Post: #26

(01-31-2019 09:40 AM)Avoy Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 09:20 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  It's pretty easy to set a standard everyone likes when you never have to use the word "No".

For there to be morality, there must first be actions from which we refrain. Without this, we are at best directionless and at worst hypocrites.

To which I ask again: Are we a lost society because we lost our way or because we have not taken the time to state what matters and champion it?

You're overcomplicating the issue. We know what matters. Compete nuclear family units, the rule of law, personal integrity, and the acceptance that we are small cogs in a larger whole and always will be, no matter how individually successful we become. This latter is the most important of them all, but for reasons I've said in the past I think most people at a fundamental level cannot acknowledge this anymore - including a lot of people who go to Church every Sunday.

We don't "champion" any of these values because frankly, nobody wants to. The vast mass of people like shit exactly the way it is.

For example, everyone enjoys the fact they don't have to refrain from promiscuity or adultery with either sex. This forum is in part founded on that phenomenon. No policeman or priest is coming for you if you fuck your beta next door neighbour's wife with four kids. Nobody judges you even if she forms an attachment to you and breaks up the marriage as a result. All those Dads with their chests out and saying they'll be cleaning their guns when suitors come round to date their daughters? They won't do jackshit, because their daughter is already blowing Chad down the street in his car or because said daughter already looked at Dad's browser history and saw all the SeekingArrangement site hits. Nobody judges the daughter, or the son who's banging her.

Societal shame - not guilt, which is the problem - is the only thing apeing moral force in the West right now. If you can keep it quiet and private, you don't have to bear one smidgen of feeling bad. This is wrong. If you would be moral, you must have internal guilt for those times when you are immoral, driven by nothing more than the fact than you have behaved in an immoral fashion. Without this impetus, there is not one law out there on moral issues that will ever succeed.

For the most part when someone says that morals are individual to the person, they are playing exactly the same game as the Left is, falling into the same trap: because you'll never define a set of morals for yourself that is uncomfortable or which is other than self-serving. Morals are for the sake of others, not ourselves. They are firstly, but not exclusively, a restraint on our darker natures. That's the Silver Rule: do not do unto others what you would not have done unto them. At a higher level, morals becomes the Golden Rule: do unto others what you would have them do unto you -- but most people in the West are too incompetent or too selfish to even do the Silver, much less the Gold.

Forget advocating for moral systems, follow one first, preferably not one you made up for yourself in the narcissistic West. Thus Jordan Peterson's invective: before you would save the world, clean up your room. I really don't care for the man anymore, but that's what he was talking about. Or if you'd like a slightly more genuine source: before criticising the mote in thy brother's eye, remove the plank in thine own first.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #27

Morality is set and agreed upon by a group of people. It always has. The Global Elite know this. Just listen to Tim Cook preach the Globalist taking points for what's moral and sinful in his ADL acceptance speech. If we are presently unbound by biblical constraints, then we are at a very interesting and important time in history where we can chart a new and better course for society. The opportunity is there for anyone on the right to take it. Unfortunately, it requires vision, courage, and leadership. The left have this in spades and meet annually at their various global forums to discuss strategy and direction. Globalism, for the left, is a new religion -- which they are very dogmatic about.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca

Post: #28

I noticed nobody brought up Master/Slave morality yet, which has been on my mind recently after re-reading Nietzsche.

The philosophy is a little harsh but I'm starting to come around to it. Specifically the part about casting off morality that restricts you (e.g. humility and weakness as promoted in the Bible), and creating your own morality, separate from the herd. Most morals are simply a means of societal control and ways to make 'slaves' feel good about their lack of power and position in life.

Nietzsche was in favor of a morality that allowed the flourishing of strong-willed and independent individuals. 

Naturally, this idea leads to the concept of the Ubermensch, which is a human being who lives an assertive and subjective lifestyle, and is elevated above the pack.

So to answer your question, the Masters are the ones who define morality for themselves, and live their life accordingly.

Post: #29

[quote='Avoy' pid='1932256' dateline='1548984200']
Morality is set and agreed upon by a group of people. It always has. The Global Elite know this. Just listen to Tim Cook preach the Globalist taking points for what's moral and sinful in his ADL acceptance speech. If we are presently unbound by biblical constraints, then we are at a very interesting and important time in history where we can chart a new and better course for society. The opportunity is there for anyone on the right to take it. Unfortunately, it requires vision, courage, and leadership. The left have this in spades and meet annually at their various global forums to discuss strategy and direction. Globalism, for the left, is a new religion. [quote]




Apple's new Judeo-Christian version II update app.

"Cook was born in Mobile, Alabama, United States. He was baptized in a Baptist church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook

Post: #30

(01-31-2019 06:51 PM)Sherman Wrote:  The SJWs have their version of morality and they are fanatically determined to impose it on every human being in the world. They are intolerant of any other point of view. And their morality is truly bizarre. On one hand, telling someone they are overweight is fat-shaming and immoral, but on the other hand they are getting to the point where they will legalize killing a breathing baby because the woman has the right to choose. And as communists, they will eventually define having property as immoral. And not allowing your son to become a girl is immoral. The SJW version of morality is suicidal and will create a true hell on earth, a cosmic Venezuela.

SJWs don't have morality. They only have feelings. Their "morality" is bizarre because it is inconsistent and it is inconsistent because it is not based on anything transcendent and constant but only on their own fleeting emotions.

In the same way, Marxism does not contain morality. It contains rules, ethics, and things of that sort but nothing that could accurately be called morality. Morality is necessarily a transcendent and supernatural concept and Marxism, being a philosophy that espouses philosophical materialism (Atheism), closes the door to that.

Whether one believes in God(s) or not, it cannot be denied that an objective and universal moral standard could only ever exist if there were at least one eternal god.

Post: #31

(01-31-2019 08:37 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Apple's new Judeo-Christian version II update app.

"Cook was born in Mobile, Alabama, United States. He was baptized in a Baptist church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook

Hah, yes

New and Better?

They don't even know what these words mean anymore. Sorta like good and evil.

Post: #32

I just stumbled on this. Thought it was apt.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018...ie-sanders

Quote:How the American left is rediscovering morality
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders talk to Sarah Smarsh about knowing what’s right from wrong

[...]

For decades, the two wings of US politics have dealt with spirituality in opposite ways. The God-wielding right proudly trots out organized religion to defend its views, and the secular, postmodern left keeps even non-religious spiritual experiences so quiet as to imply it’s silly or shameful to have them.

That dichotomy has resulted in rightwing dominance of the spiritual space in the US.

It’s been nearly 40 years since Ronald Reagan stepped into the White House with fundamentalist megachurch ringleader Jerry Falwell behind him. On the surface, during that time – the “family values” platform of so many Republicans; influence of Christian televangelist Pat Robertson; Donald Trump’s overwhelming support by Christian evangelicals – it would appear that conservatives owned faith.

But today there is a marked shift in tone on the left – a reconciliation of the public sphere with private meaning, from social-justice-driven religion to non-religious, even atheist, humanism.

Places of worship have become sanctuaries for immigrants at risk of deportation; pro-LGBTQ clergy have stepped forward to combat hate within their denominations; a rogue group of feminist Catholics is ordaining and recognizing women as priests whether the Vatican excommunicates them or not.

An extreme climate is forcing politicians to invoke the concept of right and wrong. To describe government-sanctioned separation of families at the Mexican-American border, for instance, wonky policy language does not suffice.

Liberal leaders from Hillary Clinton to Van Jones to Elizabeth Warren have summoned an old-fashioned word more often associated with the right: this is, they’ve said, a moral crisis.

[...]

Post: #33

Republicans are pathetic. My intention is not to bash, but to point out what anyone will see if they go take a look. Seriously, what do they stand for? What is their vision? Anyone have a link/clue? I shouldn't have to read what they're about from a left-leaning third-party source.

This is who will take the progressive left head-on in the US?

This is the entirely of the gop.gov About page (emphasis mine):

Quote:Welcome to gop.gov! While the name Conference may not make much sense outside of Washington, D.C., the office has a long history – all the way back to 1863 – of taking our Republican vision to and explaining our conservative policies in every corner of this country. Today, 241 Republicans make up the Conference fulfilling this same mission.

A little bit about House Republicans: We are teachers, doctors, veterans, and business owners. We are working moms, single dads, Boomers, Millennials, and more. And while we each have unique backgrounds and experiences, we’re united by a shared goal to make America a better place — a nation where we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential.

So thank you for visiting gop.gov. Here, you’ll find many voices united by a common purpose: to restore the American people’s rightful place at the center of our representative government.

Now look at the members... I'm laughing. As they say, there's truth in stereotypes: https://www.gop.gov/about/members/

Note: gop.com is a not functional/accessible website.

UPDATE: "Strategy" is formed via their House & Senate Conferences:
- https://www.gop.gov/about/about-the-conference/
- https://www.republican.senate.gov/public.../about-src

Details of this strategy seem to be a closely guarded secret. Every post and graphic on these websites is how Democrats are bad. Not very different than orange man bad. Saying the other side is bad is not an argument (h/t Stefan Molyneux).

Now I remember why I registered "Independent" years ago.

Clearly there's room for improvement and huge void in need of being filled. Anyone else agree it's time for a Republican reformation? If nothing is done, the left will continue to have its way in all things until the people revolt (easy to snuff out) or submit.

Post: #34

(01-31-2019 10:34 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 06:51 PM)Sherman Wrote:  The SJWs have their version of morality and they are fanatically determined to impose it on every human being in the world. They are intolerant of any other point of view. And their morality is truly bizarre. On one hand, telling someone they are overweight is fat-shaming and immoral, but on the other hand they are getting to the point where they will legalize killing a breathing baby because the woman has the right to choose. And as communists, they will eventually define having property as immoral. And not allowing your son to become a girl is immoral. The SJW version of morality is suicidal and will create a true hell on earth, a cosmic Venezuela.

SJWs don't have morality. They only have feelings. Their "morality" is bizarre because it is inconsistent and it is inconsistent because it is not based on anything transcendent and constant but only on their own fleeting emotions.

In the same way, Marxism does not contain morality. It contains rules, ethics, and things of that sort but nothing that could accurately be called morality. Morality is necessarily a transcendent and supernatural concept and Marxism, being a philosophy that espouses philosophical materialism (Atheism), closes the door to that.

Whether one believes in God(s) or not, it cannot be denied that an objective and universal moral standard could only ever exist if there were at least one eternal god.

Economic is based on moral choices. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. The right of a man to receive the fruits of his own labor and to own property is a moral choice. Marx argues private property should be abolished. This is a moral decision. Also, Marx proposed a future "utopia" which comes directly from Judaism.

And now we have these freaky hijab wearing Muslim women in our own government saying they want taxes to be as high as 90%. Remember the code words - when they say tax the "rich", substitute the word "middle class" for rich. So, for them, it is moral for Arab Sheikhs to display obscene wealth, but a middle class man can't accumulate a nest egg for his retirement.

We are in trouble.

"Rep. Ilhan Omar calls for sharp tax increases on the wealthy: 'We've had it as high as 90 percent'"

https://news.yahoo.com/rep-ilhan-omar-su...04259.html

Post: #35

Originally, I had a different idea for a Culture & Politics thread, but it became clear you can't Protect or Restrict anything, as Yuri Bezmenov advises for reversing the Demoralization and Destabilization stages respectively (jump to 48:10), unless the majority of society is more or less on the same page on what it considers harmful and degenerate influences and behavior. Lose this moral sense of direction -- due to "subversion" tactics or something else -- and all is lost. The perfect scenario for the progressive left/globalists we find ourselves in.





But this thread has made me see that a top-down (not a bottom-up) approach is the only way forward for any hope of positive change. Unlike others, I view these times as an opportunity. I'm not keen on watching it all burn down in hopes that things will one day be rebuilt, in some hypothetical future, by a group of strong and determine men. It's more likely a totalitarian government and AI will rule our lives.

Post: #36

Morality is usually derived from a philosophy, culture or code of conduct... We can talk about morality only if we define the philosophy first. Otherwise, the discussion will go nowhere. We need to talk about the current philosophy to understand the moral derived from it.

So what is the predominant philosophy in today's world?

In my opinion, the predominant philosophy nowadays is Ayn Rand's Objectivism. This is more present in the more advanced economies and in the West. Now, what is morality according to Ayn Rand's objectivism? According to her, men should hold reason as the only guide to action. Also, the highest moral purpose for us as individuals according to this philosophy is the achievement of our own happiness and self-interest, with productive achievement as our noblest activity. Anything that does not fall into this category is thus considered "wrong" or immoral. Thus, many principles emphasized in different religions for example are deemed "immoral". People who follow this philosophy like to claim it's an "individual" philosophy but it is embodied in different ideologies and movements.

This is the predominant philosophy today. I used to be a subscriber to this philosophy but I no longer am. Many people follow this philosophy without even knowing it. I see people who followed this path, seeking happiness as the only metric, over achievers in a productive manner yet they end up committing suicide. Something is wrong with this philosophy, that's my opinion.

Post: #37

Back to the original question and title of this thread: "What is morality? Who decides?"

The what is referring to the definition and concept of morality -- not necessarily your opinion of what is moral and immoral, right or wrong. The who is supposed to make you question who were the people/groups behind the different iterations of morality throughout history and in the present day in different parts of the world.

Anyway, it was meant to be a thought exercise that would eventually lead you to see that the progressive left is currently redefining what is moral and right based on their larger Globalist agenda and vision in real-time. Their talking points come down from the various global forums that meet every year and infiltrate government, law, academia, arts & entertainment, and the media. Their morality is not based on any organized religion, nor is it inspired by classical philosophy or economic schools of thought (ok, maybe one could argue Marxism).

To which I ask, why can't we do the same in a post-religious society that is no long tied to biblical principals?

As I stated previously, it would be suicide for any modern political party to align itself with a specific religion. The Republican Party historically has been the party of the Christian right. Sadly, it's also clear that the Republican Party, in its current form, is a joke. And there are no right-leaning global forums with other government officials and business people from countries that are strongly opposed to Globalism, but do see value in working together to build a better future for their citizens.

From my point of view, the Republican Party needs to have a reformation ASAP. Only they can take on the progressive left/Democrats head-on in the US. But they also need to rally the citizens behind a clear vision for what a stronger and better society looks like -- a new morality, if you will, that will challenge what the left is force feeding us to believe is a better, more equal, and just world. I think this is where we (people who have genuine interest in seeing the left stopped and the cultural decay reversed) can help.

Post: #38

Roosh recently addressed this a bit on Ramzpaul's livestream: jump to 30:02 or jump to 24:00 for more context.

Basically, he says that you will fail if you try to change/improve a failing culture at an individual level -- better to focus on yourself and your social circle. I agree 100% with this, but I still don't think we're near the bottom as Roosh and Devon Stack at Blackpilled.com may believe. I say we're only at the first quarter -- three quarters left before we reach the point of no return. At that point I'd throw up my hands, too, and prepare for the worst while making the best of the current situation (well, I'm sort of already doing that by choosing to live outside of the US presently).

The only hope for the US is if the Republican Party gets their act together to restrict and push back on the moral course the progressive/socialist left want to take the American people on, else all is truly lost. But, honestly, the chances of the Republicans having a "reformation" any time soon is extremely low. It's not a priority or even an idea in their minds.

He's right, though... only a dictator with a heavy hand could put a stop to the leftist madness and degeneracy (if no "reformation" like I'm suggesting happens).

Post: #39

(01-31-2019 02:40 PM)ilostabet Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 11:42 AM)Avoy Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:34 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  Good and evil and right and wrong however cannot be dependent on human inclinations (since they are ever changing, and often towards one's own benefit, or what we perceive as benefit), and they are not self-evident, we cannot discern moral principles from observation or from logic alone. They must be revealed to us.

If we only limit ourselves to what the bible states, we've hit a brick wall because we're relying solely on something that was divinely written by other men in the past. It's also a fact that Greeks and Romans had their own set of morals and virtues that were valued without a Christian/Jewish God. Islam has its own set of morals. FYI - I was raised Catholic (now non-practicing). Personally, I think any political party tying themselves to any specific religion is suicide. Should the right align themselves with Pope Francis and the Vatican? That's a big no from me.

I believe we can dictate what is right/wrong/best for a healthy society without being dependent on any specific religion. We're watching the progressive left do it as we speak. They need to be challenged. I mentioned Japan and South Korea earlier... they're predominately Buddhist, though most don't practice full-time. Somehow they still have their head on straight and know how to protect their people from outside influences. Both countries are also unapologetically nationalist and homogenous.

Well I can quote St. Paul and say that those who have not received the law can be the law unto themselves as the basic principles are written in men's hearts. This makes total sense to me as a Christian. But you wouldn't buy that.

But that's just it, I don't think any political movement can revert this trend. It takes a long time to build something good and beautiful, and only a little to destroy it. We are witnessing, not the destruction, but the trampling of the ruins. I don't see any politician, certainly not in democracy, being able to start building when everyone is still enjoying the trampling. It would take, in my opinion, a complete societal collapse and roll back of modern technology to start building something sane again.

As for aligning with the Pope and the Vatican, no. It has been degenerating for a long time - it's debatable since when, but I don't think that concept is coming back, and in my opinion it had the seeds of its own destruction. A relevant quote would be from The Brothers Karamazov: «Understand, the Church is not to be transformed into the State. That is Rome and its dream. That is the third temptation of the devil. On the contrary, the State is transformed into the Church, will ascend and become a Church over the whole world- which is the complete opposite of Ultramontanism and Rome».

And lastly, as I have written in another thread, I don't see how anyone can look at Japan and S. Korea and think "yeah, this is the society I want to have". They know how to keep foreigners out, great, I wish we did too. But other than that, I don't think there's any society more pathologically atomized and desintegrated than Japan and South Korea. Of course, I have never been there, but I can see the cultural artifacts, the societal trends and judge them. Not all, not all, not all. Obviously the rural communities, insofar as they are still far enough away from modern technology, are probably ok. But even then, they had tentacle porn and other disgusting sexual deviancy like that way before the Industrial Revolution. Hell, the Samurai had man-boy love as a rite of passage. Maybe it's the fact that Portugal is the furthest, most western part of the world as compared to Japan, but to me everything about their culture seems completely off and I would not like to emulate them. Perhaps if the US hadn't H-bombed the two major Catholic cities things would have been different, who knows, perhaps not. But when I look at those countries I see, not a proof of moral order without God, but the proof that it doesn't exist.

Cue the Japan fetishists.

Very well put . Great post.
A quick side-note : Samurai "traditions" don't belong to Japanese. They took it from the Ainu people , indigenous people from Far-East Russia / Kamchatka/ Japan , which then were killed or melt by Japanese (hence their very white skin).
The etymology of the word means "those coming from the River Amur" -
"s" "Amur" "ai" > sorry as i don't have a Russian keyboard.

Post: #40

(01-31-2019 05:33 AM)Avoy Wrote:  If morality is no longer bound to biblical principals, we can actually devise our own morality. Set our own standards.

"religious" morality was/is/continues to be "devised" by people, just like every other social construct. The moldy old religious books of all flavors were written by humans, rewritten and interpreted by humans to suit their agendas and social conventions of the time, and continue to be... ie gays allowed in churches now etc etc.

There is no practical difference between "biblical" (read religious) principles and anything we revise today to suit our agenda.

Post: #41

You guys can discuss God and morality if you like, as well as whose God and religion is the best, but the point is the left is pushing forward their own progressive morality on the rest of the population/globe and leading us down a path of no return.

(02-10-2019 05:21 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  "religious" morality was/is/continues to be "devised" by people, just like every other social construct. The moldy old religious books of all flavors were written by humans, rewritten and interpreted by humans to suit their agendas and social conventions of the time, and continue to be... ie gays allowed in churches now etc etc.

There is no practical difference between "biblical" (read religious) principles and anything we revise today to suit our agenda.

Agreed.

The right in the US has historically been aligned with Christians (i.e. biblical principles). Hence, the self-imposed virture box by Republicans. My point: Republicans are handicapped in their battle against the left.

Post: #42

(02-02-2019 10:59 PM)Nater Wrote:  Morality is usually derived from a philosophy, culture or code of conduct... We can talk about morality only if we define the philosophy first.

I think the earliest development of "morality" stems from evolution and survival.

As we merged into tribes and evolved co-operation to dominate the landscape, working together, being social and learning not to kill each other was a skill we needed to develop.

Those tribes who learned to develop and live by a "moral code" were much more successful and would have killed the smaller less coordinated tribes out. Nature selected us for our social cohesion and co-operational skills, glued together by morality.

Today instinctive emotions like jealousy, revenge, pride, shame, ego, and competition are all evidence of hard wired co-operative morality in action.

You know if you bang your mates wife he is going to want to kill you, so you don't do it. If you all bang and each others wives and kill each other, you will collapse as a tribe, and be wiped out by the tribe that can co-operate and run to the moral code that gives them a competitive advantage.

Post: #43

FIXED: Roosh recently addressed this a bit on Ramzpaul's livestream: jump to 30:02 or jump to 24:00 for more context.

My comments earlier - here.

Post: #44

(02-10-2019 05:29 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  I think the earliest development of "morality" stems from evolution and survival.

As we merged into tribes and evolved co-operation to dominate the landscape, working together, being social and learning not to kill each other was a skill we needed to develop.

Those tribes who learned to develop and live by a "moral code" were much more successful and would have killed the smaller less coordinated tribes out. Nature selected us for our social cohesion and co-operational skills, glued together by morality.

Today instinctive emotions like jealousy, revenge, pride, shame, ego, and competition are all evidence of hard wired co-operative morality in action.

You know if you bang your mates wife he is going to want to kill you, so you don't do it. If you all bang and each others wives and kill each other, you will collapse as a tribe, and be wiped out by the tribe that can co-operate and run to the moral code that gives them a competitive advantage.

Good insight. It really does come back to the tribe and its best interest.

The last bit is exactly my point... having a new vision/morality for a better and stronger society, as a competitive advantage, is what can save us and set us on a brighter path. But this can only be done by clearly stating and championing what we oppose and what we want to achieve as a political party/movement for our society and having leaders in the government and the world stage who will echo and unify around these points or principles. In the US, we have to wake up the Republicans.

Will this ever happen? Who knows? But at least I still see a way for things to turn around. I'm also not a fan of seeing the left have their way without any major or public push back from the opposing side. The right can't oppose much presently because they are, for the most, inept and not a unified party with the same goals in mind.

Post: #45

I want Aurini into this thread.

Post: #46

Great question. Here is how human society works:

1. Morality is decided by a small group of intelligent thoughtful leaders.
2. They create a religion, packed with mystical brainwashing techniques, to pound these morals into the heads of the 80% of average people...who are about as intelligent as chimpanzees. (apologies to Chimpanzees).
3. They use laws, policemen, and torture/jail to control those parts of the population who are not adhering to the religion.
4. Women never invent morality. They are the ultimate sheep. But they enforce it with ruthless efficency.

This has been true for 100,000 years. It will be true for another 100,000 years.

We are not in a "post religious" era. That's absurd. We're rapidly diving back into a religious frenzy that will make your heads spin. Another dark ages? Hmmm.

Post: #47

(02-10-2019 05:08 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  ...We are not in a "post religious" era...

There are established religions.
Then there are quasi-religions to fill the void...

Crossfit.
Veganism.
Environmentalism.
Socialism.
Flat Eartherism.

Post: #48

(02-10-2019 05:08 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Great question. Here is how human society works:

1. Morality is decided by a small group of intelligent thoughtful leaders.
2. They create a religion, packed with mystical brainwashing techniques, to pound these morals into the heads of the 80% of average people...who are about as intelligent as chimpanzees. (apologies to Chimpanzees).
3. They use laws, policemen, and torture/jail to control those parts of the population who are not adhering to the religion.
4. Women never invent morality. They are the ultimate sheep. But they enforce it with ruthless efficency.

This has been true for 100,000 years. It will be true for another 100,000 years.

We are not in a "post religious" era. That's absurd. We're rapidly diving back into a religious frenzy that will make your heads spin. Another dark ages? Hmmm.

It's interesting that Ancient Greek Religion didn't connect the afterlife to moral behavior. Everyone went to Hades whether they were good or bad. Hades was a pretty depressing place. So depressing that the mystery religions developed to provide a better option. If you were initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, you had a good afterlife. But it didn't matter how good or bad you were. You just had to perform the rites and you were in. Even the Ancient Hebrews had Shoal, which was a place everyone went to whether they were good or bad. The only control Yahweh had was to make your life miserable while you were alive or punish your descendants to the nth generation. So not all religions scared people with a bad afterlife to make them good. This seems to be an innovation of Christianity. Maybe this came more from Zoroastrianism. In Egypt, if you were bad your soul was just gobbled up by a monster.

Post: #49

(02-10-2019 05:19 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 05:08 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  ...We are not in a "post religious" era...

There are established religions.
Then there are quasi-religions to fill the void...

Crossfit.
Veganism.
Environmentalism.
Socialism.
Flat Eartherism.

In 10 years every one of these will be ruthlessly suppressed. You will be a zealous born-again Christian/Puritan, wearing a black clothing, and women will be wearing bonnets or veils. Anyone who doesn't adhere to this will be hanged publicly.

Post: #50

Here you go. A great example of a "moral code" being passed down in history to the group for its advancement. This is not an endorsement of any specific religion. At the time they were introduced, these 10 commandments were desperately needed to keep Moses' tribe from falling apart. Much of this is now law.

I'm not saying we have to go this route specifically. We already have many great laws and rights in place. What's lacking on the right is a clear vision and core set of moral values to rally the population behind. Anything that doesn't line up with these values should be shunned and not given an opportunity to take hold. If something is antithetical to these moral values presently, we should be taking steps to remove or restrict them. This is how we turn things around. This is how we win.

Quote:1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God and only worthy of worship, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

6. You shall not murder.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.