| If you will die tonight were will you go in heaven or in hell? |
| heaven |
|
31% |
[ 48 ] |
| hell |
|
8% |
[ 13 ] |
| I don't know |
|
19% |
[ 30 ] |
| I don't care |
|
5% |
[ 8 ] |
| It will be the end |
|
18% |
[ 28 ] |
| I will be reincarnated |
|
15% |
[ 24 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 151 |
|
| Author |
Message |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
What is moral is defined by society. Those who increase the general happiness of society as seen as moral and good. Those who cause problems are seen as immoral and bad. Morality is no more supernatural than mashed potatoes.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CosminG
Not a Lifeless Person
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 1344
Location: Romania - Oradea
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| clpo13 wrote: | | What is moral is defined by society. Those who increase the general happiness of society as seen as moral and good. Those who cause problems are seen as immoral and bad. Morality is no more supernatural than mashed potatoes. |
Well that is the problem. Because I may consider one think moral when you did not consider it, so morality becomes a matter of what I like or you like, it is not a standard anymore. This way the morality level gets down every generation.
_________________
[img:2b16fca40e]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2193/ifyoudie4wn.png[/img:2b16fca40e] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1311
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What is moral is defined by society. |
What is society but other invididuals? You can't possibly claim that, for every individual, morality comes from other individuals. That doesn't even begin to stand up logically.
You yourself said that you have observed morality outside of your own being in the world. That means you acknowledge that you didn't dream it up or fabricate it on your own. But when you try to apply this to everyone, you see that not EVERYONE could have reasonably observed morality simply by viewing it at work in others. It has to have some source "above" or transcendent to the human level of being.
| Quote: | | Those who increase the general happiness of society as seen as moral and good. |
"General happiness?" Are you kidding me? How can you even leave room for such a concept of "happiness" in your view of the world? For a purely physical being, there is only a cause-and-effect sort of existance in which a being is either plainly in the process of completing a task or relaxing.
For example, sub-human animals will typically look for food if they are hungry; once they are no longer hungry (let us assume they have no other natural motivation at the moment such as thirst, etc.) they will just go to sleep or someting similar.
So if we are like that, where's the "happiness" in that picture? If wealthy people have all of their physical needs and wants instantly gratified, why don't they just wake up, eat, sleep, rinse, lather, and repeat? Wouldn't that make their physical bodies biologically "happy?" But for some reason, we don't consider that sort of person necessarily happy. Something's missing in that picture, and people spend their entire lives searching even to the smallest cracks and fissures of the world looking for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All right, Xtreme, so what if morality is determined by some higher power? Does that mean I must worship that higher power? Does it make any difference to my life whether my morality is determined by myself, by society, or by something else? Do I need to act differently if I think my morals are not my own?
And what of the "immoral" actions I may do? I sure don't see them as immoral. Other people do, though. How, if morality is determined by a universal higher power, is this possible? If morality is universal, shouldn't everyone hold the same moral and ethical codes?
You and I both know from experience that this is not the case. Most religions see premarital sex and homosexuality as immoral. I don't. Almost everyone sees genocide as immoral. Hitler didn't. The list goes on and on. Oh sure, you can say what you want about consciences and how deep down inside everyone must know what they do is "right" or "wrong." Perhaps for some that's true. But you don't know that. If Hitler, for instance, had any qualms about exterminating the Jews, he wouldn't have done it to such an extent. Hitler felt that what he was doing--purifying the human race--was the best possible course of action. It was not wrong in his eyes, that much is obvious. Society at large, on the other hand, felt that it was very wrong, a crime against humanity. Was Hitler, then, an aberration? An anomaly in the universal morality constant? Or was he proof that morality isn't constant, as you seem to say it is?
You leave too many questions unanswered. I don't claim to know everything; I just report what I see. And to be perfectly frank, I don't see morality as anything near supernatural or divine.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CosminG
Not a Lifeless Person
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 1344
Location: Romania - Oradea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly. Have you looked at the world recently? Interracial marriage used to be considered immoral. It's generally not seen as such now. Slavery used to be seen as perfectly moral. Now it's considered one of the worst crimes against humanity. Or how about racism? Sexism? Any form of bigotry? Whereas in the past, nobody had any problem with bigotry (against blacks, women, Muslims, etc.), the world generally shuns such behavior today.
Morals do change. The majority see sexuality in a different light today than they did in the 1800s. Homosexuality has become more accepted since the 1970s. And so on and so forth. Who knows what will be considered morally acceptable in the near future? As much as any of you might claim that there's a moral standard, there doesn't seem to actually be one. Things change, and morals change with them.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CosminG
Not a Lifeless Person
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 1344
Location: Romania - Oradea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| clpo13 wrote: | Exactly. Have you looked at the world recently? Interracial marriage used to be considered immoral. It's generally not seen as such now. Slavery used to be seen as perfectly moral. Now it's considered one of the worst crimes against humanity. Or how about racism? Sexism? Any form of bigotry? Whereas in the past, nobody had any problem with bigotry (against blacks, women, Muslims, etc.), the world generally shuns such behavior today.
Morals do change. The majority see sexuality in a different light today than they did in the 1800s. Homosexuality has become more accepted since the 1970s. And so on and so forth. Who knows what will be considered morally acceptable in the near future? As much as any of you might claim that there's a moral standard, there doesn't seem to actually be one. Things change, and morals change with them. |
And exactly that is the problem. If morals are changeing than there are no more moral anymore. God is the one that is sayng ehat is moral.
_________________
[img:2b16fca40e]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2193/ifyoudie4wn.png[/img:2b16fca40e] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And what are God's morals? The ones in the Bible? The Bible is thousands of years out of date. It barely applies to life today, if at all.
Perhaps you could make a case that it does, but I'm not about to give up pork or burn dead animals to please God.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CosminG
Not a Lifeless Person
Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 1344
Location: Romania - Oradea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1311
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Perhaps you could make a case that it does, but I'm not about to give up pork or burn dead animals to please God. |
Animal sacrifices for atonement and reconciliation and etc, are no longer necessary; the ultimate sacrifice has been already made by Christ and so by His sacrifice to the Father, we are redeemed beyond any measure possible by animal sacrifice.
If you look at His Passion as repeated liturgically over and over during Holy week (at least in the Church, I don't know about other denominations) it becomes apparent that it is directly parallel to the Passover. Christ is the New Pascal Sacrifice that saves us from death eternally. There is no need for animal sacrifice anymore.
Also, about eating certain things, Peter (correct me if it's Paul, but I'm pretty sure it's Peter) very early in the New Testament has a revelation compelling Him to teach that all food is morally acceptable after Christ's death. It's in Acts, I believe.
Another point: the old Testament was directed to a much less spiritually and intellectually developed people. The Ten Commandments are actually God commanding us to simply love. They just do it explicitly and in a way that anyone can understand. If God had just said "Love everyone," to His Old Testament audience, things would have probably gotten no where. So He lead them slowly and steadily. When Jesus came and revealed ultimate moral Truth, He commanded us simply, "Love." Love others. Love God.
Also, the Beatitudes are the new way of viewing morality. The Commandments are a "minimum" to keep in life. The Beatitudes are the "maximum" that Christ calls us to. Often, so it is with the Old Testament versus the New Testament. Both are completely valid in context, but as with the Beatitudes versus the Commandments, the New does not erase the Old, but fulfills and maximizes it.
| Quote: | | And what are God's morals? The ones in the Bible? The Bible is thousands of years out of date. It barely applies to life today, if at all. |
Many morals are written on our hearts, meaning that we know them internally, inherently, and innately; we can still choose to override this natural law and to cover it to a point of illegibility by habitual immoral habits.
Also, tradition and scripture provide explicit knowledge of some morals, too. Just because something is learned doesn't mean it's not universally constant and true; math, for instance, is learned in school. You could never just randomly start doing integral calculus no matter how long you stared at a blank board if nobody helped you learn the steps before it. Calculus is still valid and obviously true, even though a third grader might not believe it yet.
With morality, there is a natural "constant," so to speak. Just because not every single person agrees on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course, this drills the argument straight down to "Well, I know what it is, and YOU'RE actually wrong," and we start playing verbal table-tennis. So let's try not to go there if possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Artakserksis
Adept Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 74
Location: Komotini
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I die tonight I will go at a space area where's nothing, and where I will see, feel and need nothing  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Friode
Adept Poster
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 65
Location: Hackers Realm
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted for "it's the end", in my opinion once you die your mind and soul disapear never to be seen again.
But that's what other people will see, what you will experience is total nothingness, but noit the kind of nothingness like nirvana, I mean the kind like when you go to sleep and your mind just shuts down.
Well basicly you don't experience anything ever again.
| Maximilian wrote: | | BTW: I can see the love and light of God quite well thank you, since my own vision is not clouded by religious dogma and blocked by a book that was written and rewritten by men to help control other men. |
That is an extremely true statement, I believe that noone's belief should be clouded by what they were taught by their parents or what other people believe.
Belief is something that in my opinion every person should develop himslef without any teaching/preachings from the outside world.
| Artakserkis wrote: | | If I die tonight I will go at a space area where's nothing, and where I will see, feel and need nothing |
Yes that's how it is, nothingnes.
In my opinion Heaven represents our fear of dieing and hell represents our fear of commiting sins.
I also have a question about morality, heaven and hell, if you believe in either heaven or hell then please take your time to answer my question :
A policeman in the line of duty shoots a criminal who assaulted him, he kills him.
Now from my point of view and the policeman's too, this was a kill or be killed situation in which he had to react extremely fast.
That policeman has commited a sin by killing another human, but if he didin't do it his death would be considered suicide since he could have stayed alive by killing the criminal.
Suicide is a sin as punishable as murder, does this mean that whatever the policeman does he will go to hell anyway?
_________________
Definition of Hacker
Definition of Cracker |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme
Lifeless Person
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 1311
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Belief is something that in my opinion every person should develop himslef without any teaching/preachings from the outside world.
|
So with math, for example, you should be expected to figure out abstract Calculus on your won with no one from the "outside world" guiding you?
Surely, you do not agree with that proposition. Why should faith be anything else? Just because another person helped you understand something regarding faith doesn't mean that the information isn't objectively true, nor does it mean that you necessarily HAVE to follow it.
But saying that all outside information is irrelevant regarding faith is just an easy way of trying to write organized religion out of the picture. It's just an easy way for you to say "I believe _______ and so I'll do [whatever I feel like]" without having anyone to suggest that you may be wrong. It's the ultimate immature and sophomoric approach to life.
| Quote: | That policeman has commited a sin by killing another human, but if he didin't do it his death would be considered suicide since he could have stayed alive by killing the criminal.
|
All human life is innately dignified. However, killing a person is not a sin - murder is a sin. Murder is the unjust killing of a person. So killing an innocent person is murder.
Using minimal force to stop someone from harming an innocent person, even if that minimal force results in the death of the harming [non-innocent] party, is not murder. It is justified defense of innocent life.
So if a person threatens the life of a person who is innocent, it is morally acceptable to use the minimal necessary force to neutralize the threatening party. That doesn't mean loading him full of 46 rounds of bullets, either. It means, if you are a police officer, discharging your weapon as trained to the extent necessary to preserve innocent life. If that results in the death of the threatening person, it is not morally unnaceptable so long as the force used was not excessive or unnecessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
clpo13
Zarkin' frood
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1210
Location: Washington
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Math is not a belief. There's a difference between calculus and God. You can't compare the two. Also, understanding is quite different from preaching as well.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson
[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Friode
Adept Poster
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 65
Location: Hackers Realm
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As clpo13 very correctly remarked math is very different from religion, it is a science not a belief, that's why it is impossible to compare a calculus and God.
| Quote: | | But saying that all outside information is irrelevant regarding faith is just an easy way of trying to write organized religion out of the picture. It's just an easy way for you to say "I believe _______ and so I'll do [whatever I feel like]" without having anyone to suggest that you may be wrong. It's the ultimate immature and sophomoric approach to life. |
Well maybe you are right but I have no wish whatsoever to lead my lide believing in something someone had already prepared for me. I live by what I believe, by what I came to. I don't wish to live by the bible, or Tanach, but that doesn't mean it's immature, I won't murder someone out of my own morals not becasue the bible sais so, for the same reason I won't steal. I live by believing in basic moral and humanity.
I do not believe that eating pork is going against god(tanach), I don't believe that drinking alcohol is going against god(Koran), I don't believe that being gay is going against god(bible) and mind you I'm straight.
| Quote: | | Surely, you do not agree with that proposition. Why should faith be anything else? Just because another person helped you understand something regarding faith doesn't mean that the information isn't objectively true, nor does it mean that you necessarily HAVE to follow it. |
Most people when asked why they believe in their religon will say that it's because that's how thew were taught and brought up by their parents. For example a child born into a jewish family might have been a christian had he been born into a christian family.
That is not called "to help you understand", it's called "pushing your beliefs", while the child is raised a certain stereotype is set and usually that child even as a grownup will not even think that maybe another religion is what he truly believes in.
_________________
Definition of Hacker
Definition of Cracker |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledge Base 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
