Moral Compass

[Janoah]

Gary Childress suggested common sense as a moral compass.

Are the Ten Commandments common sense?

[Harbal]

Gary Childress suggested common sense as a moral compass.

Are the Ten Commandments common sense?

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

Perhaps not all of them.

[Impenitent]

what makes sense to one is not universal nor common

common varies from group to group

the ones left standing judge what is good after the fact

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Gary Childress suggested common sense as a moral compass.

Are the Ten Commandments common sense?

Common sense or common moral sense can be a moral compass BUT it must be qualified as such, i.e. common-sense-moral-compass which of course is of cheap quality.

First one need to define 'what is morality'.
According to my definition, only
-Thou shalt not kill. ...
-Thou shalt not steal.
qualify as moral elements thus within common-sense-morality.

Adultery is a social vice not a moral element per se.

[Alexis Jacobi]

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Starting at the beginning, and naturally it depends on how you look at this admonition and command, one can look upon this is a root of a thousand different problems and abuses. First, we who think in certain terms, do not regard this as *God's Voice*, and if that is so we can only see this type of statement as man-created and as I say the creation of a priest-class.

When looked at in this way various internal horizons of consideration open up. Declarative statements like this involve making assertions about how surrounding people orient their perceptions of the world and life. The act of declaring them wrong, bad or evil inevitably invites resentment and contempt. Judaism is based in a view that all other metaphysical conceptions are not simply mistaken but demoniac. One must look at this attitude as a cultural ploy to establish one's notion of things as inherently *superior*.

The figure of Yahweh, when examined as I say through particular lenses, can be understood to be a pathological and indeed psychopathological figure. This enraged being, so intensely solitary, who through the rhetoric or priests insists he created the entire world and therefore owns it and all people and things in it, must be examined through modern lenses. He has no connection at all with other peoples. As a divine figure and when compared to others he has no consort, no feminine counterpart. He can, on whim, bring about annihilation. In this he pictures man's own psychopathological destructive tendency and perhaps will.

Weirdly, and frighteningly, the Israelis right now show us how this pathology functions. The symbolism is very weird. An escape from God's own people -- the prison-camp they established -- may call forth the will to nuclear annihilate their enemy. These things are said. They are entertained.

But what about those who desire to escape from the false-construct that there is a god who can or will annihilate the entire world? What price will be exacted from those who refuse to believe in such a sick figure.

Think about it ...

Since there is no "god" that actually did make the pronouncement, and the pronouncement was made therefore by priests and cultural managers, one must see the divine figure through its established or intended function. To *believe in* such a god is to submit to a psycho-religious duress in which the punishment for disobedience is annihilation. Piss off that divine figure and he will send the foreigner, the demonic Gentile, to cut your children to pieces in front of you. Through Yahweh, and with Yahweh as a complicit figure, really the instigator, you will suffer unimaginable horrors through Yahweh's proxies. Yet the real trap was set for you by the priest-class who put these statements into the mouth of the divine figure.

Seen in this way, the figure of Yahweh is the ur-example of a range of social, psychological and ideological manipulations, not by the hand of *god* but by the hands of the men who control the imago.

So yes, and please, let's continue delving into the idea of 'moral compasses'.

I'm quite surprised that you're so quick to blame God for things so manifestly done by the hands of humans.

Well, at the very least you may begin to understand where my thought tends.

[Immanuel Can]

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Starting at the beginning...

Sorry...none of this is interesting or challenging, to me.

[Peter Kropotkin]

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Starting at the beginning...

Sorry...none of this is interesting or challenging, to me.

K: I would suggest that this isn't ''interesting or challenging''
simple because you are unable to think below the surface....
anything that forces you to think deeply is lost on you...
for you haven't the courage for an attack on your convictions,
you think it is enough to have the courage of one's convictions...

as Nietzsche said, one must engage in an attack on ones'
convictions.. for a reexamination of values...
do you have the courage for that?

to believe that one has the ''morality'' to have a moral compass,
is to have an ego and nothing more...... what does having a
moral compass actually mean? try that first...

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, IC, I knew that you would totally avoid the topic, and for good reason. It is important that you completely avoid the logical consequences of a great deal of your bizarre Christian Zionist philosophy. Were you to attempt engagement here, it would become all the more visible to those who have read here over the months. Best to avoid that.

But moving with along ...

In his recent speech Natanyahu said: “We shall realize the prophecy of Isaiah.” Turn your memory back to Sunday school days and remember that Isaiah prophesied a time when all nations “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles” (Isaiah 2:4). But don't stop just there. Open your Bible, read the full prophecy so that you can understand what Netanyahu really means.

The books of Isaiah are about a time when “the Law will issue from Zion” and Israel “will judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples” (2:3-4). But this part must be taken into consideration if we are to examine the 'moral compass' at work here in Isaiah:

“The nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly destroyed” (60:12)

“You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16)

“You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:5-6).

“Yahweh’s sword is gorged with blood, it is greasy with fat,” says Isaiah on the occasion of “a great slaughter in the land of Edom [Amalek’s grandfather]” (34:6).

What I hope to establish here is that to the figure of Jesus, that is when taken as a character in a novel, terrifying Yahweh could not have been understood to be his father. I know, I am playing around within the narrative which is a fiction all to itself. But all of this deals in symbolic content and the content has meaning and power in our present among millions.

The reason I do this is because I now understand the degree to which the Jesusonian movement was intended as a thorough refutation of the former god-concept. My present supposition is that it did not go far enough. And that is part of the problem. Christianity remains ensconced or even trapped within the Old Testament value-set. To break free of it requires an even more radical effort.

You worship not the New Christ but the old, terrible form of Yahweh. This became clear (to all) on the Christianity thread. You are less a Christian in a transcendent sense and far more a weird Jewish-Christian with obvious links to a demonic narrative figure. The ramifications of that sort of psycho-pathological figure are now visible for all to see. It is being played out in front of us. How utterly weird!

You can well guess that I see you as a total coward by your refusal to engage with the meaning of these events. Your moral compass is discovered to be a form of blasphemy of what is *true*.

[Immanuel Can]

Starting at the beginning...

Sorry...none of this is interesting or challenging, to me.

K: I would suggest that this isn't ''interesting or challenging''
simple because you are unable to think below the surface....

You suggest wrongly.

It's just boringly superficial and wrong, and I can't be bothered to correct that number of goofy claims. AJ likes to talk, and talk, and talk...as if the sheer proliferation of words will produce profundity. And yet, increasingly, it doesn't. So I prefer to deal with him concisely, since there's no much going on there.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, IC, I knew that you would totally avoid the topic, and for good reason.

Yes: because you're being boring, and not offering any intellectual challenge. You should quit that...you're probably capable of better.

[Immanuel Can]

Gary Childress suggested common sense as a moral compass.

Are the Ten Commandments common sense?

Not really, unless you say, for example, that Sabbath-keeping is "common sense." And it's questionable that "not bearing false witness" is a thing which people "commonly" want to practice. Certainly the worship of the one true God is not "common" to a lot of people's "sense" of things.

[simplicity]

Gary Childress suggested common sense as a moral compass.

The only thing that works with these pesky humans is following moral guidance handed down by God. Thousands of years of our history plainly reveals that man is simply not capable of behaving himself and needs assistance in this regard.

This is not complicated, as left to his own devices, man's greatest skill is creating Hell on Earth.

[Lacewing]

Judaism is based in a view that all other metaphysical conceptions are not simply mistaken but demoniac. One must look at this attitude as a cultural ploy to establish one's notion of things as inherently *superior*.

I don't think this view and attitude are limited to Judaism. Religion, in just about any form, is an example of:

a range of social, psychological and ideological manipulations, not by the hand of *god* but by the hands of the men who control the imago.

So yes, and please, let's continue delving into the idea of 'moral compasses'.

If such attitudes and manipulations are associated with theism, how reliable are their moral compasses as compared with non-theists who don't subscribe to such things? Where is the evidence that theism is more moral, considering that theism gives license to immorality as long as the claim is that it's for God and is directed by God. That's all it takes: Making an absurd CLAIM! All is justified!

Meanwhile, other people's gods are telling them different things. The delusional scope of this can be intolerable for atheists.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, IC, I knew that you would totally avoid the topic, and for good reason.

Yes: because you're being boring, and not offering any intellectual challenge. You should quit that...you're probably capable of better.

You are entitled to your opinion, naturally.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, IC, I knew that you would totally avoid the topic, and for good reason.

Yes: because you're being boring, and not offering any intellectual challenge. You should quit that...you're probably capable of better.

You are entitled to your opinion, naturally.

As are we all. But opinions are only as good as the arguments, data and evidence that support them. I'm not impressed by the proliferation of words without knowledge, or opinions devoid of facts.