You know where Mel's head is at if you've seen Apocalypto. Absolutely amazing film and 100% percent over the target.
From wikipedia...
The Mayan kingdom is at the height of its opulence and power but the foundations of the empire are beginning to crumble. The leaders believe they must build more temples and sacrifice more people or their crops and citizens will die.
The very end of the movie Mel tips his hat to the next batch of ruler/invaders.
I had an argument in /v/religion about the Catholics and the Mayans. The number of people who think that the Catholics "genocided" the blood thirsty, human sacrificing, Mayans, and defended them, criticizing the Catholic not knowing exactly what happened was saddening.
Are you agreeing the Mayan culture was evil, unnatural, and in decline?
Or that conquerors were responsible for this decline and have reason to feel shame?
I'm not 100% informed on the history -- but isn't it both?
Probably debatable which is/was worse and although I believe in objective morality -- I'm self aware that my personal certainty and faith in this objective morality is culturally rooted.
I wonder what basis we will have for moral comparison if we ever encounter species from another planet? Surely Mayan and Conquistadors were similarly alien to each other at first? Even if we try to base morality on the preserverance and respect for natural or God given essence, how far does this extend? I dont extend this moral use/violence to my pets, my dinner, or the hornets nest I exterminate?
Mayan culture was obvious evil, unnatural, and in decline. It's why the Catholics were able to convert the whole region and get those people to willingly come to Christ.
You never have a reason to feel shame if you speak the truth in God and use Him as your example. If you preach the gospel to a people, and they accept, then great. Great gifts will come to them as they come to Christ. If you preach the gospel to them and they reject it? Then you will be kicked out and are to knock the dust off your shoes as you leave.
The Mayans chose to repent. For that they were saved. As a result they destroyed their books and treasures on human sacrifice, because it's evil, and they wanted to conquer it. A few dozen Catholics couldn't do it by themselves. Think logically.
As for objective morality, you have a very confused idea. If you believe your culture dictates your view on objective morality, then you don't believe in objective morality, by definition. So perhaps you should first consider all of the arguments for the objectivity of morality, and start from there.
First, the idea that Mayans and Conquistadors were as dissimilar as aliens is an insane assumption. The Mayans and Conquistadors could easily successfully interbreed. They're of the same species enough to do that. The idea that aliens and humans would have a similar compatibility is just ridiculous a priori. So no, they weren't "similarly alien to each other at first".
Second, if you don't extend that same respect for animals and the world around you, you're doing it wrong. If you harm your pets for fun, then you're an immoral person. If you abuse animals for fun, you're an immoral person. If you abuse hornets for fun, you're an immoral person.
Does that mean you treat your dog like your child? No. Does that mean you treat your chickens like your dog? No. But it does mean you must treat all of creation with the respect it deserves. To love for the sake of loving because that's what we are called to do. To love for the sake of loving also means correctly identifying beings/things that are contrary to that idea, and dealing with them as appropriate. So it does not mean that since you "love" your vomit that you must eat it. It's entirely confused to think like that. All relationships in proper order. You love your pet and treat it with respect because it is part of God's creation. You love your chicken and treat it with respect on all the days of it's life, except for the one day it gives its life up for you, so that you may be sustained. So you respect the chicken insofar as it is a sacrifice for your life, and don't treat that flippantly.
I don't know, I don't find any of this particularly complicated. We can deal with specifics as they come, but in general it's pretty straightforward I think.
Is that you god? How did you know that I eat my vomit? Lol.
My comment on objective vs culturally subjective determined is slightly different than you are suggesting.
I'm acknowledging that the first base assumption at the root is determined by the root of our mere existence. The physicality and spirituality of our sentience MUST define our ability to know or think or be. Therefore if it were different (if we live in a computer simulation, or created one with different rules, or had a different brain etc.), the rules of that awareness may result in completely different base from which to observe and reason. Its the common and constant universe to measure against. But your sentience does the measuring. Philosophy hand waves away the problem of knowing to be able to start somewhere.
To me, my objectivity is rooted in the knowable and observable universe around us. I base my belief system on what I can know. With my brain. With my spirit. Right and wrong are determined within the limits of this system of knowable and conceivable. Here amd now.
But just as I conceive this universe is based on these rules and this physics, I can conceive of the plausibility of a different universe with different rules. Different 'physics'. And therefore different observations and conclusions.
People theorize on the existence of multiple dimensions, or 'multiverse' of all time happening at once, of interdimensional sentience without physical form.
What set of rules will define morality when that reality is outside our system of physics?
What is in accordance with nature then? Who knows?
Therefore I conduct my life on what is knowable.
I seek to maintain a human and moral purpose with regard to treatment of humans, animals, and natural resources. Try not to be wasteful or cruel.
But ultimately it's a judgement decsion where one draws the line.
Some people only eat food where the fruit drops from the tree. Won't pull a carrot from the ground. Won't even steal a cow or sheep's productive energy of milk (because not freely given and bred for that purpose without consent). I eat meat with respect (who knows i dont run a farm) for the gift of nourishment it provides me. I could just eat vegetables. I could just eat fruit that falls. But I don't. And I don't consider it immoral.
Is my sense if morality determined by what is convenient, expedient, practical, and pleasurable? Then what will we have to say about someone who turns that logic on us?
Is that you god? How did you know that I eat my vomit? Lol.
No absolutely not. I'm a terrible sinner, worse than most.
I'm acknowledging that the first base assumption at the root is determined by the root of our mere existence. The physicality and spirituality of our sentience MUST define our ability to know or think or be. Therefore if it were different (if we live in a computer simulation, or created one with different rules, or had a different brain etc.), the rules of that awareness may result in completely different base from which to observe and reason. Its the common and constant universe to measure against. But your sentience does the measuring. Philosophy hand waves away the problem of knowing to be able to start somewhere.
To me, my objectivity is rooted in the knowable and observable universe around us. I base my belief system on what I can know. With my brain. With my spirit. Right and wrong are determined within the limits of this system of knowable and conceivable. Here amd now.
People theorize on the existence of multiple dimensions, or 'multiverse' of all time happening at once, of interdimensional sentience without physical form.
What set of rules will define morality when that reality is outside our system of physics?
What is in accordance with nature then? Who knows?
We have good arguments for God (e.g., Kalam Cosmological argument, argument from Contingency, argument from Morality, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, etc.), and what properties God has. So when you say "the universe could have been differently", what you're saying is "the universe is contingent". On the other hand from the arguments we see that God is a necessary being. A necessary being that is omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly good, perfectly just, etc. In my mind God is just "perfect".
So if God is necessary, His nature will not change. If His nature doesn't change, then the objective nature of morality doesn't change. So by that simple reasoning, it defuses your problem of morality being arbitrary or relative depending on the physical laws of the universe (which as you mentioned are contingent), because they're contingent on the necessary perfect being, and as such flow out of Him.
It's kind of like saying, even in your alternative universe, 2+2=4. This is just true, not dependent on the laws of physics. In a similar way, so goes morality on the system for the same reason. They derive from the perfect being.
Therefore I conduct my life on what is knowable.
How do you define "knowable". That's going to depend on your metaphysics and epistemology. For you're probably going to say we can't "know" the supernatural, only the things we can physically interact with. But to do so you're literally going to have to define conscious experience out of existence not because it doesn't exist, but because your theory doesn't cover it. So almost by definition you've excluded "supernatural things" (i.e., things that don't adhere to the laws of physics) because you can't explain them, then say that these things don't exist.
That argument has convinced a lot of people, especially when coupled with disdain and scorn for people who disagree, but I don't think it is a compelling argument on the merits.
I seek to maintain a human and moral purpose with regard to treatment of humans, animals, and natural resources. Try not to be wasteful or cruel.
But ultimately it's a judgement decsion where one draws the line.
Some people only eat food where the fruit drops from the tree. Won't pull a carrot from the ground. Won't even steal a cow or sheep's productive energy of milk (because not freely given and bred for that purpose without consent). I eat meat with respect (who knows i dont run a farm) for the gift of nourishment it provides me. I could just eat vegetables. I could just eat fruit that falls. But I don't. And I don't consider it immoral.
Is my sense if morality determined by what is convenient, expedient, practical, and pleasurable? Then what will we have to say about someone who turns that logic on us?
Well you'll have no defense, because ultimately you're appealing to your convenience, expedience, and pleasure to justify your claims. When you do that, you will immediately be attacked for exactly the reasons you stated. Because you don't have a formal foundation for your beliefs other than preference, you have no arguments against them, and that's all you can say.
Counter that with the Christian worldview, where we have God as our underpinning of reality. And thus the answer to all questions is to look to God for guidance. From a Catholic perspective that entails reading the Bible, your Catechism, learning about the Traditions of the Church, reading the Church fathers, and coming closer to God. For in coming closer to the One True God who condescended and became Man to teach us how to live, we ourselves better exemplify what it means to be human. We better exemplify His perfection, and come closer to Him.
Insofar as we reject Perfections in search for false idols (this is why God describes himself as jealous, incidentally, what He's saying is that He wants you to love Him and not the trappings of this world) like lust, material possessions, etc., we are sinning (in that we're missing the mark) and destroying some aspect of perfection to do so. Or at least not living up to that aspect of perfection.
From this idea one can take one of a few options.
One can:
1. reject all of this as nonsense, and do whatever you want.
2. accept that God is real but believe that trying is too hard and give up.
3. accept that God is real and try really hard but continue to stumble and get back up and try again.
4. accept that God is real and fully come to terms with that, and live in Him.
If I'm missing an option let me know. According to Jesus Christ, option 1 is what sinners who are damned for all eternity will do. Option 2 is what Judas Iscariot did, who is damned for all eternity. Option 3 is an average Christian. Option 4 is a saint.
The choice, so to speak, is yours to make. Good luck, and may God bless you.
Have discussed exorcism with my sister in laws Catholic priest uncle.
I'm convinced of its veracity and the veracity of possession and internal spiritual illness inherent in nihilism and post modern entertainment, drug use, and pornography etc.
Something I just through of while listening to this lecture is at around 54:00, he talks about beauty and good. And at the end the parents are begging him for help on how to deal with the problems that are related to such music, and he points out that if after showing them this video they are still attached to the music, they are displaying an absolute disorder. And I fundamentally agree. I'm open to being wrong, but you're going to have to prove to me what he's saying is false (i.e,. you're not like the other addicts...).
That being said you then look at why children disobey their parents on this? Well, kids now go to government school. What does the government school teach? That their parents are "the man" and you must resist them and not obey them.
What does the kid think? "My parents are sending me to this school because they're better able to teach me than my parents are so they're right."
We've built a degenerate society and are wondering why it's degenerate.
Posted automatically (#105578) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
view the rest of the comments →
23473850? ago
What do you mean the 'these people'?
You know where Mel's head is at if you've seen Apocalypto. Absolutely amazing film and 100% percent over the target.
From wikipedia...
The Mayan kingdom is at the height of its opulence and power but the foundations of the empire are beginning to crumble. The leaders believe they must build more temples and sacrifice more people or their crops and citizens will die.
The very end of the movie Mel tips his hat to the next batch of ruler/invaders.
23475040? ago
I had an argument in /v/religion about the Catholics and the Mayans. The number of people who think that the Catholics "genocided" the blood thirsty, human sacrificing, Mayans, and defended them, criticizing the Catholic not knowing exactly what happened was saddening.
The lies we've been fed are deep.
23475217? ago
I'm not following?
Are you agreeing the Mayan culture was evil, unnatural, and in decline?
Or that conquerors were responsible for this decline and have reason to feel shame?
I'm not 100% informed on the history -- but isn't it both?
Probably debatable which is/was worse and although I believe in objective morality -- I'm self aware that my personal certainty and faith in this objective morality is culturally rooted.
I wonder what basis we will have for moral comparison if we ever encounter species from another planet? Surely Mayan and Conquistadors were similarly alien to each other at first? Even if we try to base morality on the preserverance and respect for natural or God given essence, how far does this extend? I dont extend this moral use/violence to my pets, my dinner, or the hornets nest I exterminate?
23475316? ago
Mayan culture was obvious evil, unnatural, and in decline. It's why the Catholics were able to convert the whole region and get those people to willingly come to Christ.
You never have a reason to feel shame if you speak the truth in God and use Him as your example. If you preach the gospel to a people, and they accept, then great. Great gifts will come to them as they come to Christ. If you preach the gospel to them and they reject it? Then you will be kicked out and are to knock the dust off your shoes as you leave.
The Mayans chose to repent. For that they were saved. As a result they destroyed their books and treasures on human sacrifice, because it's evil, and they wanted to conquer it. A few dozen Catholics couldn't do it by themselves. Think logically.
As for objective morality, you have a very confused idea. If you believe your culture dictates your view on objective morality, then you don't believe in objective morality, by definition. So perhaps you should first consider all of the arguments for the objectivity of morality, and start from there.
First, the idea that Mayans and Conquistadors were as dissimilar as aliens is an insane assumption. The Mayans and Conquistadors could easily successfully interbreed. They're of the same species enough to do that. The idea that aliens and humans would have a similar compatibility is just ridiculous a priori. So no, they weren't "similarly alien to each other at first".
Second, if you don't extend that same respect for animals and the world around you, you're doing it wrong. If you harm your pets for fun, then you're an immoral person. If you abuse animals for fun, you're an immoral person. If you abuse hornets for fun, you're an immoral person.
Does that mean you treat your dog like your child? No. Does that mean you treat your chickens like your dog? No. But it does mean you must treat all of creation with the respect it deserves. To love for the sake of loving because that's what we are called to do. To love for the sake of loving also means correctly identifying beings/things that are contrary to that idea, and dealing with them as appropriate. So it does not mean that since you "love" your vomit that you must eat it. It's entirely confused to think like that. All relationships in proper order. You love your pet and treat it with respect because it is part of God's creation. You love your chicken and treat it with respect on all the days of it's life, except for the one day it gives its life up for you, so that you may be sustained. So you respect the chicken insofar as it is a sacrifice for your life, and don't treat that flippantly.
I don't know, I don't find any of this particularly complicated. We can deal with specifics as they come, but in general it's pretty straightforward I think.
23476015? ago
Is that you god? How did you know that I eat my vomit? Lol.
My comment on objective vs culturally subjective determined is slightly different than you are suggesting.
I'm acknowledging that the first base assumption at the root is determined by the root of our mere existence. The physicality and spirituality of our sentience MUST define our ability to know or think or be. Therefore if it were different (if we live in a computer simulation, or created one with different rules, or had a different brain etc.), the rules of that awareness may result in completely different base from which to observe and reason. Its the common and constant universe to measure against. But your sentience does the measuring. Philosophy hand waves away the problem of knowing to be able to start somewhere.
To me, my objectivity is rooted in the knowable and observable universe around us. I base my belief system on what I can know. With my brain. With my spirit. Right and wrong are determined within the limits of this system of knowable and conceivable. Here amd now.
But just as I conceive this universe is based on these rules and this physics, I can conceive of the plausibility of a different universe with different rules. Different 'physics'. And therefore different observations and conclusions.
People theorize on the existence of multiple dimensions, or 'multiverse' of all time happening at once, of interdimensional sentience without physical form.
What set of rules will define morality when that reality is outside our system of physics?
What is in accordance with nature then? Who knows?
Therefore I conduct my life on what is knowable.
I seek to maintain a human and moral purpose with regard to treatment of humans, animals, and natural resources. Try not to be wasteful or cruel.
But ultimately it's a judgement decsion where one draws the line.
Some people only eat food where the fruit drops from the tree. Won't pull a carrot from the ground. Won't even steal a cow or sheep's productive energy of milk (because not freely given and bred for that purpose without consent). I eat meat with respect (who knows i dont run a farm) for the gift of nourishment it provides me. I could just eat vegetables. I could just eat fruit that falls. But I don't. And I don't consider it immoral.
Is my sense if morality determined by what is convenient, expedient, practical, and pleasurable? Then what will we have to say about someone who turns that logic on us?
23476705? ago
No absolutely not. I'm a terrible sinner, worse than most.
We have good arguments for God (e.g., Kalam Cosmological argument, argument from Contingency, argument from Morality, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, etc.), and what properties God has. So when you say "the universe could have been differently", what you're saying is "the universe is contingent". On the other hand from the arguments we see that God is a necessary being. A necessary being that is omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly good, perfectly just, etc. In my mind God is just "perfect".
So if God is necessary, His nature will not change. If His nature doesn't change, then the objective nature of morality doesn't change. So by that simple reasoning, it defuses your problem of morality being arbitrary or relative depending on the physical laws of the universe (which as you mentioned are contingent), because they're contingent on the necessary perfect being, and as such flow out of Him.
It's kind of like saying, even in your alternative universe, 2+2=4. This is just true, not dependent on the laws of physics. In a similar way, so goes morality on the system for the same reason. They derive from the perfect being.
How do you define "knowable". That's going to depend on your metaphysics and epistemology. For you're probably going to say we can't "know" the supernatural, only the things we can physically interact with. But to do so you're literally going to have to define conscious experience out of existence not because it doesn't exist, but because your theory doesn't cover it. So almost by definition you've excluded "supernatural things" (i.e., things that don't adhere to the laws of physics) because you can't explain them, then say that these things don't exist.
That argument has convinced a lot of people, especially when coupled with disdain and scorn for people who disagree, but I don't think it is a compelling argument on the merits.
Well you'll have no defense, because ultimately you're appealing to your convenience, expedience, and pleasure to justify your claims. When you do that, you will immediately be attacked for exactly the reasons you stated. Because you don't have a formal foundation for your beliefs other than preference, you have no arguments against them, and that's all you can say.
Counter that with the Christian worldview, where we have God as our underpinning of reality. And thus the answer to all questions is to look to God for guidance. From a Catholic perspective that entails reading the Bible, your Catechism, learning about the Traditions of the Church, reading the Church fathers, and coming closer to God. For in coming closer to the One True God who condescended and became Man to teach us how to live, we ourselves better exemplify what it means to be human. We better exemplify His perfection, and come closer to Him.
Insofar as we reject Perfections in search for false idols (this is why God describes himself as jealous, incidentally, what He's saying is that He wants you to love Him and not the trappings of this world) like lust, material possessions, etc., we are sinning (in that we're missing the mark) and destroying some aspect of perfection to do so. Or at least not living up to that aspect of perfection.
From this idea one can take one of a few options.
One can:
1. reject all of this as nonsense, and do whatever you want.
2. accept that God is real but believe that trying is too hard and give up.
3. accept that God is real and try really hard but continue to stumble and get back up and try again.
4. accept that God is real and fully come to terms with that, and live in Him.
If I'm missing an option let me know. According to Jesus Christ, option 1 is what sinners who are damned for all eternity will do. Option 2 is what Judas Iscariot did, who is damned for all eternity. Option 3 is an average Christian. Option 4 is a saint.
The choice, so to speak, is yours to make. Good luck, and may God bless you.
23476851? ago
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I enjoyed reading.
Taking it all under advisement.
23478646? ago
I just found this lecture on the influence of music by a Catholic exorcist (yes an exorcist, he has lectures on that too). He goes on how music that a culture listens to can control a society. Perhaps something interesting worth listening to to give you a true, Catholic, understanding of what is happening in the world. It's probably the most rational way I know to understand what's going on, but feel free to tell me what you find untrue/uncomfortable.
23478736? ago
Have discussed exorcism with my sister in laws Catholic priest uncle.
I'm convinced of its veracity and the veracity of possession and internal spiritual illness inherent in nihilism and post modern entertainment, drug use, and pornography etc.
23478866? ago
Something I just through of while listening to this lecture is at around 54:00, he talks about beauty and good. And at the end the parents are begging him for help on how to deal with the problems that are related to such music, and he points out that if after showing them this video they are still attached to the music, they are displaying an absolute disorder. And I fundamentally agree. I'm open to being wrong, but you're going to have to prove to me what he's saying is false (i.e,. you're not like the other addicts...).
That being said you then look at why children disobey their parents on this? Well, kids now go to government school. What does the government school teach? That their parents are "the man" and you must resist them and not obey them.
What does the kid think? "My parents are sending me to this school because they're better able to teach me than my parents are so they're right."
We've built a degenerate society and are wondering why it's degenerate.
23483285? ago
This comment was linked from this v/politics comment by @zxcvbnasdf.
Posted automatically (#105578) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.