Man's morality

[orogenicman]

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.

Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).

Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.

Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.

In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature. These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

[Tonus]

Quick question, what about Woman's Morality?

Why, did she step out of the kitchen?

Morality is not true Righteousness or God's Righteousness. God's Righteousness is a sinless standard no one can achieve.

Morality says: It is ok to lie to save your friend's life.

Righteousness says: it is always a sin to lie no matter what the reason.

God's righteousness is absolute, and never changes.

As I recall, your approach to this is a form of "might makes right." That is to say, god is righteous because he is god and we're not. Or, god cannot sin because he is god, and anything he does is good/righteous by definition. Is that accurate?

[Drich]

What man deems 'immoral' or moral is all based off of works. In God's righteousness the acts themselves have no meaning, it is what we do in relation to a given command/act that places us in or outside of God's expressed will/righteousness.

And you know this how? Your book saying something is so doesn't make it so, even if it weren't bloody fucking ambiguous in the bible. And no, I don't depend on our little fourth grade reader to interpret the text for us. You showed at Christmas last year with your inept and incompetent attempt to defend a bollocksed up interpretation of bohu (here) that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to interpreting ANY text, much less a holy text. I worship She who destroys, and she shows me that all your words are Maya. Prove my god wrong. I dare you.

Wow alpo, did you really have to go back a whole year to find my last mistake? I guess I am doing pretty well if you had to go back that far to rehash something so you could construct a valid arguement with.

That said, I am not here to 'prove your god(s) wrong.' I am here to answer Questions and provide clarity who seek the God of the bible. My primary job is to help those of you who have not made a desision about the God of the bible, to make an informed choice. What you choose for yourself is truly none of my concern. Which means if you wish to worship a picture of your cat as God, then who am I to say your wrong? God has seen fit to give you the right to choose whatever you wish to believe what makes you think I care what you choosen for yourself? Again my presents here is to provide clarity concerning the God of the bible for those who seek it. Not argue with those who have their hearts set on someother 'god.'

[Whateverist]

God has seen fit to give you the right to choose whatever you wish to believe what makes you think I care what you choosen for yourself?

Back at you god boy.

[Angrboda]

Wow alpo, did you really have to go back a whole year to find my last mistake? I guess I am doing pretty well if you had to go back that far to rehash something so you could construct a valid arguement with.

No, that's when I realized you weren't worth a tinker's dam, Drichless. I've spent what little time I devote to your contributions since then silently smirking or giggling.

[Drich]

Eh? I thought that was called grace or something. Like some kind of magic metaphorical pixie dust that lets you into heaven if you have enough of it (or do only Catholics think that?). You still wouldn't be adhering to god's standard, though, even if you got a pass to heaven.

There is a very specific 'doctrine of Grace' that some christians use. Because of that i do not use that term so as not to confuse what I am talking about twith the specific doctrine.

And you're 1/2 right. you would not be adhearing to God's Law, but you would be found acceptiable to His standard, because of the attonement He offered and (you) accepted.

Also, you response seems to imply that god made his standard impossible to follow on purpose.

No, Adam followed for some time. It's just because we have been born unto sin, we are no longer able to meet that standard.

And, if I might speculate a bit, not merely impossible because no one would be good enough to follow it, but impossible because it is flawed.

Finish your thought, Flawed how?

So? You already said you will always fall short of god's standard too, so why is this relevant?

Because without absolutes one is subject to the Mob's mentality.

And why is this bad?

No accountablity, No truth, which literally means anything can go. A soceity like this can even justify the slaughter of millions of babies every year, and still feel they have the 'moral high ground.'

And before someone invokes Godwin's law, the Jews did not agree that their being killed was moral. Of course, a community could agree that people outside their community be mistreated and still be internally consistent, but that's a whole other can of worms.

No same can just a little deeper into said can. Put your philosphy aside and look at what History tells us has happened in this very instance. All a soceity has to do is dehumanize a certain portion of the population and all of their human rights are now forfeit. It happened with the Jews in Germany and it happens with unwanted babies in our current culture. all 'we' had to do is strip them of thier humanity, and relable them a fetus which is latin for baby or offspring, but because we changed the meaning of this foreign word to mean a collection of cells somehow the baby is no longer human, and can be killed upto and including the birthing process.

Called it.

I did that with my dad one time. While he was asleep I taped a foot ball game I had already watched and when he woke played it off as a live game, and then proceeded to 'call' every major play before it happened.

In the end he figured it out. the lesson? it's only 'calling it' if you have no way of predicting the outcome.

Or, you know, human empathy. The golden rule is a pretty good moral yardstick in most cases.

Only when compareing apples to apples or humans to humans. All it takes (as history has shown) is a little propaganda, from the majority and any group can be dehumanized, and slated for mass murder.

---

Wow alpo, did you really have to go back a whole year to find my last mistake? I guess I am doing pretty well if you had to go back that far to rehash something so you could construct a valid arguement with.

No, that's when I realized you weren't worth a tinker's dam, Drichless. I've spent what little time I devote to your contributions since then silently smirking or giggling.

Maybe you ought to stick with what works.

[Godlesspanther]

Drich is right, in that, the morality that has been established collectively in our more advanced (culturally and technologically) cultures throughout the world has not a damn thing to do with the lunacy that is described in sacred texts that he describes as "god's righteousness." The particular sacred text is irrelevant -- the basic concept that there is, or can be, a text that is so magical that it is always right, even when it is obviously wrong, it's right -- can be shit-canned because the very notion is insane, irrational, and just plain stupid. IOW -- just wrong.

In the US we have the Constitution, a document that was very progressive and enlightened for it's time. Basic human rights as described in the DOI as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes completely against everything that the Bible, Koran, The Vedas, etc. prescribe for the primitive, ignorant, barbaric, and immoral societies for which they are intended. It is also (probably) unattainable as Drich's claims for the higher righteousness of his favorite flavor of cosmic cupcake.

A country that strives for liberty and justice for all, E plurabus unum, is fundamentally incompatible with a dogmatic adherence to a magic story book. We are a country that strives for human rights, equality, and justice for all. The Bible (or any other magic story book) has no place in such a society.

Throughout US history we have seen that biblical literalists have always been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality. Slavery was a huge one. We decided that and even went to war over, human rights verses biblical barbarism. Morality prevailed over lunacy. It happened again in 1920 -- we can't have an egalitarian society in which half the adult population is not able to vote. The troglodytes grunted meaningless bullshit and thumped their Buy-bulls. Human rights prevailed.

We can go on through the labor movements, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement -- and now the atheist movement.

And again -- fellow atheists -- we can be certain, and hold our heads up high, that we are on the right side of history and the right side of morality.

[Drich]

Drich is right, in that, the morality that has been established collectively in our more advanced (culturally and technologically) cultures throughout the world has not a damn thing to do with the lunacy that is described in sacred texts that he describes as "god's righteousness." The particular sacred text is irrelevant -- the basic concept that there is, or can be, a text that is so magical that it is always right, even when it is obviously wrong, it's right -- can be shit-canned because the very notion is insane, irrational, and just plain stupid. IOW -- just wrong.

In the US we have the Constitution, a document that was very progressive and enlightened for it's time. Basic human rights as described in the DOI as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes completely against everything that the Bible, Koran, The Vedas, etc. prescribe for the primitive, ignorant, barbaric, and immoral societies for which they are intended. It is also (probably) unattainable as Drich's claims for the higher righteousness of his favorite flavor of cosmic cupcake.

A country that strives for liberty and justice for all, E plurabus unum, is fundamentally incompatible with a dogmatic adherence to a magic story book. We are a country that strives for human rights, equality, and justice for all. The Bible (or any other magic story book) has no place in such a society.

Throughout US history we have seen that biblical literalists have always been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality. Slavery was a huge one. We decided that and even went to war over, human rights verses biblical barbarism. Morality prevailed over lunacy. It happened again in 1920 -- we can't have an egalitarian society in which half the adult population is not able to vote. The troglodytes grunted meaningless bullshit and thumped their Buy-bulls. Human rights prevailed.

We can go on through the labor movements, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement -- and now the atheist movement.

And again -- fellow atheists -- we can be certain, and hold our heads up high, that we are on the right side of history and the right side of morality.

You guys really do not understand or simply do not know how to approach or argue what I am saying do you?

In the Righteousness God offers us through attonement, we are no longer bound by our works to define our 'morality.' Which make your whole arguement invalid.

Do you want to try again, or conceed that 'we' have the better deal?

[tokutter]

And you know this how? Your book saying something is so doesn't make it so, even if it weren't bloody fucking ambiguous in the bible. And no, I don't depend on our little fourth grade reader to interpret the text for us. You showed at Christmas last year with your inept and incompetent attempt to defend a bollocksed up interpretation of bohu (here) that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to interpreting ANY text, much less a holy text. I worship She who destroys, and she shows me that all your words are Maya. Prove my god wrong. I dare you.

Wow alpo, did you really have to go back a whole year to find my last mistake? I guess I am doing pretty well if you had to go back that far to rehash something so you could construct a valid arguement with.

That said, I am not here to 'prove your god(s) wrong.' I am here to answer Questions and provide clarity who seek the God of the bible. My primary job is to help those of you who have not made a desision about the God of the bible, to make an informed choice. What you choose for yourself is truly none of my concern. Which means if you wish to worship a picture of your cat as God, then who am I to say your wrong? God has seen fit to give you the right to choose whatever you wish to believe what makes you think I care what you choosen for yourself? Again my presents here is to provide clarity concerning the God of the bible for those who seek it. Not argue with those who have their hearts set on someother 'god.'

So you pitched your tent of god answers in an atheist campsite because people who CHOSE to visit an atheist website are choosing to find god.

YOU ARE ONE BIG WALKING TALKIN CONTRADICTION DRICH......but what would one expect from a bible connoisseur.

Your here to try and be one of the bestest slimiest christian apologists you can be.....which won't be much.

Oh and by the bye....Apophenia handed you your ass for a hat in that thread she linked.

Aprophenia..............your my HERO.


.

[Godlesspanther]

You guys really do not understand or simply do not know how to approach or argue what I am saying do you?

In the Righteousness God offers us through attonement, we are no longer bound by our works to define our 'morality.' Which make your whole arguement invalid.

Do you want to try again, or conceed that 'we' have the better deal?

No -- I understand that construct and how it is intended to function. I'ts not that I don't "get it" -- it's just that it's wrong. You magical goo-goo-fuck in the sky is imaginary. Your stupid book is a pile of shit and hold no weight in contemporary society.

I fully comprehend your system. In a nutshell -- pray to Skweezuz or go to hell. It's just wrong and too stupid to be taken seriously.

Case closed.