|
|
| Are morals universal? |
| Of course |
|
20% |
[ 7 ] |
| No way! |
|
35% |
[ 12 ] |
| Some are... |
|
44% |
[ 15 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:56 pm
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo CalledTheRaven Of topic for a minute. Is it wierd that I come onto some of your threads looking for a fight? I know that we're not going to agree with each other on this stuff and at some points I get incredibly frustrated by some of your views (as I'm sure you do mine and others') but I post anyway. That's actually why I debate with you. Sometimes I just like to argue and I know that with you I can at least get a spirited conversation that won't devolve into insults and name calling. Back on topic "Fallen Men"? What would those be exaclty. I have a suspicion that it's some Christiany thing that I'm not going to believe in or agree with.
Whenever I'm in a topic, I get slightly frustrated when she challenges me because I try to use physical evidence and Eternal uses spiritual evidence.
XD So we get into these complex and complicated arguments on anything, really.what's teh matter, Blue? smile no need to feel ashamed. one enjoys it, the other didn't make it entirely clear how he feels about it besides slightly frustrated. regardless, you are seeked out for debate. you should be glad. ^_^ you are considered worthe talking too by intelligent minds. That makes me glad, but I think debating was overwhelming me a little bit back when I replied to that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:35 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx This is an except from a hilarious Christian book I read today that had me thinking about it: Quote: Chapter 13 College Daze I was sitting in a college class discussing other cultures, when I inadvertently used a naughty word that brought the entire class to a halt. The word was uncivilized. Specifically, I had referred to the cultural custom , formerly practiced in India, of burning alive the living widow of a deceased male. “It was uncivilized, and the British were right to put an end to it,” I said. All heck broke loose. “That is ethnocentric!” “That presumes one people has the right to impose its own morality on another people!” “The term ‘uncivilized’ is a value judgment!” I then did another bad thing. I stuck to my position. “I believe in value judgments. World War II was, in large part, a huge value judgment. The Nazis and the Fascists had a morally inferior position that allowed unprovoked aggression and the wholesale slaughter of entire groups of people. The United States and the Allied armies were right to stop them by force..” Oodles more heck broke loose. “So are you saying that all Americans were morally superior to all Germans or Italians?” huffed one student. “No, but I am saying that the position of America was morally superior to what Hitler stood for.” “I disagree with Hitler’s position, but I don’t think I would use the term ‘morally superior,’” chimed in another student. “I would be comfortable saying that I personally disagreed with him, but I don’t see how we can say we were ‘morally right’ and he was ‘morally wrong’ because morality is a culturally determined thing. It isn’t as though there is a single, objective standard that exists out there.” I am not making this stuff up. This exchange actually took place. On college campuses today, it is entirely possible to find lots of students who are unwilling to say that Adolph Hitler was morally wrong by any universal standard. They’ll be quick to say they disagree with him, that they are repulsed by him, that they would have resisted him–but they can’t say he was “wrong” by any objective, transcendent moral law. All that exists is individual preference. “Let’s do a role play,” I suggested. “Let’s pretend that I am a guy named Heinrich Himmler and you are all Jews. I have a gun, and you do not. We are in Germany in 1942. It is the official position of the German Government that Jews are an inferior race who must be eliminated. If morality is determined by the culture, then I would be on morally defensible ground to put a bullet in your brain. Convince me not to shoot, or I will open fire on you one by one.” There was a stunned silence. Finally, one student spoke up. “I would try to persuade him that Jews were not inferior.” “I’m unconvinced,” I replied. BLAM! One down, twenty to go. “I would say that I personally disagree with taking an innocent life,” ventured another. “Your disagreement has been noted,” I replied. BLAM! I continued to pick them off, one by one, because not one student could articulate any reason other than some form of the statement, “I disagree with you.” Finally, an exasperated student snapped, “I don’t think it is fair for you to throw these kinds of hypothetical situations at us.” “it isn’t hypothetical,” I retorted. “there really was a guy named Himmler, and he worked under Hitler, and eliminating Jews was in his job description. And you can’t even tell the guy that what he is doing is wrong, because you don’t believe in any objective standard of right and wrong. All you have is preferences. But he has his own preferences. And he prefers to have you dead.” BLAM! “Do you realize the enormity of what you believe?” I asked. “You are saying that throwing people in an oven or not throwing them in an oven are nothing more than issues of personal preference. It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes genocide possible. Someone please give Himmler a reason not to pull the trigger again. Even if he ignores you, give him something better than ‘I disagree with your preference.’” I finally ended up facing a young woman who looked me in the eye and said, “God will judge you for every innocent life you take.” That was one of the few rational thoughts uttered that day. The period ended and the class was dismissed. As I made my way toward my next class, a student ran up to me. It was the guy who complained that my “hypothetical” situation was unfair. “I really do believe that Hitler was wrong,” he said, his brow furrowed in dismay. “Was he wrong by any universally binding standard” Or do you just mean you personally don’t like what he did?” The poor guy was in agony. Every commonsense impulse in him told him to agree that Hitler was a moral atrocity. His own conscience was almost audibly screaming at him to agree that throwing babies into an oven is a horrific moral outrage that is a universal WRONG! But years of university nonsense had persuaded him that only a cretin believed that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. In the end, all he could do was tell me that personally, he really, really, really disagreed with Hitler. He kept walking with me. Finally, I turned to him and said, “You know deep down that genocide is wrong. You know it because in your heart you are better than your creed.” We parted company on that note. What do you think? Are all morals personal? Or are there some things that are just plain wrong? And off-topic, would you want to read a book where a study guide question asks you if it's irritating that the author doesn't have to put anything in the study guide? xd (he does that. I adore this author rofl whee ) i would venture to say that despite agreeing with the statement "God will Judge you for every Innocent Life you take", i also consider myself Extreme in believing that there are no Objective Universal Morals or Ethics. that Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, are merely human concepts which differ from Individual to Individual, and from Culture to Culture. Justice depends on Legislation and Authority, not on Nature. furthermore, as i feel it is part of the same thing, i believe that Heaven and Hell are more states of Being, rather than manifest places, and that when i say i believe the Creator will Judge, i mean to say more that it is not the place of Mortals to make harsh Judgement. who are we to know? so while i have my belief that Good and Evil are not Universal and Objective, i also do not impose this belief on others, by virtue of my own personal Moral Code. I think the very fact we have a need to do the right moral thing, even if our moral standard is sometimes wrong, means there is a universal moral code. I don't think morality is subjective, or else many people wouldn't be disgusted at genocide or war or a picture of a small starved child. We may be able to distort our sense of morality, like people who are suicidal lose their natural desire to live, but most are born with a natural desire towards good, like they are born with a desire to live. The fact people feel the need to behave morally is the evidence that morality is not subjective. I hope Heaven and Hell aren't just states of Being, if only because I get melancholy most of the time. I want to go to a place that defies sadness and death, when my time here is over. i think that that is untrue. it is smply because of the reality of the consequences of making certain decisions, that they become unsavoury to us anyay, regardless. it doesn't need to be Objectively Good or Evil, it's just plain fact that to act Benevolent is Beneficial to the Self as much a sto the Collective, and that to act malevolent is harmful to the Self as much as to the Collective. my stepdad disagrees, he also believes in Universally Objective Good and Evil. he is Hindu, and feels that the fact that Morality is so similar across the globe is evidence that Right and Wrong are Instinctually "known" by Humans. i guess it's like the whole Origional Sin concept to christians. also, i just got a reply from a friend in my guild about this (cause i stole it and posed it in the Discussion Subforum in my guild) that opened up a new concept to me. she gave the argument that everyone is born with a sense of Right and Wrong, or are able to figure out Morality on their own. she remembers it herself, and has also observed her children, as well as interviewed friends on this matter. i was unaware that ANYONE was able to have the capacity for Moral Judgement so young! ._. i personally remember a time when i had no sense of Morality. no sense of Compassion or Sympathy. in fact, that is the very time in life that i consider to be Innocence. th concept f having NO concept of Morality is my definition of Innocence, which is why i am so terrified fchildren, despite how greatly i adore them. also, you shouldn't ever avoid sadness and Death. emotions and states of being are never going to go away, in or after life, and you should accept that. but you should also realize that they are never permanent, and that nothing is. it is always changing, and always will. whether you are alive or dead, you will experience emotions, and states of being, states of Heaven and of Hell. you don't have to believe it, you can be a fluff-bunny christian and believe the Book of Revelation in that there will be an eternity of bliss and joy... it is of no consequence to me. but personally, i would feel afraid of such a fate. sweatdrop permanence disturbs me greatly. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:36 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo CalledTheRaven Of topic for a minute. Is it wierd that I come onto some of your threads looking for a fight? I know that we're not going to agree with each other on this stuff and at some points I get incredibly frustrated by some of your views (as I'm sure you do mine and others') but I post anyway. That's actually why I debate with you. Sometimes I just like to argue and I know that with you I can at least get a spirited conversation that won't devolve into insults and name calling. Back on topic "Fallen Men"? What would those be exaclty. I have a suspicion that it's some Christiany thing that I'm not going to believe in or agree with.
Whenever I'm in a topic, I get slightly frustrated when she challenges me because I try to use physical evidence and Eternal uses spiritual evidence.
XD So we get into these complex and complicated arguments on anything, really.what's teh matter, Blue? smile no need to feel ashamed. one enjoys it, the other didn't make it entirely clear how he feels about it besides slightly frustrated. regardless, you are seeked out for debate. you should be glad. ^_^ you are considered worthe talking too by intelligent minds. That makes me glad, but I think debating was overwhelming me a little bit back when I replied to that. fully understood dear. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:53 pm
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx This is an except from a hilarious Christian book I read today that had me thinking about it: Quote: Chapter 13 College Daze I was sitting in a college class discussing other cultures, when I inadvertently used a naughty word that brought the entire class to a halt. The word was uncivilized. Specifically, I had referred to the cultural custom , formerly practiced in India, of burning alive the living widow of a deceased male. “It was uncivilized, and the British were right to put an end to it,” I said. All heck broke loose. “That is ethnocentric!” “That presumes one people has the right to impose its own morality on another people!” “The term ‘uncivilized’ is a value judgment!” I then did another bad thing. I stuck to my position. “I believe in value judgments. World War II was, in large part, a huge value judgment. The Nazis and the Fascists had a morally inferior position that allowed unprovoked aggression and the wholesale slaughter of entire groups of people. The United States and the Allied armies were right to stop them by force..” Oodles more heck broke loose. “So are you saying that all Americans were morally superior to all Germans or Italians?” huffed one student. “No, but I am saying that the position of America was morally superior to what Hitler stood for.” “I disagree with Hitler’s position, but I don’t think I would use the term ‘morally superior,’” chimed in another student. “I would be comfortable saying that I personally disagreed with him, but I don’t see how we can say we were ‘morally right’ and he was ‘morally wrong’ because morality is a culturally determined thing. It isn’t as though there is a single, objective standard that exists out there.” I am not making this stuff up. This exchange actually took place. On college campuses today, it is entirely possible to find lots of students who are unwilling to say that Adolph Hitler was morally wrong by any universal standard. They’ll be quick to say they disagree with him, that they are repulsed by him, that they would have resisted him–but they can’t say he was “wrong” by any objective, transcendent moral law. All that exists is individual preference. “Let’s do a role play,” I suggested. “Let’s pretend that I am a guy named Heinrich Himmler and you are all Jews. I have a gun, and you do not. We are in Germany in 1942. It is the official position of the German Government that Jews are an inferior race who must be eliminated. If morality is determined by the culture, then I would be on morally defensible ground to put a bullet in your brain. Convince me not to shoot, or I will open fire on you one by one.” There was a stunned silence. Finally, one student spoke up. “I would try to persuade him that Jews were not inferior.” “I’m unconvinced,” I replied. BLAM! One down, twenty to go. “I would say that I personally disagree with taking an innocent life,” ventured another. “Your disagreement has been noted,” I replied. BLAM! I continued to pick them off, one by one, because not one student could articulate any reason other than some form of the statement, “I disagree with you.” Finally, an exasperated student snapped, “I don’t think it is fair for you to throw these kinds of hypothetical situations at us.” “it isn’t hypothetical,” I retorted. “there really was a guy named Himmler, and he worked under Hitler, and eliminating Jews was in his job description. And you can’t even tell the guy that what he is doing is wrong, because you don’t believe in any objective standard of right and wrong. All you have is preferences. But he has his own preferences. And he prefers to have you dead.” BLAM! “Do you realize the enormity of what you believe?” I asked. “You are saying that throwing people in an oven or not throwing them in an oven are nothing more than issues of personal preference. It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes genocide possible. Someone please give Himmler a reason not to pull the trigger again. Even if he ignores you, give him something better than ‘I disagree with your preference.’” I finally ended up facing a young woman who looked me in the eye and said, “God will judge you for every innocent life you take.” That was one of the few rational thoughts uttered that day. The period ended and the class was dismissed. As I made my way toward my next class, a student ran up to me. It was the guy who complained that my “hypothetical” situation was unfair. “I really do believe that Hitler was wrong,” he said, his brow furrowed in dismay. “Was he wrong by any universally binding standard” Or do you just mean you personally don’t like what he did?” The poor guy was in agony. Every commonsense impulse in him told him to agree that Hitler was a moral atrocity. His own conscience was almost audibly screaming at him to agree that throwing babies into an oven is a horrific moral outrage that is a universal WRONG! But years of university nonsense had persuaded him that only a cretin believed that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. In the end, all he could do was tell me that personally, he really, really, really disagreed with Hitler. He kept walking with me. Finally, I turned to him and said, “You know deep down that genocide is wrong. You know it because in your heart you are better than your creed.” We parted company on that note. What do you think? Are all morals personal? Or are there some things that are just plain wrong? And off-topic, would you want to read a book where a study guide question asks you if it's irritating that the author doesn't have to put anything in the study guide? xd (he does that. I adore this author rofl whee ) i would venture to say that despite agreeing with the statement "God will Judge you for every Innocent Life you take", i also consider myself Extreme in believing that there are no Objective Universal Morals or Ethics. that Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, are merely human concepts which differ from Individual to Individual, and from Culture to Culture. Justice depends on Legislation and Authority, not on Nature. furthermore, as i feel it is part of the same thing, i believe that Heaven and Hell are more states of Being, rather than manifest places, and that when i say i believe the Creator will Judge, i mean to say more that it is not the place of Mortals to make harsh Judgement. who are we to know? so while i have my belief that Good and Evil are not Universal and Objective, i also do not impose this belief on others, by virtue of my own personal Moral Code. I think the very fact we have a need to do the right moral thing, even if our moral standard is sometimes wrong, means there is a universal moral code. I don't think morality is subjective, or else many people wouldn't be disgusted at genocide or war or a picture of a small starved child. We may be able to distort our sense of morality, like people who are suicidal lose their natural desire to live, but most are born with a natural desire towards good, like they are born with a desire to live. The fact people feel the need to behave morally is the evidence that morality is not subjective. I hope Heaven and Hell aren't just states of Being, if only because I get melancholy most of the time. I want to go to a place that defies sadness and death, when my time here is over. i think that that is untrue. it is smply because of the reality of the consequences of making certain decisions, that they become unsavoury to us anyay, regardless. it doesn't need to be Objectively Good or Evil, it's just plain fact that to act Benevolent is Beneficial to the Self as much a sto the Collective, and that to act malevolent is harmful to the Self as much as to the Collective. my stepdad disagrees, he also believes in Universally Objective Good and Evil. he is Hindu, and feels that the fact that Morality is so similar across the globe is evidence that Right and Wrong are Instinctually "known" by Humans. i guess it's like the whole Origional Sin concept to christians. also, i just got a reply from a friend in my guild about this (cause i stole it and posed it in the Discussion Subforum in my guild) that opened up a new concept to me. she gave the argument that everyone is born with a sense of Right and Wrong, or are able to figure out Morality on their own. she remembers it herself, and has also observed her children, as well as interviewed friends on this matter. i was unaware that ANYONE was able to have the capacity for Moral Judgement so young! ._. i personally remember a time when i had no sense of Morality. no sense of Compassion or Sympathy. in fact, that is the very time in life that i consider to be Innocence. th concept f having NO concept of Morality is my definition of Innocence, which is why i am so terrified fchildren, despite how greatly i adore them. also, you shouldn't ever avoid sadness and Death. emotions and states of being are never going to go away, in or after life, and you should accept that. but you should also realize that they are never permanent, and that nothing is. it is always changing, and always will. whether you are alive or dead, you will experience emotions, and states of being, states of Heaven and of Hell. you don't have to believe it, you can be a fluff-bunny christian and believe the Book of Revelation in that there will be an eternity of bliss and joy... it is of no consequence to me. but personally, i would feel afraid of such a fate. sweatdrop permanence disturbs me greatly. sweatdrop But shouldn't we be numb then? If things aren't right and wrong, if right and wrong can just shift according to situation, then why should the concepts of right and wrong hold any weight at all? (I'm not sure I like the way this phrased...I may try to fix it tomorrow) I remember feeling guilt for the first time...it felt like I was sick, except not. It's that, and the way Cs Lewis put the argument for Universal Morality, that keeps me convinced morality is universal. My mom also observed what that woman did in me and my siblings. I think with children, it's less that they aren't moral and more that they don't have societal restraints on them. A little kid will tell a fat man he's fat. They aren't cruel, or seeking to do harm, they just don't know what's acceptable in society and what's not. It doesn't mean they don't know what's good and bad...i mean, what little boy wants to be the dragon, and what little girl the evil witch? Sadness, with me, seems to go on for a long time. I get sick of it. I'm more afraid of being sad, of endless gray days with maybe occasional happiness, then I am of eternal happiness. Permanence is frightening because it's a concept behind which exists boredom and tedium: two things which won't exist in Heaven, I think. Heaven, I think, will be the place where we can finally be completely ourselves. No more boredom, no more sadness, nor anger or pain, but joy and life and excitement and exhilaration instead. Like a perfect day, but a thousand times better, and without the taint of 'I wish it could go on forever', because of course it will. It's not just a stretch of happiness, but joy exponentially increasing. Hell's going to be the boring place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:56 pm
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo CalledTheRaven Of topic for a minute. Is it wierd that I come onto some of your threads looking for a fight? I know that we're not going to agree with each other on this stuff and at some points I get incredibly frustrated by some of your views (as I'm sure you do mine and others') but I post anyway. That's actually why I debate with you. Sometimes I just like to argue and I know that with you I can at least get a spirited conversation that won't devolve into insults and name calling. Back on topic "Fallen Men"? What would those be exaclty. I have a suspicion that it's some Christiany thing that I'm not going to believe in or agree with.
Whenever I'm in a topic, I get slightly frustrated when she challenges me because I try to use physical evidence and Eternal uses spiritual evidence.
XD So we get into these complex and complicated arguments on anything, really.what's teh matter, Blue? smile no need to feel ashamed. one enjoys it, the other didn't make it entirely clear how he feels about it besides slightly frustrated. regardless, you are seeked out for debate. you should be glad. ^_^ you are considered worthe talking too by intelligent minds. That makes me glad, but I think debating was overwhelming me a little bit back when I replied to that. fully understood dear. ^_^ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:42 am
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx This is an except from a hilarious Christian book I read today that had me thinking about it: Quote: Chapter 13 College Daze I was sitting in a college class discussing other cultures, when I inadvertently used a naughty word that brought the entire class to a halt. The word was uncivilized. Specifically, I had referred to the cultural custom , formerly practiced in India, of burning alive the living widow of a deceased male. “It was uncivilized, and the British were right to put an end to it,” I said. All heck broke loose. “That is ethnocentric!” “That presumes one people has the right to impose its own morality on another people!” “The term ‘uncivilized’ is a value judgment!” I then did another bad thing. I stuck to my position. “I believe in value judgments. World War II was, in large part, a huge value judgment. The Nazis and the Fascists had a morally inferior position that allowed unprovoked aggression and the wholesale slaughter of entire groups of people. The United States and the Allied armies were right to stop them by force..” Oodles more heck broke loose. “So are you saying that all Americans were morally superior to all Germans or Italians?” huffed one student. “No, but I am saying that the position of America was morally superior to what Hitler stood for.” “I disagree with Hitler’s position, but I don’t think I would use the term ‘morally superior,’” chimed in another student. “I would be comfortable saying that I personally disagreed with him, but I don’t see how we can say we were ‘morally right’ and he was ‘morally wrong’ because morality is a culturally determined thing. It isn’t as though there is a single, objective standard that exists out there.” I am not making this stuff up. This exchange actually took place. On college campuses today, it is entirely possible to find lots of students who are unwilling to say that Adolph Hitler was morally wrong by any universal standard. They’ll be quick to say they disagree with him, that they are repulsed by him, that they would have resisted him–but they can’t say he was “wrong” by any objective, transcendent moral law. All that exists is individual preference. “Let’s do a role play,” I suggested. “Let’s pretend that I am a guy named Heinrich Himmler and you are all Jews. I have a gun, and you do not. We are in Germany in 1942. It is the official position of the German Government that Jews are an inferior race who must be eliminated. If morality is determined by the culture, then I would be on morally defensible ground to put a bullet in your brain. Convince me not to shoot, or I will open fire on you one by one.” There was a stunned silence. Finally, one student spoke up. “I would try to persuade him that Jews were not inferior.” “I’m unconvinced,” I replied. BLAM! One down, twenty to go. “I would say that I personally disagree with taking an innocent life,” ventured another. “Your disagreement has been noted,” I replied. BLAM! I continued to pick them off, one by one, because not one student could articulate any reason other than some form of the statement, “I disagree with you.” Finally, an exasperated student snapped, “I don’t think it is fair for you to throw these kinds of hypothetical situations at us.” “it isn’t hypothetical,” I retorted. “there really was a guy named Himmler, and he worked under Hitler, and eliminating Jews was in his job description. And you can’t even tell the guy that what he is doing is wrong, because you don’t believe in any objective standard of right and wrong. All you have is preferences. But he has his own preferences. And he prefers to have you dead.” BLAM! “Do you realize the enormity of what you believe?” I asked. “You are saying that throwing people in an oven or not throwing them in an oven are nothing more than issues of personal preference. It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes genocide possible. Someone please give Himmler a reason not to pull the trigger again. Even if he ignores you, give him something better than ‘I disagree with your preference.’” I finally ended up facing a young woman who looked me in the eye and said, “God will judge you for every innocent life you take.” That was one of the few rational thoughts uttered that day. The period ended and the class was dismissed. As I made my way toward my next class, a student ran up to me. It was the guy who complained that my “hypothetical” situation was unfair. “I really do believe that Hitler was wrong,” he said, his brow furrowed in dismay. “Was he wrong by any universally binding standard” Or do you just mean you personally don’t like what he did?” The poor guy was in agony. Every commonsense impulse in him told him to agree that Hitler was a moral atrocity. His own conscience was almost audibly screaming at him to agree that throwing babies into an oven is a horrific moral outrage that is a universal WRONG! But years of university nonsense had persuaded him that only a cretin believed that some things are always right and some things are always wrong. In the end, all he could do was tell me that personally, he really, really, really disagreed with Hitler. He kept walking with me. Finally, I turned to him and said, “You know deep down that genocide is wrong. You know it because in your heart you are better than your creed.” We parted company on that note. What do you think? Are all morals personal? Or are there some things that are just plain wrong? And off-topic, would you want to read a book where a study guide question asks you if it's irritating that the author doesn't have to put anything in the study guide? xd (he does that. I adore this author rofl whee ) i would venture to say that despite agreeing with the statement "God will Judge you for every Innocent Life you take", i also consider myself Extreme in believing that there are no Objective Universal Morals or Ethics. that Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, are merely human concepts which differ from Individual to Individual, and from Culture to Culture. Justice depends on Legislation and Authority, not on Nature. furthermore, as i feel it is part of the same thing, i believe that Heaven and Hell are more states of Being, rather than manifest places, and that when i say i believe the Creator will Judge, i mean to say more that it is not the place of Mortals to make harsh Judgement. who are we to know? so while i have my belief that Good and Evil are not Universal and Objective, i also do not impose this belief on others, by virtue of my own personal Moral Code. I think the very fact we have a need to do the right moral thing, even if our moral standard is sometimes wrong, means there is a universal moral code. I don't think morality is subjective, or else many people wouldn't be disgusted at genocide or war or a picture of a small starved child. We may be able to distort our sense of morality, like people who are suicidal lose their natural desire to live, but most are born with a natural desire towards good, like they are born with a desire to live. The fact people feel the need to behave morally is the evidence that morality is not subjective. I hope Heaven and Hell aren't just states of Being, if only because I get melancholy most of the time. I want to go to a place that defies sadness and death, when my time here is over. i think that that is untrue. it is smply because of the reality of the consequences of making certain decisions, that they become unsavoury to us anyay, regardless. it doesn't need to be Objectively Good or Evil, it's just plain fact that to act Benevolent is Beneficial to the Self as much a sto the Collective, and that to act malevolent is harmful to the Self as much as to the Collective. my stepdad disagrees, he also believes in Universally Objective Good and Evil. he is Hindu, and feels that the fact that Morality is so similar across the globe is evidence that Right and Wrong are Instinctually "known" by Humans. i guess it's like the whole Origional Sin concept to christians. also, i just got a reply from a friend in my guild about this (cause i stole it and posed it in the Discussion Subforum in my guild) that opened up a new concept to me. she gave the argument that everyone is born with a sense of Right and Wrong, or are able to figure out Morality on their own. she remembers it herself, and has also observed her children, as well as interviewed friends on this matter. i was unaware that ANYONE was able to have the capacity for Moral Judgement so young! ._. i personally remember a time when i had no sense of Morality. no sense of Compassion or Sympathy. in fact, that is the very time in life that i consider to be Innocence. th concept f having NO concept of Morality is my definition of Innocence, which is why i am so terrified fchildren, despite how greatly i adore them. also, you shouldn't ever avoid sadness and Death. emotions and states of being are never going to go away, in or after life, and you should accept that. but you should also realize that they are never permanent, and that nothing is. it is always changing, and always will. whether you are alive or dead, you will experience emotions, and states of being, states of Heaven and of Hell. you don't have to believe it, you can be a fluff-bunny christian and believe the Book of Revelation in that there will be an eternity of bliss and joy... it is of no consequence to me. but personally, i would feel afraid of such a fate. sweatdrop permanence disturbs me greatly. sweatdrop But shouldn't we be numb then? If things aren't right and wrong, if right and wrong can just shift according to situation, then why should the concepts of right and wrong hold any weight at all? (I'm not sure I like the way this phrased...I may try to fix it tomorrow) I remember feeling guilt for the first time...it felt like I was sick, except not. It's that, and the way Cs Lewis put the argument for Universal Morality, that keeps me convinced morality is universal. My mom also observed what that woman did in me and my siblings. I think with children, it's less that they aren't moral and more that they don't have societal restraints on them. A little kid will tell a fat man he's fat. They aren't cruel, or seeking to do harm, they just don't know what's acceptable in society and what's not. It doesn't mean they don't know what's good and bad...i mean, what little boy wants to be the dragon, and what little girl the evil witch? Sadness, with me, seems to go on for a long time. I get sick of it. I'm more afraid of being sad, of endless gray days with maybe occasional happiness, then I am of eternal happiness. Permanence is frightening because it's a concept behind which exists boredom and tedium: two things which won't exist in Heaven, I think. Heaven, I think, will be the place where we can finally be completely ourselves. No more boredom, no more sadness, nor anger or pain, but joy and life and excitement and exhilaration instead. Like a perfect day, but a thousand times better, and without the taint of 'I wish it could go on forever', because of course it will. It's not just a stretch of happiness, but joy exponentially increasing. Hell's going to be the boring place. i wouldn't say that it is changable based on situation, i think there is a reality behind it which solidifies the "why" behind humanity inventing the concept. i believe there is Universal Benevolence and Malevolence, because those are defined clearly rather than vaguely. that which is Beneficial or in the bets interest of others, and that which is maleficent or harmful to others. humans, as Pack Animals, Know Instinctually (even if they don't always Understand) that that which Benifits the Collective Benefits them as well, while harm done to the Group is harmfull to the Individual. it boils down to my belief "what is right is to do whatever you are capable of and willing to do." Purpose in this world is Self-given. and that is what the meaning of life is, to give yourself purpose. and how is a "personal" feeling of guilt evidence of Objectivity? that does not prove in any way that others would feel guilty over the same thing. think of all the sociopaths who know right from wrong and till don't care. think of all the people who neither know nor care what is right and wrong. if an idea of Morality can vary from one person to the next, how would you determine who is Right and who is Wrong? who are you to Judge? who are any of us to Know what the Creator Knows? also, i cannot stand permanence. i think that is where we differ on the whole Heaven/Hell thing... confused i'd rather think of Heaven as Nirvana based on two things: personal uprbringing and experience in Magical Practice wherein i regularly Project my Consciousness into the Otherworld (plane where the Spirit resides, where the Soul goes after Death, which to be fair may just as likely be a halluscination as real), and personal feeling that the "foreverness" of eternal Joy and happiness and Peace would wear on me until i become restless (which would not take long) thereby ruining the whole thing for me and being as tormenting an eternity as Hell would be according to christianity or even worse than they describe it. i look forward to Hel. that's where we're supposed to go when we die, that's the Place of Death. even the Bible acknowledges that. i don't want to "live forever with the father and th son aftr the first death, in a utopian city of gold and jewels and eternal light", i'd hate it there quite frankly. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:43 am
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo CalledTheRaven Of topic for a minute. Is it wierd that I come onto some of your threads looking for a fight? I know that we're not going to agree with each other on this stuff and at some points I get incredibly frustrated by some of your views (as I'm sure you do mine and others') but I post anyway. That's actually why I debate with you. Sometimes I just like to argue and I know that with you I can at least get a spirited conversation that won't devolve into insults and name calling. Back on topic "Fallen Men"? What would those be exaclty. I have a suspicion that it's some Christiany thing that I'm not going to believe in or agree with.
Whenever I'm in a topic, I get slightly frustrated when she challenges me because I try to use physical evidence and Eternal uses spiritual evidence.
XD So we get into these complex and complicated arguments on anything, really.what's teh matter, Blue? smile no need to feel ashamed. one enjoys it, the other didn't make it entirely clear how he feels about it besides slightly frustrated. regardless, you are seeked out for debate. you should be glad. ^_^ you are considered worthe talking too by intelligent minds.
People must learn there are limits to debates sometimes, it can't be helped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:44 am
Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight i would venture to say that despite agreeing with the statement "God will Judge you for every Innocent Life you take", i also consider myself Extreme in believing that there are no Objective Universal Morals or Ethics. that Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, are merely human concepts which differ from Individual to Individual, and from Culture to Culture. Justice depends on Legislation and Authority, not on Nature. furthermore, as i feel it is part of the same thing, i believe that Heaven and Hell are more states of Being, rather than manifest places, and that when i say i believe the Creator will Judge, i mean to say more that it is not the place of Mortals to make harsh Judgement. who are we to know? so while i have my belief that Good and Evil are not Universal and Objective, i also do not impose this belief on others, by virtue of my own personal Moral Code. I think the very fact we have a need to do the right moral thing, even if our moral standard is sometimes wrong, means there is a universal moral code. I don't think morality is subjective, or else many people wouldn't be disgusted at genocide or war or a picture of a small starved child. We may be able to distort our sense of morality, like people who are suicidal lose their natural desire to live, but most are born with a natural desire towards good, like they are born with a desire to live. The fact people feel the need to behave morally is the evidence that morality is not subjective. I hope Heaven and Hell aren't just states of Being, if only because I get melancholy most of the time. I want to go to a place that defies sadness and death, when my time here is over. i think that that is untrue. it is smply because of the reality of the consequences of making certain decisions, that they become unsavoury to us anyay, regardless. it doesn't need to be Objectively Good or Evil, it's just plain fact that to act Benevolent is Beneficial to the Self as much a sto the Collective, and that to act malevolent is harmful to the Self as much as to the Collective. my stepdad disagrees, he also believes in Universally Objective Good and Evil. he is Hindu, and feels that the fact that Morality is so similar across the globe is evidence that Right and Wrong are Instinctually "known" by Humans. i guess it's like the whole Origional Sin concept to christians. also, i just got a reply from a friend in my guild about this (cause i stole it and posed it in the Discussion Subforum in my guild) that opened up a new concept to me. she gave the argument that everyone is born with a sense of Right and Wrong, or are able to figure out Morality on their own. she remembers it herself, and has also observed her children, as well as interviewed friends on this matter. i was unaware that ANYONE was able to have the capacity for Moral Judgement so young! ._. i personally remember a time when i had no sense of Morality. no sense of Compassion or Sympathy. in fact, that is the very time in life that i consider to be Innocence. th concept f having NO concept of Morality is my definition of Innocence, which is why i am so terrified fchildren, despite how greatly i adore them. also, you shouldn't ever avoid sadness and Death. emotions and states of being are never going to go away, in or after life, and you should accept that. but you should also realize that they are never permanent, and that nothing is. it is always changing, and always will. whether you are alive or dead, you will experience emotions, and states of being, states of Heaven and of Hell. you don't have to believe it, you can be a fluff-bunny christian and believe the Book of Revelation in that there will be an eternity of bliss and joy... it is of no consequence to me. but personally, i would feel afraid of such a fate. sweatdrop permanence disturbs me greatly. sweatdrop But shouldn't we be numb then? If things aren't right and wrong, if right and wrong can just shift according to situation, then why should the concepts of right and wrong hold any weight at all? (I'm not sure I like the way this phrased...I may try to fix it tomorrow) I remember feeling guilt for the first time...it felt like I was sick, except not. It's that, and the way Cs Lewis put the argument for Universal Morality, that keeps me convinced morality is universal. My mom also observed what that woman did in me and my siblings. I think with children, it's less that they aren't moral and more that they don't have societal restraints on them. A little kid will tell a fat man he's fat. They aren't cruel, or seeking to do harm, they just don't know what's acceptable in society and what's not. It doesn't mean they don't know what's good and bad...i mean, what little boy wants to be the dragon, and what little girl the evil witch? Sadness, with me, seems to go on for a long time. I get sick of it. I'm more afraid of being sad, of endless gray days with maybe occasional happiness, then I am of eternal happiness. Permanence is frightening because it's a concept behind which exists boredom and tedium: two things which won't exist in Heaven, I think. Heaven, I think, will be the place where we can finally be completely ourselves. No more boredom, no more sadness, nor anger or pain, but joy and life and excitement and exhilaration instead. Like a perfect day, but a thousand times better, and without the taint of 'I wish it could go on forever', because of course it will. It's not just a stretch of happiness, but joy exponentially increasing. Hell's going to be the boring place. i wouldn't say that it is changable based on situation, i think there is a reality behind it which solidifies the "why" behind humanity inventing the concept. i believe there is Universal Benevolence and Malevolence, because those are defined clearly rather than vaguely. that which is Beneficial or in the bets interest of others, and that which is maleficent or harmful to others. humans, as Pack Animals, Know Instinctually (even if they don't always Understand) that that which Benifits the Collective Benefits them as well, while harm done to the Group is harmfull to the Individual. it boils down to my belief "what is right is to do whatever you are capable of and willing to do." Purpose in this world is Self-given. and that is what the meaning of life is, to give yourself purpose. and how is a "personal" feeling of guilt evidence of Objectivity? that does not prove in any way that others would feel guilty over the same thing. think of all the sociopaths who know right from wrong and till don't care. think of all the people who neither know nor care what is right and wrong. if an idea of Morality can vary from one person to the next, how would you determine who is Right and who is Wrong? who are you to Judge? who are any of us to Know what the Creator Knows? also, i cannot stand permanence. i think that is where we differ on the whole Heaven/Hell thing... confused i'd rather think of Heaven as Nirvana based on two things: personal uprbringing and experience in Magical Practice wherein i regularly Project my Consciousness into the Otherworld (plane where the Spirit resides, where the Soul goes after Death, which to be fair may just as likely be a halluscination as real), and personal feeling that the "foreverness" of eternal Joy and happiness and Peace would wear on me until i become restless (which would not take long) thereby ruining the whole thing for me and being as tormenting an eternity as Hell would be according to christianity or even worse than they describe it. i look forward to Hel. that's where we're supposed to go when we die, that's the Place of Death. even the Bible acknowledges that. i don't want to "live forever with the father and th son aftr the first death, in a utopian city of gold and jewels and eternal light", i'd hate it there quite frankly. sad It sounds like you're saying morality is based on the welfare of the group. In that case though, the group shouldn't be concerned for the individual. Those who are disabled or old or who draw necessary resources should be done away with. In other words, those with power, strength, or even just potential, should be more highly valued. A 'normal' child is worth more then one with ADD or Down's Syndrome, because the 'normal' child will give more back to the group then the one with the LD. Do you agree with that? I disagree. I think on our own we're worthless, but God gives us worth. The universe doesn't revolve us, but around Him. Those people, I think, are somewhat like those who are suicidal: one loses their will to live, and the other loses their ability to judge right from wrong. They tend to be the exception, and not the rule. And what I got from that feeling was that I violated something when I sinned. I felt distanced and unsafe from something I didn't even have a word for at their point. I think sinning cut me off from God, and it felt entirely wrong. The very simple Christian answer that is very easy to disagree with: the Bible. If you believe it's God-inspired, then that's how. If you aren't a Christian, then I have absolutely no idea how you know for sure what's right and wrong. I suppose it's based on what benefits you, or some other religious code, or whatever code you can cobble out yourself. You're looking at it like joy can stifle you...it's not supposed to be that way. It can't get tiresome, because tiresome is one of those things that belong to Hell, and because things don't stay in a constant state in Heaven. I think it's more like happiness increasing and maybe there will be new emotions too...maybe what we feel now are whites and blacks and grays, and at best browns and dark blues, and there there's a whole new spectrum. I like to think so. The Bible says that's the penalty, but Jesus came to free us from that. It's supposed to be a place of eternal suffering, gnashing teeth, thirst that can drive one nuts, etc. There's a permanence there too; you're locked in whatever addictions and mindsets you embraced on earth. Everything just goes on. I really don't like the thought of it. >< I think you'd hate what you think it'd be like, but I don't think you'd hate it there. Anyway, it's not like anywhere can force you to go to Heaven. If you'd rather go to Place of Death, then no doubt that's where you'll go. Why do you want to go to Hell though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:48 pm
Interesting, but here's my small thought for the day:
Our social structure has changed dramatically from what it previously was. Whereas in times past communicating with people from around the globe was unheard of, it's an extremely common today. Fact remains that we are a social species and in order to survive we have to maintain relationships with one another, even on a global scale.
It's funny that everyone mentions morals are culturally or locally derived. In the case of our expanding culture, a culture that's more and more becoming a global culture, it certainly is the case that we must think of a universal set of morals in order to co-exist peacefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:13 pm
Hmm, this is an interesting quote. Though, for me it probably had the opposite effect than it did for you. It seems that you interpreted it to show that people who don't believe in absolute morals are insubstantial, wishy-washy, and foolish, but I felt so much sympathy for the college student, refusing to give up their beliefs even at metaphorical gunpoint, and taking the difficult position even though it was the hardest.
In my opinion:
a theory that doesn't respond to violence is pacifist by nature, and I do not view this as a flaw. The response that the last student gives only attempts to return intimidation with intimidation, which leads to more conflict. I do not think putting forth the greatest authority for your opponent to tremble before is winning. Especially not God: God loves everyone. God loved Hitler. God plans everything. God planned Hitler. This does not mean we need to succumb to forces that attempt to injure us, but it does mean we have no basis on which to make eternal, objective opinions. We are not eternal, objective beings, and we do not have one whose authority we can freely use.
We are free to believe in subjective right and wrong, which is the values we use to judge our lives. This is how we find direction, judgement, forgiveness, and purpose. If they could not change (i.e. if they were objective), we would not be human at all. And, truly, we are free to believe objective ones too. If one believes in subjectivity, they can accept another believing in objectivity - it's the very basis of subjectivity, that every belief is equally valid! But people who believe in objectivity will no doubt only find this frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:40 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight xxEternallyBluexx Chieftain Twilight i would venture to say that despite agreeing with the statement "God will Judge you for every Innocent Life you take", i also consider myself Extreme in believing that there are no Objective Universal Morals or Ethics. that Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, are merely human concepts which differ from Individual to Individual, and from Culture to Culture. Justice depends on Legislation and Authority, not on Nature. furthermore, as i feel it is part of the same thing, i believe that Heaven and Hell are more states of Being, rather than manifest places, and that when i say i believe the Creator will Judge, i mean to say more that it is not the place of Mortals to make harsh Judgement. who are we to know? so while i have my belief that Good and Evil are not Universal and Objective, i also do not impose this belief on others, by virtue of my own personal Moral Code. I think the very fact we have a need to do the right moral thing, even if our moral standard is sometimes wrong, means there is a universal moral code. I don't think morality is subjective, or else many people wouldn't be disgusted at genocide or war or a picture of a small starved child. We may be able to distort our sense of morality, like people who are suicidal lose their natural desire to live, but most are born with a natural desire towards good, like they are born with a desire to live. The fact people feel the need to behave morally is the evidence that morality is not subjective. I hope Heaven and Hell aren't just states of Being, if only because I get melancholy most of the time. I want to go to a place that defies sadness and death, when my time here is over. i think that that is untrue. it is smply because of the reality of the consequences of making certain decisions, that they become unsavoury to us anyay, regardless. it doesn't need to be Objectively Good or Evil, it's just plain fact that to act Benevolent is Beneficial to the Self as much a sto the Collective, and that to act malevolent is harmful to the Self as much as to the Collective. my stepdad disagrees, he also believes in Universally Objective Good and Evil. he is Hindu, and feels that the fact that Morality is so similar across the globe is evidence that Right and Wrong are Instinctually "known" by Humans. i guess it's like the whole Origional Sin concept to christians. also, i just got a reply from a friend in my guild about this (cause i stole it and posed it in the Discussion Subforum in my guild) that opened up a new concept to me. she gave the argument that everyone is born with a sense of Right and Wrong, or are able to figure out Morality on their own. she remembers it herself, and has also observed her children, as well as interviewed friends on this matter. i was unaware that ANYONE was able to have the capacity for Moral Judgement so young! ._. i personally remember a time when i had no sense of Morality. no sense of Compassion or Sympathy. in fact, that is the very time in life that i consider to be Innocence. th concept f having NO concept of Morality is my definition of Innocence, which is why i am so terrified fchildren, despite how greatly i adore them. also, you shouldn't ever avoid sadness and Death. emotions and states of being are never going to go away, in or after life, and you should accept that. but you should also realize that they are never permanent, and that nothing is. it is always changing, and always will. whether you are alive or dead, you will experience emotions, and states of being, states of Heaven and of Hell. you don't have to believe it, you can be a fluff-bunny christian and believe the Book of Revelation in that there will be an eternity of bliss and joy... it is of no consequence to me. but personally, i would feel afraid of such a fate. sweatdrop permanence disturbs me greatly. sweatdrop But shouldn't we be numb then? If things aren't right and wrong, if right and wrong can just shift according to situation, then why should the concepts of right and wrong hold any weight at all? (I'm not sure I like the way this phrased...I may try to fix it tomorrow) I remember feeling guilt for the first time...it felt like I was sick, except not. It's that, and the way Cs Lewis put the argument for Universal Morality, that keeps me convinced morality is universal. My mom also observed what that woman did in me and my siblings. I think with children, it's less that they aren't moral and more that they don't have societal restraints on them. A little kid will tell a fat man he's fat. They aren't cruel, or seeking to do harm, they just don't know what's acceptable in society and what's not. It doesn't mean they don't know what's good and bad...i mean, what little boy wants to be the dragon, and what little girl the evil witch? Sadness, with me, seems to go on for a long time. I get sick of it. I'm more afraid of being sad, of endless gray days with maybe occasional happiness, then I am of eternal happiness. Permanence is frightening because it's a concept behind which exists boredom and tedium: two things which won't exist in Heaven, I think. Heaven, I think, will be the place where we can finally be completely ourselves. No more boredom, no more sadness, nor anger or pain, but joy and life and excitement and exhilaration instead. Like a perfect day, but a thousand times better, and without the taint of 'I wish it could go on forever', because of course it will. It's not just a stretch of happiness, but joy exponentially increasing. Hell's going to be the boring place. i wouldn't say that it is changable based on situation, i think there is a reality behind it which solidifies the "why" behind humanity inventing the concept. i believe there is Universal Benevolence and Malevolence, because those are defined clearly rather than vaguely. that which is Beneficial or in the bets interest of others, and that which is maleficent or harmful to others. humans, as Pack Animals, Know Instinctually (even if they don't always Understand) that that which Benifits the Collective Benefits them as well, while harm done to the Group is harmfull to the Individual. it boils down to my belief "what is right is to do whatever you are capable of and willing to do." Purpose in this world is Self-given. and that is what the meaning of life is, to give yourself purpose. and how is a "personal" feeling of guilt evidence of Objectivity? that does not prove in any way that others would feel guilty over the same thing. think of all the sociopaths who know right from wrong and till don't care. think of all the people who neither know nor care what is right and wrong. if an idea of Morality can vary from one person to the next, how would you determine who is Right and who is Wrong? who are you to Judge? who are any of us to Know what the Creator Knows? also, i cannot stand permanence. i think that is where we differ on the whole Heaven/Hell thing... confused i'd rather think of Heaven as Nirvana based on two things: personal uprbringing and experience in Magical Practice wherein i regularly Project my Consciousness into the Otherworld (plane where the Spirit resides, where the Soul goes after Death, which to be fair may just as likely be a halluscination as real), and personal feeling that the "foreverness" of eternal Joy and happiness and Peace would wear on me until i become restless (which would not take long) thereby ruining the whole thing for me and being as tormenting an eternity as Hell would be according to christianity or even worse than they describe it. i look forward to Hel. that's where we're supposed to go when we die, that's the Place of Death. even the Bible acknowledges that. i don't want to "live forever with the father and th son aftr the first death, in a utopian city of gold and jewels and eternal light", i'd hate it there quite frankly. sad It sounds like you're saying morality is based on the welfare of the group. In that case though, the group shouldn't be concerned for the individual. Those who are disabled or old or who draw necessary resources should be done away with. In other words, those with power, strength, or even just potential, should be more highly valued. A 'normal' child is worth more then one with ADD or Down's Syndrome, because the 'normal' child will give more back to the group then the one with the LD. Do you agree with that? I disagree. I think on our own we're worthless, but God gives us worth. The universe doesn't revolve us, but around Him. Those people, I think, are somewhat like those who are suicidal: one loses their will to live, and the other loses their ability to judge right from wrong. They tend to be the exception, and not the rule. And what I got from that feeling was that I violated something when I sinned. I felt distanced and unsafe from something I didn't even have a word for at their point. I think sinning cut me off from God, and it felt entirely wrong. The very simple Christian answer that is very easy to disagree with: the Bible. If you believe it's God-inspired, then that's how. If you aren't a Christian, then I have absolutely no idea how you know for sure what's right and wrong. I suppose it's based on what benefits you, or some other religious code, or whatever code you can cobble out yourself. You're looking at it like joy can stifle you...it's not supposed to be that way. It can't get tiresome, because tiresome is one of those things that belong to Hell, and because things don't stay in a constant state in Heaven. I think it's more like happiness increasing and maybe there will be new emotions too...maybe what we feel now are whites and blacks and grays, and at best browns and dark blues, and there there's a whole new spectrum. I like to think so. The Bible says that's the penalty, but Jesus came to free us from that. It's supposed to be a place of eternal suffering, gnashing teeth, thirst that can drive one nuts, etc. There's a permanence there too; you're locked in whatever addictions and mindsets you embraced on earth. Everything just goes on. I really don't like the thought of it. >< I think you'd hate what you think it'd be like, but I don't think you'd hate it there. Anyway, it's not like anywhere can force you to go to Heaven. If you'd rather go to Place of Death, then no doubt that's where you'll go. Why do you want to go to Hell though? i know it is easy to overlook the subtle details in human life, but... we are social animals. it goes beyond our "practical" benefits... yes, it is about the group. but that does not exclude the individual, that is where people make the mistake which leads to such poor states that we see in the world today. look at the U.S. for example. we are so concerned only with ourselves that we designed a pecking-order system. nobody trusts anybody else, and therefore we strive only for the benefits of ourselves and our emmediate friends and family. it is Tribal and unpatriotic, despite the "patriotism" claimed under it's name. then look at Russia. total opposite extreme, the Nation is more important than any individual person in it. another imbalance. freedom is done away with for the sake of equality and fairness, everyone works for the grid, for the system. no, these are not healthy states of mind, ad therefore we as social animals do not benefits from it. Morality is subjective, yes, and it is what is good for the group. but it has to be good for the group AND the individual at teh same time. as for the Bible, i believe it was God-inspired, but written by mortal beings. of course their will be flaws in the message, and beyond which there are books in it that are nothing more than accounts by the points of view of other men. they each have their own interpretations, and you will find that they are inconsistant with one another on personal levels. yes, you can interpret them yourself and find they can all line up together... but you have to remember that these were individual humans who each had their own take on things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:06 am
i'm sorry, i didn't finish. sweatdrop
i also wanted to say that there are other religions and books which have their own standards of "right" and "wrong", and with subtle variations from the christian version. some of which are individually very opposed to beliefs of "right" and "wrong" in the Bible. again, there is no way to determine which religion is "right" and which is "wrong". that is not the place of Mortals, which is my point. it shouldn;t matter what your book says in that regard, your book ALSO says, straight from Jesus' mouth, not to Judge harshly. God has his Seraphim for that.
but as for me wanting to go to Hel when i die... i don't believe in Hell the way you do. i don't believe that it is an eternal damnation for everyone. it's just Death. for the truely wicked there is a place of torment, and for the righteous is a section fit for the heavenly. but i also think that thse are only as permanant as the Karma which the Dead bring upon themselves. Joy and Suffering are states of mind, not permanant places where you reside eternally. i'm not saying you can't live that way eternally, but it would require effort for eternity (or, lack of effort, in teh cse of Suffering).
i expect i'll simply reside among other Dead. just being Dead. wandering that Realm, hanging out, doing my thing. :shrugs.: it won't be boring, or tedious, or any kind of finite space. a rea Afterlife. or, who knows, i might even eventually (at least for a time) hang out in the Mind, with a Reincarnated split from my Spirit. i do believe in that you know.
allow me to explain this. you see, it my experience with the Spiritual, that when someone dies their Spirit splits. the memories and personality of that life go on into the Afterlife, while the new Spirit (still with a connection to the Past Life) Reincarnates. the Reincarnation isn't as in Samsara, and sometimes not even emmediate. but i don't think that the Creator is constantly spewing forthe new, sepperate, unrelated Souls everytime someone concieves. o_O; i believe in Reincarnation, because i have found Spirits of the formerly living (usually complete with memories of their life) who have been inside my Mind (yet in the Afterlife) all of my life, subconsiously guiding me. how else can i explain it other than that they are in a way part of me, that they are my Past Lives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:36 pm
Lateralus es Helica Interesting, but here's my small thought for the day: Our social structure has changed dramatically from what it previously was. Whereas in times past communicating with people from around the globe was unheard of, it's an extremely common today. Fact remains that we are a social species and in order to survive we have to maintain relationships with one another, even on a global scale. It's funny that everyone mentions morals are culturally or locally derived. In the case of our expanding culture, a culture that's more and more becoming a global culture, it certainly is the case that we must think of a universal set of morals in order to co-exist peacefully. Hmm...I think I like your thought of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:06 pm
Echo Ligeia Hmm, this is an interesting quote. Though, for me it probably had the opposite effect than it did for you. It seems that you interpreted it to show that people who don't believe in absolute morals are insubstantial, wishy-washy, and foolish, but I felt so much sympathy for the college student, refusing to give up their beliefs even at metaphorical gunpoint, and taking the difficult position even though it was the hardest. In my opinion: a theory that doesn't respond to violence is pacifist by nature, and I do not view this as a flaw. The response that the last student gives only attempts to return intimidation with intimidation, which leads to more conflict. I do not think putting forth the greatest authority for your opponent to tremble before is winning. Especially not God: God loves everyone. God loved Hitler. God plans everything. God planned Hitler. This does not mean we need to succumb to forces that attempt to injure us, but it does mean we have no basis on which to make eternal, objective opinions. We are not eternal, objective beings, and we do not have one whose authority we can freely use. We are free to believe in subjective right and wrong, which is the values we use to judge our lives. This is how we find direction, judgement, forgiveness, and purpose. If they could not change (i.e. if they were objective), we would not be human at all. And, truly, we are free to believe objective ones too. If one believes in subjectivity, they can accept another believing in objectivity - it's the very basis of subjectivity, that every belief is equally valid! But people who believe in objectivity will no doubt only find this frustrating. I don't find the college student wishy-washy (maybe the belief itself), but I don't think the belief morality is all in the eye of the beholder leaves one with much ground to stand on. I think the last objection was the best. God may love everyone, but He's also the only one who can judge us. He's not going to give us a hug when we're doing evil. When you're about to be shot because of something you can't change, a reminder that there's a greater authority might be the best move. You might be shot too, but at least the man who shot you is left with something more then the person they shot disagreed with them. That chapter illustrates what's wrong with subjective morality: if you believe every belief is equal, then how can you take away a child from a parent that's abusing them? Or lock up a murderer? Or stop the Nazis? One of my favorite quotes is 'The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'. How do you believe all people are equal if all their beliefs are correct? Because some people believe that all are not equal. Either you'd have to be right in your stance all people are equal, or their belief would have to be wrong. Believing in universal morality doesn't mean any person is any less valid, but it does mean certain things are wrong, should remain thought of as wrong, and that people who don't think it's wrong to harm others for their enjoyment shouldn't be allowed to do so, because it is wrong to harm people. It's about making sure everyone's life is respected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:10 am
xxEternallyBluexx Echo Ligeia Hmm, this is an interesting quote. Though, for me it probably had the opposite effect than it did for you. It seems that you interpreted it to show that people who don't believe in absolute morals are insubstantial, wishy-washy, and foolish, but I felt so much sympathy for the college student, refusing to give up their beliefs even at metaphorical gunpoint, and taking the difficult position even though it was the hardest. In my opinion: a theory that doesn't respond to violence is pacifist by nature, and I do not view this as a flaw. The response that the last student gives only attempts to return intimidation with intimidation, which leads to more conflict. I do not think putting forth the greatest authority for your opponent to tremble before is winning. Especially not God: God loves everyone. God loved Hitler. God plans everything. God planned Hitler. This does not mean we need to succumb to forces that attempt to injure us, but it does mean we have no basis on which to make eternal, objective opinions. We are not eternal, objective beings, and we do not have one whose authority we can freely use. We are free to believe in subjective right and wrong, which is the values we use to judge our lives. This is how we find direction, judgement, forgiveness, and purpose. If they could not change (i.e. if they were objective), we would not be human at all. And, truly, we are free to believe objective ones too. If one believes in subjectivity, they can accept another believing in objectivity - it's the very basis of subjectivity, that every belief is equally valid! But people who believe in objectivity will no doubt only find this frustrating. I don't find the college student wishy-washy (maybe the belief itself), but I don't think the belief morality is all in the eye of the beholder leaves one with much ground to stand on. I think the last objection was the best. God may love everyone, but He's also the only one who can judge us. He's not going to give us a hug when we're doing evil. When you're about to be shot because of something you can't change, a reminder that there's a greater authority might be the best move. You might be shot too, but at least the man who shot you is left with something more then the person they shot disagreed with them. That chapter illustrates what's wrong with subjective morality: if you believe every belief is equal, then how can you take away a child from a parent that's abusing them? Or lock up a murderer? Or stop the Nazis? One of my favorite quotes is 'The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'. How do you believe all people are equal if all their beliefs are correct? Because some people believe that all are not equal. Either you'd have to be right in your stance all people are equal, or their belief would have to be wrong. Believing in universal morality doesn't mean any person is any less valid, but it does mean certain things are wrong, should remain thought of as wrong, and that people who don't think it's wrong to harm others for their enjoyment shouldn't be allowed to do so, because it is wrong to harm people. It's about making sure everyone's life is respected. In my opinion: I will not debate your statement that “God may love everyone, but He’s also the only one who can judge us”, but I think it must be extrapolated. If God is the only who can judge us, that means we have no right to judge each other (we are not God), and therefore no right to call each other “wrong”; this leads to a subjective viewpoint, at least about humans. I also will not debate the existence of objective good and evil (not right now, haha). But, I will contest to any human arguing that they know what is good and what is evil. They may believe that God will judge some things as good and others as evil, but how are they to know what actions God would judge as good and what God would judge as evil? God may not have the same opinion as them. And the sources humans have of God will (religious prophets, religious works, etc) conflict one another. It is also interesting that you ask “how can you believe all people are equal if all of their views are correct?” because I believe that, if an objective “good” could be known to humans, then all humans would share it. That’s the basis of the definition “objective” isn’t it? Something that is factual, something that holds true to every situation – i.e. something that cannot be denied. Simply the fact that people can hold different viewpoints is enough to prove subjectivity to me; this is why I said “we are not eternal, objective beings”. But, if you believe that all views are equal, then you can accept people who believe different things. To the person who believes abortion is right: “I’m glad that subjective opinion works for you”. To the person who believes abortion is wrong: “I’m glad that subjective opinion works for you.” Even to the person who believes not all opinions are equal: “I’m glad that opinion works for you”. Even to the person who believes subjectivity is not true at all: “I’m glad that opinion works for you”. This does not mean that you yourself do not have subjective opinions! You are not an objective being. If you think suicide is wrong and the person who commits suicide goes to hell, you can still believe in subjectivity. You simply understand that every other belief (like believing people who commit suicide are victims, or go to heaven, etc) is not better or worse than yours, but simply another path. You in fact, have a very strong standpoint, stating “I do not need to argue with anyone, or prove myself to anyone. I do not need to explain my motivations or bring my opinion under scrutiny. It is just my subjective belief, and this is all the explanation I have to give. No one else need agree with me.” Heck, I have strong opinions in my moral choices. I wouldn’t do anything at gunpoint. If a person jumped into my car, pointed a gun at my head, and said “Drive”, I would say “No. I’d rather die.” But this is just from my experiences in life; I would not say you were wrong if you chose to drive. I would also never let people fight in front of me. I’ve never seen a violent battle, but I can already tell that my morality insists I run into the fray to try and stop the fighting. But I could not say another person was in the moral wrong for running to get help, or trying to understand the situation first. Being subjective does not make me weak, morally. It simply reminds me that I cannot decide morally right actions for others. Everyone has a different way. We are also not perfect beings. We have opinions in everything, including morality, and sometimes our way of life intrudes on the way of life of another. We hurt each other. I don’t pretend to think that subjectivity is perfect as a life path. But I find it favourable to objectivity. This is my subjective opinion. People say to me often that killing another person is always a sin, and that’s proof of objective morality. I don’t want to affront anyone, but the situations that enter my mind are: “What if you spared one person’s life now at the price of 100 lives later? What about all of the soldiers who died for my current rights (and killed others in war)? They are all sinners? What about tobacco companies? They’ve killed so many – are they indirectly responsible? But, if I’ve bought cigarettes, and supported them, am I indirectly responsible? What if a baby kills someone? A mentally retarded person who couldn’t know what they had done? What about self-defence? If killing people is always a sin, that means I have to just allow others to kill me when there are no other options besides killing them. What if the person who died was not the intended target, or even an intended death? Are all accidents sin? What if you could spare a life, but then a great scientist who’s close to finding a cure for cancer would die? If you let the scientist die, are you responsible for every death from cancer in the ensuing years? What about animals? I though apes shared, like, 98% of our DNA? Am I not killing when I cut down the tree in my backyard? And, what about sending someone in a coma forever? Giving them a deadly disease? Did you kill them, or did the disease? And is being in a coma still “alive”?” I think when many people read these questions, they find themselves apply a gradualist attitude. For example “This is not as much of a sin as this, but it is still a sin”, “This is still deplorable, but it is less deplorable,” etc. But if you do not, if you still think that killing is objectively wrong, I hope to strengthen your beliefs by challenging you. Sorry for such a long reply! I so appreciated your debating; I may have gone overboard. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
