It seems clear to me that the universe is amoral.....

[URAVIP2ME]

Sainthood isn't for me.

Fret not because 'sainthood' (Daniel 7:18; Luke 22:28-30) is only for a few.
And those heavenly few have two (2) heavenly jobs to do serving as 'kings and priests' over Earth - Revelation 5:9-10
Jesus promised that it's humble meek people who will inherit (Not Heaven) but will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11
So, the majority of people can Enjoy Life forever on Earth, a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

................. And any failures you have in this life will eventually result in success later, probably in the next life.
And death (or being killed) is not the worst thing to happen. You get to spend a time interval of rest and relaxation before being born again with a fresh start. Not a bad scheme at all.

I find that ' time interval of rest and relaxation ' is what both Jesus and the OT refers to as ' sleep '.
'sleep in death' until Resurrection Day (Jesus' coming Thousand Year Day governing over Earth in righteousness)
This is why Scripture truly teaches 'sleep' RIP in death - Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14.
So, in the Bible that 'fresh start' is: resurrection ( being restored back to live life again ) with the opportunity of Enjoy Life Forever, either in Heaven for some, or for most of mankind to gain to inherit everlasting life right here on Earth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fret not because 'sainthood' (Daniel 7:18; Luke 22:28-30) is only for a few.
And those heavenly few have two (2) heavenly jobs to do serving as 'kings and priests' over Earth - Revelation 5:9-10
Jesus promised that it's humble meek people who will inherit (Not Heaven) but will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11
So, the majority of people can Enjoy Life forever on Earth, a beautiful paradisical Earth as Eden was a sample.

No fretting at all.
"Sainthood" is just some group exalting one of their own.

 

[Koldo]

I wouldn't say the universe is amoral, per se. The universe is orderly and it seems to follow its own set of rules without error. If we were personifying the universe, I would say that the laws of nature constrict its behavior in a way that we could call an ethos.

Whether we consider that ethos righteous or not is a bit more subjective, but they are the rules which keep all of existence in tact and we don't know if these rules could have been formulated any better.

Although morality involves rules, not all rules involve morality.
So, the universe being orderly doesn't entail being moral per se.

 

[PureX]

But what about all the other things?
If I had a child and let it starve to death, would I be benevolent?

You are ascribing your bias toward humanity to the universes' "morality". But to the universe, your child has the same existential import as any other form of existence. All are afforded their opportunity to exist for however long they are able. Then they pass away and new forms of existence take their place. How many stars had to exist and die to create the matter that now makes up you? Yet you aren't calling that "immoral".

That ANYTHING exists is a gift. That so MANY things exist is amazing! It seems to me that it's all very generous, and egalitarian.

 

[Koldo]

You are ascribing your bias toward humanity to the universes' "morality".

It could be any conscious lifeform in my example, not just a human child.

But to the universe, your child has the same existential import as any other form of existence.

By form of existence do you mean 'life'? Or do you mean anything...like anything at all....?
We know there is very little life in the universe compared to the total space.

All are afforded their opportunity to exist for however long they are able.

What does being 'able to exist' mean in this context though?
If not having access to resources that allows one to live still counts as being afforded the opportunity to exist for however long they are able, then that statement is devoid of meaning.

Then they pass away and new forms of existence take their place. How many stars had to exist and die to create the matter that now makes up you? Yet you aren't calling that "immoral".

Why wouldn't I?
If you are talking about life, sure.
Merely stars though? No morality involved.

That ANYTHING exists is a gift. That so MANY things exist is amazing! It seems to me to all be very generous.

I don't see any generosity in merely granting life on this context. I can't think of anything more amoral than generating life per se.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No fretting at all.
"Sainthood" is just some group exalting one of their own.

I find No Christian exalting but rather: serving. Servants with Christ for a thousand years.
They serve with Christ for the purpose of righteous governing over mankind living on Earth forever.

 

[PureX]

I don't see any generosity in merely granting life on this context. I can't think of anything more amoral than generating life per se.

Why would the "morality" of a whole universe mirror the morality of a few human beings? It makes more sense to me that it would reflect the morality of existence, itself: that it is better to exist than not to exist. And that it is better for there to be many different forms and ways of existing than for there to be only one or a few. And this appears to be the "morality" that the universe follows. The morality of variety and plenty.

It's not the morality we follow. But I see no reason why it should be.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Prove it.

This is just information. Pretty much impossible to prove. But pretty soon the Avatar (or the Christ) will appear in the world and maybe you will take his word for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find No Christian exalting but rather: serving. Servants with Christ for a thousand years.
They serve with Christ for the purpose of righteous governing over mankind living on Earth forever.

Sure looks like exalting to me.

 

[Koldo]

This is just information. Pretty much impossible to prove. But pretty soon the Avatar (or the Christ) will appear in the world and maybe you will take his word for it.

That's the thing...
You can't prove it and yet spread it around as if it was information...

 

[Koldo]

Why would the "morality" of a whole universe mirror the morality of a few human beings? It makes more sense to me that it would reflect the morality of existence, itself: that it is better to exist than not to exist. And that it is better for there to be many different forms and ways of existing than for there to be only one or a few. And this appears to be the "morality" that the universe follows. The morality of variety and plenty.

It's not the morality we follow. But I see no reason why it should be.

I have absolutely no idea why you assume the universe would reflect what you call the morality of existence itself. If you are merely observing behavior to reach that conclusion, let me tell you that people often act in ways that they themselves think of as being immoral.

 

[Koldo]

Why would the "morality" of a whole universe mirror the morality of a few human beings? It makes more sense to me that it would reflect the morality of existence, itself: that it is better to exist than not to exist. And that it is better for there to be many different forms and ways of existing than for there to be only one or a few. And this appears to be the "morality" that the universe follows. The morality of variety and plenty.

It's not the morality we follow. But I see no reason why it should be.

Plus, I see no reason to judge anyone by their own moral standards, except to point out hypocrisy.
I am not bound by anyone's moral framework. So, if someone sees himself as good, that has simply no merit when it comes down to the way I judge them. In other words, if you tell me that the universe, God, or anyone else sees themselves as being good because of their very own moral framework, that is simply inconsequential to me.

 

[soulsurvivor]

I find that ' time interval of rest and relaxation ' is what both Jesus and the OT refers to as ' sleep '.
'sleep in death' until Resurrection Day (Jesus' coming Thousand Year Day governing over Earth in righteousness)
This is why Scripture truly teaches 'sleep' RIP in death - Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14.
So, in the Bible that 'fresh start' is: resurrection ( being restored back to live life again ) with the opportunity of Enjoy Life Forever, either in Heaven for some, or for most of mankind to gain to inherit everlasting life right here on Earth.

Except that in Christianity there is one death and one resurrection. In Hinduism, there are many cycles of death and rebirth, but once you are developed enough spiritually, you can escape (or 'graduate') from this cycle and go permanently to higher realms. The process of a soul's evolution through these cycles is described here: lifepath.cc .

 

[soulsurvivor]

That's the thing...
You can't prove it and yet spread it around as if it was information...

I can't prove that vaccination is good for you either, but I do spread that information around when I can.

 

[Koldo]

I can't prove that vaccination is good for you either, but I do spread that information around when I can.

With multiple studies to help support that point it should be quite easy to prove that...
Karma and rebirth though...

 

[PureX]

I have absolutely no idea why you assume the universe would reflect what you call the morality of existence itself. If you are merely observing behavior to reach that conclusion, let me tell you that people often act in ways that they themselves think of as being immoral.

People have that choice. I presume the universe does not. If it is "moral" in any way, it would be in whatever way reflects it's nature. I have mentioned before that if there is any such thing as "objective morality" it would be based on the objective observation that it is better to exist than not to exist. As everything that does exist actively seeks to maintain that state of being, to do so. So with that being the objective universal premise, it would make sense that the universe might express it's "morality" through maximum variety and plenitude.

 

[soulsurvivor]

With multiple studies to help support that point it should be quite easy to prove that...
Karma and rebirth though...

Just like the existence of GOd, it is not 'easy' to prove karma and reincarnation. When the Christ returns, he will explain the working of karma and reincarnation. But you probably will not believe him or that he is the Christ. That is of course your right and privilege.

 

[PureX]

Plus, I see no reason to judge anyone by their own moral standards, except to point out hypocrisy.
I am not bound by anyone's moral framework. So, if someone sees himself as good, that has simply no merit when it comes down to the way I judge them. In other words, if you tell me that the universe, God, or anyone else sees themselves as being good because of their very own moral framework, that is simply inconsequential to me.

The universe is not a person with free will. It's a systemic mechanism following itself through it's dictum. There is no logical reason to apply human moral criteria to an automobile, is there? Or an assault rifle? They are just machines that do what they were made to do. Just as there is no logical reason to apply human moral criteria to the universe. It is a machine doing what it was designed from the outset to do.

And ultimately, there is no reason to apply our moral criteria to anyone but ourselves. As we are the only agency extant that we can control.

 

[Koldo]

People have that choice. I presume the universe does not.

Why would you presume that?

If it is "moral" in any way, it would be in whatever way reflects it's nature. I have mentioned before that if there is any such thing as "objective morality" it would be based on the objective observation that it is better to exist than not to exist. As everything that does exist actively seeks to maintain that state of being, to do so. So with that being the objective universal premise, it would make sense that the universe might express it's "morality" through maximum variety and plenitude.

There is no such thing as "objective observation that it is better to exist than not to exist". That's as subjective as subjective can be.

It is also not true that "everything that does exist actively seeks to maintain that state of being, to do so". Ininamimate objects do not, and not even all living beings do, even if we are generous and presume that running away from pain, or that a biochemical reaction, is the same as seeking to remain existing.