See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

Because reality is evil.

As God's children, it is our duty to reach out to Him. And one of the easiest ways of doing so is to do good, not evil. Follow the first commandment especially. You will be rewarded in the after-life. Or, you won't.

What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So I'll take it that you're not going to provide any opening opinion? Or support the assertions you make?

It is? How so? Why do you think it is evil?
What support do you have for this assertion?
What do you even mean by "evil"?

As whose children? What makes you think we are God's children?
What makes you think we have a duty?
What support do you have for this assertion?
Or are you just going to keep going with just stating claims?

Reality is evil (as you initially claimed) yet we can do good (as you now claim), so presumably we must do things that are not real? Because if we do things that are merely real then they, by dint of being reality, must (according to you) be evil.
Who says it this is the easiest way?
What support do you have for this assertion?

Assuming you are referring to those commandments listed in the Bible, which of the 613 or so that are mentioned are you considering to be first?
And why should we follow that one especially?
What support do you have for this assertion?

Do you mean that if I do as you say then I will be rewarded, or I won't, the way someone might tell you that "if you play the lottery you will win... or you won't"?
Or do you mean that if I don't do as you assert then I won't be rewarded in the after-life?
What support do you have for the assertion that there is an after-life?
What support do you have that doing as you assert will lead to a reward in this after-life?
And similarly, that not doing as you assert will not lead to such reward?

I don't think that preaching and then asking a "what do you think?" is what you should be doing on this forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evil is earthly wisdom, and earthly virtue. Evil is the same thing as morality and ignorance is the same thing as knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The first commandment says that there's only one real God, and no others can come before him. That particular commandment has led to some of the most evil aspects of religion (like the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, and the wars of English and Scottish reformation.) Did you mean the golden rule or something? That's from the New Testament, not the Decalogue.

 

Most people have not been taught the logic behind morality. Morality is not about the needs of the individual, Rather morality is about the needs of the cultural group or team. In sports, you can't have all the players do their own thing whenever they feel the need. The result would be chaos for the team. The coach sets rules and positions that may appear restrictive to the hot dogs. But this is for the need of the team, which is the sum of many parts.

The ten commandments were ten rules to make the team stronger. It was not designed for the individual, or to make all the hot dogs shine brighter, at the expense of the team. The first commandment discusses the team pitfalls, if there is more than one god among them. More than one god causes division in the team, as you have pointed out.

All ten commandment are for the team, not the hot dogs who are not team players and those who wish to split up the team. If I have sex with your wife and steal you wallet, and we were originally on the same team, all cooperation is lost; broke two commandments. I may have a good time spending your money taking your wife out. However, you will not trust me again and therefore this link in the team chain is forever broken. The team will suffer, not me.

Liberalism is immoral because it divides the team into opposing faction; rich/poor, black/white, etc. It fixates on division, and not what integrates. This benefits ego-centric scam artists and not the whole team. The idea of relative morality is a scam, because not all coaches and their rules produce the same team results.

People often confuse ethics for morality. Ethics are more designed for the individual and not the team. Ethics will often be at the expense of the team. However, if the team is efficient and prosperous, it can afford some ethical expense.

 

It's conservatism that separates rich from poor by perpetuating the myth that the rich deserve to be rich.

 

That quote is based on an extrapolation of liberal philosophy. It is a projection not reality.

Conservatism teaches self reliance, preparation and hard work are the keys to success. The liberal philosophy is more based on big government, which implies someone else, besides you, decides and does, for you. This liberal foundation premise is subjectively extrapolated to assume that a nebulous conservative big brother, gives hand outs to only the rich. In reality, the conservative philosophy is about self reliance and hard work which is about you being responsible for yourself ,apart from any big brother. There is no rich big brother that secretly give hand outs to only the rich.

The divide into rich and poor comes down to the logical cause and effect of two competing philosophies. The liberals are taught to wait for big brother to tax, regulate, redistribute and give, which never amounts to enough to be happy. Liberals are always unhappy. While the conservatives need to rely on themselves. There is no invisible conservative big brother who passes out favors to just rich people.

The divide of white and black is also based on the cause and effect of the liberal and conservative philosophies. With liberalism you sit and wait for big government versus take the conservative self initiative. Many blacks assume big government stills needs to step in to make changes and redistribute for them. If you are white, the government will not do this extra for you since you are evil. You have to be more self reliant in some ways. This divide forces all whites to use more of the conservative ideal of self reliant, by default, promoting extra success.

All the big government dependency groups, from minorities to women, always feel they are getting less as they wait for a new law, regulation or handout. They see those who are forced to be the most self reliant, by default (white male) getting further ahead, due to cause and effect stemming from each philosophy.

Have you ever read the fable of the ant and the grasshopper? The ant works each day collecting seeds and food for tomorrow; building his food wealth. The grasshopper is idle, having fun all summer, since nature provides what he needs. The ant is the conservative and the grasshopper is the liberal.

The ant works for tomorrow, while the grasshopper lives for today. In the fall, a difference appears. Big government is like nature. It will provide abundance during the summer, but nature ebbs and flows,so one also needs to compensate with self reliance. Nature did not give the ant his fall food within the help of the ant's hard work. The grasshopper did not work to accumulate nature's abundance and was in dire straights in the fall.

 

In the Old Testament god sure was a mean, hateful murdering entity much different than the New Testament. Ever read the old one? He killed many and did allot of very bad things so how did he change from doing so many bad things to being such a benevolent thing overnight? I really don't believe in this supernatural crap for many reasons and this is just another reason I don't.

 

Do you enjoy making specious cr*p up, or are you genuinely ignorant (and too lazy to check)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

 

From Wikipedia; Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, often addressing disputes of moral diversity.

Moral diversity is the operative phase. This phrase implies there is no objective standard, but rather ethics caters to subjective standards, that can be different for each group and each person. Ethics are connected to the individuals and choices; subjective. You can't meet all subjective needs, of all people at the same time. It needs to manipulate emotions to justify the inefficiency and costs.

The melting pot was moral because it took all the ingredients within all the ethnic groups and let natural selection choose the best for all. This is why Italian, Chinese and fast food are the most popular.

The melting pot is not 100% ethical because it maxims the entire team. In baseball, some pitchers only get to pitch one batter or one inning, even though they would like more action or be a starter. Their subjective argument is one of repression. Once you understand the difference, morality makes sense. Morality still may not appeal to the non team player, who would prefer the limelight, even if the team has to suffer inefficiencies.

The quota system is ethical, but it is not moral. This is not efficient for the team, in an objective sense, but caters to emotions and subjectivity. There is no pure logic that doesn't add emotional manipulation to get this result. It can't be upheld with cool reason; not moral. Ethics works better for scam artists than do morals.

 

He's actually stating an often repeated church philosophy.
It's borne out when reading Martin Luther:
"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing, but the word of God."

Something like that. Not even 100% sure it was Luther, but nonetheless the point remains.

 

Indeed it does. And the logical conclusion is that the rich work harder than the poor. Does Donald Trump really work 1000 times harder than the McDonalds employee?

Yes, government by the people and for the people is likely to be big - and socially responsible.

The ant is socially responsible - i.e. liberal, subordinating her individuals needs to the needs of the group. The grasshopper is more of an individualist - i.e. conservative.

In fable, maybe. But in reality, even the greedy, selfish grasshopper survives.

 

The 1st does not say there is only 1 god. It clearly says that there are other gods.

 

A good working example of the difference between ethics and morality can be seen in the popular news. The police shooting verdict of the black teen within Ferguson Missouri lead to looting. This looting is considered ethical by many of the looters. They use an emotional abstraction to equate themselves to the victim, via a stereo-type, thereby justifying the extrapolation into looting. It is not rational, but is a relative reference effect.

Morality would say, thou shall not steal, period. Morality sort of undermines the subjective approach needed by ethics due to the light of reason and objectivity. Morals are not relative. Ethics are relative because these are subjective and can emotionally detach from cause and effect; one policeman equals all policeman equals all business, equals me. I am taking from myself which is not stealing.

The various quota laws, based on sex and race, are analogous to looting arguments, in that the cause and effect of actual criminals and victims is replaced with a subjective extrapolation. This is ethical, and only needs lawyers and con artists to work the emotional scam, but since it is not rational, it is not moral. Moral is more like science in that it has to be consistent for all. Moral would say if you can prove you were done wrong the person who did wrong and only that person will subject to quotas; case by case.

 

Oh wait, are you claiming that morals are A) objective and B_ apply to everyone?
In which case you'd be wrong.

Wrong again.

Bullshit.

 

The first commandment is, I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have strange gods before me. If we use an objective standard to assess this commandment, since morals are objective, one can witness that religious discussions can get heated and can easily divide people. If we are all of the same mind, religion can bind us tightly. The commandment recognizes other religions, but says to avoid the pitfalls of division by picking one, which in the case of the Jews was the God who gave the law to Moses.

If we interpret this commandment subjectively, though the prism of ethics, there is no objective reason for commandment. It is relative and connected to the vanity of the ego and various ego-centric power plays. It is about claiming my god is better than yours and then forcing division and then conformity. It is not about the value of any God, in terms of results, but how brutal humans can be to force an unnatural situation; a subjective result, that can be made to look pretty with lawyers. Morals are like science of human nature. Ethics are like the liberals arts of human nature, which includes fiction and fantasy.

 

Morals are more like science and less like liberal arts. Liberals artists may not understand what objectivity is, since in the world of fiction anything is possible and all relative. This is not how science works. Relative reference is an illusion if you do an energy balance. Mass/substance is not relative.

In the case of social issues, one can weigh the result in terms of costs/energy, to show all do not have the same tangible costs subject to science. The ethical argument will add emotional costs, which are subjective and nebulous. These are not tangible and not easy to weigh in the lab. These abstract cost may appear to add to the total, but that is a subjective trick used by ethics.

Just because a one atheists gets the most freaked out at a nativity scene, does not count as two votes in an objective analysis. But in ethics, one giant emotional cry baby counts more than one hundred calm people. This is not objective therefore immoral and ethical. Ethics can also be moral but being subjective it ripe for scams.

 

Citation needed.

Which is f*ck all to do with morality.

See previous comment.

Sheer unadulterated boll*cks.

 

Ever hear of Einstein?

 

Well, it says there is only one _real_ God and Christians shall place no other before the Lord. Both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions capitalize the first "God" and do not capitalize the second "gods" to make this clear, going back as far as translations exist.