Is there such thing as "universal morality"?

[ding]

A dogmatic belief in objective values is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery. (C.S. Lewis)

Lewis failed to tell us how this belief works out in a real Bolshevist countryside or Civil War situation.

'Strata are Layers, Belts. They consist of giving form to matters, of imprisoning intensities or locking singularities into systems of resonance and redundancy, of producing upon the body of the earth molecules large and small and organizing them into molar aggregates. Strata are acts of capture, they are like "black holes" or occlusions striving to seize whatever comes within their reach. They operate by coding and territorialization upon the earth; they proceed simultaneously by code and by territoriality. The strata are judgements of god; stratification in general is the entire system of the judgement of god (but the earth,or body without organs, constantly eludes that judgement, flees and becomes destratified, decoded, deterritorialized.
....

god is a lobster, or double pincer, a double bind. Not only do strata come at least in pairs, but in a different way each stratum is double (it itself has several layers).'
(A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, 10,000 B.C.: The Geology of Morals)

Ummm... it works itself out through a conflict and confusion process. Just like everything else.

 

[ding]

God is God only until you conform to the instruction of the law that fulfills the promise of life in the presence and sanctuary of God.

If you do it as Jesus did, you will see God face to face and realize he is more like a loving Father intimately involved in your life than a sanctimonious prick that you never met hidden away in some distant ivory tower that you've never been to .

Tragically I was born without faith, just plenty of skepticism.

Me too. I'm pretty certain thats a good thing.

I wonder how some people are going to feel when they find out that while they were busy diligently and faithfully condemning other people for doing things that were never sinful to God, they didn't win any brownie points, they just missed out on a lot of living.

While they were busy telling everyone else they were going to hell in a bucket, they were pissing their time and life away in it.

If you want to find out if Jesus was right, just follow his instructions and do a systemwide sweep of your mind to remove all junk files, malware, infantile resentments, false assumptions and delusions of grandeur.

When your mind is restored to factory specifications, then we'll talk...

Try it, you'll like it.

I think I'll just get drunk. Faster, easier, and just as effective.

Faster? Probably. Easier? Without a doubt. But are you certain it is just as effective? Effective at what?

It was a flip answer to "If you want to find out if Jesus was right, just follow his instructions and do a systemwide sweep of your mind to remove all junk files, malware, infantile resentments, false assumptions and delusions of grandeur."

However, getting drunk is as effective a way to get into heaven as any other. IMHO.

I see. What is heaven? And why do you think that is the objective?

 

[alang1216]

However, getting drunk is as effective a way to get into heaven as any other. IMHO.

I see. What is heaven? And why do you think that is the objective?

A place of pleasure without pain. It is essentially been the goal of my entire life. A very successful life I might add.

 

[badger2]

We will be addressing posts #141 and 142.

 

[badger2]

ding (post #261) 'works itself out like every thing else,' is easy for an information-compromised armchair xian to say. We were referring to civil war and bolshevik genociding. One dangerous dumbass to have around or rely on in an emergency.

 

[ding]

However, getting drunk is as effective a way to get into heaven as any other. IMHO.

I see. What is heaven? And why do you think that is the objective?

A place of pleasure without pain. It is essentially been the goal of my entire life. A very successful life I might add.

Different people have different ideas about what success means. So has your life been one full of pleasure and no pain?

 

[ding]

ding (post #261) 'works itself out like every thing else,' is easy for an information-compromised armchair xian to say. We were referring to civil war and bolshevik genociding. One dangerous dumbass to have around or rely on in an emergency.

Yes, and those things work themselves out too. Or are you under some illusion that life is full of pleasure and no pain too?

 

[ding]

It seems to me that those who criticize Christianity are those who complain about life.

 

[alang1216]

A place of pleasure without pain. It is essentially been the goal of my entire life. A very successful life I might add.

Different people have different ideas about what success means. So has your life been one full of pleasure and no pain?

I have been exceptionally lucky in my life but no life is without some pain. All in all my good fortune vastly outweighs my ill fortune, at least so far. Just dumb luck I'm sure.

 

[alang1216]

It seems to me that those who criticize Christianity are those who complain about life.

Hopefully you are not referring to me as I like to think I do neither. I'm not a believer but have no problem with those who are (unless they try to foist those beliefs on me)

 

[badger2]

Post #141: Well, that's completely madeup nonsense.'

We doubt that Haegglund jumped into naming his book without forethought, when this same author wrote Dying for Time, about a Russian couple. Most take the traditional definition bait about atheism.

'Atheism has traditionally limited itself to denying the existence of god and immortality, without questioning the desire for god and immortality. Thus, in traditional atheism mortal being is still conceived as a lack of being that we desire to transcend. In contrast, by developing a logic of radical atheism, I argue that the so-called desire for immortality dissimulates a desire for survival that precedes it and contradicts it from within.

The notion of survival that I develop is incompatible with immortality, since it defines life as essentially mortal and as inherently divided by time. To survive is never to be absolutely present; it is to remain after a past that is no longer and to keep the memory of this past as a future that is not yet. I argue that every moment of life is a matter of survival, since it depends on what Derrida calls the structure of the trace. The structure of the trace follows from the constitution of time, which makes it impossible for anything to be present (in itself [italics]). Every now passes away as soon as it comes to be and must therefore be inscribed as a trace in order to ba at all. The trace enables the past to be retained, since it is characterized by the ability to remain in spite of temporal succession. The trace is thus the minimal condition for life to resist death in a movement of survival. The trace can only live on, however, by being left for a future that might erase it. This radical finitude of survival is not a lack of being that is desirable to overcome. Rather, the finitude of survival opens the chance for everything that is desired and the threat of everything that is feared.

The key to radical atheism is what I analyze as the unconditional affirmation of survival. This affirmation is not a matter of choice that some people make and others do not: it is unconditional because everyone is engaged by it (without exception [italics]). Whatever one may want or whatever one may do, one has to affirm the time of survival, since it opens the possibility to live on -- and thus to want something or do something -- in the first place. This unconditional affirmation of survival allows us to read the purported desire for immortality against itself. The desire to (live on [it.]) after death is not a desire for immortality, since to live on is to remain subjected to temporal finitude. The desire for survival cannot aim at transcending time, since the given time is the only chance for survival. There is thus an internal contradiction in the so-called desire for immortality. If one were not attached to mortal life, there would be no fear of death and no desire to live on. But for the same reason, the idea of immortality would annihilate every form of survival, since it would annihilate the time of mortal life.'

To establish the logic of radical atheism, I proceed from Derrida's notion of spacing (espacement). As he points out in his late work On Touching, spacing is "the first word of any deconstruction, valid for space as well as time." More precisely, spacing is shorthand for the becoming-space of time and the becoming-time of space.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, pp. 2-3)

 

[ding]

A place of pleasure without pain. It is essentially been the goal of my entire life. A very successful life I might add.

Different people have different ideas about what success means. So has your life been one full of pleasure and no pain?

I have been exceptionally lucky in my life but no life is without some pain. All in all my good fortune vastly outweighs my ill fortune, at least so far. Just dumb luck I'm sure.

So why is your ideal of heaven or your goal a place of pleasure without pain?

What good would life be without ups and downs?

 

[ding]

It seems to me that those who criticize Christianity are those who complain about life.

Hopefully you are not referring to me as I like to think I do neither. I'm not a believer but have no problem with those who are (unless they try to foist those beliefs on me)

I’m glad to hear that.

But when you said that which does not kill you is a cruel way to learn I couldn’t help but wonder why you would say that.

The reality is that we do learn more from our failures than our successes not only about the world around us but ourselves.

Lessons learned, experiences experienced are neither cruel or kind, they just are.

 

[ding]

Post #141: Well, that's completely madeup nonsense.'

We doubt that Haegglund jumped into naming his book without forethought, when this same author wrote Dying for Time, about a Russian couple. Most take the traditional definition bait about atheism.

'Atheism has traditionally limited itself to denying the existence of god and immortality, without questioning the desire for god and immortality. Thus, in traditional atheism mortal being is still conceived as a lack of being that we desire to transcend. In contrast, by developing a logic of radical atheism, I argue that the so-called desire for immortality dissimulates a desire for survival that precedes it and contradicts it from within.

The notion of survival that I develop is incompatible with immortality, since it defines life as essentially mortal and as inherently divided by time. To survive is never to be absolutely present; it is to remain after a past that is no longer and to keep the memory of this past as a future that is not yet. I argue that every moment of life is a matter of survival, since it depends on what Derrida calls the structure of the trace. The structure of the trace follows from the constitution of time, which makes it impossible for anything to be present (in itself [italics]). Every now passes away as soon as it comes to be and must therefore be inscribed as a trace in order to ba at all. The trace enables the past to be retained, since it is characterized by the ability to remain in spite of temporal succession. The trace is thus the minimal condition for life to resist death in a movement of survival. The trace can only live on, however, by being left for a future that might erase it. This radical finitude of survival is not a lack of being that is desirable to overcome. Rather, the finitude of survival opens the chance for everything that is desired and the threat of everything that is feared.

The key to radical atheism is what I analyze as the unconditional affirmation of survival. This affirmation is not a matter of choice that some people make and others do not: it is unconditional because everyone is engaged by it (without exception [italics]). Whatever one may want or whatever one may do, one has to affirm the time of survival, since it opens the possibility to live on -- and thus to want something or do something -- in the first place. This unconditional affirmation of survival allows us to read the purported desire for immortality against itself. The desire to (live on [it.]) after death is not a desire for immortality, since to live on is to remain subjected to temporal finitude. The desire for survival cannot aim at transcending time, since the given time is the only chance for survival. There is thus an internal contradiction in the so-called desire for immortality. If one were not attached to mortal life, there would be no fear of death and no desire to live on. But for the same reason, the idea of immortality would annihilate every form of survival, since it would annihilate the time of mortal life.'

To establish the logic of radical atheism, I proceed from Derrida's notion of spacing (espacement). As he points out in his late work On Touching, spacing is "the first word of any deconstruction, valid for space as well as time." More precisely, spacing is shorthand for the becoming-space of time and the becoming-time of space.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, pp. 2-3)

I’m on my phone so I don’t know what post 141 says. Try using the reply button for a change.

As to your belief that everything is driven by survival, that hasn’t been my experience. Sure maybe when confronted by imminent danger, but not otherwise.

I was watching Molly’s Game the other day and I can promise you the anger I felt when that fat slob beat her was not motivated by survival.

And as for my belief in a higher power it is not the destination that drives me it is the journey. People who don’t have a personal relationship with the Creator won’t ever be able to relate to or understand it. Let alone test it.

 

[cnm]

So, as someone pointed out, slavery is moral, right?

To which scripture are you referring?

Let's spin this one regarding chattel slavery as morally approved by god:

Leviticus
Chapter 25


44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

 

[cnm]

both Jews and Romans loathed human sacrifice

The gladiator tradition began as human sacrifices.

No, actually they were condemned criminals, sentenced to the arenas for whatever 'crimes', not religious sacrifices, but thanks for playing; we don't expect much education from 'left wingers and deviants anyway.

Yeah, right. Another dumb **** rightard bloviates into ignorant self humiliation.

Origins of Gladiatorial Games
https://www.unrv.com

It's most likely that the origin of the "games" was rooted in the Estruscan custom of ritual human sacrifices to honor the dead. The first gladiatorial contest in Rome took place in 264 BC as part of one of these funeral rituals called a munus. Marcus and Decimus Junius Brutus staged a gladiatorial combat in honor of thier deceased father with three pairs of slaves serving as gladiators in the Forum Boarium (a commercial area that was named after the Roman cattle market). The concept of the munus was that it kept alive the memory of an important individual after death. They were held some time after the funeral and were often repeated at annual or five-year intervals. Gladiatorial games, or munera were not made a regular part of public games until the late first century.​

 

[alang1216]

So why is your ideal of heaven or your goal a place of pleasure without pain?

What good would life be without ups and downs?

I'd be fine in a world without war, disease, and ethnic, religious, or racial hatred. If you want those things in your world, you're welcome to them.

 

[ding]

So why is your ideal of heaven or your goal a place of pleasure without pain?

What good would life be without ups and downs?

I'd be fine in a world without war, disease, and ethnic, religious, or racial hatred. If you want those things in your world, you're welcome to them.

So you don’t believe those things serve any purpose?

 

[ding]

So why is your ideal of heaven or your goal a place of pleasure without pain?

What good would life be without ups and downs?

I'd be fine in a world without war, disease, and ethnic, religious, or racial hatred. If you want those things in your world, you're welcome to them.

Do you know the only way that you can get to a world without those things?

 

[G.T.]

A dogmatic belief in objective values is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery. (C.S. Lewis)

Lewis failed to tell us how this belief works out in a real Bolshevist countryside or Civil War situation.

'Strata are Layers, Belts. They consist of giving form to matters, of imprisoning intensities or locking singularities into systems of resonance and redundancy, of producing upon the body of the earth molecules large and small and organizing them into molar aggregates. Strata are acts of capture, they are like "black holes" or occlusions striving to seize whatever comes within their reach. They operate by coding and territorialization upon the earth; they proceed simultaneously by code and by territoriality. The strata are judgements of god; stratification in general is the entire system of the judgement of god (but the earth,or body without organs, constantly eludes that judgement, flees and becomes destratified, decoded, deterritorialized.
....

god is a lobster, or double pincer, a double bind. Not only do strata come at least in pairs, but in a different way each stratum is double (it itself has several layers).'
(A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, 10,000 B.C.: The Geology of Morals)

Are you a bot?

CS Lewis didnt understand normativity and procurement of a proper argument.