Origin of Morals

JayHawes · Jun 8, 2007

Dream Angel said:
I see your point. however there is a slight difference between somone being beat up in the street (who doesnt chose to get beat up) and a homosexual. Which I think you are aware of. I would say 100% of people getting beat up would def want you to help - and I would try my best to help them. However homosexuals are there by their choose.

[note - there is a difference between being homosexual and practising/giving in (sorry if that offends! :run: ) to homosexuality. ]

Some may be open to conversation. Others not so - I would never lie to anyone who came to me to talk and for advice. I would say that I didnt agree with homosexuality. But I wouldnt even try with someone who doesnt want it as it just pushes them away further from God than they already are!

I agree, besides where you say being homosexual and practicing/ giving in to it is different. I think what you mean is it is different from being influenced to be homosexual, than from outright being a gay whoremonger?....maybe....:areyoucra

yuvgotmel · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
So do you believe that man can do nothing good until he or she dies and joins with his angelic counter-part? What is this angelic being you speak of?

Did I say "dies"? No. I did not.

I'm speaking of something else ...a teaching that was very effectively suppressed through Catholicism and other religions and religious dogmas. That teaching, which was suppressed, pertains to The Bridal Chamber and joining of "image and angel" (i.e. "man and his wife in ONE FLESH"). It is not something that happens "after death" of the body. In fact, if a person would wait until death of the body, they would not resurrect (except for reincarnation). A soul that has not joined with their angelic counterpart lacks the "leavening" in the body needed to leave this cyclic condition and attain the grade of Elohim.

I am not speaking of "marriage" of two human flesh either. I'm speaking of the joining of "man and his wife in ONE FLESH". Until the "man and his wife" were JOINED in ONE FLESH, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was of no use to the man, which was alone. Eating of that tree would have been to no affect. The man was basically dirt; and would go back to the dirt. So, the tree was practically meaningless...that is to say, UNTIL "the man and his wife" were joined in ONE FLESH.

Once the man and wife were joined (i.e. "image and angel"), it caused the man to leave his father and mother--therefore creating a separation of higher and lower worlds. The "man and his wife" once joined represented the Elohim (being plural and united).

What I am speaking of is also called Sexual Alchemy and the Heirogamus ritual. And until such time that it is completed, there is no morality or immorality--as humans are about the equivalent of animals.

Therefore, if you want to argue "morality" among human flesh, you should change the wording to reflect a better view of it, which is basically "what actions are most beneficial for the animals and climate?"

Dream Angel · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
I agree, besides where you say being homosexual and practicing/ giving in to it is different. I think what you mean is it is different from being influenced to be homosexual, than from outright being a gay whoremonger?....maybe....:areyoucra

What I mean is - many homosexuals say they were born like it - it is who they are! They have an instinct to sleep with the same sex (ie being Gay). I dont think this bit is not moral.

If however they chose to indulge their instinct and perform sexual acts with the same sex (practising/giving in to their instinct) - this is the part I dislike and find immoral.

There is a difference between the two! One is the person, the other is the act (or person giving into the instinct)?

JayHawes · Jun 8, 2007

yuvgotmel said:
Did I say "dies"? No. I did not.

I'm speaking of something else ...a teaching that was very effectively suppressed through Catholicism and other religions and religious dogmas. That teaching, which was suppressed, pertains to The Bridal Chamber and joining of "image and angel" (i.e. "man and his wife in ONE FLESH"). It is not something that happens "after death" of the body. In fact, if a person would wait until death of the body, they would not resurrect (except for reincarnation). A soul that has not joined with their angelic counterpart lacks the "leavening" in the body needed to leave this cyclic condition and attain the grade of Elohim.

I am not speaking of "marriage" of two human flesh either. I'm speaking of the joining of "man and his wife in ONE FLESH". Until the "man and his wife" were JOINED in ONE FLESH, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was of no use to the man, which was alone. Eating of that tree would have been to no affect. The man was basically dirt; and would go back to the dirt. So, the tree was practically meaningless...that is to say, UNTIL "the man and his wife" were joined in ONE FLESH.

Once the man and wife were joined (i.e. "image and angel"), it caused the man to leave his father and mother--therefore creating a separation of higher and lower worlds. The "man and his wife" once joined represented the Elohim (being plural and united).

What I am speaking of is also called Sexual Alchemy and the Heirogamus ritual. And until such time that it is completed, there is no morality or immorality--as humans are about the equivalent of animals.

Therefore, if you want to argue "morality" among human flesh, you should change the wording to reflect a better view of it, which is basically "what actions are most beneficial for the animals and climate?"

That is quite radical and different from the beleifs held here in America. Interesting, but how are we to attain the grade of Elohim when Elohim says:
Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will you liken me, and make me equal and compare me that we may be like?"

And i find it offensive to preach the idea that we are no better than animals. God made us to rule over animals (Genesis 1:27-31), he made us in his image, and that is not in the image of being an animal. We do sin and behave as though we are animals, but that is becuase God is not in us, not becuase we are the equilivant to animals.

fantome profane · Jun 8, 2007

For me the concept of suffering is key in deciding what is moral or not. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is to increase suffering than that act is immoral. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is to decrease suffering than that act is moral.

Homosexuality - There is nothing inherently immoral in the state of being homosexual, nor in homosexual acts, nor in homosexual relationships. Homosexuals who act with care for themselves and their partners act in such a way so as the foreseeable consequence of their action is to decrease suffering. Not only is homosexuality not immoral in many cases it the very essence of morality. Homosexuals can also act in ways in which the foreseeable consequence is to increase suffering, i.e. promiscuity or abusive relationships, or simply not treating their partners with respect. But of course this is no different than heterosexuals.

Discrimination against homosexuals always has the foreseeable consequence of increasing suffering. Discrimination against homosexuals is immoral.

Abortion Abortion always involves great suffering. I would have to say that it is immoral except in those rare cases where the suffering would be greater without it. I have to add however that although I believe abortion to be immoral, restrictive laws against it tend to lead to even greater suffering, and are themselves immoral. It also brings up the question of responsibility and autonomy. To take away a person's right to control their own body is immoral. Ultimately the question of abortion is one for the mother and the mother alone.

The moral action for society to take is to support women by insuring proper medical care, affordable housing, a living wage, proper education, access to birth control. This will not only reduce the suffering of young women who find themselves in a difficult situation but will also reduce the need for abortions. The way to reduce suffering is to give people choice, not to take it away.

Fornication What I talked about with homosexuality applies here as well. If people act with care for themselves and their partners there is nothing inherently immoral about sex, with or without the benefit of marriage. I think it is important however not to use people simply for your own pleasure without considering how they feel.

Adultery - Adultery almost always leads to greater suffering for all involved, and therefore is immoral. This does not mean that we should take an overly judgemental attitude and force people to wear big red letters on their clothing, or stone them to death or anything like that. It simply means that such situations should be avoided at all costs and we should have compassion for those who find themselves victims of adultery and help them if we can.

So there is my take on morality. I dont believe it comes from a divine source, or from a book of rules. Although a set of rules can be helpful, they can also become a hindrance if we believe the rules are more important than people. And Many people are inspired to act in moral was through a belief in God or some kind of spirituality, although this has also lead some people to act in breathtakingly immoral ways.

JayHawes · Jun 8, 2007

fantôme profane;844737 said:
For me the concept of suffering is key in deciding what is moral or not. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is to increase suffering than that act is immoral. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is to decrease suffering than that act is moral.

Homosexuality - There is nothing inherently immoral in the state of being homosexual, nor in homosexual acts, nor in homosexual relationships. Homosexuals who act with care for themselves and their partners act in such a way so as the foreseeable consequence of their action is to decrease suffering. Not only is homosexuality not immoral in many cases it the very essence of morality. Homosexuals can also act in ways in which the foreseeable consequence is to increase suffering, i.e. promiscuity or abusive relationships, or simply not treating their partners with respect. But of course this is no different than heterosexuals.

Discrimination against homosexuals always has the foreseeable consequence of increasing suffering. Discrimination against homosexuals is immoral.

Abortion – Abortion always involves great suffering. I would have to say that it is immoral except in those rare cases where the suffering would be greater without it. I have to add however that although I believe abortion to be immoral, restrictive laws against it tend to lead to even greater suffering, and are themselves immoral. It also brings up the question of responsibility and autonomy. To take away a person's right to control their own body is immoral. Ultimately the question of abortion is one for the mother and the mother alone.

The moral action for society to take is to support women by insuring proper medical care, affordable housing, a living wage, proper education, access to birth control. This will not only reduce the suffering of young women who find themselves in a difficult situation but will also reduce the need for abortions. The way to reduce suffering is to give people choice, not to take it away.

Fornication – What I talked about with homosexuality applies here as well. If people act with care for themselves and their partners there is nothing inherently immoral about sex, with or without the benefit of marriage. I think it is important however not to use people simply for your own pleasure without considering how they feel.

Adultery - Adultery almost always leads to greater suffering for all involved, and therefore is immoral. This does not mean that we should take an overly judgemental attitude and force people to wear big red letters on their clothing, or stone them to death or anything like that. It simply means that such situations should be avoided at all costs and we should have compassion for those who find themselves victims of adultery and help them if we can.

So there is my take on morality. I don’t believe it comes from a divine source, or from a book of rules. Although a set of rules can be helpful, they can also become a hindrance if we believe the rules are more important than people. And Many people are inspired to act in moral was through a belief in “God” or some kind of spirituality, although this has also lead some people to act in breathtakingly immoral ways.

:clap nice view on things.

Do you beleive that basically all mankind agrees to the ten commandments (considering it is applied to their god(s))? And that these are basic morals that God holds, and man also holds?

The text reads:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Is yes, then Morals are handed down from God. Or from a divine source, and inspired writings.

fantome profane · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
:clap nice view on things.

Do you beleive that basically all mankind agrees to the ten commandments (considering it is applied to their god(s))? And that these are basic morals that God holds, and man also holds?

The text reads:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Is yes, then Morals are handed down from God. Or from a divine source, and inspired writings.

No, I certainly do not believe that all mankind basically agrees on the Ten Commandments. I have nothing negative to say about those who do hold these things to be moral, but these are not the morals that I personally hold. I notice that you say considering it is applied to their god(s) but I dont think that is what it says or what was intended. I dont think there is anything inherently moral or immoral about having graven images for example. I would support anyones right to worship anything anyway they choose. I understand that using certain words at certain times and places can offend people, but I dont believe that using the name of God is inherently immoral. I myself have been known to work on both Saturday and Sunday. Some of the Commandments of course are very good rules against killing, stealing, lying. And some are very good advice, honour you parents, do not covet. But take as a whole this list of ten does not represent the morals that I hold and I dont think all mankind holds them.

So no, I dont think morals are handed down from God or come from a divine source or inspired writing.

Shadow Wolf · Jun 8, 2007

Do you beleive that basically all mankind agrees to the ten commandments (considering it is applied to their god(s))? And that these are basic morals that God holds, and man also holds?

The text reads:
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

No, I feel the only universally accepted ones are thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal.
Just looking at the legal system shows how seriously people take "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Some parents do not deserve any honoring.
Fox News showed a statistic that showed 9 out of 10 people are having premaritial sex.
And coveting creates wants, which creates demands, which creates jobs, which helps people and helps the economy.

I feel most morals are man made, and the only one that isn't is not harming others.

McBell · Jun 8, 2007

Mike182 said:
fornication: i'm behind on my biblical terms, what does fornication cover?

Websters 1828 Dictionary:

Fornication
FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

2. Adultery. Mat 5.

3. Incest. 1 Cor 5.

4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chr 21. Rev 19.

yuvgotmel · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
That is quite radical and different from the beleifs held here in America. Interesting, but how are we to attain the grade of Elohim when Elohim says:
Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will you liken me, and make me equal and compare me that we may be like?"

There are different levels/characteristics of the emanations that you refer to as "God." I will have to check but I don't think that particular text is speaking from the grade of Elohim. I'm pretty sure that the term used for that instance is YHVH, which is a much higher grade.

JayHawes said:
And i find it offensive to preach the idea that we are no better than animals. God made us to rule over animals (Genesis 1:27-31), he made us in his image, and that is not in the image of being an animal. We do sin and behave as though we are animals, but that is becuase God is not in us, not becuase we are the equilivant to animals.

I find it many things "offensive" too...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Genesis 2, the Lord said that it was not good for man to be alone. So he took the man to the living creatures in the garden for him to choose a mate. Having no other accounts of humans being created before, it is assumed that those living creatures were all animals. But Adam refused to mate with any of them; and thereafter his wife was taken from his side and they became one flesh. And, in Genesis 3, the snake appeared to woman and spoke to her as well: some interpretations say that the snake was most likely in the form of a man or angel.

The Zohar teaches that each thing is supposed to take on the likeness of its soula mans soul is supposed to take on the likeness of a human flesh and so on. However, throughout The Zohar, there is a special spiritual definition of the term man. Man herein does not necessarily imply a human body:
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those lights are formative agents in the lower world to perfect the shape of all who are included in the term man. This is the name given to every interior shape; and thus every shape which is comprised in this extension is called man, which properly indicates mans spirit emanating from the realm of holiness, to which his body is a vestment, as we read, Thou clothest me in skin and flesh (Job X, II). Hence we often meet the expression flesh of man, implying that the real man is within and the flesh which is his body is only a vestment. The lower beings which have been compounded with this spirit assume shapes which are clothed in another vestment, such as the forms of clean animals, ox, sheep, goat, deer, etc. They would fain partake of the vestment of man, corresponding to their inner nature, but their forms are covered by the name applied to their bodies; so we find flesh of ox, ox being the inner element of that body, while the flesh is the vestment; and so with all. Similarly with the other side: the spirit which is found in the idolatrous nations issues from the realm of uncleanliness and is not, properly speaking, man; therefore it is not covered by this name and has no portion (in the future world). Its body, which is the vestment of that unclean thing, is unclean flesh, and the spirit is unclean within the flesh that clothes it. Therefore as long as that spirit is within that body it is called unclean, and the vestment does not bear the name of man. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]~excerpt from The Zohar Vol. 1, [20b][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The clean animals (such as ox, sheep, goats, etc.) would not dare to take on the form of man. That is why their flesh is considered clean. And if I am interpreting that text correctly, the sages were literally describing the possibility that the spirits of pigs, dogs and all unclean animals can and have assumed the shape of the flesh of man, but they are considered unclean and do not bear the name of man. In other words, and taking this very literally, some of the human shapes (among the peoples of the world) are literally animal soulsin the strictest sense; and they probably do not know it. And thusly, this place is filled with hate and crime of all types because of their denial of themselves.
[/FONT]

McBell · Jun 8, 2007

Luke Wolf said:
No, I feel the only universally accepted ones are thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal.
Just looking at the legal system shows how seriously people take "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Some parents do not deserve any honoring.
Fox News showed a statistic that showed 9 out of 10 people are having premaritial sex.
And coveting creates wants, which creates demands, which creates jobs, which helps people and helps the economy.

I feel most morals are man made, and the only one that isn't is not harming others.

I agree.
Except I question the idea of not harming others not being man made.
Seems to me that if everyone went around harming everyone then it would end up that there is no one to harm anyone.

Blood is thicker than water type thing.
You leave me and mine alone and you will have little to worry about from me.
You mess with mine, more so than with me, then you best be watching your back.
This is an interesting thing for the 'mine' part can be anything from ones immediate family to ones country.

yuvgotmel · Jun 8, 2007

Psalm 82

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods": 2 "How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?

3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

The grade of "gods" in the text above is of the Elohim. Like I said in my previous posts, if an individual is not joined with their angelic counterpart, they do not have resurrection capability; therefore, they will "die like mere men."

Furthermore, without having attained the grade of Elohim, those so-called rules of "morality" are useless, as they have no bearing on anything eternal.

JayHawes · Jun 8, 2007

yuvgotmel said:
Psalm 82
1 God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the "gods": 2 "How long will you defend the unjust

and show partiality to the wicked?

3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

4 Rescue the weak and needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.

They walk about in darkness;

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler."

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all the nations are your inheritance.

The grade of "gods" in the text above is of the Elohim. Like I said in my previous posts, if an individual is not joined with their angelic counterpart, they do not have resurrection capability; therefore, they will "die like mere men."

Furthermore, without having attained the grade of Elohim, those so-called rules of "morality" are useless, as they have no bearing on anything eternal.

I wrote about this Scripture in my Book. Many people do not understand it. The word translated God is Elohim, the word translated gods is also Elohim...so what's the difference? God was referring to the Jewish religious leaders of that day. Becuase they cease to defend the weak and poor and fatherless, and the needy. God needed to remind them that although he called them Elohim (a title) they were just mere men and would die like mere men. Elohim is a title used to show the power of judgment. This same title is given to Moses in 7:1. Showing that God made Moses the Judge over Pharoah. Psalms 82 has nothing to do with us, it is an account of history, directed towards a certain group of people. However those like yourself love to take scripture and apply it to themselves...My point is thus: The title God gave to those Judges (Elohim is translated as judges in Exodus 21:6) is symbolic of him, as he is our judge, and he appoints others to judge us. Do i beleive in the exaltation to the state of elohim? no. Do i beleive that some of us will be sinless just as God is? Yes. But not in this flesh.

yuvgotmel · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
I wrote about this Scripture in my Book. Many people do not understand it.

That's true...including you.

As for the rest of what you wrote: I'm not going to argue interpretation.

If you seriously want to know the meaning of that scripture, then I suggest a study in Judaism and Jewish mysticism without the filter of the Christian/Western thinking.

It may behoove you to think proactively…especially since Christianity teaches, “Come over here and wait on Jesus with us”; and the Muslims say, “Come over here and wait on the next Imam with us”; and the Hare Krishna followers say, “Come over here and wait on Krishna with us”; and so on. However, some of us don’t wait—we run and don’t stop and probably won’t stop, being totally devoted a cause for both ourselves and all of humanity. The Christian Crusades are over and Jihad need not begin….except for the search for our individual and collective progression spiritually and mentally. Perhaps that is difficult to understand by those which have been sold “morality cards” as if they are something unique to some group or perspective. Perhaps my words are difficult to understand by those that have been told to follow some set of particular rules, while waiting in a single-file line, which must look like something from a bizarre zombie movie.

Sunstone · Jun 8, 2007

It's obvious there is a biological basis for some morality. But I don't think all morality has a biological basis. What, for instance, is the biological basis for an environmental ethic?

Guitar's Cry · Jun 8, 2007

Sunstone said:
It's obvious there is a biological basis for some morality. But I don't think all morality has a biological basis. What, for instance, is the biological basis for an environmental ethic?

Instinct of self-preservation. With our current knowledge of how eco-systems work, we know that we must preserve them or suffer.

It is interesting how we must be ecocentric in order to be anthropocentric.

Katzpur · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
Do you beleive Morals are form God, or are they just man's invention. Should we as human have a strict set of morals or do any of them matter? What about the morals considering, homosexuality, abortion, fornication, and adultery, how do you feel about them? Do you follow a moral code, if so which do you value most?

I have a strict moral code. It restricts me from homosexual activity, abortion, fornication and adultery. The part of my moral code which I value most is the part that tells me to leave the judging to God.

Sunstone · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
Do you beleive Morals are form God, or are they just man's invention.

To some extent, morals are inventions, and to some extent they are the product of evolution working on human nature.

Should we as human have a strict set of morals or do any of them matter?

The question is not and never has been how strict someone's morals are but rather how effective they are in helping one to live a decent, personally meaningful, and dignified life.

What about the morals considering, homosexuality, abortion, fornication, and adultery, how do you feel about them? Do you follow a moral code, if so which do you value most?

Of the four choices, I value fornication the most.

Pariah · Jun 8, 2007

JayHawes said:
What is your definiton of amoral and immoral? And does this affect your idea of man purely inventing morals?

Amoral simply means that there is no question of right and wrong and any discussion of right and wrong has no meaning or application in life. While I believe that the world is amoral, one can act immoral relative to personal standards or societal standards. Murder remains immoral relative to most standards of morality worldwide.

I have a feeling that Homo sapiens did not invent morals, because other social/group animals probably contain some amount of it. However, we did invent many of the morals and moral systems that currently exist today in human society, or are the result of biological instinct and/or extrapolation from them.

No objective form of morality exists, in my opinion.

JayHawes · Jun 9, 2007

yuvgotmel said:
That's true...including you.

As for the rest of what you wrote: I'm not going to argue interpretation.

If you seriously want to know the meaning of that scripture, then I suggest a study in Judaism and Jewish mysticism without the filter of the Christian/Western thinking.

It may behoove you to think proactively…especially since Christianity teaches, “Come over here and wait on Jesus with us”; and the Muslims say, “Come over here and wait on the next Imam with us”; and the Hare Krishna followers say, “Come over here and wait on Krishna with us”; and so on. However, some of us don’t wait—we run and don’t stop and probably won’t stop, being totally devoted a cause for both ourselves and all of humanity. The Christian Crusades are over and Jihad need not begin….except for the search for our individual and collective progression spiritually and mentally. Perhaps that is difficult to understand by those which have been sold “morality cards” as if they are something unique to some group or perspective. Perhaps my words are difficult to understand by those that have been told to follow some set of particular rules, while waiting in a single-file line, which must look like something from a bizarre zombie movie.

Christianity is different than you think. Before we are saved its not us waiting on Jesus, it is God waiting on us. He allowed us to take another breathe, another step, and to live another day. It is God's grace that anybody is saved.As for us just waiting, this is what the Apotle Paul told us Christians:

1co 9:24Don`t you know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run like that, that you may win.

Run what? The Christian Life, not wait.

Origin of Morals

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Active Member

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Certified People sTabber

Resident Sourpuss

Well-Known Member

Resident Sourpuss

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

De Diablo Del Fora

Disciple of Pan

Not your average Mormon

De Diablo Del Fora

Let go

Active Member