What it means to be moral

Yes, well, as already discussed to me forgiveness is a species of love, so if we find ourselves in a situation where forgiveness is possible but we don’t forgive then we aren’t practicing love. My judgment isn’t that the person is wrong or bad, but yes, just that they were unloving in those moments when forgiveness was denied… Sorry if that’s callous, but logic often is!

I agree but disagree. Indeed we are all human, but isn’t part of being human being possessed by an insatiable desire to better ourselves, assuming we haven’t given up on life? (Kind of like the desire Adam felt in the garden of Eden?) I’m not trying to be strict; rather I want to free humankind to be what it will, to “live like the lillies of the field” who live without worry. I want to strictly apply love, this is for sure, but only because I believe it enables a state where fear and anxiety have no hold and we’re all free to pursue our own betterment and life fulfillment.

I’m young (26 yo) but have lived with someone for three years now. I do know the feeling of being used, and I’m highly aware of love’s vulnerability to parasites… (I think the threat of being taken advantage of is our primary motivation not to love, and is the reason why Adam was cast out of Eden…) But as for feeling “holier than thou” that’s just a sign of hypocrisy. Love requires no return; it’s free… So if you love and then guilt others into reciprocating then you were never loving in the first place…

Indeed though; the life of love is hard, as these obstacles attest.

Well said, but I believe organised religion need not exist in the offensive mode that Jesus riled against. For example, the Catholic Church during the Renaissance which Martin Luther (the 16th century priest, not the 20th century civil rights activist) mistook as being corrupt and immoral. Luther himself was a perfect example of the kind of priest Jesus loathed.

I endeavor to at all times, and I believe that people who do so successfully find it very rewarding.

The Catholic Church in the Renaissance was responsible for the Inquisition. I am not sure how Martin Luther felt about it in general, though he was not pleased with it when it was aimed at him, of course. But I believe the Catholic church was certainly immoral for this process in general. And I did not, repeat did not make any mention of Martin Luther. I mentioned Martin Luther King. So your thoughts about what Jesus would have thought of Martin Luther really mean very little to me in this context.

There are very few people who actually try to follow in the footprints, and those who do tend to get attacked - in one way or another - by other christians. I appreciate your OP’s suggestion that judging was not Jesus’ path. Many Christians seem to think being Christian empowers one to judge others that that this is being moral. But this is only a small, however important, part of what Jesus’ ‘path’ was. It was not simply what he did not do, but what he did and how he valued himself where real challenges lie. Most people reading a post written by someone mentioning Jesus and having a crucifix as their avatar are not going to realize how different you are from the vast majority of Christians.

Forget Christianity. Live a life of Truth, of which love is a part.

But it has no choice. In order for organized religion to defend its irrational “revelations” over the centuries against the revelations of science and techonoloy, it must of necessity resort to greater and greater departures from rationality. I believe this departure has reached the breaking point and has put the organized religions into a general retreat. Would that the blind faith in the religion of socialism meet a similar popular epiphany.

That bolded portion is not very Jesus like. Those moments can go on for years. Certainly in cases of sexual abuse by a not having remorse parent…Contact with people who see this ‘not forgiving’ by the child as not loving is abusive.

The lilies of the field do not forgive. Nor do they blame. Nor to most people think they remember. Me, I’m a pagan so I’m not so sure about those last two.

Love does not leave room for parasites. Guilt does. (if one has the power to leave the situation, it is not love that stays there.)

I was concerned you would take the long term relationship example as being an example of how it is hard. That is not my issue. I have moral ideas and goals that are very hard. My bringing up the ltr was that it can, though not necessarily always will, reveal ‘what is really going on’ when ideals like yours are adhered to. So to be very clear I was not in any way saying ‘Oh, but in a relationship you will find these things tough and you’ll think twice.’ Nah. I have things I do and face that are tough. It was merely that the other person, that close, increases the liklihood of showing you power games, smugness, guilt, manipulation, etc., masquerading as love. Unfortunately this can be missed in any situation.

I say it because logically, given the notion of love I’m defending, I must. Would I call anyone unloving knowing it would hurt them? No. Would I let this logical fact in any way prevent me from showing anything but the sincerest desire to help to an abused child? Of course not. I would not call the child (or anyone else) unloving even if logically speaking this is the case, nor would I let it change the way I treat them. Does that make sense? The point I’m arguing is logical, not ethical. Ethically speaking, by which I mean in real life where it really matters, I would show nothing but love no matter what the other person is doing or has done.

The lilies are a remnant of the paradise long past and a sign of the paradise to come. When we’re living like the lilies of the field it’s because we’re loved. There is no reason to cast blame or forgive. There is nothing wrong to warrant such things!

Beware all forms of hypocrisy!

Yes, but I think Son of Richard is on the right track with what he said:

The Germans have robbed Europe of the last great cultural harvest it ever reaped — that of the Renaissance. Does one understand at last, does one want to understand, what the Renaissance was? The revaluation of Christian values, the attempt, undertaken with every means, with every instinct, with all genius, to bring the countervalues, the noble values to victory … So far there has been only this one great war: there has not been a more fundamental interrogation than that undertaken by the Renaissance — the question it raised is the same question that I raise. There has never been a more thoroughgoing attack, nothing more direct, and nothing more forcefully unleashed along the entire frontline, and upon the enemy’s centre! To launch an attack on the decisive point, on the very heartland of Christianity, placing the noble values on the throne, I mean, bringing them right into the instincts, into the lowest needs and desires of those who sat there… I see in my mind’s eye an uncannily fascinating possibility — it seems to shimmer with a trembling of refined beauty; there seems to be an art at work in it so divine, so devilishly divine that one might search the millennia in vain for another instance of it; I envisage a spectacle so ingenious, so wonderfully paradoxical at the same time, that it would have moved all the gods of Olympus to an immortal roar of laughter — Cesare Borgia as pope … Am I understood? … Well then, that would have been a victory of the kind I desire today: with that, Christianity would have been abolished! — What weny wrong? A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of a shipwrecked priest in his system, was outraged in Rome against the Renaissance … Instead of understanding, with the most profound gratitude, the tremendous event that had happened, the overcoming of Christianity in its very seat, his hatred understood only how to derive its own nourishment from this spectacle. Luther saw the corruption of the papacy when precisely the opposite was more than obvious: the ancient corruption, the original sin, Christianity, no longer sat on the papal throne! Life sat there instead — the triumph of life, the great Yes to all heightened, beautiful, reckless things!.. And Luther restored the church […]

-Nietzsche, The Anti-Christian, 61

I couldn’t help but notice that Jesus is not in fact hanging on the crucifix in his avatar. This speaks to me of true Renaissance Christian style- the image of God hanging on the cross curses life.

No. He was on the wrong track. For some reason you two seem to think I care about Martin Luther. I do not. I have no interest in defending Martin Luther. I mentioned MARTIN LUTHER KING.

And while what you quoted here might be interesting in some other context, Nietzsche is not saying anything that exculpates the Catholic Church from the Inquisition.

You are Son of Richard are way off track here. The point of the thread is how to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. The Catholic Church in the Renaissance was not doing this, no matter what a poopyhead Martin Luther was.

The Liberation Theologists in the 20th century included some Catholic priest who actually did follow in the footsteps of Jesus which is why I mentioned them along with Dr. King.

[/quote]
Yes, it is a nice soft version of the symbol for Jesus willingly letting people arrest him and nail him to wood where he supposedly died. A whitewashed image or an honest one. I cant see the difference, but all really rather tangential.

What do you mean by “ethical life”, “being fair” or even “opening your heart to those in distress”?

I’m well aware that you yourself were talking about Martin Luther King. You also said that organised religion is bad, and I referred to the Renaissance and Martin Luther because they are relevant in regard to that topic. The passage quoted by Impious is interesting because Nietzsche’s understanding of that period is in many ways similar to my own.

And regarding your comment about the inquisition, I would have to agree with you that it was wrongful. I will also say that it was the Catholic people, moreso than the Catholic Church itself, which was impressive during the Renaissance. Sorry to make it sound like I believe the Catholic Church in that period was perfect, because I don’t.

Surely you’re joking? Do you honestly mean to say that you don’t know what it is to be fair or to open your heart to someone? And by ‘living an ethical life’ I mean not lying, cheating, stealing, being unfaithful, being cruel etc. Of course, being fair and opening your heart to those in distress are also part of living an ethical life. I mentioned them seperately in the OP because I feel they are particularly important elements.

My second last post has been amended.

Keep dancing around you little poofter. Don’t forget to make sure your tights are on properly.

Ah, OK. I have no real way to judge them. But if the topic was organized religion, given my having criticized it as you say above, you can see why I thought it was the church we were talking about. I am sure there have been many wonderful Catholic people.

And with that you prove to every enlightened Christian that in some ways you yourself are deeply corrupted.

Z he certainly casts a few, his brand of word spreading requires a quarry to satiate his gravel needs if it’s to be a lifetime of spreading the salvation and love message.

Well fuck!
What the hell!?

Now it makes sense why everyone around me keeps thinking that I should go to jail.
I mean, I make sure to put them back in their places so they can’t actually get me to jail, the horse rains help with that little bit, but I always did have a sneaky suspicion that none of them saw me as a good person.

Well…now that I know this is how it works, they can’t fool me any longer!

I’ll make sure they pay for their loathing deceit!
I will show them just how persecution is moral, right after I cleanse their souls with their own blood.

hmmm…I’m hungry…I think I’ll get a pop-tart.

Hey Stumps!

Just gotta give you this link. I have to admit that when you mentioned your affiliation with LDS a bit back, it stopped me a bit. You know, the space suit underwear and all that…

But I’ve seen this documentary twice, and it really gives me renewed appreciation about what religion’s role OUGHT to be centered on. I don’t know. Maybe you’ve already seen it (it must be quite the topic of discussion in Mormon circles…)

www.newyorkdollmovie.com

Don’t let the title page distract you. It’s all about love.

Shhh!

We don’t tell everyone about that stuff! If we did there would be no one left to rule. Sheesh…

shrug not that I’ve heard or anything, but then again, LDS don’t really talk about popularity much, and they are also used to having it in their crowd.
For example of this point:
Orson Scott Card
Emily Cushing
Jon Heder
Katherine Heigl
Jared Hess
Gordon Jump (a.k.a. The Maytag Man)
…
and the list can go and go…but blah…

Also to note, LDS don’t really spend much time, as a church, talking about conversions so this wouldn’t be something that would have been brought up.

But I’ll have to check that out sometime.

What’s love got to do with it?

Love is relevant, but not in the emotional way most people mean it. Love is not an emotion, it is a commitment to another’s well being supported by the emotions of esteem, loyalty, respect, sexual attraction, familial bonds, brotherhood etc. Therefore when we talk about morality it is the same thing as saying we are committed to the equal protection of the rights of all to their life, liberty and property from violation through force or fraud (i.e. The Golden Rule). That commitment, then, is love supported by the emotions mentioned as well as the societal emotional need for good order, the drive to contribute, recognition of that contribution, and above all our genuine personal fulfillment within (preferably) or without that society.

Anything beyond that is not morality but virtue, the emotional drive to adhere to an individual set of standards such as courage, compassion, forbearance or patience. Religion has mucked up and intentionally intermixed virtue and morality over the millennia to the point where that confusion is embedded in our psyche and can only be excised through the torturous process of apostasy.