to be moral or do morality is imperative at least in rational and cognitive individuals. This general possibility reflects itself in the decisions, behaviors, and actions of the individual but these decisions, behaviors, and actions do not always necessitate absolute morality or the general concepts which make them possible.


If there is no expectation or intention and not just in general but as as something which is being immediately posited in our reality through our reason and intellect than any proper argument for morality collapses.


Its not adequate enough to say that evil has been made possible in general through some primordial sin this could lead to all kinds of fallacious assumptions and misconceptions about the essential problems with morality.

The concept of good and evil have always been innately inserted in the human mind from the dawn of mankind whether the concepts be in regards to the actuality or possibility of such realities.


This is why I do not hand myself over to mythical or biblical references to morality because they are irrelevant in the context of the morality which presents itself to the modern man.


The ironic thing is that humans do invent morality and without humanity in general absolute morality as issued by some divine authority would not be capable in general of being applied adequately. The masses have all sorts of misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the paradigm of morality. In a sense they are ignorant and negligent of the fact that most cases relating to morality are relativistic and situational. Instead they would like to believe rather fallaciously that their subjective and relativistic determinations are objective.

At the same time they fallacious confuse their relativistic determinations with the validation of objective morality which is valid a priori and is an inherent and logical imperative of the soul. Most other forms of morality in general are shaped by cultural and social standards and norms more or less and are relativistic even to a certain group of people they might appear to be universal.

The absolute is valid in and of itself but in order for it in general to be validated in general by intelligent beings it can only be approximated through seemingly relativistic choices and situations. The irony presented here is that in order for humans in general to validate in general the concepts of an absolute good or evil act it must be grounded in a relativistic choice.


This is not necessarily true I think this is more or less a relativistic concept which the general masses pretend to be an objective truth. Beauty itself necessitates that the general possibility for ugliness exists even if it might not be real in the sense of the inherent state of the human person Pre-Original sin. In the modern sense the actuality that ugliness and morality coincide with each other inherently is a logical necessity from the moment a human is born into this world.

In a general sense my relativistic and subjective determinations necessitate the concept of good and evil in an absolute sense as neither preceding the other. This is because if one preceded the other than it would make no sense that my thoughts and actions can in general be actually evil. That means that in a sense whenever I do something which is intrinsically evil the very possibility for this depends on the more relativistic understandings of good and evil.

This than makes intrinsic evil an arbitrary ordeal because we all are only good in an inherent sense an our acts which are intrinsically evil are reduced to mere possibilities or potentialities in general. I think essentially that both good and evil spontaneously coincide with each and necessitate each through the mere fact that an inherent good in and of itself predicates the mere possibility of an inherent evil in and of itself. I generally agree with the rest of what you had to say though.

[Monolith]

Yea Brainwashed, now brainwashing is not necessarily a bad thing, everything is brainwashing, education at home from ur parents, Religion etc etc.... it is all brainwashing but not necessarily bad.
So, all individuals are born as a 'blank slate' (tabula rasa) and only wait for their society to instruct them how to do pretty much everything? I find that extremely difficult to believe, given that we'd surely be witnessing much more chaos and randomness in the cultural landscape of the human race.

The sole fact that human beings owe their success to their social interconnectedness is proof enough that we aren't born blank. It is innate to us and it implies a significant degree of natural solidarity, which in turn implies the existence of empathy and sympathy for other human beings.

2. That is why all this Morality Intellectual Acrobatics here by some users that say Morality is absolute is Bullshit, what u say is totally not True, if someone is raised up among cannibals or war he would become a killing machine which once more proves that Morality is not born or created it is gained while u live in a society that tell u what is moral and what is not or in a family that brings u up telling u this is right this is wrong and slapping the back of ur hands if u try to steal something,
Sure, someone raised by cannibals would most probably become one. Does that mean it would be easy for this person to kill and eat his first victim? Or the second one? To use your analogy, chemicals in your brain tell you it's wrong. After that, the more lives you take, the more numb you become.

What you're implying is that it's possible to culturally indoctrinate an individual to become a sociopath.


Morality is a Social COnstruct THUS not Absolute and it changes from Culture to culture and from period to Period, you have to be really blind not to see this.
What I see instead are human cultures separated by great distances and time periods, that use a common set of natural rules of conduct, with only superficial moral overlay being different.


3. Yeah because those war veterans were raised and tought that killing is wrong even in healthy societies you still have people that don't consider killing wrong, remember those 12 Serbian and 9 Croatian War Mercenaries killed in Lybia just a while ago??? I think they didn't get to kill enough in Yugoslav wars they had to go and do more of that shit.
Yeah, sure, we Croats are all raised to be saints. :rolleyes:

You are a biological robot weather u like it or not, deal with it, the sole fact that you were created by a god and put in a planet where there are certain barriers to u and u r limited that makes u a Biological Robot u just have to deal with it, the fact that u hope u r something beyond this doesn't mean anything, of course u can still hope but that is as far as u can get.
I take you're omniscient then?

Exactly for something to be absolute it needs to apply to everything in the universe like Birth and Death, everything gets born and dies, Humans, Animals, stars and even the universe one day.
You're confusing 'absolute' with 'universal' here.


You just said enough, Morality or Stealing ??? ok now we got it.
Get what?

[GeistFaust]

I believe that all individuals are born with innate potentialities which are "categorized" in our imagination. These potentialities coincide with the intuition which is the basis of morality whether it be relativistic or universal. That which structures and orders this blank state and adds content to it is the society around us, close family members which rear us and are affected more or less by social standards and norms, and our psychological development.


Chaos and randomness is the original nature of mankind and it is due to the gradual arising out of the the state of the primordial man that the human mind in general has become inherently capable of projecting forth ideas and systems regarding morality. That said I will not deny that morality is encrypted in our biological or genetic structures and that this more or less is constantly determining itself in correspondence with the matter of our experience.


The important thing to realize is that even though morality might appear as universal in a sense we are tricked into thinking this. Its merely the fact that in order for the individual to account for his thoughts, the standards and norms of the society and culture around him, and the specific environment in which he dwells by blowing its importance or significance from a rational and moral standpoint out of proportion.



This is to say a system of morality and more most morality in general is only as important as it is to the unique sets of individuals within different situations and circumstances. Morality than determines itself in the uniqueness of the individual and is determined by it as something which in a sense personifies the internal qualities of that individual. That which secures the fundamental and base needs of our existence and preserves it for ourselves or those closest to us is that which is moral.



I might have empathy or sympathy for another person's situation or condition but I am wired both by nature and society that doing this will only cause more negation than positive motion. Morality necessitates the ascension of each and every individual unit in society in correspondence with his internal potential and in a sense morality necessitates that we invent our own principles and rules regarding itself for different situations and circumstances. The rest was well said though.

[rhiannon]

I've been wondering about people's take on morality. I had a brief discussion about morality in another thread, where it was suggested that morality is absolute and not dependent upon laws or or what we personally agree or disagree with.

I wondered how morality could be something constant and absolute, when society's views on right and wrong have changed a lot. We abolished slavery in the West not long ago. Was slavery moral when it was legal, but it isn't now, or was it always one or the other?

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, then who gets to decide what that entails? There are things most human beings can agree on, like not killing each other in cold blood or not raping children, but then there are matters such as loans and interests (moral?), abortion in the case of rape (moral?), letting 10 strangers die to save a loved one (moral?), using stem cells from fetuses to help severely ill people (moral?) etc. There are many things for which the conventional wisdom of past centuries have no answer.

If absolute morality doesn't exist, does that mean that morality is arbitrary and doesn't have any kind of framework upon which to build upon? Does it mean that our actions are not determined by right or wrong but by what we feel to be right and wrong? And if that's the case, then how great is the disparity between what we personally think and feel, and what the "rule book" says?

I think my personal perspective on morality is that we form our morality based upon what is good for the greatest amount of human beings, and that we form this morality based on this understanding and based on our own conscience. What is your perspective on morality?

Philosophy and discussions of this nature are not my forté...but this is my take on morality:

Some aspects of morality are absolute, IMO:

-you don't kill or maim people, unless it's self defense in some way
-you don't abuse children or hurt those that are defenseless
-you follow the golden rule whenever possible

The rest is arbitrary and subject to individual scrutiny.

[Saturni]

Philosophy and discussions of this nature are not my forté...but this is my take on morality:

Some aspects of morality are absolute, IMO:

-you don't kill or maim people, unless it's self defense in some way
-you don't abuse children or hurt those that are defenseless
-you follow the golden rule whenever possible

The rest is arbitrary and subject to individual scrutiny.

Absolute for whom?

Vlad Tepes liked to impale people. Genghis Khan liked to wipe out giant swaths of humanity. The Romans enjoyed bloodsports. The Roman Catholics were fond of burning people alive. WWI. Stalin's forced famines. WWII. Etc. and ad nauseam.

So just where in the foregoing was this absolute morality?

Also, I find it pretty amusing that Xtians like to go on about absolute morality being the direct intuition of Tetragrammaton. This insane demiurgical monstrosity, this is the progenitor and master template of absolute morality?

But, as we all know, man makes his gods in his image. So should we really be surprised then when man, the most vicious animal on the planet, makes a vicious god like a Jehovah or an Allah?

[rhiannon]

Also, I find it pretty amusing that Xtians like to go on about absolute morality being the direct intuition of Tetragrammaton. This insane demiurgical monstrosity, this is the progenitor and master template of absolute morality?
Umm...are you under the mistaken impression I am Christian?
:rotfl: So....NOT the case:)


Absolute for whom? Well, if it's absolute..shouldn't that mean it applies to us all?


Vlad Tepes liked to impale people. Genghis Khan liked to wipe out giant swaths of humanity. The Romans enjoyed bloodsports. The Roman Catholics were fond of burning people alive. WWI. Stalin's forced famines. WWII. Etc. and ad nauseam.

So just where in the foregoing was this absolute morality?
It was apparently....absent.:mad:

Perhaps you and I are defining the term *absolute* differently. I don't think of absolute as something that IS...but rather something that SHOULD be, at least is the case in the context of the subject of this discussion--morality.

Now, in science, an Absolute is similar to a fixed variable. It is taken as truth. However, absolute morality does not exist as the same for us all....even though it SHOULD exist as the same for all....that is, those three aspects I made mention of in my first post....IMHO, of course...

These sorts of discussions are hard for me because I don't sit and think about things like morality just for the sake of thinking about it. In my estimation, these sorts of concepts make most sense to me when I think of how they should play out in our day to day lives. I think of it as more of an empirical approach rather than a philosophical.


But, as we all know, man makes his gods in his image. So should we really be surprised then when man, the most vicious animal on the planet, makes a vicious god like a Jehovah or an Allah?
Ummm....No. I am definitely not surprised....and yes....mankind IS vicious:(

[Odoacer]

Also, I find it pretty amusing that Xtians like to go on about absolute morality being the direct intuition of Tetragrammaton. This insane demiurgical monstrosity, this is the progenitor and master template of absolute morality?

But, as we all know, man makes his gods in his image. So should we really be surprised then when man, the most vicious animal on the planet, makes a vicious god like a Jehovah or an Allah?

On what basis do you describe man as "vicious" (i.e., full of vice)? If you simply mean violent or savage, is there something wrong with that?

[Saturni]

On what basis do you describe man as "vicious" (i.e., full of vice)? If you simply mean violent or savage, is there something wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that per se, but since man is naturally a vicious and sadistic animal, the argument for an absolute morality becomes something a joke.

[Saturni]

Umm...are you under the mistaken impression I am Christian?
:rotfl: So....NOT the case:)
Not implying that at all. Was just commenting on the fact that certain Xtains like to believe man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Although how this could be considering the god of the Old Testament is a psychotic Id monster remains something of a mystery. :D


Well, if it's absolute..shouldn't that mean it applies to us all?
Yes, according to the way the term absolute morality has been bandied about here, all people, being the "children of god", should be born with this innate sense of right and wrong/good and evil. This would mean that a child born to White parents in England, France, Gemany, Italy, or the US would arrive into the world with the same moral hardwiring as some Black, Mexican, or Aboriginal. Personally, I do not think that is the case, but many Xtians seem to openly embrace such ludicrous notions. Go figure...


Perhaps you and I are defining the term *absolute* differently. I don't think of absolute as something that IS...but rather something that SHOULD be, at least is the case in the context of the subject of this discussion--morality.

Now, in science, an Absolute is similar to a fixed variable. It is taken as truth. However, absolute morality does not exist as the same for us all....even though it SHOULD exist as the same for all....that is, those three aspects I made mention of in my first post....IMHO, of course...
The general and accepted definition of absolute morality is a morality that exists independent of the human experience, a "thing-in-itself", something with an a priori existence, that emanates from some divine figure/godhead. Buddha Nature being a prime example of this term.

As for morality applying to all peoples equally everywhere, this sort of thinking is akin to Cultural Marxism. Occidental morality, such as it is, is the product of a superior type of man/woman. It can not be exported to foreign lands and handed out to wogs and the like and be expected to bear fruit.


These sorts of discussions are hard for me because I don't sit and think about things like morality just for the sake of thinking about it. In my estimation, these sorts of concepts make most sense to me when I think of how they should play out in our day to day lives. I think of it as more of an empirical approach rather than a philosophical.
Excellent point. A good historical example of the phenomenon you just described are the Tokugawa era samurai. After the Pax Togugawa, the samurai class had, effectively, lost its function in society. As they were no longer able to display their military prowess on the battlefields, they turned upon themselves instead and became obsessed with ritual suicide.

This is pretty much is what is happening today in the Occident.



Ummm....No. I am definitely not surprised....and yes....mankind IS vicious:(
You are wise in your years!

[Odoacer]

There is nothing wrong with that per se, but since man is naturally a vicious and sadistic animal, the argument for an absolute morality becomes something a joke.

So then, you mean "violent" or "savage" rather than "full of vice," correct? I don't see why the argument for absolute morality becomes a joke simply because men don't live up to whatever the standard may be.

[Saturni]

So then, you mean "violent" or "savage" rather than "full of vice," correct? I don't see why the argument for absolute morality becomes a joke simply because men don't live up to whatever the standard may be.

If men were born with an absolute morality then crime and predation would never have come into existence now, would it?

[Odoacer]

If men were born with an absolute morality then crime and predation would never have come into existence now, would it?

Whether morality is absolute is independent from whether men are born with a perfect moral compass. Men can be as beastly as they want & it will say nothing about whether morality is absolute, just as men are quite illogical & irrational all of the time & yet it doesn't mean that reason is relative & an invention of the human mind. (Maybe you think that reason IS that, but if so, any discussion on the point is essentially meaningless.)

[Saturni]

Whether morality is absolute is independent from whether men are born with a perfect moral compass. Men can be as beastly as they want & it will say nothing about whether morality is absolute, just as men are quite illogical & irrational all of the time & yet it doesn't mean that reason is relative & an invention of the human mind. (Maybe you think that reason IS that, but if so, any discussion on the point is essentially meaningless.)

If man act beastly towards each other, and they have since the dawn of recorded history, then we can safely assume that men are not, in fact, born with with a true moral compass.

That morality exists is not something that can argued against. The vast majority of us act, for the most part, in a wholly moral fashion all the time. But this morality is learned, it is not encoded unto our DNA like hair or eye color.

Also, that certain people have a higher capacity for morality is patently obvious as well.

[GeistFaust]

If man act beastly towards each other, and they have since the dawn of recorded history, then we can safely assume that men are not, in fact, born with with a true moral compass.

That morality exists is not something that can argued against. The vast majority of us act, for the most part, in a wholly moral fashion all the time. But this morality is learned, it is not encoded unto our DNA like hair or eye color.

Also, that certain people have a higher capacity for morality is patently obvious as well.

I have to agree with you that man's primal viciousness and beastliness does allow for the concept of an inherent moral compass to exist. In a sense it is negated by his primitiveness and the only reason there are such things as relative or absolute morals is because of man's intellectual and cognitive powers. I don't know if you can this validates the concept of absolute morality but it does make the concept of it dependent on our ability to think and reason.


This does not mean that is it is necessarily relativistic though. On the other hand a lot of those things which the average individual concludes as being absolute or universal is nothing more than an individual projection of their surroundings. In a way we can not depend on intellectual distinctions too much when dealing with moral and metaphysical issues. The other thing you could say is that morality is relative to the inherent potential an individual has to be cognitive or coherent of their surrounding reality.



If you want to take this discussion regarding morality from a Christian perspective even Thomas Aquinas himself said a man can only be as moral as he has the ability to choose and the capacity to which he has to choose is directly proportional to capacity he has to reason. Morality is more or less something that we are trained to do and the supposed morality we are trained in is merely based on relativistic cultures and norms. I think the idea or concept of absolute morality is ridiculous in most if not all cases. That is why when someone brings it up I just like to refer to it as absolute nonsense.

[Odoacer]

If man act beastly towards each other, and they have since the dawn of recorded history, then we can safely assume that men are not, in fact, born with with a true moral compass.

That morality exists is not something that can argued against. The vast majority of us act, for the most part, in a wholly moral fashion all the time. But this morality is learned, it is not encoded unto our DNA like hair or eye color.

Also, that certain people have a higher capacity for morality is patently obvious as well.

Inborn or learned, none of this even begins to address the question of whether there is absolute morality.

[GeistFaust]

Inborn or learned, none of this even begins to address the question of whether there is absolute morality.

I think its a valid attack on absolute morality and a possible way of undermining it because if man by nature is a chaotic and primitive being than it would not be possible for him to comprehend an absolute morality even if there was one. This means that only because of man's inherent capacity to reason and to reason to a great degree allows absolute morality to validate itself in the course of man's rational actions.

This means that ironically absolute morality is useless to itself without being grounded in an individual with at least the average capacity for intelligence. It just seems that some people have been inbred with a greater capacity for morals and this is something which is socially self-evident.


In a way though all this said the intent is not to undermine absolute morality but to show and reveal there are certain conditions for its own existence. Certain conditions which depend on inherent factors within the individual and which give shape to the nature of absolute morality which is ironically an absolutely relative issue.

[Odoacer]

I think its a valid attack on absolute morality and a possible way of undermining it because if man by nature is a chaotic and primitive being than it would not be possible for him to comprehend an absolute morality even if there was one. This means that only because of man's inherent capacity to reason and to reason to a great degree allows absolute morality to validate itself in the course of man's rational actions.

If man's poor behavior (judged on what scale, anyway?) is a valid argument against the idea of absolute morality, the same is the case with man's irrationality & universal principles of reason.

[GeistFaust]

If man's poor behavior (judged on what scale, anyway?) is a valid argument against the idea of absolute morality, the same is the case with man's irrationality & universal principles of reason.

We do not always need scales to judge a person's mode of behavior or set of actions and I do not see why it is necessary as it relates to the problem. I think the scale itself is something which is culturally defined but at the same time our intuition reacts to a poor man's behavior in accordance with certain standards and norms. I do not see though what else can allow man to intuitively grasp the scale of being good or bad or rational or irrational if it was not in reference and reaction to specific social norms and standards.



I think though at the same time there are some cases where everyone can intuitively identify the severity of a poor behavior or irrational act without having to adapt in principle to social standards and norms. If you want to imply what you just did than you are throwing the whole issue of absolute and relative morality in general under the carpet. You are trying to give worth to in a moral sense to a poor man's behavior over and above a man who has an inherent greater capacity to reason.


A man of principle, a highly developed intellect, and of psychological sanity tend to have a higher capacity inherently for morality whether it be relative or absolute. It does not mean that a man such as this is always such a way because it than again depends on the choices he wishes to make given his inherent qualities. I think the way you just explained it would make me rather believe that absolute morality is some sort of abstracted nonsense with it only possessing the validity its given by someone possessing the capacity to think more or less.

Than again as a mere a mortal I would not be as arrogant to try to say that absolute morality does not exist per se but that it seems to have at all cost cut itself off from morality as it relates to the matter of our experience. There is no rational justification in what you said even if it might appear to be essentially the truth. Absolute morality if it exists would validate itself through men of a relatively well developed inherent capacity for thinking and reasoning. Most of our morality is only a moral issue for the individual on the basis of his capacity to critically think about the possible consequences of committing to such and such an act or set of behaviors.

[Odoacer]

We do not always need scales to judge a person's mode of behavior or set of actions and I do not see why it is necessary as it relates to the problem.

No value judgement can be made where no scale of value exists by which to make judgement. All this talk about man's vicious & sadistic nature or behavior relies on certain presumed standards by which to judge anything as vicious & sadistic - words which carry a moral tincture to them, which is why, for example, Saturni so cheekily applies them to God. But, if it is the case that morality exists in a relative sense only, then ascribing such valuations to God's character is not a convincing argument either against God's existence or against his worthiness of our worship, since such valuations of God's character are only relative, & may be something else wholly from a different relative moral standard. For what reason should anyone accept Saturni's relative moral standard over against others?


I think though at the same time there are some cases where everyone can intuitively identify the severity of a poor behavior or irrational act without having to adapt in principle to social standards and norms. If you want to imply what you just did than you are throwing the whole issue of absolute and relative morality in general under the carpet. You are trying to give worth to in a moral sense to a poor man's behavior over and above a man who has an inherent greater capacity to reason.

What I said was, if it is true that bad behavior by men is a valid argument against the idea of absolute morality, bad reasoning by men is an equally valid argument against the idea of universal principles of reason. These two go hand-in-hand. Of course, if someone denies universal principles of reason, there really is no basis for any kind of discussion.


There is no rational justification in what you said even if it might appear to be essentially the truth. Absolute morality if it exists would validate itself through men of a relatively well developed inherent capacity for thinking and reasoning.

If so, that the great sages of human history have in general held to very similar moral standards implies that absolute morality has been validated.

[Saturni]

Than again as a mere a mortal I would not be as arrogant to try to say that absolute morality does not exist per se but that it seems to have at all cost cut itself off from morality as it relates to the matter of our experience. There is no rational justification in what you said even if it might appear to be essentially the truth. Absolute morality if it exists would validate itself through men of a relatively well developed inherent capacity for thinking and reasoning. Most of our morality is only a moral issue for the individual on the basis of his capacity to critically think about the possible consequences of committing to such and such an act or set of behaviors.

Being an arrogant mortal, I can say, without hesitation or doubt, that an absolute morality most certainly does not exist. For if it did, then there wouldn't be a need for this thread.

Again, I would stress that if an absolute morality existed, then all men would agree on what it meant universally.

As man, he is still the measure of all things.

[GeistFaust]

This is a good point and I think that it can be said that perhaps they have had similar moral standards more or less because the cultural and intellectual perceptions of morality are not necessarily as different as we might illusion. This is to say that perhaps moral standards are created or invented for the most part on the basis of social standards and norms and that the human mind has gotten into the habit of mistaking itself by associating these standards and norms with morality in general or absolute morality.


That said just because humans get into the habit of reacting a specific way to social standards and norms to the point does not necessarily imply absolute morality. It is though necessary for the human mind to validate such things as absolute morality on the basis of reacting to relativistic definitions and social standards. These forms of morality give absolute morality a certain value for the human mind which would not exist and it is due to this that the human mind gives so much emphasis to social norms and standards.

This means that the human mind gives so much emphasis to the relativistic modes of defining morality whether it be in a social or environmental sense that he subconsciously associates it with morality in general or absolute morality. And since the gradual change in between the different relativistic modes of defining morality through social standards and norms has been marginal, it might appear that the systems of morality constructed by the great sages of history imply absolute morality when this could just be merely a chimera.

Not necessarily we can fill in the gaps with the invention of our own terms and standards of evaluation where there is no inherently implied value. That said in order to do this it depends on the fact that we are either interacting or reacting in terms of our judgments and evaluations of another to a metaphysical or ontological entity per se. That means that we essentially depend on certain logical and inherent conditions and qualities to make certain judgments and conclusions but the specific judgment or evaluation that we make does not necessarily need to align itself to an inherent value.



The essential part to having an inherent value implies that in general that the inherent value will be given an inherent meaning in accordance with relative standards and definitions. These relative standards and definitions will take on an absolute meaning or definition once we have got into the habit of repeating or reaffirming their association with a certain inherent value. The contradiction implied in the logical nature of reality is that the value that a thing possesses is directly proportional to the value which is associated with it on the basis of certain judgments.


In order for an inherent or logical unit to make itself known in a supposedly singular way it is necessary that we construct dualistic forms and modes of evaluation and judgment in order to fill in the gaps of logic. That said sometimes our relativistic evaluations or judgments merely are pointing out or identifying basic logical principles and rules although I think this is an exception. The same could be said about morality some relativistic evaluations or judgments are meant to accord with absolute morality.


While some others are meant to fill in the gaps which absolute morality does not present to us. In order for this all to occur or even to appear self-evident whether it be from a natural or social position the individual who is according himself with the inherent value of a thing must have an inherent capacity to reason that is at least average. This is because having an inherent capacity to reason gives value to the inherent value of morals and this is something I can infer through intuition as being self evident in nature and society. Also excuse me for me misunderstanding that other thing you stated because I agreed with your response regarding it.

[GeistFaust]

I like the way you stated that since I do believe that inherently morality whether it be relative or absolute depends on the inherent qualities and capacity of the individual present at hand. This means that morality depends on the unique orientation of the individual at hand and that the absolute or universal nature of morality might just be a fallacious projection of the individual in regards to their inherent capacity to be moral.


This means that absolute morality is merely a chimera that is produced in accordance with the average individual developing this habit of associating in a mistaken way the relativistic definitions and determinations in regards to morality as being absolute. If this is the case I fault the brain and senses for casting this illusion on the general nature of man's judgments as it regards morality.


That said there is no simple proof that morality itself can be completely relativistic although I do agree that in a sense for the most part morality as a universal projection of the self is "defined" in accordance with different inherent degrees of relativism.

[Saturni]

This is a good point and I think that it can be said that perhaps they have had similar moral standards more or less because the cultural and intellectual perceptions of morality are not necessarily as different as we might illusion. This is to say that perhaps moral standards are created or invented for the most part on the basis of social standards and norms and that the human mind has gotten into the habit of mistaking itself by associating these standards and norms with morality in general or absolute morality.
This is one of man's more amusing little quirks, to invent something and then forget he invented it and then to mistake his invention as the thing that gave birth to him in the first place. :D

Morals are simply the bare minimum of conduct that an organized society expects of its citizens. Don't kill another unprovoked, don't steal, and don't force yourself sexually on another. This is what the bare minimum is for our Occidental society now. Of course, with the influx of Third, Fourth, and Fifth World rejects flooding into the US and Europa, who knows how long those bare minimums will last.


This means that the human mind gives so much emphasis to the relativistic modes of defining morality whether it be in a social or environmental sense that he subconsciously associates it with morality in general or absolute morality. And since the gradual change in between the different relativistic modes of defining morality through social standards and norms has been marginal, it might appear that the systems of morality constructed by the great sages of history imply absolute morality when this could just be merely a chimera.
Creepy old Jehovah being a prime example. According to the Old Testament, Jehovah created man and woman as pets, which he kept in a little petting zoo, and whom he later cursed with "original sin" for defying him. This same Jehovah was also into child sacrifice and genocide as well.

Of course this particular god was just a reflection of the morality of the Jews that created him.

Flash forward a few millenia to the new and improved Jehovah of the New Testament. This new version seems to lack the homicidal rage of his earlier incarnation. Why? Because this Jehovah had now been filtered through the lenses of Occidental culture, so he came to represent the refined spirituality of Northern peoples instead of the psychopathic blood urges of Jews.

This raises quite the funny problem for Xtians. Is their Jehovah the one of the Old Testament who revels in bloodshed and ritual murder, or is he the one of the New Testament, the summum bonum of all creation? :D


The essential part to having an inherent value implies that in general that the inherent value will be given an inherent meaning in accordance with relative standards and definitions. These relative standards and definitions will take on an absolute meaning or definition once we have got into the habit of repeating or reaffirming their association with a certain inherent value. The contradiction implied in the logical nature of reality is that the value that a thing possesses is directly proportional to the value which is associated with it on the basis of certain judgments.
Again the problem is with the term "absolute." The term carries with it the idea of perfection, yet morals are always mercurial in nature, in that they very from age to age and people to people. That a certain people in a certain age agree on what constitutes the bare minimum of social congress does not imply that these beliefs in any way derive from an eternal and unchanging source.

[Odoacer]

Again, I would stress that if an absolute morality existed, then all men would agree on what it meant universally.

Why must that be so?

[GeistFaust]

Yeah its quite unfortunate that man confuses one thing with another but can you fault him. The average man has been taught to distinguish things on account of what is presented to him through his sense experience. Its almost as if his capacity to think about things whether they be in regards to rational constructs or morals has been neutralized by his brain. Not to mention the way in which the average man associates his sense experience with things such as reason or morals is inserted and encrypted through the social standards and norms which are relativistic.


The group structure or the collective mentality of individuals as regards morality depends on the relativistic nature of the social standards and norms which a specific group of people will react to. Not to mention their will be different ways in which the individual in that specific group reacts to the social standards and norms and this will depend on the variety and diversity of the nature of the situation and circumstances which each individual has to put up with. The fact that the group or collective consciousness of a people as regards morality is relativistic implies both on an individual and group level that some people just have a more advanced form of morality.


An advanced form of morality coincides with a well developed and evolved culture and is a result of it to some degree or another. An African culture has absolutely no concept of relativistic or absolute morals. This is in part because inherently their capacity to critically think is not that advanced through a combination of inferior genes and an environmental surrounding. This has caused African societies to build despotic government systems because the masses in general are predisposed to an inferior set of relativistic group cultural standards and norms.



We can also see that morality is something which is more than just a random happening from generation to the next and that is it has a genealogical value. Morality is inherited from individual to individual in accordance with the way in the relativistic group standards and norms affect the individual and the situations and inherent personality which causes the individual to react to these standards and norms in a specific way. In a sense an individual can associate although not always that the general capacity for morals is dependent on the relativistic group understanding of morality.



In a sense this will reflect the genetic and environmental development and advancement of a people because in a sense these two factors determine the inherent capacity to which both the individual and group will be capable of being moral. Its disheartening to see that both the relativistic capacity for morals and the bare minimum of morals is threatened with the rise and intrusion of all these primitive and vicious beasts that are invading once proud and morally conscious and self-aware cultures.


Cultural Marxism and Feminism is hell bent on undermining a well developed and advance system of morality and to infiltrate positive systems of morality with groups of people who are inherently ignorant towards morality. Well developed and Advanced cultures have always been marked with possessing a strong sense of morality and independence and this is threatened with the new wave of materialism, secularism, and consumerism which impedes upon the social scene of the modern west.

[Saturni]

Yeah its quite unfortunate that man confuses one thing with another but can you fault him. The average man has been taught to distinguish things on account of what is presented to him through his sense experience. Its almost as if his capacity to think about things whether they be in regards to rational constructs or morals has been neutralized by his brain. Not to mention the way in which the average man associates his sense experience with things such as reason or morals is inserted and encrypted through the social standards and norms which are relativistic.
Can I fault him? Yes, I can. I can fault his intellectual laziness, especially in this day and age where all the world's wealth of information is only a keystroke away. A thousand years ago when information was stored only in the private libraries of the very rich or cloistered monasteries you could excuse such ignorance, but not today.

But speaking of the average man, what use is he to us? Aside from the performance of repetitive manual labor, I really don't see much use for him.


The fact that the group or collective consciousness of a people as regards morality is relativistic implies both on an individual and group level that some people just have a more advanced form of morality.
No finer summation of the "crowd" mind exists than LeBon's "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,"
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=BonCrow.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div2


Cultural Marxism and Feminism is hell bent on undermining a well developed and advance system of morality and to infiltrate positive systems of morality with groups of people who are inherently ignorant towards morality. Well developed and Advanced cultures have always been marked with possessing a strong sense of morality and independence and this is threatened with the new wave of materialism, secularism, and consumerism which impedes upon the social scene of the modern west.
This was something that Nietzsche wrote at great length about in The Genealogy of Morals. I would recommend this work to anyone wishing to gain an insight into Master/Slave moralities.

[Drawing-slim]

Instead of just clicking on thanks option every post, may i just say i took plasure reading the discussion between saturni and geistfaust.

[Saturni]

Instead of just clicking on thanks option every post, may i just say i took plasure reading the discussion between saturni and geistfaust.

Thank you. I'm here all week.

[Loddfafner]

Killing is fun. Nothing wrong with it but try killing any of my own and you will feel the business end of my weaponry.

[GeistFaust]

Can I fault him? Yes, I can. I can fault his intellectual laziness, especially in this day and age where all the world's wealth of information is only a keystroke away. A thousand years ago when information was stored only in the private libraries of the very rich or cloistered monasteries you could excuse such ignorance, but not today.

But speaking of the average man, what use is he to us? Aside from the performance of repetitive manual labor, I really don't see much use for him.


No finer summation of the "crowd" mind exists than LeBon's "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,"
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=BonCrow.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div2


This was something that Nietzsche wrote at great length about in The Genealogy of Morals. I would recommend this work to anyone wishing to gain an insight into Master/Slave moralities.



I think regarding the average person in society they are no more moral than they are immoral which is why I have an extreme problem with self righteous religious nuts that try to in the most sublime way possible look perfect. Its really just a defense mechanism they put on because they know they will never be perfect but they feel obligated to avoid sin which is sort of a natural necessity more or less.

The thing is the average mind is more or less given over to frivolous and petty modes of thought and action whether they be projected by the relativistic group consciousness or the consciousness of the average individual. In a way the average individual is not much different either in a rational or moral sense from the group consciousness.


The average individual drains morality of all of its inherent possibilities and potentialities and keeps the individual from being capable trans valuing a current group mode of morality with a dry and lifeless robotic nature.

[Sturmgewehr]

I don't know why this dualism must be. There's no reason that good can only be defined in opposition to evil. For example, it is good to love your wife. Does that mean there must be men to hate their wives, or else we simply can't understand what is "good" in this case? No, of course not. Evil only exists as a corruption of good. Ergo, good precedes evil in every case.

Same goes for evil or bad, all this stuff revolves around what are the standards for good and bad, if there was no BAD or EVIL how would u know something is good??? it is impossible, then Good wouldn't even be good it would just be something like a rock or like air it would be like an object neither good neither bad just what it is and would have it's own functions positive and negative, good is a construct or whatever we do that benefits us by that sense even a lie can be good when u need to save someone or even killing can be good when u need to defend urself.

You also DON"T NEED LOVE to understand HATE.

The example with you love ur wife other's hate their wives is also true there are man that also hate their wives that is why u will see people killing their spouses but that is besides the point, it is an inadequate example and has nothing to do with anything.

Love exists and hate exists and Hate is not corruption of love hate is just like love it exists independently from love. same goes for Evil and bad or ugly they all exist just like Good, Beauty etc exists even though they are all relative.

If Good exists then where is it /??? how do u define it ?



Because mankind fell into sin.

:D :D :D

How is it someone else's fault or why should someone esle suffer or die because of my sins ???????

Most of the time Sinners live better lives than those who don't sin, those who don't sin usually have a hard time and why is it their fault because I fell into sin ?


Justice.

I thought god was good and Just and Moral then how did he bring distruction and plague onto people, isn't it unjust to do that to people ??? Seems like u trying to say he broke his own rules.

If justice is like that then we can freely shoot someone that did something bad, what happened to forgiveness ?? or to harming someone is BAD&Unjust&immoral ???

I guess when god does that to someone it is ok but if a people do that to someone then it is not ok.

You saying that God did the wrong thing when he sent 10 Plagues to Egyptians and Harmed them and brought destruction upon them, I thought u said god is the source of Goodness and Morality and u also said that doesn't matter of the Outcome if a lie may lead to something good it is still wrong, so you saying god did the wrong thing now ?


These analogies aren't adequate. You aren't a legitimate authority so that you can personally exact retribution against an evildoer; God, on the other hand, is King & Judge of the entire world.

Neither are yours. all this stuff are not practical at all they are just a bunch of Mental Acrobatics which don't really apply in reality.

Yeah but ur God in the bible says to stone the Faggots and hang the ones that Cheat and so on and on which means he is telling u to do something about the evildoers.

If I am not a legitimate Authority then all the wars and injustice and world hunger, starvation and malnutrition why isn't god taking any action ??? I mean why is it the fault of those Million INNOCENT kids in Africa dying for the Sins of Gluttonous nations consuming too much or whatever the reason it might be?


Monolith is correct. To kill another person is not necessarily murder. Murder is intentionally to kill an innocent person. A soldier who kills an enemy soldier in the course of a battle is not committing murder. An executioner who kills a convicted murderer to carry out the punishment required by law is not committing murder. A man who unintentionally kills another man in an auto accident is not committing murder.

That logic also applies to Lying and Stealing as well.


I never said it was a "biiiig sin." That's your spin on it. In fact there are gradations of severity to sin. Stealing food to feed your starving family or lying to protect your life or the life of another is not necessarily as bad as, say, lying to prevent yourself from being rightfully charged with money-laundering. But the actions are still wrong.

Still sin, wrong = sin isn't it ?


No, I wouldn't be justified in killing some stranger because he was holding slaves: 1) I'm not God & 2) I'm not some other lawful authority who has the right to exact retribution against evildoers.

:D :D :D

1) no one is god, 2) who gives those Lawful authorities to execute Faggots and hang Cheaters or whatever ???

in Countries that apply religious laws or before when people used religion as law they hanged and stoned people because the bible told them so ( bible = god or more like Word of god ).

Plus if god does it then it is Justice and Goodness if we do it then it is bad, immoral and so on.


Okay: "In fact, he is the very standard of goodness & justice."

Then how is it Justice that Innocent people die, innocent Kids.

Natural Disasters, sicknesses etc which the human is not the factor but the human suffers from them.



You're the one who keeps arguing that morality is merely something that humans invent. The fact that many humans have had moral codes in which, for example, it is wrong to have sex with animals, obliterates your idea that morality can only be where there are two or more human beings.

So all humans had that it is wrong to have sex with Animals ???????

If there is only one Human being as I said in an Island with the SHeep and he fucks the sheep and he considers fucking a ship moral then even IF absolute Morality existed it wouldn't apply to him and if it REALLY existed then he wouldn't do it cuz he would have that innate morality coded in himself or whatever nonsense u trying to make sense of.


This is sheer nonsense & not an argument at all against moral absolutes. Someone can be insane & think that it's good to shoot a machine gun at babies in the hospital. Just because he's insane doesn't mean moral absolutes don't exist. Just because people have different opinions about what behavior is moral doesn't mean that moral absolutes don't exist.

Not really, if something is absolute then it is Universal and absolute should apply to everyone, if people are born with that innate morality then that insane man should have it, plus why is it his fault that he is insane, he was born insane and with that kind of capacity or the capacity of morality, it is not his fault he is doing it cuz that is the right thing to do for him regardless if there is absolute morality or not cuz that absolute morality doesn't apply to him or that absolute logic or whatever.

u have drawn urself into Mental Acrobatics which are not applicable in everyday life or human society.

Just because all Humans feel it is wrong to kill people like that or just because all humans feel it is wrong to lie that doesn't mean it is wrong to lie, imagine if all people were insane and considered it is OK to lie and a minority considered it is wrong to lie what then.

IF MORALITY WAS ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL IT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE AND PEOPLE WON'T BE FUCKED UP LIKE THAT.

or if then u argue that Morality is Absolute then so is Immorality cuz immorality can also exist without depending on Morality.


The logic is really more like this:
Taking a human life:
GOOD: Killing a person who is trying to kill you in your own house.
BAD: Killing an innocent person who never did anything to harm you.

Taking possession of property which isn't yours:
GOOD: Taking possession of property which isn't yours by buying it.
BAD: Taking possession of property which isn't yours by stealing it.

LOL.

Taking a possession of Property which isn't yours by buing it is BUYING it, it is not stealing it cuz u give him something and u take something whereas when u kill someone u don't give him shit he doesn't gain from it he loses from it he loses his life.

Killing is Wrong call it murder or whatever if u justify killing in that way of logic then u MUST justify stealing in that way.

When u buy something is not called taking it cuz taking it is when u take it and go home u can take something u found in the street which doesn't belong to anyone like a rock on the mountain but it is not stealing neither buying, you can take someone's belongings by also borrowing them u don't pay them crap or they give it to u as a gift and u take their belongings that they give u or u find something someone has lost and u take it it is still someone's but it is not stealing it, what if u go to the store and the cashier accidentally puts some item u didn't buy into ur bag and u take it home, u also dont know she put it there and even if u know u didn't steal it.

it goes like this:

Killing:

GOOD: Killing in self defense to protect ur own life
BAD: killing an innocent person who just offered u a drink

Stealing:

GOOD: when u steal to feed ur kids because they will die if u don't do so

BAD: stealing to become rich or stealing when ur existence is not in jeopardy.

Ur logic is flawed.


Morality applies everywhere God is. Since God is everywhere that man goes, morality applies.

But god is even where there is no man, does this mean Morality applies to Jupiter or the whole universe ???

are u implying that god is following man everywhere ???? :D :D


In both cases, a mind is needed to determine what is moral or what is logical. If there are no human minds around on Pluto, why should logic apply there? If humanity suddenly disappeared, where would logic exist?

Fuck Logic, we discussing Morality.

Logic might Exist even if we disappear but who gives a shit and who needs it then.

Logic is a human attribute ok let's say Gods attribute if Logic is a Human Attribute and Gods attribute then why is it logical for someone to lie, like it is very logical to me to lie to defend someone from dying or something similar.

For someone it is Logical to steal because it is easier for him to get rich like that and so on.


I didn't bring up that hypothetical.

Yes u did somewhere in the thread I read it I think it was u I am too lazy to go back and check.


Because God is truth & the source of life.

Truth is Truth and has nothing to do with anything.

God is a Supreme Being still a being whereas Truth is not a Being, Source of life yes but not Truth.

God is God the supreme being.


More nonsense. If there were no humans alive, it would be TRUE that there were no humans alive. Truth doesn't cease to exist because humans cease to exist.

So what if it would be True that there are no human alive ??? what kind of stupid bullshit is that, IT WOULD BE TRUTH, why does it matter if it is true or not if there are no humans alive to give a shit about truth.

Then truth would be like a rock in a field, it would be there but no one is concerned about it no one looks at it no one uses it etc etc so truth would be useless even if it exists.

That Mind Acrobatic u talking about like It is True that it is not True means NOTHING and how does it relate to Morality ??? Truth can also be immoral if u Spy on ur friends, like ur enemies get u and ask u where are your friends stationed at and u tell them exactly where they are and they all get killed and u just harmed a bunch of innocent people and harming someone is immoral or causing death of innocent people is immoral and u just committed immorality by telling the truth which caused DEATH and DESTRUCTION of Innocent lives.



I might tell it to them directly or I might remain silent, or perhaps some other action depending upon the specific circumstances. There are different actions which can be taken which do not involve telling a lie. It is not always a requirement to reveal everything, either.

Quit being a fool.

I am an SS Officer I check all the houses for Jews and u r my best friend who doesn't agree on Jews being killed but I do and I come and knock on ur door, I ask u ARE U HIDING ANY JEWS ON UR BASEMENT??? and u start telling me last Night's football game I will tell u to cut the CRAP and answer my question cuz I don't give a crap about that and i am too busy killing jews and u have to answer if u said NO then I would leave cuz I trust u if u kept silent that means that u admit there are Jews in ur basement and it is logical since u can't lie that means there are Jews in ur basement and I come in and find them and shoot them one by one in the head.

by Lying you would have done the right thing, the right thing would be to protect those people from being executed like animals by telling the truth or keeping silent you would have done the wrong thing and you would have brought harm and destruction upon them.


The truth, in this hypothetical, is that I'm hiding Jews in my basement. The situation imposed by the Nazis coming to my door doesn't change the truth of the matter, regardless of what action I decide to take.

it is not Hypothetical it has happened, Jews were saved in Albania by Albanians from the Ballist ( Nazis ) by Albanians hiding them in their houses and when the Albanian Ballists came they would tell them there were no Jews or if this wasn't the case in all situation then I am sure this was the case with at LEAST 1 situation where Jews were saved like that.

They don't change the truth of the matter of course BUT they change the morality of the Truth.


Replace "truth" with "morality" & then remember that humans do exist.

Again Intellectual Fallacy.


No, God is not "above all logic." God is God (law of identity). If God is God, then it is not true that God is not God (law of noncontradiction). So, God is not "above" all of logic. God is beyond human understanding, but this has to do with man's finite nature & God's infinite nature, not logic as such.

and that still has nothing to do with Morality.


That doesn't explain why it is "too humanlike" for God to create the world for his own glory.

It does cuz Glory is something that exists in Humans, if God created man for His Glory that means he needs Glory, If god Created men for his Glory then why does he needs Glory??


No, it doesn't address what I said. If standards of beauty are "preset," that means beauty is not defined principally with reference to ugliness.

How so ????


Precisely so. Which means that immorality only exists because morality precedes it, & ugliness because beauty precedes it. In other words, beauty's existence doesn't require there be ugliness & morality's existence doesn't require there be immorality.

You can say the same for Ugliness and Immorality.

[Sturmgewehr]

Also Let me remind u, you said Only good comes from god, only beauty, only love, what about this:


Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

God Loves everyone and in Everyone Faggots are included, he loves them so much that he wants to put them to death.

Doesn't putting someone to death because of who he is or the choice he made tells u that he hates what they are doing and thus he hates them.

Religious people usually would say, God doesn't hate Faggots he loves us all he just DOESN"T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING.


Leviticus 20:23 - "And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."


Psalm 10:3 - "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth."


Psalm 53:5 - "There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them."


Hosea 9:15 - "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters."


"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

[Saturni]

I think regarding the average person in society they are no more moral than they are immoral which is why I have an extreme problem with self righteous religious nuts that try to in the most sublime way possible look perfect. Its really just a defense mechanism they put on because they know they will never be perfect but they feel obligated to avoid sin which is sort of a natural necessity more or less.
You can be sure that the ones who are making the biggest stink about morals are the least moral among us. Textbook example being the ultra-conservative televangelist who incessantly extolls the virtues of "traditional family" values in public but in private, pays for the services of gay hookers.

Politicians are another perfect example. They make all kinds of promises on the campaign trail, then break everyone of those promises once they get elected.


The thing is the average mind is more or less given over to frivolous and petty modes of thought and action whether they be projected by the relativistic group consciousness or the consciousness of the average individual. In a way the average individual is not much different either in a rational or moral sense from the group consciousness.
Lol, everyone is an individual until they're in a group! Now individually each man in the mob probably wouldn't think of committing a crime on their own, but once he submerges his consciousness into that of the group's, anything is possible. As a matter of fact, this is how every riot/revolution starts.

Now this isn't to say this kind of behavior is necessarily bad, it isn't. In fact, it's an indispensable survival technique seen everywhere in Nature. You see it in flocks or birds, schools of fish, herds of cattle, and packs of wolves.


The average individual drains morality of all of its inherent possibilities and potentialities and keeps the individual from being capable trans valuing a current group mode of morality with a dry and lifeless robotic nature.
The "average" human has an average morality. This, in itself, is not surprising. But the average person doesn't make morals, they only follow them. The creation of morals is, on the other hand, the duty of great men, who, by their actions, set the standard by which all others seek to emulate.

[GeistFaust]

Yeah its quite ironic that some of the biggest advocators of morals tend to be the most contradictory and inconsistent. This is nothing to not expect though because I believe man in general is a hypocritical creature. The issue is that because of these people a lot of people have distorted and twisted notions regarding morality. These types have always been present throughout the course of history and you can not ignore them. Basically they use their supposed good moral standing as a way to lull people into their traps.

I don't think the average is much of an individual when you think about it because the individual lacks the ability to utilize processes of thinking or reasoning adequately. This means that the average person has a tendency for intellectual laziness because life is too short, brutish, and nasty from his perspective to attend himself to such sophisticated and lofty duties.

I also meant it in a social sense where it seems like the average individual reacts to certain similar social schemes or themes. Its almost as if the masses are always looking for a certain social theme which will save them from their perpetual boredom and it ends up "thrusting" everyone onto this roller coaster of fads.

Also a good deal of people more or less spend their day around other people and this leads to everyone either thinking in a similar or thinking about similar things. The group dynamic is powerful it extends beyond the micro-sociological aspects of society into even the seemingly more individualistic zones of society. A lot of the times we are affected by this permeation without giving notice to it

This is true and usually the average morality depends greatly on the inventions and trans-valuing of great men to have a model of morality to emulate. Unfortunately the average way always seems to misunderstand or develop misconceptions regarding the systems of morality espoused by great men. This is why it is necessary and good for great men to rise up and re-affirm to a certain extent the moral espousing of other great men with some marginal changes added onto it.


The masses have a way of affecting the systems of morality of great individuals just as much as great individuals affect the average morality of the masses. In a sense the group dynamic or herd instinct has a way of gathering itself in an unconscious way in order to convict themselves of the moral validity of their thoughts and actions regardless of how immoral they might be.


The thing which essentially differentiates humans from animals is that humans in general have more pronounced individual qualities and traits. This inherent nature allows for morality whatsoever and it can be seen that the more herd-like groups tend to be the more apt towards immorality in some cases although not all.

[Saturni]

This is true and usually the average morality depends greatly on the inventions and trans-valuing of great men to have a model of morality to emulate. Unfortunately the average way always seems to misunderstand or develop misconceptions regarding the systems of morality espoused by great men. This is why it is necessary and good for great men to rise up and re-affirm to a certain extent the moral espousing of other great men with some marginal changes added onto it.
All morality, I believe, stems from the actions of great men. Is this not why people still remember the "fathers" of their countries? I think of great men as stones thrown into the pond of humanity. The ripples that spread out from the stone breaking the water are what becomes morality.

The moral duty, if there can said to be one, of every citizen should be to uphold, to the best of their abilities, the loftiest of ideals.


The masses have a way of affecting the systems of morality of great individuals just as much as great individuals affect the average morality of the masses. In a sense the group dynamic or herd instinct has a way of gathering itself in an unconscious way in order to convict themselves of the moral validity of their thoughts and actions regardless of how immoral they might be.
Again, LeBon's book The Crowd goes into great detail on this process, far better than I could hope to here.


The thing which essentially differentiates humans from animals is that humans in general have more pronounced individual qualities and traits. This inherent nature allows for morality whatsoever and it can be seen that the more herd-like groups tend to be the more apt towards immorality in some cases although not all.
But why make such a distinction? Humans and animals all perform the same daily activities, do they not? They eat, sleep, sh*t, fu*k, etc. The only thing that differs between "man" and "beast" is the degree to which they feel and think about their environments.

[GeistFaust]

I can't disagree with you but I do not think the average citizen does an adequate job of upholding these great ideals. That is why I say it is almost absolute necessary for great men to rise up in each age to reiterate and re-affirm the moral orientation of the average citizen.

Unfortunately all great systems of morality tend to be mere fads for the average citizen and usually more superficial or plastic understandings of morality tend to be more comprehensible for the average citizen. This means that usually great systems of morality affects the average citizen but usually they end up ignoring them or turning a blind eye to them soon after their imposition.

The obligation and imperative duty of the common man is to uphold the great systems of morality espoused by the great thoughts and acts of specific men. The issue is most of the time the average citizen can only act in accordance with bare minimum of morality at best and all the extra details included in a specific system of morality tends to be ignored as I said above.


It might not be important to make such a distinction but in a sense it is subconsciously necessary for humanity. Humans tend to have by nature a perspective that makes mankind the center of reality and nature. In a sense its something we can not escape making humans appear much greater than other more advanced animals.


I think the inherent difference between the man and the animal is what you mentioned and that it is something that is inherent in coincidence with man's nature. Now whether this inherent state of being is something which is the result of a gradual evolution process or natural selection is something which has yet to be solved nor is it necessary to solve I believe.



But I do agree the difference between humans and animals is separated in terms of degrees. You could even say some humans are more like animals than others and this degree of being more human or animal-like corresponds to the general capacity which this or that man has to be moral. The distinction is something which I can not escape making as a human its one that I ineffably fall into without realizing it.

[Turkey]

There is no morality. Any atempt to make any is holding us back from lving in a reasonable environment.:thumb001:

[arcticwolf]

What is morality? Is it absolute? Let's deal with each question separately.

What is morality? Is it a set of rules humans agree on? Is it a law, very much like gravity, independent of human judgement? I may have a little unorthodox take on this as I am a big fan of Theravada Buddhism. If it's assumed that it is a set of rules then it's relative. Let's leave the "What is morality?" question and move on to the second part "Is it absolute?"

What one sees depends on how one looks at it, or more specifically, which mental tools one uses to perceive reality. I think that most of opinions center around the senses and the thinking process to capture and process reality. One may ask are all mental tools equally suitable to perceive both duality and absolute, or are they better at one and not so good at the other? Moreover one may ask is there a mental tool or tools that are superior to other mental tools? Let's compare mindfulness and concentration to the dominant tool for overwhelming majority the thinking process. Mindfulness is non-invasive, non-judgmental, it is that faculty of the mind which has the ability to step aside and watch the other faculties with impartiality. Concentration focuses the mind. The difference between the two is that concentration has power to shed the light but it does not understand what it sees, that's where the mindfulness comes in. There is no need to explain the thinking process we all know how it works and use it all the time.

Said all that, the question still remains unanswered, "Is it absolute?". Let's ask what does an apple taste like ( assuming none of us has ever tasted one )? The only way anyone will ever really know is to eat one. One can not understand absolute, unless one sets on journey to get to know it and does it the way that leads to it. So this is going to remain an open ended question because it's intrinsically empirical and individual. No one can tell us, but there is a possibility we can discover it for ourselves.

Sorry for the long rant, I am a big believer in saying much with as few words as possible, but could not accomplish it this time ;)

[Saturni]

The higher/more evolved the man, the higher/more evolved the morality.

It is no coincidence that great men serve as the moral foundations throughout the ages.

[arcticwolf]

The higher/more evolved the man, the higher/more evolved the morality.

It is no coincidence that great men serve as the moral foundations throughout the ages.

Affirmative. Both Buddha and Christ are fine examples.

[Saturni]

Affirmative. Both Buddha and Christ are fine examples.

Well Buddhism was derived from the ethics of the Aryan warrior class, but Jeebus and his crazed cult were and remain a cancer upon Occidental thought.

[arcticwolf]

Well Buddhism was derived from the ethics of the Aryan warrior class, but Jeebus and his crazed cult were and remain a cancer upon Occidental thought.

Actually Buddhism is quite different than Hinduism, and Hinduism itself is a mixture of Aryan religion and local beliefs. Buddhism is the teaching of Buddha, who lived about 1000 years after Aryan conquest of India. As history tells us he was a son of a king of one of the kingdoms in the north of India and very likely an Aryan. Good site with a lot of info on Buddhism is here: http://buddhanet.net


As to Christ and his teaching, what is commonly perceived as Christianity today is not entirely in sync with what Christ taught and the most spiritual aspects of it are left out altogether. Old testament should have never been a part of Christian lore. It would take too long to explain differences. Gnostics are a far better example of Christians than any other Christian denomination. Best is to check Gnostic Christianity sites, the difference is self explanatory.

[Saturni]

Actually Buddhism is quite different than Hinduism, and Hinduism itself is a mixture of Aryan religion and local beliefs. Buddhism is the teaching of Buddha, who lived about 1000 years after Aryan conquest of India. As history tells us he was a son of a king of one of the kingdoms in the north of India and very likely an Aryan. Good site with a lot of info on Buddhism is here: http://buddhanet.net
A better source of info on the Buddha is Evola's book, which presents the Buddha and his teachings in their proper Aryan light.



As to Christ and his teaching, what is commonly perceived as Christianity today is not entirely in sync with what Christ taught and the most spiritual aspects of it are left out altogether. Old testament should have never been a part of Christian lore. It would take too long to explain differences. Gnostics are a far better example of Christians than any other Christian denomination. Best is to check Gnostic Christianity sites, the difference is self explanatory.
The "teachings" of a seditious Jew aren't exactly that interesting to me.:thumbs up

As for Gnostic Xtianity, I have absolutely zero interest in any of that stuff.

[arcticwolf]

A better source of info on the Buddha is Evola's book, which presents the Buddha and his teachings in their proper Aryan light.


Have not read it. One question though, has he practiced it? As Buddha said "without practice there can be no real knowledge" as far as Buddhism goes. Just curious. Anyhow, I have veered off topic and have hogged this thread long enough. Thanks for interesting discussion.

Kudos to Hevneren, excellent thread.

[Odoacer]

Coming back to this discussion after some absence.

Sturmgewehr, I think possibly because of some language barrier I'm not getting through to you. Many of the things you are saying & questions you are asking I have already addressed. I don't wish to belabor every point I've made, so I'm only going to respond to some of you've written.


How is it someone else's fault or why should someone esle suffer or die because of my sins ???????

It isn't "someone else's" fault. You are at fault for your own sins. But everyone is a sinner, so everyone bears some fault for the condition of the world. People suffer because of their own sins, & people also suffer because of the sins of others (e.g., the victims of murder suffer because of the sin of the murderer), & people also suffer because of the sins of mankind in general.


I thought god was good and Just and Moral then how did he bring distruction and plague onto people, isn't it unjust to do that to people ??? Seems like u trying to say he broke his own rules.

If justice is like that then we can freely shoot someone that did something bad, what happened to forgiveness ?? or to harming someone is BAD&Unjust&immoral ???

I guess when god does that to someone it is ok but if a people do that to someone then it is not ok.

You saying that God did the wrong thing when he sent 10 Plagues to Egyptians and Harmed them and brought destruction upon them, I thought u said god is the source of Goodness and Morality and u also said that doesn't matter of the Outcome if a lie may lead to something good it is still wrong, so you saying god did the wrong thing now ?

No, you just don't understand the rules. God brought plagues & destruction on sinners who defied his universal reign. And there is no rule that we may absolutely never "harm" others. Sometimes, doing "harm" to another is what is morally required, as for example when a murderer is put to death by the legal authorities.


Then how is it Justice that Innocent people die, innocent Kids.

Natural Disasters, sicknesses etc which the human is not the factor but the human suffers from them.

With respect to God, no one is innocent - even those starving children in Africa are sinners before God.


So all humans had that it is wrong to have sex with Animals ???????

I don't know, I can't speak of all individuals. But I have not to date encountered a society which thought it was morally accepted to have sex with animals.


IF MORALITY WAS ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL IT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE AND PEOPLE WON'T BE FUCKED UP LIKE THAT.

I cannot understand where you get that idea, & I would never waste my time defending the principle of absolute morality if it were refuted by the mere fact that there are immoral people. You are making a strawman argument. There is NOTHING in the idea of absolute morality which means that EVERYONE WOULD be moral. All it means is that everyone SHOULD be following the same rules. If people are immoral, that doesn't mean absolute morality doesn't exist. In fact, the only way to really say that someone is immoral is by assuming an absolute standard. Otherwise, no one is actually moral or immoral at all.


or if then u argue that Morality is Absolute then so is Immorality cuz immorality can also exist without depending on Morality.

You haven't even come close to making an argument for that. You're just trying to reverse what's been said. It doesn't work that way. Good & evil are not equal.


Taking a possession of Property which isn't yours by buing it is BUYING it, it is not stealing it cuz u give him something and u take something

Precisely so. But both buying & stealing are species of taking possession of property. One is moral, the other is immoral. We just don't have a nice neat word in English for "taking possession of property" as we do for "taking away a life" (killing).


whereas when u kill someone u don't give him shit he doesn't gain from it he loses from it he loses his life.

Which is why you don't get to kill people willy-nilly. There has to be a just reason for killing someone. If you kill someone without a just reason, then you have committed murder. By the same token, if you take possession of property unjustly, you commit theft.


Killing is Wrong call it murder or whatever if u justify killing in that way of logic then u MUST justify stealing in that way.

No. You're confusing the genus with the species. Killing is a genus; taking possession of property is also a genus. Murder is one species of killing, & theft is one species of taking possession of property.


When u buy something is not called taking it cuz taking it is when u take it and go home u can take something u found in the street which doesn't belong to anyone like a rock on the mountain but it is not stealing neither buying, you can take someone's belongings by also borrowing them u don't pay them crap or they give it to u as a gift and u take their belongings that they give u or u find something someone has lost and u take it it is still someone's but it is not stealing it, what if u go to the store and the cashier accidentally puts some item u didn't buy into ur bag and u take it home, u also dont know she put it there and even if u know u didn't steal it.

Correct. None of these is stealing, just like none of these is murder:


A soldier who kills an enemy soldier in the course of a battle is not committing murder. An executioner who kills a convicted murderer to carry out the punishment required by law is not committing murder. A man who unintentionally kills another man in an auto accident is not committing murder.


it goes like this:

Killing:

GOOD: Killing in self defense to protect ur own life
BAD: killing an innocent person who just offered u a drink

Stealing:

GOOD: when u steal to feed ur kids because they will die if u don't do so

BAD: stealing to become rich or stealing when ur existence is not in jeopardy.

Ur logic is flawed.

No, my logic is just fine. Here you're conflating "killing" with "murder," & treating "stealing" as the equivalent. Because some forms of killing are just, you therefore suggest that some forms of theft are just. But this is, like I said, a confusion of genus & species. Murder is one kind of killing - a bad kind; stealing is one kind of taking possession of property - also a bad kind.


But god is even where there is no man, does this mean Morality applies to Jupiter or the whole universe ???

Put a man on Jupiter or anywhere else in the universe, & assuming he somehow lives, that man still has the obligation to be moral.


Fuck Logic, we discussing Morality.

Both involve rules of universal applicability, & both require a mind to discern them. If you deny the one, the other is deniable for many of the same reasons (e.g., not everyone agrees on the rules of logic, just as not everyone agrees on the rules of morality; or, logic exists only in human minds, just like morality, & so it doesn't exist where humans don't exist).


Logic is a human attribute ok let's say Gods attribute if Logic is a Human Attribute and Gods attribute then why is it logical for someone to lie, like it is very logical to me to lie to defend someone from dying or something similar.

For someone it is Logical to steal because it is easier for him to get rich like that and so on.

That's a somewhat different usage of "logical." I'm talking about the rules of reasoning. For example, the law of identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity).


Yes u did somewhere in the thread I read it I think it was u I am too lazy to go back and check.

No, I did not bring up that hypothetical about the hurt child. That was brought up by Oreka Bailoak.


Truth is Truth and has nothing to do with anything.

God is a Supreme Being still a being whereas Truth is not a Being, Source of life yes but not Truth.

God is God the supreme being.

So do you propose that God is untrue, or do you propose that truth is something that exists somehow before God?


So what if it would be True that there are no human alive ??? what kind of stupid bullshit is that, IT WOULD BE TRUTH, why does it matter if it is true or not if there are no humans alive to give a shit about truth.

You said:


without human life there is no truth cuz no one except us is concerned about the truth

So I corrected you. And it matters because even if mankind didn't exist, God still exists & God is concerned with truth because he is himself the source of it.


That Mind Acrobatic u talking about like It is True that it is not True means NOTHING and how does it relate to Morality ??? Truth can also be immoral if u Spy on ur friends, like ur enemies get u and ask u where are your friends stationed at and u tell them exactly where they are and they all get killed and u just harmed a bunch of innocent people and harming someone is immoral or causing death of innocent people is immoral and u just committed immorality by telling the truth which caused DEATH and DESTRUCTION of Innocent lives.

Now, who is it that says harming or causing the death of an innocent person is immoral? Is that rule always true, according to you?


I am an SS Officer I check all the houses for Jews and u r my best friend who doesn't agree on Jews being killed but I do and I come and knock on ur door, I ask u ARE U HIDING ANY JEWS ON UR BASEMENT??? and u start telling me last Night's football game I will tell u to cut the CRAP and answer my question cuz I don't give a crap about that and i am too busy killing jews and u have to answer if u said NO then I would leave cuz I trust u if u kept silent that means that u admit there are Jews in ur basement and it is logical since u can't lie that means there are Jews in ur basement and I come in and find them and shoot them one by one in the head.

by Lying you would have done the right thing, the right thing would be to protect those people from being executed like animals by telling the truth or keeping silent you would have done the wrong thing and you would have brought harm and destruction upon them.

Or perhaps I might instead bring harm & destruction on the S.S. officers who are wrongly seeking entry into my home to harm the Jews I am hiding in their effort to enforce an illegitimate law. The point is that lying isn't the only possible response available. It may be the easiest method of preventing harm to the Jews, but that doesn't mean that it is moral.


It does cuz Glory is something that exists in Humans,

So what? Does good exist in humans? What about love? So let's say God created the world because he is good. That's too humanlike? Or he created the world because of his love. That's also too humanlike for you?


if God created man for His Glory that means he needs Glory, If god Created men for his Glory then why does he needs Glory??

No, it doesn't mean he "needs" glory. It means he HAS glory & he is expressing his glory by creating the world.


Also Let me remind u, you said Only good comes from god, only beauty, only love, what about this:



God Loves everyone and in Everyone Faggots are included, he loves them so much that he wants to put them to death.

Doesn't putting someone to death because of who he is or the choice he made tells u that he hates what they are doing and thus he hates them.

Religious people usually would say, God doesn't hate Faggots he loves us all he just DOESN"T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

I never said "only" love comes from God. God ultimately hates all people whom he does not save from their sins, although he may be kind & beneficent toward them to some extent in this life.

[Odoacer]

As to Christ and his teaching, what is commonly perceived as Christianity today is not entirely in sync with what Christ taught and the most spiritual aspects of it are left out altogether. Old testament should have never been a part of Christian lore. It would take too long to explain differences. Gnostics are a far better example of Christians than any other Christian denomination. Best is to check Gnostic Christianity sites, the difference is self explanatory.

Gnostics are not a far better example of Christians, sorry. If Jesus had legitimately been what the Gnostics made of him, no one would ever have taken him to be a fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies & "the lamb which taketh away the sin of the world." Jesus constantly quoted from & alluded to the Old Testament & clearly regarded it as true. The Gnostics took Jesus' words in their own idiosyncratic direction, for the most part completely unrelated to what Jesus actually taught.

[Sturmgewehr]

It isn't "someone else's" fault. You are at fault for your own sins. But everyone is a sinner, so everyone bears some fault for the condition of the world. People suffer because of their own sins, & people also suffer because of the sins of others (e.g., the victims of murder suffer because of the sin of the murderer), & people also suffer because of the sins of mankind in general.

What u talking about dude ??? how is it my fault that 6 Million kids starve to death in Africa every fucking year??? How are Tsunamis, Earthquakes and Floods my fault???

I don't bear not even a single fault when it comes to these events cuz I am not involved in it in no way.

About the Bolded part: Thanks Captain Obvious.


No, you just don't understand the rules. God brought plagues & destruction on sinners who defied his universal reign. And there is no rule that we may absolutely never "harm" others. Sometimes, doing "harm" to another is what is morally required, as for example when a murderer is put to death by the legal authorities.

You don't make sense u are cherry picking extreme situations.

How are u required to bring harm upon someone that has never harmed u be it a killer or a thief?

Why don't god immediately take care of it but he leaves it to us ???

I think that is a bunch of shit and that is what it is.


With respect to God, no one is innocent - even those starving children in Africa are sinners before God.

You just lost all ur credibility u had with this.

Using God as an Excuse to justify the deaths in Africa is silly, stupid and ridiculous.

Those Kids never asked to be born, now they are born and they starve to death without doing anything wrong.

What does the bolded part mean ??? it makes 0 sense.


I cannot understand where you get that idea, & I would never waste my time defending the principle of absolute morality if it were refuted by the mere fact that there are immoral people. You are making a strawman argument. There is NOTHING in the idea of absolute morality which means that EVERYONE WOULD be moral. All it means is that everyone SHOULD be following the same rules. If people are immoral, that doesn't mean absolute morality doesn't exist. In fact, the only way to really say that someone is immoral is by assuming an absolute standard. Otherwise, no one is actually moral or immoral at all.

Oh please the god of Straw Man Arguments accusing me of the same thing.

If there is an Absolute Morality then where is it so we can follow it ??

Moralities are an Idea and they just exist in a men's mind.

If Morality was Absolute people would be able to see it, to feel it and to instinctively follow it, like the absolute fact that everything that has a beginning has an end.

You should waste ur time describing absolute morality cuz u made that claim and u have to back it up with facts otherwise it is just a usual fart coming out of the ass :).

If something is Absolute it applies to everything and since morality is meant for people it would applie to all people like the 5 Basic Needs of NORMAL and HEALTHY human beings are absolute, and they apply to everyone whereas Morality doesn't cuz it is invented by man.


You haven't even come close to making an argument for that. You're just trying to reverse what's been said. It doesn't work that way. Good & evil are not equal.

oh and how did u make an Argument about Morality, what applies to Morality applies to Immorality.


Precisely so. But both buying & stealing are species of taking possession of property. One is moral, the other is immoral. We just don't have a nice neat word in English for "taking possession of property" as we do for "taking away a life" (killing).

What u talking about ????


Which is why you don't get to kill people willy-nilly. There has to be a just reason for killing someone. If you kill someone without a just reason, then you have committed murder. By the same token, if you take possession of property unjustly, you commit theft.

Same applies to stealing, there has to be a just reason to steal something.

We define when it is taking possession of others unjust and Just, taking possessions of someone to survive is just cuz u need to survive same as killing, taking someones life in self defense is just because u do it to survive, hey Better him than me :D.


No. You're confusing the genus with the species. Killing is a genus; taking possession of property is also a genus. Murder is one species of killing, & theft is one species of taking possession of property.

Genuses and all that shit are social constructs, we define what is genus and which genus is good and which is bad.

It has been predefined that stealing = taking possession of someone without his permission is bad and we have predefined that killing someone in self defense is good because if u don't kill him he will kill u, this is the whole logic behind it because u need to kill him to survive and in some cases same as killing u need to steal to survive.


No, my logic is just fine. Here you're conflating "killing" with "murder," & treating "stealing" as the equivalent. Because some forms of killing are just, you therefore suggest that some forms of theft are just. But this is, like I said, a confusion of genus & species. Murder is one kind of killing - a bad kind; stealing is one kind of taking possession of property - also a bad kind.

you still don't make sense.

Killing a person in Battle to survive is good, killing a person in self defense is good, killing someone because God told u to kill him is good, have u ever asked why this things are good?? what is so good behind all this killings??? I don't think u have, it is just to kill in those situations cuz it is a question of TO BE OR NOT TO BE if u kill u will BE if u don't U WILL BE NO MORE

same with Stealing which is taking possession of other people without permission in cases when u will die for food, when ur family will die for food and it is just because the intention behind this is TO BE OR NOT TO BE and it is better to BE than some stupid Moral which says don't steal.

Just like the case with Killing, u kill to live in this case u STEAL TO LIVE.


Put a man on Jupiter or anywhere else in the universe, & assuming he somehow lives, that man still has the obligation to be moral.

No he won't.

that is naive.

How would the Absolute morality of STEALING apply to him when there is no one to steal from or how would the absolute moral of DON"T LIE apply to him when there is no one to lie to, who is he gonna lie?? the rocks or the sky ???


Both involve rules of universal applicability, & both require a mind to discern them. If you deny the one, the other is deniable for many of the same reasons (e.g., not everyone agrees on the rules of logic, just as not everyone agrees on the rules of morality; or, logic exists only in human minds, just like morality, & so it doesn't exist where humans don't exist).

That is stupid.

The Absolute Moral of DON"T STEAL, DON"T KILL and DON"T LIE won't exist and won't even make sense to an Isolated person like the one who lives in Jupiter.

Just because Logic exists in Humans mind makes it relative, Something Absolute would exist forever and can't die whereas Logic dies when people die of Mankind dies so does morality.


That's a somewhat different usage of "logical." I'm talking about the rules of reasoning. For example, the law of identity.

that is a straw man argument, what does it have to do with Anything??? that kind of logic is not useful to anyone and yes it is true but SO WHAT ??? there is nothing moral or immoral behind it, it simply what it is and no one has either use or harm from that.



So do you propose that God is untrue, or do you propose that truth is something that exists somehow before God?

where did I propose it, I just said Relating Truth to God is lame cuz truth is is not God, Truth is a state of being true and true is something in accordance with facts or reality and I don't see how all that relates to god when in one hand u have no facts to prove god.


So I corrected you. And it matters because even if mankind didn't exist, God still exists & God is concerned with truth because he is himself the source of it.

so ????? He already knows the truth whatever that might mean.

Truth is not like it is a whole on the sky or u can see it or touch it.

if there is Absolute Truth then where is it ???? Show it to me.

and don't tell me God is Truth cuz truth is not a Being and God is a being.

Plus if God knows the Absolute truth why is he so concerned with the stupid shit going around the world.

it is like a scientist who knows a lot more truths concerning a lot more subjects dealing with someone with an IQ of 70 and judging him why doesn't he know the truth and why doesn't he speak the truth, why would he be concerned with that when he knows the truth.

If he Himself is the Source of Truth then it means Truth is Relative, if it has a Source ( Beginning ) then it must have an end.

Plus if God is so concerned with Truth why doesn't he show the Truth to everyone and spare everyone from Hell and fire and all that stuff and why does he allow Lies can't he make something like stop lies??

Truth only exists inside the boundaries of Human mind and it is not relevant to the Universe or to anything else in order to survive or whatever.


Now, who is it that says harming or causing the death of an innocent person is immoral? Is that rule always true, according to you?

According to me yes, according to someone else no and that is why it is Relative cuz if it wasn't that morality would apply to that someone else, like Cannibals which still exist nowadays or murderers who actually enjoy killing or have no problem murdering someone.

This is Absolute: It is true that all people will die at some point or It is true that we need Oxygen, food, excretion to survive, and even this is true only as long as we exist and it is a TRUE statement and there is nothing Moral or Immoral behind it cuz moral is related to what is right and wrong not what is true and truth applies to both, morality and immorality.


Or perhaps I might instead bring harm & destruction on the S.S. officers who are wrongly seeking entry into my home to harm the Jews I am hiding in their effort to enforce an illegitimate law. The point is that lying isn't the only possible response available. It may be the easiest method of preventing harm to the Jews, but that doesn't mean that it is moral.

That is stupid.

that is straw man argument.

If u try to bring harm to the SS Officer you would do even a bigger wrong, not only that u will hint him that u are hiding JEWS but u will as well lose ur life which is a suicide going u with ur balls and dick in ur hands against an SS Officer with 5 - 10 other SS Troops, u KNOW u can't fight him or kill him or Stop him and trying to stop him is simply Suicide and then the Innocent Jewish kids will suffer death.

The point in this situation is doing the right thing and the right thing is to save innocent lives by lying and ur own ass as well.

or even a less complex situation, you are a Blond Blue eyed jew like Hundereds of thousands of them and u walk down the street, 10 SS Troops stop u and ask u if u are a JEW while you have ur own 4 years old Blond blue eyed Jew son with u, if u lie you will live if u tell the Truth it means u r stupid and unreasonable jeopardizing ur life and the life of ur innocent 4 years old kid, u will cause the death of 2 innocent people, YOU and ur 4 Years old son and that is wrong cuz causing death to innocent people is wrong especially ur 4 years old son, same like the situation with the SS Soldiers.

Your explanation was lame by the way.


So what? Does good exist in humans? What about love? So let's say God created the world because he is good. That's too humanlike? Or he created the world because of his love. That's also too humanlike for you?

Yup it is.

It is a humanlike reason cuz people create stuff because they want to whereas god doesn't want to cuz if u say he wants to u implying that he needs cuz wanting is also a psychological need.

Good does exist in Humans and it is good cuz we define it as good otherwise it wouldn't be good, also evil and bad does exist in Humans.

he created the world because of his Love?

so God feels love now?? An intense feeling of deep affection ??

Love is also a need, and Love is Related to human biology and nowadays with the help of medicine and science we know which parts of the brain are directly responsible for love and that kind of emotions, it is all the chemistry of brain that makes u feel this or that way, there is nothing supernatural about love.

So now the question is, are you implying God has biology ???


No, it doesn't mean he "needs" glory. It means he HAS glory & he is expressing his glory by creating the world.

let's get this straight:

GLORY:

High renown or honor won by notable achievements

How did he win this honor?? was there a contest ??

Expressing his Glory by creating the World??? Interesting, who is he expressing his Glory to ???? to Humans??? it is like Humans Expressing their Glory to the Ants, what is the point of that???? it doesn't really make any sense.


I never said "only" love comes from God. God ultimately hates all people whom he does not save from their sins, although he may be kind & beneficent toward them to some extent in this life.

Romans 5:8 tells us, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

what u say is child's game.

So god is Capable of Hating, and u said Hate is the Corruption of Love, this means even god is not immune to Corruption which means this god is not Omnipotent.

I thought God wanted everyone saved from Sins that is why your God died on the cross to save the Sinners???

If god chooses not to save some people from Sins that means he is not Benevolent.

[Ville]

All human beings, with the exception of sociopaths, instinctively know "thou shall not kill", "though shall not steal" etc. So I'd say the basic human morals have always been absolute. You can't relativize murder.

Our very nature is that of cooperation (which is why human race is successful as a species), hence our empathy and compassion.

The need for group preservation was probably the evolutionary driver that, in the end, structured our morals. Even when we were hunters, killing a group member had significant detrimental impact on group’s ability to function as an effective unit and survive. This became even more important some 10,000 years ago - when we abandoned hunting and started developing agriculture. Subsequent generations slowly cemented these behavioral rules as more useful framework of social memes.

Finally we invented Gods, and thou-shall-not-kill became one of the “truths”.

[Monolith]

Sometimes, doing "harm" to another is what is morally required, as for example when a murderer is put to death by the legal authorities.
That's not very Christian.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.


If god chooses not to save some people from Sins that means he is not Benevolent.
The point is, God is not supposed to save people from sins. It is people who need to save themselves. That's the point of having free will.

[Sturmgewehr]

The point is, God is not supposed to save people from sins. It is people who need to save themselves. That's the point of having free will.

Yes he is supposed to save people from sin, isn't he the one who shows people the right path?

If he is benevolent he should save people from sin so they don't burn in hell.

Plus the idea of burning for eternity for a finite crime is pretty illogical as well.

[Monolith]

Yes he is supposed to save people from sin, isn't he the one who shows people the right path?
Sure, but they don't have to listen.

If he is benevolent he should save people from sin so they don't burn in hell.
Yeah, and the world should be perfect. We should all be perfect people who live perfect lives and everything around us should be equally perfect.

There would be nothing to conquer, nothing new to discover and master, no temptations whatsoever to tell us who we are.

Plus the idea of burning for eternity for a finite crime is pretty illogical as well.
Burning for eternity?

WTF man? How old are you anyway?

[Sturmgewehr]

Sure, but they don't have to listen.

Sure because ur god gave us free will so we can chose and then he will get mad at us because we chose something differently from what he wanted plus the Free will with conditions in the bible or in whatever religion is a contradiction.

it is like telling u, MONOLITH HERE U GO, YOU GOT 2 FRUITS, ONE IS APPLE ONE IS ORANGE, YOU HAVE THE FREE WILL TO CHOSE THE ONE U WANT, and u go like damn I can chose the one I want and then it is told to u BUT if u chose the Apple I will put a bullet in the back of your skull.

Please show me where is the free will here, I don't think u are free to chose here and actually u r not because there is no free will here, there is someone forcing u indirectly to chose the orange.


Yeah, and the world should be perfect. We should all be perfect people who live perfect lives and everything around us should be equally perfect.

Exactly.


There would be nothing to conquer, nothing new to discover and master, no temptations whatsoever to tell us who we are.

Yes there would be still things to conquer, like more knowledge about the universe without having to deal with Cheating, stealing, killing and the temptations of the devil.


Burning for eternity?

WTF man? How old are you anyway?

BEEEEEEP Straw man's argument.

Roman Catholic Get the fuck out of here:

Mathew 18:8 and 25:41, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Revelation 14:11, “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, , and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

The real question is, HOW OLD ARE U???

[Monolith]

Sure because ur god gave us free will so we can chose and then he will get mad at us because we chose something differently from what he wanted plus the Free will with conditions in the bible or in whatever religion is a contradiction.
I'm not following your logic.


it is like telling u, MONOLITH HERE U GO, YOU GOT 2 FRUITS, ONE IS APPLE ONE IS ORANGE, YOU HAVE THE FREE WILL TO CHOSE THE ONE U WANT, and u go like damn I can chose the one I want and then it is told to u BUT if u chose the Apple I will put a bullet in the back of your skull.

Please show me where is the free will here, I don't think u are free to chose here and actually u r not because there is no free will here, there is someone forcing u indirectly to chose the orange.
You can still opt to be damned though. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Exactly.

That would be an existence of eternal boredom, with everyone being exactly the same, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent etc. creatures.


Yes there would be still things to conquer, like more knowledge about the universe without having to deal with Cheating, stealing, killing and the temptations of the devil.
Sure, but they are also a way for you to prove yourself. It's what you do that counts. Shoulda, coulda and woulda are not particularly significant.


BEEEEEEP Straw man's argument.

Roman Catholic Get the fuck out of here:
That's very mature of you.


Mathew 18:8 and 25:41, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Revelation 14:11, “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, , and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Ugh. Do you also think us Christians don't believe dinosaurs ever existed? What you quoted is rather symbolic, and should not be taken literally.


The real question is, HOW OLD ARE U???
I'm 24.

[Sturmgewehr]

I'm not following your logic.

That is ur problem.


You can still opt to be damned though. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I don't wanna be damned, who is that stupid asshole that wants to be damned ??? that is a ridiculous argument.

How can u chose to be damned unless u r a masochist ???

that is stupid.


That would be an existence of eternal boredom, with everyone being exactly the same, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent etc. creatures.

So god is bored ????? :D :D :D :D :D

I don't think that would be an existance of boredom and u are just pulling stuff from ur ass cuz u don't know how it is to be like that.

If u ask people or anyone especially myself I prefer to live in a place of Goodness, Morality, Health etc etc.... not in a place where there is corruption, hate, immorality and evil and everyone wants this and everyone aims this.

Plus your argument is pretty stupid if people think this is boring then why are they aiming to be healthy, moral and perfect life.

Plus that is what also YOUR GOD has promised u, if u be good and moral here = a Boring bastard as u said u will get an eternal life of Boredom where u will wake up every morning worship god kiss his feet and pretty much do nothing.


Sure, but they are also a way for you to prove yourself. It's what you do that counts. Shoulda, coulda and woulda are not particularly significant.

Shoulda, woulda coulda are the best arguments of religious nutthuggers like u.

cuz everything a religious person argues starts from a shit load of assumptions.

and I do what I do, it counts and it doesn't count it doesn't matter.

Plus you are not saying anything here, you replying my argument with something that has nothing to do with it.


That's very mature of you.

yeah cuz I got ur ass on a plate.

When something doesn't fit ur beliefs it is not mature and it is dumb.

I think that is very immature by u :)


Ugh. Do you also think us Christians don't believe dinosaurs ever existed? What you quoted is rather symbolic, and should not be taken literally.

as I said above whatever fits ur belief is Absolute and just what it is meant to be said, and whatever doesn't fit ur belief and goal is "symbolic".

it is not Symbolic, there is nothing symbolic about it, God will throw everyone he doesn't like in hell or everyone that don't agree with his opinion in hell.

and you are a Catholic and I owned ur ass with that cuz ur religion says that whereas u come here as a hypocrite telling what is symbolic and what is truth, if that is symbolic then the whole bible is symbolic and what is the freaking point of the bible in the first place.

And if hell is Symbolic then so is HEAVEN, so here u go,ur logic against ur logic.

Why make it Symbolic when god has created 90% of the mass with an IQ that will never understand his symbolism.


I'm 24.

Like I give a fuck, that was a rhetorical question.

[Monolith]

You're not very bright, are you?

[Sturmgewehr]

You're not very bright, are you?

that is ur only argument ????


also this is a good point, what about not too bright people like me that don't get this ?? are they gonna go to hell ?? is it their fault that they are born not too bright and can't get things as they should ??

[Odoacer]

This will be my last response to you, Sturmgewehr. I don't think our discussion is going anywhere.


You don't make sense u are cherry picking extreme situations.

I'm not cherrypicking extreme examples, you are. You are the one who brought up the plagues that God sent upon Egypt; I did not bring them up, I simply responded to you. You are the one who brought up the Nazis at the door, you are the one who brought up stealing for survival, etc. You bring up extreme example after extreme example in your attempt prove that morality isn't absolute. And you're shocked - SHOCKED - when I insist that there are absolute rules which apply even in the most extreme circumstances. I must be insane, stupid, lame, etc., according to you.


How are u required to bring harm upon someone that has never harmed u be it a killer or a thief?

If you are a legal authority in charge of enforcing the law against murder, for example, putting a murderer to death would not be wrong. It would be the due punishment for the murderer. Does that "harm" the murderer? You bet it does, & it's a harm that the murderer completely deserves.


You just lost all ur credibility u had with this.

Have you heard of the doctrine of Original Sin? It's quite common in Western Christianity, & it means that everyone is born a sinner ever since Adam & Eve fell into sin. Ergo, since everyone is a sinner, no one is innocent before God. So if I've lost my credibility because I hold to that doctrine, fine. I'm not all that concerned about it. Very few people in this day & age care for that doctrine; it's not very helpful for their delicate self-esteem.


What u talking about ????

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll0hnbABC81qh5qfgo1_500.gif


Same applies to stealing, there has to be a just reason to steal something.

"Stealing" is ALWAYS taking someone else's property forcibly & without a just reason. There isn't any other form of "stealing." Your family's starving state is not a "just" reason to take property from someone else without their permission.


We define when it is taking possession of others unjust and Just, taking possessions of someone to survive is just cuz u need to survive same as killing, taking someones life in self defense is just because u do it to survive, hey Better him than me :D.

No, it's not the same. Stealing "to survive" isn't done because the person from whom you are stealing is threatening your life. It's done simply because that person has some property which you do not & which you need in order to survive. By owning that property in the first place, the person from whom you are stealing hasn't done anything wrong against you. You have no right to take his property.


Genuses and all that shit are social constructs, we define what is genus and which genus is good and which is bad.

No, this is simply a matter of good definitions & clear reasoning, not "social constructs." You're putting "killing" & "stealing" on the same level, but this is a failure to recognize that killing is a larger category (a genus) which contains several particular instances (species, one of which is murder), while stealing is a particular instance (species) of a larger category (genus).


According to me yes, according to someone else no and that is why it is Relative cuz if it wasn't that morality would apply to that someone else, like Cannibals which still exist nowadays or murderers who actually enjoy killing or have no problem murdering someone.

Then "according to you" it isn't always true because there are people for whom it isn't true at all. So stop talking about harming others as though it were something wrong to do. You may feel that way, but it has no bearing on any rational discussion, because it is simply an irrational feeling of yours about what is "moral" & you admit it doesn't have to extend beyond yourself.


That is stupid.

that is straw man argument.

Evidently you don't know what a strawman argument is.


Your explanation was lame by the way.

:thumb001:


Yup it is.

The only acceptable answer for you seems to be that God would have created the world for no reason at all, because any reason would be just too damned human. Sorry, but having a reason doesn't imply a need for anything.


Romans 5:8 tells us, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Who did he die for? There's a good question, don't you think? If Christ died for every single individual human being, then none should go to hell - in fact, hell shouldn't even exist. But if that's the case, why did Christ himself speak so often of hell? But I suspect that's a moot question for you, anyway. You're tossing out whatever you have to see what you can get to stick. Unfortunately for you, I'm not your average run-of-the-mill religious idiot.


So god is Capable of Hating, and u said Hate is the Corruption of Love, this means even god is not immune to Corruption which means this god is not Omnipotent.

I did not say "hate is the corruption of love." I said "evil is a corruption of good." I spoke of a particular instance of good, a man loving his wife, & a particular instance of evil, a man hating his wife. I did not say that "hate" is always corrupt. Hatred of that which is evil is in fact very good & just.


I thought God wanted everyone saved from Sins that is why your God died on the cross to save the Sinners???

If God wanted everyone saved from sin, he would save everyone. But he doesn't.


If god chooses not to save some people from Sins that means he is not Benevolent.

No one deserves to be saved. Hell is the destination everyone deserves. Hell is what is just. God is under no obligation to save anyone.

[Odoacer]

That's not very Christian.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I don't really care to get into an essentially "intramural" debate in this thread, but I'll address this briefly.

I don't see anything the least bit "unchristian" about murderers being put to death by lawful authorities. The words of Christ which you here quote have no bearing on the question, inasmuch as they are a discussion of person-to-person rather than person-to-society ethics. You might as well quote these words to a judge to defend yourself against a traffic citation; they are irrevelant.

God declared to Noah that murderers should be put to death, as part of a covenant that applied to all mankind. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans specifically taught that rulers bear the sword against evildoers as avenging ministers of God's wrath. I know the Roman Church in recent decades has been inclined toward abolition of capital punishment, but this position is not supported either by Scripture or by the broad sweep of church history.

And that's all I say about that here. ;)

[Aemma]

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

And so for a strict Calvinist, dancing or playing an innocent game of cards displeases God and is therefore immoral. Activities sure to lead to hellfire and brimstone. And for the Roman Catholic, a bit of bingo in the church basement or a dance party celebrating somebody's 50th birthday at the local Knights of Columbus Hall pleases God and is good.

I ask you then, what is morality?

[Odoacer]

And so for a strict Calvinist, dancing or playing an innocent game of cards displeases God and is therefore immoral. Activities sure to lead to hellfire and brimstone. And for the Roman Catholic, a bit of bingo in the church basement or a dance party celebrating somebody's 50th birthday at the local Knights of Columbus Hall pleases God and is good.

I ask you then, what is morality?

Sorry, but your illustration has nothing to do with whether there is such a thing as absolute morality. Both "strict" Calvinists & Roman Catholics (if they're the" good" kind, holding to the teachings of the Magisterium) believe that there is absolute morality, & they even agree substantially on the broad outlines of it. All you've shown is that there are people with conflicting understandings of what some of the particular rules are. That is not an argument against the existence of absolute morality per se.

[Aemma]

Sorry, but your illustration has nothing to do with whether there is such a thing as absolute morality. Both "strict" Calvinists & Roman Catholics (if they're the" good" kind, holding to the teachings of the Magisterium) believe that there is absolute morality, & they even agree substantially on the broad outlines of it. All you've shown is that there are people with conflicting understandings of what the rules are. That is not an argument against the existence of absolute morality per se.

I see that the subtlety of my illustration is somehow lost on you and yet you acknowledge that what I have shown is indeed "that there are people with conflicting understandings of what the rules are."

I think my work here is done. :thumb001:

[Odoacer]

I see that the subtlety of my illustration is somehow lost on you and yet you acknowledge that what I have shown is indeed "that there are people with conflicting understandings of what the rules are."

I think my work here is done. :thumb001:

Well, considering that I've acknowledged that particular fact several times in this very thread, I'm not sure what work you think you've really done. I didn't miss the "sublety" of your illustration. It's just that one might as well argue that there is no such thing as objective reason because, after all, some people propose paraconsistent logics which deny the law of noncontradiction.

[Turkey]

And so for a strict Calvinist, dancing or playing an innocent game of cards displeases God and is therefore immoral. Activities sure to lead to hellfire and brimstone. And for the Roman Catholic, a bit of bingo in the church basement or a dance party celebrating somebody's 50th birthday at the local Knights of Columbus Hall pleases God and is good.

I ask you then, what is morality?

There's a lot of inflammatory content here love. Tone it down would ya?

[Sturmgewehr]

I'm not cherrypicking extreme examples, you are. You are the one who brought up the plagues that God sent upon Egypt; I did not bring them up, I simply responded to you. You are the one who brought up the Nazis at the door, you are the one who brought up stealing for survival, etc. You bring up extreme example after extreme example in your attempt prove that morality isn't absolute. And you're shocked - SHOCKED - when I insist that there are absolute rules which apply even in the most extreme circumstances. I must be insane, stupid, lame, etc., according to you.

Yes you are cherry-picking.

The God sending plagues to Egypt, flooding the world, killing people of Lot etc etc and many other Genocides mentioned in the bible are not cherry picked cuz it is the Bible and I am hitting u on the face with the Morals u preaching to me.

I don't think you are stupid, never said it, I think many stuff u say are stupid and many u say are valid and smart, and never mind the parts where I am being an asshole, just look at the valid points and serious discussion.

You have been dodging my questions and used straw man arguments through this entire topic, now u just made a straw man argument without answering my question HOW IS IT MY FAULT THAT 6 Million KIDS DIE IN AFRICA EVERY YEAR? that goes like 11 kids in every hour or so if I am not wrong.

Where were the Moral Absolutes ur God forgot, like Slavery, molesting kids etc etc??????


If you are a legal authority in charge of enforcing the law against murder, for example, putting a murderer to death would not be wrong. It would be the due punishment for the murderer. Does that "harm" the murderer? You bet it does, & it's a harm that the murderer completely deserves.

The fact that u use legal Authority makes it fishy, who makes this Authority Legal ??? of course we do, it is a human construct.

I didn't say murderers didn't deserve the capital punishment, I am pretty much for it.

What I don't agree with u is that u take Moral Absolutes from a Book called bible who has a bunch of fishy morals, like killing people because they dropped the seed of something, making Lot's wife a pillar cuz she turned back and saw what was happening and ultimately this kind of contradictions and fallacies:

http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9129.0;attach=3628 ;image


Have you heard of the doctrine of Original Sin? It's quite common in Western Christianity, & it means that everyone is born a sinner ever since Adam & Eve fell into sin. Ergo, since everyone is a sinner, no one is innocent before God. So if I've lost my credibility because I hold to that doctrine, fine. I'm not all that concerned about it. Very few people in this day & age care for that doctrine; it's not very helpful for their delicate self-esteem

yes cuz it is stupid to have to pay for the sins your Grand x 20 000 000 000 Father did.

Have u heard of that ?????

If we are guilty of what Adam and Eve did then so is the Murderers family and Kids and his nephews and so on so let's just put his whole bloodline in prison for life.

yes u have lost ur credibility because u believe in something as stupid as that and also that doctrine of original sin contradicts the fact that others can't sin for u and you are directly responsible for ur own sins so how the hell am I responsible for what Adam did in the Garden of Eden.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll0hnbABC81qh5qfgo1_500.gif

Yes MO FO I do. :D :D, funny Gif I will steal it.

And what u talking about was a rhetorical question referring to what u mean so don't act dumb and get to the point.


"Stealing" is ALWAYS taking someone else's property forcibly & without a just reason. There isn't any other form of "stealing." Your family's starving state is not a "just" reason to take property from someone else without their permission.

Yes it is, cuz my and my family's life are way more important, it is more than a just reason, it is a noble reason, I will be preventing my death and the death of my loved ones.

Oh so when u kill someone in self defense, execute someone u have their permission????

so Permission is all that matters here ???


No, it's not the same. Stealing "to survive" isn't done because the person from whom you are stealing is threatening your life. It's done simply because that person has some property which you do not & which you need in order to survive. By owning that property in the first place, the person from whom you are stealing hasn't done anything wrong against you. You have no right to take his property.

The person who I am stealing is of course not threatening my life but my life is in danger anyway.

and this is in no way a reason why i shouldn't steal to survive, in no way.

And that person has done wrong against me, he is not giving me food he has in abundance to survive, of course he has no obligation to do so and he is in no way obliged to help me but to me it is all the same, I am dying and I don't care about that, survival is in question and his food will become my food as well when I steal it.

Plus don't steal and don't murder are all morals to make our life Easy and peaceful with no problems and in this case the moral DON"T STEAL makes ur life NO LIFE, so it doesn't apply here.

Since you can't carry ur morals in ur pocket and can't see them and basically they are constructs which protect peoples' lives and society from harm (death, injustice) then show me what is the point of morals when morals in certain situation not only they don't work but also bring harm to people?


No, this is simply a matter of good definitions & clear reasoning, not "social constructs." You're putting "killing" & "stealing" on the same level, but this is a failure to recognize that killing is a larger category (a genus) which contains several particular instances (species, one of which is murder), while stealing is a particular instance (species) of a larger category (genus).

yeah and those Species are social constructs as I mentioned, we made them up.

Killing:

a) murder, b) self defence, c) execution by legal authorities.

a) = Bad, b), c) = Good

Taking possession of property:

a) buying them, b) Borrowing them, c) finding them on the street, d) Enslaving ( taking freedom ), e) taking possession which don't belong to u without permission to get rich or because u too lazy to work = Stealing, f) taking possessions which don't belong to you because you will die if u don't and so will ur family = Survival.

a), b), c) = Good and no one would doubt this.

d) = Good according to ur God, I guess for your God it is not such a big deal stealing someone's freedom, but it is a bigger sin and u will burn in hell for Eternity for a finite sin of stealing bread.

Also d) in the modern society and world is BAD. so this is relative as many morals are.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I also got a bunch of other passages if u wanna read for fun!!!!!

e) = Bad and that is how it should be.

f) = there is no moral behind it, it is in the gray zone, neither bad nor good, it is simply survival.

You say killing in self defense is OK cuz u protect life, abortion is bad cuz it messes up with the sanctity of life, using condom as well.

Executing a murderer is ok because he has broken the rule and doesn't respect sanctity of life, Enslaving someone or selling someone is ok...... OH WHAT, what am I talking about.

If the Absolute Moral THOU SHALT NOT MURDER is set to protect people's life and sanctity of life then when Thou Shalt not steal is supposed to protect people's property and works against sanctity of life where a person has to steal to survive, what is the point of those morals???

Though shalt not steal is causing death to innocent people in certain situations.

What happened to sanctity of life??

by this logic THOU SHALT NOT STEAL is more Important than the lives of the innocent ones and the property or that piece of bread or bottle of water of someone who has in abundance and is not willing to give is more important than human life.



Then "according to you" it isn't always true because there are people for whom it isn't true at all. So stop talking about harming others as though it were something wrong to do. You may feel that way, but it has no bearing on any rational discussion, because it is simply an irrational feeling of yours about what is "moral" & you admit it doesn't have to extend beyond yourself.

No it is not, it is based on right and wrong.

I don't feel that way, I feel like I need to have the money Bill Gates does but that won't make me justify me stealing his money.

I feel like many other stuff but I don't act according to my feelings I act according to what is right and wrong.

About the bolded part, I am not, your god is :), the one u get the morals from :).


Evidently you don't know what a strawman argument is.

yeah cuz it is very hard to type Straw man on google.


The only acceptable answer for you seems to be that God would have created the world for no reason at all, because any reason would be just too damned human. Sorry, but having a reason doesn't imply a need for anything.

We don't know why God created earth and people, you are just assuming.

The best answer is I DON"T KNOW.


Who did he die for? There's a good question, don't you think? If Christ died for every single individual human being, then none should go to hell - in fact, hell shouldn't even exist. But if that's the case, why did Christ himself speak so often of hell? But I suspect that's a moot question for you, anyway. You're tossing out whatever you have to see what you can get to stick. Unfortunately for you, I'm not your average run-of-the-mill religious idiot.

If Hell doesn't exist and no one goes to hell then why was Jesus preaching about hell????

I am tossing out stuff u believe, if u believe Jesus and Bible is the word of Jesus then elaborate these kind of stuff otherwise you are just an average run-of-the-mill religious idiot.

You also said before that Lies, ugliness, evil and obviously hate are the corruption of Truth, beauty, goodness and obviously love.

now u telling me God Hates, are u telling me his love is corrupted and he is not immune to hate ??? which will make him not Omnipotent.


I did not say "hate is the corruption of love." I said "evil is a corruption of good." I spoke of a particular instance of good, a man loving his wife, & a particular instance of evil, a man hating his wife. I did not say that "hate" is always corrupt. Hatred of that which is evil is in fact very good & just.

Bullshit.

let me remind u of a Famous Quote:

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES:

Enemy: a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

Now someone that is your enemy obviously is someone that wants to harm u and ovbiously he doesn't want you, he hates u because of ur beliefs, wealth, intellect etc etc.. which all of this are evil shit, now u are supposed to love evil.

Not making too much sense man, cuz your Religion and the God u worship are contradicting your beliefs.


If God wanted everyone saved from sin, he would save everyone. But he doesn't.

Then he is not Benevolent :)


No one deserves to be saved. Hell is the destination everyone deserves. Hell is what is just. God is under no obligation to save anyone.

So your God is an evil god who thinks no one deserves to be saved and hell is where people belong.

Seriously I don't think u believe this.

Why is Hell just ???

Of course God is in no obligation to save anyone but he is the one saying he will save people and preaching how we should be just, good, truthful and loving while in the other hand he says I don't have to save anyone, well if he doesn't have to save anyone then why do I have to save someone or care about someone's life and wealth.

Have a nice day.

[Turkey]

^That makes about as much sense as a Nordic Albanian:laugh:

[Sturmgewehr]

^That makes about as much sense as a Nordic Albanian:laugh:

and here is a Nordic Albanian talking to you.

What didn't make sense to u ???

p.s: since u admitted u didn't read my post on my wall then how do u know if it makes sense or not ?? or simply you are trolling.

http://i39.tinypic.com/24wggw4.jpg

[Aemma]

There's a lot of inflammatory content here love. Tone it down would ya?

Ugh...well I tried to send you a rep but the dumb thing isn't working for me right now so just pretend you got one from me. :p

[Turkey]

Ugh...well I tried to send you a rep but the dumb thing isn't working for me right now so just pretend you got one from me. :p

JgFXQhaujdw

[Unurautare]

If 'morality' isn't absolute then it's not that 'moral' to begin with. It's like saying "badder good", although what is moral to me might not be moral to the next person.
Western morality allowed the Westerners to invade the rest of the World and convert many barbarians to Christianity,fk yeah. :cool: Now some barbarians need democracy and less dictators. :cool:

[Sturmgewehr]

@ ODOACER: Listen

sN-yLH4bXAI

[Zephyr]

The figure of God explained by the so called holy books is oppressive, sadistic, egotist, jealous, can't control his rage, demands submission.

Makes me think of Xerxes depicted in 300. Some sort of BDSM master. His morality is quite malignant.

[Ville]

... dinosaurs ...

I recently watched “The Tree Of Life” by Terrance Malick for the second time. A powerful depiction of Compassion and Eternity visualized with Malick’s easily recognizable style.

There are a couple of episodes around pre-historic times that seem to be a subject of ongoing controversy even among Malick fans. In one episode, a velociraptor puts its foot on a smaller dinosaur’s head, apparently preparing for the kill, but then reconsiders and moves on.

But these episodes fit well into my conception of the world - which was one of the reasons to watch the film again. Malick shows the origins of Compassion (and, by extension, Morality) are in evolutional mystery of life as we know it. In the beginning scene, a voice says “there are two ways through life—the way of nature and the way of grace.” That is perhaps Malick’s way to say that we humans advanced Compassion to Love.

Malick is a Christian, as far as I know. And that flickering light that keep showing up between episodes is a symbol of God, I suppose. But the main motif of the film can be fully accepted by an agnostic such as myself.

[HelterSkelter]

I've been wondering about people's take on morality. I had a brief discussion about morality in another thread, where it was suggested that morality is absolute and not dependent upon laws or or what we personally agree or disagree with.

I wondered how morality could be something constant and absolute, when society's views on right and wrong have changed a lot. We abolished slavery in the West not long ago. Was slavery moral when it was legal, but it isn't now, or was it always one or the other?

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, then who gets to decide what that entails? There are things most human beings can agree on, like not killing each other in cold blood or not raping children, but then there are matters such as loans and interests (moral?), abortion in the case of rape (moral?), letting 10 strangers die to save a loved one (moral?), using stem cells from fetuses to help severely ill people (moral?) etc. There are many things for which the conventional wisdom of past centuries have no answer.

If absolute morality doesn't exist, does that mean that morality is arbitrary and doesn't have any kind of framework upon which to build upon? Does it mean that our actions are not determined by right or wrong but by what we feel to be right and wrong? And if that's the case, then how great is the disparity between what we personally think and feel, and what the "rule book" says?

I think my personal perspective on morality is that we form our morality based upon what is good for the greatest amount of human beings, and that we form this morality based on this understanding and based on our own conscience. What is your perspective on morality?


First of all, what is good? Is it what's better for our survival? In that case if eating babies were the only solution for hunger would it be morally correct then? I think not. I believe morality should be base on higher principles than what's "good" for the greatest amount of human beings.

[Turkey]

I recently watched “The Tree Of Life” by Terrance Malick for the second time. A powerful depiction of Compassion and Eternity visualized with Malick’s easily recognizable style.

There are a couple of episodes around pre-historic times that seem to be a subject of ongoing controversy even among Malick fans. In one episode, a velociraptor puts its foot on a smaller dinosaur’s head, apparently preparing for the kill, but then reconsiders and moves on.

But these episodes fit well into my conception of the world - which was one of the reasons to watch the film again. Malick shows the origins of Compassion (and, by extension, Morality) are in evolutional mystery of life as we know it. In the beginning scene, a voice says “there are two ways through life—the way of nature and the way of grace.” That is perhaps Malick’s way to say that we humans advanced Compassion to Love.

Malick is a Christian, as far as I know. And that flickering light that keep showing up between episodes is a symbol of God, I suppose. But the main motif of the film can be fully accepted by an agnostic such as myself.

That movie reminded me of my childhood:D

When I was a dinosaur and i was compassionate to another one.

[Derelict]

I prefer to make a distinction between morals and ethics though I know dictionaries frequently pile them together. I was taught this by a bioethics professor and I still have no idea whether this is commonly accepted or a weird solitary idea, but eh it makes sense to me at least.
Ethics would be the minimal rules that are necessary for the functioning of society. The great majority of people believe that it's not alright to go around killing or torturing people unless it's (for some reason) necessary. I'd call this bare minimum absolute. Since humans have evolved within societies, it's instinctual not to harm other humans when it can be avoided since we depend on them. But it's really a minimum. Even generosity, I'd say, is cultural or learned.

On the other hand, morals would be either personal or belonging to particular groups. Take a very religious person, a nonreligious person, a very rightist person, and a very leftist person and compare what it is they find important. That, to me, is what morals are - not absolute.

What I'm saying is a few rules are absolute and instinctual, while most are cultural or personal. I can't say which ones are only cultural since I'm not a sociologist, philosopher or anything of the sort.

[Kataphraktoi]

It seems to me that morality must be absolute, for if one argues that morality is a "social construct", or that moral systems are culturally relative, you are making an absolute judgement and thus contradicting yourself. Morality also cannot be subjective, for a subject cannot define an object, the object merely is. The rational soul or intellect perceives morality as it is illuminated by God, just as the eye perceives an object as it is illuminated by the sun.

[Monolith]

The rational soul or intellect perceives morality as it is illuminated by God, just as the eye perceives an object as it is illuminated by the sun.
I like this. :thumb001:

[Flintlocke]

Well, I don't know why you think that morality changes because I don't see it changed. Since ancient times our values have remained pretty much stable. Family is the basis of society, honor must always be upheld, be true to your people, don't lie or cheat to them. That makes me think morality is Prior, "divine" if you will. What our liberal, treacherous governments try to promote as moral, sexual reversal for example, will never ever ever be accepted by society no matter how much they try to impose it or how many money they spend. And someone might say that you are wrong for thinking that way because you have no right to say what someone does in his life but it's not so, because people feel it is wrong on a spiritual level, and you are not just "you", you are life, billions of years of evolution until now, you are the continuation of your ancestors, you must feel them in your heart, and have a moral debt to them and to your descendants.

But I differentiate morality from law. When the leaders become a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats like nowadays, do laws really matter? It is nothing but tyranny on the volk, and it destroys instead of empowering them. In that case you have to return to core values and see things as they really are. And you understand from that point of view what is truly right, and what is wrong, according to the principles of the "divine" or nature if you will.

And thus we come into the area of what the average person calls good or bad. A revolutionary is an armed bandit, but if he wins he becomes the ruler. But he still is an armed bandit. What matters are the results. Does he empower the lives or the people or does he abuse and oppress them? And what one does has a resonance on the people. In ancient Greek myths, there were heroes who killed monsters that threatened the people, but they were also revered for being ruthless bandits and cunning pirates. So why were they revered while being criminals? I guess because they were authoritarian men, "fascistic" men, who imposed their own will and showed great courage in the face of danger. And girls love bad boys. :D

In the middle ages for example, kings and lords loved the outlaws but also killed criminals that they captured. On the one hand they killed criminals, but if they were successful enough they would get a messenger with an offer of vassalization. I can assume this was because those men were brave and smart and willing to take action, and those were highly valued traits, ready soldiers for any lord. In this case it wasn't the criminal act itself that condemned a man, but his skill at it.

But according to morality some things were and are and will always be considered criminal. No matter how skilled and brave a man might be, murderers, rapists, degenerates and others were and will be always hated by society.

[Phil75231]

Ultimately it is absolute. I've concluded that it's ultimately based on the principle "Do not cause pain or non-trivial discomfort in others (physical or mental) that qualifies for all the following". Genrally speaking, (1) and (2) are most important, though those alone are insuffienent to make an action immoral.

(1) has no productive purpose in proportion to the pain caused
(2) reasonbly avoidable
(3) unbearable, or unreasonable in proprotion to the pain caused
(4) non-consensual (meaning a reasonably well-informed and compent person would not agree to undergo that suffering under those circumstances)

To be sure, there is LOTS and LOTS of room for interpretation here, but I think this is enough to give the basic idea of the very root of objective morality.

I tend to subscribe to the notion that we do have an obligation to prevent pain qualifying for some combination of the four points (esp 1 & 2), but don't have one to supply pleasure to a person beyond what they need to regain or maintain functioning.

ADDED: If morality is relative then what gives us the right to condemn the U.S. Army for it's practices at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo? Or (for those who care to believe it) the US for going to war over oil? What gives us the right to condemn Stalin for the Holodmor, or the Khmer Rouge? If morality is relative or defined by individual choice, then how can we say any of those described actions or practices are wrong?

[LastManOnEarth]

Morality is relative in the realm of relativistic thought (atheism, Luciferianism, nihilism etc.)

Morality is absolute only in contexts involving adhering to belief in the guiding principles of an all-powerful deity superior to Homo Sapiens.

[safinator]

Morality in the sense of humans knowing what is right from wrong is partially instinctual and partially learned. For example, humans instinctively know that touching a hot fire is dangerous and wrong. Even babies and animals have a natural fear of fire. But when it comes to the bigger issues in life, like whether is it right or wrong to have an abortion, the society in which you were born will mold your moral beliefs from an early age and affect your thinking in adult life. You can unlearn this type of morality, of course, but many moral issues are heavily influenced by the region you are from. In terms of intentions, I personally don't think that we have natural inclinations toward unselfish, good actions, but that we instinctively act for selfish gains. Children will not naturally share their toys unless they are told to, by their parents. Indeed, altruism is definitely a top down concept that we learn later in life and become more wise.

[CommonSense]

The only moral set in stone is the desire to belong to a group or a society. Ever since man could stand up straight, we've been teaming up. First it was just a bunch of primitive hunters and gatherers, then people started settling down in villages to ultimately reach the stage where most of mankind lives in urbanised concrete cities. Each individual, no matter what their goals or beliefs are, will be looking to make some sort of connection to another person. Even selfish, unscrupulous criminals will partner up and look after each others backs. Living completely isolated is devoid of any purpose and makes one lose their grasp of humanity.

However, all other topics such as punishment, sexuality, family life, goverment is strictly dependent on the society itself. That shouldn't even be debateable.

[Magnolia]

"Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you."

This is the golden rule of morality. There's nothing relative about it.

[Aldaris]

I think it should be clear that if there are no laws of 'goodness' woven in the very fabric of reality, outside of human minds, it follows, our moral values are completely arbitrary with no basis in the real world. Even if we'd come up with 'perfect', formalized theory of morality, which would unambiguously resolve any moral dilemma, while satisfying all of our intuitive notions of morality (there have been many attempts to come up with basic principles of such a system, such as utilitarianism, but for any of them, there is some simple example of a situation, in which the principle doesn't satisfy our intuition), it would still be just an arbitrary human construct with no real meaning. This may seem quite counterintuitive, so it is important to realize, that 'goodness' (assuming it even exists outside of human minds) in a general sense is not necessarily about things like minimizing suffering or creating joy. With my assumption, the set of actions, which are labeled 'good', can be completely arbitrary, this is crucial and I recommend to think about it for a while. My personal take is quite clear - a statement, often used by christians, but viewed as incorrect by most atheists, which says that 'if there's no god, there's no objective morality and thus, even things like genocide aren't wrong' is actually true (using general definition of goodness), but of course, I don't live by it's implications.

[gıulıoımpa]

morality is your mother running after you with this

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51E3k-qisXL._SX466_.jpg