and the question is this:

Why do we have it?

we dont have it.....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"only believers of death will die"saul willams

....u do.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"only believers of death will die"saul willams

>we dont have it.....

So does it matter then, in the whole scheme of things, if I blow up the world?

Well...

just to go one step at a time here, it seems like the most obvious answer to that question is..

"because we must be moral to have a fair and orderley society"

I mean that's really simplified of course... but essentially isn't that what it comes down to? Humans are generally intelligent enough to know that without this concept of "morality", THINGS FALL APART.

However, there is a circular argument there that it took a long time for me to see... I'm not sure about anyone else... but it did for me... but then once I saw it, I felt pretty ridiculous for not having given it much thought before.... it goes like this:

You ask the question "Why do we have Morality?" or "Why be Moral?"

I say "To be good and right to society" or "because it's good for us as a whole" (or however you'd like to phrase that).

What I didn't see before is that that does NOT answer the question... it only poses the question again.

Because why SHOULD I be Moral? To benefit society?

But why should I like to benefit society? (Society being defined as anyone OTHER than yourself)

In other words why would I care what's good for ANYONE ELSE except for me?

Then you have to say "because it's MORAL to play by the rules that benefit society"

but that does not answer the question... because the question still remains...

and now you're right back at "Why be Moral?" again.

Am I making sense? I was up all night. Goodnight.


peace.

>"because we must be moral to have a fair and orderley
>society"

"fair" and "orderly" are a part of morality... my question is: why be fair? why be orderly? why have morality?

>I mean that's really simplified of course... but essentially
>isn't that what it comes down to? Humans are generally
>intelligent enough to know that without this concept of
>"morality", THINGS FALL APART.

do they? I mean, the world could've been run in a very orderly fashion by Nazis if morality hadn't jumped in the way... so why did we feel the need to save those being tortured? Why have these feelings?

>You ask the question "Why do we have Morality?" or "Why be
>Moral?"
>
>I say "To be good and right to society" or "because it's
>good for us as a whole" (or however you'd like to phrase
>that).
>
>What I didn't see before is that that does NOT answer the
>question... it only poses the question again.

exactly :)

>Because why SHOULD I be Moral? To benefit society?
>
>But why should I like to benefit society? (Society being
>defined as anyone OTHER than yourself)
>
>In other words why would I care what's good for ANYONE ELSE
>except for me?

exactly.

>Then you have to say "because it's MORAL to play by the
>rules that benefit society"
>
>but that does not answer the question... because the
>question still remains...
>
>and now you're right back at "Why be Moral?" again.
>
>Am I making sense? I was up all night. Goodnight.
>
>
>peace.

Yeah, you made total sense. The answer is God.

We rely on other humans for our wellbeing and sanity.

Having morality serves absolutely no evolutionary purpose for survival, so why, if we are truly nothing more than a stem of evolution, do we have it?

Let's say for a second that there is no God. Given that there is no God, DOES IT MATTER if I blow up the world?

No God = No morality

I'm not saying that atheists have no morality, rather that an atheist's morality is one of the many proofs of God.

he and I got into it over this... maybe even BarTek too... I don't completely remember.

i'm not quite sure how one can refute the point you just made, but there certaibly seems to be opposition to it.

Luke,

just a PS -

this subject alone, and just really taking time to think it through, and that moment that it clicks that this enormous clue is has been looking us right in the face this whole time and we were looking past it... i've just been getting deeper and deeper into it the past few months... my life is changing a lot... i'm being worked on by God and it's so amazing... anyway... what I was saying is that just the search that this subject has sparked off in me is causing me to consider going back to school to study theology.

i was in film school and doing quite well, and i've found something now that fascinates me even more than that, which I never thought anything would... GOD! maybe even seminary? hmm...lol... that would be a stretch..

anyway... thanks for the words and the insight.
f'en fascinating would be the understatement of all of time.


peace.

>Having morality serves absolutely no evolutionary purpose
>for survival,

er...you honestly think there's no survival benefit to humans agreeing upon standards to live with each other?

so why, if we are truly nothing more than a
>stem of evolution, do we have it?

we have braaaains. Well, at least some of us.

>Let's say for a second that there is no God. Given that
>there is no God, DOES IT MATTER if I blow up the world?

yes. I'm assuming it would piss off a lot of people (at least any survivors).

>No God = No morality

intelligent beings interacting with each other = eventual formation of moral systems

>I'm not saying that atheists have no morality, rather that
>an atheist's morality is one of the many proofs of God.

ok.

--
"Hustlin' crack don't make you bigga" - John Forte

i would have thought that you would address the point made that you were refuting...

the point was... a dictator who quickly disposes of anyone who does not comply with his wishes could run an EXTRAORDINARILY orderly society.

Could he not?

Therefore morality is not essential to "orderliness".

Goods would get made, goods would be bought, people would go to work, people would fear the law, etc...

But no morality... yet it's still orderly?

so WHY morality?

tell me.


peace.

Morality is relative. The dictator would think he was doing the right thing.

But anyway, in societies like that, they just have to keep killing people. We all know the Pastor Niemoller poem, "First they came for the Jews".

Eventually you end up with a smaller society still governed by morals.

>Morality is relative. The dictator would think he was doing
>the right thing.
>
>


i just came back to this sorry, but since this, you've said this same thing again about the dictator just acting on HIS morals.. so it's the right thing to kill everyone.

I think you're ignoring a very key factor, it's addressed in post #95.



peace.

My argument so far, is that one needs morals to live in a society, because morals regulate ones relations with other people. We all ultimately tend to rely on other people for our health and (to a greater extent) our sanity. If you had everyone killed who didnt agree with you (although one's sanity would already be open to questioning) then you would be regulating a society by your morals (this doesnt mean right or wrong in general, just right or wrong in the context that had been created.)

If I understand what you are talking about in post no. 95 (and I dont know if I do), then it starts off with dissenters lying to themselves, but eventually everyone becomes indoctrinated with the ideas coming from the goverment. For ways that this happens, read some stuff about the cultural revoution.

>er...you honestly think there's no survival benefit to
>humans agreeing upon standards to live with each other?

what benefits me when i feel the need to give a dollar to a homeless man? where does that feeling fit into the evolutionary side of things.

>we have braaaains. Well, at least some of us.

so brains equal morality? right. my cat has a brain and pisses on the carpet.

>>Let's say for a second that there is no God. Given that
>>there is no God, DOES IT MATTER if I blow up the world?
>
>yes. I'm assuming it would piss off a lot of people (at
>least any survivors).

this makes me lol... of course there wouldn't be survivors in this scenario. way to completely dodge the question. if there were no people left (to be pissed off or otherwise...lol), would it matter?

>>No God = No morality

>intelligent beings interacting with each other = eventual
>formation of moral systems

WHY?!?!?!

peace,

...

cooperation (obeying rules together) are important. For example hunter-gatherers generally share all the food they collect between the whole group. Not sharing food is regarded as a heinous offence...

>cooperation (obeying rules together) are important. For
>example hunter-gatherers generally share all the food they
>collect between the whole group. Not sharing food is
>regarded as a heinous offence...

i am not question the fact that morality exists, because it most certainly does. i am questioning why not sharing food would be regarded as a heinous offense...

Old and infirm people, babies, pregnant women etc. Are not in a position to hunt meat, but still need nourishment. In terms of value, the meat is worth more, even though there is generally less of it available. This means that everyone must share (I cant remember if it was everything or just meat) they get equally, otherwise certain people would not eat meat. Not sharing your meat, is seen as an insult.

>Old and infirm people, babies, pregnant women etc. Are not
>in a position to hunt meat, but still need nourishment. In
>terms of value, the meat is worth more, even though there is
>generally less of it available. This means that everyone
>must share (I cant remember if it was everything or just
>meat) they get equally, otherwise certain people would not
>eat meat. Not sharing your meat, is seen as an insult.

I understand the notion of what an insult IS. My question is still unanswered... where do we get the notion of INSULT? Of helping those in a position who need nourishment. More meat for us without morality, you know? So why is it there?

a system of rules, taught to the young and reinforced to the point where they are internalized and thought of as "morality", something inherent to people, is just what is needed to help society flourish. If everyone plays by their own set of rules, progress is much harder to achieve.

"serves no evolutionary purpose"?
Morality helps to convince people to do what's best for society, which is good for people as a whole. As an evolutionary device, it's a very good one. Without morality, we'd all have to be watching our back all the time, and nothing would get accomplished.

>"serves no evolutionary purpose"?
>Morality helps to convince people to do what's best for
>society, which is good for people as a whole. As an
>evolutionary device, it's a very good one. Without morality,
>we'd all have to be watching our back all the time, and
>nothing would get accomplished.

no society has ever come into power and prosperity because of morality. they've gone into great prosperity or great depression as a part of war. look how screwed up africa is... morality certainly hasn't helped their situation... your argument would imply that they have no morals.. whoever forcefully gains the most power is in control. morality has nothing to do with society's immediate prosperity (as WE know it).

Ultimately the constant earthly conflict is: power vs. morality. The two do not truly coincide peacefully. If the whole world followed their true, innate morality, then yes, it would serve an evolutionary purpose. However, this is not the case, so the result, to me, is a holy purpose. Peace,

as I said below, a tyrant can come into power and enforce their own system of morality which will have some truly awful "values". For example, Stalin's society valued people informing on each other, and the violent crushing of dissidents. Africa has sufferred through a lot of these leaders, who come to power and enforce their own warped moral code. But in general, in modern society, progress is made possible because everyone subscribes to a general moral code, and agrees that their should be penalties for breaking that code, the more severe penalties for the most serious offenses. You need some form of government in place that will keep the moral code, and the worst of all is when you have a government in place with a moral code that is, in actuality, based on looting their own country and torturing/imprisoning any convenient target (their own dissidents, Jews, the country next door, etc.)

>as I said below, a tyrant can come into power and enforce
>their own system of morality which will have some truly
>awful "values". For example, Stalin's society valued people
>informing on each other, and the violent crushing of
>dissidents. Africa has sufferred through a lot of these
>leaders, who come to power and enforce their own warped
>moral code.

agreed.

But in general, in modern society, progress is
>made possible because everyone subscribes to a general moral
>code, and agrees that there should be penalties for breaking
>that code, the more severe penalties for the most serious
>offenses.

hmm... this would imply that people are being forced to ascribe to a moral code, and that fear is the ultimate driver of the actions.

You need some form of government in place that
>will keep the moral code, and the worst of all is when you
>have a government in place with a moral code that is, in
>actuality, based on looting their own country and
>torturing/imprisoning any convenient target (their own
>dissidents, Jews, the country next door, etc.)

I am having trouble finding a government that doesn't fit the "worst of all" description... really.. what prominent government is free of looting their own country and raping the land of others? certainly not the US... I dig what you're saying though, I just think that morality serves a holy purpose. Peace,

is that, even in that sense, it's been used to justify some of the worst atrocities (the crusades, current middle east situation, 'manifest destiny', wasn't the story of Ham used to justify slavery?). You can do awful things in the name of God, just as easily as you can say you're doing them for your country. How do you differentiate between what is truly moral, in a holy sense, and what is not? And this may seem off-topic, but what are your feelings on abortion and homosexuality?

>is that, even in that sense, it's been used to justify some
>of the worst atrocities (the crusades, current middle east
>situation, 'manifest destiny', wasn't the story of Ham used
>to justify slavery?). You can do awful things in the name of
>God, just as easily as you can say you're doing them for
>your country.


It seems this was addressed to LK1... so not to step in and speak for anybody, but just to think outloud here for myself, I'd like to add...

Absolutely. Horrific things have been done in the name of God.
Jesus taught that man posessed the propensity to sin against God, and would do so, again and again. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". It is important to take into account everything that he said though, not just some of it. Meaning that he also taught that this sin discrepency that is created by putting in imperfect mankind in front of a perfect God, is reconciled by Jesus. This has been done. It was done on the cross. "He died so that we would have eternal life".

Going back to "horrific things have been done"...
I think it's interesting that without morality, nothing is "horrific".
Maybe horrific to you, and your standard. But what is "your" standard in the grand scheme of things? How SHOULD we act? Morally? But who's to say what "morally" is?


>How do you differentiate between what is truly
>moral, in a holy sense, and what is not?

Exactly. It seems a cruel joke would have been a God that created a universe and left it to function on it's own with no set of instructions. But we do have them. We even have a visual aid. Christianity teaches that God BECAME man, so that man would know how to live, think, and act. Jesus walked the earth. He owned nothing. He gave of himself constantly. His faith was perfect.

Individuals who sought there own gain and power, it seems, might have become extraordinarily frustrated with an individual like this, taking into account the following his teachings created. The might have even wanted to "erase" him to stop his movement, and what it would mean to their power structure. They might try to kill him. They did. Try.

You could take all the rules out of basketball and all ten players could wander up and down the court musing on how one might score, or where to position oneself for defense, or when the game might end... they could develop all sorts of "Basketball Philosophy"... ideas about what could be... but if they are really wanting to play basketball, there is a way to play it. There are many things they could do on the court with 10 people and a ball. The strongest player could throw the ball at the noses of every other player and break them, then declare himself the winner. But it wouldn't be basketball.

I hope you'll forgive the sketchy analogies... like I said, I'm thinking outloud here. But I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that "faith" answers philosphies questions. And was in some way attempting to say that with a twist in the basketball analogy.

>And this may seem
>off-topic, but what are your feelings on abortion and
>homosexuality?

I'm going to speak very humbly here (and hopefully here on out... I'm a young Christian, and tend to engage over my head)... but...

I have to believe that because there is a definitive right and a definitive wrong, that every single situation we find ourselves in on this earth offers us the chance to choose one of those two.

Our choice may not seem popular. To those who see reality and morality is completely subjective, any firm stance on one issue could easily be ridiculed as "intolerant". And we all know it has been.

As I said, I'm a young Christian, and learning God's way... slowly, and painfully at times.

I fear that when people outside of Christianity hear the church take a stance on a particularly and culturally sensitive issue, it immediately raises a defensive wall. It feels as though the church is passing judgement. Certainly the church, throughout history, has been quick to do this, but SLOW in stressing the following point...

Jesus said "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

To quote LK1... "Dig?"

Jesus, when presented with a group of angry citizens and a prostitute whom they were about to stone to death... He said:

"Let you who is without sin throw the first stone at this woman".

Do you know what happened? The crowd dispersed.


Back to your question...
this is a really, really sensitive issue in my life. When I was 19... my father came "out of the closet" after 22 years of marraige to my mom. My parents divorced. I lost my home. I lost the father of my childhood. My mom left and remarried. My familly was literally disassembled before my eyes.

This event brought the issue your raising to the forefront of my life, and I've been through it. The past 6 years (I'm 25 now), have been a trip. I left for college determined to disown everything I was ever taught about right/wrong/God/religion/sin etc... I was going to start with a clean slate instead of relying on what I was taught as a kid... since it had all blown up in my face anyway. I mean essentially everything my parents told me was wrong (divorce, homosesuality, etc) was being thrown back in my face and made a moral mockery of.

I was put in the position of either "accepting" my dad's new life/identity... which meant "disowning" what my parents/church had taught me... or "accepting" what I was taught as a kid and "disowning" my father...

er... that's what I thought.

Now I know differently.

Jesus taught compassion. He taught forgiveness.

"ALL" have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

Based on what I believe to be truth, which is based in what the Bible teaches, I can tell you that I believe homosexuality is not God's design for mankind, hence a sin.

However... who in their right mind would single out ONE sin such as this and attempt to disown those for whom this sin is a weakness.

"ALL" have sinned and fall short of God's glory.

So in light of what I believe to be truth, my father is currently living outside of God's design. Sinning.

However... yesterday, I lied to someone. Sinning.

Yesterday, I had rather a graphic sexual thought about this FINE Filipina girl at work. Sinning.

We are all sinners.

I hope I didn't go on and on too much here... I just wanted to reply to your post cause it included an issue that has been very much in the forefront of my recent life.



peace.

Christian churches have been as responsible for "holy wars" as any other churches. The fact that people have used God as a justification for this, and only history has shown how terribly wrong they were, is enough to convince me not to follow someone who claims to interprent God's words and put them into action, and to convince me that that person is, in fact, fooling themself. Your "hate the sin, love the sinner" philosophy is at least somewhat tolerant, which is nice. But I think that historically we will come to the conclusion that homosexuality isn't wrong or "unnatural". It's not the norm, most people aren't gay, but there's nothing wrong with it. And since religious groups and leaders have been dragged begrudgingly into recognizing this by the rest of society (a struggle that will probably still take a few more hundred years before it is completely through), I feel that religious leaders are, in general, not the highest moral authorities, though they are often claimed as such. And I don't think religion offers the best moral guidelines anymore. I think as moral guidelines evolve, they will become more and more secular. And I really see no need to change my mind. I'm glad you have a philosophy of life that works for you, but it just doesn't make sense at all to me.

er maybe I shouldn't say that... because what you're saying about seeing the atrocities created in the "name of religion" and being turned off by it makes total sense... and on a humanistic level, it seems rational. However, l've found it not to be the case. I've found that what men choose to do with a truth, how it become manipulated, does very little in CHANGING the nature of the truth.

I've found that men have taken truths about Physics, Mathematics, Thermodynamics, Electrical Circuitry, Binary Code, Ect... and used these truths to make weapons of mass destruction.

Horrific.

However.

I havn't chosen to not believe in the truths of Physics, Mathematics, Thermodynamics, Electrical Circuitry, and Binary Code because of it. I simply see how it's been manipulated to an awful end.... but the truth of it doesn't change.



peace.





>Christian churches have been as responsible for "holy wars"
>as any other churches. The fact that people have used God as
>a justification for this, and only history has shown how
>terribly wrong they were, is enough to convince me not to
>follow someone who claims to interprent God's words and put
>them into action, and to convince me that that person is, in
>fact, fooling themself. Your "hate the sin, love the sinner"
>philosophy is at least somewhat tolerant, which is nice. But
>I think that historically we will come to the conclusion
>that homosexuality isn't wrong or "unnatural". It's not the
>norm, most people aren't gay, but there's nothing wrong with
>it. And since religious groups and leaders have been dragged
>begrudgingly into recognizing this by the rest of society (a
>struggle that will probably still take a few more hundred
>years before it is completely through), I feel that
>religious leaders are, in general, not the highest moral
>authorities, though they are often claimed as such. And I
>don't think religion offers the best moral guidelines
>anymore. I think as moral guidelines evolve, they will
>become more and more secular. And I really see no need to
>change my mind. I'm glad you have a philosophy of life that
>works for you, but it just doesn't make sense at all to me.

while science makes them possible, it's not like scientific leaders call for them to be used on people for testing. Political leaders are the ones who have actually dropped the bomb, or called for/covertly sponsored experimentation on human subjects. Religious leaders always claim to be acting righteously, whereas science knows that with progress, comes responsibility and uncertainty. Plus science is willing to admit that it doesn't have all the answers, and requires a higher standard of proof for a theory to be generally accepted as fact. To me, this says that science is more honest, whereas religion is more sure of itself (the essence of faith is believing in things that can't be proven).

>is that, even in that sense, it's been used to justify some
>of the worst atrocities (the crusades, current middle east
>situation, 'manifest destiny', wasn't the story of Ham used
>to justify slavery?). You can do awful things in the name of
>God, just as easily as you can say you're doing them for
>your country. How do you differentiate between what is truly
>moral, in a holy sense, and what is not? And this may seem
>off-topic, but what are your feelings on abortion and
>homosexuality?

To make a statement such as this, one needs to be educated on the fundamental teachings of Christianity. The atrocities committed in the name of God are not representative of Scripture or any fundamental teaching of Christianity. By this logic, you must also believe that greed is a fundamental part of Judaism, a religion of charity, and that terrorism is a fundamental part of Islam, a religion of peace. Read the Scriptures and you'll know what is and is not representative of whatever religion...

As far as abortion and homosexuality, I have no quarrels with either. Abortion isn't addressed in the Bible, and I think there are certain cases where abortion is a rational, understandable option. Homosexuality is addressed in the Bible, and I'm sure you can find my views on the enormous homosexual post that was up a couple of weeks ago... I think it is a sin, but I don't think homosexuals are immoral, sick people... all fall short of the glory. Peace,

I know it's a religion of charity and turning the other cheek. But the fact that its own religious leaders, through the years, have been responsible for so many atrocities, makes me think that Christianity itself isn't the path to a moral life any more than any other religion. In fact, there are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention Jainism). If I were religiously inclined, I think I'd go to those first. But the point I was making is that people who claim to have a hotline to God often do some truly awful things "in His name". And if a religion's leaders have shown themselves to be untrustworthy through the years, why should I trust that religion now? I think religion still provides some good general morals (the golden rule, don't steal and don't kill and don't cheat on your wife), but in terms of modern-day moral dilemmas like homosexuality and abortion, I feel that religion is behind the times, being dragged forward into progress by others. This is one of the things that convinces me it's not God who gives us morals (because these religious leaders claim to speak to God regularly, or at least know what 'He' wants), but the best efforts of people.

>I know it's a religion of charity and turning the other
>cheek. But the fact that its own religious leaders, through
>the years, have been responsible for so many atrocities,
>makes me think that Christianity itself isn't the path to a
>moral life any more than any other religion.

But it's Christianity alone that asserts that men ARE capable of these things, and WILL do them because of their propensity to sin. And it is also Christianity alone which allows for a way to reconcile the atrocities that a fallable mankind is capable of, with the perfection of a loving God.

I'm not downplaying your reaction. It's completely understood. What I'd like to communicate though is that as you delve more into Christian teaching, and begin to understand (BEGIN!!.. I said... lol) the nature of God, this problem takes care of itself. It sheds new light on the moral dilemma that you're facing when looking at what has been done by man in the name of God.

God created the earth. He created man in HIS image. However, he wanted to have a loving relationship with man, so he gave him the CHOICE (free will) to look to God or not. No love is possible without free will.

What we have seen over the course of human history... what is playing out right before our eyes is the result of the fact that man HAS THAT CHOICE.

On his best day, man is still a sinner. I personally have not committed genocide... but I am still a sinner. A perfect God cannot look upon or be associated with a concept that is a result of choosing not to follow his instructions, Sin. Therefore, a price had to be paid so that we could be reconciled with God. The price? The death of Jesus on the cross. The miracle? Jesus arose from death. Why? Because he was God all along, coming to pay the necassary price on the heads of his children whom he had created in his image, with free will, but whom had strayed from him, taking advantage of that free will. This is why Christians refer to it as "Good News" man...lol... it's GOOD NEWS... the price has been paid. My God knows how wrongly I'm capable of acting.... he only asks that I acknowledge and follow his word as best I can. He asks that I believe in the price he paid for me.



>In fact, there
>are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like
>that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention
>Jainism). If I were religiously inclined, I think I'd go to
>those first.

As many have. But the nature of TRUTH is that there can only be ONE.
It is up to each of us do find out what is truth, and what is fable.

>But the point I was making is that people who
>claim to have a hotline to God often do some truly awful
>things "in His name". And if a religion's leaders have shown
>themselves to be untrustworthy through the years, why should
>I trust that religion now?

I would say "don't" put your faith in man. Man sins. Man is fallable.
I would say "don't" trust a religion which requires you to go to another man as a "representative" of God.
I would say trust your instinct that you are an amazing, unique, powerful complex creature created in the image of something infinitely amazing, unique, powerful and complex... and you have the RIGHT and NEED to communicate with that creator.


>I think religion still provides
>some good general morals (the golden rule, don't steal and
>don't kill and don't cheat on your wife),

But you are not religious. And yet these morals still make perfect sense to you... no?

So the question become WHY? Why do we ALL understand, despite how we act, that THESE are universal laws?

>but in terms of
>modern-day moral dilemmas like homosexuality and abortion, I
>feel that religion is behind the times, being dragged
>forward into progress by others.

Here's a thought.

Hypothetically say God WERE the truth. Hypothetically say he IS the answer.
Well then you could certainly agree that the world we see around us is much the result of STRAYING from that truth... no? A good portion of us have basically left the idea of God long behind... no?

So OF COURSE there would be religious ideas and ideals that would seem anachronistic... behind the times... obselete. Of course... because now... the "times"... have moved on and away from God.

I think that that is a true but very simple hypothetical... it does serve a purpose, and I hope you see my point. But as far as the two specifice issues that you mentioned... can you now see why it would be necessary to delve much more into the idea/concept of God and Christianity before you could actually assert any sort of true opinion on these issues? What I'm saying is, if you take away the backdrop of Christianity, and what it REALLY means, any attempt to make sense of these issue would make little sense.

>This is one of the things
>that convinces me it's not God who gives us morals

Yet those pesky, basic moral values just seem to keep popping up everywhere we look across time and geography.

You yourself even wholeheartedly agree with them, yet are not religious.

I would say it's very, very odd that we all have an idea of how TO and how NOT TO treat eachother.


looking forward to more discussions with you man...


peace.

>>I know it's a religion of charity and turning the other
>>cheek. But the fact that its own religious leaders, through
>>the years, have been responsible for so many atrocities,
>>makes me think that Christianity itself isn't the path to a
>>moral life any more than any other religion.
>
>But it's Christianity alone that asserts that men ARE
>capable of these things, and WILL do them because of their
>propensity to sin. And it is also Christianity alone which
>allows for a way to reconcile the atrocities that a fallable
>mankind is capable of, with the perfection of a loving God.
I don't think it is Christianity alone that asserts that people are flawed, and should just try their best to live according to the teachings of that religion (following the divine leader who came before and founded the religion, be he Buddha, Mohammed, whoever). I'm no religious scholar, but the only element of Christianity that really seems unique is the "God sacrificed his only son for our sins", and that doesn't really draw me in like it draws other people.
>
>I'm not downplaying your reaction. It's completely
>understood. What I'd like to communicate though is that as
>you delve more into Christian teaching, and begin to
>understand (BEGIN!!.. I said... lol) the nature of God,
>this problem takes care of itself. It sheds new light on
>the moral dilemma that you're facing when looking at what
>has been done by man in the name of God.
Your determination is admirable, but I'm not gonna be "delving more into Christian teaching".
>
>What we have seen over the course of human history... what
>is playing out right before our eyes is the result of the
>fact that man HAS THAT CHOICE.
What about the Calvinists, Christians who believed in the elect and predestination?
>
My God knows how wrongly I'm
>capable of acting.... he only asks that I acknowledge and
>follow his word as best I can. He asks that I believe in
>the price he paid for me.
>
>
>
>>In fact, there
>>are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like
>>that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention
>>Jainism). If I were religiously inclined, I think I'd go to
>>those first.
>
>As many have. But the nature of TRUTH is that there can
>only be ONE.
>It is up to each of us do find out what is truth, and what
>is fable.
I'm just saying, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Jains, they never had anything close to the Crusades, or Manifest Destiny, or the Spanish Inquisition. If anything, they've come up on the short end of the stick for actually following the non-violent dictates of their religions.
>
>>But the point I was making is that people who
>>claim to have a hotline to God often do some truly awful
>>things "in His name". And if a religion's leaders have shown
>>themselves to be untrustworthy through the years, why should
>>I trust that religion now?
>
>I would say "don't" put your faith in man. Man sins. Man
>is fallable.
>I would say "don't" trust a religion which requires you to
>go to another man as a "representative" of God.
>I would say trust your instinct that you are an amazing,
>unique, powerful complex creature created in the image of
>something infinitely amazing, unique, powerful and
>complex... and you have the RIGHT and NEED to communicate
>with that creator.
Do you go to church? Do you trust your priest/pastor/rector/reverend/whatever?
>
>
>>I think religion still provides
>>some good general morals (the golden rule, don't steal and
>>don't kill and don't cheat on your wife),
>
>But you are not religious. And yet these morals still make
>perfect sense to you... no?
Some of them yes. The "don't make graven images" doesn't make so much sense. There are plenty of societies that are opposed to killing and stealing who didn't need Christianity to come to that conclusion.
>
>So the question become WHY? Why do we ALL understand,
>despite how we act, that THESE are universal laws?
But they're not universal laws. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. That's certainly not a universal law.
>
>>but in terms of
>>modern-day moral dilemmas like homosexuality and abortion, I
>>feel that religion is behind the times, being dragged
>>forward into progress by others.
>
>Here's a thought.
>
>Hypothetically say God WERE the truth. Hypothetically say
>he IS the answer.
>Well then you could certainly agree that the world we see
>around us is much the result of STRAYING from that truth...
>no? A good portion of us have basically left the idea of
>God long behind... no?
Hypothetically say he isn't. Hypothetically say that people who have thought they knew God, and were doing things for God, have done at least as many horrible things as those who believed in multiple gods, or no god at all.
>
>So OF COURSE there would be religious ideas and ideals that
>would seem anachronistic... behind the times... obselete.
>Of course... because now... the "times"... have moved on and
>away from God.
So in a godlier world, there would be no graven images? And we would be punished for the sin of Onan "spilling our seed on the ground"?
>
>I think that that is a true but very simple hypothetical...
>it does serve a purpose, and I hope you see my point. But
>as far as the two specifice issues that you mentioned... can
>you now see why it would be necessary to delve much more
>into the idea/concept of God and Christianity before you
>could actually assert any sort of true opinion on these
>issues? What I'm saying is, if you take away the backdrop
>of Christianity, and what it REALLY means, any attempt to
>make sense of these issue would make little sense.
>
>>This is one of the things
>>that convinces me it's not God who gives us morals
>
>Yet those pesky, basic moral values just seem to keep
>popping up everywhere we look across time and geography.
Even in countries where they believe in multiple gods, or a different sort of god, or a god of a different name, or no god at all.
>
>You yourself even wholeheartedly agree with them, yet are
>not religious.
Because they're not just religious values. There have been codes of law (which I contend are reflections of society's moral code), that predate Christianity. Ever hear of Draco?
>
>I would say it's very, very odd that we all have an idea of
>how TO and how NOT TO treat eachother.
Those values were there before (Christian)God was in the discussion. Not stealing and not murdering, and honoring your mother and father, are values of ancient Greece.

In fact, there
>are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like
>that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention
>Jainism).

dude... read a book... this just isn't true...

and if you're going to judge christianity based on Dubya and the Pope... well... ya know? This convo isn't going to go anywhere... Peace,

>In fact, there
>>are some that haven't been responsible for atrocities like
>>that (Judaism and Buddhism, for example, not to mention
>>Jainism).
>
>dude... read a book... this just isn't true...
Guide me to a book where I can read about the atrocities committed by these religions, especially Jainism and Buddhism.

>
>and if you're going to judge christianity based on Dubya and
>the Pope... well... ya know? This convo isn't going to go
>anywhere... Peace,
I'm not talking about Dubya and the Pope. I'm talking about Christian leaders throughout history. And the Pope is the biggest, most influential Christian leader in the world, how can you not put him into the equation? Regardless, religious leaders have come up with arguments to justify slavery and the supposed inferiority of women, black people, American Indians, basically everyone but white males. Yeah, some Christians were abolitionists too, but in general, in recorded history, I think the evidence shows that Christians can't claim the moral high ground over any other denomination, or those who worship multiple gods or don't believe in god at all.

>I'm not talking about Dubya and the Pope. I'm talking about
>Christian leaders throughout history. And the Pope is the
>biggest, most influential Christian leader in the world, how
>can you not put him into the equation?


Now you're talking out of place. Listen, I'm sorry that you have been misinformed. But the Pope is NOT a Christian leader.

He is a CATHOLIC leader.

And I'm going to take the risk of speaking for LK1 here... and he may correct me if I'm wrong to be sure...

But Catholicism is NOT the belief that he and I and "Christians" are representing here.

Do you understand that?

This distinction HAS to be made, I feel.

The Pope is not my leader.

The Catholic church is NOT my church.

I am a Christian.

Again... if I'm speaking where I shouldn't for you LK1, I apologize, and please correct me.

Or, if you agree, and care to expound.. that would be great too.



Peace!

You all believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost, right? And that Jesus was the one true son, and died for your sins, and then was resurrected? And you believe in heaven and hell? I'm sure you don't like to be considered in the same category as snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues Baptists either, but you do all fall under the general category of Christianity. I am aware that Catholicism is quite distinct from other Christian faiths, but the Pope is still the most visible and influential Christian leader in the world.

>You all believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost,
>right? And that Jesus was the one true son, and died for
>your sins, and then was resurrected? And you believe in
>heaven and hell? I'm sure you don't like to be considered in
>the same category as snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues
>Baptists either, but you do all fall under the general
>category of Christianity. I am aware that Catholicism is
>quite distinct from other Christian faiths, but the Pope is
>still the most visible and influential Christian leader in
>the world.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. To my understanding, there are some HUGE differences between what the "pope" and I believe.

On the same note as what you said...
I could tell you that George W. Bush is the most visible American leader to the rest of the world... therefore, he represents you, an American. No?

However, you and I both know that the truly American ideals expressed in the constitution (equality of man, equality of opportunity) are the true ideals...
and much since then, has simply been a bastardization.

So why would I say that I don't believe in those original ideals simply because men, seeking selfish causes, have messed them up?

I don't want to get off on a Dubya tangent here.... but that best illustrated why your argument doesn't make sense to me.


peace.

I may not like how Dubya represents America, but I am still an American by nationality. And he is the most influential, visible American leader, whether I like it or not. When I go to other countries, I strive to make people understand that I don't like him or his ideas, but they still assume, until they actually talk to me, that because I'm an American I think somewhat like George W. The Pope is a Christian leader, you can't say that Catholics aren't Christians, and you can't say that the Pope isn't the most visible, influential leader of them, worldwide.

I am going to step out on a limb here (and this may require some research to back up what I feel... I will do that AFTER the matrix...lol)

but what I wanna say is... no... the Pope is not the most influential Christian leader.

because I don't believe Catholocism is true Christianity according to the Bible.

Therefore, the Pope does not represent me or what I believe in any way, shape or form.

If you choose to identify me with him, I cannot stop you, but it would do you no good. Because it is just not the case.

ok?



peace.

He professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. How is he NOT a Christian?
From the good people at Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

There are several relgions who worship the God of Abraham, but there is only one religion that deifies Mary (Immaculate Conception) and worships a man's infallible words (Pope, Infallibus Daus)... it's a lot easier to judge things when you only go off what people tell you. Peace,

and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The pope being infallible is kinda silly, but they're not saying he's the same as God. With the "Immaculate Conception", does that mean you don't believe he was put in his mother's womb by God? Do you believe God chose him in the womb, or after he was born? Or what?

>and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The pope being
>infallible is kinda silly, but they're not saying he's the
>same as God. With the "Immaculate Conception", does that
>mean you don't believe he was put in his mother's womb by
>God? Do you believe God chose him in the womb, or after he
>was born? Or what?

I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Christ. In Judaism, it is believed that original sin is passed down the male gene. Christ's Divine Conception (also acknowledged by Islam) was imparitive for him to be without sin.

Catholic doctrine states that Mary was also born of Immaculate Conception (still of a man and woman... kind of confusing), which means that SHE didn't sin. In the Bible, it states that "All fall short of the Glory of God". This means that all mankind sins. If Mary did not sin, Mary was not human, and therefore deified. The result of this deification doesn't mean, necessarilty, that Mary is considered a part of the Trinity in Catholicism, but it does make her a form of idolotry... when you go to a Catholic church, this is why you see odd depictions of Mary everywhere.

Christians who don't consider Catholicism Christianity are similar to Muslims who don't acknowledge the NOI as Islam. There are teachings that are so fundamentally different that they are impossible to ignore. Catholicism, IMO, preaches fundamentals that are strictly against the Scriptures. Peace,

for you, who takes your Christianity so seriously, separating yourself from Catholics is very important and easy to see. But I don't think most of the world gets hung up on distinctions such as whether Mary is a deity too, and whether the pope is infallible. To them (and myself as well), if you follow the teachings of Christ(and believe in the holy trinity), you're a Christian. You probably don't wanna be associated with televangelists either, but they do share your general faith, whether you like it or not.

>for you, who takes your Christianity so seriously,
>separating yourself from Catholics is very important and
>easy to see.

It's not important for vanity's sake; it's a fact.

But I don't think most of the world gets hung
>up on distinctions such as whether Mary is a deity too, and
>whether the pope is infallible.

That's because most of the world makes rash generalities based on the gossip of others (I was an atheist and did the same thing).

To them (and myself as
>well), if you follow the teachings of Christ(and believe in
>the holy trinity), you're a Christian.

Yeah, this is true... but you've proven, repeatedly, that you do not know the teachings of Christ, so what kind of validity should I derive from your uneducated opinion on the matter?

You probably don't
>wanna be associated with televangelists either, but they do
>share your general faith, whether you like it or not.

Um, well, we were talking about Catholicism, but since I proved my point there, we can talk about televangelists all you want...


I don't personally know any televangelists, so how the hell can I comment on whether or not they are followers of Christ?

>>for you, who takes your Christianity so seriously,
>>separating yourself from Catholics is very important and
>>easy to see.
>
>It's not important for vanity's sake; it's a fact.
On what grounds is it "a fact"? Because of the deification and the pope being infallible?
>
>But I don't think most of the world gets hung
>>up on distinctions such as whether Mary is a deity too, and
>>whether the pope is infallible.
>
>That's because most of the world makes rash generalities
>based on the gossip of others (I was an atheist and did the
>same thing).
That's also 'cause most of the world, if they care about religion at all, only cares about their own. Not too many religion majors out there.
>
>To them (and myself as
>>well), if you follow the teachings of Christ(and believe in
>>the holy trinity), you're a Christian.
>
>Yeah, this is true... but you've proven, repeatedly, that
>you do not know the teachings of Christ, so what kind of
>validity should I derive from your uneducated opinion on the
>matter?
You should care only because I represent those who are well outside Christianity, and I'm explaining that the Pope is seen as a worldwide Christian opinion leader. Obviously he doesn't represent all Christians, but the Catholics are the largest denomination there is, right? That was how this all started, with my contention that the Pope is seen as a worldwide Christian opinion leader. Now you may not want to consider him Christian, but whether you do or not is at least as irrelevant as whether I do or not: most of the world views him as that.

And no, I don't know the teachings of Christ, nor do I really care to. But do those two differences cause you to think that the Catholics reject the teachings of Christ? Their religion is still based on the Bible, just like yours is.
>
>
>I don't personally know any televangelists, so how the hell
>can I comment on whether or not they are followers of
>Christ?
Well you can see the ones who claim "the Lord told me he'd call me home if you all don't donate $7 million in His name". Plus there's always Jim Bakker. You don't know the Pope personally and you feel perfectly qualified to comment on him.

>>It's not important for vanity's sake; it's a fact.
>On what grounds is it "a fact"? Because of the deification
>and the pope being infallible?

IMO, absolutely yes.

>That's also 'cause most of the world, if they care about
>religion at all, only cares about their own. Not too many
>religion majors out there.

You're right, but I am, so I form my conclusions based on my knowledge... this knowledge has helped me approach other topics with the skepticism: to study first, then slowly draw conclusions.

>You should care only because I represent those who are well
>outside Christianity, and I'm explaining that the Pope is
>seen as a worldwide Christian opinion leader. Obviously he
>doesn't represent all Christians, but the Catholics are the
>largest denomination there is, right? That was how this all
>started, with my contention that the Pope is seen as a
>worldwide Christian opinion leader. Now you may not want to
>consider him Christian, but whether you do or not is at
>least as irrelevant as whether I do or not: most of the
>world views him as that.

Most of the world thinks Bush was elected... should I consider him the elected president? Most of the world just assumes he is, but I've read enough info to know he isn't. So is the world view just as valid as mine?

>And no, I don't know the teachings of Christ, nor do I
>really care to. But do those two differences cause you to
>think that the Catholics reject the teachings of Christ?
>Their religion is still based on the Bible, just like yours
>is.

Yes, the Bible, and several other apocryphal books placed strategically in their canon (not in the Bible), a complete disregard for Christianity's roots in Judaism, an extra deification, and an infallible man by human election...

>>I don't personally know any televangelists, so how the hell
>>can I comment on whether or not they are followers of
>>Christ?
>Well you can see the ones who claim "the Lord told me he'd
>call me home if you all don't donate $7 million in His
>name". Plus there's always Jim Bakker. You don't know the
>Pope personally and you feel perfectly qualified to comment
>on him.

I feel qualified to comment on the doctrine of Infallibus Deus, which I am. As far as the pope himself, I have no idea. As for televangelists, you know, whatever is in store for them is up to God.

>Most of the world thinks Bush was elected... should I
>consider him the elected president? Most of the world just
>assumes he is, but I've read enough info to know he isn't.
>So is the world view just as valid as mine?

I don't know that most of the world thinks Bush was elected - but it doesn't really matter to them whether he was elected or not, what matters is that either way he is the leader of America. Whether he was elected or not doesn't change that fact, just like whether or not the Pope is actually the vicar of Christ doesn't change the fact that to the world at large he is the religious leader of the majority of the world's Christians.

Whether you think he is a sham or that Catholics don't represent true Christianity is irrelevant to this fact, just as it is irrelevant that I think Bush is a sham and doesn't represent what I believe to be true American ideals; he's still the President regardless, and to the world at large he is the leader of the USA and represents America. You and I might think it sucks, but it bees that way, nothing you or I can do about it right now.

>Yes, the Bible, and several other apocryphal books placed
>strategically in their canon (not in the Bible), a complete
>disregard for Christianity's roots in Judaism, an extra
>deification, and an infallible man by human election...

The "apocryphal books placed strategically in their canon (not in the Bible)" were in the Septuagint, which WAS THE BIBLE used by the apostles and the early Christian church, the authors of the New Testament and, presumably, JC himself - the majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the NT, particularly the ones dealing with prophecies and allusions to the coming of Jesus Christ, are quoted directly from the Septuagint. Removal of these books from the Bible is a complete disregard for Christianity's roots in apostolic Judaism.

BTW, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses all the books in the Catholic canon, plus a few others; and out of all Christians they are the ones whose traditions are most rooted in Judaism, by far... what say you to that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>I don't know that most of the world thinks Bush was elected
>- but it doesn't really matter to them whether he was
>elected or not, what matters is that either way he is the
>leader of America.

I think it damn sure matters whether or not my vote counts.

Whether he was elected or not doesn't
>change that fact, just like whether or not the Pope is
>actually the vicar of Christ doesn't change the fact that to
>the world at large he is the religious leader of the
>majority of the world's Christians.

It doesn't change the fact that someone is claiming to be something they are not, just like Bush, you are correct.

>Whether you think he is a sham or that Catholics don't
>represent true Christianity is irrelevant to this fact, just
>as it is irrelevant that I think Bush is a sham and doesn't
>represent what I believe to be true American ideals; he's
>still the President regardless, and to the world at large he
>is the leader of the USA and represents America.

No, he is NOT the president.. the president has to be elected by the people's votes.. the fact is he is an impostor to whoever views him.

You and I
>might think it sucks, but it bees that way, nothing you or I
>can do about it right now.

agreed.

>The "apocryphal books placed strategically in their canon
>(not in the Bible)" were in the Septuagint, which WAS THE
>BIBLE used by the apostles and the early Christian church,
>the authors of the New Testament and, presumably, JC himself
>- the majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the NT,
>particularly the ones dealing with prophecies and allusions
>to the coming of Jesus Christ, are quoted directly from the
>Septuagint.

The hell they are!

You speak of the Septuagint as if there was only one. Which translation are you referring to? Christ didn't quote the Septuagint once in his teachings, probably because the true Septuagint was so widely debated and translated at the time. Every author of NT was a Hebrew scholar, as was Christ, so why would any Hebrew scholar feel the need to learn a document outside of the original language it is written in?

The apostles used the Torah (the original Septuagint) for strict Pharisaic study, though... After this, the entire argument for the Septuagint rests on a single document: the Letter of Aristeas. I've studied this letter, and here are some facts you might find interesing....

The author, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by DEMETRIUS to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the giant translation project.

Ok.. here's where it gets sticky:

Aristeas decided, with stupidity, to give names of Septuagint scholars, many of whom were from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Interestingly enough, many of them are also names deriving from Greek origin, which would be impossible if they were, truly, Hebrew scholars. The writer is lying about his identity... the letter itself is a pseudepigrapha...lol.

Back to Demetrius, who was the supposed librarian during Philadephus' reign.. his span of 345-283 BCE included being a library under Ptolemy Soter, never under Philadelphus... another lie.

Removal of these books from the Bible is a
>complete disregard for Christianity's roots in apostolic
>Judaism.

The apostles used readings preserved from Hebrew text (some of which may have been also been in the Septuagint) why would they have needed a Greek guide? they were the guide to the Greeks!

>BTW, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses all the books in the
>Catholic canon, plus a few others; and out of all Christians
>they are the ones whose traditions are most rooted in
>Judaism, by far... what say you to that?

The Ethiopian Church uses a few extra books (Jude, Assumption of Moses, Book of Enoch.. all quoted in the Bible... another that probably is Scripture is the lost book of Jasher, quoted in the OT), that I consider to be divinely inspired, and aren't followed by most protestants... this is why I have more respect for the Ethiopian church, but still disregard many of their books as frauds. Ethiopians don't have extra deities or infallible men, though.

>Catholic doctrine states that Mary was also born of
>Immaculate Conception (still of a man and woman... kind of
>confusing), which means that SHE didn't sin.

The conception of Mary IS the Immaculate Conception. It does not refer to the birth of Christ.

Pedantically yours,

--I'm Joe Castleman

Have , will

(EDIT: Ironically enough, I misspelled "pedantically")

>>Catholic doctrine states that Mary was also born of
>>Immaculate Conception (still of a man and woman... kind of
>>confusing), which means that SHE didn't sin.
>
>The conception of Mary IS the Immaculate Conception. It
>does not refer to the birth of Christ.
>
>Pedantically yours,
>
>--I'm Joe Castleman
>
>Have , will
>
>
>(EDIT: Ironically enough, I misspelled "pedantically")

I don't think you mispelled it, and there is nothing about this post that makes you pedant.

Read the quote again. Christ was immaculately conceived, and anyone who isn't an idiot knows this. My reference was to the Catholic doctrine, as I previously stated. Peace,

Gyro's right - the term "Immaculate Conception" specifically refers to the conception of Mary; Jesus' divine conception, even if it was immaculately concieved or however you want to describe it, is not officially referred to as "the Immaculate Conception". So yeah, he was being a pedant, even if he spelled it wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>Gyro's right - the term "Immaculate Conception" specifically
>refers to the conception of Mary; Jesus' divine conception,
>even if it was immaculately concieved or however you want to
>describe it, is not officially referred to as "the
>Immaculate Conception". So yeah, he was being a pedant, even
>if he spelled it wrong.

In Catholicism, this is true.. but Jesus was immaculately conceived.... i was just using the common terminology.. read it again and tell me where i claimed that catholic doctine of IC had anything to do with Jesus. I'm pretty sure I made a distinction as to what was dotrine and what was not... could've been a typo though... find a quote and post it so i can at least acknowledge whatever mistake i made.

>In Catholicism, this is true.. but Jesus was immaculately
>conceived.... i was just using the common terminology.. read
>it again and tell me where i claimed that catholic doctine
>of IC had anything to do with Jesus. I'm pretty sure I made
>a distinction as to what was dotrine and what was not...
>could've been a typo though... find a quote and post it so i
>can at least acknowledge whatever mistake i made.

regardless of what distinction you made, in common terminology "the Immaculate Conception" specifically refers to the Catholic doctrine on the conception of Mary - that's all Gyro and I were saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>>In Catholicism, this is true.. but Jesus was immaculately
>>conceived.... i was just using the common terminology.. read
>>it again and tell me where i claimed that catholic doctine
>>of IC had anything to do with Jesus. I'm pretty sure I made
>>a distinction as to what was dotrine and what was not...
>>could've been a typo though... find a quote and post it so i
>>can at least acknowledge whatever mistake i made.
>
>regardless of what distinction you made, in common
>terminology "the Immaculate Conception" specifically refers
>to the Catholic doctrine on the conception of Mary - that's
>all Gyro and I were saying.

the distinction was in the comparison...

i know.. it is obvious by what i said that i know... that is, unless i made a mistake that you can prove otherwise, then i will recognize it and acknowledge it... otherwise, what the hell, alex trebeck?

>Catholic doctrine states that Mary was also born of
>Immaculate Conception (still of a man and woman... kind of
>confusing), which means that SHE didn't sin. In the Bible,
>it states that "All fall short of the Glory of God". This
>means that all mankind sins. If Mary did not sin, Mary was
>not human, and therefore deified. The result of this
>deification doesn't mean, necessarilty, that Mary is
>considered a part of the Trinity in Catholicism, but it does
>make her a form of idolotry... when you go to a Catholic
>church, this is why you see odd depictions of Mary
>everywhere.

As I said before, that is only your opinion; you have no factual basis on which to support this opinion, only your own particular interpretation as you see it. Catholics do not agree with your interpretation, and neither does the majority of the world. Therefore your opinion on this is irrelevant to most people, which is the point johnny_domino was making.

Think of it this way: most Muslims and many Jews consider you to be a pagan idolator for worshipping a man as God - that doesn't make it an objective truth, only the truth as they see it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>As I said before, that is only your opinion; you have no
>factual basis on which to support this opinion, only your
>own particular interpretation as you see it. Catholics do
>not agree with your interpretation, and neither does the
>majority of the world. Therefore your opinion on this is
>irrelevant to most people, which is the point johnny_domino
>was making.

i've met catholics that agree with my interpretation, and converted.

so what you're saying is that stereo-types are what most people care about. Well, I agree wholeheartedly... lol.

Osama is a Muslim. Jews are greedy. Blacks are lazy. Indians are drunks. That's all people care about. It's true... i'm trying to educate.

as far as no one agreeing, i can only hope you're open to my interpretations, because i know for a fact that i've opened some eyes on this post.

>Think of it this way: most Muslims and many Jews consider
>you to be a pagan idolator for worshipping a man as God -
>that doesn't make it an objective truth, only the truth as
>they see it.

I've come to the Christian (a pagan term for our sector of Judaism) conclusion first as an atheist, then through prayer, then through scholastics. I cannot prove that I have the absolute truth. I can only believe it and rationalize it to the best of my ability. I don't really care what the secular opinion is of me...

>i've met catholics that agree with my interpretation, and
>converted.

Well then they're not Catholics anymore. And there's still over a billion Catholics who disagree with your interpretation, so overall the odds are slightly against you.

>so what you're saying is that stereo-types are what most
>people care about. Well, I agree wholeheartedly... lol.

Uh, no... I'm saying that most people don't care about *your* stereotype of Catholics as pagan idolators.

>Osama is a Muslim. Jews are greedy. Blacks are lazy. Indians
>are drunks. That's all people care about. It's true... i'm
>trying to educate.

Osama being a Muslim isn't a stereotype, it's a fact - he's a bad Muslim IMO, but still a Muslim nonetheless.

>as far as no one agreeing, i can only hope you're open to my
>interpretations, because i know for a fact that i've opened
>some eyes on this post.

I'm open to your interpretations when they're based on facts instead of opinions.

>I've come to the Christian (a pagan term for our sector of
>Judaism) conclusion first as an atheist, then through
>prayer, then through scholastics. I cannot prove that I
>have the absolute truth. I can only believe it and
>rationalize it to the best of my ability. I don't really
>care what the secular opinion is of me...

And the majority of the world doesn't care about your opinion of them or others, which I believe was the original point.

and BTW, most Jews would take issue with you calling Christianity "our sector of Judaism" - do you care about their opinion on that, or do you also not care about what Jews (who you claim connection to) think of you?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>>i've met catholics that agree with my interpretation, and
>>converted.
>
>Well then they're not Catholics anymore. And there's still
>over a billion Catholics who disagree with your
>interpretation, so overall the odds are slightly against
>you.

53% of America's Christians are Protestants.. the vast, vast majority of them agree with me about Catholicism and Mormonism... a Catholic's opinion on the matter is irrelevant to mine, because they follow a doctrine that I disagree with.

>Uh, no... I'm saying that most people don't care about
>*your* stereotype of Catholics as pagan idolators.

Where is there a stereo-type? I believe what I believe based on my interpretation of facts... what more do you need?

>Osama being a Muslim isn't a stereotype, it's a fact - he's
>a bad Muslim IMO, but still a Muslim nonetheless.

I think there are COUNTLESS muslims would disagree with you based on their interpretations of what OBL preaches.

>I'm open to your interpretations when they're based on facts
>instead of opinions.

everything i've said that is controversial has been an OPINION BASED ON a FACT. i have been completely open to hear yours and disagree, so why are you being so hostile towards my interpretations? The whole point of a controversial post is to hear opinions... where have I been incorrect with facts?

>And the majority of the world doesn't care about your
>opinion of them or others, which I believe was the original
>point.

more bandwagon approach.. you're a real propagandist, aren't you? no one truly represents anyone else on this topic except yourself, so come with your own views or don't come at all... what the hell do you really know about the majority of the world? take a trip to jerusalem some time, and see if this last statement holds up.

>and BTW, most Jews would take issue with you calling
>Christianity "our sector of Judaism" - do you care about
>their opinion on that, or do you also not care about what
>Jews (who you claim connection to) think of you?

I cherish my roots in Judaism (I have Jewish and Messianic Jewish relatives)... "Christians" weren't called "Christians" until Antioch... before then (during and a century after Jesus), this was merely a sector who worshipped, in s synogogue, side by side with other Jews. It was the Roman government (or pagan citizens) who most likely labeled this sector.. it's a fact... so, accordingly, what people's uneducated opinions based on my statements means nothing to me.

>53% of America's Christians are Protestants.. the vast, vast
>majority of them agree with me about Catholicism and
>Mormonism...

And ~ 51% of the world's Christians are Catholics - America is not the whole of the world. And I seriously doubt that the "vast, vast majority" of American Protestants agree with you that Catholicism is not Christianity.

> a Catholic's opinion on the matter is
>irrelevant to mine, because they follow a doctrine that I
>disagree with.

And your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to over a billion Catholics worldwide, and to the billions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and the rest of the vast majority of the world who consider Catholics Christians - that is the point johnny_domino was making.

>Where is there a stereo-type? I believe what I believe
>based on my interpretation of facts... what more do you
>need?

That is what I originally said - you are the one who brought up the stereotype thing when I said that your opinion is irrelevant to most people.

But ok, if it isn't a stereotype, then do you also think it's not a stereotype when Muslims and Jews consider Christians to be pagan idolators?

>I think there are COUNTLESS muslims would disagree with you
>based on their interpretations of what OBL preaches.

Don't know about that, but there are countless more who would agree with me - the vast majority of Muslims, actually.

>everything i've said that is controversial has been an
>OPINION BASED ON a FACT. i have been completely open to
>hear yours and disagree, so why are you being so hostile
>towards my interpretations? The whole point of a
>controversial post is to hear opinions... where have I been
>incorrect with facts?

Firstly, I'm not being hostile; I am listening to your opinions and interpretations, I just disagree with them for the most part. Secondly, let me rephrase that - I'm open to your opinions when they're supported by objective facts rather than just your interpretation of facts (two totally different things) - we went over this on the Mary thing in that other thread a while back. Just like you weren't open to my opinion on Lutherans practicing confession until I provided objective facts to back it up instead of just my interpretation of the facts.

>more bandwagon approach.. you're a real propagandist, aren't
>you? no one truly represents anyone else on this topic
>except yourself, so come with your own views or don't come
>at all...

Yes, that's right, I'm a propagandist - and it's my subversive propagandist agenda to convince the vast majority of the world that Catholics are Christians... my job should be pretty easy then, since the vast majority of the world already believes that (I wish all of my work was so easy)

Dude, you really need to calm down... the point is, your opinion is valid for *you*, but that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about the common opinion worldwide, and that opinion happens to be that Catholics are Christians. Your opinion, while relevant to you, is irrelevant to that fact. That's all I'm saying - if you want to take offense to that, that's on you.

what the hell do you really know about the
>majority of the world? take a trip to jerusalem some time,
>and see if this last statement holds up.

I know that the majority of the world considers Catholics to be Christians.... I mean, are you trying to tell me that people in Jerusalem don't consider Catholics Christians? Yeah, OK, whatever man...

And what the hell do *you* really know about the majority of the world - you're from Nebraska (see, now *that's* being hostile - ha ha)

>I cherish my roots in Judaism (I have Jewish and Messianic
>Jewish relatives)... "Christians" weren't called
>"Christians" until Antioch... before then (during and a
>century after Jesus), this was merely a sector who
>worshipped, in s synogogue, side by side with other Jews.
>It was the Roman government (or pagan citizens) who most
>likely labeled this sector.. it's a fact... so, accordingly,
>what people's uneducated opinions based on my statements
>means nothing to me.

I'm sure that you do cherish your roots in Judaism - that doesn't change the fact that most Jews DO NOT consider Christianity to be a "sector" of Judaism (offshoot, yes; sector, no)... hell, it was difficult enough to get them to accept that the Falashas constitute a sector of Judaism, and some ultra-Orthodox sects still don't accept that. So they sure as hell ain't accepting you as such.

>And ~ 51% of the world's Christians are Catholics - America
>is not the whole of the world. And I seriously doubt that
>the "vast, vast majority" of American Protestants agree with
>you that Catholicism is not Christianity.

that's why protestantism evolved in the first place...

>And your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to over a
>billion Catholics worldwide, and to the billions of Muslims,
>Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and the rest of the vast
>majority of the world who consider Catholics Christians -
>that is the point johnny_domino was making.

...I just don't see why that point could possibly be valid on an opinionated, debatable post... i mean, that's not even a point-a stance, it's just a molded fact which can, in no way, be proven either way... we're going to eternally disagree here, so this one isn't even worth discussing anymore.

>That is what I originally said - you are the one who brought
>up the stereotype thing when I said that your opinion is
>irrelevant to most people.

it may very well be, but it isn't irrelevant to this post, which i created, is it? same issue... let's drop it.

>But ok, if it isn't a stereotype, then do you also think
>it's not a stereotype when Muslims and Jews consider
>Christians to be pagan idolators?

No, it's an opinion based on their interpretations of facts... they're completely entitled to believe this.

>Don't know about that, but there are countless more who
>would agree with me - the vast majority of Muslims,
>actually.

No. The majority of Muslims claim OBL an imposter and an enemy of Islam.

>Firstly, I'm not being hostile; I am listening to your
>opinions and interpretations, I just disagree with them for
>the most part.

ok.

Secondly, let me rephrase that - I'm open to
>your opinions when they're supported by objective facts
>rather than just your interpretation of facts (two totally
>different things) - we went over this on the Mary thing in
>that other thread a while back.

The objective fact in the Mary thing is the Immaculate Conception. My interpretation of this objective fact was deification. They are two totally different things, but that's how opinions are formed.

Just like you weren't open
>to my opinion on Lutherans practicing confession until I
>provided objective facts to back it up instead of just my
>interpretation of the facts.

True, but at the same time, there are also Lutherans who don't practice confession, so... I admitted that you were right that some do. This is much different than having two references though. In the case of Mary, I completely understand the concept of Immaculate Conception. Mary did not sin. Based on my interpretations of Biblical scripture, my highest regarded book, this means that Mary could not have been human. I am going off my interpretation of more than one objective fact to form a conclusion.

>Yes, that's right, I'm a propagandist - and it's my
>subversive propagandist agenda to convince the vast majority
>of the world that Catholics are Christians... my job should
>be pretty easy then, since the vast majority of the world
>already believes that (I wish all of my work was so easy)

yeah, I really shouldn't have called you that, and I apologize. my point is not to offend, and that was just stupid. I guess I just don't really care what the rest of the world thinks on the topic (which is still in the air) because my conclusion is based on educated research.

>Dude, you really need to calm down... the point is, your
>opinion is valid for *you*, but that's not what we're
>talking about here; we're talking about the common opinion
>worldwide, and that opinion happens to be that Catholics
>are Christians.

It's just not that black and white. Protestantism formed because of this very notion.

Your opinion, while relevant to you, is
>irrelevant to that fact. That's all I'm saying - if you
>want to take offense to that, that's on you.

That fact isn't a fact, because there's no way to prove it.

>I know that the majority of the world considers Catholics to
>be Christians.... I mean, are you trying to tell me that
>people in Jerusalem don't consider Catholics Christians?
>Yeah, OK, whatever man...

Been there. That's where I've learned virtually everything I know.

>And what the hell do *you* really know about the majority of
>the world - you're from Nebraska (see, now *that's* being
>hostile - ha ha)

lol. that wasn't hostile. I don't spend much time at home though... I'm a touring musician.

>I'm sure that you do cherish your roots in Judaism - that
>doesn't change the fact that most Jews DO NOT consider
>Christianity to be a "sector" of Judaism (offshoot, yes;
>sector, no)...

I flat out do not and will not ever care what the majority of anyone thinks of anything... it doesn't matter at all. What matters is research, education and opinions. People, in general, are idiots.

hell, it was difficult enough to get them to
>accept that the Falashas constitute a sector of Judaism, and
>some ultra-Orthodox sects still don't accept that. So they
>sure as hell ain't accepting you as such.

Don't really care at all.... we've reached our standing wave... let's end this sinking post. Peace,

>but what I wanna say is... no... the Pope is not the most
>influential Christian leader.
>
>because I don't believe Catholocism is true Christianity
>according to the Bible.
>
>Therefore, the Pope does not represent me or what I believe
>in any way, shape or form.

the Pope does not represent you personally, but he does represent the largest Christian sect in the world - the majority of Christians worldwide, in fact. The fact that *you* don't think he or they are Christians is irrelevant - they are Christians to the vast majority of the world, and therefore the Pope is, in fact, the most important Christian leader in the eyes of the world. Your personal objections are irrelevant to this fact.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

thanks 40thStreet, that's the point I've been trying to make all along.

>I'm not talking about Dubya and the Pope. I'm talking about
>Christian leaders throughout history. And the Pope is the
>biggest, most influential Christian leader in the world, how
>can you not put him into the equation?

By reading what JESUS and the BIBLE taught, not observing what horrible acts are committed in the name of Christ... if you were a true student of Christianity, you'd know the Scriptures predicted that these acts would be committed by false prophets, claiming inspired divinity.

Your logic is so faulty... that is, unless you believe Jews preach greed in a religion of charity, and Osama is a true representative of Islam, a religion of peace... you would have to if you believe the same about Christianity.

Enough with this prejudicial bullshit. Peace,

he's a representative of Islam. Sharon is the most visible representative of both the state of Israel, and, as a consequence, Jews worldwide. Osama does represent Islam for a lot of the world, he's probably the most visible, influential rep at the moment, especially for the fundamentalist variety. Those people who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, they did it because they believed they were doing what their faith told them to. The most influential leader doesn't mean the most pure, or the one who preaches all the tolerance given in the religion. My point is, religion, and religious leaders, have spurred up as much pointless atrocity as any other kind of leader. So what's really so great and moral about them? Islam may be a religion of peace, but some truly awful things have been done in its name. The same applies to Christianity, and, with the current state in Israel, Judaism (though in general, Jews have gotten it a lot worse than they've given, through history. But that's still no excuse).

That's great that you can have a disclaimer "there'll be false prophets, so don't blame us for the awful stuff that's committed in our name", but if you're gonna claim that, in retrospect, you can call anyone who history has shown to be wrong to be "a false prophet", how're you gonna trust spiritual leaders today to be 'morally right'? And if your leaders are untrustworthy, and don't live up to the moral standards set forth by your religion, that kinda undermines your whole claim that all morals are based on religion.

Now back to the other point I was making, point out where Buddhism and Jainism have caused suffering to be done in their name. You said there were books. Name them. Otherwise, recognize that Buddhism and Jainism have a better claim to moral superiority than your own religion (especially if you see peace as the goal), historically anyway.

>he's a representative of Islam. Sharon is the most visible
>representative of both the state of Israel, and, as a
>consequence, Jews worldwide. Osama does represent Islam for
>a lot of the world, he's probably the most visible,
>influential rep at the moment, especially for the
>fundamentalist variety. Those people who crashed planes into
>the World Trade Center, they did it because they believed
>they were doing what their faith told them to.

I'll assume there's a point behind this further on, because you're proving my assumption that you don't view religion as blindly as you make yourself out to.

As far as the WTC pilots, perhaps they were blindly lying to themselves in fear that they were wrong, and having 72 virgins in heaven would accomodate their fear of what was true and right... how would you know?

The most
>influential leader doesn't mean the most pure, or the one
>who preaches all the tolerance given in the religion. My
>point is, religion, and religious leaders, have spurred up
>as much pointless atrocity as any other kind of leader.

I agree... I don't really believe in religious leaders at all... I believe in the Bible...

So
>what's really so great and moral about them?

When did I claim anything was?

Islam may be a
>religion of peace, but some truly awful things have been
>done in its name. The same applies to Christianity, and,
>with the current state in Israel, Judaism (though in
>general, Jews have gotten it a lot worse than they've given,
>through history. But that's still no excuse).

Agreed... but I could go murder thousands of people in the "name" of Vishnu, and suddenly your logic applies to Hinduism... namean?

>That's great that you can have a disclaimer "there'll be
>false prophets, so don't blame us for the awful stuff that's
>committed in our name", but if you're gonna claim that, in
>retrospect, you can call anyone who history has shown to be
>wrong to be "a false prophet", how're you gonna trust
>spiritual leaders today to be 'morally right'?

Who says I do or would? I could care less about religious leaders... Christianity is between the individual soul and God.

And if your
>leaders are untrustworthy, and don't live up to the moral
>standards set forth by your religion, that kinda undermines
>your whole claim that all morals are based on religion.

Ok, first of all, no one lives up to a perfect morality, so that should immediately throw judgement out the window and give the responsibility to forgive those who sin against us.

Second, when did I say that morals are based on religion? I believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong, and that innate sense is God's Law. I have met many atheists, aborters, and homosexuals who probably live up to a standard of morals just as high, if not higher, than my own. My point was that we all have morals, and the morality we have serves an eternal purpose. Regardless, Judeo-Christian morals are outlined in the Bible, not in the Crusades. It is ignorant and wrong to think otherwise... every man has a different level or morality that he abides by.

>Now back to the other point I was making, point out where
>Buddhism and Jainism have caused suffering to be done in
>their name. You said there were books. Name them. Otherwise,
>recognize that Buddhism and Jainism have a better claim to
>moral superiority than your own religion (especially if you
>see peace as the goal), historically anyway.

The other point you were making, that you've since edited, included Judaism in this scenario... obviously you looked this up and found out you were wrong... ok.

The saying "read a book" is synonymous for "educate yourself".

Committing an atrocity in the name of Buddhism isn't possible, because it isn't a religion, but a philosophy (if you want to argue this, I will be GLAD to). The closest thing to it that you can find is the religion that Buddhism is a derivitive of, Hinduism... plenty of examples here.

Jainism, similarly, is an even closer derivitive of Hinduism and, today, is virtually indistinguishable. Similarly to the Hindus, the Jains believe in ages that are defined in terms of morality. There are two ages of morality recognized in Jainism: the Utsarpini and the Avasarpini. These two ages greatly parallel the Satyuga and Kaliyuga of the Hindus. There is very little difference in ritualistic worship between the Jains and Hindus. Jains do not follow the Vedas, but they DO recognize the CASTE SYSTEM--A SYSTEM OF CLASS RANKING AND OPPRESSION! Just because someone preaches nonviolence doesn't mean they don't commit atrocious acts...

Yeah... Peace,

>Who says I do or would? I could care less about religious
>leaders... Christianity is between the individual soul and
>God.
If you can't trust your leaders, how can your movement be trusted?
>
>And if your
>>leaders are untrustworthy, and don't live up to the moral
>>standards set forth by your religion, that kinda undermines
>>your whole claim that all morals are based on religion.
>
>Ok, first of all, no one lives up to a perfect morality, so
>that should immediately throw judgement out the window and
>give the responsibility to forgive those who sin against us.
>
>Second, when did I say that morals are based on religion? I
>believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong, and
>that innate sense is God's Law.
when you call it God's Law, you are basing it on religion. Especially when you capitalize the G and the L like that, now you're basing it on one religion.

Now this right here:
>I have met many atheists,
>aborters, and homosexuals who probably live up to a standard
>of morals just as high, if not higher, than my own.
Is what I'm saying, in spades. So prove that morals come from God. 'Cause I say there are examples of relatively moral, civilized societies before the Bible, and before Christianity. I think all you've got to counter with is your faith.

My
>point was that we all have morals, and the morality we have
>serves an eternal purpose. Regardless, Judeo-Christian
>morals are outlined in the Bible, not in the Crusades. It
>is ignorant and wrong to think otherwise... every man has a
>different level or morality that he abides by.



>Committing an atrocity in the name of Buddhism isn't
>possible, because it isn't a religion, but a philosophy (if
>you want to argue this, I will be GLAD to).
One entry found for religion.


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
I'd say Buddhism falls under the 4th definition. If you don't think Buddhists have faith, you should take it up with them.
The closest
>thing to it that you can find is the religion that Buddhism
>is a derivitive of, Hinduism... plenty of examples here.
>

>If you can't trust your leaders, how can your movement be
>trusted?

Leaders are not the people you see in the media bashing abortion. They are quiet, humble souls who help others and expect nothing in return.

If there is ever a movement to be trusted, it cannot contradict the teachings of the Bible... But, for example, I would be inclined to trust a missionary who has had medical training to go to Honduras...

>when you call it God's Law, you are basing it on religion.
>Especially when you capitalize the G and the L like that,
>now you're basing it on one religion.

I believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong, not the product of society. If laws evolve for the better, they do so to conform to morality, not vise versa.

It is my belief that the innate sense of right and wrong is God's Law.

>So prove that morals come from God. 'Cause I say there are >examples of relatively moral, civilized societies before the >Bible, and before Christianity. I think all you've got to >counter with is your faith.

Well, of course morality existed before the oral tradition of the torah was written... God's Law has existed since man has existed. It took thouseands of years before oral tradition was written.

I never said I had anything other than faith to counter your theory... faith gives morals an ultimate purpose... if I don't have faith, it really doesn't matter, morally, what I choose to do, and any "morality" I choose to pratice thereafter is a result of fear.


>One entry found for religion.

>4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with
>ardor and faith

>I'd say Buddhism falls under the 4th definition. If you
>don't think Buddhists have faith, you should take it up with
>them.

lol. If you ever read a piece of Buddhist doctrine, you would see that any notion of "faith" is meaningless to a Buddhist. It is written in Buddhist doctrine that contemplation of the metaphysical is pointless, and that everything can be attained through knowledge.

Please, please study some religious doctine before you waste my time with this stuff... I'm a classics scholar with a religious studies emphasis. I really don't think you're going to prove me wrong on religious fundamentals... I'm pretty horrible at math though. Peace,

>>If you can't trust your leaders, how can your movement be
>>trusted?
>
>Leaders are not the people you see in the media bashing
>abortion. They are quiet, humble souls who help others and
>expect nothing in return.
>
>If there is ever a movement to be trusted, it cannot
>contradict the teachings of the Bible... But, for example, I
>would be inclined to trust a missionary who has had medical
>training to go to Honduras...
>
>>when you call it God's Law, you are basing it on religion.
>>Especially when you capitalize the G and the L like that,
>>now you're basing it on one religion.
>
>I believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong,
>not the product of society.
But of course you have no proof of this.

>If laws evolve for the better,
>they do so to conform to morality, not vise versa.
>
>It is my belief that the innate sense of right and wrong is
>God's Law.
That's tremendous. We've come this far into the post, for that.
>
>>So prove that morals come from God. 'Cause I say there are >examples of relatively moral, civilized societies before the >Bible, and before Christianity. I think all you've got to >counter with is your faith.
>
>Well, of course morality existed before the oral tradition
>of the torah was written... God's Law has existed since man
>has existed. It took thouseands of years before oral
>tradition was written.
Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?
>
>I never said I had anything other than faith to counter your
>theory... faith gives morals an ultimate purpose... if I
>don't have faith, it really doesn't matter, morally, what I
>choose to do, and any "morality" I choose to pratice
>thereafter is a result of fear.
That's just what religious faith is based on, as far as I'm concerned. Fear of damnation. I've got no faith(in the religious sense), and it's not "fear of being caught" that stops me from killing, or raping, or stealing money from my parents.
>
>
>>One entry found for religion.
>
>>4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with
>>ardor and faith
>
>>I'd say Buddhism falls under the 4th definition. If you
>>don't think Buddhists have faith, you should take it up with
>>them.
>
>lol. If you ever read a piece of Buddhist doctrine, you
>would see that any notion of "faith" is meaningless to a
>Buddhist. It is written in Buddhist doctrine that
>contemplation of the metaphysical is pointless, and that
>everything can be attained through knowledge.
>
>Please, please study some religious doctine before you waste
>my time with this stuff... I'm a classics scholar with a
>religious studies emphasis. I really don't think you're
>going to prove me wrong on religious fundamentals... I'm
>pretty horrible at math though. Peace,
Good. I'll take Buddhism over Christianity then, in a heartbeat.

>>I believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong,
>>not the product of society.

>But of course you have no proof of this.

How about the Holocaust? Could it not have been a possibility that this was universally wrong and that those involved in this atrocious act KNEW it was wrong, but lied to themselves in order to commit it, for power's sake?

>>It is my belief that the innate sense of right and wrong is
>>God's Law.
>That's tremendous. We've come this far into the post, for
>that.

Well, you can find this stated repeatedly throughout our discussion... basically, it took this long for you to understand it.

>>Well, of course morality existed before the oral tradition
>>of the torah was written... God's Law has existed since man
>>has existed. It took thouseands of years before oral
>>tradition was written.
>Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't
>wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?

No. That's the difference.

>>I never said I had anything other than faith to counter your
>>theory... faith gives morals an ultimate purpose... if I
>>don't have faith, it really doesn't matter, morally, what I
>>choose to do, and any "morality" I choose to pratice
>>thereafter is a result of fear.
>That's just what religious faith is based on, as far as I'm
>concerned. Fear of damnation. I've got no faith(in the
>religious sense), and it's not "fear of being caught" that
>stops me from killing, or raping, or stealing money from my
>parents.

what is it then? that was the whole point of my post. what is it that compels you to love others?

>>lol. If you ever read a piece of Buddhist doctrine, you
>>would see that any notion of "faith" is meaningless to a
>>Buddhist. It is written in Buddhist doctrine that
>>contemplation of the metaphysical is pointless, and that
>>everything can be attained through knowledge.
>>
>>Please, please study some religious doctine before you waste
>>my time with this stuff... I'm a classics scholar with a
>>religious studies emphasis. I really don't think you're
>>going to prove me wrong on religious fundamentals... I'm
>>pretty horrible at math though. Peace,

>Good. I'll take Buddhism over Christianity then, in a
>heartbeat.

If that were possible, I'd wish you the best of luck, but since one is a philosophy, you probably shouldn't attempt this because the two can virtually coexist. Peace,

>>>I believe morals are the innate sense of right and wrong,
>>>not the product of society.
>
>>But of course you have no proof of this.
>
>How about the Holocaust? Could it not have been a
>possibility that this was universally wrong and that those
>involved in this atrocious act KNEW it was wrong, but lied
>to themselves in order to commit it, for power's sake?
I don't think they all knew it was wrong. I think some of them actually believed in it, and even liked it.
>
>>>It is my belief that the innate sense of right and wrong is
>>>God's Law.
>>That's tremendous. We've come this far into the post, for
>>that.
>
>Well, you can find this stated repeatedly throughout our
>discussion... basically, it took this long for you to
>understand it.
I understood what you were saying from the start. I just got sidetracked by the Catholicism thing.
>
>>>Well, of course morality existed before the oral tradition
>>>of the torah was written... God's Law has existed since man
>>>has existed. It took thouseands of years before oral
>>>tradition was written.
>>Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't
>>wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?
>
>No. That's the difference.
Disagree. Look at chimpanzees. They too have a hierarchical society, they don't wantonly kill or steal from each other, and the mother-child bond is very strong with chimpanzees too.
>
>>>I never said I had anything other than faith to counter your
>>>theory... faith gives morals an ultimate purpose... if I
>>>don't have faith, it really doesn't matter, morally, what I
>>>choose to do, and any "morality" I choose to pratice
>>>thereafter is a result of fear.
>>That's just what religious faith is based on, as far as I'm
>>concerned. Fear of damnation. I've got no faith(in the
>>religious sense), and it's not "fear of being caught" that
>>stops me from killing, or raping, or stealing money from my
>>parents.
>
>what is it then? that was the whole point of my post. what
>is it that compels you to love others?
Well I'd say it's cause I'm fairly well-adjusted and I grew up in a loving home. Some people don't, and their "moral sense" may be skewed as a consequence. I've contended with Inverse before that if you grew up and you were taught that stealing wasn't wrong, you wouldn't feel any guilt over it, you'd only be annoyed if you got caught.
>
>>>lol. If you ever read a piece of Buddhist doctrine, you
>>>would see that any notion of "faith" is meaningless to a
>>>Buddhist. It is written in Buddhist doctrine that
>>>contemplation of the metaphysical is pointless, and that
>>>everything can be attained through knowledge.
>>>
>>>Please, please study some religious doctine before you waste
>>>my time with this stuff... I'm a classics scholar with a
>>>religious studies emphasis. I really don't think you're
>>>going to prove me wrong on religious fundamentals... I'm
>>>pretty horrible at math though. Peace,
>
>>Good. I'll take Buddhism over Christianity then, in a
>>heartbeat.
>
>If that were possible, I'd wish you the best of luck, but
>since one is a philosophy, you probably shouldn't attempt
>this because the two can virtually coexist. Peace,
I'm saying, I'd rather have people live by a non-violent philosophy than religion, which can so easily be twisted to suit violent aims.

for your perspective man. we just disagree, you know? peace,

then yeah, we just agree to disagree.

>>How about the Holocaust? Could it not have been a
>>possibility that this was universally wrong and that those
>>involved in this atrocious act KNEW it was wrong, but lied
>>to themselves in order to commit it, for power's sake?

>I don't think they all knew it was wrong. I think some of
>them actually believed in it, and even liked it.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked if this was a POSSIBILITY, which even your sinicism cannot deny that it is.

>I understood what you were saying from the start. I just got
>sidetracked by the Catholicism thing.

alright.

>>>Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't
>>>wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?
>>
>>No. That's the difference.
>Disagree. Look at chimpanzees. They too have a hierarchical
>society, they don't wantonly kill or steal from each other,
>and the mother-child bond is very strong with chimpanzees
>too.

Ok.. I was incorrect in saying that morals don't exist in the animal kingdom because, obviously, on some level they do. But the statement was made in context with human morality, which I believe is vast different and more complex than that of a chimp. I believe the biggest difference is that we have the choice to obey or disobey our morality, whereas a chimp does not.

>>what is it then? that was the whole point of my post. what
>>is it that compels you to love others?

>Well I'd say it's cause I'm fairly well-adjusted and I grew
>up in a loving home. Some people don't, and their "moral
>sense" may be skewed as a consequence. I've contended with
>Inverse before that if you grew up and you were taught that
>stealing wasn't wrong, you wouldn't feel any guilt over it,
>you'd only be annoyed if you got caught.

I just disagree... both sides are rational, I just believe people innately know, regardless of upbringing, the difference. I mean, I could watch my father beat my mother as a child and know that it was wrong (scenario.. didn't happen to me, but friends.. you know)...

>I'm saying, I'd rather have people live by a non-violent
>philosophy than religion, which can so easily be twisted to
>suit violent aims.

i totally agree that it's easier to skew religion, but all philosophy ultimately is is questions upon questions.

>>>How about the Holocaust? Could it not have been a
>>>possibility that this was universally wrong and that those
>>>involved in this atrocious act KNEW it was wrong, but lied
>>>to themselves in order to commit it, for power's sake?
>
>>I don't think they all knew it was wrong. I think some of
>>them actually believed in it, and even liked it.
>
>I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked if this was a
>POSSIBILITY, which even your sinicism cannot deny that it
>is.
Yes, it is a possibility. But being as how there are people out there who are sick and twisted and hateful, my knowledge of human nature tells me that, out of the millions of people who were complicit (or the thousands who actually did it), some of them liked it, and did not feel it was wrong. My cynicism tells me that this number of people is probably even higher than most of us would like to think about. You honestly think that they all knew it was wrong, in the back of their minds? You think that every murderer, every thief, every prison guard who gets off on beating the prisoners feels remorse?

>
>
>>>>Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't
>>>>wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?
>>>
>>>No. That's the difference.
>>Disagree. Look at chimpanzees. They too have a hierarchical
>>society, they don't wantonly kill or steal from each other,
>>and the mother-child bond is very strong with chimpanzees
>>too.
>
>Ok.. I was incorrect in saying that morals don't exist in
>the animal kingdom because, obviously, on some level they
>do. But the statement was made in context with human
>morality, which I believe is vast different and more complex
>than that of a chimp. I believe the biggest difference is
>that we have the choice to obey or disobey our morality,
>whereas a chimp does not.
Yeah, it is more complex, 'cause chimpanzees don't have mail fraud and things like that. But just because chimpanzees can't talk about their morality like we do, that doesn't mean they all conform strictly to it. But to say that they have no choice whether to obey or disobey their morality, do you mean to say that all animals behave the exact same way (by species or group?) Or that they are incapable of "breaking the rules"?
>
>>>what is it then? that was the whole point of my post. what
>>>is it that compels you to love others?
>
>>Well I'd say it's cause I'm fairly well-adjusted and I grew
>>up in a loving home. Some people don't, and their "moral
>>sense" may be skewed as a consequence. I've contended with
>>Inverse before that if you grew up and you were taught that
>>stealing wasn't wrong, you wouldn't feel any guilt over it,
>>you'd only be annoyed if you got caught.
>
>I just disagree... both sides are rational, I just believe
>people innately know, regardless of upbringing, the
>difference. I mean, I could watch my father beat my mother
>as a child and know that it was wrong (scenario.. didn't
>happen to me, but friends.. you know)...
What about serial killers? Do you think they really know that what they're doing is wrong?
>
>>I'm saying, I'd rather have people live by a non-violent
>>philosophy than religion, which can so easily be twisted to
>>suit violent aims.
>
>i totally agree that it's easier to skew religion, but all
>philosophy ultimately is is questions upon questions.
Philosophy is a system of looking at the world, just like religion is. The difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that religion says, "we have all the answers because God told us so", whereas philosophy says "we've tried to figure things out to the best of our ability, and here's what we've come up with".

>Yes, it is a possibility. But being as how there are people
>out there who are sick and twisted and hateful, my knowledge
>of human nature tells me that, out of the millions of people
>who were complicit (or the thousands who actually did it),
>some of them liked it, and did not feel it was wrong. My
>cynicism tells me that this number of people is probably
>even higher than most of us would like to think about. You
>honestly think that they all knew it was wrong, in the back
>of their minds? You think that every murderer, every thief,
>every prison guard who gets off on beating the prisoners
>feels remorse?

Well, the further one strays from morality, the more difficult it is to turn around. But, deep down, yes, I believe all who sin feel remorse.

But to say that they
>have no choice whether to obey or disobey their morality, do
>you mean to say that all animals behave the exact same way
>(by species or group?) Or that they are incapable of
>"breaking the rules"?

They are incapable of breaking the rules is a good way to put it. There is no conscious choice to obey or disobey... there are simply instincts that are followed based on rewards and punishment.

>>I just disagree... both sides are rational, I just believe
>>people innately know, regardless of upbringing, the
>>difference. I mean, I could watch my father beat my mother
>>as a child and know that it was wrong (scenario.. didn't
>>happen to me, but friends.. you know)...
>What about serial killers? Do you think they really know
>that what they're doing is wrong?

Well, in most cases, you are now talking about a brain malfunction, which is a physical disability. Could it be possible that these people know what they're doing is wrong, but have no control over their actions? I think so... it's abstract, but I think so...

>>i totally agree that it's easier to skew religion, but all
>>philosophy ultimately is is questions upon questions.
>Philosophy is a system of looking at the world, just like
>religion is. The difference, as far as I'm concerned, is
>that religion says, "we have all the answers because God
>told us so", whereas philosophy says "we've tried to figure
>things out to the best of our ability, and here's what we've
>come up with".

There it is, although one is "here is what we've come up with", and the other is "here is what we have concluded, but cannot physically rationalize".

Due to zealous religous conviction matched against strong intellectaully charged rebuttals this agrument will get no answer and will be reduced to petty bickering over the existance of god and the validity of faith.

Which also will lead to nothing but more bickering how about everybody take their opinions and go home read and stay in their own little box like we are gonna do any way.

>Let's say for a second that there is no God. Given that
>there is no God, DOES IT MATTER if I blow up the world?
>
>No God = No morality

Upon what does God base his/her/its/their morals? Does it matter when God causes a multi-year drought in a famine-stricken nation?

--I'm Joe Castleman

Have , will

>Upon what does God base his/her/its/their morals? Does it
>matter when God causes a multi-year drought in a
>famine-stricken nation?


damn good question... I'll be back.

>Upon what does God base his/her/its/their morals?

This is the problem with human rationality... God is Good... Good is God... it is intrinsically impossible, even for God, to be evil. Therefore, God doesn't base his morals on anything, because morals are based on the Divine existence of God.

Does it
>matter when God causes a multi-year drought in a
>famine-stricken nation?

Only if you are in a materialistic mindset. God's goal is to bring us closer to Him, and sometimes poverty is means for this goal. In all honesty, I never realized how far I was from Him until I went to Honduras and witnessed people with nothing who were more content than anyone I've ever come across in the States. Peace,

>>Upon what does God base his/her/its/their morals?
>
>This is the problem with human rationality...

Well, then I guess I've been dealt a bum hand. But that's what I was born with, and though it isn't much, I yam what I yam and I'm sticking with it.

If I were God, I would have given us something better than human rationality (like, maybe, whatever God has).

>Does it
>>matter when God causes a multi-year drought in a
>>famine-stricken nation?
>
>Only if you are in a materialistic mindset. God's goal is
>to bring us closer to Him, and sometimes poverty is means
>for this goal.

Oh man, that's just screwy. Wouldn't it be simpler (and less painful) just to put all of us in Heaven to begin with? (And please don't tell me we can simply blame this on Eve eating an apple.) And along the same lines, should we stop trying to alleviate poverty, because to do so might delay billions of souls from reaching Heaven that much faster? For that matter, going back to the question about blowing up the world, wouldn't that just speed up the process for all of us (i.e. getting to Heaven) anyway? So why work to improve anything?

I wasn't even going to spend more time on this post, because we both know that neither of us are going to change each other's minds. But this just doesn't make sense - again, chalk it up to my "human rationality" - I couldn't let this one go.

--I'm Joe Castleman

Have , will

>Well, then I guess I've been dealt a bum hand. But that's
>what I was born with, and though it isn't much, I yam what I
>yam and I'm sticking with it.
>
>If I were God, I would have given us something better than
>human rationality (like, maybe, whatever God has).

lol... that was funny.

however, is it really rational to give a human characteristic to GOD? I mean, it's GOD... I believe God rests eternally outside the universe, so there is no rationalizing Him while we are finite, because we cannot comprehend something that is eternal. We can, however, comprehend something that is everlasting.

>Oh man, that's just screwy. Wouldn't it be simpler (and
>less painful) just to put all of us in Heaven to begin with?

This would do away with morality and free will.

> (And please don't tell me we can simply blame this on Eve
>eating an apple.) And along the same lines, should we stop
>trying to alleviate poverty, because to do so might delay
>billions of souls from reaching Heaven that much faster?

no. morality doesn't exist without heaven or hell, IMO. otherwise it is useless.

>For that matter, going back to the question about blowing up
>the world, wouldn't that just speed up the process for all
>of us (i.e. getting to Heaven) anyway? So why work to
>improve anything?

because there is a heaven and hell.

>I wasn't even going to spend more time on this post, because
>we both know that neither of us are going to change each
>other's minds. But this just doesn't make sense - again,
>chalk it up to my "human rationality" - I couldn't let this
>one go.

i dig your humor. hope i communicate rationally. peace,

>>Well, then I guess I've been dealt a bum hand. But that's
>>what I was born with, and though it isn't much, I yam what I
>>yam and I'm sticking with it.
>>
>>If I were God, I would have given us something better than
>>human rationality (like, maybe, whatever God has).
>
>lol... that was funny.

We aim to please!

>however, is it really rational to give a human
>characteristic to GOD? I mean, it's GOD... I believe God
>rests eternally outside the universe, so there is no
>rationalizing Him while we are finite . . .

Wow, we're in complete agreement on that first sentence! But - if He/She/It/They are beyond description, comprehension, etc. then I also don't comprehend why He/She/It/They would be overly concerned with, for example, what the two guys who live down the street are up to right now.

>>Oh man, that's just screwy. Wouldn't it be simpler (and
>>less painful) just to put all of us in Heaven to begin with?
>
>This would do away with morality and free will.

I don't really have a problem with that. Why should we have to "earn" our way in to Heaven? (Actually I think the Protestant work ethic is tied into this - in a more general sense, that one must suffer before receiving a reward.) Why couldn't we just be there to begin with?

(We could get into a whole thing about the meaning of "free will" - Doesn't free will mean I can teleport myself to Hawaii, if I will it? This could just be a limitation of language, but hey, that's what we've got available to work with here.)

(And then there's the whole thing, without suffering, could we have Heaven? Wouldn't you have to know suffering to know what Paradise would be like without suffering? Well hey, it's God, He/She/It/They makes the rules, I say put us all in Heaven from the get-go.)

>> (And please don't tell me we can simply blame this on Eve
>>eating an apple.) And along the same lines, should we stop
>>trying to alleviate poverty, because to do so might delay
>>billions of souls from reaching Heaven that much faster?
>
>no. morality doesn't exist without heaven or hell, IMO.
>otherwise it is useless.

Perhaps an interesting side note - I've read various descriptions of Judaism that say it does not really include a belief in hell. Sin, yes, but not hell. Not sure where/when the punishment would come in.

>i dig your humor. hope i communicate rationally. peace,

Cool!

--I'm Joe Castleman

Have , will

>>however, is it really rational to give a human
>>characteristic to GOD? I mean, it's GOD... I believe God
>>rests eternally outside the universe, so there is no
>>rationalizing Him while we are finite . . .
>
>Wow, we're in complete agreement on that first sentence!
>But - if He/She/It/They are beyond description,
>comprehension, etc. then I also don't comprehend why
>He/She/It/They would be overly concerned with, for example,
>what the two guys who live down the street are up to right
>now.

(Let's just stick with "He" while we're in this discussion.. I know what you mean by your various pronoun apporoach)

God created angels and man to worship Him... after that, it's man's choice.

>>This would do away with morality and free will.
>
>I don't really have a problem with that.

*chuckle

You would have no consciousness, nothing... you wouldn't exist, so of course you wouldn't.

Why should we have
>to "earn" our way in to Heaven? (Actually I think the
>Protestant work ethic is tied into this - in a more general
>sense, that one must suffer before receiving a reward.) Why
>couldn't we just be there to begin with?

We were, and we screwed ourselves over with the help of fallen "sons of God" and the start of the Nephilim.

>(We could get into a whole thing about the meaning of "free
>will" - Doesn't free will mean I can teleport myself to
>Hawaii, if I will it? This could just be a limitation of
>language, but hey, that's what we've got available to work
>with here.)

It is, essentially, the choice between right and wrong. The discussion itself is absurdly long.

>(And then there's the whole thing, without suffering, could
>we have Heaven? Wouldn't you have to know suffering to know
>what Paradise would be like without suffering? Well hey,
>it's God, He/She/It/They makes the rules, I say put us all
>in Heaven from the get-go.)

Sin is the cause of suffering, and it is inevitable that we sin. Putting us in heaven from the get-go what was He did, and then we decided our ego outruled God.

>Perhaps an interesting side note - I've read various
>descriptions of Judaism that say it does not really include
>a belief in hell. Sin, yes, but not hell. Not sure
>where/when the punishment would come in.

What you have read is correct. However, Jews don't believe in heaven either. What they believe in, as stated by the Old Testament, is a place similar or the same the Greek Hades, called She'ol. This is sort of a grim afterlife which locks the soul up until the "resurrection". Christians believe this happened through Christ, which enabled the choice between heaven and void from God, whatever that may be. The descriptions of hell in the NT are rash and frightening because, ultimately, life without God means life without good, or possibly life without anything.

Based on my studies, Judaism of today is incorrect because heaven is now enabled, through Christ. Before Christ, you see a rich tradition of long lives and prosperity ("live long and prosper" is a Jewish saying... spock and captain kirk, Jews...), which menat that God rewarded those who served Him DURING their lifetime, as opposed to their afterlife. Based on my Greek studies, I believe it was Enoch, rather than Christ, who spoke to the "souls in prison" (2 Peter) and converted them... this is a long lesson, homie.

peace,

No?

>Only if you are in a materialistic mindset. God's goal is
>to bring us closer to Him, and sometimes poverty is means
>for this goal. In all honesty, I never realized how far I
>was from Him until I went to Honduras and witnessed people
>with nothing who were more content than anyone I've ever
>come across in the States. Peace,

Being raised Catholic instills you with a certain stoic contentment with life's inevitable miseries (and I'm only half-kidding about that - ha ha)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I managed to survive at all.
It was, of course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth
your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable
Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood." - Frank McCourt

>Being raised Catholic instills you with a certain stoic
>contentment with life's inevitable miseries (and I'm only
>half-kidding about that - ha ha)

I'm lost as to what stoic contentment could possibly mean... isn't that virtually an oxymoron?

>I'm lost as to what stoic contentment could possibly mean...
>isn't that virtually an oxymoron?

Uh, no, it's actually pretty central to stoic philosophy.

But I was really just kidding about this, don't take it too seriously.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

You just illustrated Luke's point in your other post about G-Dub and his quote about the world being freer and safer with him in power.

the jist being that you can in fact induce a whole lot of order and safety with an iron grip... read Orwell.

but why Morality then?

that the ONLY way of imposing order on people is to kill all of them. Then you still end up with a society governed by morals, albeit a society of one.

>that the ONLY way of imposing order on people is to kill all
>of them. Then you still end up with a society governed by
>morals, albeit a society of one.

governed by what morals? you're saying whatever the dictator decided was right (in this case killing everybody), would be THE moral standard for that society? If feels like you're ignoring the possiblity that people can lie to themselves. I don't think we should have this debate under the stipulation that humans act as as humans truly believe they should act all the time... that seems very unrealistic to me.

I know personally that I am capable of acting in the very opposite manner than I KNOW I should act. Not in a manner opposite to one that I've been taught is acceptable, but that KNEW was right. Why should I not assume that both you, and this crazed dictator don't feel similarly about your own lives. Why should all manner of human similarities exist and not this?
Question, have you cried before? Why do humans have this emotion... what does it mean to be "wronged", truly wronged. Is it just a function of what that particular culture at that time thinks is wrong... do your emotions run deeper than that?


I don't know of many societies where man are promoted for skipping work, awarder honors for running away, etc...
They might very well exist, somewhere, eh? But color-blind people also exist... they can't see it... however... colors remain objective fact based on light available.

am I coming across?


peace.

and what happens afterwards. If we knew for a fact that after we die, we went to a magical Utopia, we wouldn't be scared of death, and we wouldn't really feel anything wrong with sending people there.

It would be a blessing, and this life would be a complete waste of time, and stress.

Then, we'd have no problem doing whatever, 'cause we'd feel personally safe.

>and what happens afterwards. If we knew for a fact that
>after we die, we went to a magical Utopia, we wouldn't be
>scared of death, and we wouldn't really feel anything wrong
>with sending people there.

ok, so you're saying that the basis for morality basically comes down to rational or irrational faith, correct? well, most people who have this faith you're referring to believe in not only a utopia, but a void from that utopia (my personal example is heaven and hell--hell being void from God), which they believe justifies their right and wrong doings. Morality certainly wouldn't matter if we were all going to heaven.

>It would be a blessing, and this life would be a complete
>waste of time, and stress.

if heaven was our only choice, I would agree, but the sole existence of morality, in my opinion, rests in the eternal choice we're given.

>Then, we'd have no problem doing whatever, 'cause we'd feel
>personally safe.

but most people have the underlying sense that morality DOES matter, so the choice ignore that morality must have some sort of consequence... if it matters...

>and what happens afterwards. If we knew for a fact that
>after we die, we went to a magical Utopia, we wouldn't be
>scared of death, and we wouldn't really feel anything wrong
>with sending people there.

Yes, you're right. If we all knew for SURE that after this life something perfect was promised for us REGARDLESS of how we acted, that seems like it would pretty much negate any need for morality.

However, morality is the phenomenon of the "SHOULD".

And the fact that it exists begs a question.

Since we agree that it exists we should move onto the next point and see where we diverge.

You say that it's construct, I say that it exists apart from whether we acknowledge it or not.

We did not "invent" it.

We "discovered" it.

Those are two HUGELY different things in this case.

If we invented it, as a lack of a creator unquestioningly suggests, which is what you're saying, then who is to say any one moral standard is greater than another.

If you say we invented it, then you cannot compare moralities.

For to compare, there must be something to be compared againts, there has to be a standard, a bar to raise.

If you think that in a couple crucial respects, contemporary Switzerland is more moral than Nazi Germany, then you have already acknowledged that there is an idea of "morality" that BOTH are being compared against to determine which is a modern/reformed/enlightened morality, and which one is decrepid, insidious, evil, and based in hate.

Do you see that?

Now we HAVE to draw the line between the idea of MORALITY being human construct, and MORAL GUIDELINES or "Man-made laws" being human consruct.

One is the absolute, the standard. The other, is a rule developed to reach that standard as best as possible.

I'm not contending that MORAL GUIDELINES are not human construct. I'm contending that the idea of MORALITY could not possibly be.

If you are going to tell me that MORALITY is human construct then you are telling me that I am free to act in any way I please, to define my own morality (let's be extreme for illustration.. killing, raping, etc..), because there is no way to say one is better than the other. You are telling me that I'm free to act in a way that encroaches on your morals, yet I am completely blameless in doing so, because your morals are not my morals. You're saying it's all completely subjective.

But you're not saying that directly. You're masking it with the argument that logic would dictate that most humans would know not to act so contrarily to others rights and interest because it wouldn't be in the interest of order or society.

However that argument falls down again with the illustration of an absolute dictatorship where the ruler maintains command by intimidation through torture and murder.

That society stands the potential, lots of potential, to run in a more orderly fashion than we could ever hope of functioning.

In other words... shit would get DONE!

So you cannot say that we invented morality cause it is necessary for order in the society.

It is demonstrative that that goal can be achieved through other means.

"Yes but other means wouldn't be fair"... really?

Fair COMPARED to what.

Hitler had it in his head that he had the green light... who are you to subject him to your moral principles?

Unless of course you truly feel that you have a more enlightened view than he... right?


peace.

>You say that it's construct, I say that it exists apart from
>whether we acknowledge it or not.
>We did not "invent" it.
>We "discovered" it.
>Those are two HUGELY different things in this case.
>
>If we invented it, as a lack of a creator unquestioningly
>suggests, which is what you're saying, then who is to say
>any one moral standard is greater than another.
>
>If you say we invented it, then you cannot compare
>moralities.
>
Why would you want to compare moralities? Why not leave it alone, why not allow people to live in thier own society instead of feeling the need to compare it with your own? This seems to be indicitave of a larger problem with western society. The idea that the one idea is better than another and the worse idea ought to realize it.

>For to compare, there must be something to be compared
>againts, there has to be a standard, a bar to raise.
>
Again, why compare? Even more so, why compare against? This seems especially combative.

>If you think that in a couple crucial respects, contemporary
>Switzerland is more moral than Nazi Germany, then you have
>already acknowledged that there is an idea of "morality"
>that BOTH are being compared against to determine which is
>a modern/reformed/enlightened morality, and which one is
>decrepid, insidious, evil, and based in hate.
>
Flawed arguement. If you insist on comparing at least compare within the construct of time, i.e. Nazi Germany vs. 1940's U.S. or Canada or something. Without at least working within the context of time you don't allow for evolution of the Human Species and its collective consciousness. I mean collective consciousness as an idea kept within tangible sources not an otherworldly connection of human souls, example, books and literature.

>Do you see that?
>
Nope

>Now we HAVE to draw the line between the idea of MORALITY
>being human construct, and MORAL GUIDELINES or "Man-made
>laws" being human consruct.

Probably a good idea to draw that line
>
>One is the absolute, the standard. The other, is a rule
>developed to reach that standard as best as possible.
>I'm not contending that MORAL GUIDELINES are not human
>construct. I'm contending that the idea of MORALITY could
>not possibly be.

Why not?
>
>If you are going to tell me that MORALITY is human construct
>then you are telling me that I am free to act in any way I
>please, to define my own morality (let's be extreme for
>illustration.. killing, raping, etc..), because there is no
>way to say one is better than the other. You are telling me
>that I'm free to act in a way that encroaches on your
>morals, yet I am completely blameless in doing so, because
>your morals are not my morals. You're saying it's all
>completely subjective.
>
You are free to act in any way that you please. Thats the entire idea behind "free will". But your examples are off target anyway. When you use an extreme example of behavior that falls under the your idea of MORAL GUIDELINES, you negate your entire arguement. Even still, by adding the concept of blame you add in the idea of judgement, which if you'd like to add to this conversation some parameters will need to be drawn. But within my previously mentioned idea of a human collective conscious found in human art, history, ect... you still would, classically be blamed for your behavior, not blameless.

>But you're not saying that directly. You're masking it with
>the argument that logic would dictate that most humans would
>know not to act so contrarily to others rights and interest
>because it wouldn't be in the interest of order or society.
>
Humans probably do behave within the confines of society. I agree with you there.

>However that argument falls down again with the illustration
>of an absolute dictatorship where the ruler maintains
>command by intimidation through torture and murder.
>That society stands the potential, lots of potential, to run
>in a more orderly fashion than we could ever hope of
>functioning.
>In other words... shit would get DONE!
>
Yea lots of shit would get done, including Nepotism, which has been one of the many downfalls of dictatorship. The Nepotism that dictatorships usually have increase the effect that bribery has on the system, subsequently subverting the system over time. This coulpled with Cronyism and the fact that a dictator would not stand for punishments being dolled out evenly across his society generally causes unrest and larger problems. While dictatorship does solve some of the problems of buerocracy, its not a very good system for the masses in practice and usually the masses don't stand for it.

>So you cannot say that we invented morality cause it is
>necessary for order in the society.
>
No I can say that. But even more relevant is the fact that Morality has little to do with an orderly society. Society has many things in it that help to create order, cops, laws, punishment, education, ect...

>It is demonstrative that that goal can be achieved through
>other means.
>
>"Yes but other means wouldn't be fair"... really?
>
>Fair COMPARED to what.
>
I'm not quite sure what this is in reference to.

>Hitler had it in his head that he had the green light... who
>are you to subject him to your moral principles?
>
I'm nobody really.

>Unless of course you truly feel that you have a more
>enlightened view than he... right?
>
I sincerely hope that I am more "moral" than Hitler. Generally I chalk that up to Humility more than anything else though. If I was Hitler I wouldn't have opened up a second front in the war and probably would have won the war as a result. Of course Hitler was kind of an meglomanical mass murderer, kind of like a protege of Charlamagne, except without the need to have "God" justify his actions. This was a bonus for Hitler b/c he could act quickly and decisevly, in other words shit got done.
>
>peace.

PEACE, now thats something that I can easily agree on

The following two statements were just made by you, and they contradict eachother. This is what you just said...

1)
>Why would you want to compare moralities? Why not leave it
>alone, why not allow people to live in thier own society
>instead of feeling the need to compare it with your own?

and then...

2)
>I sincerely hope that I am more "moral" than Hitler.


You have just admitted that there is a guage of morality with which you are measuring yourself as compared to Hitler. Yet at the same time your argument DEPENDS on that not being the case.

I don't wish to antagonize you, but if you cannot see that, you need to do some more thinking on this subject before contending your stance, because it lack's sense.

Look again.


I'd like to address all the points you just tried to make... but there is no reason to do so yet because all are dependent on the point you failed to make. Reconcile your contradicting statements before we go on, please.

once again,
peace.

>
>The following two statements were just made by you, and they
>contradict eachother. This is what you just said...
>
>1)
>>Why would you want to compare moralities? Why not leave it
>>alone, why not allow people to live in thier own society
>>instead of feeling the need to compare it with your own?
>
>and then...
>
>2)
>>I sincerely hope that I am more "moral" than Hitler.
>
>
>You have just admitted that there is a guage of morality
>with which you are measuring yourself as compared to Hitler.
> Yet at the same time your argument DEPENDS on that not
>being the case.
>
At what point exactly did I deny the existence of a "Gauge of Morality". My arguement has nothing to do with the lack of a gauge. Personally I find no need to compare myself with Hitler, and I don't, although, if I were to compare I sincerely hope that I am more Moral than Hitler.

>I don't wish to antagonize you, but if you cannot see that,
>you need to do some more thinking on this subject before
>contending your stance, because it lack's sense.
>
Your not antagonizing me I appreciate the conversation, and yet I find nothing in my arguement for Morality that doesn't make sense. Its logically sound.

>Look again.
>
I did.
>
>I'd like to address all the points you just tried to make...
>but there is no reason to do so yet because all are
>dependent on the point you failed to make. Reconcile your
>contradicting statements before we go on, please.

There isn't anything contrtadictory in what I said. Take first and foremost that I said "if you insist on comparing" and then began my arguement. My arguement was pretty simple, there is morality, it has nothing to do with God, it has to do with the evolution of humanity. Gods own Humanity, if I may use that as something similar (though certainly not the same) to morality, has been awfully tough sometimes. Humanity has had rough going of it too, even more so with Morality. But, Humanities Morality has evolved, like I said.

>once again,
>peace.

if you believe there is no absolute morality to be strived for... then you CANNOT claim there bas been moral progress or moral evolution.

you CANNOT say "I sincerely hope that I'm MORE moral than Hitler"....

because if there is no standard to which you and Hitler are appealing... then there is no way to compare.

you are contradicting yourself.

Instead of just assuming that you know what I'm going to say.

First
"if you believe there is no absolute morality to be strived for... then you CANNOT claim there bas been moral progress or moral evolution."

I never said that there is no Absolute Morality. Although, I don't believe there is. And I CAN claim that there has been Moral Evolution, ecpecially since I never claimed Moral Progress. Evolution is what it is, its a change, would you be so brash as to say that Humanity has not Morally evolved.

you CANNOT say "I sincerely hope that I'm MORE moral than Hitler"

Yes I can.

because if there is no standard to which you and Hitler are appealing... then there is no way to compare.

There are plenty of standards to compare myself and Hitler with. Morality is one of them. Morality exists, I don't deny that. Appealing is the wrong word though. I think that you mean addhearing. In this case, I can still say it. I can hope whatever I want, I don't deny the existence of Morals. Its possible I'm sure to compare me and Hitler, and our Morality, allthough I think its silly to do because we aren't similar. He is a historical figure I am not, he weilded control over a whole country, I control a Chevy Lumina and thats about it. If you want to jump on someone for a contradiction at least be correct when you do it.

Peace

would you say that you are more moral than Hitler?

I believe this is a yes/no question. It will be interesting to see if you feel the same.

By my estimation of the current set of morals that exist in todays society I think that I am more Moral then Hitler, so Yes. Generally though I wouldn't compare myself to others. In my experience comparison of oneself to others is not as fruitful a venture as comparing ones self to one self.
I patiently await the furthering of our convo
peace

>By my estimation of the current set of morals that exist in
>todays society

do you mean morals like:
-not hurting others
-not infringing on anothers right to live (don't murder)
-protecting one's family
-being honest and fair in business practice

???

I'm curious if those are the kind of basic morals your talking about, and if so, I'm curious why you think that ideas like those are not universal.


I think that I am more Moral then Hitler, so
>Yes. Generally though I wouldn't compare myself to others.


However you did. You said "I'm more moral than Hitler"... and correct me if I'm wrong... but I'm assuming you were basing that statement off of those previously mentioned basic morals (give or take a few) right? Those pesky, recurring, universal ideas about how we should treat eachother. Am I wrong that those are some of the criteria you might use in weighing oneself against Adolph?


>In my experience comparison of oneself to others is not as
>fruitful a venture as comparing ones self to one self.

And when you compare yourself to "yourself". This other "self". This measuring stick that you use when you "check yo' self"... where does it come from? How do you determine whether you are making personal moral progress or not?


>I patiently await the furthering of our convo
>peace


peace.

>>By my estimation of the current set of morals that exist in
>>todays society
>
>do you mean morals like:
>-not hurting others
>-not infringing on anothers right to live (don't murder)
>-protecting one's family
>-being honest and fair in business practice
>
Yea I mean all of the above
>
>I'm curious if those are the kind of basic morals your
>talking about, and if so, I'm curious why you think that
>ideas like those are not universal.
>
I believe that they are likely universal. I also believe that they have evolved somewhat. I think in an examination of those "morals" that you mentioned you might find that they have changed somewhat. Likely though, the general meaning of them has remained mostly unchanged.

>
> I think that I am more Moral then Hitler, so
>>Yes. Generally though I wouldn't compare myself to others.
>
>
>However you did. You said "I'm more moral than Hitler"...
>and correct me if I'm wrong... but I'm assuming you were
>basing that statement off of those previously mentioned
>basic morals (give or take a few) right? Those pesky,
>recurring, universal ideas about how we should treat
>eachother. Am I wrong that those are some of the criteria
>you might use in weighing oneself against Adolph?
>
You are Dead wrong actually at least about the part that I said. Example

inVerse (post 16)
Hitler had it in his head that he had the green light... who are you to subject him to your moral principles?
Unless of course you truly feel that you have a more enlightened view than he... right?

aisflat439 (in response to 16)
I'm nobody really. I sincerely hope that I am more "moral" than Hitler. Generally I chalk that up to Humility more than anything else though. If I was Hitler I wouldn't have opened up a second front in the war and probably would have won the war as a result.

>>In my experience comparison of oneself to others is not as
>>fruitful a venture as comparing ones self to one self.
>
>And when you compare yourself to "yourself". This other
>"self". This measuring stick that you use when you "check
>yo' self"... where does it come from? How do you determine
>whether you are making personal moral progress or not?
>
This is an interesting question. It comes from a lot of things though. The books I read, movies I watch, people I talk to, and my own percecptions of the world. I would love to say that when I compare myself to myself that I find that I have grown. But, alas this is not always the case. I find that I have been more, Lustful, self-seeking, lazy, and self-absorbed than the ideal me would be. Frequently I check myself with the Seven Deadly Sins because I feel that they are a wonderful guide for self examination. I find Sloth, Pride, and Lust to be the most difficult to tackle. But, as I said earlier they are by no means the only gauge, there are plenty of others, secular one too.
I would like to hear how you check yourself. I know that Asissi found Lust a very difficult feeling to deal with and often spent hours in prayer attempting to rid himself of it for only brief windows of time. I've heard frequently that God will remove someones "leanings toword moral indescretion", usually temporarily, but that generally you must deal with it only with the help of God aiding your strength. How do you determine
>whether you are making personal moral progress or not?

its the fear of what death is.... (angst explains this)

we as humans are inscure with our "finiteness" and it seems most people let morality be confroting....its liek the one thing that keeps u safe... but fuk that dont think of morality...just make decisions on how u feel... if u do blow up a building, and can jsutafy it then fine... then now u can live with urself and ur striat..... but the thing is ....people then worry about afterlife, and what there consequeces will be..... so it does come down to angst for most people... but i dont hink that that is neccicarily ture i dont think u have to be scared of eventually being nothing.... if u can understand that and embrace that then there is no "angst".... so ur morality would jsut be the things u feel as right....if u can justify it... and i dont mean convice urself... i mean really justafy it then do it.....peace.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"only believers of death will die"saul willams

>its the fear of what death is.... (angst explains this)

angst is a synonym for fear... i don't get it.

>we as humans are inscure with our "finiteness" and it seems
>most people let morality be confroting....

can you explain how one can be secure with our "finiteness" when he believes in infinity?

its liek the one
>thing that keeps u safe... but fuk that dont think of
>morality...just make decisions on how u feel...

if "how u feel" is referring to one's innate sense of "right" and "wrong", then you are talking about morality.

if u do blow
>up a building, and can jsutafy it then fine... then now u
>can live with urself and ur striat.....

yeah, but what if I blow up the WORLD and no one is left? does it matter then that I blew up the world?

but the thing is
>....people then worry about afterlife, and what there
>consequeces will be..... so it does come down to angst for
>most people...

so by this argument, you have no morality... what's the point of doing right and wrong if there are no consequences? what's the point in activism if there is no outcome?

but i dont hink that that is neccicarily ture
>i dont think u have to be scared of eventually being
>nothing.... if u can understand that and embrace that then
>there is no "angst".... so ur morality would jsut be the
>things u feel as right....if u can justify it... and i dont
>mean convice urself... i mean really justafy it then do
>it.....peace.....

you are missing my original question. if you do something that is innately, truly, right, where does this decision come from, and why do we have the choice?

There are ways to explain morality through evolution and probability (not only for human society, but also monkies, apes, ants, etc., etc.) see Brian Skyrms "Evolution of The Social Contract." I'm not sure I really buy this theory but it can provide with some interesting insight. The point is, given our finite intellect and capacity for understanding, any logical theory is as good as the next. We simply can't point out the truth without some appeal to "common sense" and good luck defining that.

As to your claim that God is morality, or whatever. You're going to run into some problems unless you clarify. For example, are God and morality one and the same. Is a moral action an embodiment of God? And if so, how do you rectify this with existence of seeming immoral actions, given an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God? Or is it that what God wills is morality (i.e. following the 10 commandments is moral)? In which case it seems that God could have willed the exact opposite and it would still be moral.

You won't ever come to a clear answer until you yourself meet God, if he exists. Its fun and all to consider the possibilities, but you'll eventually have to realize that you won't Know the Truth until judgement day.

The point is,
>given our finite intellect and capacity for understanding,
>any logical theory is as good as the next.

but where is the line? what makes something logical by this reasoning?

We simply can't
>point out the truth without some appeal to "common sense"
>and good luck defining that.

well, according to your last sentence, the only way to consider something a "logical" theory is to base it on its appeal to common sense.

>As to your claim that God is morality, or whatever. You're
>going to run into some problems unless you clarify. For
>example, are God and morality one and the same.

no, morality is the result of Love, of God.

Is a moral
>action an embodiment of God? And if so, how do you rectify
>this with existence of seeming immoral actions, given an
>omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God?

A moral action is not an embodiment of God, but a God-like action. Immoral actions are the result of ego, and ego is what separates man from God.

Or is it that
>what God wills is morality (i.e. following the 10
>commandments is moral)? In which case it seems that God
>could have willed the exact opposite and it would still be
>moral.

This is a contradiction in terminology. God cannot WILL a COMMANDMENT. God makes commandments, and we will ourselves to make the choice to be with him or not, hence free will.

>You won't ever come to a clear answer until you yourself
>meet God, if he exists. Its fun and all to consider the
>possibilities, but you'll eventually have to realize that
>you won't Know the Truth until judgement day.

That's your opinion. The only way to conceive God in this life is through rational faith, which you imply is irrational. When I apply rational faith to morality, I see absolutely no other reason to be here on earth.

No one has answered this question, but I'd like to hear your thought because you give an interesting perspective:

If I blew up the whole world, would it matter?

Peace,

Would it matter to who? Would it matter to me? Maybe, but it depends. If we presuppose the existence of a God, and we presuppose that this entails that we have an afterlife. Then, yes, it probably would matter. But this brings us back to your original point, that morality exists on account of God. If, however, you blow us all up and there is no afterlife, whence we are all reduced to cosmic dust, I want to say that it won't matter. Not unless somewhere in the universe there exists some other intelligent being who can judge our actions according to their moral standards, which at this point we are considering moral standards to be inventions of culture. Even then, though, since their standards are as subjective as ours were, it wouldn't really matter; it wouldn't be either a moral or an immoral action, because such a distinction simply doesn't exist.

It seems that you want to conclude that since we do have morals that God does exist, but that isn't a necessity. As I said before, there are ways to explain our morality through some kind of social evolution and game theory (this is Skyrms main view, and he supports it with evidence and reason and so forth...It is convincing, but only to the point that most sound arguments are. As it is, I don't want to draw any conclusions about the objectivie or subjective quality of morality).

In my previous post I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be on some of the problems that arise from making this relation between God and morality. I don't think I can be as clear as I want to at this point, either. The best I can do is point you towards the theory that got me thinking about it in the first place: Theistic Voluntarism. You will find it in any philosophical dictionary, as well as some interesting points made by Descartes and Plato (see Euthyphro).

This discussion is already getting way out of control in the forum, so if you want to continue the dialogue I'd prefer we kick it to inboxes. Peace and One.

post 52.

>Would it matter to who? Would it matter to me? Maybe, but
>it depends. If we presuppose the existence of a God, and we
>presuppose that this entails that we have an afterlife.
>Then, yes, it probably would matter.

Agreed.

But this brings us
>back to your original point, that morality exists on account
>of God. If, however, you blow us all up and there is no
>afterlife, whence we are all reduced to cosmic dust, I want
>to say that it won't matter.

Agreed.

Not unless somewhere in the
>universe there exists some other intelligent being who can
>judge our actions according to their moral standards, which
>at this point we are considering moral standards to be
>inventions of culture.

I wasn't... I was considering moral standards to be innate on account of all of us being God's children. "Some other intelligent being"... God...

Even then, though, since their
>standards are as subjective as ours were, it wouldn't really
>matter; it wouldn't be either a moral or an immoral action,
>because such a distinction simply doesn't exist.

I'm not referring to another culture's moral standards (alien life forms or my next door neighbor's), because I believe there is one Moral Standard.. God's... You can't honestly believe that the notion of an action such as blowing up the world and murdering everyone would weigh between morality and immorality.... that is, unless you are an atheist.

>It seems that you want to conclude that since we do have
>morals that God does exist, but that isn't a necessity. As
>I said before, there are ways to explain our morality
>through some kind of social evolution and game theory (this
>is Skyrms main view, and he supports it with evidence and
>reason and so forth...It is convincing, but only to the
>point that most sound arguments are. As it is, I don't want
>to draw any conclusions about the objectivie or subjective
>quality of morality).

All i really wanted you to do was answer the question... i'm familiar with theistic voluntarism. What I'm saying is this: if I'm the man with the red button ready to blow up the world, my existence afterwards is either a) meaningless, unconscious void or b) an afterlife. Given there is an afterlife, if I blow up the world with the assumption that the afterlife is a Utopia which we all travel to no matter what, the action is still meaningless. However, if I choose to blow up the world, and there is a heaven or hell waiting for me, suddenly morality MATTERS and EXISTS. Suddenly, there is a reason I'm here. Suddenly, there is God (finite minds are not capable of conceiving God, so there is only rational faith without substance as to what God is). If there is no God, morality simply CANNOT fundamentally exist. Forget evolution, choice cannot exist without consequence. If morality doesn't exist, we have no free will.

>In my previous post I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be on
>some of the problems that arise from making this relation
>between God and morality. I don't think I can be as clear
>as I want to at this point, either. The best I can do is
>point you towards the theory that got me thinking about it
>in the first place: Theistic Voluntarism. You will find it
>in any philosophical dictionary, as well as some interesting
>points made by Descartes and Plato (see Euthyphro).

yeah, I had said I was familiar with this stuff.. I'm a Classics scholar.

>This discussion is already getting way out of control in the
>forum, so if you want to continue the dialogue I'd prefer we
>kick it to inboxes. Peace and One.

I appreciate your effort to answer the one question I had. You were the only one who attempted it. Peace,

sorry, I didn't know your background.

Still, there is the problem of what morals are God's morals. I mean, to stay with your question, it COULD be the case that the person who blows all our asses to smithereens is acting in accordance with the morals of God, say God thinks our egos have gotten too big and he wants us gone. That's just a specific and it doesn't illustrate my point too well. Even if I grant you that morality consists of the things God loves and immorality of those things he hates we still have a problem of distinguishing which actions go where, and under which circumstances an immoral action may be justified. We have no way of accessing God's intellect or of understanding his judgement faculties (or criteria). Therefore we have no way, as humans, of correctly classifying any act as moral or immoral. The most we can do is judge according to our standards and we have no reason to believe that they are the same as Gods or that they even resemble his in any way. Another problem is, what if God changes his mind, which seems perfectly logical with him being all powerful...he can do whatever he wants, right? So then we have the problem of any set of moral actions constantly changing, or the possibility of such change, which renders us completely incapable of ever consciouslly acting in a moral way. To get out of either of those problems we have to make assumptions about God's character...and that just seems ignorant of us to even attempt. Feel?

>sorry, I didn't know your background.
>
>Still, there is the problem of what morals are God's morals.
> I mean, to stay with your question, it COULD be the case
>that the person who blows all our asses to smithereens is
>acting in accordance with the morals of God, say God thinks
>our egos have gotten too big and he wants us gone. That's
>just a specific and it doesn't illustrate my point too well.
> Even if I grant you that morality consists of the things
>God loves and immorality of those things he hates we still
>have a problem of distinguishing which actions go where, and
>under which circumstances an immoral action may be
>justified. We have no way of accessing God's intellect or
>of understanding his judgement faculties (or criteria).
>Therefore we have no way, as humans, of correctly
>classifying any act as moral or immoral. The most we can do
>is judge according to our standards and we have no reason to
>believe that they are the same as Gods or that they even
>resemble his in any way. Another problem is, what if God
>changes his mind, which seems perfectly logical with him
>being all powerful...he can do whatever he wants, right? So
>then we have the problem of any set of moral actions
>constantly changing, or the possibility of such change,
>which renders us completely incapable of ever consciouslly
>acting in a moral way. To get out of either of those
>problems we have to make assumptions about God's
>character...and that just seems ignorant of us to even
>attempt. Feel?

Very valid, but you're giving the God of Abraham human characteristics like a Greek would give Zeus, namean? The God of Abraham is perfect Love, and going with this, you are faced with the eternal question: can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it? My opinion is yes and no. At the same time, it is either one or the other. The God of Abraham is perfect in love, therefore it is intrinsically impossible, even for Him, to sin.

What I'm getting at is this: there are some actions in this life that are undoubtedly wrong. By your reasoning (which I respect), the only flaw I see is atrocities like the Holocaust. Can it not be a possibility that the Holocaust was wrong, without question, and that whoever supported it was a liar and knew, TRULY, that it was wrong?

We don't have Morality. Morals are things to strive for. They are learned behaviors. They are kept within our collective conscious, our books, movies, laws, stories, family traditions ect... They change over time, and evolve, just like we do. Morals and Morality are just ideas.

>We don't have Morality. Morals are things to strive for.
>They are learned behaviors. They are kept within our
>collective conscious, our books, movies, laws, stories,
>family traditions ect... They change over time, and evolve,
>just like we do. Morals and Morality are just ideas.

so you're saying it doesn't matter, then, if I blow up the world and kill everyone?

Sure, but blowing up the world is a complete abstraction. I and firmly believe that it doesn't matter if you blow up the world. Personally of course I'd be dissapointed. There are still things that I hope to accomplish in life that if you blew up the world I'd miss out on but heh, those are the breaks. If you'd like to have a more realistic discussion about morals I'm game.

>Sure, but blowing up the world is a complete abstraction. I
>and firmly believe that it doesn't matter if you blow up the
>world. Personally of course I'd be dissapointed. There are
>still things that I hope to accomplish in life that if you
>blew up the world I'd miss out on but heh, those are the
>breaks. If you'd like to have a more realistic discussion
>about morals I'm game.

In a philosophical/metaphysical debate, questions such as those are going to arise. Sorry if I alienated you.

However, thinking on those terms are what drives me to one conclusion: that morals cannot exist without God. We can create illlusions of morality, I guess, but I still wouldn't understand the foundation of the moral notion--when someone decided this was right and this was wrong. Even if morals were created, there is still no moral purpose, ultimately. As far as moral evolution, when has that happened? I mean, some stuff has varied, but nothing has REALLY changed. We still uphold virtually all the commandments (which are also upheld in virtually every religion and society).

You didn't alienate me, thank you for your condolences though. I appreciate the metaphysical, and attempted to answer your question because of that. I feel though that discusing morality on a smaller more (insert word for personal experience that you and I and others can relate to) can be really fruitful and quite educational.

I believe that the idea of marraige is a good example of a moral evolution. The idea of wives and husband being married because of what the family thinks is good has changed (allthough not everywhere). Also these arrainged marraiges once occured at a very young age, this is less prevelant today also. The idea of marraige because of love, rather then marry then fall in love, is relatively new in Human history. This idea of Love and marraige seems to me to be a good example of a moral, evolving. Do you agree?

The 10 commandments are a good gauge for discussion of Morals. As are the Seven Deadly Sins. I would enjoy setting up some more parameters, possibly the inculsion of Internation Law as something that is Moral?

>You didn't alienate me, thank you for your condolences
>though. I appreciate the metaphysical, and attempted to
>answer your question because of that. I feel though that
>discusing morality on a smaller more (insert word for
>personal experience that you and I and others can relate to)
>can be really fruitful and quite educational.

dig the insert :) heh

>I believe that the idea of marraige is a good example of a
>moral evolution. The idea of wives and husband being
>married because of what the family thinks is good has
>changed (allthough not everywhere). Also these arrainged
>marraiges once occured at a very young age, this is less
>prevelant today also. The idea of marraige because of love,
>rather then marry then fall in love, is relatively new in
>Human history. This idea of Love and marraige seems to me
>to be a good example of a moral, evolving. Do you agree?

Perhaps, and this is definitely a creative example. However, one could also view this as simply a societal law that conformed to morality itself, similarly to the ending of slavery. I wouldn't consider either a moral evolution, but a lawful evolution driven by morality. The moral itself doesn't change.. dig?

>The 10 commandments are a good gauge for discussion of
>Morals. As are the Seven Deadly Sins. I would enjoy
>setting up some more parameters, possibly the inculsion of
>Internation Law as something that is Moral?

Perhaps, but the 10 and 7 are religious and, if one is religious, Divine. By my belief, I don't think of them in inclusion or exclusion, because they are the foundation, but I know what you're saying, and agree for the most part. Peace,

to be honest with you....i am still trying to find morality. and also, i think morality is a product of war.

peace.

i'm thinking it does little good for the convo if you just come in and say that... rather... explain what you mean by it... no?

>to be honest with you....i am still trying to find morality.
>and also, i think morality is a product of war.
>
>peace.

good to hear from you... our previous convos ignited this post.

i would think that war would be the result of ignoring morality... what's your theory? peace,

without morality, (and its codification as a code of laws, and enforcement of them), society would devolve into anarchy, and chaos. When people first started living together in societies, they developed systems of morality that worked for them. These systems have evolved and been refined over time, to the point where you can see the different systems evident in different societies in the world today.

i disagree. i think war breeds "commercial virtue"....i am sorry i am not going into detail, i have a really bad migraine. i'll respond later tonight. hoepfully.

peace.

from your 'Christian, Muslim=swine' posts, to this one today, you never, ever make sense in here. You're not as bad as Aquaman, but you're not that far away from him either.

well...it's nice to know i make an impression. if you read all the posts in the "christian = muslim" post, you would have found some of the points i was attempting to make. i suppose, i work backwards. (reverse enginnering). i am interested in making statements, however controversial, and discussing them, or at least learning from others through debate. i think that is more effective than qouting sources, or...trying to insult ppl by comparison to others. hmm...i don't know why you answered th way you did. i thought it was a bit hostile.

I don't have the time or patience to watch you work out your own confusion on here. If you have a point or counter-argument to make, make it. But don't make cryptic statements where you throw terms around and then don't even bother to define 'em. If you're gonna make an argument, make it as clearly, and concisely, and articulately, as you can from the start. And backing it up with evidence or examples really helps too. Wading through paragraphs of your confusion, while the point being debated is ignored, isn't really to anyone's benefit.

not to gang up or anything... but I have the same complaint about you Tek. And that hit it on the head.

but Johnny,
along the same lines... it seems as if you hold fast to your argument even once it has been countered and requires new support/evidence. In short, it seems you ignore counters to what you're saying.

I'm saying this because you just said society would plummit into anarchy without morality. Yet on this post we've been talking about the rigid structure and effeciency of a society run by an a ruler who enforced his will by intimidation and torture. By maintaining his iron grip, he prevents anarchy.

So, order or (lack of chaos) is possible without Morality.

No?

see, for you morality has an inherently good connotation, so you can't imagine a tyrant's society having "morality". For me, morality is just the set of mores and social norms that are valued by the society in question. The tyrant who rules with an iron fist still doesn't want his subjects wantonly killing each other and robbing from each other, so his system has a morality of its own.

>see, for you morality has an inherently good connotation, so
>you can't imagine a tyrant's society having "morality". For
>me, morality is just the set of mores and social norms that
>are valued by the society in question. The tyrant who rules
>with an iron fist still doesn't want his subjects wantonly
>killing each other and robbing from each other, so his
>system has a morality of its own.

is it not possible, by general human standards, that the tyrant "morality" you describe is essentially just a tyrant lying to himself? i guess i'd have to give the human race a little more credit than that... power can make anyone "believe" their own bullshit.

the way i communicate is different.....when i make such a statement, as i have. i am looking for people who have already thought about it to the point where they can see the assumption, or logic i have used to make that statement without having to explain everything. but it is a very interesting topic and i will reply and give exaples and concise details sometime tonight because i love to debate. i am sorry if i gave the impression of someone who is that ignorant...but...in defense of my ego...i was only stating what seems obvious to me and was looking for those that pick up on it and have the ability to disprove it or add to it. i will take the advise and try to be more clear and some advise on my own...its better for you to reply with your true thoughts on the matter and not your reasoning (comparing me to aqua)...to me..morality..much like reason..is a product of war. and i think we proved, that your reasoning had the potential of a conflict.

peace. ill c u tonight, which means 4am. peace. thanks for the honesty.

what is morality but a method of creating chaos? at least to me, it has been a constant debate and set of questions to every question...eventually, you reach a point, where you just write poetry or short stories, or whatever to be creative.

morality, seems to me a type of practice involving religious ideals. does morality, allow for failure? when does morality turn into, constant neglect of morality itself. morality is a graphic used to market various products..including law. to accept morality into your heart, you are conforming to a set of sanctioned ideals or set of codes to keep you proper. you are conforming...it is impossible to be super moral all the time..you are bound to fail and you do. how can we perceive a sense of morality that unifies us all when we can't stand up to our own set of codes. so, there is constant chaos. or at least a distruvance in the wave. eventually it breaks, and you are left angry. is it possible, that our attempt at deifning our own set of codes clearly points to the fact taht maybe we should stop being moral. because, if others disagree, we are in instant debate, which is really a mental duel. it is seldom that we offer our view points without searching for some satisfaction in it. i suppose ppl can say we practice moral views when we debate. but, do we really? or do we just protect our own perception because we live with fear from time to time.

>morality, seems to me a type of practice involving religious
>ideals. does morality, allow for failure?

a perfect morality is not achievable, but forgiveness (God and man) is one of the fundamental elements of morality, so the circle is complete.

when does morality
>turn into, constant neglect of morality itself.

when people in power start believing their own bullshit.

morality is
>a graphic used to market various products..including law.

if law is a product, then what else besides morality should be used to "market" it?

to
>accept morality into your heart, you are conforming to a set
>of sanctioned ideals or set of codes to keep you proper.

that is against what I'm saying. i don't believe one "accepts" morality, but that we already have it and it's our responsibility to recognize it.

you
>are conforming...it is impossible to be super moral all the
>time..you are bound to fail and you do. how can we perceive
>a sense of morality that unifies us all when we can't stand
>up to our own set of codes.

this is where the notion of forgiveness becomes crucial.

so, there is constant chaos. or
>at least a distruvance in the wave. eventually it breaks,
>and you are left angry. is it possible, that our attempt at
>deifning our own set of codes clearly points to the fact
>taht maybe we should stop being moral. because, if others
>disagree, we are in instant debate, which is really a mental
>duel.

morality's ultimate enemy is power. chaos ensues when the two collide. see africa. see iraq.

it is seldom that we offer our view points without
>searching for some satisfaction in it. i suppose ppl can say
>we practice moral views when we debate. but, do we really?
>or do we just protect our own perception because we live
>with fear from time to time.

On point with this observation. I think a lot of times people debate things irrationally out of fear, for sure. This is one of the fundamental reasons for this posting, because I think there is a general morality that everyone believes they should uphold, but I don't think it is the result of a societal sparkplug. I really, truly believe we all know the difference between right actions and wrong actions. We are born with this discernment. Some very specific laws may vary culturally, but we know the damned difference. Peace,

that was all very interesting. man, i learn a lot from you. okay...

"I really, truly believe we all know the difference between right actions and wrong actions. We are born with this discernment. Some very specific laws may vary culturally, but we know the damned difference. Peace,"

I agree with you. I do think people know the difference between right and wrong. But it is their own version of right and wrong, I do not think there is an oppotunity for an all unifying set of codes to emerge in our current infrastructure. I have been thinking about what Lao Tzu said about cultures. He said, that cultures and races should not mix, because if you can hear the pots and pans of your neighbours, that is enough to know that they are there. Would it be possible to solve, many of our problems, if we simply seperated from eachother. I think morality is a good practice if you are able to practice it objectively. I can't. It is very difficult for me to filter my moral views out of various ideas, and observations. Sometimes, I do not want moral or various codes of behaviour to emerge in me becuase it creates judgement about myself and the people around me. I suppose, this is one of the problems I found with this kind of belief system. It eventually, turns into a moral practice of ALL things. I do not think morality as a practice of virtue is possible. The thought process, can apply to any ridiculous notion or view and when you start accepting it, into your heart, as i said above..you start living in self deception. This has troubled me a lot as well. Basically, how is it possible, to leave morality out of everyday life, and only apply it objectively to situations that are larger, than the small things our lives that can cause us to break down. I would say I am a moral person, I will not even kiill a bug in my home, i'd rather throw it outside and let nature deal with it. The illusion that can come up is...if I do kill it, or if I do hurt someone, mentally, or emotionally...how do I tell myself, that it was okay, when my moral construct tells me it's not.

Does morality allow for forgiveness? I don't think so. I think that is the point where we start to turn to GOD. Or the idea of GOD. Since, the last time we debated, I have found god. But not in the way, that most people believe in god. I suppose, my belief can be labeled as "rent-a-god"....hehe. So you see, I had to develop GOD, in order to compensate for the failed attempts at morality. I can't say that it has helped all that much but it has on a small level. That is the dilemna I face everyday. What is the right way to live life, and how can I do it, with effortless effort with love, and with correct choices, while accepting wrong choices and not beating myself over them after the fact. Find me a key to unlock that, and I will be impressed. Whatever you propose, I will adopt and practice, even if it is christianity. I have lately been fascinated with the idea of "sweet jesus"...and that is the only way I can identify christians and christianity, or at least, the ones that i thoroughly respect like you. I don't think Jesus was a moral being. I think he, had both a very powerful evil character, and a very powerful virtous character. I think he used 1 and the other to fuel himself as a balanced indibidual capable of...well...whatever he did, I don't know, but people remember him thousands of years after the fact, so he must have been able to accomplish something.

Sorry for the ramble. But I think we can have a good conversation here.

peace fam!

>I agree with you. I do think people know the difference
>between right and wrong. But it is their own version of
>right and wrong, I do not think there is an oppotunity for
>an all unifying set of codes to emerge in our current
>infrastructure.

I think about this, and it IS logical, but I still believe moral law is universal. I mean, can you name something that you would think of as a "right" moral action that I would think is "wrong"? It's ridiculously difficult when you actually TRY and apply it. The examples, throughout all cultures, are so few and far between that they might as well be disregarded.

I have been thinking about what Lao Tzu said
>about cultures. He said, that cultures and races should not
>mix, because if you can hear the pots and pans of your
>neighbours, that is enough to know that they are there.

You know, coming from my backround (1/2 white, 1/4 cherokee, 1/4 chilean, and my outside family is so visually mixed it's ridiculous), I would have to totally disagree with Tzu. The cultural diversity of my family is what makes me feel the need to understand cultural differences and break them down. If my family was pure white, native, or hispanic, I would probably be less inclined to concern myself with the world around me.

>Would it be possible to solve, many of our problems, if we
>simply seperated from eachother.

This would certainly work, but like pure moral virtue, the achievement is impossible. I mean, we could have pure moral virtue and many of our problems would be solved as well. The continuous truth is that power always oversteps its boundaries, hence your notion of war, namean?

I think morality is a good
>practice if you are able to practice it objectively. I
>can't. It is very difficult for me to filter my moral views
>out of various ideas, and observations. Sometimes, I do not
>want moral or various codes of behaviour to emerge in me
>becuase it creates judgement about myself and the people
>around me.

This is funny. You are pondering morality with your natural morality :) Just read it. I think the whole trick is to keep it extremely simple... when you do something, check your gut: Is it right, or is it wrong? The trick with judgement is "judge the sin, not the sinner".

I suppose, this is one of the problems I found
>with this kind of belief system. It eventually, turns into a
>moral practice of ALL things.

True. It certainly isn't easy, but the attempt is incredibly fulfilling, and much more meaningful than the choice to ignore it.

I do not think morality as a
>practice of virtue is possible. The thought process, can
>apply to any ridiculous notion or view and when you start
>accepting it, into your heart, as i said above..you start
>living in self deception.

But even with this phrasing you admit it is self-deception. To me, that means you have a good understanding of your own morality and know that it is entirely possible to slip away from it. It's the gut thing man... that's where God puts it, in my opinion. The outside influences are there to either a) remind you of it, or b) distract you from it. But when it comes down the choice, I will put all I have in saying you KNOW, truly KNOW, the difference.

This has troubled me a lot as
>well. Basically, how is it possible, to leave morality out
>of everyday life, and only apply it objectively to
>situations that are larger, than the small things our lives
>that can cause us to break down.

It isn't, because we all truly know we should be applying it to all things.

I would say I am a moral
>person, I will not even kiill a bug in my home, i'd rather
>throw it outside and let nature deal with it. The illusion
>that can come up is...if I do kill it, or if I do hurt
>someone, mentally, or emotionally...how do I tell myself,
>that it was okay, when my moral construct tells me it's not.

The first thing every person has to accept is that we are NOT moral people. All fall short of the glory of God. With this notion, judgement of anyone's moral character should be completely thrown out the window. At the same time, this also means that forgiveness should be given to ANY sin that someone may commit against you (which is the one I struggle consistantly with).

As far as sin, you shouldn't tell yourself that sin is okay. It isn't. For me, this is where prayer comes in. That is where my sin is lifted in forgiveness, and my heart is made pure again. The acknowledgement of the sins we commit are almost as important as making the effort not to commit the sin again. You cannot have one without the other.

>Does morality allow for forgiveness? I don't think so. I
>think that is the point where we start to turn to GOD.

On point, but morality does allow for forgiveness when it is God who forgives.

Or
>the idea of GOD. Since, the last time we debated, I have
>found god. But not in the way, that most people believe in
>god. I suppose, my belief can be labeled as
>"rent-a-god"....hehe. So you see, I had to develop GOD, in
>order to compensate for the failed attempts at morality.

It's tough, impossible actually, to know how people "believe" in God. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, you are discovering God rather than developing Him with your realization of failed morality. Keep in mind, at the same time, that a failed morality is not a failure, but an inevitability. It is the attempt at moral virtue that makes us do amazing things for those around us.

I
>can't say that it has helped all that much but it has on a
>small level. That is the dilemna I face everyday. What is
>the right way to live life, and how can I do it, with
>effortless effort with love, and with correct choices, while
>accepting wrong choices and not beating myself over them
>after the fact. Find me a key to unlock that, and I will be
>impressed. Whatever you propose, I will adopt and practice,
>even if it is christianity.

I would suggest prayer. Get on your knees, beside your bed, and find God. Ask for forgiveness for the things you know you've done wrong. As for things you are unsure of, ask for asnwers.

I have lately been fascinated
>with the idea of "sweet jesus"...and that is the only way I
>can identify christians and christianity, or at least, the
>ones that i thoroughly respect like you. I don't think Jesus
>was a moral being. I think he, had both a very powerful evil
>character, and a very powerful virtous character. I think he
>used 1 and the other to fuel himself as a balanced
>indibidual capable of...well...whatever he did, I don't
>know, but people remember him thousands of years after the
>fact, so he must have been able to accomplish something.

First of all, if you allow me to place the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, God of Abraham in the flesh, you must know that He couldn't have sinned. This fact alone is why most people remember Him. No one ever saw the man do wrong, no one was more educated on the Scriptures, no one was more compassionate to the poor, uneducated, disabled outcasts of society than Jesus. The man lived amongst them. Jesus owned nothing, but still earned money as a carpenter to give away. Jesus led by example, and his faith was perfect, hence his remarkable feats. It is my belief that Jesus was murdered out of the insufferable guilt of others after witnessing His perfect, unselfish actions. He came to show us what is was to live this life.

What you view as "evil" is what I would perceive as His incredibly passionate love for doing right. There is the notion of "sweet Jesus". However, Jesus was not soft spoken, but a fiery revolutionary. I believe Che is the one who said the biggest tool for a revolution should be love. Dr. King was remarkably Christ-like in his fiery love... there are countless examples.

Also, as far as Christianity is concerned, I am a Christian, but perhaps not in the pop culture sense of the word. A lot of right wingers are considered conservatives, but I believe it is the left wingers who follow the ideals of Judeo-Christian ethic more closely. We are the conservatives. When the Bible is followed closely, this life has meaning. I have studied other religions, thoroughly, and I find either empty answers or, with religions such as Islam, false prophesy (antisemetism). There is God, and there is void, and God is at the heart of our moral being. I cannot physically rationalize this, but I can feel it. I know it. I'll discuss this with you as long as you like, because nothing else in this life is as important.

Peace,

I've never read such muddled thinking in all my life.

Well, you are welcome to share your thoughts. If I am confused, which I have myself admitted, than please, offer something that can either help me out, or not. Do not make judgements without backing them up.

peace.

>I've never read such muddled thinking in all my life.

Probably because you aren't used to what thinking can consist of. Notice you are the only person on the this post who has given no opinion, and thrown out the only insult. Peace with this,

Sorry, it's all drivel to me.

is it possible that it is your mind that is muddled? is it possible taht you call it drivel because you cannot comprehend?

peace.

>is it possible that it is your mind that is muddled?

No.

is it
>possible taht you call it drivel because you cannot
>comprehend?

Yes, this is true... It is incomprehensible gibberish.

well, until you prove otherwise. your mind is muddled, and all you are capable of is judgement. not just judgment, but judgement with no proof, and no substance. id say good sir, you are ignorant.

now fuck off unless you got something to say.

oh, and peace to you.

>well, until you prove otherwise. your mind is muddled, and
>all you are capable of is judgement. not just judgment, but
>judgement with no proof, and no substance. id say good sir,
>you are ignorant.

What's wrong with judgement? It's an internet message board, where people a entitled to their opinions. No need to call me ignorant or curse at me.

I just feel that your observation about morality is inaccurate, esoteric tripe. Why the hate???

If you don't get it now, you won't get it later.

peace.

I just don't understand this garble.

Okay, if you truly do not understand any of it, why don't you give me an example, or pose a question and I will help you clarify your confusion.

peace.

It's a hodge podge of mumbo jumbo.

The fittest being those who treat others as they wish to be treated themselves. Morals don't come from God. Even if you are willing to accept that God doesn't exist, you still live by a set of morals. Morals come from our individual values. Assuming our highest value is our own individual survival, we will avoid doing anything that may jeopardize it. We treat others fairly because life is harder if we don't. Treating others unfairly limits our ability to eat well. Simple as that. God has nothing to do with it other than that God serves the same purpose for adults that Santa Clause serves for children.

that's the same one I keep trying to make to InVerse. However, I would say that there are people (firemen and soldiers, for example) who don't put their own survival first, above everything else. Their duty to society requires them to have a moral code where they put their own life in peril, for society's benefit (and the benefit of their co-workers).

Understood, but what happens to firemen, soldiers, etc. who refuse to risk their lives? They probably lose their jobs. The same could be said for football players, boxers, racecar drivers, etc. who risk their lives in pursuit of income.

I know that sounds cold, but c'est la vie.

I'm just saying, some people willingly make their living by risking their life to save (or take) the lives of others. Self-survival isn't always the highest law (though if it's just that one person in a life or death situation, self-survival becomes the highest law).

I don't mean to be petty, since we basically agree; but in my opinion, risking your life to save someone else still qualifies under holding your own survival as the highest value. If I decide today to take a job in the Secret Service, that bullet I take tomorrow would not be taken because I value my life less than that of the president. It would be taken because I agreed to do a risky job in order to get paid. It wouldn't be fair for me to take the job if I wasn't ready to fulfill the job requirements. My refusal to take the bullet would not only make me lose my job, but it would also alienate me from the society which is making it easier for me to eat. Also, when I take the bullet, I expect (hope) to survive it.

The same is true for risking my life to save an innocent person from being hit by a car. By the same token, I honestly do not think I would try to save someone I know to be evil (like Bin Laden or Rush Limbaugh - kidding).

you're assuming that's the only job you could get. If you value your own survival to the point where you're not willing to risk your life for someone else, you don't take that kind of job. The person you're describing values job security and prestige (and making a living and supporting their family and such) beyond merely their own self-survival. You can survive even with no job. You can move back in with your parents, live on food stamps, etc. The ridicule you get from being a coward may hurt your pride, but it won't kill you. This isn't 17th-Century France anymore, y'know. But I don't wanna do this petty debate too much longer, 'cause I gotta leave the office, and we're basically in agreement anyway.

This is the question I should've proposed this entire time, and I've asked several people for answers, and they've all dodged the question, so here it is:

If I decide to blow up the world and kill every person living in it (including myself), DOES IT MATTER? If there is no God, DOES IT MATTER?

Peace,

someone answer this question.

directly.

please just answer it.

No it doesn't matter at all if you blow up the world.

>No it doesn't matter at all if you blow up the world.

..for an atheist.

once again, it comes down to rational or irrational faith, depending on your view. respect,

I agree with you whole heartedly. Any sort of Theism will answer this question, I'm still kind of curious about why you asked it.

>I agree with you whole heartedly. Any sort of Theism will
>answer this question, I'm still kind of curious about why
>you asked it.

..not any Theism, but one that includes the notion of a heaven and a hell.

My reason, in a nutshell, was this: for an atheist, blowing up the world is meaningless because we disinigrate and cease to exist after our physical body is powder, therefore making any notion of morality a simple human illusion. For a believer, this event gives immediate consequence of morality's ultimate purpose. If there is no God, what is the point of morality, of helping others, of activism? If there is no God, it is all an illusion, and was meaningless to begin with. Peace,

>..not any Theism, but one that includes the notion of a
>heaven and a hell.

I suppose so
>
>My reason, in a nutshell, was this: for an atheist, blowing
>up the world is meaningless because we disinigrate and cease
>to exist after our physical body is powder, therefore making
>any notion of morality a simple human illusion. For a
>believer, this event gives immediate consequence of
>morality's ultimate purpose. If there is no God, what is
>the point of morality, of helping others, of activism? If
>there is no God, it is all an illusion, and was meaningless
>to begin with. Peace,

I don't think that its meaningless to blow up the world for everyone who isn't a sociopath. I would think that a christian believer would feel that the world will not blow up. That wouldn't flow in the context of the bible really (by my reading at least), and so I wonder how that would help a believer in finding morality's purpose.
As for helping others, activism and the like, why don't you see the point. I help others for a variety of reasons. One is because I value friendship. Most of the folks who I avail myself to are my friends. Alternately activism I usually think in terms of the greater good. My family, friends, co-workers, and future generations are helped by my behaviors as they relate to activism. Lastly, I'm can be an incredibly self absorbed person, and quite selfish to boot. Once I've behaved in that manner for some time it begins to permeate into my entire life and outlook (deppression, anxiety, general malaise, paranio, ect...). This is, I've found, best combated by freely giving to others. When I'm feeding the homeless or doing something else I don't need and can't really think about me. That is a tremendous freedom along with it beggeting good feelings. The Morals that I was raised with, and continue to fine tune with more learning and reading are a great guide and map to help me with my own behaviors. Recently, I met someone, and for a variety of reasons it didn't work out. Without the morals I've learned, I may have stuck around, just trying to get laid or not be lonely or whatever. Fortunately though that wasn't how I behaved, saving both of us a headache. These are some examples of how Morals help in an athiests life. Does that clear up the point of morals in a secular world?

>>..not any Theism, but one that includes the notion of a
>>heaven and a hell.
>
>I suppose so
>>
>>My reason, in a nutshell, was this: for an atheist, blowing
>>up the world is meaningless because we disinigrate and cease
>>to exist after our physical body is powder, therefore making
>>any notion of morality a simple human illusion. For a
>>believer, this event gives immediate consequence of
>>morality's ultimate purpose. If there is no God, what is
>>the point of morality, of helping others, of activism? If
>>there is no God, it is all an illusion, and was meaningless
>>to begin with. Peace,
>
>I don't think that its meaningless to blow up the world for
>everyone who isn't a sociopath. I would think that a
>christian believer would feel that the world will not blow
>up. That wouldn't flow in the context of the bible really
>(by my reading at least), and so I wonder how that would
>help a believer in finding morality's purpose.

Philosophical argument... I don't know one way or the other whether or not someone will blow up the world.. as far as Scripture is concerned, I'm leaning more towards the belief in my studies that Revelation may be an example of what EACH soul goes through, rather than an allegory made soley for the collective end of the world. But the idea of a philosophical argument is to get to the root of the matter... when we are dead, does it matter what we've done? As a Christian, it does, and as an atheist, it does not... agreed?

>As for helping others, activism and the like, why don't you
>see the point. I help others for a variety of reasons. One
>is because I value friendship. Most of the folks who I
>avail myself to are my friends. Alternately activism I
>usually think in terms of the greater good. My family,
>friends, co-workers, and future generations are helped by my
>behaviors as they relate to activism. Lastly, I'm can be an
>incredibly self absorbed person, and quite selfish to boot.
>Once I've behaved in that manner for some time it begins to
>permeate into my entire life and outlook (deppression,
>anxiety, general malaise, paranio, ect...). This is, I've
>found, best combated by freely giving to others. When I'm
>feeding the homeless or doing something else I don't need
>and can't really think about me. That is a tremendous
>freedom along with it beggeting good feelings. The Morals
>that I was raised with, and continue to fine tune with more
>learning and reading are a great guide and map to help me
>with my own behaviors. Recently, I met someone, and for a
>variety of reasons it didn't work out. Without the morals
>I've learned, I may have stuck around, just trying to get
>laid or not be lonely or whatever. Fortunately though that
>wasn't how I behaved, saving both of us a headache. These
>are some examples of how Morals help in an athiests life.
>Does that clear up the point of morals in a secular world?

On point, for sure. The highs you speak of in giving transcend any person, atheist or not. I just believe that this notion serves an ultimate purpose, and that giving is our true purpose and responsibility for being here. Peace,

"But the idea of a philosophical argument is to get to the root of the matter..."

This has always frustrated me about philosophy to tell you the truth.

"when we are dead, does it matter what we've done?"

No and yes.

"As a Christian, it does, and as an atheist, it does not... agreed?"

Not really, I guess that the idea of Heaven and Hell make it signifigantly more important of the christian then the Atheist, but Athiests still have families and loves. They want the best for thier grandchildren and may know that living "right" will create that "best". The lack of an after life does not exclude one from thinking in terms of the time that s/he isn't here. Does that make sense?

Yup giving freely of oneself is "this lifes" greatest reward for sure.

>"As a Christian, it does, and as an atheist, it does not...
>agreed?"
>
>Not really, I guess that the idea of Heaven and Hell make it
>signifigantly more important of the christian then the
>Atheist, but Athiests still have families and loves. They
>want the best for thier grandchildren and may know that
>living "right" will create that "best". The lack of an
>after life does not exclude one from thinking in terms of
>the time that s/he isn't here. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

>Yup giving freely of oneself is "this lifes" greatest reward
>for sure.

Indeed... that's why I like OKA... it's full of people striving for this high... very refreshing. Peace,

Of course it matters! Anyone it doesn't matter to doesn't value life, regardless of their religious beliefs. In fact, I'd suggest that it matters more to atheists since they are more concerned with that which is real and tangible. It would matter less to Christians because according the majority of them think that "God so loved the world that he gaveth his only begotten son; so that whoever believeth in Him shall have eternal life" - meaning you get to Heaven just for believing that Jesus was God incarnate.

>Of course it matters! Anyone it doesn't matter to doesn't
>value life, regardless of their religious beliefs. In fact,
>I'd suggest that it matters more to atheists since they are
>more concerned with that which is real and tangible.

If by "real" and "tangible" you're talking about color, which is a illusion of light, sound, which is an illusion of physics, or size, which is an illusion of vision, well then you are simply wrong...

After these "real" and "tangible" things come, well, consciousness.. feel free to rationalize this one.. I think something that is spiritual (just as "real" and "tangible" as anything else in this world) and eternal might have the same sort of validity.

It
>would matter less to Christians because according the
>majority of them think that "God so loved the world that he
>gaveth his only begotten son; so that whoever believeth in
>Him shall have eternal life" - meaning you get to Heaven
>just for believing that Jesus was God incarnate.

With true faith comes morals... faith in God is not an insurance policy. Peace,

Moral Relativism


Some say that 'morals are relative'. If by this they mean that what is BELIEVED to be right and wrong sometimes varies from person to person and culture to culture and that people disagree about what's right and wrong, then they are correct. Let's call this view Descriptive Relativism. This view is true; most people believe that it's true; there's no disagreement here.




However, DR is not a moral theory or a view about the nature of right and wrong. It's just an anthropological (empirical) observation. Whether it has interesting implications for ethics we will discuss below.




Moral Relativism is a view about the nature of right and wrong: it purports to give us an explanation or a deeper understanding of what makes right actions right and what makes right actions wrong. It is an ethical theory.




Moral relativism comes in two varieties, individual and collective. Here are the basic, rough ideas of each:




Individual moral relativism says that a person is morally obligated to perform an action if, and only if, that person believes that action is right.






Some consequences of this view: ARGUMENTS AGAINST IMR





Premise 1. If Individual moral relativism is true, then





(a) if Joe Rapist believes rape is right, then rape is right,



(b) a person's moral beliefs, if held sincerely, are necessarily correct-it's impossible for anyone to be mistaken,



(c) if Joe changes his mind, then rape is now right (rape could be right on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but wrong the other days, just by Joe changing his mind, that's it!),



(d) if Joe wants to think about what he should do, he merely has to identify what he believes.





Premise 2: (a), (b), (c), (d), are false.



Conclusion: IMR is false (valid argument, modus ponens inference rule).






Cultural moral relativism says that a person is morally obligated to perform an action if, and only if, the majority of that person's society believes that action to be right.






Some consequences of this view: ARGUMENTS AGAINST CMR







Premise 1. If Cultural moral relativism is true, then



(a) if the majority of a society believes slavery is right, then slavery is right,



(b) then, if something is right, everyone is in one definitive society ,



(c) a societies' beliefs, if held sincerely, are necessarily correct-it's impossible for anyone to be mistaken,



(d) if collective judgement changes, then slavery is now right (slavery could be right on 1865, but wrong in 2000 (and nothing explains the difference other than the beliefs of the society),



(e) to identify what's right, we do a survey, and (e) moral reformers are ALWAYS mistaken.





Premise 2: (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are false.



Conclusion: CMR is false (valid argument, modus ponens inference rule).






Alternatively, both these arguments could be caste as 'If you believe IMR or CMR, then you believe all the following (since a-e are entailed by the views). But you don't believe a-e, so you don't believe IMR.'




So, there are problems for moral relativism in both its forms. But why believe they are true in the first place? Some commonly given arguments are the following:




AN ARGUMENT FROM DISAGREEMENT



1. There is moral disagreement



2. If there is moral disagreement, then moral relativism is true.



3. Therefore, moral relativism is true.




If you find this argument compelling, then, consider this argument:



1. There is disagreement about the causes of cancer.



2. If there is disagreement about the causes of cancer, then 'cancer relativism' is true (a person has cancer if and only if the majority of the society believes she has cancer).



3. Therefore, cancer relativism is true.




Since the second argument is not a good one, the first isn't either, since they are analogous arguments (or maybe they're not? Re. the cancer example, one would rightly reply that believing someone to have cancer wouldn't make that person have cancer; but merely believing an action to be right wouldn't make it right either, presumably, so perhaps maybe they're not so disanalagous). The point of such arguments is that considered in itself, the mere fact of disagreement is never sufficient to show that there isn't a correct or true answer to a problem.



AN ARGUMENT FROM TOLERANCE



1. It's wrong to be judgmental and intolerant of other people and cultures.



2. If it's wrong to be judgmental and intolerant of other people and cultures, then we should believe that moral relativism is true.



3. Therefore, we should believe that moral relativism is true.




One response (although there are many . Since our society does not tolerate some things, we should not tolerate those things. We should do what others do and if most others are intolerant, then we should be intolerant to, right' So, if cultural moral relativism is true, then premise 1 is false, especially since premise 1 is usually stated as we ALWAYS shouldn't judge, etc. Relativism can't have this.




I've given a number of arguments against Moral Relativism. If you are not persuaded by them, you can rationally respond in only two ways: first, argue that at least one premise in each of my arguments is false, or you can, 2nd, argue that my arguments are invalid, i.e. that my premises do not logically support the conclusion. Since my arguments are valid (and that can be proven with mathematical certainty), your only option is to reject a premise. Or you can do what most philosophers have done and reject moral relativism as a faulty and false theory!



peace.

What exactly am I supposed to respond to?
Whether or not I buy into Moral Relativism? Well...Ethics has never really been my thing, for this reason: it's all a grey area, and it seems like it may always be. Especially when arguemnts for moral objectivism are going to rely on God as a cause for morality. Not to knock your views in any way, of course. But God and the nature of God are some of the most difficult and possibly impossible philsophy to do. I've studied it for about 4 years now; lots of arguments for God's existence and his nature, and I can't say any argument has convinced me (maybe Spinoza, but my understanding of his work was vague and cloudy AT BEST...).

As to MR...well, I've never really figured it as a plausible explanation, and I find people who do believe in it are some of the hardest people to reason with ( "ah...it doesn't matter, nothing is moral, I can't do anything wrong, blah blah blah"...it gets old and it's not progressive in any way). I guess that's all I really have to say in response. Good work on the info and counterpoints tho...Very interesting.

it's all a
>grey area, and it seems like it may always be. Especially
>when arguemnts for moral objectivism are going to rely on
>God as a cause for morality. Not to knock your views in any
>way, of course. But God and the nature of God are some of
>the most difficult and possibly impossible philsophy to do.


Ok, While we're waiting for Tek, and Domino, and the relativists crew to respond to post #52... let's do this.

Imagine there is a God.
Now imagine this God wishes to give his creation the CHOICE to accept him or not... that is... he wants to introduce the concept of "love"... which is impossible without choice.

Here's the question...
Imagine for me a way that this God could attempt to reveal himself to his creation without actually coming right out and appearing before them, which would negate the need for any faith, and take away the "choice" to believe in him.

That's all I'm asking. I want your best scenario for a method that an existing God could make himself known to his creation, while maintaining free will for that creation.

This is crucial... take your time.

But here's a hint... how about a "feeling" that ran consistently through all of mankind about the way one "should" act?... an intuition if you will.



peace.

"do the math"? I would say I most closely subscribe to descriptive relativism, as the article describes it. But saying that's just "an empirical observation" is silly. The fact that different people and different societies have different moral values (or choose to subscribe to some of the ones laid out in society, but not others), is my whole, entire point.

The problem I have with this is: it doesn't define society, it doesn't define morality, and it uses the most extreme examples for morality to prove its point (i.e. things which we all find utterly repugnant, like slavery and rape). What about issues like abortion and euthanasia, which still divide our society roughly down the middle? Is there a clear moral right or wrong here? And if so, why? I have my beliefs, and I feel that I am right in them, but I respect other people's right to arrive at a different conclusion.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH MORAL RELATIVISM


by Francis J. Beckwith


Summary

In moral debate in the United States today, many people resort to moral relativism. They argue that there are no objective moral values which help us to determine what is right or wrong. They claim "everything is relative." In order to defend this position, the relativist puts forth two arguments: (1) Since people and cultures disagree about morality, there are no objective moral values; (2) Moral relativism leads to tolerance of practices we may find different or odd. These two arguments are seriously flawed. In addition, the moral relativist has a difficult time explaining moral progress, moral reformation, and clear-cut cases of moral saints and moral devils.

Ethical, moral, and social issues are beginning to dominate the headlines of major newspapers and the front covers of leading magazines. Unfortunately many today seem to assume that rationality and logic have no place in discussions of moral issues, and that there is no way such questions can be answered. Many assume that we are simply stuck with our opinions, and that all opinions are relative — having no basis in any objective or unchanging moral values. Should all values and opinions be accorded equal moral weight?

The purpose of this article is to critically address the problem of moral relativism, which I believe impedes our ability as a people to critically and rationally discuss issues of great moral and ethical importance.




MORAL RELATIVISM

In his influential work, The Closing of the American Mind, Professor Allan Bloom makes the observation that "there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative...The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated."1

By dogmatically asserting that there is no truth, people have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing truth, if in fact it does exist. Consequently, lurking behind most of the moral rhetoric in America today is moral relativism, the belief that there are no objective moral values that transcend culture or the individual. This is why many people begin or end their moral judgments with qualifying phrases such as, "It is only my personal opinion," "Of course I am not judging anyone's behavior," or "If you think it is all right, that is okay, but I'm personally against it." Although such assertions have their place, we often use them inappropriately. Let us consider a few examples of how moral relativism affects the way many people approach public moral issues.




The Abortion Debate

Some abortion-rights advocates, in response to pro-life arguments, emote such bumper-sticker slogans as: "Pro-choice, but personally opposed," "Don't like abortion, don't have one," or "Abortion is against my beliefs, but I would never dream of imposing my beliefs on others." These slogans attempt to articulate in a simple way a common avenue taken by politicians and others who want to avoid the slings and arrows that naturally follow a firm position on abortion. It is an attempt to find "a compromise" or "a middle ground"; it's a way to avoid being labeled "an extremist" of either camp.

During the 1984 presidential campaign — when questions of Geraldine Ferraro's Catholicism and its apparent conflict with her abortion-rights stance were prominent in the media — New York Governor Mario Cuomo, in a lecture delivered at the University of Notre Dame, attempted to give this "middle ground" intellectual respectability. He tried to provide a philosophical foundation for his friend's position, but failed miserably. For one cannot appeal to the fact that we live in a pluralistic society (characterized by moral pluralism/relativism) when the very question of who is part of that society (that is, whether it includes unborn children) is itself the point under dispute. Cuomo begged the question and lost the argument.

The pro-abortionist's unargued assumption of moral relativism to solve the abortion debate reveals a tremendous ignorance of the pro-life position. For the fact is that if one believes that the unborn are fully human (persons), then the unborn carried in the wombs of pro-choice women are just as human as those carried in the wombs of pro-life women. For the pro-lifer, an unborn child is no less a human person simply because the child happens to be living inside Whoopi Goldberg or Cybil Shepherd. Ideology does not change identity.

Pro-choicers ought to put at least some effort into understanding the pro-life position. When they tell pro-lifers (as they often do) that they have a right to believe what they want to believe, they are unwittingly promoting the radical tactics of Operation Rescue (OR). Think about it. If you believed that a class of persons were being murdered by methods that include dismemberment, suffocation, and burning — resulting in excruciating pain in many cases — wouldn't you be perplexed if someone tried to ease your outrage by telling you that you didn't have to participate in the murders if you didn't want to? That is exactly what pro-lifers hear when abortion-rights supporters tell them, "Don't like abortion, don't have one," or "I'm pro-choice, but personally opposed." In the mind of the pro-lifer, this is like telling an abolitionist, "Don't like slavery, don't own one," or telling Dietrich Bonhoffer, "Don't like the holocaust, don't kill a Jew." Consequently, to request that pro-lifers "shouldn't force their pro-life belief on others" while at the same time claiming that "they have a right to believe what they want to believe" is to reveal an incredible ignorance of their position.

Contrary to popular belief, the so-called "pro-choice" position is not neutral. The abortion-rights activist's claim that women should have the "right to choose" to kill their unborn fetuses amounts to denying the pro-life position that the unborn are worthy of protection. And the pro-lifer's affirmation that the unborn are fully human with a "right to life" amounts to denying the abortion-rights position that women have a fundamental right to terminate their pregnancies, since such a termination would result in a homicide. It seems, then, that appealing to moral relativism (or moral pluralism ala Mario Cuomo) to "solve" the abortion debate is an intellectual impossibility and solves nothing.




Censorship and the Public Good

Another example of how ethical relativism affects the way many people approach public moral issues can be seen in the arguments concerning the right to boycott products advertised on television programs which certain groups believe are psychologically and morally harmful. The usual argument in response to these groups is, "If you don't like a particular program, you don't have to watch it. You can always change the channel." But is this response really compelling? One must point out that these groups are not only saying that they personally find these programs offensive, but rather are arguing that the programs themselves convey messages and create a moral climate that will affect others — especially children — in a way they believe is adverse to the public good. Hence, what bothers these groups is that you and your children will not change the channel.

I believe that as long as these groups do not advocate state censorship, but merely apply social and economic pressure to private corporations (which civil rights and feminist groups have been doing for some time now), a balance of freedoms is achieved. Both are free to pursue their interests within the confines of constitutional protection, although both must be willing to accept the social and economic consequences of their actions. This seems to best serve the public good. Notice that this position does not resort to ethical relativism, but takes seriously the values of freedom, the public good, and individual rights — and attempts to uphold these values in a way that is consistent and fair.




ARGUMENTS FOR MORAL RELATIVISM

There are several arguments people have put forth to defend moral relativism. Of these, two are especially popular, surfacing again and again in our culture under different forms. The remainder of this article will be devoted to examining these arguments.




The Argument from Diversity in Moral Practice

Argument no. 1 states: Since cultures and individuals differ in certain moral practices, there are no objective moral values. Several objections can be made to this argument. First, the fact that people disagree about something does not mean there is no objective truth. If you and I disagree about whether or not the earth is round, for example, this is not proof that the earth has no shape. In moral discussion, the fact that a skinhead (a type of young Neo-Nazi) and I may disagree about whether we should treat people equally and fairly is not sufficient evidence to say that equality and fairness have no objective value. Even if individuals and cultures held no values in common, it does not follow from this that nobody is right or wrong about the correct values. That is, there could be a morally erring individual or culture, such as Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Another problem with this argument is that it does not follow from the fact that cultures and individuals differ in moral practices that they do not share common values. For example, the fact that some female islanders who live in the South Seas do not cover their breasts and British women do doesn't mean that the former do not value modesty. Due to the climate, environmental conditions, and certain religious beliefs, the people of the South Seas have developed certain practices by which to manifest the transcultural value of modesty. Although cultures may differ about how they manifest such values as honesty, courage, and the preserving of life, they do not promote dishonesty, cowardice, or arbitrary killing.

Second, sometimes apparent moral differences are not moral differences at all but factual differences. For example, many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation — that these cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings. In the United States we do not believe cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat cows — but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface, therefore, that there is a fundamental value difference between Indians and Americans. This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures do believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; the Indians, however, believe the cow may be Grandma. Thus it is a factual and not a value difference that divides our culinary habits.

Other examples can be produced to show why this first argument for moral relativism is inadequate.2 It should be noted, however, that the fact there are some common values among peoples and cultures does not mean all cultures share all the same values. Obviously certain peoples and cultures may have developed some values that others have not. Hence, the discovering of a unique value in a particular society does not in any way take away from my central thesis that there are certain values to which all societies either implicitly or explicitly hold.

Third, the argument from differing practices puts an undue emphasis on differences while ignoring similarities, in addition to giving the mistaken appearance that all moral conflicts are in some sense insoluble. In discussing moral conflicts in the United States we tend to focus our attention on contemporary issues — abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, and so forth — over which there is obviously wide and impassioned disagreement. However, we tend to ignore the fact that the disputants in these moral debates hold a number of values in common, that there are many moral issues on which almost all Americans agree (e.g., "It is wrong to molest six-year-old girls"), and that a number of past moral conflicts have been solved (e.g., slavery, women's suffrage). Hence, by focusing our attention only on disagreements, our perception has become skewed. Philosopher James Rachels illustrates this point with an example from the sciences:


If we think of questions like this , it is easy to believe that "proof" in ethics is impossible. The same can be said of the sciences. There are many complicated matters that physicists cannot agree on; and if we focused our attention entirely on them we might conclude that there is no "proof" in physics. But of course, many simpler matters in physics can be proven, and about those all competent physicists agree. Similarly, in ethics there are many matters far simpler than abortion, about which all reasonable people must agree.3




The Argument from the Virtue of Tolerance

Argument no. 2 for ethical relativism states: Since ethical relativism promotes tolerance of certain cultural practices that members of Western civilization may think are strange, ethical relativism is a good thing. However, although tolerance often is a virtue, ethical relativists simply cannot justify their own position by appealing to it in this way. First, the value of tolerance presupposes the existence of at least one real objective (or absolute) value: tolerance. Bioethicist Tom Beauchamp makes this observation:


If we interpret normative relativism as requiring tolerance of other views, the whole theory is imperiled by inconsistency. The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory. Such a proposition bears all the marks of a non-relative account of moral rightness, one based on, but not reducible to, the cross-cultural findings of anthropologists...But if this moral principle is recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism.4


Second, tolerance can only be a virtue if we think the other person, whose viewpoint we're supposed to tolerate, is mistaken. That is to say, if we do not believe one viewpoint is better than another, then to ask us to be tolerant of other viewpoints makes no sense. For to tolerate another's viewpoint implies that this other person has a right to his or her viewpoint despite the fact that others may think it is wrong. To be tolerant of differing viewpoints involves just that — differing viewpoints, all of which cannot be equally correct at the same time. The man who supposes himself tolerant while at the same time he believes nobody is either right or wrong about any moral value is actually no more virtuous than the man who supposes his virginity is chastity even though he was born with no sexual organs. Consequently, real tolerance presupposes someone is right and someone is wrong, which implicitly denies moral relativism.

It must be acknowledged, however, that there is a noble motive behind the relativists' appeal to tolerance. They believe their view of tolerance will help us to better understand other cultures and people without being hypercritical about their practices. This in turn will keep us from using such criticism to justify the forced imposition of our own cultural practices on them, such as putting blouses on the bare-breasted women of the South Seas or forcing polygamous families to divide and become monogamous. I can sympathize with this view of transcultural tolerance. As I stated earlier, however, a cultural practice is different from a cultural value. It does not follow from different practices that people have different values.

The local controversies surrounding the elimination of certain books from public school curricula and libraries is an example of how people can agree on values and yet disagree on practice. Those who favor more conservative guidelines, and who are often referred to as advocating censorship, usually propose that certain materials are not suitable for certain age groups. They argue that parents, not educational administrators, are best suited to know what is good for their children. On the other hand, their opponents, who are often referred to as advocating freedom of expression, usually propose that it should be up to the teacher and the educational administrators to choose what is suitable material, although they do believe that a line should be drawn somewhere. For example, none of these defenders of freedom of expression defend the placing of hard-core pornography in the hands of fourth graders.

This, of course, makes the debate all the more interesting, since it means that both sides agree on the following general principles: a line must be drawn, certain materials are suitable for certain age groups, and education is important. Both advocate some kind of "censorship." They just disagree on who should be the censors, what should be censored, and on what basis the decision should be made. Therefore, they both hold to many of the same values, but they disagree as to the application of these values, and the acceptability of certain factual claims.

Although this distinction between practice and value helps us to be tolerant of unusual cultural practices, we are still able to make valuable moral judgments about others and ourselves. First, we are free to criticize those intolerable cultural practices that do conflict with basic human values, such as in the cases of genocide in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa. Second, we are able to admit to real moral progress, such as in the case of the abolition of slavery. And third, there can exist real moral reformers, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and the prophets of the Old Testament, who served as prophetic voices to reprimand their cultures for having drifted far from a true moral practice based on basic human values.

The above three points — each of which follow from a belief in objective transcultural values — do not follow from a belief in ethical relativism. That is to say, to remain consistent the ethical relativist cannot criticize intolerable moral practices, believe in real moral progress, or acknowledge the existence of real moral reformers. For these three forms of moral judgment presuppose the existence of real objective transcultural values.

Although much more can be said about the justification and existence of certain values,5 the above is sufficient to demonstrate that ethical relativism is enormously problematic. It shows that we can rationally discuss and argue with each other about right and wrong without resorting to the claim that ethical judgments are merely subjective or relative and that all such judgments have equal validity. For to claim the latter logically leads one to the bizarre judgment that Mother Teresa is no more and no less virtuous than Adolf Hitler. I believe this is sufficient to show ethical relativism to be bankrupt.

Moral relativism has been rejected by a near unanimous number of both secular and theistic ethicists and philosophers.6 Yet it is still popular to espouse this view in many of our secularized cultural institutions. It is thought to be more tolerant, more open, and more intellectually respectable than the old-fashioned "absolutism."7 As we have seen, however, moral relativism is inconsistent with tolerance, closed off to the possibility of moral truth, and an intellectual failure.


Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. is a Lecturer of Philosophy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His latest books are Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Baker, 1993) and Are You Politically Correct? Debating America's Cultural Standards (Prometheus, 1993).




NOTES

1 Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 25.
2 James Rachels, "A Critique of Ethical Relativism," in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, ed. Louis P. Pojman (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1989), 322-23.
3 James Rachels, "Some Basic Points about Arguments," in The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy, ed. James Rachels (New York: Random House, 1989), 40.
4 Tom L. Beauchamp, Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982), 42.
5 For a philosophical defense of particular universal values, see C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 95-121; Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984), chapters 1-5; Rachels, "A Critique," 322-24; and J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), chapter 4.
6 E.g., see Rachels, "A Critique"; J. P. Moreland and Norman L. Geisler, The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990), chapter 1.
7 I think this is more accurately referred to as moral objectivism, since not all the values the absolutist holds are absolutely equal; some are better than others. See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).


This article is a significantly revised version of a portion of chapter 1 of Francis J. Beckwith's Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 19-25. Reprinted by permission.

I think that moral constraints are bullshit that there really is no god, given that, anything that you do is never wrong or right your actions either are beneficial to you or others or are not helpful or in anyway safe for anyone at all. Even with having accepted this I still develop my morality because its just unskillful to do what you want when you want in this age.

Quote from Nietzsche about Morality:

"Virtue has all the instincts of the average man against it: it is unprofitable, imprudent, it isolates; it is related to passion and not very accessible to reason; it spoils the character, the head, the mind - according to the standards of mediocre men; it rouses to enmity toward order, toward the lies that are concealed in every order, institution, actuality - it is the worst of vices, if one judges by its harmful effects on others

You could start another post, eh? I mean I'm not averse to disussing all that, but you completely ignored the need to RESPOND to what was just posted, the one you replied to, see, you didn't really reply to it.

Please express your argument for what was just posted, the thing you replied to.

As in... refute his point... no?


all you said was "I think moral constraints are bullshit"....

then nothing...

i'd wanna hear the fault you find in what was just posted... either that essay you replied to or that summarical a few posts back... that's what I'm hoping to hear... what you find fault with in that presentation... cause THAT'S the case for Moral Absolutism (scary word isn't it?)...

and saying "uh, it's not a strong case"... doesn't do much without qualifying your statement.



looking forward to it.


peace.

you see what i'm sayin man?

quotin' Nietzsche's cool and all... dude was deep... but didn't dude also kill himself or somethin'? i could be completely wrong, thinkin' of someone else.

but what i'm sayin is i'm not interested in hearing quotes from people who agree with you... i believe people agree with you... that's why this debate exists... the problem is... there is one HUGE, ALL IMPORTANT result of the fact that this debate exists...

do you know what that is?

is means literally that without a doubt.. between the two sides of this issue...

one goup of people, the people who believe what you believe, or the people who believe what i believe... one of us.... is basing our ENTIRE existence on a LIE.

that's serious. it requires that you bring something in the way of proof, as opposed to just soundbites from other potentially misinformed people.

i know i'm being repetitive, which is odd, cause you'd think this would go without saying... but...


peace.

You asked why we have morality. Morality defined is a system of moral conduct***moral constraints right, so this is where that response came from.

If your really trying to ask why humans have the ability to discern good actions from bad ones or judge actions as good or bad its like asking why we have legs and arms or why the eagle has wings, its just an evolved advantage quality in humans that we can use whenever, especially in states to make for civil societies.

If your asking why do we have morality in our societies now it is because if we dont have moral conduct and penalties for breaking these doctrines***because if not you have people living like animals taking what they want killing when they decide to and so on.

Morality is like religion and politics in that what these disciplines all contain are alot of great ideas that would in many ways benefit every society- but have yet to be applied, be collectively understood, or function properly (because of our ignorance or misconduct).

The reason Morality fails now is because of Misconduct which justifies bad actions like "if he does it why cant i" and also the fact that Philosophers and intellectuals of the like who are abreast of morality do not use their priveleged position as cats that understand it and can teach it properly.

Hope that wasnt too left field or too dense.

>MORAL RELATIVISM
>
>In his influential work, The Closing of the American Mind,
>Professor Allan Bloom makes the observation that "there is
>one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost
>every student entering the university believes, or says he
>believes, that truth is relative...The students, of course,
>cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they
>have been indoctrinated."1

I would assume that this is a true statement. But I don't know if students or prof's say that.
>
>By dogmatically asserting that there is no truth, people
>have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing
>truth, if in fact it does exist. Consequently, lurking
>behind most of the moral rhetoric in America today is moral
>relativism, the belief that there are no objective moral
>values that transcend culture or the individual. This is why
>many people begin or end their moral judgments with
>qualifying phrases such as, "It is only my personal
>opinion," "Of course I am not judging anyone's behavior," or
>"If you think it is all right, that is okay, but I'm
>personally against it." Although such assertions have their
>place, we often use them inappropriately. Let us consider a
>few examples of how moral relativism affects the way many
>people approach public moral issues.
>
This is total malarchy. If you believe there is TRUTH you are just as closed minded as the cats who believe that truth is subjective, or that there isn't one. I would agree that most people use those statements innapropriately

>The Abortion Debate
>
>Some abortion-rights advocates, in response to pro-life
>arguments, emote such bumper-sticker slogans as:
>"Pro-choice, but personally opposed," "Don't like abortion,
>don't have one," or "Abortion is against my beliefs, but I
>would never dream of imposing my beliefs on others." These
>slogans attempt to articulate in a simple way a common
>avenue taken by politicians and others who want to avoid the
>slings and arrows that naturally follow a firm position on
>abortion. It is an attempt to find "a compromise" or "a
>middle ground"; it's a way to avoid being labeled "an
>extremist" of either camp.

Thats probably a true statement, though I think that "Abortion is against my beliefs, but I would never dream of imposing my beliefs on others" is a sarcastic remark and shouldn't be included. This example isn't about abortion its about the imposition of one persons beliefs on anothers.
>
>During the 1984 presidential campaign — when questions of
>Geraldine Ferraro's Catholicism and its apparent conflict
>with her abortion-rights stance were prominent in the media
>— New York Governor Mario Cuomo, in a lecture delivered at
>the University of Notre Dame, attempted to give this "middle
>ground" intellectual respectability. He tried to provide a
>philosophical foundation for his friend's position, but
>failed miserably. For one cannot appeal to the fact that we
>live in a pluralistic society (characterized by moral
>pluralism/relativism) when the very question of who is part
>of that society (that is, whether it includes unborn
>children) is itself the point under dispute. Cuomo begged
>the question and lost the argument.

I know nothing about this, or its validity, and therefore choose not to respond.
>
>The pro-abortionist's unargued assumption of moral
>relativism to solve the abortion debate reveals a tremendous
>ignorance of the pro-life position. For the fact is that if
>one believes that the unborn are fully human (persons), then
>the unborn carried in the wombs of pro-choice women are just
>as human as those carried in the wombs of pro-life women.
>For the pro-lifer, an unborn child is no less a human person
>simply because the child happens to be living inside Whoopi
>Goldberg or Cybil Shepherd. Ideology does not change
>identity.

Aha, now we're discussing abortion. READ THE FUCKING LAWS. Its legal, if you have a problem with it, protest, get a job as a lawyer, affect change. If you pull it off, congrats.
>
>Pro-choicers ought to put at least some effort into
>understanding the pro-life position. When they tell
>pro-lifers (as they often do) that they have a right to
>believe what they want to believe, they are unwittingly
>promoting the radical tactics of Operation Rescue (OR).
>Think about it. If you believed that a class of persons were
>being murdered by methods that include dismemberment,
>suffocation, and burning — resulting in excruciating pain in
>many cases — wouldn't you be perplexed if someone tried to
>ease your outrage by telling you that you didn't have to
>participate in the murders if you didn't want to? That is
>exactly what pro-lifers hear when abortion-rights supporters
>tell them, "Don't like abortion, don't have one," or "I'm
>pro-choice, but personally opposed." In the mind of the
>pro-lifer, this is like telling an abolitionist, "Don't like
>slavery, don't own one," or telling Dietrich Bonhoffer,
>"Don't like the holocaust, don't kill a Jew." Consequently,
>to request that pro-lifers "shouldn't force their pro-life
>belief on others" while at the same time claiming that "they
>have a right to believe what they want to believe" is to
>reveal an incredible ignorance of their position.
>
Whatever. Who cares if they don't understand each other. Make the arguement as obtuse as you want to but it comes down to two questions. Is abortion wrong? Is it legal? Answer that and you are on your way. Again, affect change. BTW- opperation rescue change there tactics in response to social outcry after the late 1980's. Since then they have changed the way they do buisness, they are much more... passive... then they used to be.

>Contrary to popular belief, the so-called "pro-choice"
>position is not neutral. The abortion-rights activist's
>claim that women should have the "right to choose" to kill
>their unborn fetuses amounts to denying the pro-life
>position that the unborn are worthy of protection. And the
>pro-lifer's affirmation that the unborn are fully human with
>a "right to life" amounts to denying the abortion-rights
>position that women have a fundamental right to terminate
>their pregnancies, since such a termination would result in
>a homicide. It seems, then, that appealing to moral
>relativism (or moral pluralism ala Mario Cuomo) to "solve"
>the abortion debate is an intellectual impossibility and
>solves nothing.

There is a system that both of these groups can act within to effect change. Moral relativism has bearing on this.
>
>Another example of how ethical relativism affects the way
>many people approach public moral issues can be seen in the
>arguments concerning the right to boycott products
>advertised on television programs which certain groups
>believe are psychologically and morally harmful. The usual
>argument in response to these groups is, "If you don't like
>a particular program, you don't have to watch it. You can
>always change the channel." But is this response really
>compelling? One must point out that these groups are not
>only saying that they personally find these programs
>offensive, but rather are arguing that the programs
>themselves convey messages and create a moral climate that
>will affect others — especially children — in a way they
>believe is adverse to the public good. Hence, what bothers
>these groups is that you and your children will not change
>the channel.
>
I don't care what bothers the group. Fuck them. I live in a free country dipshit. If your group wants to censor me they can come to my house and attempt to change the channel themselves.

>I believe that as long as these groups do not advocate state
>censorship, but merely apply social and economic pressure to
>private corporations (which civil rights and feminist groups
>have been doing for some time now), a balance of freedoms is
>achieved. Both are free to pursue their interests within the
>confines of constitutional protection, although both must be
>willing to accept the social and economic consequences of
>their actions. This seems to best serve the public good.
>Notice that this position does not resort to ethical
>relativism, but takes seriously the values of freedom, the
>public good, and individual rights — and attempts to uphold
>these values in a way that is consistent and fair.
>
Congrats, this guy actually thought before he wrote. btw- check the Bill O'rielly vs. Ludacris thing for good evidence on this one. If he uses his same "idea" for the abortion issue he might get somewhere.
>
>The Argument from Diversity in Moral Practice
>Argument no. 1 states: Since cultures and individuals differ
>in certain moral practices, there are no objective moral
>values.

How many people actually say this? Most, I expect, would say "Since cultures and individuals differ in certain moral practices, there are (few, less, not a lot of, may not be) objective moral values.

>Several objections can be made to this argument.

yea but the statement you made is as flawed as your examples.

>First, the fact that people disagree about something does
>not mean there is no objective truth. If you and I disagree
>about whether or not the earth is round, for example, this
>is not proof that the earth has no shape. In moral
>discussion, the fact that a skinhead (a type of young
>Neo-Nazi) and I may disagree about whether we should treat
>people equally and fairly is not sufficient evidence to say
>that equality and fairness have no objective value. Even if
>individuals and cultures held no values in common, it does
>not follow from this that nobody is right or wrong about the
>correct values. That is, there could be a morally erring
>individual or culture, such as Adolf Hitler and Nazi
>Germany.
>Another problem with this argument is that it does not
>follow from the fact that cultures and individuals differ in
>moral practices that they do not share common values. For
>example, the fact that some female islanders who live in the
>South Seas do not cover their breasts and British women do
>doesn't mean that the former do not value modesty. Due to
>the climate, environmental conditions, and certain religious
>beliefs, the people of the South Seas have developed certain
>practices by which to manifest the transcultural value of
>modesty. Although cultures may differ about how they
>manifest such values as honesty, courage, and the preserving
>of life, they do not promote dishonesty, cowardice, or
>arbitrary killing.

Aha, now your talking about quantification of values as they relate to Morality. Thats an interesting discussion, of course it isn't the one your having but interesting nonetheless.
>
>Second, sometimes apparent moral differences are not moral
>differences at all but factual differences. For example,
>many people who live in India do not eat cows because they
>believe in reincarnation — that these cows may possess the
>souls of deceased human beings. In the United States we do
>not believe cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat
>cows — but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface,
>therefore, that there is a fundamental value difference
>between Indians and Americans. This is a hasty conclusion,
>however, for both cultures do believe it is wrong to eat
>Grandma; the Indians, however, believe the cow may be
>Grandma. Thus it is a factual and not a value difference
>that divides our culinary habits.
>
Duh?

>Other examples can be produced to show why this first
>argument for moral relativism is inadequate.2 It should be
>noted, however, that the fact there are some common values
>among peoples and cultures does not mean all cultures share
>all the same values. Obviously certain peoples and cultures
>may have developed some values that others have not. Hence,
>the discovering of a unique value in a particular society
>does not in any way take away from my central thesis that
>there are certain values to which all societies either
>implicitly or explicitly hold.

Other examples can be produced as to why your example is f'ed up too I'm sure. Whatever I tire of this guy, besides I'm self absorbed and want to get to stuff I think is more interesting.

I think LK1 and inVerse are asking about morality from perpective that says "Morality is God given" I'm working from a perspective that says "morality is an idea that people like to use so they can make themselves better than other people, and it is found in the collective conscious (art, law, ect...) of humanity" To me what I think is neat is that Morality is usually used for domination of cultures. What do you guys think about that? Am I reading the disscusion correctly? What "Morals" do you think exist? Are these subject to change? Do changing Morals mean God changed the Morals or Humanity is better understanding God? I have more questions that I'd like you to answer but I think that this one is the most important.

Do Humanities Morals based on my idea of collective conscious line up to Gods Morals as you see them? Explain?

we're not "discussing" abortion now... the purpose of posting that piece was cause it was an illustration of that post prior to it that spelled it out in such simple terms. the one that says "do the math" in the subject.

I gathered that, and my apologies for being so gruff with my post. A pet peeve of mine is when people talk, as beckwith did, about an idea that is so simple with a lot of words. My interpratation of what he said is, "Understanding is good, work for that and think about what it means" Only he said in a really long way. Again, it was my reaction to him, rather then what his point was. I focused on abortion because it was a most skewed example.

If the world ends from a catastrophe not caused by man(woman) is it wrong(morally...in other words, is it evil)? If a moon sized meteor crashes into us and rips the Earth to bits is that morally wrong?

.

I want to hear how you God Moralists would explain the "natural extinction" of man.

please first explain why in the world you would use an example like a natural disaster or catastrophe... in which the cause of the obliteration has no "mind" or "reasoning" power... we're talking about humans and free will here. Please tell me how your meteor hitting the earth has any bearing.

Then please explain what you mean by the term "natural extinction"... then I'll answer.

peace.

Your position requires that you counter the points made in post #52.

For the sake of maintaining your position, and debating this issue, please do so.

I want to know where you find fault with the logic at work there.

Post #52 is the case for Moral Absolutism... so this should be easy right? It's all spelled out for you there. Just explain the error in the reasoning that you see.


peace.

I don't really buy into Moral Relativism. Like I said earlier I think that Morals exist in the collective conscious of Humanity, as we grow and learn our "morals" grow and better suit us to live in a society. People, I think, generally need other people. This creates all sorts of problems with interpersonal relationships. Subsequently, people learned how to interact. Then they began to realize, slowly I'm sure, that certain behaviors were unhealthy for their society at large. This realization lead to people attempting to instill values into thier community. These values became so engrained in society that they became a natural part of it, the birth of Morality. A good example of a list of Morals is the seven deadly sins. Religous text though doesn't have a monopoly on moral lists, international law is also a good barometer of Morality (I think it may require some fine tuning personally).
Morality is still in a state of flux though. People are questioning the Morality of the Death penalty. This is an example of Moral Evolution that is happening in contemporary society. This means, to me that morals are not relative, although they differ, sometimes strongly, within different cultures. As the world gets "smaller" this will likely create a sense that there is a Moral Code that "covers" the earth. I don't think that will be a bad thing but I reserve my opinion untill it happens. Anyhow, there will still be differences in cultures "rules" but the underlying Morals that govern the cultures will likely be the same.
There is a strong arguement for moral relativity, personally though I don't think that it is good enough for me to subscribe to.
Does this answer your question sufficently?
Peace

thank you for your reply. i appreciate all that you said, and am not ignoring it, just want to ask before i reply, are you yourself a theist or atheist?

i ask this because you asked why LK1 posed the question that he did earlier about blowing up the world. he asked it because establishing the soundness of moral absolutism produces the fact of God, I believe.

So, you have said now that you don't buy into moral relativism, so i'm curious if you've also come to the same conclusion about deity because of it?

I'd like to respond to what you just posted, but could you clarify that first?


peace.

>
>thank you for your reply. i appreciate all that you said,
>and am not ignoring it, just want to ask before i reply, are
>you yourself a theist or atheist?

I am a devout atheist
>
>i ask this because you asked why LK1 posed the question that
>he did earlier about blowing up the world. he asked it
>because establishing the soundness of moral absolutism
>produces the fact of God, I believe.

Hmmm, this could argued quite well I'm sure. Of course, from an athiests perpective moral absolutism would quickly turn into... behaviors that one should adhear to in order to be in a position to reproduce and allow society to remain in a form that your DNA would continue in further generations.
>
>So, you have said now that you don't buy into moral
>relativism, so i'm curious if you've also come to the same
>conclusion about deity because of it?

I envy sometimes those who have found a deism. It would be very nice indeed to feel that I was going to heaven, or that my soul would be passed onto future generations or that I would become part of the oneness when I died. It would also be nice to feel that there was some sense to life, rather than just instinctual drives and conscious thought. Unfortunately, I've never been able to feel any presence, nor meditate, nor communicate, with a power greater than myself. I don't mean that in a egomaniacal way, just that I've never experienced anything... spiritual... otherworldly... I don't really have a good word for it. Athiesm makes the most sense, it feels right, and it is very difficult to maintain. These "feels right" kind of things I consistently hear about from believers. Besides, I figure that I get many, if not all, of the same rewards from praticing athiesm that christians get, excepting community in the form of churches and heaven of course.

>Hmmm, this could argued quite well I'm sure. Of course,
>from an athiests perpective moral absolutism would quickly
>turn into... behaviors that one should adhear to in order to
>be in a position to reproduce and allow society to remain in
>a form that your DNA would continue in further generations.

i can see that. ok.


>
>I envy sometimes those who have found a deism. It would be
>very nice indeed to feel that I was going to heaven, or that
>my soul would be passed onto future generations or that I
>would become part of the oneness when I died.

bare with me... I'm just interjecting here where I have questions ok? But I'm interested to know where the idea of having a "soul" fits into atheism. I can't see how one could be an atheist and still refer to one's soul... er... I'm assuming you were saying it as "IF I had a soul it would be nice to know... etc.."?


It would also
>be nice to feel that there was some sense to life, rather
>than just instinctual drives and conscious thought.
>Unfortunately, I've never been able to feel any presence,
>nor meditate, nor communicate, with a power greater than
>myself.


to me this brings up a question I just posted somewhere else on here... i don't recall exactly where... possibly post #95. But the point was. I feel that as an atheist, you're required to view any and all of your most powerful emotions, as simple reactions to rules that society has set up for you... as going no deeper than some rules that have been set up in the specific locale of your birth...

the example of pain comes up.... of tears... of being "wronged". Does this go no deeper than just the violation of a rule set up by current and present society? or are our emotions honest reactions to a much deeper impulse than that?



I don't mean that in a egomaniacal way, just that
>I've never experienced anything... spiritual...
>otherworldly... I don't really have a good word for it.
>Athiesm makes the most sense, it feels right, and it is very
>difficult to maintain. These "feels right" kind of things I
>consistently hear about from believers. Besides, I figure
>that I get many, if not all, of the same rewards from
>praticing athiesm that christians get, excepting community
>in the form of churches and heaven of course.

as kindly as i can put this, I'd argue that an atheist is at a loss for any ultimate purpose for life whatsoever.

then I'd argue that as a theist, my peace comes from a complete answer/eradication of that question (why are we here?). no?

Sorry I should have put quotes around the word "soul" implying my lack of belief in one. But yea you figured right that I intended to do that.

"I feel that as an atheist, you're required to view any and all of your most powerful emotions, as simple reactions to rules that society has set up for you... as going no deeper than some rules that have been set up in the specific locale of your birth..."

I can see how you would see that. I view my emotions as just that, emotions. I know that I can exhibit some control over them (ex. when depressed still get up and go to work even though I don't feel like it). I wouldn't though say that I control them all the time (loosing it at a funeral). Emotions are most certainly reactions though. Gennerally in my experience to powerful stimulus, they don't really follow a discernable set of rules. Does your belief system explain how your emotions manifest themselves? Or does it more explain that you have emotions and thats good (like a sign that god cares about you or something)? Athiesm explains the existence of emotions, but I'm at as much of a loss explaining them as I think everyone else is.

"the example of pain comes up.... of tears... of being "wronged". Does this go no deeper than just the violation of a rule set up by current and present society? or are our emotions honest reactions to a much deeper impulse than that? "

Wrongs, like hurt. By someone cheating on you or something? That example violates the construct of the relationship, and also trust, and a bunch of other stuff too. I don't usually chalk that up to things that society has instilled in me but I suppose it is a fair assumtion. Usually tears come from my self. My brain starts going, I resist, sometimes deny and get angry, try to hold it together and then crumble and cry. That has taken years somtimes, and minutes others. Is that different for someone with a belief system like christianity?

"as kindly as i can put this, I'd argue that an atheist is at a loss for any ultimate purpose for life whatsoever."

Why would there be an ultimate purpose?

then I'd argue that as a theist, my peace comes from a complete answer/eradication of that question (why are we here?). no?

Ahah. This is kind of a weird example but I'll see if I can make it work. There is a post going on right now about philosophy vs. religion. LK1 made the statement in it that post that faith answers all philosophies questions. I feel this way. My faith centers on the idea that I am very insignifigant. This "ego deflation" answers all philosophies big questions that science doesn't. Ex. Why are we here?... Why not, we are here, lets make the best of it? This line of thinking doesn't seem too far off from... Why are we here? Because God wants us here, lets make the best of it.

See to me Athiesm and other religions are very similar. I think it takes a lot of faith to "believe" in either.

-

I was taught that honesty was important by people who were dishonest. I was taught to be peaceful and open by people who were violent and closed minded. The message I got was that it was all a lie, an illusion or facade.

"If you teach a person a set of behavioral responses to match every possible situation, their inner psycho-emotional structure will adapt itself to conform to that outer shape." - Stephen Russell

In order for huge empires to gain control of the masses the regulators and guardians of the Laws create a complex bunch of rules to be learned and strictly obeyed. The idea is to mold individual character, to promote virtue. But all humans are flawed and contain in themselves all kinds of contradictions. Some would argue that this is the reason they need to be controlled but we are trained to be so focused on external things that we abandon what is in our hearts/souls/minds.

If you have compassion and reverence for all life how can there be a real need for morals? If you respect all life as much as your own, help and heal those in need whenever you can and seek to inflict minimum damage to others then morals can surely complicate even the simplest of matters.

It wasn't until I decided to do my best to be honest, peaceful and open to new ideas, in spite of what others were doing, that I found any virtue.

>I was taught that honesty was important by people who were
>dishonest. I was taught to be peaceful and open by people
>who were violent and closed minded. The message I got was
>that it was all a lie, an illusion or facade.
>

>
>If you have compassion and reverence for all life how can
>there be a real need for morals?

Compassion and reverance for life ARE morals!!
The question of this post is WHY do we as homosapiens/humans/people/whatever have these morals.


If you respect all life as
>much as your own, help and heal those in need whenever you
>can and seek to inflict minimum damage to others then morals
>can surely complicate even the simplest of matters.

Thank you for contributing. But I have to say you're very off here.

These things your naming ARE morals. They are basic human morality.

Do you see that?

The question of this post is "why are they there?"

Christians maintain that our innate morals are a large piece of evidence of God... a trace of him found inside ourselves.... See some people complain that a true God would reveal himself... yet the completely ignore this universal "conscience" that we all have. This idea within us that we should respect eachother, love eachother, share, build together... etc.

Do you see?


peace.




>
>It wasn't until I decided to do my best to be honest,
>peaceful and open to new ideas, in spite of what others were
>doing, that I found any virtue.

>Compassion and reverance for life ARE morals!!
>The question of this post is WHY do we as
>homosapiens/humans/people/whatever have these morals.

Morals: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. Morals are what we make into laws and judge others with. This is right or wrong based on the book of law...not based on life and nonjudgement.

For example, after several years of observing my father's abuse I told him I loved him. I hugged him as he cried and waited for the police to arrive because I did not judge him for his actions. I was 6 or 7 years old. Several years later, I sat down and had a conversation with him about nonjudgement. Ever notice how many children who are abused still have nothing but love and compassion for their abusers (parents, guardians, etc.)? Even after a young lifetime of hurt they still have love for them. Law passes down judgement while compassion requires that we see beyond the action to the soul underneath.

Morals are laws. People create them to control the masses and they are often used to create boundaries that cause some people to lose their minds. Compassion is not a law, neither is reverence or nonjugement. These are life choices that we make, not laws we must abide by.

>These things your naming ARE morals. They are basic human
>morality.
>
>Do you see that?

Any animal is capable of compassion or destruction. Humans make up laws but most things understand or are connected to the laws of nature and the universe that are not made by man. Human laws and morals are not necessarily based upon the universe or nature. They exist to control people.

At some point, some humans created laws that required that people pray to man as a representative of God. It was at this point that the world became centered on man and rather than respect the laws that existed before man existed, men created laws that would maintain his status on earth. These so-called laws became morals. Compassion and reverence for all life is not necessary in this case.

>Morals: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
>Morals are what we make into laws and judge others with.
>This is right or wrong based on the book of law...not based
>on life and nonjudgement.
>
>For example, after several years of observing my father's
>abuse I told him I loved him. I hugged him as he cried and
>waited for the police to arrive because I did not judge him
>for his actions. I was 6 or 7 years old. Several years
>later, I sat down and had a conversation with him about
>nonjudgement. Ever notice how many children who are abused
>still have nothing but love and compassion for their abusers
>(parents, guardians, etc.)? Even after a young lifetime of
>hurt they still have love for them. Law passes down
>judgement while compassion requires that we see beyond the
>action to the soul underneath.

So why compassion? Why not hate?
This person hurt you. Objectively, in a vacuum, that should be enough to either seperate from that person or hurt them back.

But why compassion, forgiveness, etc?
Why do we have morality?

Your example is actually a great example once you see what this post is debating and realize what side of the issue your statements are actually supporting. Have you read any other of the other posts except your own?
I'm just curious.


>Morals are laws. People create them to control the masses
>and they are often used to create boundaries that cause some
>people to lose their minds. Compassion is not a law,
>neither is reverence or nonjugement. These are life choices
>that we make, not laws we must abide by.

So what is natural law? What is the law of human nature?
Is it something we've made up. Or is it the NATURAL?




>Any animal is capable of compassion or destruction.


Yes, correct. So why, as humans, do we favor compassion, and scorn those who bring destruction? Why do we not praise and adore destruction?

Humans
>make up laws but most things understand or are connected to
>the laws of nature and the universe that are not made by
>man.

Exactly!
So these laws of nature... where do they come from?
You seem to have identified just fine that there are basic principles that are part of us that we did not INVENT. Correct?

Now this post asks, WHY?

Christians assert that our morality... our human nature... this tugging inside of us to do RIGHT rather than WRONG, is evidence of God.

>Human laws and morals are not necessarily based upon
>the universe or nature. They exist to control people.

Of course driving on the right side of the rode is not based in universal/natural law.

But that is not what we're talking about here. You're going to have to differentiate because it makes no sense to speak of a law like that as if it is innate.

However, you're also going to have to recognize (actually you already have), that now all laws come to us in this manner.

Driving to the right hand side of the road very well could have been different, or opposite.

But could "don't murder people" very well have been different or opposite?
Or is there a "morality" here that is derived from our natural/universal law?

If so, why?

Once again, Christians say... because of God.


>At some point, some humans created laws that required that
>people pray to man as a representative of God.

Correct... however your speaking about something other than Christianity.
I don't doubt that there are odd religions that would have me confess my sins to a man in a wooden box behind a screen. But that is not what Christianity teaches. Therefore you are not free, or able to lump Christianity in with whatever religion you are speaking of that requires men to go to "other men" in order to "get to God". Christianity teaches a personal and loving God whom is available to all.


>It was at
>this point that the world became centered on man and rather
>than respect the laws that existed before man existed,

So you agree. Man did not invent the idea that men should not murder eachother. This is something that was "put into us" by whomever created us. No?

>men
>created laws that would maintain his status on earth. These
>so-called laws became morals.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Which specifically of these "man-made" laws are YOU calling a moral. I can't think of any personally... and you're saying that there are, so I'd like to hear which you think is.

My argument is that our most basic laws... don't steal... respect others property... don't murder... don't rape... etc... are derived from a morality that is within us.... also known as "natural law"... or "the law of nature".


>Compassion and reverence for
>all life is not necessary in this case.


So WHY do we praise compassion and reverance for life as opposed to abhorring it!?

This is the point of this post.


peace.

>So why compassion? Why not hate?
>This person hurt you.

This person is/was a victim...he, too, was hurting for a loooong time. Only humans are capable of hate because they take fear to the next level and it leads to suffering. Only humans are capable of taking nature's basic needs and complicating them to suit their needs. My point was that from the beginning children are more natural than conditioned by man-made laws (morals)...much like all of the animal kingdom.

>But why compassion, forgiveness, etc?
>Why do we have morality?

I've been watching Animal Planet and seeing how dogs and cats respond to "human kindness" after being abused. They forgive and it's not because they don't know any better. Most of the time these animals know when they are being helped or harmed, when somone's intentions are to love, not hurt them.

>Have you read any
>other of the other posts except your own?
>I'm just curious.

I don't read my posts unless someone responds to them. I read and write what comes to mind based on my observations.

>So what is natural law? What is the law of human nature?
>Is it something we've made up. Or is it the NATURAL?

It's not human nature but NATURE that follow certain rules, so to speak. For example, the law of gravity. It existed before Newton and animals followed it. Things existed as part of a universal flow. Panthers didn't try to fly...birds did not suddenly launch into space. These animals live in harmony with nature's laws...but not humans. We think the world was made just for us, for us to conquer and we think we can break these laws.

>Exactly!
>So these laws of nature... where do they come from?
>You seem to have identified just fine that there are basic
>principles that are part of us that we did not INVENT.
>Correct?

Who but humans ask, "Where does nature's laws come from?" Next comes, "How can we master them, change them to suit our needs?" The laws of gravity, energy, etc. comes from where? Why do humans feel the need to master these laws and use them to suit their own needs...at the expense of the planet?

>But could "don't murder people" very well have been
>different or opposite?
>Or is there a "morality" here that is derived from our
>natural/universal law?

All animals kill but a leopard kills a zebra...but just one zebra that she eats and shares with her family. She doesn't kill the entire herd or keep others from eating the herd. In turn, the zebras eat the grasses but they don't keep gazelles from eating those same grasses. It's a cycle and no animal (except) humans breaks these laws that keep things on an even keel. This leopard is living, not in chaos but in an ordered world, yet, she does not have morals.

>Therefore you
>are not free, or able to lump Christianity in with whatever
>religion you are speaking of that requires men to go to
>"other men" in order to "get to God". Christianity
>teaches a personal and loving God whom is available to all.

Catholicism is Christianity. It's one of the oldest and most powerful religions in the world. Other Christian religions designate pastors, priests and somehow more connected to God than the masses. For several years, I thought I needed to do A and B and rely on "men of God" to have a personal relationship. That was because the book of law said so.

A lot of things we now take for granted, that have caused much suffering, were mandated by Christians and lots of other people. Christians make war based on their own laws. Manifest Destiny was supported by Christians to spread the "word of God", while people were enslaved, land was taken away, etc. This is not just about Christians but based on the idea that morals exist other than to control the world.

and arguments and statements that don't address the original question asked is all i got from what you just posted. it's late... i work tomorrow... but I'd like to respond as best I can to what you just wrote... tomorrow though... peace.

Take your time... read it... tell me where you find fault with it.
You and I are having some differences that I think are stemming from a lack of definition of terms.... just let me know how you feel about the following. It's a few paragraphs... nearly a page... so whenever you have the chance. Well you do that?

here it is...

The Law of Human Nature.

"Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasent; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" - "That's my seat, I was there first" - "Leave him alone, He isn't doing you any harm" - "Why should you shove in first?" - "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine" - "Come on, you promised". People say things like this everyday, educated peopel as well as uneducated people, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always, he tried to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you'd like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a soccer player had committed a foul unless there was some sort of agreement about the rules of soccer.

Now this Law or Rule abotu right and wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong" the Law of Nature", they really menat the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had HIS law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature of to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar and specific to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one law which he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune or pitch. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to everyone. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things said about Hitler and WW2 were completely nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless RIGHT is a real thing which the Nazis at the bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could not more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of the Law of Nature or decent behaviour is unsound, becuase different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to eachother and to our own. Some of the evidence for this, I have put together in the appendix of another book called "The Abolition of Man", but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in a battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who ahd been the kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they haev always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature - what is the difference between a fair treaty and un unfair one? Have they not let the cat our of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like everyone else?

It seems then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication tables are. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves, the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money - the one you have almost forgotten - came when you were very hard up for cash. And what you promised to do for so-and-so and have never done - well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother), if I knew how annoying they could be, I wouldn't wonder at it - and who am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment someone tells me that I'm not keeping it, there starts up in me a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses or not. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, wheter we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."



peace.

>You and I are having some differences that I think are
>stemming from a lack of definition of terms....

It's just me. I've have always danced to the beat of my own drummer...from the very beginning to now. I spent half my childhood fighting what other people accepted.

>And the other man very seldom
>replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always, he
>tried to make out that what he has been doing does not
>really go against the standard, or that if it does there is
>some special excuse.

It comes down to ego...I guess ego is the flaw of human nature for me. I don't care about what the other person thinks or believes because that is always changeable, as is the situation.

In this case, we are discussing morality. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially conduct. Our first attention is on what other's tell us is right and wrong as far as conduct and at some point we either agree or disagree. If we agree then we can get along, judging other's actions based on the code. If not, there will be times we break the code based on what we feel internally.

>The
>idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of
>gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the
>creature called man also had HIS law

My problem with this is that man is no different in body than any other animal on the planet, yet, we feel the need to break universal laws based on our own needs and fears. This is why we can't see eye-to-eye as far as morals because I believe that people who are ego-centered use morals as an excuse to break universal laws.

The original post asked "Why do we have it (morality)?" and I answered with 'to maintain control'. It also has to do with being ego-centered, as if mankind somehow is above all things on the planet, not considering that there is an entire universe that is connected via laws that we have yet to define entirely. We would not be able to breath or live without them. We created these codes to socialize the masses but we also break natural or universal law when we put our own needs over or above everything else.

- with this great
>difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed
>the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either
>to obey the Law of Human Nature of to disobey it.

If we disobey certain laws we can or will die, such as gravity. These natural or universal laws supercede human law. I choose to follow human laws but I can also choose not to follow certain human laws that do not affirm nature or life.

>That is, he cannot disobey
>those laws which he shares with other things; but the law
>which is peculiar and specific to his human nature, the law
>he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic
>things, is the one law which he can disobey if he chooses.

How are humans any different? Animals do not create complex codes, yet, get along and we can't with our codes? We break laws right and left because it doesn't suit our needs...if we can get away with it.

More later...

>They say
>things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same
>to you?" - "That's my seat, I was there first" - "Leave him
>alone, He isn't doing you any harm" - "Why should you shove
>in first?" - "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit
>of mine" - "Come on, you promised". People say things like
>this everyday, educated peopel as well as uneducated people,
>and children as well as grown-ups.

We are conditioned to say these things. To me it's about cause and effect...as long as a person has an understanding of this then it's up to them to choose and deal with the consequences. For example, I was told that "Black women have to try twice as hard to succeed." No one told me that Black women are twice as likely to have a stroke (than white women). Here the "hard work" rule can have deadly consequences, yet, many of us (professional Black women) continue to go above and beyond the call.

The optimal word in this case is success: working hard=success, success is good. Not working hard is bad since we place the most value on the consequences of success even at the detriment of our health and well being.

When we are born we have no concept of what is good or bad, right or wrong, etc., we had no concepts of anything. We had no idea of what it means to be a human but others around us project an image of what being human is about and they tell us what they believe we are, including what conduct will be rewarded or punished. None of this is necessarily true or accurate but soon we learn how to judge the way they judge and this becomes who we are.

>These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First,
>that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious
>idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot
>really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact
>behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break
>it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear
>thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

Once we become hooked into this image of what a human should be or act like we accept the expectations that certain behaviors are good or bad, we are rewarded and punished based on this. We no longer trust who we really are...I am not a human, I am Nettrice (in my case).

The problem is that the code doesn't really teach me what I ought to do with my life. I learn this code of what is right and wrong but not what I ought to do or who I really am. This is my problem with morals. Morals do not take into account purpose and intention, causality or any of my personal needs that need to be met if I am to be "good" or productive, so I rebel and resist the rules until I break...

Finally, I do understand what you are asking and I am saying that morals come from a need for external power or control. Rather than allowing people to discover how they ought to society attaches them to it's own way of doing things and this can cause fear that leads to anger (behavior) and suffering.

... it didnt' seem like you addressed what he said at all.

Why do you complicate things so much do disguise your argument... do you realize it DOES disguis your argument and makes it seem like you DON'T have an argument?

you are going to tell me that you don't have a consience?

you are going to tell me that you don't have a soul?

you are going to tell me that you don't have an inner-monologue that that raises it's voice and tries to get your attention when you have in-fact wronged another person?

and you are going to say that if you DID have a conscience... it was put there by someone trying to control you?

that's foolish.

clean up your argument.


peace.

I am discussing the issue, not trying to win anything.

I am not in conflict and I like to make things complicated because ignorance is bliss, meaning some people think things are just so..simple and that's not how I see it. How conditioned are you? Edit: I mean we are all conditioned but the question is when do folks say that some part of the "human law" is not for them?

"Without question, whatever is in that Book of Law, is our truth. We base all of our judgements according to the Book of Law, even if these judgements go against our own inner nature." - Don Miguel Ruiz

As a practice, I do not wrong people. My soul is sound and I am more in tune with my inner self for the first time of my life. It's not about conscience rather it's about intention. Intention is behind every action and people spend their entire lives seeking a purpose and really don't see how intention effects their lives and the lives of others.

That's it (for me)...no morals can tell me how I ought to live.

"As children, we never choose what to believe or not to believe. We didn't choose our religion or moral values, or any concept at all. But we agreed with these beliefs, and once we agreed, it was stored in our memory." - Don Miguel Ruiz

I must add that that "memory" is what I call conscience.

>but the question is when do folks say that some part of the
>"human law" is not for them?

exactly. if Morality is relative, what DO we do when people step out and declare themselves indifferent to what we feel is Natural Law?

What DO we do when some guy perches up in a bush and pops people with a sniper rifle for attention? We're free to decide our own morality right? There is nothing innate... no starting point... no common ground? So that guy wasn't wrong for what he did. There is no wrong! Woohoo!

What DO we do when dude confesses to killing 48 woman... uh.. maybe more... he's not sure? That was right for him to do cause there is NO outside sense of morality pressing us save what we "teach ourselves" to have social infrastructure? Right.

>"Without question, whatever is in that Book of Law, is our
>truth. We base all of our judgements according to the Book
>of Law, even if these judgements go against our own inner
>nature." - Don Miguel Ruiz

Yes, correct Mr. Ruiz. What DO we do when what is right goes against what we feel is our own nature?? Well, Chritianity teaches that Jesus was necssary BECAUSE we had part of our nature that was capable of imperfection. We had to "propensity to do wrong" because we had been given a choice to do right or wrong. Choice creates the opportunity for things to go wrong.

Look around you. Would you say that things have gone just a bit wrong?
Genocide? Slavery? More Genocide? Homicide? Rape? Kidnappings? Corperate fraud?

But one who says that "whatever is right for you is right for you" cannot say "things have gone wrong". They cannot say that. Because their philosphy depends on the idea that people are free to establish right and wrong for themselves, idependently, claiming that there is NO right and wrong found in Natural Law or "consience" that we've all ben given.

>As a practice, I do not wrong people. My soul is sound and
>I am more in tune with my inner self for the first time of
>my life.

Exactly. You have a consience. You have sense of morality. It's there. You have something inside you that says "hey... there's someting screwy about doing something to someone else that I would have a problem with having done to me... therefore... I should regfrain from the following activities... lying, abusing, murdering, cheating...".... it's your consience.

>It's not about conscience

No, it's about conscience. If it were not. You might very well have decided that "wronging" people day in and day out was the best approach, and no one's opinion on the matter would be relavent. But we've been given a consience that says.. "hey..probably not a good idea."

>rather it's about
>intention.
>Intention is behind every action and people
>spend their entire lives seeking a purpose and really don't
>see how intention effects their lives and the lives of
>others.

You're not following the thought through to the natural endpoint. finish it. Yes, your intentions come into play. What is your intention? To make it through life and not mistreat people? Something to that effect? Eh?
Well why? Answer: Consience. AKA - "Innate Sense of Morality".

The laws we make for eahother as human societies are SUPPOSED to adhere to this innate thing we all understand. As we move forward in history... man-made law is always changing and transforming to learn how to better follow the Law of Nature (what we all feel in our consience).

Every social revolution EVER, has been about the NEED for man-made law to catch up to NATURAL LAW. That is WHAT a revolution is.

Example. At one point very recently, there were actually people who thought owning and and buying/selling other humans as voluteer and tortured labor was acceptable. But that HAD to change. Becauae it's wrong. Its' in violation of Natural Law (Morality). According to moral relativity... Slavery was justified at the time because "x" number of people were ok with it. It was right for "them".

That's horse shit.

Slavery ended because idiots FINALLY realized that you just CAN'T do that to people... it is WRONG.

in fact... repeat that sentence... just take out "slavery"... and insert any word you choose...

"_______" ended because idiots FINALLY realized that you just CAN'T do that to people... it is WRONG.

That is "Moral Progress".

>That's it (for me)...no morals can tell me how I ought to
>live.

You just told me that yours do. It's why you do what you do, and don't do what you don't do. It's your decision maker.

You have free will. You are capable of acting in a manner that is fair to others or in a manner that is unfair to others.

Because of your conscience (morality), you choose to be fair.

But, you don't do it 100 percen of the time. No one does.

Hence, you're human.

Hence, you're fallable.

Aren't you?

I am.




peace.

couple lines in from the top of the above:

...we had "a" propensity

not "to" propensity


sorry.

...we are just discussing the issue...

In my opinion, morals are created by man to maintain control (of the masses) or socialize them. Inner wisdom is not morality or even conscience...people use morality to judge who they think is wrong or have broken a code. Morality relates to conformity or nonconformity to the moral standard or rule...this is external, not internal. Morals are not internal until a person has been socialized, conditioned, domesticated...

>exactly. if Morality is relative, what DO we do when people
>step out and declare themselves indifferent to what we feel
>is Natural Law?

We love them and have compassion for them. Isn't this the Christian way? Punishment can only be meted out by God but only if everyone agrees that punishment is necessary. There's nothing man can do to change this, so we decide to be God...we create the laws and mete out the punishments and use morality to support this.

My point is that morality is not innate in me. I am not born with these laws or any concepts except to live and seek my purpose. Good and bad? I am both, capable of much good and much bad...until I find my purpose.

>...we are just discussing the issue...
>
>In my opinion, morals are created by man to maintain control
>(of the masses) or socialize them. Inner wisdom is not
>morality or even conscience...

You're avoiding your burden or proof by just playing with definition of terms. You still prove my point.

Look. Fine, call it conscience. If the word "Morality" scares you because you've let Jerry Falwell let it scare you... then don't say "morality"... say conscience, or Natural Law, or whatever you like. But don't you see that the point remains unchanged?


>We love them and have compassion for them.

Of course we do. Because they are people... the are also SCREWED UP people. I still love them. But I'm not gonna let them keep sniping gas stations from the bushes just cause I love them as beings... are you? If so. You're a fool, and I don't wish to discuss this any more with you.

>so we decide to
>be God...we create the laws and mete out the punishments and
>use morality to support this.

No... you're thinking backwards. Try this. We have an innate sense of "right and wrong" about a few general things... and this sense is what we use do develop societal laws. If you are going to argue that point than you should also be at a loss as to figure out why we don't have a law that says "Murder everyone you see, always". Why don't we have that?

>My point is that morality is not innate in me. I am not
>born with these laws or any concepts except to live and seek
>my purpose. Good and bad? I am both, capable of much good
>and much bad...until I find my purpose.

Yes, it is in you. Good and Bad. Without a conscience you could not USE the WORDS "GOOD and BAD".


How old are you?


peace.

When I was 16 my stepmother's peeps offered me a joint (weed). Since before I was born my father smoked (and sold) marijuana...still does. It was assumed that when I was old enough to hang with the adults I could join in, like a rights-of-passage ritual. When it happened I said, "No, thanks." There was no one stopping me and no reason not to except I had this idea in my head that I wanted to live a certain way. No one said to me smoking weed was wrong and there was nothing stopping me from picking up my Pop's habit. I decided for myself that wasn't for me.

As I matured, I added more things to my list of "don't dos" and that included church/religion to everyone's surprise because I was so active in church and interested in the Bible. There was no wrong or right, bad or good. I was not judging anyone who did these things but I started to know what my path was and what made sense for me to engage in (or not). Along the way I simply rebelled against anything that I felt made no sense for me.

Soon my life began to change...it began to suit me better. I was doing things based on how I wanted to live. Then, I discovered my inner self (purpose) and found the path to love...that took over 30 years.

I discovered that even the most religious or righteous could break their own codes while judging others who did the same. I found that priests and others could call themselves moral and harm others without a thought. Fathers (and mothers) could harm their children without thinking...anyone and everyone knew the rules and some even knew how to bend them to suit their needs. They were all conditioned to know right from wrong and, yet, they sought ways to destroy their environment, their loved ones, etc. without a single thought as to the consequences.

I observed that most people who seek power or act based on ego often preach morality but practice something else. Behind the ego is fear. Humans were/are destroying the planet based on fear like it's okay but killing another human is wrong. Having compassion and reverence for life requires valuing all things and oneself. When this is fostered it is less likely that a person will kill or harm someone or something else.

If folks can get past the fear they might discover that even in the midst of event there is peace and there are opportunities to love and trust in the universe. Without fear there is no reason to kill or harm others, no reason to seek power over others or judge what others do (out of fear).

We'll never see eye-to-eye because I don't see morality as innate. Once judgement is involved it becomes part of the illusion that we think protects us from the world.

are you capable of responding to a contention?

are you dissappointed that you're finding out that you in fact agree with me, and you're trying to draw attention away from that with stories about your childhood?

your meandering stories aren't doing anything, they're only illustrating my point.

i don't mean to sound so accusatory, but you debate like a child.

you're not even debating.

you're having your own monologue.

i made exremely pertinent points in my last post regarding whether or not you actually disagreed with me, or were just changing definition of terms to make is sound like you did.

so?

i don't care about your stance on marijuana.

it's irrelavant.

please respond to my last post, or quit pseudo-replying.


peace.

You want it to be but this is a discussion. Therein lies the problem. You keep attacking and I keep sharing...that's because I really couldn't care less about you proving your point. I am talking from where I am and that is what I know most about...and I LOVE talking about it. Confront, argue, attack all you want. Unless you can come away from your conditioning we will never get on the same page. I was conditioned the same way and that's the past.

>you're trying to draw attention away
>from that with stories about your childhood?

Nope. I am using my experiences to illustrate my point...all along. I don't even mind rambling as long as I want. If you don't want to read it, then don't respond and let it drop...meanwhile I'll keep talking about what I know.

this is my complaint with you:

i point to something in your statement that doesn't make sense. and you ignore it and just talk.

i have a feeling i know why you're doing that.

but i'm sure you wouldn't agree.

so please click the "reply with quote" link on my last message.. and address what i said to you... please? as kindly as i can ask.

i can share stories too. illustrating points is fun. but points that stand up to scrutiny are the only ones worth having.

peace.

>>so we decide to
>>be God...we create the laws and mete out the punishments and
>>use morality to support this.


see? you just said it.

"so we decide to be god" is what you said.

if by saying "being God" you mean "pretending to be the being that judges the world".. then ok.

but now you've just gone and admitted that if there was a God, he would have every right to make whatever rule he wanted because it's HIS creation.

so now you have to look for evidence that there's a God.

once figuring out that there IS a God, you will recall thinking there "wasn't" and feel more internal embarassment than you can possibly imagine. everybody goes through it.

once discovering it, it's next to impossible to imagine not having discovered it is what i'm trying ot say.

but then you'll remember that your argument before was dependent on there being no "absolute right" (God) and "absolute wrong" (denial of God).

and you'll say "wow, if there's a God that's given us free will, there would most definitely be a true "right" and "wrong".

that last part may sound like a bit of a jump but i assure you, the explanation for it is is sooooo fascinating.

peace.

I've already accepted that I am traveling the road less travelled. You have a whole world to agree with your point and that's cool but I am stubborn because I disagree with many of these morals and precepts.

>>>so we decide to
>>>be God...we create the laws and mete out the punishments and
>>>use morality to support this.

But I think this is b.s.! I think we use morality to support our ego-based existence while the rest of universe continues to do it's thing. Noone and nothing else cares about what we think is right and wrong.

>but now you've just gone and admitted that if there was a
>God, he would have every right to make whatever rule he
>wanted because it's HIS creation.

There is no HIS, there is no MAN. There is only pure, undifferentiated spirit that is in each and every human, animal, plant and thing.

>so now you have to look for evidence that there's a God.

No evidence needed. I never mentioned there wasn't a divine spirit...I never mentioned God, only religion.

>but then you'll remember that your argument before was
>dependent on there being no "absolute right" (God) and
>"absolute wrong" (denial of God).

I still think this based on how folks define God. I don't talk to people about that, anymore because I left that behind as my foundation...

Again my point is that morality exists to control people. Your belief system is the law that rules your life, just as my beliefs rule mine. They don't have to be the same. I acknowledge your p.o.v. but you don't acknowledge mine. That's fine with me...but see my next post.

...moron? The words "moral" and "morose" share the same etymological root...blindly following the mores individuals can lose touch with their true nature and become morose.

In the old days, followers of old religions believed that if you teach someone a set of behavioral responses to match any scenario, their inner self will adapt itself to conform to that external image of perfection....shape the external and the internal will conform.

Empires require a vast, complex set of rules to be learned and strictly obeyed. To enfore this code, individuals are obliged to police themselves and others...to mold one's character into one of virtue. But the whole thing is like a house of cards, like building your own house by starting with the walls.

There's nothing wrong with following your own path, seeking purpose and coming from a place of pure intelligence. Making sure to not harm others or things is equally important. That's it.