Galien Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It is such a shame you guys can't stop your circular reasoning, and just do the fucking job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Let me recap my own understanding. Morality may be a societal agreement. One may act morally without having the emotion of love. However, If there were defintions of absolute morality, then although one might not feel the emotion of love, the moral act would by default be loving. From a Christian standpoint, I'm viewing the goal as acting in a moral manner from a selection of absolute morals, which would by default be loving.....with the exception that I may not feel the emotion when exacting such. Ok, please let me know how this may differ than some "norm" as I ain't to "norm" myself. Thanks, Yes and No. You can act lovingly but not have any love in that action. We all know when someone is going through the motions. This not only lessens the value to the recipient but the giver inst experiencing the intrinsic values associated with that moral action. That's the problem with absolute morality. It strips away the intrinsic value because it is mandatory. And only under certain conditions is that action genuine. I will concede that there are many more instances where you can truly show love in an action rather than contempt. However, you can't MAKE some one love someone. I can SHOW them "Agape" love to some degree but that type of love is obligatory. By your reasoning god can love you and still send you to hell because of the compartmentalization of moral acts and love. they are no longer situational. Contrary to what the bible teaches, Man is (for the most part) inherently GOOD. Societies thrive when people are moral. Survival of the fittest only works to a certain degree and then societies must form for the survival of a species. Unfortunately it could turn to "survival of the fittest society". But its up to each person to use his or her moral compass to prevent that. Moral absolutes encourage that flawed thinking. Thats why pastors everywhere can say atrocities in their country are a result of the actions of the nation collectively. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah, the philistine were smite by david, etc. In present times thats why god wont bless iran, he blesses USA because we are chrisitans, he punishes us when we sin (911, etc). Its a biased argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Let me recap my own understanding. Morality may be a societal agreement. One may act morally without having the emotion of love. You're showing that you do understand there's a difference between the word "love" and the word "morality." Love is a feeling, not a code, rule, or act. Morality is a code or a rule. They're not the same thing. I can understand your argument better if you argue that morality grows from love, but love and morality are not the SAME. It's like saying "paint" is the same as "blue". Does this mean that a blue sky is a paint sky? Put it this way, if I would consider it moral to tell the truth to people (even strangers), does it mean that I'm loving them? No. It's a code to "not lie". You do it because it's right (in some sense), not because you are loving them. Loving someone helps you to act moral, but acting moral is not the same as loving someone. Mixing concepts and words like this will only confuse you further. Try to understand what they mean by themselves first before you jumble them up. However, If there were defintions of absolute morality, then although one might not feel the emotion of love, the moral act would by default be loving. Not necessarily. That's why they're not the same. If they were the same, the words would be interchangeable. But they're not. Put it this way. Hate is the opposite of love. Immoral is the opposite of moral. This means that you do something immoral, you hate a person. So if you lie to someone, you hate that person. Even white lies or holding something back means you totally and utterly despise and hate them. Really? From a Christian standpoint, I'm viewing the goal as acting in a moral manner from a selection of absolute morals, which would by default be loving.....with the exception that I may not feel the emotion when exacting such. Acting from love helps acting morally towards someone. You could argue that love is a requirement or beneficial to help someone act moral. But still, they're not words that you can interchange. They're not the same. They're two concepts that have overlapping features. But they're not exact equal. If you can't see the nuances of the meanings of words, you'll always be lost in explanation. You know chemistry, and what you're suggesting is that all oxygen is the same as nitrogen atom because they're both gaseous. Ok, please let me know how this may differ than some "norm" as I ain't to "norm" myself. Thanks, Love can't be a norm or a rule. You can't dictate people to love each other. Love can sometimes be tough. Sometimes you have to lie to a person you love to save them from pain. That means you both hate them and love them at the same time if love and morality are equal. It's a paradox. You're creating impossible contradictions by equating two words with different meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Yes and No. You can act lovingly but not have any love in that action. We all know when someone is going through the motions. This not only lessens the value to the recipient but the giver inst experiencing the intrinsic values associated with that moral action. That's the problem with absolute morality. It strips away the intrinsic value because it is mandatory. And only under certain conditions is that action genuine. I will concede that there are many more instances where you can truly show love in an action rather than contempt. However, you can't MAKE some one love someone. I can SHOW them "Agape" love to some degree but that type of love is obligatory. I think we are in agreement. The point of my OP was that we all strive to even be "successful" by attempting to perform the obligatory love without the feeling.....whether it is by religious rationalization, or religious education, or religious religion. Adding that at some point the rules of each of these religions fail to convey transcendance (sp) i.e. love. So, in order to communicate with each other, someone has to venture into another's realm. I would have to speak facts to someone that is comfortable with religious education, or I would have to speak chuch-eze to someone that finds confidence in religious religion. The point I am trying to make is that there are no rules for love itself. but that either we have to obey in an obilgatory fashion or receed back to a level of identification of where that other person's security and comfort and confidence reside. I think WHEN we accomplish this, then the transcendance happens. Contrary to what the bible teaches, Man is (for the most part) inherently GOOD. I feel like we fall short (sin) in our ability to communicate. I agree that man is innately good, but probably not inherently good nor good once we have lived for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Love is a feeling, not a code, rule, or act. Morality is a code or a rule. They're not the same thing. I can understand your argument better if you argue that morality grows from love, but love and morality are not the SAME. It's like saying "paint" is the same as "blue". Does this mean that a blue sky is a paint sky? Put it this way, if I would consider it moral to tell the truth to people (even strangers), does it mean that I'm loving them? No. It's a code to "not lie". You do it because it's right (in some sense), not because you are loving them. Loving someone helps you to act moral, but acting moral is not the same as loving someone. Mixing concepts and words like this will only confuse you further. Try to understand what they mean by themselves first before you jumble them up. Please give me your take on this. The OT Law is instruction to exact absolute morality per "God". (If we are inclined to accept such) Absolute morality is love Put it this way. Hate is the opposite of love. Immoral is the opposite of moral. This means that you do something immoral, you hate a person. So if you lie to someone, you hate that person. Even white lies or holding something back means you totally and utterly despise and hate them. Really? My understanding would be this H. .....that I don't love someone but can practice morality, and I don't hate someone, but can be immoral. The lack of being up to par in either department catagorizes me as "sinning". If I were completely moral, I would be Christ, If I were completely immoral, Satan. Or whatever language one chooses, good, evil, whatever. Acting from love helps acting morally towards someone. You could argue that love is a requirement or beneficial to help someone act moral. But still, they're not words that you can interchange. They're not the same. They're two concepts that have overlapping features. But they're not exact equal. If you can't see the nuances of the meanings of words, you'll always be lost in explanation. You know chemistry, and what you're suggesting is that all oxygen is the same as nitrogen atom because they're both gaseous. I appreciate the help. All a person can do is ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Moral perfection is impossible. End of story. Here's why. I like the fact that it gives a "goal" that can never be achieved, but to assert that standard was given by a god is silly. That standard is subjective anyway and exists only in the mind of the individual. No two moral compasses are identical which actually (now that i think about it) flies in the face of the idea that it was instilled by a creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Please give me your take on this. The OT Law is instruction to exact absolute morality per "God". (If we are inclined to accept such) Absolute morality is love Show me the verse in the Old Testament that points to "love" as the source of morality. I don't remember there is any. The whole "love" schtick came with the New Testament, not the Old. So I think you're wrong. But go ahead and show me wrong by giving me the verse. My understanding would be this H. .....that I don't love someone but can practice morality, and I don't hate someone, but can be immoral. The lack of being up to par in either department catagorizes me as "sinning". If I were completely moral, I would be Christ, If I were completely immoral, Satan. Or whatever language one chooses, good, evil, whatever. Here's the thing. I can understand the idea of love being a force to make people *wanting* to be moral. But "morality" is about what is right to do, how to act, and what not to do. Morality is about the code. Love is about the drive or incentive. There are two different sides to the puzzle. They are two different components to the mix. They are not the same component. If you can't understand this, I don't know how to help you. I appreciate the help. All a person can do is ask. As long as you're starting to understand the difference between "matter" and "force". Morality is "what is right to do", i.e. a code, law, or rule. Love is "wanting to do right," i.e. having a desire to do what is right for a person. What is "right" and "wanting to do right" are two separate things, not the same. That's my point. As long as you comprehend that, you can see which one is what and what is good about each one. If you mix them up, you will have an chemical reaction you didn't anticipate. Here's the definition of "morality" from Stanford University: The Definition of Morality First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011 The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or [*]normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. Here's the definition of the word "love" from Oxford's Dictionary: love |ləv| noun 1 an intense feeling of deep affection: babies fill parents with intense feelings of love | their love for their country. • a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone: it was love at first sight | they were both in love with her | we were slowly falling in love . • ( Love )a personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid. • a great interest and pleasure in something: his love for football | we share a love of music. • affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf. • a formula for ending an affectionate letter: take care, lots of love, Judy. 2 a person or thing that one loves: she was the love of his life | their two great loves are tobacco and whiskey. • Brit. informal a friendly form of address: it's all right, love. • (a love) Brit. informal used to express affectionate approval for someone: don't fret, there's a love. 3 (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil: love fifteen | he was down two sets to love. I recommend you read through the definitions and think about that the words don't have the same meaning. But I do understand the thought that love brings about a willingness in a person to do moral things to other people. That's talking about how love can be expressed and why, but not what morality is per se. Love is the catalyst for morality. But love doesn't define what is moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (Sighs.) Well End, we've been here before, haven't we? Once again, you've started up a thread without properly defining the question. A properly defined question lets people know if something is being asked of them or if the questioner is talking about themselves. For instance, you posit the following... "I'm able to treat people morally because of my religion". But you ask us to "...take the non-believers stance..." and suppose that..."...love is an evolutionary point in development." If I'm a non-believer, how can I treat people morally because of my religion? As a non-believer I have NO religion. Now, if you meant, "I, End3, am able to treat people morally because of my religion", we'd be getting somewhere. Is that what you meant? Your definition of morality and your religion? Thanks, BAA. They're very good at making up hot air balloons and then arguing from same. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 If your a christian, you can't be truely moral as far as I can see. My reasoning for that is as follows. Its generally agreed, that if your a good person, you try to when possible to reduce the amount of evil in your life and when you see it in others. If your a christian, you can't agree with that above statement without judging your god to be immoral. However you define the post creation of the world universe, evil would have if it existed been less then post creation universe. God is supposedly good at some level by most Christians definitions of god. God created more evil by creating the universe. Immoral action when through the roof. That countradicts goodness, as I have just illustrated and his own bible when he says he hates sin and evil. He hates what he creates, so then he shouldn't have created it. And if he doesn't know, then he can't be called god. That is not a good moral example of how to live, that is not a good god. And somehow this god if it existed would be capable of giving out the ten commandments. That would be like building a mansion and forgetting to put the door on it. Absurd. The only conclusion I feel one could make from this contradiction( because we already know by existence that is right to avoid the creation of more evil when possible) is to ditch the bible god, since if that god created is, there is no rational reason to expect this contradiction. If you believe in god, you would have to announce this key moral principal as wrong because your god contradicts it. Its a key moral principal by success in the world that god supposedly created. If there was actually a existing Christian god, that couldn't be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 love of anything or anyone can produce acts of such profound immorality it boggles the mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (Sighs.) Well End, we've been here before, haven't we? Once again, you've started up a thread without properly defining the question. A properly defined question lets people know if something is being asked of them or if the questioner is talking about themselves. For instance, you posit the following... "I'm able to treat people morally because of my religion". But you ask us to "...take the non-believers stance..." and suppose that..."...love is an evolutionary point in development." If I'm a non-believer, how can I treat people morally because of my religion? As a non-believer I have NO religion. Now, if you meant, "I, End3, am able to treat people morally because of my religion", we'd be getting somewhere. Is that what you meant? Your definition of morality and your religion? Thanks, BAA. They're very good at making up hot air balloons and then arguing from same. LOL Hey Raoul! Why don't you check out this thread? http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52856-killing-in-the-name-of-atheism/ Especially the latest postings. You'll see the 'true' colors of this so-called Christian. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Hey Raoul! Why don't you check out this thread? http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52856-killing-in-the-name-of-atheism/ Especially the latest postings. You'll see the 'true' colors of this so-called Christian. Thanks, BAA. Will do it and get back to you BAA. Thanks..Just went through the comments over there and replied to you (over there). As stated (over there), I may put out a video tomorrow with my wife to discuss the moral code (over there). later (over there)... Oh, did I mention, over there??? ROFL (sorry, it's been a long freaking day)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." -Kant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.W. Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I cant stand Kant's choice of words. He seems to find the most difficult way to express something, but if he means that we should act in a way that can be applied to everyone equally without hypocrisy- well then, that's interesting. Personally, Im kind of floating in a moral intuition that I can no longer define. Something's dude, I just dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeCoastie Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Look at us. We're a bunch of hairless apes. We're not that fast, not that strong, we don't have long claws, we don't have armor. Humans and all other apes are social species. We couldn't have survived alone, we depended on our families and neighbors and we still do. Because we can't survive alone we developed connections to neighbors. We developed what is called love and as a species we don't have a monopoly on that either. Look at other social species chimps, gorillas, dogs, dolphins. Do you really think humans are the only animal that loves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts