(N.B.C.) God is dead…err…again!

By Theo Brooks

The divine stiff looked not a little surprised as two men looked in a horrified manner at a third man with a lantern, bushy moustache and smoking gun.

“We killed god!” ranted the madman. The two nodded, they knew they had nothing to do with it but it seemed safer to agree.

The madman ran off.

“Without God” pondered the first being “there is no longer any absolute morality, it has become relative. If a society agrees upon a certain moral code then for all purposes good and bad are now the social agreements. The good is now in flux for it will be one thing here and another over there.”

“I can’t agree” responded the second “I never thought that god (humanity bless her soul) had the slightest affect upon the good, the moral. Yet I still have a vision of the good that is beyond just what society dictates.

Remember Socrates? He died in part maintaining an ethical stance which was alien at the time to the society of Athens. Were both ethical systems equal or was one closer to what it is to live a moral life? On a primitive level isn’t good to have food and can’t you infer that it is good for others like yourself to have food?

Consider a law that condemned gays and lesbians to death. This is accepted as moral by the society at the time. This belief of what is moral is based upon ignorance and the acceptance of a dogmatic religion. With knowledge and the critical reason, the morality of a society becomes more ethical.”

“You’re just placing your own beliefs upon the past in a show of moral superiority” objected the first.

“I argue” continued the second “that we do know more of what the good is now than then. No let me finish. To justify that the world is like such (flat, square or even a sphere) by pointing to a dogmatic text is ludicrous. So also is it with the good. A group that sticks to its dogmatic definition of what is good will soon find themselves at odds with a society which is founded upon critical reason, not because the morals to come from critical reason have simply changed but because they have improved. The good is the optimum way of interacting with others. We find out what this is through the growth of knowledge e.g. women are not inferior to men; more knowledge means a better understanding of how to treat each other as well as a growth in empathy. Knowledge also needs the companion of critical reason; the more rational people are the more moral. The acceptance of the gay community into society is not good because society says it is good, it is good because it is good. The good remains good if it be here or Iran.”

“justify that”

“er… look a distraction!”


10 responses to “(N.B.C.) God is dead…err…again!

  1. When god ignores the ten commandments then morality is realitive.

  2. How about ‘When God ignores the Ten Commandments then either God or the Commandments are wrong’?

  3. How about God has nothing to do with morality? I mean, remember Platos discussion about this? It goes:
    A: “What makes something pious? (moral/good)”
    B: “If God loves and supports it, then it is pious”
    A “But why does God love it?”
    B: “Because it’s pious.”
    A: “Oh…”

    Maybe i’m being naive and idealistic, but id like to think that while societies do not create morality, (although they may have an institutionalized set of values and beliefs about morality), everyone intrinsically knows or atleast has a certain feeling or instinct about what is morally good or bad. I like to think that even though people may have been environmentally conditioned to belief in a certain set of morals, if those morals were incorrect or inaccurate, then they would have the natural ability to sense this inaccuracy or crookedness. SO i guess im claiming that true morality exists objectively, and that we all have an inherent ability to sense and understand it. Maybe a universal type of morality exists in everyone’s psyche, deep down… i dunno, im just thinking out loud.
    But i am positive that morality is not dependent on God. Yay or Nay anyone?

  4. I think morality does exist as an instinct/consciousness because even though (if) there is a God, we all seem to interpret the Bible, the Koran differently, which I think doesn’t has to come from the society we live in, but more from where we grow up and our own thoughts made of it (the society).

  5. The thought that morality is instinctive is I think wrong. What creates what we think is moral is I propose a combination of genetic programming and social iteration. I point out that it is impossible to separate the two. If someone thinks that homosexuality is wrong they would argue that its justification comes from a natural moral drive, a moral intuition. Similarly I assume that this instinctive moral drive would drive people to favour relatives and those like themselves in survival situations. Is this moral? Only reason can work this out. Morality is neither instinctive or social rules nor a combination of the two. It is the optimum way of interacting with others which is only possibly worked out with critical reason and knowledge. Rationality not intuition is the key to knowing the moral.

  6. Optimum way of interacting with others? There is no such thing. Take out intuitions, social constructions and god and there is nothing left. Optimum what? Optimum truth or justice or happiness or equality or freedom or survival or greatness? These are value judgments which are made by the society or even the individual. Choosing a different optimum value changes the morality. The moral is then relative depending on what you value. The first man was right; to insist on an absolute morality is to impose your values upon others when your values may not be superior.

  7. I agree with Theo in that morality and values certainly have something to do with reason and intellect. What i meant by intuition or instinct is that i think it is natural for humans to be concerned with morality because it is part of being reasonable and rational… so even though ur society hasnt conditioned you to know that action A is wrong, all humans (unless mentally disadvantaged) should be able to intellectually interpret the situation and naturally discern that it (action A) is wrong, even if they have been taught that it is right. We understand something to be wrong both intellectually but also emotionally or intuitively… doesnt morality require empathy as well? Even though society may have conditioned people to accept and agree with… eating meat for example, there are still many people from that same society who believe it is immoral and unethical. Surely the people who rationally believe that eating meat is wrong believe that because they care about the animals and feel sorry for them (i.e. empathy)
    SO i think morality requires a combination of the intellect and the emotions…ofcourse those two are linked – perhaps they cant even be distinctly seperated… but i dont think society has much to do with morality, as people can always reject those social values in favor of individual values, which are determind by an individuals intellect and emotions. Perhaps our intellects are influenced by our society, but they are certainly not wholly determined by them.
    Owen, i dont think to insist that something is wrong or right is to impose ur values on someone else. You are not forcing that person to bow to your judgment – each to their own – but their is value in expressing individual opinions and voicing your thoughts… perhaps we can teach each other by exposing ourselves to alternatives ideas that broaden our perspective. But Owen you were referring to an “absolute morality”… hmm… i dont support relativism – i think its the equivalent of claiming there is no right or wrong – coz its all subject to personal point of view. If your claiming its wrong to insist on an absolute morality, then what do u offer as an alternative? Subjective morality? That’s relativism buddy, and relativism is just… uh yuk.

  8. Jacinta;
    To have a moral maxim is to want others to “bow to your (moral) judgment”. If you think eating meat is murder and that is wrong then it is not “each to their own” you actively try to stop the wrong doing. Most people bow to society’s judgments. The moral code of the society is built upon certain value judgments. A society which values individualism will have a different moral code to that which values collectivism. If there is an absolute morality then one of these values is wrong. I do not think ether is wrong. Therefore I argue that there is no absolute morality. Saying relativism is yuk is not an argument against it.

  9. There are several issues to separate here:

    What makes something moral/immoral?
    How do we know that something is moral/immoral?
    How do we act as a result?

    The discussion about an objective (absolute) morality relates to the first question. To say that morality is objective is to say that morality cannot be invented, that it relates to certain facts about the world. The existence of these facts is a different matter from our knowledge of these facts. I do not believe societies or individuals create morality. I think morality is related to certain fundamental features of human beings in terms of harm and benefit. Put crudely, those things that are harmful are wrong, those that are beneficial are right. People cannot invent the way they are. People are, by and large, the same. Being lied to, having your property stolen, being physically attacked – these things are all basically harmful (though they can be justified in certain circumstances) no matter what a person believes about them. Therefore morality has an objective basis.

    How do we know about morality? Here I think Jacinta is right. Our knowledge of morality is formed by both reason and the emotions. Frequently we feel that something is wrong, even if we cannot explain why – and this seems to count as valid evidence. Theo wrote that only reason can work out if it is moral for people to favour their relatives in survival situations. If everybody is driven to favour their relatives in such extreme cases, it seems reasonable to suppose that this should be viewed as a constituent of what ‘to be moral’ is. The role of reason then becomes to explain why it is moral to favour our relatives. If a rational theory of morality says that it is wrong to show such favouritism, and yet an overwhelming number of people cannot help but be driven to favour their relatives, this suggests that ‘reason’ has got something wrong. Emotions form part of the evidence of morality. We cannot calculate ‘what is moral’ by reason alone.

    We can insist that there is an objective morality without claiming that we have perfect knowledge of this. We can also have a moral maxim or belief without wanting others to bow to our moral judgment. I may believe that a certain religion’s beliefs and practices are wrong (i.e. incorrect) without insisting they change them. I may believe that a person who is always absolutely fair and thus fails ever to prioritise his family has done something wrong because I believe the virtue of ‘care’ is more important than that of ‘justice’, but I understand that his different ranking could reasonably be better than my own so I do not impose. Compare this to a person who always tries to take as much as he can from everyone because he believes ‘personal benefit’ (or whatever) is the greatest virtue. This second person I would criticise because I believe his views to be unreasonable.

    I think the most important thing in all this is Jacinta’s idea of “exposing ourselves to alternatives ideas that broaden our perspective”. We mustn’t assume that we have everything correct. We should seek to subject our moral beliefs and emotions to scrutiny – both the scrutiny of reason, as Theo pointed out, but also the scrutiny of other. Perhaps other people have different, better ideas – things that have never occurred to us. It is only through a social milieu that we can be reasonably assured of getting close to the facts of the matter.

  10. Is marriage dead?  In the total absence of sex this is the preferred life for the god's subjects.

    Is marriage dead?  In the total absence of sex this is the preferred life for the god’s subjects.

    The gods are liars who hide behind their positioning.  They planned this Situation for THOUSANDS of years and execute it to a T with Artificial Intelligence.  Count on this shit to deliver and you will lose.
    Their role throughout history is to communicate the god’s wisdom so the entire family can progress when reincarnated.  Effectively acomplishing this task may buy them a quality opportunity to ascend in their next life.
    Your job as a future mother is to learn the god’s ways and to help your child understand despite the negative reinforcement and conditioning of today’s society.  Without consciousous parents the child will have no hope, and may even exaserbate their disfavor by becoming corrupted in today’s environment.
    Your ultimate goal is to fix your relationship wiith the gods and move on.  You don’t want to be comfortable here, and the changes in Western society in the last 100 years has achieved just that.
    1000 years with Jesus is the consolation prize.  Don’t be deceived into thinking that is the goal.

    Much like the other prophets Mohhamed (polygamy/superiority over women/misogyny) and Jesus (forgiveness/savior), the gods use me for temptation as well.  In today’s modern society they feel people are most weak for popular culture/sensationalism, and the clues date back to WorldWarII and Unit731:TSUSHOGO, the Chinese Holocaust.  They used this Situation to bury Japanese atrocities.
    It has been discussed that, similar to the Matrix concept, the gods will offer a REAL “Second Coming of Christ”, while the “fake” Second Coming will come at the end and follow New Testiment scripture and their xtian positioning.  I may be that real Second Coming.
    What I teach is the god’s true way.  It is what is expected of people, and only those who follow this truth will be eligible to ascend into heaven as children in a future life.  They offered this event because the masses have just enough time to work on and fix their relationship with the gods and ascend, to move and grow past Planet Earth, before the obligatory xtian “consolation prize” of “1000 years with Jesus on Earth” begins.

    The Prince of Darkness, battling the gods over the souls of the Damned.
    It is the gods who have created this environment and led people into Damnation with temptation.  The god’s positioning proves they work to prevent people’s understanding.
    How often is xtian dogma wrong?  Expect it is about the Lucifer issue as well.
    The fallen god, fighting for justice for the disfavored, banished to Earth as the fallen angel?
    I believe much as the Noah’s Flood event, the end of the world will be initiated by revelry among the people.  It will be positioned to be sanctioned by the gods and led for “1000 years with Jesus on Earth”.
    In light of modern developments this can entail many pleasures:::Medicine “cures” aging, the “manufacture” of incredible beauty via cloning as sex slaves, free (synthetic) cocaine, etc.
    Somewhere during the 1000 years the party will start to “die off”, literally.  Only those who maintain chaste, pure lifestyles, resisting these temptations, will survive the 1000 years.  Condemned to experience another epoch of planet’s history for their ignorant pursuit of xtianity, they will be the candidates used to (re)colonize (the next) Planet Earth, condemned to relive the misery experienced by the peasantry during history due to their failure to ascend into heaven before the Apocalypse.
    Never forget:::It is not a house of Jesus.
    If this concept of Lucifer is true another role of this individual may be to initiate disfavor and temptation among this new poulation, the proverbial “apple” of this Garden of Eden.  A crucial figure in the history of any planet, he begins the process of deterioration and decay that leads civilizations to where Planet Earth remains today.
    Which one is it?:
    One transitions into the other, allowing the gods to wash their hands of obligation to their Chosen One.  My personal “consolation prize”.
    And since the gods never committed despite tens of billions in mass media, product development and natural disasters/tragedy they will employ the freedom they positioned into the Situation and CHEAT me out of everything.
    Unfortunate for me, the gods can claim they never intended this, despite being control freaks who guide everything specifically and have the power to force it with AI, and now they are free to fuck my brains out, just as they did throughout my childhood.
    The gods were pimping me when I was a 3 year-old boy, only to exploit me and cash in decades later.
    Pre-pubescent prostitution is rampant in black communities.  Now we see where it comes from.

    Consistant with “reverse positioning” understand the REAL Second Coming would equate with The Matrix’s Anti-Christ, the fake battle of good and evil which will come at the end.
    Understanding how they use the political encviornment to redefine people’s value system, realize anyone who speaks of the old world and its ways will envoke hatred.  So when/if the Anti-Christ comes along speaking of reverting back to what liberalism would consider regressive and unfair, it may be the only hope to salvage the god’s favor and keep moving forward rather than begin the 1000 year clock.  The fake Second Coming will feed into this political enviornment.
    Also consistant with “reverse positioning” recognize the gods will offer a REAL Anti-Christ, also known as The Beast.  I have addressed these issues in years past::::
    The gods will offer clues throughout every dynaic of life.  Geographical features onthe world map is yet another.
    The Beast is not a person, as the xtian Bible would suggest.  It is a place:::The San Francisco Bay Area.  And it refers to the socio-political poison the region exuded in the latter 20th century which promoted indecent behavior among the people whose favor was rapidly deteriorating.  This decay spread to other states and countries, fulfilling the region’s role as The Beast of the Apocalypse.
    Another feature which the Gods offer as a clue is very foreboading. Mt. Zion is a mountain to the north of the eye of The Beast Diablo and one which has a working quarry at its base. Consistant with the decay we experience in society, Mt. Zion is being eaten away, slowly stripped of its resources, until one day paradise will be gone forever.

    So many theme oriented movies lately.  Pills that make you smarter, now a movie focussed on time, immortality.  The gods are taking steps in preparation for the Apocaplypse, 1000 years with Jesus on Earth.
    The gods are preying on the people, ramping up temptation and compelling them to engage in behavior which will ultimately cost them.
    What I teach is the truth:::The gods extensively use clone hosts and manage Earth through them, people who ultimately are reincarnated into lesser life forms because of their fatal decision.
    You’re all falling prey to the god’s royal scam.
    Any enviornment/perception can be created with their power.  Never fail to recognize the power they have at their disposal.  There is NOTHING it can not do.
    They still sell “going up” to the reals and their clone hosts, for living on Earth doesn’t sound so appealing to them, nor preditors like my family.  But the gods are creating an enviornment which will fulfill their promise made in the Bible to stupid white people and the fools who fell for xtianity.

    Navy SEALS helpcopter crash of 8.6.11 was revenge for Osama bin Laden.
    So confident in their relationship with the gods.  Live in comfort in “the greatest country in the world”, bright future, kids do great.
    The gods have sent a very contradicting clue to the families of the 20 Navy SEALS killed in Afghanistan.
    The gods did this to you.  This is punishment for the evil of your country, killing of a superior in the god’s eyes.
    Do you even pray?  Have the gods already told you to stop going to church?  Because Muslims pray 7 times a day, and you fucking white trash ridicule their favor.
    You fell for it.  And now you will pay dearly.  The United States is the empire of evil.
    The clue has been sent.  Let’s see what you do with it.
    Even with all the corruption of the Republicans this wasn’t going to happen on W’s watch because the conservatives are the good ones.  It is the liberal social decay which was the trademark of The Beast, and what has primarily destroyed our favor with the gods.
    One day default will bring insolvency, while the wealthy you bailed out with multi-trillion dollar stimulous package leaves you behind in the ruins.  When this day comes don’t forget to pray, for the economic devestation and carnage which will surround you will be a deliberate motivator.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s