Page 135 of 154 FirstFirst ... 3585125130131132133134135136137138139140145 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,350 of 1537

Thread: The Merits of a Christian Europe

  1. #1341
    Senior Member Plantagenet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 7th, 2019 @ 08:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    British-German
    Subrace
    Nordid-Cromagnid
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Gender
    Politics
    Throne and Altar
    Religion
    Aryajnana
    Posts
    719
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    Is the confusion of amoral with immoral and really all that you have to come with? Seriously? :
    I wasn't using that example as an argument for or against objective morality. I was merely asking if this act could ever be culturally justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neophyte View Post
    And why would that invalidate any moral system? That morality is subjective and based on the collective interest of the concerned people does not invalidate it. You only need a God, or some sort of allegedly objective morality, when you want to force a community to go against its own interests.
    It wouldn't invalidate the ability of a morality to function in a society, but it would invalidate the reality of that morality. It would be, as I said earlier, not an actual good or evil, but merely a collective illusion. If someone wished to recognize that simple fact, they would feel no qualm about breaking a false social construct aside from fear of societal punishment. This is especially dangerous for men in power who have no fear of societal punishment, as can be seen by the likes of Stalin or Mao.

  2. #1342
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Plantagenet
    That all depends on your views of existence and consciousness and whether they conform to actual reality. From the viewpoint of atheistic scientific naturalism, then you are correct. From the viewpoint of imago dei in relation to consciousness, for example, you can see that the universal repugnant quality of such acts are a reflection of their contrariness to the nature of God, the origin of all existence, and thereby can conclude that they are indeed actually evil.
    Yes, but you specifically used the word 'know'. If there is a God who infused universal morality into our DNA, or there is a God who was called out of oblivion specifically to staple into absolute fact the whims and fancies of the universe's most egotistical species, which simply couldn't bear the thought of its most tenaciously held convictions not being echoed throughout all space and all time -- then, yes, you would be correct. But you don't know this, and thus you can't know that this or that act is absolutely 'evil'.

    Just a quick snippet from the above for closer inspection:

    you can see that the universal repugnant quality
    If it were universally repugnant, then there wouldn't exist murderers, rapists, paedophiles and whatever else in the first place, and there certainly wouldn't be unrepentant murderers, rapists and paedophiles. There wouldn't be African tribal cultures and Middle Eastern nations where rape and paedophilia within one's own group is tolerable, and rape and paedophilia committed against rival tribes is promoted as good.

    How about taking a 2 year old child, burning it, raping it, and killing it? Is this ever to be justified? Would not a man raised in a closet all alone and free of any culture like Kaspar Hauser recognize the evil quality of such an act?
    A hypothetical person raised in absolute isolation would likely lack any concept of otherhood whatsoever. But, as I said, I never denied that a certain degree of morality (or, rather, moral-potential) was wired into our species (and others). I just denied that it was absolute.

    It has nothing to do with shaming or even winning an argument. It is a brute fact; if it is true that all morality is subjective, morality is an illusion. All acts are neutral, all acts are equal. Knowing this to be the reality of the matter, why condemn or support any act?
    Okay, so let's say you love eating chocolate mousse and hate eating cow dung. I'm sure you don't believe that the fabric of the universe inherently holds that chocolate mousse is indeed better than cow dung. But maybe you do. Maybe God disdains the non-nutritional. So let's tweak it a bit: let's say you're presented with mousse and some cow-dung flavoured nutritional substance. You really like the one, and really hate the other, but the universe has no position on the matter one way or the other, so why not choose the cow dung?? Both are equal! The universe isn't telling you what to do! There's no reason to choose the chocolate mousse!

    And then add to that the fact that in most people, the choosing of the 'dung' would lead to a permanent 'aftertaste' (i.e. conscience), social ostracism, and, worst of all, imprisonment or death.

    Depending on the crime, the above factors weigh-in differently. Most people don't rape children, because they have no desire to, and find the idea both of receiving gratification from a child and of inflicting trauma on a child to be utterly sick. It's not first and foremost because they think the universe disapproves -- it's because they disapprove, and that's putting it in the mildest terms. This is also the reason most people don't murder, although the main reason most people don't murder those they hate is probably fear of punishment rather than a natural repugnance to the idea (although this still probably exists in most people).

    It seems to me it would be willful ignorance to pretend that anything but reality to be true or to even matter. Why live in a subjective illusion where an act can be said to have a positive or negative quality or where Venice is seen superior to septic fluid, as you put it? It seems to me by doing so you aren't living in accord with rationality and or with reality, but via emotionality, feeling, and illusion.
    No, rationality is a computing system, not a value system. If I were to say, "People should do what they don't want to do as often as what they do want to do, and they should also do things that will objectively inconvenience them with years of imprisonment, because there's no absolute morality" --- that would be to irrationally posit that people should model their lives on some (misunderstood) model of the overall universe, to the exclusion of the human universe within which we're immediately grounded, and which is infinitely more relevant to us.

    In any case, I can foresee where such a discussion or debate on these matters will go between us: no where. A long drawn out game of the demon of dialectics and the clashing of two separate world-views that will never be resolved. In short, a futile exercise and a waste of time. Though I do appreciate you sharing your views.
    Thanks!!!

  3. #1343
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Plantagenet View Post
    If someone wished to recognize that simple fact, they would feel no qualm about breaking a false social construct aside from fear of societal punishment.
    As you said yourself, this is no different if someone simply rejects your "objective/absolute law" trough disbelief. He still could/would do it, even if he gets punished in the afterlife.
    A divine morality draws its strength through belief, whether it is factually there or not has no bearing, thus calling it objective seems oxymoronic.
    I agree the same can be said for any kind of worldly morality, since a murderer who doesn't believe he could get caught, won't be deterred to commit the act, the difference is, he has to make some objective preparations to make it happen.
    It is indeed socially beneficial to instill some kind of higher belief into the common subjects which they hold high and dear and thus don't go against it. In the end, whether this is Christianity or or a worldly belief in honor doesn't matter, the latter is even better, since it is not as abstract and not as distant, and it can be objectively reasoned.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #1344
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 08:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,753
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    924
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,073
    Thanked in
    443 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Plantagenet
    If it is true that all morality is subjective, morality is an illusion. All acts are neutral, all acts are equal. Knowing this to be the reality of the matter, why condemn or support any act? It seems to me it would be willful ignorance to pretend that anything but reality to be true or to even matter. Why live in a subjective illusion where an act can be said to have a positive or negative quality or where Venice is seen superior to septic fluid, as you put it? It seems to me by doing so you aren't living in accord with rationality and or with reality, but via emotionality, feeling, and illusion.
    Now, that is true Nihilism.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #1345
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Yes, and I contest this happens with murder, Christians do not, and neither do you. You could try to redraw the logical inevitability here for me, then I would be convinced.
    Of this all we can know is that all actions have effects, what these are and how they relate to the known world is beyond our ability to know. We can objectify the evils of murder, because of the law of self preservation which we subjectively recognize.

    Therefore, in lieu of Hamar Fox's contribution, the only thing which is permitted to violate this law is an act of honorable selflessness. We find this in the heroic ideal.

    Now directed at him, you obviously have placed a value upon your own life and this is the problem with subjectivity in general. You can state the subjective nature of reality but you will not practice its truth. Your act of murder is unlawful as it violates the same right in another you yourself are proclaiming with your actions. This is a contradiction.

    Out of curiosity, do you believe this could happen after your worldly death, or are you suggesting an objective law will always set in before you die or culminate in death itself?
    What we can know is that life is not constant, everything is in the process of transformation and from this we may reason that death is not an end, that actions are seeds and all the above possibilities are valid in this end.

    Now, in the sense of justice, we see no instance where the effect is not congruent with the cause. But we find that sometimes causes are not known and this is what the pursuit of justice in its essence is, the search for causes. Acts that are in violation to objective laws do produce effects that do not always manifest themselves immediately. Temperance alone can get us through the labyrinth of causation.

    And what definition of "murder" are you following here?
    The USC legal definition suffices. To which I would add the wanton destruction of life, whether committed on impulse or premeditated whether committed out of malice or vengeance and is carried out in a selfish manner that unjustly deprives one of life in the interest of self promotion.

  6. #1346
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    We can objectify the evils of murder, because of the law of self preservation which we subjectively recognize.
    Yes, we can and actually do this in most societies. The question here is why a non objective reasoning could do this and call itself objective.
    If I tell you the average temperature on Mars is 218 °K because of the Spaghetti Monster not farting enough there, then the number is objectively correct, yet, the reasoning is not.
    I am not contesting that partial truths about our life have been incorporated into Christian religion, I am contesting that Christian religion is needed to (or even could) objectify them.
    After all that was the point of disagreement, not that one couldn't come up with objective reasons why murder is bad for a society, yet, since it depends on what you want for society (or for yourself) it is still subjective, unless you would postulate that everyone wants the same
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  7. #1347
    The Power belongs to those who Dare
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Scario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 05:48 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germanic
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Location
    Lawen
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Germanic Heathen
    Posts
    203
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    So we must be Christian to learn morals, no other form will work. I see many examples of Christians stealing, raping, murdering daily. BKT was a model Christian, well except for the Blind Kill Torture part. Even Christians, who know about your afterlife, still break the moral codes set out by the Church, or God. Nothing will stop a person, Christian or not, if they are set in their hearts and brains to break morals. The only thing that will stop these types is punishment, here and now. If you murder or rape, you should lose your life in the here and now. Let your religion in the afterlife punish you then.

    And someone locked in the closet for life, without knowledge and contact, would be nothing more than an animal, rape or murder would mean nothing to them.

  8. #1348
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 08:48 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Scario View Post
    So we must be Christian to learn morals, no other form will work.
    I think it depends upon what one is looking for in life in terms of expectations, etc. Christianity and heathenry, both religions, teach morals but so to does Buddhism, a non-theistic philosophy, and national socialism, a political doctrine. Christianity simply teaches a symbiotic form of guilt-based morality: God damns you yet you need God to make it all better or summat.

  9. #1349
    Eala Freia Fresena
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    3 Weeks Ago @ 11:24 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    19
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Morals put into law is a substitute for people who have no conscience. Which means it is for Jews.

    Aryan have a conscience therefor they do not need a codified moral. Infact it kills conscience and is detrimental to our people.

    To call the 10 commandments a moral system is a joke.

    The Bagavad Gita provides a much better help than the bible.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  10. #1350
    Senior Member CruxClaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 02:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Irish, German, Polish, Scottish, English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Center-left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    Morals put into law is a substitute for people who have no conscience. Which means it is for Jews.

    Aryan have a conscience therefor they do not need a codified moral. Infact it kills conscience and is detrimental to our people.

    To call the 10 commandments a moral system is a joke.

    The Bagavad Gita provides a much better help than the bible.
    I agree that defining law and morals as one and the same should not be done.

    But I would like to point out that the 10 Commandments are not the only basis of Biblical law. It's much more complicated than that. The Old Testament book of Leviticus includes a list of many laws covering all sorts of areas, such as religious standards, what's okay and not okay to eat, what's acceptable sexual behavior, how one should generally conduct oneself, etc. That's the book where the laws against homosexuality that the Christian fundies are always citing come from. Many of the laws of Leviticus are clearly meant to preserve the well-being of those following them (for example, it tells them to cast lepers out of the village, since lepers could easily spread their leprosy, and it forbids the eating of several types of foods that could have been very likely to cause illness at the time due to lack of modern cleaning and cooking methods).

    In the New Testament, Jesus breaks a Commandment when he heals a man's hand during the Sabbath, indicating that the writers of the New Testament did not necessarily view the 10 Commandments as a binding moral system.

    1 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
    4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

    5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

    -Mark 3:1-6, NIV
    I suppose that whether or now the law is on the same wavelength as morality is determined by one's (subjective) view of morality. I personally believe that what is moral is that which best preserves the well-being of the most people possible, one of the aims of the law; however, in practice, I don't think all the laws of the U.S. (or any country, for that matter) necessarily support the greatest well-being for the most people. I act based less on the law than on a personal sense of morality. The law is a societal guideline, and I do my best to harmonize my morals with the law, but they will never fully blend together, seeing as I don't believe all laws are moral or that all moral standards are codified into law.
    Leben heißt für mich, mehr Träume in meiner Seele zu haben als die Realität zerstören kann.
    -Hans Kruppa

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 26th, 2017, 03:39 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 04:30 AM
  3. Christian Trade Unions in Europe
    By Taras Bulba in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, June 26th, 2006, 07:36 PM
  4. Taylor vs. Wise - On The Merits of Racial Diversity in Society
    By Nordhammer in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Friday, May 20th, 2005, 02:11 AM
  5. A Christian Renaissance for Europe
    By Taras Bulba in forum Christianity
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 11:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •