Did you see the set of questions i proposed to you? Perhaps he just likes to test his creation? I'll come back to this in an hour. I've never met personally someone who claimed to come back from the grave, but to some extent i believe online testimonies. In no way shape or form based on my understanding of the Bible do i find the god of the Bible, offensive. Do you realize even the show teletubbies (are you familiar with that kid show?) has conflicts and dissapointments. I don't know 100% whether there is an afterlife, and most would make that claim or have to make that claim.
— christian2017

Yes I saw your garbage.

You, given that you do not see anything offensive in your Hitler-ish Yahweh, cannot recognize the garbage you spew. Fascists like their own.

Your god is Satan, and you don't care.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I prefer Stalin. lol. Stalin was an atheist. You should like me. lol.

The nation was conquered, it wasn't about their ethnicity. You said you've read the Bible, perhaps you should read it again.
— christian2017

A god who can cure but chooses to kill is a prick.

Yahweh is a prick and his followers have the same homophobic and misogynous fascist character.

My side knew their inquisitors well.

Heil Yahweh.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

we are all going to die some day anyway. Everyone of us dies. Assuming there is a hell or heaven, what gets us in either one of those places is a separate forum topic.

I asked earlier if you wanted me to restate the questions. You've once again not answered me. Perhaps you'll get back to me in a month when you have less on your plate. Anyway. I don't think the god of the bible is homophobic, but that he believes it is wrong. Forum rules says we can't discuss homosexuality to my understanding, so i'll just say being a homophobe in the sense of the cliche is wrong.

I agree with you on the homophobe thing.

However why do you say that the Bible supports misogyny?

pototo
— christian2017

We can always laugh about it. I prefer it to waging war. Always be open to the minute differences. — Eleonora

ok.

↪christian2017
potato
— christian2017

So long as you know that's the word. I never criticise. I only ever conduce myself to fit in all places of every mind. — Eleonora

thats fair.

Are you saying conclude as in beginning adult hood.
— christian2017

Yes. Absolutely.


That was what i was getting at earlier.
— christian2017

I know. See why I also love hell?


Freedom is not an all or nothing thing and it never has at any point in history.
— christian2017

Real freedom can never be obtained without ethical indignation to mark the true remarks of unity. We have to meet each other philosophically before we can face each other as equals. This is what the world is working for in all areas. — Eleonora

my guess based on what i think you are implying above, is that if we discussed politics we would disagree significantly, as opposed to drastically. I don't want to get off topic though.

We believe what we believe
— christian2017

Isn't that what it all comes down to in the end anyway? Sharing views is a predominant part in being conscious. I hear people with questions, I help myself to the answers to which end I know them. As we all are. The bickering isn't that fun in my view, but it sure beats drinking.

Love you,
EL — Eleonora

you say potato i say pototo. thats fair.

to wear a burka
— christian2017

It is about spectrum. Not brain washing. Freedom goes both way. — Eleonora

you only quoted apart of the sentence. Freedom does go both ways, but freedom is also a spectrum. I'm sure you've heard of "equality under the law", but even in a country where you truly have "equality under the law", you will still have people viewing one person as significantly more free than the other. Freedom is not an all or nothing thing and it never has at any point in history.

Is there any sexual behavior that you would consider unethical?
— christian2017

Non-consentual. When a child and God concludes adulthood in unison, consent can be given. Consent can only really be given on basis of the soul. — Eleonora

Are you saying conclude as in beginning adult hood. What i was saying earlier is hinduism or modern hinduism has children who are temple prostitutes. Mohomad was sexual predator towards children. The roman catholic church has a long history of these things. That was what i was getting at earlier.

Many modern muslim countries with mostly muslims, have legalized pedaphilia.

Doesn't this sound like brainwashing a person on the basis of religion for the purpose of blatant prostituion.
— christian2017

It does. — Eleonora

thats fair.

In no way shape or form based on my understanding of the Bible do i find the god of the Bible, offensive.
— christian2017

Let me clarify my take on the notion of your indignation, ↪Gnostic Christian Bishop. I wholeheartedly concur with Christian. Would you rather have a fleeting moment of supreme suffering and an eternity of bliss, or an eternity of wibble wobble? If the latter is your honest to God sincere answer, then I conclude our separation and deem your indignation a single one of your wibble wobbles. Happy surfing. — Eleonora

Eleonora, well this forum is mostly about bickering for fun, and i only go on this forum so that i drink less alcohol. I'm not sure it would serve a purpose to bring my attack in two directions. I believe in scientific determinism (nurture versus nature) and i'm not going to go into the theology of that unless you ask. The Bishop, you and i are typing what we type right now because of scientific determinism. For some secular or pseudo secular clarification on t me and others on this forum, see my profile. No wrong answer. Or i can copy and paste it if you would like.

We believe what we believe and we do what we do at any given point in time due to how the particles inside us collide. What we feel (consciessness) is a whole another forum topic, and i didn't want to split off into that.

modern hinduism
— christian2017

I reckon in modern times it pertains to the same ideal, but by man's preconception of the times rather than the times themselves. Be and let be. Whatever holds to that standard I condone. — Eleonora

subject: temple prostitution in modern hinduism:

like i said before, is there any sexual conduct that you would consider unethical? I can repeat what i said to you in another post if you would like?

Are you aware that mohomad was a sexual predator and that in many modern predominantly muslim nations, pedophilia is legal?
— christian2017

Yes. It is important to not confuse the divinity of Allah with the humanity of Muhammad. Somewhere in there we have to find our own stand. — Eleonora

by sexual predator i mean he engages in a common practice associated with modern roman catholic priests. I assume you are aware of the headlines. Is there any sexual behavior that you would consider unethical?

i asked you earlier about the subject of temple prostitiution but you didn't answer
— christian2017

You did and I did answer elaborately. It's in another thread. We were talking about multiple things and I used them in contrast to each other to illuminate them both. Here goes;

"How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq?"
— christian2017

Wow, you really touch ground here. I believe that the Latter Day Saints recognize that they do not understand a single thing about Kabbalah as it were and in regard strictly observe connections - to follow the light in its most intricate sense. It's a posture of humility.

Temple prostitution is a further inquiry into the very matter of the same manner. Metaphorically speaking it sort of entails being a prostitute in a sacred temple. Realizing that your ways are foul and therefore submitting wholly to the temple proceedings in order to boundlessly correct yourself. Thus; conclusion - prostitution in temples are bad but the metaphor is good.

When it comes to these particular cases, I think we have to look at each individually. It raises high and sinks low. Some might have considered it an honor an really embraced the unknowable purpose, in which case they would have faced God. Others would have not, in which case it was a sin - both pertaining to the victim and the perpetrator. Mainly because we cannot ever know which really is which. Knowing this and facing God would have been the same at that time. — Eleonora

Doesn't this sound like brainwashing a person on the basis of religion for the purpose of blatant prostituion. Do you see the difference between brain washing someone to wear a burka and brain washing someone to have sex with you? Its a matter of spectrum. Stealing 1 dollar is different from stealing a $1000.

brb

Is it you don't know what the questions pertain to? they relate to previous conversations we've had. Perhaps you've had so many conversations you forgot the context. I can explain them more clearly if you like.

You said you like a challenge many times. Can you answer these questions.
— christian2017

Yes, but to what end?

You are trying to justify your god killing when he could just as easily cure.

You sure have a satanic view o9f Jesus.

He said he came t9o cure and not to kill.

Why are you adoring a murderer instead of a good god?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Did you see the set of questions i proposed to you? Perhaps he just likes to test his creation? I'll come back to this in an hour. I've never met personally someone who claimed to come back from the grave, but to some extent i believe online testimonies. In no way shape or form based on my understanding of the Bible do i find the god of the Bible, offensive. Do you realize even the show teletubbies (are you familiar with that kid show?) has conflicts and dissapointments. I don't know 100% whether there is an afterlife, and most would make that claim or have to make that claim.

Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were still plenty of Amorites in ancient Iraq. I could go on and on about this but i'll get to it later.
— christian2017

You would also not see Hitler as using genocide either --- because their were still many Jews around.

Go give your head a shake.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The nation was conquered, it wasn't about their ethnicity. You said you've read the Bible, perhaps you should read it again.

I was thinking what if someone, say a friend, comes to you and say's "I heard God talk to me yesterday and he/she told me thus and so", would you believe it? Or, "I saw God and he spoke to me and told me not to be afraid about...". Or perhaps even still, along the lines of phenomenology, if someone has an experience where they felt : "it was like a heard a voice that said not to worry, I will take care of you. Then out of nowhere, people came into my life and provided answers to my problem I was having."
— 3017amen
Call me a cynic for subscribing to the old adage "When you talk to g/G it's prayer, but when g/G talks back it's probably schizophrenia" which I'd first heard back in the late '70s in Jesuit high school from a devout priest. :eyes: — 180 Proof

this is a common theme associated with private schools associated with the Roman Papacy. The Roman Papacy has had alot of scandals in the past 40 to 50 years related to sexual conduct.

People like to associate that sort of thing with Christianity but i would like them to find one contradiction in the whole Bible and i'll debate that with them.
— christian2017
I am not a bible-thumper, but is the Old Testament not fundamentally the violent, war-like god of the Jews, and the New Testament the pacifist god of Jesus? Now reverse that and say that the OT overrides the NT. And yeah, mix the whole thing together and order chapters not chronologically but according to length. Then you get something more like the Koran.

It wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps i'll read more of my Koran today.
— christian2017
Before you do that, you should find a source and check the chronological order of the Suras. Otherwise, the whole thing makes absolutely zero sense. — Nobeernolife

I'll add this to my journal but i have something i want to do as of now. I'll probably start on that in an hour. 70% of my local area has been laid off or sent home due to the virus.

We can use what i posted above as a starting point to our conversation.

People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil?

The real Original Sin, then and today, to most Christians, is based on this quote.

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5).

Jesus seems to have wanted this to happen, as that would make us his brethren.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught and that Gnostic Christians have embraced.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

If Jesus wants us to know of good and evil, as a prerequisite to being born again as his brethren, it goes well with Jesus’ prediction as quoted above.

That may be why Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan.

I am not a literal reader of this myth, but this seems to make sense. It follows then that it makes sense for Adam to ignore Yahweh’s command not to gain an education.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You said you like a challenge many times. Can you answer these questions.

1. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient Iraq.

2. Are you aware Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were plenty of Amorite cities in ancient Iraq at the time of Joshua. ~1300 BC.

3. If you killed someone's parents (Amorite/Canaanite) are you supposed to tell the surviving child "i murdered your parents, when you are a teenager you'll understand these adult things"

4. were there adoption agencies in the 2nd millenium?

5. Would you argue some behavior is worthy of capital punishment?

6. Were you aware that the Amorites were known for child sacrifice? The later Jews were too and i understand that . The Bible speaks against that.

7. Would you say the Amorite children (non-adults) went to heaven (assuming there is a heaven) after they were killed by the Israelites? I would say they would considering there is no explicit statement saying the children did anything relatively wrong nor does it say they suffered after they died. No explicit statement nor implied statement either.

Ezekiel 12 or 16 says "they did not strenghen the hand of the poor" which is a common theme in the old testament to justify destroying a nation or city.

I'll google that or attempt to google what you are getting at. I was aware that they venerate both Mecca and Medina.
— christian2017

Do you want to dive into that rabbit hole? Fundamentally, the Mekka verses (written in Mekka, where Mohammud was weak) are tolerant and peaceful, and the Medina verses (written in Medina, where Mohammud became an ever more brutal ruler) are intolerant and violent. In the Koran they are all mixed together, but the (later) Medina verses override the (earlier) Mekka verses. So muslim propagandists can quote wonderfully tolerant verses, knowing that they are invalidated by later Medina verses. Brilliant, isn´t it?
I could go on for pages..... if you take the red pill, you will discover more than you imagine. — Nobeernolife

People like to associate that sort of thing with Christianity but i would like them to find one contradiction in the whole Bible and i'll debate that with them.

It wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps i'll read more of my Koran today.

In what universe does that make sense?
— Nobeernolife
could go either way
— christian2017

It makes sense if Allah drunk the beer first after he passed down the Quran. — Eleonora

i'm sure your familiar with ancient Sumer (ancient Iraq)

In what universe does that make sense?
— Nobeernolife
could go either way
— christian2017

It makes sense if Allah drunk the beer first after he passed down the Quran. — Eleonora

We both (or atleast i) understood what you are getting at (see the post where you pulled my quote from). Your concept is a common thing in hinduism, buddhism , new age, modern druidism and witch craft. I understand there are alot of variations of all of these religions. I would be surprised if both of us didn't understand what you were getting at.

Considering a large subset of the earth's population had close dealings with the civilizations of ancient iraq and considering many of the world's religions are strongly influenced by these original religions of that region. How do you feel about ancient temple prostitution in ancient iraq as well as modern hinduism. I understand this also appeared in other regions of the world.

I think i asked you earlier about the subject of temple prostitiution but you didn't answer.

Are you aware that mohomad was a sexual predator and that in many modern predominantly muslim nations, pedophilia is legal?

i wasn't aware of that detail, but i am aware of other things in the Koran. I own a copy and it is mostly a trite and shallow book, atleast the parts i read.
— christian2017

You need a bit of background information to see how truly dangerous and deceptive it is. For example, are you aware of the arrangement of the verses, the difference between the Mekka and Medina verses and the concept of abrogation (Naskh)? If not, reading the thing is just exercise in confusion. — Nobeernolife

I'll google that or attempt to google what you are getting at. I was aware that they venerate both Mecca and Medina.

thats fair.
— christian2017

By the way, you do realize why the cross is so offensive to islam? The reason is that the Koran says Jesus was NOT crucified (sura 4-157), so claiming he was means blasphemy. So, no display of crosses, where islam is taken seriously.

(Again, now consider this is the same god as the Christian one.... err, never mind, don´t want to belabour the point again) — Nobeernolife

i wasn't aware of that detail, but i am aware of other things in the Koran. I own a copy and it is mostly a trite and shallow book, atleast the parts i read. Hypothetically i could read more and discover it has something beyond the Kabbalah (trite), but i doubt it. I could say more about the Kabbalah but i'm not going to at this time.

Mohomad was a sexual predator and i have muslim holy books that back this up. As you said above he was also a historical war lord. The Koran encourages muslim crusades.
— christian2017

Err.... that would be Crescendates, not Crusades. But I would simply stick with Jihad, which actually is an ongoing effort in islamic doctrine, not a rare and unique event like the crusades. — Nobeernolife

thats fair.

She is also essentially saying Allah and the hebrew/christian God are linked but somehow one is an extension of the other. (she used an example so it could go either way in her mind considering this is a hypothetical example)
— christian2017

We are still talking past each other. My point is really not difficult. Here for the last time (I hope):
In the Koran, Allah states very clearly that he a) loves the muslims and b) hates the Jews, the Christians, and the Polytheists.

If you say Allah = Yaweh, that means that the Jews and Christians are also muslims.

From that follows that Allah a) loves the muslims and b) hates the muslims.

In what universe does that make sense?

My simply observation here was that description refers to two different god figures. — Nobeernolife

It doesn't make sense. Other than the initial conquest of Canaan, the jews/christians were never asked to go on the offensive. I could go on and on about why Joshua did not commit genocide & why some nations can be justified to be attacked and wiped out (considering the time they lived in). But i'll spare you.

Mohomad was a sexual predator and i have muslim holy books that back this up. As you said above he was also a historical war lord. The Koran encourages muslim crusades.

The Pope doesn't neccessarily reflect all christians through out history.

Consider for a moment that Allah was a beer and JHWH is life. He drinks his beer, then gives his life to JHWH. JHWH, drunk on himself, would naturally make a lot of assumptions. Of course Allah would be in on this, but would that make him schizophrenic?
— Eleonora

I have no clue what you are trying to say, and neither, I suspect, do you. — Nobeernolife

One of the things she is implying is that due to circumstances of reality that God (or the main God) is dualist and/or schizophrenic.

She is also essentially saying Allah and the hebrew/christian God are linked but somehow one is an extension of the other. (she used an example so it could go either way in her mind considering this is a hypothetical example)

This idea of hers is similar to things in hinduism and buddhism (some sects of hinduism claim they are essentially atheist). You also find this sort of thing in alot of new age and witchcraft religions (as well as druidism or modern druidism). There are various sects within hinduism and buddhism just like christianity.

What my question is how does she feel about modern temple prostitution in hinduism and also temple prostitution in ancient iraq?

I have an explanation of why Jesus/God is not schizophrenic and/or dualistic but i'm not going to post it unless asked, because i'll even agree its not written well. I would argue the best bet is to google (she not neccesarily you) or bing the subject of christian theology and dualism (or "is God schizophrenic" while looking for a christian response to the question).

It is not apples and oranges. The God of Abraham is the same God in all three religions. He is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. The Bible is salted with statements like this

Nahum 1:2 ESV / 26 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.

So what if the Quaran might say the same thing slightly differently. That does not equal worshiping a different God. I stress the point because back in the day that is how people thought. What made us different was Hellenism. — Athena

f Jesus wants us to know of good and evil, as a prerequisite to being born again as his brethren, it goes well with Jesus’ prediction as quoted above.

That may be why Christians sing that Adam’s sin was a happy fault and necessary to god’s plan.

I am not a literal reader of this myth, but this seems to make sense. It follows then that it makes sense for Adam to ignore Yahweh’s command not to gain an education.

Thoughts? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Other than the initial capturing of Canaan in ~1300 BC when were the jews instructed to target other nations unless they were being attacked (which is something secular nations do). Joshua didn't commit genocide because there were still plenty of Amorites in ancient Iraq. I could go on and on about this but i'll get to it later.

A thought: idealism, or the role of the mental in constructing (our?) reality, seems inevitable once you spend enough time philosophizing.

On the other hand, that mind is intrinsic and underlies everything, is exactly what creatures with minds would say. Especially after they spend a lot of time thinking.

"I am the center of the universe, and everything else moves around me." - how am I to disprove this to myself? — Pneumenon

Some people are accused of being crazy if other people find out they think that, so for expedient purposes we should either hide or attempt to reject that belief or thought path.

There is a quote from a certain holy book that says something akin to (and i'm purposely leaving out details), "in the after life these types of people although still are going to be in the after life, will be judged/discerned for their conduct here on earth."

Basically that particular holy book doesn't absolutely require good behavior but based on numerous variables will recieve rewards based on things like suffering and productivity and the list goes on and on.

Some philosophies/religions view these things as you don't have to do these good things but there are rewards for people who go the extra mile.
— christian2017

Judging, as an aspect of morality, makes sense only if we're free and thus can be held accountable. That said, paradoxically, the self-refuting character of judgement vis-a-vis morality is evident in the reward it promises and the punishment it threatens which effectively negate our freedom. Which red-blooded human can deny paradise or accept hell? — TheMadFool

Your past conversations with your Mom, your Aunt and so on effect your future conversations atleast to some small measure.

There is a quote from a certain holy book that says something akin to (and i'm purposely leaving out details), "in the after life these types of people although still are going to be in the after life, will be judged/discerned for their conduct here on earth."

Basically that particular holy book doesn't absolutely require good behavior but based on numerous variables will recieve rewards based on things like suffering and productivity and the list goes on and on.

Some philosophies/religions view these things as you don't have to do these good things but there are rewards for people who go the extra mile.
— christian2017

Judging, as an aspect of morality, makes sense only if we're free and thus can be held accountable. That said, paradoxically, the self-refuting character of judgement vis-a-vis morality is evident in the reward it promises and the punishment it threatens which effectively negate our freedom. Which red-blooded human can deny paradise or accept hell? — TheMadFool

Considering i can't really predict tommorow, nor 10 days from now nor 10,000 years from now nor X time from now, i can't say you are wrong.

I'm sure even though both of us believe in Scientific determism, that we would both agree our perception of the past and what we learn from the past, atleast to some small measure effects the future.

When does identity consolidation occur? In what manner does identity consolidation occur? And, does identity consolidation occur when values are deemed as worthy or not? — Shawn

Identity consolidation is the ability for a user to indicate that one or more identities, profiles, URLs across different sites all represent that same user. Also known as: profile aggregation, profile equivalency.

Like Congau said above perhaps you meant personality consolidation. I didn't look up the definition of that:

You soul is a complex thing and has multiple parts. You have your personality, way of thinking, how your heart glands effect parts of your brain, and how well you treat people. And some others.

Basically you can give up every part of your soul except treating people well and still have a soul.

In general it is best to keep your entire soul intact through out your entire life. This very often (not a hard and fast rule) means not pursuing the opposite sex and even tremendous suffering (tremendous suffering or suffering depends on other factors and is not an absolute requirement).

In general you are better off in the long run just "being you".

But giving up parts of your soul can produce intelligence quite often.

Theres a quote from a holy book about this subject but i'm not going to list it.

A well-known "solution" to the problem of evil is that god allows evil because he desired to bestow free will upon us. Thus, we, possessed of free-will, have the liberty to do anything and "sometimes" we do evil and hence there is evil in the world.

However, if you go by the existence of the law and the police, we come to the conclusion that evil comes naturally to us and we've recognized this fact of our nature. Ergo the need to put a rein on our immoral tendencies by enacting and enforcing laws. In other words, contrary to the free-will explanation for the problem of evil, there's no need for us to have free-will in order to be evil; In fact it's the opposite: we need free-will to go against our innate tendency for immorality and be at our best behavior.

The free-will explanation for the problem of evil is wrong. — TheMadFool

Basically.

Were like mice being played with by a cat. Solute the cat so he eats you quicker. lol.

Once i'm inside the cats stomach and am digested, i go to mouse heaven.

all jokes aside i try to enjoy life as much as possible.

As we are all familiar with, morality is about oughts. I regard the fundamental premise of morality to be a dissatisfaction, even a deep sadness, about what is - the status quo. Thus, it (morality) is basically a list of of oughts and ought nots which, if anything, is an attempt to change things, presumably, for the "better".

I'm aware that there are a couple of moral theories with illustrious origins but, if I've understood anything it's that none of them are adequate to cover all the bases. I consider this state of affairs regrettable to say the least and would like to proffer, first, an explanation as to why this is and second, to demonstrate that any attempt to construct a moral theory is doomed from the outset.

Firstly, why is there no moral theory that is inconsistency-free? To answer that we need to return to the basics - the ought/ought not nature of morality. In this regard, that which is germane to this discussion is the fact that "ought" has two types meanings:

1. ought: simply expresses a desire/wish but lacks force in the sense it implies a certain course of action. For instance "it ought to rain" expresses the simple desire or wish for rain as expressed as "wish it would rain"

2. ought: indicates the obligatory nature of something. For example, "we ought to help the poor" means that it's obligatory to help the poor.

It is my contention that the oughts of morality are type 1 oughts and are wishes/desires that are not linked in any way to obligations, either to do or not to do an act. Why I say this is will be explained in the next paragraph. Type 1 oughts arise from, not careful deliberation, but from imperfect moral intuitions and are thus necessarily rough guidelines intended to cover most, but not all, cases.

Why are moral oughts not, as I claim here, obligatory; they are, at best, simply our wishes/desires for something better. This is because an essential aspect of morality is responsibility and to be responsible for one's actions, one must be free; in other words, there can be no obligations to act or not to act in certain ways in morality. To be morally responsible, we must be free. To be free, there mustn't be obligations. If there mustn't be obligations, the oughts of morality mustn't be obligatory. Ergo, to be morally responsible, the oughts of morality mustn't be obligatory.

If moral oughts can't be obligatory then the very first premise of all moral theories, that moral oughts should be obligatory in the sense of a type 2 ought, contradicts the other vital principle of morality I mentioned, the principle that to be moral agents, freedom is necessary. Ergo, if one wishes to construct a moral theory that makes us obligated to do good and not bad as all moral theories so far have tried to, it would effectively relieve its adherents of any moral responsibility since they would lack the freedom to do anything but good.

In summary:

1. Moral oughts are simply wishes/desires for something better and can't be obligations for freedom is essential to morality

2. Any moral theory that attempts to make the good obligatory and the bad prohibitory, like all moral theories so far, is self-refuting because, as I said, freedom is an essential ingredient for moral responsibility

Comments... — TheMadFool

There is a quote from a certain holy book that says something akin to (and i'm purposely leaving out details), "in the after life these types of people although still are going to be in the after life, will be judged/discerned for their conduct here on earth."

Basically that particular holy book doesn't absolutely require good behavior but based on numerous variables will recieve rewards based on things like suffering and productivity and the list goes on and on.

Some philosophies/religions view these things as you don't have to do these good things but there are rewards for people who go the extra mile.

In articles on Russell and others, the word nominalism comes up sometimes. I have never known what it has to do with math. It seems to destroy math actually. Numbers can never act an exact way if they don't share a nature. Chaos theory would cover all branches. With the physical sciences, nominalism says you have to test each two objects that seem identical to see if they act different. Nothing is exactly alike because individuality is what defines things in this philosophy. Personally I like it. Any nominalists out there? — Gregory

overly simplified definition of chaos theory:
the branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems whose behavior is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions, so that small alterations can give rise to strikingly great consequences.

It isn't that chaos theory isn't right, its that if you don't understand it, you may apply it to philosophy the wrong way.

There is absolute truth but absolute truth is very often hard to figure out. Nominalism and also on the other end Plato's realism are over simplifications of reality in my opinion. A car's behavior can be predicted, because to a strong extent (not absolute) a car reacts to Newtonian Physics.

Physicists who came after Newton made more exact discoveries of what reality is and the equations corresponding to that. As time goes on, predicting what a car will do, might come even closer to the absolute truth. I would argue the absolute truth is alot like an asymtope in that it will not exactly be reached but it will be reached in the sense that we'll say "good enough".

I disagree i think the writings of Paul were meant to be in the Bible. The Catholic church has always been atleast a little divided and many modern catholics to some extent reject Pauls books. I'm not going to go indepth in this right now. To say Paul doesn't belong in the Bible is a common thing said among a subset of christians.
— christian2017
Meant by whom? Obviously, the Catholic council at Nicea thought the letters of Paul should be in the Bible they were putting together. There was little dissension on that point, because Paul's reinterpretation of Jesus' mission was the dominant theme for Greek & Roman gentiles. If Paul's writings were omitted, the gentiles would have to become Jews in order to partake in the Messiah's mission to save Abraham's children. And the early followers of Jesus debated that very question. But Paul's expansion of the mission to include the gentile world won out. Paul's writings were approved by a mundane vote, not by divine mandate. :smile: — Gnomon

Perhaps. I'm not going to explain why i think that that is not true here. If you want to know my opinion on this send me a private message. I have heard what you said above before. No wrong answers.

My feelings are that we are all "hedonists" in that we all seem to do those things that bring us the most satisfaction.

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer were hedonists. Yeah, they were humanitarians, but they did what pleased themselves...what brought happiness to themselves.

What I wonder is "Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires?" — Frank Apisa

this is certainly something worth thinking about. I would argue if you/i only have 10 days to live, then and only then can we live a good life.

Hedonism as I understand is the philosophy that if anything has value then it is that thing's ability to make us happy. Put differently, there is no value in things beyond its ability to affect our happiness. By happiness I refer to pleasure, seeking it and pain, avoiding it.

Suppose hedonism is false and that there exists non-hedonistic values that are desirable. Whatever these values are, people want things that have these values. Now, it must be that, in terms of happiness, these non-hedonistic values have the following effects:

1. Non-hedonistic values cause neither pleasure nor pain
2. Non-hedonistic values cause pleasure
3. Non-hedonistic values cause pain

1 and 2 are not of concern as in 1, non-hedonistic values are independent of happiness and they remain desirable solely on whatever the value is that makes them desirable and in 2, there's an enhancement of desirability by the concurrence of both non-hedonistic and non-hedonistic values.

3 is where I see a problem because the two, hedonistic value and non-hedonistic values are in opposition, the former decreasing desirability and the latter increasing desirability. The outcome of this struggle between the different types of values will determine, in my eyes, which is of greater importance. Suppose that we scale up the pain; if we do that then there will be a point at which the non-hedonistic values that are in play are not worth the pain involved. In other words, pain has the ability of affecting non-hedonistic values; the ability to, if we increase the pain involved, decrease them to a point where non-hedonistic values become undesirable.

There's also the other situation to consider viz. the one in which we maintain the amount of pain at a particular level and increase the non-hedonistic values. In this case then we'll see people willing to ignore happiness for non-hedonistic values.

It seems then that there is no resolution to the problem because in one case happiness (avoiding extreme pain) is the deciding factor for desirability and in the other non-hedonistic values are what makes something desirable.

In order to solve this conundrum we need to consider the scenario in which both non-hedonistic values and pain are set at maximum values. The only maximal pain I can think of is hell. So, the question is then: are there any non-hedonistic values that are worth going through hell for? Imagine you like reading books because of non-hedonistic values.. Would you read books if it meant that you'd have to go to hell even if the non-hedonistic values of reading was increased proportionately?

It's my belief that people will answer "no" and so, even if there exists non-hedonistic values, there isn't any value that is worth going to hell for.

So, hedonism is true but not in the sense that all value is attached to happiness but actually that happiness (pleasure & pain) override everything, including non-hedonistic values.

If the answer is "yes" then I'd be pleasantly surprised and would like to request you to tell us what that is that's worth hellfire? Love? Immortality? — TheMadFool

We can only make decisions based on the information we have IMO. We have all suffered to X extent at some point in our lives. I would argue if someone thought they were going to hell forever, they should just analyze their past and decide and attempt to make better decisions in the future. This is a philosophy forum with certain guide lines.