Thanks Willhelm. I don't want to call Aces a moron; he is just very dedicated to his view.

@Aces
You take them at face value from the point of view of an outsider who does not grasp that the experience is different than an outside intellectual look leads you to believe it is.

While I am not a fan of the general urge to first believe then you will see, it does remain a fact that there are legitimate experiences which are only possible to understand once you do have the experience.

Perhaps you are less hostile to Zen Buddhism. This is a perfect example of what I mean. To one with a closed mind many of the ideas will seem nonsensical.
Only through the experience does one get it.
The bra...

Thanks Willhelm. I don't want to call Aces a moron; he is just very dedicated to his view.

@Aces
You take them at face value from the point of view of an outsider who does not grasp that the experience is different than an outside intellectual look leads you to believe it is.

While I am not a fan of the general urge to first believe then you will see, it does remain a fact that there are legitimate experiences which are only possible to understand once you do have the experience.

Perhaps you are less hostile to Zen Buddhism. This is a perfect example of what I mean. To one with a closed mind many of the ideas will seem nonsensical.
Only through the experience does one get it.
The brain and the intellect are tools, brilliant, great and wonderful tools, but they should never be our master.

Try an experiment. Imagine that everything that actually happens, of which what you do personally is only ever a minute part, happens because it's Gods will and that God's will is good whether you understand it or not.

If you really accept this as reality, it frees you in the only ultimate way a human being can be free.Yet if you look at yourself, you will see that you are not free to do whatever you want in some childish fantasy that thinks "I will do it and God will stamp his approval afterward".

@yanceducat

While I am not a fan of the general urge to first believe then you will see, it does remain a fact that there are legitimate experiences which are only possible to understand once you do have the experience.

I most certainly agree.

Perhaps you are less hostile to Zen Buddhism.

I practiced Zen. I've seen and experienced marvelous feats. "Only through the experience does one get it." I understand that completely.

Try an experiment. Imagine that everything that actually happens, of which what you do personally is only ever a minute part, happens because it's Gods will and that God's will is good whether you understand it or not.[/quo...

read more»

@yanceducat

While I am not a fan of the general urge to first believe then you will see, it does remain a fact that there are legitimate experiences which are only possible to understand once you do have the experience.

I most certainly agree.

Perhaps you are less hostile to Zen Buddhism.

I practiced Zen. I've seen and experienced marvelous feats. "Only through the experience does one get it." I understand that completely.

Try an experiment. Imagine that everything that actually happens, of which what you do personally is only ever a minute part, happens because it's Gods will and that God's will is good whether you understand it or not.

I did that while practicing the Niyama, Yoga. I had thought it to be the most direct path of all.

yanceducat, none of these address the ability to distinguish right from wrong in "divine" sense. The man who sacrifices his life to save an unknown child, he gets it; he understands that it is no sacrifice at all!

Compare to the man who, on the other hand, takes many lives in the belief that he is doing a divine thing (the suicide bomber).

Do they not both have an understanding "Whatever God does, I accept that as good?" Yet one is clearly lost.

How is it that we know which one?

It's just my opinion, but I know which one is lost and why. It is not so much "whatever god does is good" but rather, "whatever good is done is god."

Good is good because it IS, not because of WHO it is. See, if the child saver was a sinner, would it be any less good than if saved by a saint?

Likewise, god or devil, it is the ACT that is good, not the who. The suicide bomber focused on the who, and never considered the act. The saver of the child considered the act, and not the who.

Whatever God does, I accept that as good.

I am happy for you.

My God is not Your God. My God has no mission or lesson to teach. My God just is.
My God is defined in chance. Probability and Chaos. My God is the spin of an electron, the footstep of an elephant, the vortex of a storm on Jupiter and Coalescence of a new star. My God is the change that occurred that created the eruption of the nucleus of the universe and the cold stillness of absolute zero.
My God is the spark of chemical reactions across a synapse that forces memories into a thought. My God is the urge to invent and imagine. My God is not good or evil. My God is both good and evil. My God is on a higher playing ...

Whatever God does, I accept that as good.

I am happy for you.

My God is not Your God. My God has no mission or lesson to teach. My God just is.
My God is defined in chance. Probability and Chaos. My God is the spin of an electron, the footstep of an elephant, the vortex of a storm on Jupiter and Coalescence of a new star. My God is the change that occurred that created the eruption of the nucleus of the universe and the cold stillness of absolute zero.
My God is the spark of chemical reactions across a synapse that forces memories into a thought. My God is the urge to invent and imagine. My God is not good or evil. My God is both good and evil. My God is on a higher playing field than I can imagine. The little sparks of life that are glued to this planet are such a minuscule insignificant part of My God's creation that to limit My God to My Realm is an injustice I cannot ascribe to.
My Life has taught me to honor other peoples beliefs and I try not to force mine own upon anyone else. Thanks for letting me tell you about My God.

@willhelm
I think I sort of understand what you are saying. There are differences in the way we see things of course.

I have spent more of my life on Aces side of things in terms of being very hostile to religion.
I was only an Atheist very briefly, maybe for about a year when I was around the eighth grade. Perhaps I got that idea from a misunderstanding I had about my father.
He was a Christian when I was born; I think he became one during WWII. In those days one of the fads was arguing over who really had the real pedigree, a line back to the keys given Peter so to speak.
Well his church was deceptive, he dropped Christianity but really he was questioning it anyway and perhaps that was ju...

@willhelm
I think I sort of understand what you are saying. There are differences in the way we see things of course.

I have spent more of my life on Aces side of things in terms of being very hostile to religion.
I was only an Atheist very briefly, maybe for about a year when I was around the eighth grade. Perhaps I got that idea from a misunderstanding I had about my father.
He was a Christian when I was born; I think he became one during WWII. In those days one of the fads was arguing over who really had the real pedigree, a line back to the keys given Peter so to speak.
Well his church was deceptive, he dropped Christianity but really he was questioning it anyway and perhaps that was just a convenient excuse.
I jumped to the conclusion he didn't believe in God; I don't really remember but that makes sense.
Later I learned he was a deist.
I stopped being an Atheist when I concluded that it was as dumb of me to claim there is no God as it was for others to claim there was one.
I became quite hostile to Christianity; I hated it in fact.
As a result, in my way I confronted the issue, spending hundreds of hours in churches almost all evangelical, listening on the radio to a certain church and tape recording them, reading the Bible, and even carrying a sign calling a certain Pastor a liar, which he was.
I have come to see that there is much truth in the New Testament aside from the role of Jesus as Savior which I have skeptical but somewhat open attitude about.
A little embarrassing to say all this and at the moment I cannot really explain my view. Logic is a tool, the brain is a tool, one should make best use of both but man lives by faith; even non believers live by faith although it seems they will deny it because they believe they can 'rationalize' life.
Perhaps it is too easy to use logic to destroy the spirit and to easy to use being spiritual to repress and ignore the logical.

If anybody has an idea of what the possibilities are it is an excellent constitutional lawyer like Obama.

I'm curious. How do you know Obama is an excellent constitutional lawyer? It looks like he had a total of 6 years from 91 to 97 to demonstrate his great lawyerly skills. I know of not a single case that Obama ever litigated.

Saying 'If anybody has an idea" who are you kidding? If anybody,oh would it be that the US didn't have such a shortage of legal brains.


As far as Executive Orders, my point was that he said he would get rid of the unconstitutional ones. Thats not the Presidents job, so it smacks of an arrogance on Obama's part that his judgment alone can replace th...

If anybody has an idea of what the possibilities are it is an excellent constitutional lawyer like Obama.

I'm curious. How do you know Obama is an excellent constitutional lawyer? It looks like he had a total of 6 years from 91 to 97 to demonstrate his great lawyerly skills. I know of not a single case that Obama ever litigated.

Saying 'If anybody has an idea" who are you kidding? If anybody,oh would it be that the US didn't have such a shortage of legal brains.


As far as Executive Orders, my point was that he said he would get rid of the unconstitutional ones. Thats not the Presidents job, so it smacks of an arrogance on Obama's part that his judgment alone can replace the Supreme Court. Yes he said

"he said he would ask his attorney general "to review every executive order" of the Bush administration. "We are going to overturn those that were unconstitutional. We are going to overturn those that are unnecessary."

but that 'we' is the Executive Branch and it is troubling.

@yanceducat

What I would ask, is, do you understand that in true Buddhism there is no right or wrong actions; that your whole concept of 'good' actions and 'bad' actions is just part of the self deception that exists until one awakens? That is according to that system.

Yes, that is "until one awakens." Prior to reaching the Crest Jewel of Discrimination, there is Karma. It is the Karmic level on which we speak. To speak beyond that, or to speak "to" it is to assume a singularity that makes the original statement, [Whatever God does, I accept that as good.], moot by virtue of the viewpoint "I".

When one "awakens" there is no differentiation of "I". The author therefore could...

@yanceducat

What I would ask, is, do you understand that in true Buddhism there is no right or wrong actions; that your whole concept of 'good' actions and 'bad' actions is just part of the self deception that exists until one awakens? That is according to that system.

Yes, that is "until one awakens." Prior to reaching the Crest Jewel of Discrimination, there is Karma. It is the Karmic level on which we speak. To speak beyond that, or to speak "to" it is to assume a singularity that makes the original statement, [Whatever God does, I accept that as good.], moot by virtue of the viewpoint "I".

When one "awakens" there is no differentiation of "I". The author therefore could not have been talking on that level.

We are speaking, thus, in a "social" context of having to exist with each other on this planet. To do so in a civilized way means adhering to certain standards of mutual respect and that includes for life.

The extent to which we respect others is generally the extent to which we define ourselves as "civilized". And so we shun or punish indiscriminate breaches of behavior that fail to recognize those standards.

These fall under social and cultural codes of morals, ethics, conduct, and so forth.

It does no good to say the suicide bomber was acting in a "higher" capacity as an agent of god, so "I accept that as good."

But rather, the ACT itself is evil whether commanded by god or devil because the intent and result both have an evil effect.

It is by this method, examining the intent and result of the act, that we determine if an act be good or evil.

The suicide bomber fails to do that, looking only at the WHO is commanding the act (and thus he is lost -- doing evil, for example, in the name of a god).

The saver of the child, however, is looking at the intent, the result. (The WHO is irrelevant.)

@tanyamm

My sister is a born again Christian. She said, if God commanded her to kill her eldest son she would do it because God would not tell her to do anything without a reason. What God says is good to her. I say she's a psycho bitch, too many horrible things have been done in the name of God. The Bible is full of horrible things done because of that blind faith.

Thank you.

She is precisely the person I'm describing as "lost". She has lost her ability to tell right from wrong because she believes if it came from a god it must automatically be good.

And because of it, she could not tell god from devil. (Pretending that there is one giving orders.) She wouldn't know whi...

@tanyamm

My sister is a born again Christian. She said, if God commanded her to kill her eldest son she would do it because God would not tell her to do anything without a reason. What God says is good to her. I say she's a psycho bitch, too many horrible things have been done in the name of God. The Bible is full of horrible things done because of that blind faith.

Thank you.

She is precisely the person I'm describing as "lost". She has lost her ability to tell right from wrong because she believes if it came from a god it must automatically be good.

And because of it, she could not tell god from devil. (Pretending that there is one giving orders.) She wouldn't know which was which since either could tell her to do evil and she'd think it was good!

And that's why we have suicide bombers, and good people doing evil things. They have lost the ability to tell right from wrong -- compliments of religion.

This is the folly of the original statement I'm trying to point out.

@skwirlinator

Assuming that Chaos, Death and Destruction are Evil.

Our conversation is purely in relation to humans and how "we" define the meaning of outcomes. Your original definition of god is mostly how I look at god too. And even then, it's just a label so we can describe the allness of the concept.

If we can comprehend and deliberate what evil is it brings evil into our capacity.

For sure.

If a star goes supernova and it irradiates an inhabited planet, Is the death of a planet of living beings evil?

Again, this is purely in relation to how we define outcomes.

A supernova killing billions, is no different than a drop of rain giving life...

@skwirlinator

Assuming that Chaos, Death and Destruction are Evil.

Our conversation is purely in relation to humans and how "we" define the meaning of outcomes. Your original definition of god is mostly how I look at god too. And even then, it's just a label so we can describe the allness of the concept.

If we can comprehend and deliberate what evil is it brings evil into our capacity.

For sure.

If a star goes supernova and it irradiates an inhabited planet, Is the death of a planet of living beings evil?

Again, this is purely in relation to how we define outcomes.

A supernova killing billions, is no different than a drop of rain giving life to billions (of bacteria), which eventually repopulates the planet, giving rise to the greatest civilization that ever existed.

Good and evil are such confining and deluding concepts.

Yes, until someone rapes and cuts the throat of your wife or daughter. Philosophy goes bye-bye, the .45ACP gets loaded, and Spinoza takes a vacation.

@Aces
Thank-You for your response.

You speak of karma. I'm not a big fan of the term because it is on a practical level useless and self contradictory.
If karma is taken seriously there should be logical results.
I commit a karmic sin.
This calls for a karmic pay back.
Who administers the pay back?
Whoever does it thereby incurs karmic debt themselves. Thus we see 2 results. The cycle becomes of necessity an endless accretion and we cannot know what act is good or evil.
You say the act was evil, and you know this because an act is intrinsically good or evil. This is contrary to the whole Buddhist insight and if acts were intrinsically good or evil in some absolute way, then awakening would...

@Aces
Thank-You for your response.

You speak of karma. I'm not a big fan of the term because it is on a practical level useless and self contradictory.
If karma is taken seriously there should be logical results.
I commit a karmic sin.
This calls for a karmic pay back.
Who administers the pay back?
Whoever does it thereby incurs karmic debt themselves. Thus we see 2 results. The cycle becomes of necessity an endless accretion and we cannot know what act is good or evil.
You say the act was evil, and you know this because an act is intrinsically good or evil. This is contrary to the whole Buddhist insight and if acts were intrinsically good or evil in some absolute way, then awakening would be impossible.
The one giving me a pay back is doing good by doing evil (evil according to the outsiders view) and the one doing good is actually doing evil (Mother Teresa keeping people alive who would have died, but now live to bring even more hungry people into the world).

It does no good to say the suicide bomber was acting in a "higher" capacity as an agent of god, so "I accept that as good."

To deny the possibility that the suicide bomber does good as well as your theoretical evil is to insist that the one who kills to defend his house is just as guilty as the one who kills in order to steal the house.

Aces said:

And even then, it's just a label so we can describe the allness of the concept.

I like that!

Yes, until someone rapes and cuts the throat of your wife or daughter. Philosophy goes bye-bye, the .45ACP gets loaded, and Spinoza takes a vacation.

It is a delusion to think that personal evil always is associated with pain. Or, that personal good is always associated with pleasure.
As a species we are locked into this delusion and our actions are governed by it. To grow to a higher plain we must realize that action and reaction are our own limitations of our mindset. I don't own a gun, I don't care if you do. If you choose to end my life or the life of my love...

Aces said:

And even then, it's just a label so we can describe the allness of the concept.

I like that!

Yes, until someone rapes and cuts the throat of your wife or daughter. Philosophy goes bye-bye, the .45ACP gets loaded, and Spinoza takes a vacation.

It is a delusion to think that personal evil always is associated with pain. Or, that personal good is always associated with pleasure.
As a species we are locked into this delusion and our actions are governed by it. To grow to a higher plain we must realize that action and reaction are our own limitations of our mindset. I don't own a gun, I don't care if you do. If you choose to end my life or the life of my loved ones I cannot stop you if your mind is set. Yes I would mourn their deaths but I would not seek revenge(at least not in my present mindset). If I reached out and ripped out your throat with my claws it would be a reaction to what I witnessed not a deliberation of evil. If I randomly attacked people doing the same action without cause it may or may not be evil depending upon my mindset. Perhaps, having the ability to dispatch people at will might feel good to me. Perhaps it feels good when their flesh pulls on my claws. When people hunted with mammoths were they evil to chase them off a cliff? Was Dr. Kavorkian evil? If I petted your fur instead, would that be good?

But rather, the ACT itself is evil whether commanded by god or devil because the intent and result both have an evil effect.

To claim that an act committed by God or ordered by God is evil because of the act is seen by you as evil is to use the word God and simultaneously deny God's existence; that is to say that you will use your own knowledge to refute God's knowledge.
Believe me, this has been my own preference for much of my life and still exerts a strong 'logical' pull on me, not to mention that being subject to having to obey others does not have strong appeal to me.

The saver of the child, however, is looking at the intent, the result. (The WHO is irrelevant.)[/...

read more»

But rather, the ACT itself is evil whether commanded by god or devil because the intent and result both have an evil effect.

To claim that an act committed by God or ordered by God is evil because of the act is seen by you as evil is to use the word God and simultaneously deny God's existence; that is to say that you will use your own knowledge to refute God's knowledge.
Believe me, this has been my own preference for much of my life and still exerts a strong 'logical' pull on me, not to mention that being subject to having to obey others does not have strong appeal to me.

The saver of the child, however, is looking at the intent, the result. (The WHO is irrelevant.)

to say that the who is irrelevant in this way is to say that a machine would be a better thing to populate the universe with than living beings or perhaps to believe that living beings are machines.

@yanceducat

The cycle becomes of necessity an endless accretion and we cannot know what act is good or evil.

To be limited by the laws of Nature and under its influence is to acknowledge karma. The Buddha has reached complete detachment from the temporal world and is thus no longer affected by it. In that sense, there is no good or evil. But that's not the level of conversation described by the statement "whatever god does, " I " accept as good."

You say the act was evil, and you know this because an act is intrinsically good or evil.

Nope. I said we have standards of conduct and that "These fall under social and cultural codes of morals, ethics, cond...

@yanceducat

The cycle becomes of necessity an endless accretion and we cannot know what act is good or evil.

To be limited by the laws of Nature and under its influence is to acknowledge karma. The Buddha has reached complete detachment from the temporal world and is thus no longer affected by it. In that sense, there is no good or evil. But that's not the level of conversation described by the statement "whatever god does, " I " accept as good."

You say the act was evil, and you know this because an act is intrinsically good or evil.

Nope. I said we have standards of conduct and that "These fall under social and cultural codes of morals, ethics, conduct, and so forth." There is no "intrinsic" good or evil.

You're looking for absolutes. There aren't moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans.

To deny the possibility that the suicide bomber does good as well as
your theoretical evil is to insist that the one who kills to defend his
house is just as guilty as the one who kills in order to steal the
house.

Our laws vary on this from state to state, so the degree of evil is very much theoretical even on a legal level, certainly a moral one.

But "to insist that the one who kills to defend his
house is just as guilty as the one who kills in order to steal the
house", is to use an absolute moral of "killing is evil".

I have in no way suggested any absolute moral, nor do I believe they exist any more than any situation can be absolute. All situations and morals are different; they are subjective.

The objective morals (or as close as a society can come it) are attempts at law. They are codes of conduct under which the society is to abide.

@yanceducat

To claim that an act committed by God or ordered by God is evil because of the act is seen by you as evil is to use the word God and simultaneously deny God's existence; that is to say that you will use your own knowledge to refute God's knowledge.

No. It is to admit that I have no way of knowing what god's knowledge is, or if it is god that is communicating with me at all.

Is it the devil masquerading as god or god masquerading as devil, or neither? I have no way of knowing!

But I DO have the ability to question why any god requires ME to do something I believe to be EVIL.

Especially when he can do his OWN dirty work.

In addition, if I'm being asked to do ...

@yanceducat

To claim that an act committed by God or ordered by God is evil because of the act is seen by you as evil is to use the word God and simultaneously deny God's existence; that is to say that you will use your own knowledge to refute God's knowledge.

No. It is to admit that I have no way of knowing what god's knowledge is, or if it is god that is communicating with me at all.

Is it the devil masquerading as god or god masquerading as devil, or neither? I have no way of knowing!

But I DO have the ability to question why any god requires ME to do something I believe to be EVIL.

Especially when he can do his OWN dirty work.

In addition, if I'm being asked to do something I deem evil, I'd just assume make an ass out of myself and assume it's the devil. In other words, the answer to god or devil is 'NO'.

Why? Because it's evil (according to my own standards of conduct). PERIOD.

to say that the who is irrelevant in this way is to say that a machine
would be a better thing to populate the universe with than living
beings or perhaps to believe that living beings are machines.

Remember in The Alien when the robot gave up his life to save the crew and Sigourney Weaver said, "You did good."

Had the robot been a person, the response would have been just as appropriate. It was the ACT of good, not the who.

Try your own experiment. Commit an act of good in god's name. Then commit an act of good on your own.

Are either acts diminished?

I have in no way suggested any absolute moral, nor do I believe they exist any more than any situation can be absolute. All situations and morals are different; they are subjective.

Truly I will have to think your comments over to try and place the whole of it in some context where I'm not just blurting out piecemeal answers to piecemeal statements.

But to blurt here at the above comment I cannot resist so I say that I think, if I understand your meaning correctly, I couldn't disagree more. You could say whether you deny absolute ultimate truth and that that might help. On the other hand if you are going to insist ontwo separate and apparently noncommunicating realities, I'm ...

I have in no way suggested any absolute moral, nor do I believe they exist any more than any situation can be absolute. All situations and morals are different; they are subjective.

Truly I will have to think your comments over to try and place the whole of it in some context where I'm not just blurting out piecemeal answers to piecemeal statements.

But to blurt here at the above comment I cannot resist so I say that I think, if I understand your meaning correctly, I couldn't disagree more. You could say whether you deny absolute ultimate truth and that that might help. On the other hand if you are going to insist ontwo separate and apparently noncommunicating realities, I'm not sure how communication can take place at all.

I believe in absolute truth. I don't believe I can judge the particular act but by the human abilities I have and understanding I have, but I do not believe that my action or judgment in any sense is 'relatively true' or not, but that there is an ultimate truth that is unequivocal on the matter, and that my view is objectively true or it is objectively not true.

I am not denying the ultimate truth of the goodness or badness of the action, I am only denying the possibility of the actor or viewer to have with certainty that information.

No. It is to admit that I have no way of knowing what god's knowledge is, or if it is god that is communicating with me at all.

Is it the devil masquerading as god or god masquerading as devil, or neither? I have no way of knowing!

But I DO have the ability to question why any god requires ME to do something I believe to be EVIL.

Especially when he can do his OWN dirty work.

In addition, if I'm being asked to do something I deem evil, I'd just assume make an ass out of myself and assume it's the devil. In other words, the answer to god or devil is 'NO'.

Why? Because it's evil (according to my own standards of conduct). PERIOD.

There are really only 2 things I don't agree ...

No. It is to admit that I have no way of knowing what god's knowledge is, or if it is god that is communicating with me at all.

Is it the devil masquerading as god or god masquerading as devil, or neither? I have no way of knowing!

But I DO have the ability to question why any god requires ME to do something I believe to be EVIL.

Especially when he can do his OWN dirty work.

In addition, if I'm being asked to do something I deem evil, I'd just assume make an ass out of myself and assume it's the devil. In other words, the answer to god or devil is 'NO'.

Why? Because it's evil (according to my own standards of conduct). PERIOD.

There are really only 2 things I don't agree with in this.
And an observation.
The observation is that God is not telling me anything and if God did start telling me things I would be extremely skeptical. The reason being, as you indicate in this comment, that I am the medium, and I am the message and I know of no empirical way of knowing whether God is talking to me or if I'm hallucinating.

What I do not agree with is the "God can do his own dirty work" and the emphatic "Period".

That is an over reaction in my opinion and hints of an anger toward religion, not totally unjustified that can blind one to the good of religious impulse in the name of distaste for the negative, as it has seemed.

I think religion as history should not be judged by the often cited wrongs only, but by asking oneself, what would the history of man have looked like if no religion had even been allowed to exist.

If i follow you, you're saying that I'm saying I don't believe in an absolute truth, and that you disagree with that.

Correct?

If so, then let me say first, I didn't say I don't believe in an absolute truth. I said I don't believe in an absolute MORAL (because I can't describe an absolute situation where one would apply).

I said: All situations and morals are different; they are subjective.

--
Now, you said:

I believe in absolute truth.

So do I. It is the objective world; the one that doesn't change when we cease believing in it; the one that was here long before we got here; the one consisting of matter, energy, space, and time (and perhaps a few other dimensions we haven't discovere...

If i follow you, you're saying that I'm saying I don't believe in an absolute truth, and that you disagree with that.

Correct?

If so, then let me say first, I didn't say I don't believe in an absolute truth. I said I don't believe in an absolute MORAL (because I can't describe an absolute situation where one would apply).

I said: All situations and morals are different; they are subjective.

--
Now, you said:

I believe in absolute truth.

So do I. It is the objective world; the one that doesn't change when we cease believing in it; the one that was here long before we got here; the one consisting of matter, energy, space, and time (and perhaps a few other dimensions we haven't discovered yet).

But and absolute moral? By all means, give me an example that never changes.

The observation is that God is not telling me anything and if God did start telling me things I would be extremely skeptical.

Thank god.

What I do not agree with is the "God can do his own dirty work" and the emphatic "Period".

That is an over reaction in my opinion and hints of an anger toward religion, not totally unjustified that can blind one to the good of religious impulse in the name of distaste for the negative, as it has seemed.

It was once said that "I'm not going to congratulate religion for calling the fire department after burning my house down."

Yes, people have done good things in the name of religion. That in no way takes away ...

The observation is that God is not telling me anything and if God did start telling me things I would be extremely skeptical.

Thank god.

What I do not agree with is the "God can do his own dirty work" and the emphatic "Period".

That is an over reaction in my opinion and hints of an anger toward religion, not totally unjustified that can blind one to the good of religious impulse in the name of distaste for the negative, as it has seemed.

It was once said that "I'm not going to congratulate religion for calling the fire department after burning my house down."

Yes, people have done good things in the name of religion. That in no way takes away from the evil it has generated for centuries on end.

Without religion? Science sooner.

But and absolute moral? By all means, give me an example that never changes.

To me the absolute moral truth is found not in the appearance of the life lived or the deeds thereof, but in the integrity of the person living with respect to his own moral precepts.

Between the person and their own conscience or the person and God.

Just as we are born with physical abilities not of our own creation (I am assuming) we are born from a specific moral opportunity position not of our own structuring and so delimited by the the precise location from which we start, (a person born in a ghetto cannot possibly have the same moral map, only the same moral integrity possibiliy) our decis...

But and absolute moral? By all means, give me an example that never changes.

To me the absolute moral truth is found not in the appearance of the life lived or the deeds thereof, but in the integrity of the person living with respect to his own moral precepts.

Between the person and their own conscience or the person and God.

Just as we are born with physical abilities not of our own creation (I am assuming) we are born from a specific moral opportunity position not of our own structuring and so delimited by the the precise location from which we start, (a person born in a ghetto cannot possibly have the same moral map, only the same moral integrity possibiliy) our decisions either attempt to honestly use the physical structure and moral scope to do the best for ourselves and as many others as possible or we cynically exploit both ourselves and others for what we imagine to be the most fun, rewarding whatever.

Without religion? Science sooner.

I want both.

I cannot possibly prove that the world would not have been as bad or perhaps even worse were there never religion in it.

Obviously I personally feel that it would have been worse and that is despite the fact that there is much to be terrified about from religion.

My own personal life would be impossible were religion as powerful politically as it once was. Would my life be worse? I cannot really say: there is something to be said for having clear boundaries and knowing where one must choose their battles and where to lay low. Repression not only represses, but it also creates communities that would not exist otherwise.

Yet w...

Without religion? Science sooner.

I want both.

I cannot possibly prove that the world would not have been as bad or perhaps even worse were there never religion in it.

Obviously I personally feel that it would have been worse and that is despite the fact that there is much to be terrified about from religion.

My own personal life would be impossible were religion as powerful politically as it once was. Would my life be worse? I cannot really say: there is something to be said for having clear boundaries and knowing where one must choose their battles and where to lay low. Repression not only represses, but it also creates communities that would not exist otherwise.

Yet while I believe myself to be able to be a jolly wonderful being without a club over my head, I am by no means convinced that many or most of my fellow human beings would play nice were they really convinced that no after life consequences.

Oh and I want both not just for that reason, but as a living being I have a sense of a spiritual existence.

To me the absolute moral truth is found not in the appearance of the life lived or the deeds thereof, but in the integrity of the person living with respect to his own moral precepts.

I agree. That was my emphatic NO to doing evil. It's being true to the limitations of "my" ability to act within my own judgment (precepts). [Not the judgment of another being.]

Every description you've given is consistent with this.

None, however, have an absolute implication, let alone being one. They are subjective and limited to our situations and ability to act.

What your examples are saying are perfectly consistent with what I've been saying.

Unless I'm completely missing som...

To me the absolute moral truth is found not in the appearance of the life lived or the deeds thereof, but in the integrity of the person living with respect to his own moral precepts.

I agree. That was my emphatic NO to doing evil. It's being true to the limitations of "my" ability to act within my own judgment (precepts). [Not the judgment of another being.]

Every description you've given is consistent with this.

None, however, have an absolute implication, let alone being one. They are subjective and limited to our situations and ability to act.

What your examples are saying are perfectly consistent with what I've been saying.

Unless I'm completely missing something, I'm seeing no example of an absolute (not dependent or relative to the person) moral.

---
Examples of what I have said:

"To be limited by the laws of Nature and under its influence..."

"...we have standards of conduct and that "These fall under social and cultural codes of morals, ethics, conduct, and so forth." There is no "intrinsic" good or evil."

"All situations and morals are different; they are subjective."

Examples of what you have said:

"Between the person and their own conscience.."

"we are born from a specific moral opportunity position not of our own structuring..."

"...attempt to honestly use the physical structure and moral scope to do the best for ourselves.."

---
From the next post:

Yet while I believe myself to be able to be a jolly wonderful being
without a club over my head, I am by no means convinced that many or
most of my fellow human beings would play nice were they really
convinced that no after life consequences.

I most definitely agree! It's a shame, but I believe true nonetheless.

@AcesLucky'
I agree that I have been seeing much agreement in what the two of us are saying.

I should read this whole clip over now because it seems things have been written while I was writing so I'm not sure I have read everything and I haven't read well enough everything that I did see to read.
skwirlinator has written for example, quite a number of things that are similar but also different from your view.

I hesitate to ask because it will bring probably more to read and I have seen a flood these last 6 hours or so, but it seems important to me to understand your concept of the Theory of Relativity in relation to the moral relativity we have been discussing here.

Does there s...

@AcesLucky'
I agree that I have been seeing much agreement in what the two of us are saying.

I should read this whole clip over now because it seems things have been written while I was writing so I'm not sure I have read everything and I haven't read well enough everything that I did see to read.
skwirlinator has written for example, quite a number of things that are similar but also different from your view.

I hesitate to ask because it will bring probably more to read and I have seen a flood these last 6 hours or so, but it seems important to me to understand your concept of the Theory of Relativity in relation to the moral relativity we have been discussing here.

Does there seem to you any analogy or whatever the right word is between that theory and the moral relativity concepts that you have?

So back on the topic of acceptance then:

Knowing that I often have ambitions, feelings and beliefs that don't agree with anyone else, I feel that a person needs the right to believe what they want. To accept all of Gods actions as good is a fine optimistic quality. I know the religious type mentality and this type of thinking is often productive and socially accepatable.
Since we humans have the 'gift' of empathy these types are often the most 'humane' of all of us.
In our free thinking society.
In other societies religion is a war against the false gods. The ideals that dictate a free thinking society are alien to these types of people. Those ideals and actions are what they see as evil. E...

So back on the topic of acceptance then:

Knowing that I often have ambitions, feelings and beliefs that don't agree with anyone else, I feel that a person needs the right to believe what they want. To accept all of Gods actions as good is a fine optimistic quality. I know the religious type mentality and this type of thinking is often productive and socially accepatable.
Since we humans have the 'gift' of empathy these types are often the most 'humane' of all of us.
In our free thinking society.
In other societies religion is a war against the false gods. The ideals that dictate a free thinking society are alien to these types of people. Those ideals and actions are what they see as evil. Evil must be dealt with at all costs. To remove that evil from the world is more important than life itself. To destroy that evil is a way to bring the good to the planet. Once the opposing evil is obliterated only good will be left for the coming generations. The suicide bomber destroys to remove the evil. thus his actions are seen as the good of God.
During my years as a Christian Scientist I believed that ailments were a sign from God that I did something evil and had to be punished. The punishment was good because it made me think about my actions more and it curbed many of my decisions. I realized that My God worked in a much larger capacity than I was grasping. My God doesn't work the concept of Good or Evil, Right and Wrong are concepts created by man trying to understand the purpose of the Creator. Is the death of a millipede good or evil? Its all relative to the observer. If a truly alien civilization were to visit our little planet. What would they make of our concept of Good and Evil?
How would our concept of good and evil compare to theirs?
What if they only recognized chemical makeup or seen us as a virus upon an otherwise useful planet? Would they be evil if they ate us, destroyed us?
Perhaps that is part of Gods plan. Perhaps there is no plan, just a result of chao

Whatever God does, I accept that as good.

As a literial [literal?] statement it is impossible to disagree with unless one denies two assumptions in it.

1) That there is an active God

2) That God does not do evil things.
-------


Both are necessary presuppositions to make the statement true (undeniable) if the statement was:

"Whatever God does is good."

But to say "I accept that as good" ignores many other presuppositions (and assumptions).

For instance, "I accept" carries with it the assumption that what God does as good is automatically what "I" judge as good (otherwise I would not be accepting it).

This must be a false statement unless "my" judgment is eq...

Whatever God does, I accept that as good.

As a literial [literal?] statement it is impossible to disagree with unless one denies two assumptions in it.

1) That there is an active God

2) That God does not do evil things.
-------


Both are necessary presuppositions to make the statement true (undeniable) if the statement was:

"Whatever God does is good."

But to say "I accept that as good" ignores many other presuppositions (and assumptions).

For instance, "I accept" carries with it the assumption that what God does as good is automatically what "I" judge as good (otherwise I would not be accepting it).

This must be a false statement unless "my" judgment is equal to God's judgment. That would make me God or god-like in my judgments. And if that were the case, morals would be moot.

Another example. To define whatever God does as good, means I could do evil, (such as, kill a whole town leaving nothing alive, except the little virgin girls I get to keep for myself), and then simply define it as good because God ordered it done in the bible.

In fact, I could kill anyone and claim it's good since God killed in the bible. And my assumption that the bible is true is equal to the assumption that God exists. The evidence in either case is assumption.

The assumption of truth is inherent in the "acceptance" of the proposition to begin with (whether true or not).

Long story short: The statement is not impossible to disagree with because "my" idea of good may not agree with God's actions (even when defined as "god does not do evil things").


PS: I'm not sure if I'm being clear, so I'll try to say it differently.

That God does not do evil things....according to who?

First, I would say that if there is evil in the Universe, then God does evil.

By whose measure?

[ That answer summarizes the entire point that I've been making. ]

I disagree with those who use a concept of a Devil to provide God with a cop out.

Agreed.

Second, pretend that God does do evil. Can you fight God and defeat God?

I'd be a non issue.

If you can't, then you may as well say. "Whatever God does, I accept that as good." because the one with the final power can call evil good if they like and there is not a single thing protests will do about it.

So if a bully takes my lunch and I can't beat him, I may as well say I ...

First, I would say that if there is evil in the Universe, then God does evil.

By whose measure?

[ That answer summarizes the entire point that I've been making. ]

I disagree with those who use a concept of a Devil to provide God with a cop out.

Agreed.

Second, pretend that God does do evil. Can you fight God and defeat God?

I'd be a non issue.

If you can't, then you may as well say. "Whatever God does, I accept that as good." because the one with the final power can call evil good if they like and there is not a single thing protests will do about it.

So if a bully takes my lunch and I can't beat him, I may as well say I accept that as good? Uh... no.

The good news is that no one can prove that any such thing as evil does or can exist. Pain yes, evil no!

Sure they can, and do! The good news is that evil is defined by us as humans, the society and culture, religion, circumstance, law, and so forth. Like I said...

"There aren't any moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans."

So if a bully takes my lunch and I can't beat him, I may as well say I accept that as good? Uh... no.

I didn't say you had to accept it or like it. I said that those responses won't do you a bit of good if God does evil, and they won't. I am saying that if Godisa bully you lose nothing by accepting the fact, and might possibly gain.

"There aren't any moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans."

If there aren't any moral absolutes, then you are out of gas. It then is sheer hubris to complain about bullies or anything else. Everything resolves to pure power.

Your greatest fantasy becomes a hope for a b...

So if a bully takes my lunch and I can't beat him, I may as well say I accept that as good? Uh... no.

I didn't say you had to accept it or like it. I said that those responses won't do you a bit of good if God does evil, and they won't. I am saying that if Godisa bully you lose nothing by accepting the fact, and might possibly gain.

"There aren't any moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans."

If there aren't any moral absolutes, then you are out of gas. It then is sheer hubris to complain about bullies or anything else. Everything resolves to pure power.

Your greatest fantasy becomes a hope for a benign dictator who will enforce a touchy feelie nice nice world that has no chance of lasting or meaning anything because it is grounded in absolute relative games that by definition are nothing but the fads and biases of whatever day it is.

@skwirlinator

"There aren't any moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans."

Accept that as true and everything is merely a meaningless game.

Man is the measure of all things.

Yes, but I wouldn't call it "meaningless" because it has importance TO US as humans. It is important to us because we have to live with each other in a social setting in a way that is conducive to survival.

That's where these morals and laws came from in the first place. They make living amongst each other more beneficial and even enjoyable.

But WE make those decisions according to OUR ideas of culture, and...

@skwirlinator

"There aren't any moral absolutes, only standards of conduct defined by we as humans as they relate to we as humans."

Accept that as true and everything is merely a meaningless game.

Man is the measure of all things.

Yes, but I wouldn't call it "meaningless" because it has importance TO US as humans. It is important to us because we have to live with each other in a social setting in a way that is conducive to survival.

That's where these morals and laws came from in the first place. They make living amongst each other more beneficial and even enjoyable.

But WE make those decisions according to OUR ideas of culture, and governance, and so forth. So, yes, Man is the measure of all things moral as they pertain to Man.

The rest of the universe, however, couldn't give a flying squat.

And though Yance from time to time agrees with it in words, I'm not sure if he actually sees that yet.

You've missed everything. We've been talking about the USE of that power.

Could you explain what you mean?
I doubt that anyone in history ever talked about power without the use of it inherent in the discussion.
That's all power means.The amount of power is the use of it!
On the other hand statements that

"There aren't any moral absolutes,

have nothing to do with guiding the use of power and destroy any logical guide to any proper social relationship or proper use of now blind power.

I mean, power exists, and we know it does. Fleas have their power range, dogs have theirs, and humans have theirs and so it is with every creature known and unknown. Without...

You've missed everything. We've been talking about the USE of that power.

Could you explain what you mean?
I doubt that anyone in history ever talked about power without the use of it inherent in the discussion.
That's all power means.The amount of power is the use of it!
On the other hand statements that

"There aren't any moral absolutes,

have nothing to do with guiding the use of power and destroy any logical guide to any proper social relationship or proper use of now blind power.

I mean, power exists, and we know it does. Fleas have their power range, dogs have theirs, and humans have theirs and so it is with every creature known and unknown. Without moral absolutes, the only real bottom line standard is what you can get away with. Do you think people are not going to grasp that fact?

What do you think is stopping the USA from just dropping nukes on most of the world? It's not civilization, I can tell you that!

It's because there are still enough 'suckers' out there that do believe in absolute moral values or it would be bombs away.
There is no reason not to treat competing countries and peoples the same way people do with bug sprays on bugs otherwise. At least now you have to dehumanize before you kill, with no absolute moral base, that obstacle is removed.

In fact it's insane not to kill the others off the same way you would destroy malaria or the mosquitoes that carry it.
Why wait for the day when the Chinese might be powerful enough to beat us?