Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

[gaffo]

God is by definition supernatural. Science accepts no supernatural elements in its hypotheses and reasoning.

It is true that scientists say "an audimlopodeus(*) is a sub-atomic particle that is responsible for the gravitational field. All we have to do is find it." This is not the same as to say "a god is in the picture, his hand is working in our experiments as an unknown, all we need to do is find how to see his hand."

until there is born another Einstien to unify what we to date cannot - Quantum Theory with Reletivity............the Graviton shall remain a "theoretical" particle. (a quantum "place sitter").

when that to date person shows up he/she will be able to tell me what is going one under the event horizion of all those Black holes out there.

but until then - science fails utterly in anwsering these things.

------as of course does Religion (no need to state this of course - though i did - lol).

[gaffo]

-1-

I think I agree with all you put.

"moral absolutism is a good vehicle to influence people's behaviour on a mass scale."

Confirm that by giving an example of what you are calling a moral absolute. What moral tenet did you have in mind?

I think all morals are subjective but want to see your examples before I lock in my agreement.

Regards
DL

I utterly reject moral relativism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - not sure if this is what you are talking about, but is so i reject it!!!!!!!!

Morality is an instinct which man has in his DNA via evolution.

yes, so is war/murder/etc......the "evils".................which we have via evolution as a social animal.


so that to me means that in some way "war/murder/etc" is Moral also.

in some way.

maybe moreso when we were living in the savanna in straw huts with stone tools...................than today with nukes.


- I do ABSOLUTELY believe in one Moral compass.(which is the product of evolution of man as a social animal..............and fully reject all philosophies of Moral Relativism!!!!!!!!

carry on................

[gaffo]

Another problem which is disappearing, because the language is chaning due to it, in English writing, is the disappearance of the separation between plural and singular. "There's apples and there's oranges", "using pronouns without a clear reference of it to its antecedent" etc.

I wish i had decent education in grammar..........never did. I do have a large vocabularity - love archaic words - otious, smote/etc.......the more words you know the more minutia/refinement you can carry across (language is a tool afterall).

sadly never had education on grammar machanics (which I know knowledge of is good - just don't have it).

as to spelling, for me, never going to happen sadly got my dad's dyslexia ;-(............(who was the masichist that spelled the word of my nemisis like that? ------i'd like to draw and quarter him personally!!!!.

[gaffo]

a lawyer, the epitome of all evil.

ummmmm they are today.

sadly no longer an honorable proffession.

same with journalism.

;-(.

sadly its all about a fast buck for both "professions"

4th estate my arse - they used to be/should be today.................

but not so.

just more "decline of Western society".

after the sun sets (the sun never sets on the UK!!!!!!!! (US now) ----ya sure.........nly hope the Chinese and latter the Indians will take mantle where we have lost it.

we shall see ;-/.

[gaffo]

I hear you, but being a poorly educated Frenchman, I am more self educated,and perhaps a slow learner at my age, I may never be as eloquent as you.

Add in that I am prolific and short winded, I may never improve.

Regards
DL

I too am self educated in many things.

you a Frenchman Snake (don't get me started on ww2 PLEASE - france had a chance to end WW2 before it started had She invaded Germany in fall of 39 when 90-percent of German army was fixed/invading Poland.


could/would have been able to march into Berlin..............Hilter would have shitted himself and sued for peace and WW2 would have been over via an armistice by December of 39.

instead French and English sat on the "phony war line" for months.................doing NOTHING..............allowing Germans to take Poland in 5 weeks (same time it took take the larger armies and nation France 6 months later!)........allowing the germans to redeploy to the Western Front (after taking Poland while France and england did NOTHING).................

like i said...........don't get me started...............

lol.

and yes I know all about "the horrors of ww1" in the minds of the mortals there at the time...............

and yet those horrors did not stop the Germans (who had the same horrors!) from ignoring them and arming themselves to the teeth and repeating same said horrors (i.e. they were not paralized!!!!!! unlike the French.........and Brits)

the Brist shook it off at least - ulike the Vichy!!!!!!!!!!! ;-(.

dark history of cowardly collaboration which is STILL not affirmed 70 fookin YEAR LATER by the French!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry I'm geared up now................

the Japs have the same denial in their genocide WRT to China and denial of acountability for nuke bomb wrt to America (pearl harbor).

Japan and France play the same "denial game".................."oh is just happened somehow".

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

k I'm ranting now - so be it - GOD BLESS THE POLES...........they fought to the LAST MAN (UNLIKE THE VICHY FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!)- and AFTER the WAR the Soviets took them over!!!!!!!!!!!! no reward for the BRAVE!!!!!!

but for the COWARDS and COLLABORATORS............what happened? was Germany given the lands of (they should have!!!!!!!!!! - no serously - considering the conduct of Vichy France, I think Truman should have GIVEN 1/2 f France to Germany and the other to England.

no - seriously i do think they should have.

INSTEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

France of given back to the cowardly Vichy dickless colaborators to allow that nation - which gave up all rights to exist in 1940 in my book - to reconstitute itself into a Nation.

which today is still too cowardly to look in the mirror of historical conduct and make amends.

2-cents.

oh, ya,

GOD BLESS THE POLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greatest I am]

Eodnhoj7

Interesting post. Thanks.

I said ---
"Good and evil are subjective judgement calls.

You put
"And" objective."

I have been told that a few times but no one seems to be able to come up with an objective moral tenet to discuss.

One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm,

Relativity is not such. If you start on the wrong premise, what follows cannot be right.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7

Interesting post. Thanks.

I said ---
"Good and evil are subjective judgement calls.

You put
"And" objective."

I have been told that a few times but no one seems to be able to come up with an objective moral tenet to discuss.

One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm,

Relativity is not such. If you start on the wrong premise, what follows cannot be right.

Regards
DL

What justifies the premise is the degree of definition and symmetry it maintains with other premises as axioms. What follows from the premise, as a strictly linear branching, is the degree of definition that premise observes relative to other axioms.

Considering right and wrong, are dependent upon the degree of clarity in definition through their relation with other axioms, a relativistic premise does not always equate to a wrong answer. Rather is observes the relation of that premise with further premises.

[Greatest I am]

Relativity is not such. If you start on the wrong premise, what follows cannot be right.

Regards
DL

What justifies the premise is the degree of definition and symmetry it maintains with other premises as axioms. What follows from the premise, as a strictly linear branching, is the degree of definition that premise observes relative to other axioms.

Considering right and wrong, are dependent upon the degree of clarity in definition through their relation with other axioms, a relativistic premise does not always equate to a wrong answer. Rather is observes the relation of that premise with further premises.

I can agree with this and still seek an example of an objective moral tenet.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

What justifies the premise is the degree of definition and symmetry it maintains with other premises as axioms. What follows from the premise, as a strictly linear branching, is the degree of definition that premise observes relative to other axioms.

Considering right and wrong, are dependent upon the degree of clarity in definition through their relation with other axioms, a relativistic premise does not always equate to a wrong answer. Rather is observes the relation of that premise with further premises.

I can agree with this and still seek an example of an objective moral tenet.

"You reap what you sow."

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I can agree with this and still seek an example of an objective moral tenet.

"You reap what you sow."

Regards
DL

If that had meaning, I do not see it. One liners are for children.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

If that had meaning, I do not see it. One liners are for children.

Regards
DL

You reap what you sow, is a constant moral norm or piece of advice across a variety of cultures.

In regards to the "one liners are for children"....well that is a one liner.

[Greatest I am]

If that had meaning, I do not see it. One liners are for children.

Regards
DL

You reap what you sow, is a constant moral norm or piece of advice across a variety of cultures.

In regards to the "one liners are for children"....well that is a one liner.

Sowing can either be peace or discord.

Would you sew peace or discord if you were a Jew in Hitler's genocide?

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

You reap what you sow, is a constant moral norm or piece of advice across a variety of cultures.

In regards to the "one liners are for children"....well that is a one liner.

Sowing can either be peace or discord.

Would you sew peace or discord if you were a Jew in Hitler's genocide?

Regards
DL

You sow violence you reap violence, you sow peace you will eventually reap it. The question is not so much the result, but what type of "crop" do you need?

[Greatest I am]

Sowing can either be peace or discord.

Would you sew peace or discord if you were a Jew in Hitler's genocide?

Regards
DL

You sow violence you reap violence, you sow peace you will eventually reap it. The question is not so much the result, but what type of "crop" do you need?

My little question on Hitler threw you I see. That aside.

As to my crop, well, 75% of us have some kind of reciprocity rule that we live by so I expect that negativity returns negativity and positive returns positive.

You seem to think we should turn the other cheek. That rewards evil and if you think we should do that then tell us how you would return something positive to someone who rapes your wife.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

You sow violence you reap violence, you sow peace you will eventually reap it. The question is not so much the result, but what type of "crop" do you need?

My little question on Hitler threw you I see. That aside.
Actually I am strictly observing that we have complete moral freedom because of the golden mean.

If I want to be cruel...I can be cruel...If I want to be kind I can be kind...considering it all eventually forms the realities we will be judged by.

They treat "hitler and the holocaust" as if it was some horrifying evil humanity never recovered from, and allusions to the hitler example are simple "moral dramas". If I can recall, after the holocaust, the world kept going the and persecuted people (jews), at the time, got their own country.

Moralists philosophers treat evil as if it is some all-encompassing power.

As to my crop, well, 75% of us have some kind of reciprocity rule that we live by so I expect that negativity returns negativity and positive returns positive.

You seem to think we should turn the other cheek. That rewards evil and if you think we should do that then tell us how you would return something positive to someone who rapes your wife.
How would "turn the other cheek" apply to a rape case where I am morally obligated to protect another person under distress, under the premise of the Golden Rule?

Regards
DL