Originally Posted by metal134
Well, you can't take the "human" out of humans - be they religious or not. That believers do stupid things only attests to their humanity, not religion's shortcomings. Because we stand for something, we rightly get a higher level of criticism when we fall - without justifying acts of atrocity and terrorism, I would say that it's much more difficult to live rightly when you've got a higher standard placed upon you.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
"morality as vampirism." (N, ecce homo) sucking the life out of life. if god is morality then god is a vampire. that can't be right. vampires don't exist, maybe god doesn't either, maybe morality neither. possibly vampires, god, and morality are the same things: all are ideas, fables, abstractions, conventions, traditions, myths, opinions, systems of control, babel, heresay, idealities, ect. . .
Last edited by billyjack; 04-03-2007 at 11:18 AM.
Neat "logic" gymnastics - but no real response to what I posted. Your entire post is based on making an analogy which you failed to explain the legitimacy of. You state what you believe things are, but fail to provide reasoning for such statements of "reality."
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
vampires are myth and so is God. I can say that I have faith in the existence vampires, but that doesn't make them real now does it?
But you made a sort of syllogism: If God is morality then God is a vampire - and this statement unravels to this:
If A = B, then A = C
This statement requires the following premise: B = C
Which leads to the following conclusion: A = B = C
Your response switches tracks, but I was asking about the logic of your original statement. So - how is morality a vampire?
(If you had said "the world is a vampire" then I'd say yeah, you and the Smashing Pumpkins agree...)
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
"morality is vampirism" (nietzche, ecce homo) in that it sucks. its created a world where the strength is sucked out of the strong because weakness, selflessness, bowing down, and charity is seen as virtue, as strong. this argument basically comes down to this: morality put a stoppayment on evolution. everyone survives, strong and weak. this is great and full of puppy dogs and ice cream, but sooner or later this morality is going to find itself with a major overpopulation problem. wait, too late for that, we in the midst of one. morality makes it impossible to make the tough decisions reasonably because our legs of logic have become atrified and useless thanks to the crutches of morality. morality as falling off a cliff with useless wings and thinking you're flying. until we hit the ground we can keep on saying the flight is going just fine. but the ground comes nearer and nearer. instead of interpretting this as the wings not working, we just keep on pretending to fly, till splat. . .how to kill a vampire. shine some light on it. look at it. see it for what it is and watch its utility concamitantly fall apart the more light that is shed on it.
Last edited by billyjack; 04-03-2007 at 11:59 PM.
Your advocation of "might makes right" leads us into an ugly existence where right/wrong cease to have any meaning; I don't get how you think moral anarchy is a good thing - and don't quote "it's reality, man" at me. What makes humans different from animals is that we have the inclination and desire to alter our reality so that it's better than it is - we are different from animals because we have the idea and inclination towards the existence of "ought." Your vision of reality appears to be lay down and die, because to resist would be to challenge "reality." You've got to be kidding. The reason you have a reasonably comfortable, safe existence (I assume you're not writing from a cell, or are currently being persecuted) is due to the fact that the world has - for quite a while - been populated with people who thought differently than you - that there are things we ought to do and ought not do. The moral law you seem to despise creates the relatively safe social coccoon from within which you dismiss the necessity of "ought."
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
don't pigeonhole this into some platonic "Might makes right". that's not what i am saying. i'm talking about "the way", and within the way, sometimes the strong or sometimes the weak prevail. it depends upon the situation. but right now, everybody prevails, and this is putting us in dire straits that we can't deal with because our morality doesnt allow us to move naturally. we've got a moral straightjacket on.
why does the lack of christian morality imply anarchy? red china does just fine, no chrisitan morality, no anarchy. and their system of morals actually allows them to make tough decisions. for example, china successfully cut its birth rate in half in order to reduce overpopulation in the 1970's. if the U.S. tried this people's free will would get its feelers hurt.
the only reason reality needs to be altered is to make it easier to swollow for some. this is fine, except now some has become basically everyone--not fine.
you are the one resisting or going against nature, i'm talking about going with the flow of things.
i'm not saying ought doesnt have its place. i'm just saying it has its place. right below is.
"is" changes yet "ought" doesnt change with it. what do we find in fossil evidence to support this? extinction coincides with inabilty to adapt or change.
Last edited by billyjack; 04-05-2007 at 11:49 AM.
The denegrating language you devoted to Christian morality's defense of the weak, and your clear advocacy of Nietzschian philosophy implies an ethic based on might. Sorry if I misread you're language.
China (the last great communist nation) has dictatorial leanings and I'd hardly hold it up as a model government. As well, China's well-known birth-control policy resulted in numerous female babies getting tossed in rivers because the Chinese culture values males more than females; if you only get to have a certain number of kids, and girls are coming up, then many parents chose to re-stack the odds by eliminating the less "valuable" female baby; as a result, I recently (within the last year) read an interesting article about how many young men in China have been forced to go and marry their cousins due to the incredible disparity between the numbers of single males and females. Yeah - nice country.
Obscure statements that beg clarification.
Why don't you define your metaphoric "go with the flow" so I don't have to figure out exactly what you're suggesting (and risk misinterpreting you, since metaphoric language is very difficult to pin down sometimes).
Not unless is is based on ought. What is right now is horrible atrocities, immorality, war, suffering, grief, selfishness -you name it. Saying ought should be subordinate to how things currently are is to accept evil passively - and to do so is to cooperate with it.
Where did evolution come into this discussion?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
1) you misunderstand nietzche. might is not always right. after all, its the christians in nietzches time who have the might--and of course nietzche thinks they arent right.
2) regardless of your ethnocentric judgements of red china, it kicks butt in economics and takes care of its people. point is, without christian morality, humanity can thrive. maybe in your eyes its not really living, but maybe in chinese eyes your not really living.
3) going with the flow. obscure? its the way of things. its falling in a river and swimming with the current rather than against it.
4) this is a nietzche thread! some people might accept "evil" on it. nietzche most certainly did. at least he accepted and affirmed your christian ideal of evil. he even accepted christianity in that it gave him something to fight and argue against.
5) evolution came up because it fits well with nietzche. the point was that inability to adapt to changes in reality results in extinction. my contention is that christian morality is ancient and lack the ability to adapt. after all, the bible isnt being written in anymore, so morality must be a finished product--yet the world keeps on changing. this spells trouble.
I probably do misread Nietzsche, but his interest in power and self-will is fairly evident.
Oh please - "ethnocentric" - you almost say that as if it's an insult of some sort, as if it invalidates the facts about China I listed. Its totalitarian leanings belie its other accomplishments. China's control lies more in its power over its citizens - power that must come into play when the law is essentially "might makes right" as opposed to a transcendant moral law.
Still speaking in metaphors; still speaking obscurely.
O.K.
Some change is good and ought to be embraced; some change is detrimental and ought not. The moral law of the Bible is flexible enough to still provide guidance - it's just as authoritative a guide as long-dead Nietzsche.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
1) calling you ethnocentric isnt an insult, i do it too--everybody does. but still, at least might makes right has some bearing in the natural world (plato proved might makes right wrong, but big deal--there are no absolute morals that are always right in every circumstance). a trancendental moral law has most of its bearing in that which is beyond the natural world, which nietzche called ideality. meaning, might makes right has means and end here in reality, while the trancendental moral law has means in reality and ends in ideality or heaven. this makes the transcendental moral law a tough veil to see through, since its tied up with peoples fates in eternity. what i mean is, people fearing death makes the trancendental morality that much stronger. no one can see beyond fearing death, therefore no-one can see beyond the means (the trancendental morality) to make sure that death is not a thing to be feared.
as morpheus said, in order to beat it, we must first shed our fear of it (he was talking about the machines, i'm using his quote to talk about morality and its relation with death). . . then we can shine some light on this moral vampire.
2) you can't talk about "the way." maybe that is why i'm coming across as obscure. the way doesnt lie within turning reality into symbols and metophors--ie...thought--, it lies in reality--reality isnt a symbol.
3) i agree about some change good and some bad. but the problem i see is that your whole idea of good and bad is backward. so what you discgard tends to be what you should be keeping and vice-versa. example: when an organ in the body degenerates, the whole body degenerates with it. the physician takes no pity on this organ, he simply removes it if possible or attempts to correct it so as not to destroy the rest of the body with it. however, if humanity is seen as a body, and christianity and the physician, we see the doctor doing just the opposite of that which a physiologist would do. he takes pity on the weak, and throws the weaklling into the mix with the whole, thereby degenerating the whole. then he adds insult to injury and calls this whole stonger because of it.
lot's of trouble indeed. it's time to reevaluate our morals, traditions, and overall way of thinking.
You know, I've heard both of you say something similar more than once. Why don't you - just for the sake of argument - lay out this "new system" that does away with (and more importantly, improves upon) "outdated Christian morality" - OK? I'd like to see what this new system looks like.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
have a look for yourself. just look to the east, in non-monotheistic nations. i am not saying the east has it right, but they have another morality. the christian moral code is one system. the east has another, Islam another, tribal nations another, ect...who says your morality is where its at--wait, christian morality does, because christian morality and the christian god are one of the same--clever, useful, pragmatic. . . again, christian morality and other moralities are making this planet inhospitable for other life forms that god created. i think he would be angry about that. also, christian morality has caused a population explosion that cant be dealt with via Christian morality. also,christian morality is full of contradictions. thou shall not kill--but war in the name of the heavenly father is legit. the only thing keeping this out of date system of morals running anymore is fear of death and the tranquility of repetition and habit.
Last edited by billyjack; 04-09-2007 at 11:58 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote