Martian:

Only a person filled with excessive hubris will attempt to fill the shoes of the eternal Brahman and pass judgement.

Lol, you are dancing around in circles. You know that the very least attempt of brahman to pass judgment will immediately contradict it's essence. brahman is simply incapable of passing judgment. brahman is out of the race. we can do without it as a moral standard.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you are dancing around in circles. You know that the very least attempt of brahman to pass judgment will immediately contradict it's essence. brahman is simply incapable of passing judgment. brahman is out of the race. we can do without it as a moral standard.

How do you know the kind of Judgement the Brahman will pass. It seems you're using yahweh's morality to judge Brahman.
Anyway, what about Yahweh? His "morality" is negated by secular laws. Guess what though, secular laws are part of man's quest for Brahmanhood, so Brahman negates yahweh and yahweh is out of the race.

Even yahweh's morality was the ancient israelites attempt at Brahmanhood, but that kind of morality has since evolved in most progressive societies.

Martian:

How do you know the kind of Judgement the Brahman will pass. It seems you're using yahweh's morality to judge Brahman.
Anyway, what about Yahweh? His "morality" is negated by secular laws. Guess what though, secular laws are part of man's quest for Brahmanhood, so Brahman negates yahweh and yahweh is out of the race.

Even yahweh's morality was the ancient israelites attempt at Brahmanhood, but that kind of morality has since evolved in most progressive societies.

Lol, what exactly is a quest for brahmanhood? anything I choose to do is "a quest for brahmanhood". Brahman is everything and is also nothing at the same time. That's just silly.

I am not judging brahman with anybody's morality, I am only asking brahman to state it's morality. An unstated morality can not qualify as a standard. It is a logical impossibility to "be" and "not be" at the same time.

As for secular laws, we have to also compare their basis to our matrix. If they satisfy our criteria, then they qualify to negate Yahweh, if not, come up with something else.

The sole criteria for morality is usefulness to that given society at that time. Not God/Yahweh/Jesus/Brahman. A god would only be needed if its a sentient and rational being capable of deciphering what's useful to morons like humans.

Kay 17: The sole criteria for morality is usefulness to that given society at that time. Not God/Yahweh/Jesus/Brahman. A god would only be needed if its a sentient and rational being capable of deciphering what's useful to morons like humans.

No my friend, you cannot have a valid man-based morality. It must come from God.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, what exactly is a quest for brahmanhood? anything I choose to do is "a quest for brahmanhood". Brahman is everything and is also nothing at the same time. That's just silly.

Brahmanhood is what christianity has dubbed "eternal life". Brahmanhood is the uncorruptible eternity we achieve when we align our inner selves with the Brahman. I don't know how you figure that Brahman is nothing when it is everything. We all have different paths on our way to Brahmnanhood and christuianity is one of the obstacles or tests we encounter.

Mr_Anony:
I am not judging brahman with anybody's morality, I am only asking brahman to state it's morality. An unstated morality can not qualify as a standard. It is a logical impossibility to "be" and "not be" at the same time.

You cannot look without for what's within. You know Brahman's morality, all you have to do is dig deep within and what you seek, you shall find. Acheive Brahmanhood, and you unlock the secrets of the universe.

Mr_Anony:
As for secular laws, we have to also compare their basis to our matrix. If they satisfy our criteria, then they qualify to negate Yahweh, if not, come up with something else.

No need to go through all that because the fact that yahweh's type of morality is been discarded has mankind becomes more enlightened, shows that yahweh's morality isn't up to par.

Mr_Anony:
No my friend, you cannot have a valid man-based morality. It must come from God.

Okay, forget about yahweh vs Brahman.

Can you give a list of the morals that came from god?

Martian:

Okay, forget about yahweh vs Brahman.

Can you give a list of the morals that came from god?

29 ........“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.
31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”........

Mark 12:29-31

..............And what is love?


4 Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
5 It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].
6 It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but rejoices when right and truth prevail.
7 Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].
8 Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end].

1Corinthians 13:4-8

Mr_Anony:

No my friend, you cannot have a valid man-based morality. It must come from God.

And, sir, how do you define this particular God and what makes him a better moral authority than other Gods.

Mr_Anony:
29 ........“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.
31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”........

Mark 12:29-31
..............And what is love?

4 Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy, is not boastful or vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
5 It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].
6 It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but rejoices when right and truth prevail.
7 Love bears up under anything and everything that comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person, its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances, and it endures everything [without weakening].
8 Love never fails [never fades out or becomes obsolete or comes to an end].
1Corinthians 13:4-8

You know, you keep claiming objectivity, and to buttress your so called objectivity, you parade writings from your particular holy book. Men wrote everything you just cited as your god's morality and love of "the god of israel" can't be said to be objective in any way, shape or form. The world is bigger than israel and I don't see why any self respecting non israeli who is not a christian ould take that "objective morality" seriously.
The other "love your neighbor as yourself" is not unique to christianity and can be found in other cultures and absent in others.

"love your neighbor as yourself" is not unique to your religion and the only people who actually attempt to "tolerate" their neighbors and their differences are people who happen to be secular. You christians do not "love your neighbor" and to hide your prejudices, you cite your god, your holy book and spout phrases like "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Mr_Anony:

Ok so we all agree that they are all supreme but then there cannot be multiple supremes, there can only be one supreme. We'll start by comparing who is more supreme than the other.

Krishna fails at this point because Krishna has an origin and was not powerful enough to bring himself to be so he is not supreme enough he's out of the race.
The Sikh Holy Gurus were men (at least to the best of my knowledge) and this also dents their supremeness. They are also out of the race.
This leaves us with Allah and Yahweh who many believe to be the same but they can't be the same as one is monopersonal and the other is tripersonal. Now Allah by his nature contradicts his very essence because the muslims believe that Allah can love but that raises the question. If Allah can love, who or what did he love before the creation? If love came after the creation, it implies that love is not subject to allah but allah is subject to love. Allah is now out of the race.

We are left with Yahweh who I put it to you satisfies all the criteria better than anything else you can put up.

What do you mean by this?

Mr_Anony:

Nonsense, Brahman is incapable of moral judgment

and on what grounds do you make this assumption?

Mr_Anony:

Ok so we all agree that they are all supreme but then there cannot be multiple supremes, there can only be one supreme. We'll start by comparing who is more supreme than the other.

Krishna fails at this point because Krishna has an origin and was not powerful enough to bring himself to be so he is not supreme enough he's out of the race.
The Sikh Holy Gurus were men (at least to the best of my knowledge) and this also dents their supremeness. They are also out of the race.
This leaves us with Allah and Yahweh who many believe to be the same but they can't be the same as one is monopersonal and the other is tripersonal. Now Allah by his nature contradicts his very essence because the muslims believe that Allah can love but that raises the question. If Allah can love, who or what did he love before the creation? If love came after the creation, it implies that love is not subject to allah but allah is subject to love. Allah is now out of the race.

We are left with Yahweh who I put it to you satisfies all the criteria better than anything else you can put up.

Trinity believer eh?

So you're trying to say that the creation was an accidental experiment to Allah as he didnt love humans or have a son? Come to think of it...what did jehovah love? his son which was still a creation of his?

Mr_Anony:

No my friend, you cannot have a valid man-based morality. It must come from God.

You are degenerating from reasonable to dogmatic. If the prime aim of God given morality is not human benefit, then God is merely saying his own.

Mr_Anony:

No my friend, you cannot have a valid man-based morality. It must come from God.

How do you explain the existence of morality in non-christian societies

I know this is late but I was just reading this and spilling into laughter at the yarn you were weaving. just for fun I'll rubbish the statements though I know they are not necessarily your position. But boy! martian you sure can spin a good yarn. Have you considered starting your own religion?

Martian:

Brahmanhood is what christianity has dubbed "eternal life". Brahmanhood is the uncorruptible eternity we achieve when we align our inner selves with the Brahman. I don't know how you figure that Brahman is nothing when it is everything. We all have different paths on our way to Brahmnanhood and christuianity is one of the obstacles or tests we encounter.
Really? but brahman does not have a set standard, how do you align yourself to something that is not set.



You cannot look without for what's within. You know Brahman's morality, all you have to do is dig deep within and what you seek, you shall find. Acheive Brahmanhood, and you unlock the secrets of the universe.
This is classic! Perfect new age hogwash. If you find your inner brahman, how will you know you have found it?


No need to go through all that because the fact that yahweh's type of morality is been discarded has mankind becomes more enlightened, shows that yahweh's morality isn't up to par.
Up to par against what? On what basis do we judge yahweh's morality before we can say if it is up to par or not?

cyrexx:

And, sir, how do you define this particular God and what makes him a better moral authority than other Gods.

Look back at the criteria I gave earlier. I listed 7 criteria that qualify Him as moral authority

Martian:

You know, you keep claiming objectivity, and to buttress your so called objectivity, you parade writings from your particular holy book. Men wrote everything you just cited as your god's morality and love of "the god of israel" can't be said to be objective in any way, shape or form. The world is bigger than israel and I don't see why any self respecting non israeli who is not a christian ould take that "objective morality" seriously.
The other "love your neighbor as yourself" is not unique to christianity and can be found in other cultures and absent in others.

"love your neighbor as yourself" is not unique to your religion and the only people who actually attempt to "tolerate" their neighbors and their differences are people who happen to be secular. You christians do not "love your neighbor" and to hide your prejudices, you cite your god, your holy book and spout phrases like "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Nonsense, you are just biased against this particular holy book that's all. If the quotes I gave you had come from one of Shakespeare's writings, you probably wouldn't have started protesting at all. The point is that you cannot fault it as a moral basis.

Love is not "tolerating", it is much deeper than that. There is no other way to stay morally sound without loving the sinner and hating the sin.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.

One more thing you may not know is that "love your neighbour as yourself" is a meaningless statement without "love the Lord your God" and I'll explain:

The christian maxim is that all men are created equal under God. It is because all men are equal that human life has value and it makes sense to love them as yourselves.

The secular humanist maxim is that all men are equal but they refuse to acknowledge any God that created them equal, so the question arises how do you know that all men are equal? because the unequal conditions of human life in the world doesn't suggest man's equality.

You have to acknowledge a loving creator and you must respect this creator for you to now give equal value to human life.

The secular humanist worldview is one that copies from Christianity but chooses to remove God from the picture hence it makes no sense. It doesn't come as a wonder that almost all secular humanist systems emerge in countries that have been historically christian.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" makes absolutely no sense without "love the Lord your God"

mkmyers45:

What do you mean by this?

Read up about Krishna, He was born at some point.

mkmyers45:

and on what grounds do you make this assumption?

It is not an assumption, the nature of brahman will contradict itself if it attempts to judge morality. Read through my discourse with martian

mkmyers45:

Trinity believer eh?
So you're trying to say that the creation was an accidental experiment to Allah as he didnt love humans or have a son? Come to think of it...what did jehovah love? his son which was still a creation of his?

Jehovah is a tripersonal God, The Son is not a creation, The Son, The Holy Ghost and The Father are three persons in absolute harmony. In the Trinity, Love exists before all creation.

Allah is one alone. He couldn't possibly love anything before creation. If he created anything and loved it, then he fell in love with it, so he cannot have perfect love.

You cannot know the taste of tuna without tasting tuna.

Kay 17:

You are degenerating from reasonable to dogmatic. If the prime aim of God given morality is not human benefit, then God is merely saying his own.

No, man is subject to God, whatever God is saying, man must heed, and that is where his benefit comes from.
I am not digressing from reason to say that morality comes from God. It is also dogmatic to work from a humancentric point of view to assume that man is the measure of all things.
For good and evil to make any real sense and be binding to man, it must be based on an entity much higher than man.

Kay 17:

How do you explain the existence of morality in non-christian societies

God made us in his likeness, therefore we are predisposed to good as the better option. Our conscience is God's law in our souls. It does not matter if one is a christian or not.

.....because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse....
Romans 1:19-20

^^^

How then do you explain the radical difference in morality across societies?!

A benefit in simply heeding God OR by heeding, man derives happiness and protection??

Kay 17: ^^^

How then do you explain the radical difference in morality across societies?!

A benefit in simply heeding God OR by heeding, man derives happiness and protection??

Morality is the same, there is no radical difference in morality. It is just people choosing to suppress their conscience

Mr_Anony:

Morality is the same, there is no radical difference in morality. It is just people choosing to suppress their conscience

but what of non-christians who fully obeys their conscience. Will it be right to call them morally good?

cyrexx:

but what of non-christians who fully obeys their conscience. Will it be right to call them morally good?

Yes

^^^

Human sacrifice has been seen in some cultures as necessary moral obligation, polygamy, homosexuality and incest not morally prohibited in others. Some societies don't recognize stealing.

It is the obvious to everyone that no two cultures are the same.

Impressive thread! And not simply because of the arguments contained therein, but especially for Mr Anony's courage under fire.

Kay 17: ^^^

Human sacrifice has been seen in some cultures as necessary moral obligation, polygamy, homosexuality and incest not morally prohibited in others. Some societies don't recognize stealing.

It is the obvious to everyone that no two cultures are the same.

Now, cultures or not, there is nobody on earth you will show love to especially as defined in 1 Corinthians 13 and the person will honestly judge it as evil.
Any action not born from this core of love goes against man's conscience. It is irrelevant whether or not it is accepted by a particular culture.
If any society rejects it, then that society is evil.

I'll show you something more,
...But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things

Galatians 5:22-23

The above verse lists the characteristics of a christian. No law can justly condemn these attributes

Mr_Anony:
Read up about Krishna, He was born at some point.


It is not an assumption, the nature of brahman will contradict itself if it attempts to judge morality. Read through my discourse with martian


Jehovah is a tripersonal God, The Son is not a creation, The Son, The Holy Ghost and The Father are three persons in absolute harmony. In the Trinity, Love exists before all creation.

Allah is one alone. He couldn't possibly love anything before creation. If he created anything and loved it, then he fell in love with it, so he cannot have perfect love.

You cannot know the taste of tuna without tasting tuna.

I strongly disagree with both points....

First Bolded... Biblically you can't prove it and i can't believe you have faith in a doctrine set up by a non-believing emperor and the council on Nicea...Secondly,Did Jehovah fall in love or hate humans?

Does anyone in this conversation listen to Ravi Zacharias? Just curious.

Pastor AIO: Does anyone in this conversation listen to Ravi Zacharias? Just curious.

Lol, caught me there.

Mr_Anony: I know this is late but I was just reading this and spilling into laughter at the yarn you were weaving. just for fun I'll rubbish the statements though I know they are not necessarily your position. But boy! martian you sure can spin a good yarn. Have you considered starting your own religion?

I think you now have an idea of what I think about religious/spiritual rhetoric and why I'm quick to make fun of them.............the best ones are just well written hogwash and the bad ones are just patently ret@arded.

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, you are just biased against this particular holy book that's all. If the quotes I gave you had come from one of Shakespeare's writings, you probably wouldn't have started protesting at all. The point is that you cannot fault it as a moral basis.

It's a good moral basis for those naive enough to think they live in Utopia but that doen't mean that it's objective like you claim. It doesn't matter if it came from shakespeare, achebe or voltaire, it still won't be the objective standard.

Mr_Anony:
Love is not "tolerating", it is much deeper than that. There is no other way to stay morally sound without loving the sinner and hating the sin.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.

Love as your moral foundation is all fine and dandy, but when you say you hate the sin, it usually involves the persecution of the sinner, directly or indirectly. Is that part of love too?

Mr_Anony:
One more thing you may not know is that "love your neighbour as yourself" is a meaningless statement without "love the Lord your God" and I'll explain:
The christian maxim is that all men are created equal under God. It is because all men are equal that human life has value and it makes sense to love them as yourselves.

In my opinion, the only equality men have is the equal right to live as they see fit without interfering with their neighbor's well being. That equality doe not require a god, and if it did require a god, I don't think it would be a god who has a "chosen" people. But that's either here nor there. Equality as a concept is more secular than religious anyway because religions, christianity included, are largely dependent on heirarchy, so it's laughable when an adherent says that they are all equal under god.

Mr_Anony:
The secular humanist maxim is that all men are equal but they refuse to acknowledge any God that created them equal, so the question arises how do you know that all men are equal? because the unequal conditions of human life in the world doesn't suggest man's equality.

i'm not a humanist, but why do they have to acknowledge a god? Just like some people got together and said they are equal "under a god", the secular humanists have the right to say they are equal without the need for sanction by a supernatural entity.

Mr_Anony:
You have to acknowledge a loving creator and you must respect this creator for you to now give equal value to human life.

You need to. I don't need to.

Mr_Anony:
The secular humanist worldview is one that copies from Christianity but chooses to remove God from the picture hence it makes no sense. It doesn't come as a wonder that almost all secular humanist systems emerge in countries that have been historically christian.

I'm not a humanist.

Mr_Anony:
"Love your neighbour as yourself" makes absolutely no sense without "love the Lord your God"

What if they person loves his neighbors but loves the yoruba pantheon of gods, does "love your neigbor as yourself still make sense?