Nobody in the world is good

[Fohat]

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

Both. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The profundity of that statement is inexhaustible.

To quote St. Augustine:
"When I give heed to what we have just read from the apostolic lesson, that “the natural man perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God,” and consider that in the present assembly, my beloved, there must of necessity be among you many natural men, who know only according to the flesh, and cannot yet raise themselves to spiritual understanding, I am in great difficulty how, as the Lord shall grant, I may be able to express, or in my small measure to explain, what has been read from the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” for this the natural man does not perceive. What then, brethren? Shall we be silent for this cause? Why then is it read, if we are to be silent regarding it? Or why is it heard, if it be not explained? And why is it explained, if it be not understood? And so, on the other hand, since I do not doubt that there are among your number some who can not only receive it when explained, but even understand it before it is explained, I shall not defraud those who are able to receive it, from fear of my words being wasted on the ears of those who are not able to receive it. Finally, there will be present with us the compassion of God, so that perchance there may be enough for all, and each receive what he is able, while he who speaks says what he is able. For to speak of the matter as it is, who is able? I venture to say, my brethren, perhaps not John himself spoke of the matter as it is, but even he only as he was able; for it was man that spoke of God, inspired indeed by God, but still man. Because he was inspired he said something; if he had not been inspired, he would have said nothing; but because a man inspired, he spoke not the whole, but what a man could he spoke."

 

[L2R]

no one is good
everyone is good
both are true
and this is not a paradox

 

[Sweet P]

no one is good
everyone is good
both are true
and this is not a paradox

Care to elaborate? It sounds like a paradox to me!

(your argument = no a's are b, all a's are b)

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

i have a guess what impacto means: no one individual is good, but as a whole humankind is?

edit: oh well, had to guess

 

[L2R]

"good" is only a value which can vary greatly depending on the perspective.

 

[swilow]

"good" is only a value which can vary greatly depending on the perspective.

Good and evil are simply human inventions; helpful for humans at times, but more often not.

Who cares what monks do? We all know what many catholic priests get up to, so- why should these people be pillars of society. Religious belief doesn't make someone good- it just makes them a believr in religion.

 

[vegan]

One thing that does disappoint me a bit is that you seem to have conveniently ignored the very two points that were central to my argument: That tree analogy and the unlikely-marriage analogy.

about the tree analogy, maybe i didn't put it explicitly enough, but it was what i was replying to when i said

"simple observation : here it (language) transforms black into white
it's not everything, for sure, but it makes a damn huge difference"

of course there are plenty of things that one can understand about thailand without speaking the language

but they are only one aspect of thailand

there is the whole rest to which you don't have access
starting with being able to have relations with people that are not biased by the thai / farang ngong split

it usually totally changes the relation when a thai realizes that you don't fit in the only category he considers for foreigners
all of a sudden, he can't label you with all his a prioris and that opens doors to meeting a thai person, not a thai talking to a farang

recently i was in a room with 3 thais and they had to send an email. but none of them could write thai because they had studied abroad (but it's their mother tongue, they speak it perfectly)
if you had seen the expressions on their faces when i told them i could do it for them and they saw me write it!
they were looking at something that they considered impossible
for sure it changes the way they are with you

about being smitten by love
i'm not
i don't like bangkok for instance
there are no parks, no town squares, too many useless malls
but i like the mentality of the people there much more than that of the people i've met elsewhere
and still, there are many many things i don't like about thai mentality (let's start by the respect of authority)

but i choose the mentality of the thais over the beauty of european architecture or the good points of european mentality

i'm not blind

i didn't address this point cause it could be returned against you
as you think i'm in love with thailand, it looks like you're in hate with thailand
and you hate it without seeing its good points while "your friends like it and wonder what the hell is wrong with their friend?"

ps : when talking about the morning speech i was not refering to the prayers but to what the teachers tell them just after : comments of ethics, activities of the week and things like this

 

[law12345]

Good and evil are simply human inventions; helpful for humans at times, but more often not.

Who cares what monks do? We all know what many catholic priests get up to, so- why should these people be pillars of society. Religious belief doesn't make someone good- it just makes them a believr in religion.

Ok then who are the pillars of society and why? thanks

 

[Jamshyd]

about the tree analogy, maybe i didn't put it explicitly enough, but it was what i was replying to when i said

"simple observation : here it (language) transforms black into white
it's not everything, for sure, but it makes a damn huge difference"

of course there are plenty of things that one can understand about thailand without speaking the language

but they are only one aspect of thailand

there is the whole rest to which you don't have access

Fine and dandy, but you seemed to be using the language thing to totally invalidate my criticism, which, like I said before, is an ad-hom.

starting with being able to have relations with people that are not biased by the thai / farang ngong split

See, G, you may be able to squeeze out a few more drops of interest out of a Thai by impressing them with your ability to speak the language, but you'd be fooling yourself if you ever think you can become accepted by the Thais as one of them. You are and will always be a farang. Just one that's a bit more shocking.

about being smitten by love
i'm not
i don't like bangkok for instance
there are no parks, no town squares, too many useless malls
but i like the mentality of the people there much more than that of the people i've met elsewhere

The bolded part is what I was saying you're in love with. I realize that you don't like bkk much as a city.

but i choose the mentality of the thais over the beauty of european architecture or the good points of european mentality

One important point I made that was lost in the error when I tried to post last time was that you, like a couple of others I know, seem to find "refuge" in Thailand from somekind of nastiness that you perceive about the west. It seems to me that a lot of things that you apparently like about Thailand, you like simply because they are not western, more so than anything else.

Seeing that I am Neither western nor Thai, I fail to understand this. There are as you know good and bad aspects to all societies. I personally have a liking for Bosnian people, despite their shortcomings. I find Thais to be the opposite - whatever good there is, it is completely drenched by shortcomings. And note that I base all this on observations, not language, as my Bosnian is about as good as my Thai.

i didn't address this point cause it could be returned against you
as you think i'm in love with thailand, it looks like you're in hate with thailand
and you hate it without seeing its good points while "your friends like it and wonder what the hell is wrong with their friend?"

Well then that concludes it. You love Thailand and I hate Thailand. Isn't this where we started? .

 

[High Yogi]

All you can do is worry about yourself and do the best that you can. Trust your basic instincts because were all born with a sense of "right" and "wrong"

Dont look to other peoples or your own past experiences to help navigate you toward what is right, look within. A past experience is a PAST experience, and therefore, an entirely different experience with its own solution. What was the solution to a past problem may not be the solution to your present problem. Every problem is unique and needs to be handled individually, and the answer lies within because its YOUR problem. A problem of MINE can only be solved if I look WITHIN. get it?

Dont worry about what some Thai monks are doing, worry about you. You are the final arbiter.

 

[swilow]

Ok then who are the pillars of society and why? thanks

There are none and because. I just don't see why being a monk also makes you less human; watching porn, smoking cigarettes; just human behaviour. It shouldn't shock one that humans do in fact act like humans- most of the time.

 

[Fohat]

Good and evil are simply human inventions; helpful for humans at times, but more often not.

Who cares what monks do? We all know what many catholic priests get up to, so- why should these people be pillars of society. Religious belief doesn't make someone good- it just makes them a believr in religion.

You can deny your humanity all you want. It's really very sad. We're in a Silver Age right now and, just like in the Silver Age of the glorious Roman Empire, people are ignoring their higher natures and indulging excessively in the basest pleasures. Have fun with your sex and drugs. Via vera ad beatitudinem veram est Deus verus et via vera ad Deum verum est Ecclesia vera.

As for the Catholic priests thing . . . a.) A huge amount of the supposed "pedophilia" actually involved priests having sex with teenagers (boys and girls). Still very *very* fucked up, don't get me wrong, but not the same as molesting children. b.) The establishment media overreported the "priest-molestation" thing to distract you from what was going on in Israel at the time. And, c.) the Church really did handled it horribly to say the least, I'm not going to deny that and I haven't met a single person who has.

 

[law12345]

All you can do is worry about yourself and do the best that you can. Trust your basic instincts because were all born with a sense of "right" and "wrong"

Dont look to other peoples or your own past experiences to help navigate you toward what is right, look within. A past experience is a PAST experience, and therefore, an entirely different experience with its own solution. What was the solution to a past problem may not be the solution to your present problem. Every problem is unique and needs to be handled individually, and the answer lies within because its YOUR problem. A problem of MINE can only be solved if I look WITHIN. get it?

Dont worry about what some Thai monks are doing, worry about you. You are the final arbiter.

This is also the Buddhist mentality. When a problem arises it is a duality-a problem with the self and the instigator.
However I fail to see how if someone punches me in the face or does me wrong that I should just accept it and let it go. Then I become a martyr for the wrong reasons and the stronger evil people in the world prevail. Why are external forces my problem? Anger and retaliation would be natural responses in this situation-I can't simply say to myself let it go and accuse myself of being dramtic for making a big deal of it.
So what can I do-be assertive, call the police. Hostlity is a part of the natural world so blocking it out won't do me any good. Learning proactive, more responsible ways to deal with adversity would. But I would take no personal responsibility for the wrong-doing in this case, only the repercussions. I am not at fault and my reaction wouldn't be either, unless I did more harm than the instigator.

 

[Fohat]

This is also the Buddhist mentality. When a problem arises it is a duality-a problem with the self and the instigator.
However I fail to see how if someone punches me in the face or does me wrong that I should just accept it and let it go. Then I become a martyr for the wrong reasons and the stronger evil people in the world prevail. Why are external forces my problem? Anger and retaliation would be natural responses in this situation-I can't simply say to myself let it go and accuse myself of being dramtic for making a big deal of it.
So what can I do-be assertive, call the police. Hostlity is a part of the natural world so blocking it out won't do me any good. Learning proactive, more responsible ways to deal with adversity would. But I would take no personal responsibility for the wrong-doing in this case, only the repercussions. I am not at fault and my reaction wouldn't be either, unless I did more harm than the instigator.

That example there is exactly it.

Human beings act.

If you act, you logically must have the idea that you should act.

Morality is the study of how you should act.

Therefore, morality itself exists.

At all times we not only show a belief in morality (no matter how misguided or false), but also an expectation in the actions of others. If I didn't have some sort of idea of how you all should act, I wouldn't be posting this. Human beings aren't unpredictable animals, as they would be if objective morality was false. Therefore, morality transcends the individual.

Skeleton argument right now, I'm working on patching up some "leaks", but there it is.

 

[High Yogi]

This is also the Buddhist mentality. When a problem arises it is a duality-a problem with the self and the instigator.
However I fail to see how if someone punches me in the face or does me wrong that I should just accept it and let it go. Then I become a martyr for the wrong reasons and the stronger evil people in the world prevail. Why are external forces my problem? Anger and retaliation would be natural responses in this situation-I can't simply say to myself let it go and accuse myself of being dramtic for making a big deal of it.
So what can I do-be assertive, call the police. Hostlity is a part of the natural world so blocking it out won't do me any good. Learning proactive, more responsible ways to deal with adversity would. But I would take no personal responsibility for the wrong-doing in this case, only the repercussions. I am not at fault and my reaction wouldn't be either, unless I did more harm than the instigator.

The answer to this is tricky, but simple. I read this pamphlet called “Perfection of Yoga” by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Within the pamphlet he talks about the great warrior Arjuna. He is a personal friend of krshna (godhead) and is always thinking of him, in this sense he is considered to be the highest yogi. But how can a great warrior such as Arjuna be the highest yogi? Because he is always thinking of krshna. He eats for krshna, drinks for krshna, sleeps for krshna, and FIGHTS for krshna.

The practice is called "krshna consciousness" in which one is always consciously aware of krshna and where all acts are personally sacrificed to serve krshna. You are here to serve krshna, but this doesnt leave you empty handed. What you get in return is a complete sense of ego-loss and pleasure.

When thinking in krshna consciousness every thought is absolute, because krshna himself is absolute.

here is a great link of the pamphlet im talking about, its a PDF.

http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Perfection_of_Yoga.pdf

 

[Bardeaux]

Speaking of Christ

I believe Christ is a concept set by people as a moral goal. Christ is perfection, an absolutely 'good', caring, wise entity. Some people believe an absolutely perfect human has walked the earth, some people dont, some are still waiting, and some fight over who is right.

I myself am an athiest, but I try to be as 'Christ-like' as I can. I consider myself a good person but by no means am I perfect. Moral perfection cannot be achieved by humans imo, because everbody has a different opinion of what is moral.

 

[Fohat]

Speaking of Christ

I believe Christ is a concept set by people as a moral goal. Christ is perfection, an absolutely 'good', caring, wise entity. Some people believe an absolutely perfect human has walked the earth, some people dont, some are still waiting, and some fight over who is right.

I myself am an athiest, but I try to be as 'Christ-like' as I can. I consider myself a good person but by no means am I perfect. Moral perfection cannot be achieved by humans imo, because everbody has a different opinion of what is moral.

Just to clarify, Christians don't believe that Christ was a man who was perfect, rather he was God made man (not trying to get into Christology here which can get pretty complicated). Mary was a perfect human though, through God's grace, as was only fitting for the mother of God She never sinned in her life, not one time, nor was she even born with the hereditary stain of Adam, which we all have been (that's what the Immaculate Conception is about).

 

[law12345]

The answer to this is tricky, but simple. I read this pamphlet called “Perfection of Yoga” by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Within the pamphlet he talks about the great warrior Arjuna. He is a personal friend of krshna (godhead) and is always thinking of him, in this sense he is considered to be the highest yogi. But how can a great warrior such as Arjuna be the highest yogi? Because he is always thinking of krshna. He eats for krshna, drinks for krshna, sleeps for krshna, and FIGHTS for krshna.

The practice is called "krshna consciousness" in which one is always consciously aware of krshna and where all acts are personally sacrificed to serve krshna. You are here to serve krshna, but this doesnt leave you empty handed. What you get in return is a complete sense of ego-loss and pleasure.

When thinking in krshna consciousness every thought is absolute, because krshna himself is absolute.

here is a great link of the pamphlet im talking about, its a PDF.

http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Perfection_of_Yoga.pdf

Religion, IMO, is a unifier and a divider.

An atheist might argue that religion is a myth with no tangible nor intangible rewards at the end of a following thus sacrifice would be inept and pointless.

And for the millions of people without a religion to follow where would this morality we have been speaking baout come from-the self? peer groups? family? All too much of which we think we are right at the cost of others. A cost we are too stubborn to negotiate. There is no code of conduct for human practice thus adversity arises and untoward behaviour. It's how we judge our wrongdoings and deal with them that determines the world's output.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Speaking of Christ

I believe Christ is a concept set by people as a moral goal. Christ is perfection, an absolutely 'good', caring, wise entity. Some people believe an absolutely perfect human has walked the earth, some people dont, some are still waiting, and some fight over who is right.

I myself am an athiest, but I try to be as 'Christ-like' as I can. I consider myself a good person but by no means am I perfect. Moral perfection cannot be achieved by humans imo, because everbody has a different opinion of what is moral.

'Christ' means 'anointed' in Greek. Literally it may have referred to a topically applied entheogen from the ancient Mediterranean region. Metaphorically, it refers to someone who's spiritually enlightened, savvy to their place in the grand scheme of things, and who acts accordingly.

The esoteric side of Christianity, the big back room secret, is that we're all capable of being Christs, and that God is within us all at our core.

As to the original topic, I find the good/evil dichotomy is largely, interchangeable with the dichotomy of 'connected' vs. 'disconnected'. Actions we label as good are those that we do with the intention of strengthening our connectedness, to everyone and everything in our lives. Those we label as evil are those that carry the risk of severing some of the bonds we cherish, and making us more alienated and alone (but we do them anyway). Like all dichotomies, it's of limited use and invariable encompasses many shades of grey. But I find it largely rational and borne out by experience and common sense.

 

[swilow]

You can deny your humanity all you want. It's really very sad. We're in a Silver Age right now and, just like in the Silver Age of the glorious Roman Empire, people are ignoring their higher natures and indulging excessively in the basest pleasures. Have fun with your sex and drugs. Via vera ad beatitudinem veram est Deus verus et via vera ad Deum verum est Ecclesia vera.

I didn't deny my humanity; I simply put it in context. Don't talk shit about people you do not know, and never actually will.

That said, I will have fun with my sex and drugs; what could be wrong with that? I feel that is revelling in my humanity personally

If you honestly think that being a human gives you a "higher nature", look at this dying world and give me a reason why you think that. We are animals with a bit tacked onto our brain giving us apparent skills at self-observation. Thats a fact. It doesn't have a good or bad quality outside of itself.