The evil stain

[Guest phaidros]

It's quite obvious that we have somehow fallen in the mud from which we were created. It suffices to admit that a natural law exists to appreciate to what extent is the human kind fulfilling it without coaction -fear or hope- in general terms. We can find this law in the common ground of the main religions of the world. My wife, an ex-Buddhist and a Christian nowadays, explained me about the five precepts that every normal man has to observe in her previous creed: 1) don't kill life, 2) don't steal, 3) don't fornicate, 4) don't lie and 5) don't get drunk. The first four points depend on the last one, understood in a wide sense as keeping your consciousness against passion's attack. This and infinite more, that is to say, every natural moral rule -she added- can be summarized in Christian love.

 

However, if we redefine the first precept as "don't kill without a fair reason" (for instance, protecting an equal good that we cannot otherwise save), none of them is violated by beasts in most cases. That's admirable and should move us to reflection: they are not rational, but they can satisfy a rational law. Never the less, we do it backwards from them, since we break the moral law continuously, and we would do it more often if there was no law or no custom forcing us to reconsider the benefits of being wicked.

 

Certainly, the stupid creatures slavered by us never make a war, and by the way not usually a war to death, but only for defending themselves from imminent dangers, fight with other predators in order to survive or rival with members of the same species when trying to get a female for later reproduction. They don't love any food not coming from their work. There is no hypocrisy in their kind. They avoid vague sex and waste of energy produced by it. They despise every superfluous pleasure.

 

Thus, we can deduce that, knowing the existence of this eternal law that even beasts are experts with, and being aware of the man, the most rational creature walking on the Earth, infringing it as he was totally ignorant; in regard of the everlasting rule written in our heart that everyone can read, I say, we can infer that something obnubilates our intelligence and moral sense in a permanent way, preventing us of being faithful to it and naturally perfect.

 

We can find, I don't deny it, animals whose behaviour -regular or sporadic- seem to break natural principles. But they are just the exception confirming the rule, while a good man is an exception for the whole human race. If crime was something unusual and extraordinary, laws wouldn't be needed at all, because law -Latins said- doesn't care about the insignificant.

 

What is, then, ruining our understanding and making us be beneath wild animals? Might it be our free will? This is similar to blaming knife for the slash. It is not for the sake of our consciousness that we are falling in the sin, but despite of it. Our oppression, then, isn't in the will, as buddhist think; more likely it's previous to its stimulus. Theologians referred to the original sin when designating this shameful prostration. Islam rejects it, and this should be enough to prove this religion wrong.

 

Daniel.

 

 

Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

 

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Ouroboros]

From the way you're writing, I think you're a spammer or a troll, and I don't anticipate you're going to answer, but I'll do my response to you anyhow.

 

It's quite obvious that we have somehow fallen in the mud from which we were created.

No. It's not obvious. You're making an assumption. I don't agree to this.

 

It suffices to admit that a natural law exists to appreciate to what extent is the human kind fulfilling it without coaction -fear or hope- in general terms. We can find this law in the common ground of the main religions of the world. My wife, an ex-Buddhist and a Christian nowadays, explained me about the five precepts that every normal man has to observe in her previous creed: 1) don't kill life, 2) don't steal, 3) don't fornicate, 4) don't lie and 5) don't get drunk. The first four points depend on the last one, understood in a wide sense as keeping your consciousness against passion's attack. This and infinite more, that is to say, every natural moral rule -she added- can be summarized in Christian love.

God kills life according to the Bible, so he doesn’t have the Christian love.

 

However, if we redefine the first precept as "don't kill without a fair reason" (for instance, protecting an equal good that we cannot otherwise save), none of them is violated by beasts in most cases. That's admirable and should move us to reflection: they are not rational, but they can satisfy a rational law. Never the less, we do it backwards from them, since we break the moral law continuously, and we would do it more often if there was no law or no custom forcing us to reconsider the benefits of being wicked.

You claim validity of you moral codes by commonality to the other religious morals, and yet you want to redefine one of the rules to fit you argument. For instance “don’t kill without a fair reason” is not in agreement with Jainism!

 

Certainly, the stupid creatures slavered by us never make a war, and by the way not usually a war to death, but only for defending themselves from imminent dangers, fight with other predators in order to survive or rival with members of the same species when trying to get a female for later reproduction. They don't love any food not coming from their work. There is no hypocrisy in their kind. They avoid vague sex and waste of energy produced by it. They despise every superfluous pleasure.

They do? They despise every superfluous pleasure? They don’t love food that’s not coming from their own work? Do you even have any pets? You suggest a bunch of bullshit posits that I can’t agree to!

 

Thus, we can deduce that, knowing the existence of this eternal law that even beasts are experts with, and being aware of the man, the most rational creature walking on the Earth, infringing it as he was totally ignorant; in regard of the everlasting rule written in our heart that everyone can read, I say, we can infer that something obnubilates our intelligence and moral sense in a permanent way, preventing us of being faithful to it and naturally perfect.

Nah. Don’t agree.

 

We can find, I don't deny it, animals whose behaviour -regular or sporadic- seem to break natural principles. But they are just the exception confirming the rule, while a good man is an exception for the whole human race. If crime was something unusual and extraordinary, laws wouldn't be needed at all, because law -Latins said- doesn't care about the insignificant.

Most dogs lick their but, and sniff other dogs butt. Does it make a moral to follow?

 

What is, then, ruining our understanding and making us be beneath wild animals? Might it be our free will? This is similar to blaming knife for the slash. It is not for the sake of our consciousness that we are falling in the sin, but despite of it. Our oppression, then, isn't in the will, as buddhist think; more likely it's previous to its stimulus. Theologians referred to the original sin when designating this shameful prostration. Islam rejects it, and this should be enough to prove this religion wrong.

“Sin” is defined in such arbitrary way that it can’t be used to define morals, and it’s only a religious concept, to constitute the “miss the mark with God”, rather what is ethical correct to do. On the other hand your definition seems to be, “sin” is the cloud that hinders us to obey a supposed Eternal Moral code.

 

Is there an Eternal Law, Mr. Thomas Aquinas? Or is morals and ethics part of a complex pattern of memes born in cultural inheritance and society?

 

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Ouroboros]

It's quite obvious that we have somehow fallen in the mud from which we were created.

The assertment is not obvious, since your end statement argue that Islam doesn't agree.

 

Theologians referred to the original sin when designating this shameful prostration. Islam rejects it, and this should be enough to prove this religion wrong.

 

Your initial proposition doesn't match you conclusion, hence your deduction is illogical and false.

[Vixentrox]

Quite obvious Phaidros is another person who never truely read thier bible.

[scotter]

So Christianity before St Augustine, who proposed original sin, was a wrong religion because there was no original sin doctrine then:

 

=> the religion founded by Jesus was wrong

=> St Augustine is greater than Jesus because he corrected Jesus's religion

[spamandham]

It's quite obvious that we have somehow fallen in the mud from which we were created.

 

No it isn't.

[Ouroboros]

No it isn't.

Isn't it funny that this guy makes an assertion out of the blue from get-go.

 

I will make one too: (hope you read it Phaidros)

It's obvious that Christians have no clue what they believe or think, and they totally lack any kind of rational thinking capacity and they're most likely the least intelligent and least capable people in society today.

Heck, I don't think it was an assumption, but I think I might be right!!!

 

And then I can go on:

With this fact at hand we know that the only thing that can save our society is to totally rid ourself of religious dogma and extremism.

 

Actually this is funny but I will stop anyway, since I'm going outside to enjoy the sun and read a good book.

[Asimov]

1) don't kill life, 2) don't steal, 3) don't fornicate, 4) don't lie and 5) don't get drunk. The first four points depend on the last one, understood in a wide sense as keeping your consciousness against passion's attack. This and infinite more, that is to say, every natural moral rule -she added- can be summarized in Christian love.

 

Phaidros, either your wife is retarded, or you just made this up.

 

Those 4 creeds are the stupidest things I have ever heard, and buddhists must be morons.

 

1. Life kills life, it's a fact of life. Anything you eat is generally organic, and you can't really survive without organics.

 

2. Stealing is wrong in certain contexts, and is necessary in certain contexts, and is right in certain contexts. You can't make a blanket statement.

 

3. What's wrong with fornicating? These aren't moral laws, all you've presented is religious values.

 

4. See 2.

 

5. See 3.

[Amethyst]

They don't love any food not coming from their work.

 

That's funny, my gecko seems to love wax worms, and she doesn't do anything to make them. She'll eat them out of my hand, even. And btw, I wouldn't call all animals "stupid." I know humans who are more stupid than the animals.

 

With this fact at hand we know that the only thing that can save our society is to totally rid ourself of religious dogma and extremism.

 

I think we should rid ourselves of ALL religions, INCLUDING Christianity. But I don't think that our society needs to be "saved' from anything, that's an entirely Christian PoV. A thousand years from now, humans will still exist somewhere in the universe and society will continue, assuming we don't blow ourselves up with nukes before we colonize other worlds. Civilization may not be the same one as today (in fact, the odds are against it), but it will continue in some form.

[Ouroboros]

The couple is at the restaraunt and the guy is talking, the gal starts sipping her DP and instead of his words she hers a catchy little tune..."manamana...doo doo doo doo-doo, manamana doo, doo, dodoo, mananama...doo, doo, doo dodoo...." etc. etc.

Yup. I'm not there yet, but I'm starting to.