Sure, but there was no mention of Islam and/or its proximity to EO in this thread :P

I never said we can interpret verses on their own, I'm not an advocate of Sola Scriptura.

I don't see that there had to have been for me to bring it up.

Actually I want to clarify that I wasn't agreeing that you are justified in treating as a propositional claim, only that you could not even be justified in daring to mistakenly think it is, unless you believed you had some understanding of the concept.

Actually I want to clarify that I wasn't agreeing that you are justified in treating as a propositional claim, only that you could not even be justified in daring to mistakenly think it is, unless you believed you had some understanding of the concept. — John

Yes, this is what I got from your last post. Having now clarified, I don't disagree with you. Terms must be defined and mutually understood before being debated and used in arguments.

I would say that God can be and is responsible for evil, since he is responsible for his creation which contains evil. — Thorongil

Not according to the doctrine of privation, which says that evil doesn't exist - what we see as evil is the mere privation of the good, which is compared to an illness, that being the absence of health, or darkness being the absence of light. I would like to believe that evil is solely a consequence of a defect in perception, which arises from mistaking the illusory for the real. Now if you refer to all the obvious evils in the world, it seems to me that they are all basically done by people - humans alone act out of evil intent. Calamities, disasters, and epidemics are not in that category. Contentious claim and I can't fully defend it but wanted to raise that objection.

He believed in the judgements of the great man. — Beebert

:s And believing in the judgement of the "great man" certainly sounds like morality right? This great man of yours could trample under his feet everyone else in society, for, well, he was great, and so deserved more than his fellow human beings deserved.

It saves lives. — Beebert

The way a doctor saves lives? I don't think so.

You don't have to do more good to humanity, but what purpose did Aquinas then fullfill? — Beebert

He educated others and himself in the ways of God - that is a life well spent.

I cant believe you are serious if you place Aquinas higher than Beethoven. That seems...

Yes. There are some who should be aloud to focus on his creative vocation above all else. Nietzsche was absolutely right. Nietzsche didnt really value the strong more than the weak. He just exposed those he called weak as being driven by the same impulses as the strong. They also just want power in the end. It expresses itself in millions of ways. I dont think you understand Nietzsche enough. He was much deeper than that.

There's nothing moral about writing a great piece of music. Success (and the praise of others) is not the same as morality.

Yes. There are some who should be aloud to focus on his creative vocation above all else. Nietzsche was absolutely right. — Beebert

Ah, and I thought you were a compassionate fellow seeing you cry about people burning in hell, but it seems that there's no problem with that anymore, so long as the "great man" is the one who burns them.

Just listen to Beethoven. One bar of Music there contains more moral and values than the whole of Aquinas oeuvre. Do you seriously suggest Beethoven was out there for money and fame etc? No. He was a natural force.

Well dont you let the big man God burn almost everyone? As I Said. You misunderstand what I am talking about

They also just want power in the end. — Beebert

Yes, but that's a false assumption. Not everyone wants power. The character of Father Zossima from Dostoevsky's novel doesn't for example.

He was a natural force. — Beebert

So a natural force is moral? >:O >:O That sounds quite amoral to me actually.

Just listen to Beethoven. One bar of Music there contains more moral and values than the whole of Aquinas oeuvre — Beebert

I did, and I found no moral values as such in it. It was beautiful, but did it teach me how to behave and how to love? :s Nope.

Nietzsche didnt speak about a strong man burning a weak. Rather he said that the weak, the herd, always wanted to burn the strong and thé wicked. Christianity has been good enough at condemning and burning People. I dont think that is needed.

Nietzsche didnt speak about a strong man burning a weak. Rather he said that the weak, the herd, always wanted to burn the strong and thé wicked. — Beebert

And what was Nietzsche's solution? The strong burning the weak in exchange? :P

Christianity has been good enough at condemning and burning People. I dont think that is needed. — Beebert

Catholicism =/ Christianity.

Well dont you let the big man God burn almost everyone? As I Said. You misunderstand what I am talking about — Beebert

No, because God is not a man.

That is true. Zossima is wonderful. So was Furst Myshkin. Ask Nietzsche if he agreed (he did). A Force of Nature, or a Force of God, cant help being what he is. I urge you to listen to Beethoven's late Quartets or piano sonatas. If Beethoven doesnt teach you about life then maybe that says more about you than about Beethoven.

That is true. Zossima is wonderful. So was Furst Myshkin. Ask Nietzsche if he agreed (he did). — Beebert

Show me proof that he agreed please.

A Force of Nature, or a Force of God, cant help being what he is. I urge you to listen to Beethoven's late Quartets or piano sonatas. — Beebert

:s - I'm not talking about this, but if this "force of nature" of yours injures people around him, then he's immoral. The fact that he has musical gifts, or gifts of another nature, doesn't change the fact that he's a human person bound by the same moral rules as everyone else. As for listening to Beethoven, I have. As I said, I found no moral values there. You might wish to tell me what moral values you found there...

Nietzsche 's solution wasn't to let the strong burn the weak but rather to not let the weak burn the strong anymore. Nietzsche isnt someone who says who things are supposed to be. Nor does he say what others wish to hear. Rather, he says what really is the Case. He tries to say how things really are.

Rather, he says what really is the Case. He tries to say how things really are. — Beebert

Ah, so if things really are that the strong burns the weak (because he's the strong, and hence can dominate the weak), then that's moral according to Nietzsche?

I dont think so no

I dont think so no — Beebert

Right, so then regardless of whether one is weak or strong, morality is the same?

I will quote Nietzsche on Dostoevsky later, but among other things he praised him as the only psychologist who has taught him something. Who understood something he didnt. And once again I agree. Dostoevsky is even greater than Nietzsche. He praised Dostoevsky also as being the first one to really understand Jesus etc.
I can aummarize Nietzsche's moral views like this: He observed that thousands of years ago, People judged actions based on ord consequences. Then, with christianity a great thing happened: Actions should be judged not by its consequences foremost, but by the intentions of the one who commits the act. But Nietzsche observed that even this wasn't enough, but shallow. Actions should be judged by the irrational forces and unconcious motives that lies in the depth of the one committing the act. The "intentions" are never clear. They are just the surface.

Actions should be judged by the irrational forces and unconcious motives that lies in the depth of the one committing the act. — Beebert

How should we decipher the irrational forces and unconscious motives?

And furthermore, if they are irrational and unconscious, then it would follow that no morality is possible, for we cannot call something immoral unless it's under the control of the person's will.

That is part of Nietzsch's critique against christianity. Its judgements are in the end not Deep enough. Perhaps God and Christ goes Deep enough (probably and hopefully), but the Christian traditional thought doesnt. Actually, You find these thoughts a lot in Dostoevsky as well.

That is part of Nietzsch's critique against christianity. Its judgements are in the end not Deep enough. Perhaps God and Christ goes Deep enough (probably and hopefully), but the Christian traditional thought doesnt. Actually, You find these thoughts a lot in Dostoevsky as well. — Beebert

Well you haven't really answered my questions...

How should we decipher the irrational forces and unconscious motives? — Agustino

And furthermore, if they are irrational and unconscious, then it would follow that no morality is possible, for we cannot call something immoral unless it's under the control of the person's will. — Agustino

You first have to define what morality means according to you.

You first have to define what morality means according to you. — Beebert

Morality describes the rightness or wrongness of actions. As such, for morality to be relevant the person must undertake the respective action through their own will. If they are forced to do something then such an action cannot be considered moral or immoral, since they don't have a choice in the matter.

okay. Then I would say that actions can in a sense be judged by its consequences and motives, but in the deeper Course of things, the majority of immoral actions are not even understood by the one who commits them. And in that sense Christ comes and judges those who judges the "wrong-doers"

I guess you know the famous reply by Dimitri Karamazov when they asked him why he picked up a knife? "Sometimes one just picks up a knife without knowing why"

Then I would say that actions can in a sense be judged by its consequences and motives, but in the deeper Course of things, the majority of immoral actions are not even understood by the one who commits them. — Beebert

So what if they're not understood? That suddenly stops making them immoral or what? :s

Moral/immoral are basically words. The whole idea that there is some sort of list that contains "moral/immoral actions" is not even half of the whole story of truth. It is just so obvious when one reads Brothers Karamazov, dont you Think? The "immoral" People there are extremely loveable. They are so to say not guilty not rather unguilty guilty.