What is morality? Is it absolute?

[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.