Posted on 03/19/2010 1:04:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam.
Does this mean that you can just go out and rape and pillage, behave like an ancient Roman grabbing Sabine women? Not at all. I said that there are no grounds for being good. It doesn't follow that you should be bad. Indeed, there are those – and I am one – who argue that only by recognising the death of God can we possibly do that which we should, and behave properly to our fellow humans and perhaps save the planet that we all share. We can give up all of that nonsense about women and gay people being inferior, about fertilised ova being human beings, and about the earth being ours to exploit and destroy.
Start with the fact that humans are naturally moral beings. We want to get along with our fellows. We care about our families. And we feel that we should put our hands in our pockets for the widows and orphans. This is not a matter of chance or even of culture primarily. Humans as animals have gone the route of sociality. We succeed, each of us individually, because we are part of a greater whole and that whole is a lot better at surviving and reproducing that most other animals.
On the one hand, we have suppressed all sorts of common mammalian features that disrupt harmonious living. Imagine trying to run a philosophy class if two or three of the members were in heat.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Such examples as the Japanese et al
could be reasonably argued as an example of
God’s imprint of His nature and priorities on all creation . . . at least as represented in this sphere.
Not as finitely articulated in any detailed ways as in Scripture . . . yet, recognizably imprinted.
Virtually all cultures construe it important to be loving and supportive of one’s family.
That betrayal of one’s own is horrifically bad.
That soiling one’s own nest is at least stupid, insane and/or evil.
That kindness, love, caring, compassion—at least to one’s intimates, are wise and good.
That authority lovingly, caringly, responsibly administered is better than destructive murderous chaos and anarchy.
That glorifying, exalting in death, destruction, suffering is extremely evil, stupid and/or insane.
That denying such basic minimal ‘universal’ moral values is an example of supreme ignorance if not of stupidity, insanity and/or evil.
That's congruent with 'objective' observation.
No matter how good a "Christian" society began, it was potentially 24/7 only seconds from horrible perversity, destructiveness, evil.
It is only a testimony to Holy Spirit's assistance and the efficacy of Jesus' Blood that any human grouping even around the values of Christianity--could enduringly manifest any good at all--longer than an initial number of seconds.
It is a Dance. When the human side insists on being clumsy or even in falling, trying to destroy the dance etc. then one can hardly rationally describe The Dance any longer as wonderful or good.
The wonder and miracle is not that "Good Christians" can be horrible. That's inherent in the human condition--particularly in humans who refuse or neglect to daily haul the flesh to The Cross.
The wonder and miracle is that out of any such flawed human Critters, God has fashioned any individuals and groupings of same who manage (by His Blood, Grace, power, Spirit) to do good, in any sense of the word, longer than a few seconds--however self-lessly--to however many for however long.
Pseudo-hyper-objectivist-'rationalism' has contributed, essentially, nothing but destruction, death, evil, horror to what we observe and call reality. All in the name of what . . . a fantasy, an arrogance, a farce, a delusion.
That's why pseudo-hyper-objectivists
erratically on odd numbered days stuff food in the opposite orifice and heave out the top one.
and on even numbered days play Russian Roulette with their sons and on odd numbered days play it with their daughters.
and on odd numbered days greet their bosses and supervisors by slapping their bosses in the face and kicking their supervisors in the groin.
And particularly on weekends, they enjoy driving on the opposite sides of the road in the wrong direction above the speed limit.
And annually, at Christmas, in a unique demonstration of seasonal festivities, burn their own houses to the ground to their own wild maniacal cheering.
And on even numbered days haphazardly alternated with odd numbered days, they walk backwards with blind folds on--particularly beside busy streets and thoroughfares.
All in the name of OBJECTIVITY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND LACK OF flawed, human bias polluted CONVENTION, of course.
With a Christian moral foundation tyranny and genocide is possible. With atheistic social Darwinism as a moral foundation tyranny and genocide is inevitable.
###
INDEED TO THE MAX.
EXTREMELY WELL PUT.
Well, I didn't say that any one moral standard was superior. You did. So, it seems only proper that you should show why.
The traditional morality of America, the one hated so badly by liberals, the historical default standard of America is the one I will stay with until someone can 'prove' they have a better one
In #116 I wrote the following: "Every society has a concept of the right and wrong; their own brand of morality. In all societies, restrictions to conduct, and punishment based on misconduct, serve to protects the community."
This is not about liberals trying to change our standards or proposing a different standard for us.
I will consider any evidence. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I think this is no different that any one of us.
So frankly I don't think you are one who would accept whatever evidence would be presented which might cast doubt upon your own pre-conceived notions of morality and theology
Is this about me and reading my mind or about the statement you made regarding the inevitability of genocide in non-theological morality?
If you think I will not accept your evidence then why do you post to me with an either or matter-of-fact statement that you are not prepared to defend?
Quix, there is no hard and fast rule. It would be nice if we had one, but we don't. That's why each claim has to be evaluated, individually. I have already mentioned Fatima 1917, and in previous threads I have reminded Freepers of the well documented case of a British reporter in Belfast who "vividly" remembered a British paratrooper in a red beret pointing a rifle at him.
It turns out the incident was photographed and the photos clearly show the paratrooper covered with a camouflaged helmet. Yet the reporter's mind, by his own admission, "refuses" to accept that.
Some experiences are probably 100 and some are 0. Others fall somewhere in between. Factors that determine the score are numerous and equally unpredictable.
Marvelously well said, dear brother in Christ! You've got some beautiful posts up today.... This is one of them. Thank you!
You will have to define the term moral evil in this case. I think your question is still a roundabout way of asking the same question. That which is perceived as a constant and deliberate threat is individually considered as injurious or evil. It's not necessarily a moral evil.
What's this got to do with the (un)reliability of human experience, or my post #144 you are responding to?
INDEED.
. . . which . . .
imho,
is a major reason that trying to make a consistent rule or application based on . . .
empty nonsensical foundations is folly.
THANKS FOR YOUR VERY ENCOURAGING WORDS.
THEY ARE A WELCOME COOL WATER IN A DRY LAND.
i
THINK
I know you well enough
to avoid expecting that I’ll remotely satisfy your expectations in posting more than a mircro gram’s worth maybe once in a millenium, at best.
However, I springboard off of your posts in a number of directions for my own purposes and pleasure.
I am glad you quote #1161 which just repeated what I said and what most everyone else said, roughly, Nazi Germany and the Kmer Rouge had a different view of things than the U.S.A.
They both legalized murder as a good.
Not sure why you would repeat what we have already said, for the question is not whether or not societies have had somewhat different foundations or presuppositions about morality(some worse than others, unless you are saying any one of them is as good as the next), but the question is, has one or more proven to be superior to others if prosperity, liberty, and murder, or other trivial things like that mean anything to you.
If ours is not as good as the one you have, then you need to prove your standard is worthy to replace the one we have always had. You have it exactly backwards.
Evidence consists of facts not opinions. I don't know what you mean by "It doesn't mean I have to agree with it". Now maybe you won't agree with my analysis of the evidence, but in regard to the evidence itself, there is nothing to agree or disagree unless you want to doubt the very existence of the evidence I would present.
So I am not asking what evidence you will ignore, I am asking what evidence you will "accept". In other words what kind of evidence would it take to prove my assertion if I could prove it by the evidence you demand?
Tell me that, and I will strive to produce the evidence that will prove my statement. If you are not willing to indicate what evidence would convince you, then what is the use in anyone trying to prove anything to you?
You are a skeptic. That is fine. But if you want someone to prove something to you, you will need to specify the type and level of proof that will convince you. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here (which frankly I think we are).
Opinions are often used as "evidence."
So I am not asking what evidence you will ignore, I am asking what evidence you will "accept"
It's like money. Some money is worthless even tough it's money. I consider all evidence. I don't accept all of it.
Before this ends up being another dead-end waste of time, let's go bakc to the beginning. You wrote:
And I repsonded:
Now, you can choose to defend your position or to ignore my question. Thank you.
From this you draw Khmer Rouge and Nazi Germany, imply that I am suggesting we change our moral beliefs, and even that I have to prove another one superior to ours.
None of it is in what I wrote. If you can't stay with the topic, let's move on.
P-Marlowe: With a Christian moral foundation tyranny and genocide is possible. With atheistic social Darwinism as a moral foundation tyranny and genocide is inevitable.
Kosta 50: Why is that? What evidence do you have for that conclusion?
***********************************************
The evidenced is based upon actual history. Since Darwinism came out - it has been embraced by atheist and applied by in violent ways. Atheistic social Darwinistic governments (USSR, China, Cambodia,etc) have killed more of their citizens in the 20th century on a scale larger than anything in history. Hitler’s embrace of darwinism lead him to the genocide of the Jews and other ‘undesirables’. Visit one of those concentration camps some time kosta as I have - you’ll get an in-your-face practical definition and example of evil.
Atheistic darwinism a fundamental point of Marxism world wide is evident in Zimbabwae and numerous other third world countries where present.
Let me know if he accepts "actual history" as "evidence".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.