The Psychology of Christianity and Atheism

I think I have come up with a concrete example which defines how differently these systems are used.Mr X belongs to a very powerful family (a clan let's say) where oaths of loyalty to that family are taken to protect it's existence and wealth. It turns out a poor woman from a once rival family has discovered something which while not criminal in nature, would ruin one's family, and in any case would almost be an act of war (as it would send many other clans into violent conflict with his own). Mr X's father comes and tells him to kill the girl to protect the family... which he does.DE-ONTOLOGICAL: According to the rules this hypothetical moral system he must obey his father, or acting "bad". He must also stick to his promises, or he is "bad". Yet, it is also against the moral laws to kill.Thus in doing what he did Mr X is said to be morally good for honoring his family and his oaths, yet there is a problem because he is bad for killing someone. So what is he MORALLY?There more than likely will be excuses for his actions based on the fact that it could be seen as an act of war which he was preventing and so the act of killing was not "bad" as killing in war, or to prevent war, may be a good. To the opposite side though, or objectively, is this the case?TELEOLOGICAL: This moral system of right/wrong will throw out the facts of his familial loyalty, and oath keeping, as well as his killing, in order to concentrate on what his actions brought about.He will have saved his family, and perhaps the life of other families, at the price of the life of one innocent girl. Thus his murder of her was right or good.It's garbage stuff like that which keeps Utilitarians up at night... and they end up adopting de-ontological "fixes" by the morning.VIRTUE/VICE: This moral system is NOT interested in figuring out if Mr X is right or not, good or not, but WHO he is as a moral character. This seems to be where you missed the real "value" of the system, and how it is not just looking at conflicts between opposing traits, but the conflicts between wholly separate VIRTUES... or vices.In this case Loyalty is thought to be a virtue. So is Justice. Killing the will exhibit great loyalty, yet a great injustice. Letting the girl live would be greatly just, but extremely disloyal.So we are NOT talking about if he values Loyalty over disloyalty, or Justice over injustice, but rather Loyalty over Justice (or vice versa). If virtue=good or was in some way equivalent, this would come down to good vs good, but as you should be able to see this is NOT the case. It is a person choosing, and so defining himself, one virtue over another.This is where the moral system finds its role. To EVERYONE involved MrX would become defined morally, especially if he keeps choosing thusly, as a Loyal person who is not always Just. Even his enemies might praise his exhibition of loyalty, though they will hate him for his injustice. His family will likely feel embarrassed for having to act so unjustly, but they will recognize its necessity to the situation.There is no right or wrong in this moral characterization. He becomes what he is, or what he chooses to be. And NONE of the traits determined WHAT he SHOULD have chosen. Justice is not better or worse than Loyalty... EXCEPT TO THE ACTOR.I hope this example draws a clear distinction on how these things are employed.I will add that the examples you kept giving of different cultures, seemed to miss the point entirely. Cultures will differ in how they express the different traits outwardly, as well as what their scope is, but they usually stick to the same ideas of what is valuable and what is less so.For example, a culture might expect loyalty to be EXPRESSED to those above onesself (egotistic hierarchical), while others expect it to those of the same station (egalitarian), while others will expect it toward those below onesself (philanthropic hierarchical).In SCOPE they may value loyalty to many (acting very trusting of even strangers who one has just met), or to only a very few which have proven themselves over time.While culturally they will all look different with respect to LOYALTY, the one thing which does not change is that Loyalty will be important.Please tell me this puts everything into a much greater focus.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To holmes:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: For the love of all that's spinning in crop circles, show me how you came up with this! You have ceaselessly asserted that Lucifer is linked to snake/Satan/devil, yet when I read the Bible without a Christian looking over my shoulder and explaining which part of the puzzle must go where, these connections are simply not apparent.Can you show me where in the bible Lucifer is EVER equated with Satan, or the snake, or the Devil? I will settle for even a loose connection. Anything along the lines of "My Christian friends told me." and "I went to Fellowship and they all said so." is unacceptable because you're letting someone else do the interpretation for you. The story is there. Read it and make your own unbiased judgment.You've made the case that most Jews view Lucifer as embodiment of evil - providing no evidence to support this gross assertion (not even succumbing to the "My Jewish friends told me." argument, you just dodged). I asked you to provide evidence for this, and you accused me of jumping between translation.Fine, says I, use the Christian version then. Find it in the Christian bible and I would be equally satisfied. I am so sick of your assertions. No duh! Have you even read my post? I am NOT arguing that Christians aren't connecting the four. I'm arguing that the Bible does not show it in writing! And you know the reason for the change in belief? They realised that having a painful punishment awaiting you in the afterlife (i.e. Hell) and possessing a physically horror inducing (and easily identified with the manifestation of a physical form) icon of evil (i.e. Satan/Devil) can rapidly convert others to their religion.If you don't believe me, research into where the common representation of Satan (the horned beast with a goat-like lower body) came from (especially when, as in during which period) and the reason why it was adopted in Catholicism and Christianity. It's so easy for you to say: "Nope, no propaganda there!" without coughing up the support. Will you kindly show me where the Christian Bible says that, or do I have to ask you again? I never mentioned a war in heaven. A rebellion, yes. A war, no.When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, one third of all the angels were cast out with him. (Rev.12:4,9)Does this count as "defiance of god by an angel"? Is Revelations a part of the bible? I haven't (unfortunately) read Milton's Paradise Lost, so I couldn't very well absorb ideas from it. How that will invalidate my point on the Christian bible is beyond me. I'm not contesting that. I'm arguing that the interpretation has changed so much that it no longer reflects the original text (and in the case of Lucifer, the entire image was fabricated out of thin air). Why this is idiosyncratic. The bible had which part of what you said? If you claim that the Christian bible shows explicitly that Lucifer = snake or Lucifer = Satan, I will most happily deny this. Should you find evidence for this, I will gladly apologise and admit defeat. This is the third time I'm asking you for evidence that you have repeatedly failed to present in support for your assertion that all the bad guys in the bible are, as the bible shows, one bad guy with many names. Better not go into this lest you accuse me once more of changing stance. Yet I will entertain you with this notion: I know it has changed. I know it was a compilation of four different versions (J，E，D，P). I was referring to the fact that after the final compilation (Around 4 B.C.), the Redactor version was pretty much stable and unchanged. 1) Lucifer is a...good guy? Well, I argued that he is not a symbol of evil in the Biblical text, but good guy? You have this strange tendency to see intention and preference where none exists.2) The biblical account shows the snake informing Eve of the true nature of the Tree of Knowledge (don't like this? Refute me with a verse) and Eve choosing with no amounts of temptation, trickery, or coercion (don't like this? Refute me with a verse) to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Read Genesis 3:6, and show me the mechanisms underlying this supposed deception.3) And God punished the Pharaoh for being stubborn when He Himself made the Pharaoh stubborn in the first place. What's your point? Who says God punishes justly? Errrrr......oooookkkkkk. Sorry for the weirdness then. *sigh*Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To holmes: (Cont'd)Thanks. Greatly in focus. Nice explanation.Question: Doesn't this post contradict several things you've said in the past? For example, which culture considers greed to be a virtue worth praising - certainly no Eastern ones I'm aware of. You do know that this is a contradiction in modern terms.Consider:Morality:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.Virtue:
1.1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
2. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.
2. Chastity, especially in a woman.
3. A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage: a plan with the virtue of being practical.
4. Effective force or power: believed in the virtue of prayer.
5. virtues Christianity. The fifth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.
6. Obsolete. Manly courage; valor.Current understanding is that there is no morality without the concept of good/bad and right/wrong. Perhaps it is the label of moral system that is throwing me off. Sounds like a descriptive system in hindsight more so than what would commonly be considered a morality system. Didn't you say you use this system to pick characteristics to adopt as habits? That was the only reason why I considered it as an a priori system of morality at all.You do know that you really should have provided this explanation some 40 posts ago. To me, this doesn't sound like a morality system at all, and I can well understand now why you consider my perspective inconsistent with this view. Your description of the system in 210 and post 225 demonstrated none of this a posteriori quality.Debate on this point ends.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

No. The problem appeared to be that there was never a concrete definition for greed or altruism used. I think I mentioned this at least twice, and the defs were never made concrete.Remember I pointed out that depending on what you were defining as greed, Buddhism was indeed greed based. One is seeking one's own enlightenment and it certainly DOES come at the expense of the needs of others. That doesn't mean being cruel, but it means focusing on one's own goals rather than consistently taking care of other people's issues.I suppose depending on what ended up being the concrete definition it could end up being a virtue or vice.As far as other cultures go anyway, I have shown that they may practice different ones (even if the standard of virtue remains the same) or appear to believe in something different (to one's eyes) by having a different focus, manner of expression, and scope of a virtue.As far as "eastern cultures" not being for greed, one should visit the temples and palaces and luxury those in charge had. Ya know the Catholic priesthood has a standing vow of poverty... visit vatican city, watch them get three great meals a day, and ride in expensive cars. There's a big difference between theory and practice. Well what that means is you missed my opening comment, and sporadic comments in following posts, that this is NOT the modern concept of morality.I said (I thought pretty clearly) that millenia of Judeo-Xian value systems have socialized people into black/white moral thinking, infusing it within everything written for a very long time, smashing other cultures outside the West and indoctrinating them with the same outlook, and finally, co-opting terms from the other system.This does not make the older system NOT a moral system, it makes it a DIFFERENT moral system.Some still discuss it within Philosophical circles and it does exist in a few nonWestern cultures. Yes, and you can keep in mind what traits you are expressing with each choice. Trying to adopt something as a habit does not mean every choice will be of that trait, and as I said the nature of LIFE will pose a couple of virtues against each other.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Me:In the beginning WE were using Lucifer as in its Xian context which was Satan, Devil, snake.You: For the love of all that's spinning in crop circles, show me how you came up with this!Me: I meant WE as in YOU and ME. And by "in the beginning" I meant our debate in this thread. Check the beginning of all our posts. You were not constantly disputing who was Lucifer, Satan, Serpent until later.This confused everything. If you had started with a "let's define WHO we are talking about" this would have had a much different course. There is only one reference to Lucifer in the Bible, and none in some versions of the Bible. So if we play your game... where did you hear about Lucifer defying God?There is no connection between the name Lucifer to Satan in the Bible. The name has no reference to someone showing critical thinking. So if we play your game... where did you hear about Lucifer exhibiting free thinking?There are not even direct references between Satan and the Prince of Devils, though that term is used and Satan is called the Devil.And there are NO linkages between THE serpent in "paradise" and Satan, unless we draw a conclusion from the fact that in revelations (rev 12:9) an "ancient serpent" who "leads the world astray" is said to be called Satan or the Devil? Why would it be so hard to believe that the ancient serpent wouldn't refer to that particular ancient serpent?In any case, I was only stating what the popular (millenia popular) interpretation of all those terms and their connections were. Thus people understand that there are these linkages in terms because that is the way it was handed down.Indeed, at first you were trying to defend "Lucifer's" actions with respect to Job (I feel stupid as didn't I say Lot instead of Job?). Remember how he was just doing what human scientists do? Well there is no Lucifer there, only Satan. So why were you even addressing this example if you honestly felt Lucifer and Satan are completely different. I have already stated that your own links showed this. He (and in this I am talking about Satan) is a metaphorical embodiment of evil. If the difference between physical and metaphorical embodiment was important then you did not make this clear. And indeed still have NOT made it clear why this difference is important.While your links did show that extremely early Jews had no concept of this, I am baffled how you would know that from readings of the OT. They seemed to make quite clear that by the time the OT and the Bible were assembled, this concept had been adopted into Jewish beliefs from their pagan neighbors.So I guess you are letting people tell you things to derive an interpretation? Why is their fictional story then, more accurate to real life than the one compiled using a piece of that story millenia ago? Find the Lucifer you have named your philosophy after in the Bible. I double dares you I says. It's a FICTIONAL STORY, especially open to different interpretations. Certainly one valid interpretation is that the serpent and Satan are one, and Lucifer is another term for Satan. You seemed to hold that position yourself in the beginning of our debate.I believe there have been stories where characters show up in different guises and names and one is supposed to understand they can be, or are, the same without direct writing a=b.I thought the links did a great job dissecting the etymologies and the timeline for the development of the current mythology. It seems like a lot of errors and changes occured to reach the current interpretation.So what? Where did your Lucifer come from? It had to be a Xian version, and indeed a later Xian version, and indeed the written and verbal mythology wholly outside the Bible.If not, please show me where in the Bible there is a statement about a person named Lucifer who showed critical thinking and defied God. I thought your link (I think it was the third one) described the reasoning quite well. Maybe it's our definition of propaganda which differs? I don't see any "propaganda" in a story changing over a number of years such that characters change in order to embody their changing beliefs regarding the nature of supernatural entities and good/evil.I agree there was a shift to aid leaders to control the population. So what? That just means the story changed... right? It doesn't mean that some character was "slandered"? Why should I do it when you can for me... Hehehehehehehahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!Please tell me which version has Lucifer in Rev 12. I just checked a bunch of different versions, they all say Satan. They say Satan, and they say he is the ancient serpent, and they also say he is the great deceiver.So what is your position again? If you agree that Lucifer was what was being referred to in Rev, which is what you just said above, then Lucifer=Satan.With great relief I will accept your apology and admission of defeat.And as for the snake in the garden, let's assume the ref to the "ancient serpent" being Satan, and it being a deceiver, has NOTHING to do with the serpent in the garden and so it was a deceiver... cough, yeah... Was eve about to eat of the fruit of the Tree? No.The snake enters scene and brings it up, which generates an interest for eating the fruit in Eve. It then gives a half truth (or let's assume your version is true and its the FULL truth so all it knows is there will be no punishment) as well as dropping the tempting hint that if she eats the fruit she will become like God: knowing good and evil.Are you getting the mechanism of temptation? Even in the most friendly version it is getting her to eat something she wasn't interested in... and don't you dare pull a "well it doesn't say she wasn't", since your whole point is you will only trust what is directly written.At best he'd be a really bad friend. Given that it was called clever and there was no mention of perhaps alternative punishments, and it did GET punished for deceiving her (she says she was deceived by him and God punishes him), and there is certainly a suggestive statement in Rev that there is an ancient serpent which decieved mankind... well, I tend to think the plot isn't that hard to figure out.If this was hard for you, I must assume you have hard times with film noir and British Comedy?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To holmes:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: So I guess I would be justified to say that this system is arbitrary - or that it operates under an arbitrary standard? I'm not saying there isn't. Remember you said that virtue is based on what people reckon should be pursued? That has nothing to be with practice - they can regard altruism as a virtue and yet behave greedily. No, I got that. Which was why I made it clear in my comment that under the modern usage of the term "morality", your system isn't really defined as one. I understood your point that the modern definition can't be applied onto the system you're describing, yet for a person who has never been brought up under any system but the one defined by definitives, I suppose that's an adequate explanation for my prolonged failure to grasp your idea? Well, this system sounds great for describing attributes with arbitrary labels, but how do we use it in practice? Can you continue with part II of the explanation by telling me how the system is actually used to adopt habits? Thanks.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To holmes:Thank you fro your reply.Reply to your post: Ouch! Upon closer inspection, I realised that I have been more of a fool than I initially thought myself to be. The rebellion was described in Paradise Lost, not the Christian bible - and I was berating you for not examining the text in depth - you must forgive me for my rude behaviour. I actually didn't check the reference and took your word for granted. I addressed it simply because you brought it up. I cannot do so because it is simply not there - I was naming it after Milton's story without even realising (and never having actually read Paradise Lost). Don't ask me how I did it, it's a mystery even to me. I apologise for my most foolish claim. It just so happens that neither one of us can do what the other asked because Lucifer never took a significant role in the bible - it was in Milton's fiction. I am considering either taking up Luciferism based on Milton's Paradise Lost (which is most consistent with the position I am currently taking), or to abandon it altogether. That will have to wait until I have more time to think this out. In order to qualify as deception, one must be led to believe what is untrue. Given that what the snake said was the truth, irrespective of its intentions, its actions cannot count towards deception.I see that you have moved towards using the word temptation as opposed to deception, so let's discuss temptation. To tempt implies intention - that the snake wants Eve to eat from the Tree. Given your suggestion that the snake possesses supreme knowledge, tempting Eve to eat from the Tree would only piss God off, resulting in it being punished. What does the snake stand to gain, and therefore what is the motivation for "getting" Eve to do so?If God must lie to Eve in order to stop her from eating from the Tree, then perhaps the snake has unwittingly stirred up her curiosity (to be like God) by exposing her to the truth.Either way, to declare that what the snake has done in the affair is sufficient grounds for deception or temptation is, to me, a biased perspective. Sure you can see it that way, but if I read it out to an individual naive to the teachings of Christianity, I would be very surprised if they had concluded that the snake has deceived or tempted Eve - especially given that God lied in the first place and the snake was only dispelling the untruth.Patiently awaiting your reply.(Note: my reply may be delayed due to pressing commitments - I apologise beforehand)

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

No. I suppose one can say the nomenclature is arbitrary, or the defs attached to any term can appear arbitrary between cultures, but that does not make the system arbitrary.This would be like saying measurement is arbitrary because they use inches here, meters there, and cubits in another place. If your point is that people can say one thing and do another, then you are right. I am at a loss how that effects the system. That is self deception.Unless they are saying Altruism should be followed even though they recognize they need to follow greed in life? I wouldn't put it that strongly. Under the common modern usage of term morality, it would not be viewed as the same thing. But there are modern people who still use that concept of morality. No. Actually it fits within the definitions, just not the most common variety.I forgot what you used, but there was at least one definition that was essentially it, it just wasn't high up the list and dead on accurate. But here is a listing of "morality" from m-w.com:1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUEObviously, anything including the one I outlined will fit in the first and second definitions. I guess these are a bit more generic of terms. The third is the modern definition, and the fourth is the older one.And you can then look up virtue...1 a : conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY b : a particular moral excellence
2 plural : an order of angels -- see CELESTIAL HIERARCHY
3 : a beneficial quality or power of a thing
4 : manly strength or courage : VALOR
5 : a commendable quality or trait : MERIT
6 : a capacity to act : POTENCY
7 : chastity especially in a woman1B, perhaps 3, and definitely 5, are of the older terminology.It is true that common usage and its pervasiveness in everything we do at this point would make it harder to understand what the older version was about.But it's not like the info isn't out there. As I said, it is not MY system. For a person putting so much stock in the "arbitrariness" of this system, you sure picked up on the concept of traits easy enough.I am uncertain why you feel I have not shown how it is put into practice. In the example I gave a person was defined as Loyal, but with a tendency to be Unjust, based on his choice of actions.People will tend to recognize the value of that loyalty (I even mentioned his enemies might credit that) and encourage that among others, though admit (even the family he was loyal to) he had to be Unjust and that they would rather avoid that if/when they can.If for some reason the Loyalty was praised and the Unjustness NOT critiqued, choices in the future might be a little TOO easy and a person in the situation ready to jump at proving his loyalty without contemplating the injustice of his/her actions. This could lead to some very bad results for the person and his family.Likewise if the person had chosen not to kill and everyone praised his sense of Justice, without acknowledging his act of disloyalty, people might become accustomed to viewing "Justice" as an end all such that loyalty goes right out the window and no one can trust anyone.If you need a better description than this, please let me know what you are looking for.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think the reason is pretty obvious. Like common usage of moral terminology, you were used to the common understanding of characters in the Bible.The difference between the two is that the first one can be objectively incorrect, the second one really can't be... it's just a story. You might want to read Milton first. From what I understand he is still not exactly the greatest guy, or most critical thinker. Apparently you have never heard of espionage. Part of that involves using pieces of truth, or contextual truth, to mislead a person.It's also pretty handy in magic and pseudoscience hucksters.From m-w.com... deceive...1 archaic : ENSNARE
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : CHEAT
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impressionYou are sticking to 4, but there is clearly more than that.And before you say he wasn't "lying", here is lie...1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying1B and 2 is what we are talking about with the serpent. You asked about temptation, so I supplied the explanation. I still believe it deceived her as part of it's temptation of eve. It split humans from God and ruins God's paradise. I assume it felt that was worth the price paid. Or in case he was not completely omnicient of what WOULD happen, but only knew that God would not kill her, he may have gambled his own deception might go unnoticed/unpunished, or risked that would happen. More BS as usual? You were the one that claimed we must ONLY use what is actually written. Eve tells God the snake has deceived her and God punishes it for that crime.Unless the Bible said she was lying then we are forced into believing that, no?In addition, Milton has Lucifer going to the garden as the snake to deceive Eve into eating the fruit. So if you pick up the Lucifer tag, you might want to scale back criticisms of people who jump to that "biased" conclusion the snake deceived Eve. I have read it using other interpretations and there are many. I see no consistency in the idea that the snake was only out to dispell the untruth. I doubt seriously anyone would come to the position you hold without you hovering over them, or reading it in a certain manner.Certainly there is NOTHING in the Bible (playing by your rules) which says the snake was being helpful and revealing the untruth of God. If anything, it literally states that it deceived her.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To holmes:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:I think I have thoroughly understood the system you're describing. To sum it up, I think "Do whatever works for you." will do so nicely. There's no right/wrong, no good/bad, just immense practicality and relies upon the general guidelines of "doing things this way happened to work in most cases, so try it out - but we can't guarantee it'll always work, so think before you use it".Have I done a good enough job of summarising your position, or do you see the need to edit?Personally, I see it as an evolved system of conditioning - do something this way, does not work, try doing it another way - until a general system of "ways you can do things that is likely to work for you" is laid out through collective experience.Structurally speaking, the system is crude to the point of almost instinctive - there is no reasoning for why something should be done the way it is apart from the fact that it achieves whatever the purpose of the actor is.If this description of your system is inaccurate, please correct it.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

The first summation was way to glib to be accurate. Do whatever works for you would NOT be coming out of the mouths of ancient moralists.I think they would start with an observation..."People WILL do what works for them, molding their choices of action into habits. And it is from these choices and habits that we know what kind of people they are."Then they will ask: "What are these kinds of traits, habits?"From this they create the lists of traits and their opposing traits.Then they ask: "But which of these traits are most necessary, or provide examples of human excellence, by most often delivering happiness or health to their practitioner?"After lining them up they then say: "Since these things we call virtues are more often beneficial, let us encourage ourselves and others to think upon these virtues and praise them so as to encourage ourselves to PRACTICE them, and make them habits."Then in usual cautionary style: "But do not let this habit become an addiction or it will tend to extremism."Which may result in the closest thing you could get to a moral maxim regarding actions: "Keep in mind the virtue, but keep one's reason on the situation at hand." This is a much better assessment. But remember some work is already done for you from the experience of those who came before you, thinking about hypothetical situations you might encounter, and... Yes, instinct. It is interesting that humans talk about how monkeys (and some other animals) show human traits, when the reality is that they are finding that we ACT LIKE THEM.We are social animals like the monkeys and have many of the same social instincts. We ALL like bravery and justice and loyalty and the guy who has more (of something). It is kind of within us... instinct.That is why this system is more natural and should be pretty easy to relate to, once one loses the oversocialized mindtrap of black/white thinking. Well there is a little more than that as clearly the purpose of the actor may tie in with the purposes of others, but otherwise I have no problem with the above statement.We are talking about a system which does not build pretentious fantasy about what life is. Our purposes come from within, and they are natural, and there is no reason to think that their accomplishment is something other than the height of what we can do.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I can live with that. As a matter of fact, I am living it - within the confines of social and legal constraints, that is.Thanks for explaining this moral system, though to me, calling it a moral system would fall into the same pit of confusion that "Luciferism" apparently fell into - most people (popular concensus) in this world won't regard it as a moral system, the common conceptualisation being a system with right/wrong and good/bad values that tells you what to do and how to do it.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To holmes: (Cont'd) So....which definition of deceive are you using? Which definition of deceive applies to the snake's actions? You're saying that sticking to 4 is not appropriate, so which one is? 1B: Well, what the snake said is not untrue, so I guess you're referring to inaccurate. Which inaccurate statement has been spoken by the snake resulting in it being believed true by Eve?2: See "deceive" above. I think you assumed a little more than that. For your case to stand, the snake must: 1) know that Eve would not die from eating the fruit, 2) want Eve to eat the fruit, 3) have made inaccurate and/or untrue statements in the process of carrying out the deception.Point 1: I will not contest.
Points 2 and 3:Consider: I see a man walking down the road wearing no clothes. I walked up to him and asked him why he is wearing no clothes, and he tells me that his wife told him that clothes are ugly monsters that will try to strangle you when you put them on. I told him that clothes are just stuff we put over our naked body to keep ourselves warm, and no, clothes will not try to strangle him. He looked at my clothes, saw how warm they looked, ran to the nearest store to buy some clothes and wore them home. His wife took one look at him and became infuriated - resulting in the man being beaten to death. On his dying breath, the man explained that I have deceived him into wearing clothes, and his angry wife took her remaining anger out on me.This is the way I say the bible's account of Man's fall. Can you explain the flaw in the analogy or how I have deceived/tempted the man? Nope, I ain't doing that stupid thing again ^_^. Let's stick with the biblical account. Read my analogy and draw a conclusion.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Well I would argue it is not the SAME pit of confusion, but I said up front that it was not the common modern model of moral thinking, and would confuse people that are used to black/white thinking.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Whoa, I'm sorry. I thought the other choices would have been obvious. Depending on one's exact interpretation it could be 1,2, or 5.For example the serpent could be said to be ensnaring Eve into his plot, or was being false to Eve in not giving her all the information she needed to make a good decision, or that he gave Eve the false impression that eating the apple would have no negative consequences and actually improve her life. You have got to be kidding me. We've already been through this. While half true, Eve would not die, the serpent did not give an accurate statement regarding what would happen when she ate the fruit.He innacurately described the situation such that it not only sounded like she would not die, but that something good would come of it. He gave a false impression that she would not be punished and in a way be rewarded with God like abilities. Flaw in analogy. In your analogy the guy is afraid the clothes will strangle him, and mentions NOTHING about his wife or what she might do. In this case the serpent knew of God's anger and Eve talked about the warning. The seprent convinced her GOD's threat wasn't real in the way he said it. Yeah, too bad.If your analogy were to be correct:A guy is walking along naked, and a snake says to him "hey look at these clothes you could wear, why not wear some?" The guy says "but my wife says she'll kill me if she catches me wearing them." "Yeah I know", says the snake "But I know she won't kill you, and you'll look really snazzy." So he puts on the clothes and when his wife finds him she is FURIOUS. He says the snake told him she wouldn't kill him, and that's why he did it. "Yeah?" she says, "But you know I told you NOT TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE." So she cuts off his balls and kicks the snake out of town.Oh and I should say your analogy had me a bit confused in that the man does say he was deceived. Were you implying that he said it and didn't mean it... just to get the blame off of himself? If so what Biblical scripture implies that this would be true of eve? The purely biblical account is pretty cut and dried.Snake (called clever) tells Eve the fruit God told her not to touch and if she did she would die, would not kill her, it would make her like God. Eve eats the fruit and when God finds her (and adam) is REALLY pissed off and reminds them he told them not to touch the fruit. She says the serpent deceived her. God punishes Eve, Adam, and the snake.Unless I am going to put some other spin on this story, as written Eve WAS deceived by the snake. How else can I read that WITHOUT having some bias? I mean I'd have to believe that she was lying about being deceived to take any other message from that passage. Given that he punishes the snake, FOR WHAT HE DID, that would back up the bare bones tale of a serpent tricking someone.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)