Morality and immorality.

[Preeti161101]

Jesus passed through a village and a harlot came and laid her head at his feet and her tears began to flow. He washed their feet with his tears. The moral men of the village said that it was not right for a prostitute to touch them. They told Jesus to tell this harlot not to touch you. Even the touch of an ordinary woman is forbidden for a saint, then it is prostitution. Jesus said, "I don't know how many people have touched my feet, but no one has ever touched me with such purity." People have washed my feet with water but this woman has washed my feet with the tears of her souls.

This was also one of the crimes that Jesus had for which he was crucified. This event was generally against the perception of the policy of that society.

There is another incident where people brought a woman to Jesus because she was also a prostitute and it was Jewish law that it was legal to stone an adulteress. So Jesus was staying outside the village. People came to him and said that this woman is an adulteress and we have proof of this. Not only proof, this woman has also accepted this. So there is no question now and the old book says that stoning this woman is justified, justified. what do you say

Jesus said, the old book says right, but only those who have never committed adultery or thought about it are authorized to be stoned. You pick up the stone. The big pundits, chiefs and Panchs etc. of the society started to retreat quietly from the crowd. Slowly the people who brought the stone left the stone and ran towards the village. It was also a crime against Jesus that they saved an adulterous woman. Jesus' behavior does not fall within the general scope of policy, it is natural. They were doing what naturally arose in their consciousness. Neither will they think whether it is compatible with society's perception or not. Only a moral person does this.Being a religious person is a very unique phenomenon. This does not mean that a religious person necessarily becomes immoral. His conduct is devoid of morality and immorality. Sometimes it matches the policy and sometimes it doesn't match but he has no intention in mind to match or not. As long as we think, our behavior will be false and as long as our character is consistent with a belief, then our character will be hypocritical. Until then character is not coming from within, it is being weighed by external standards. Until then that character is not an expression of the soul and it will only imitate the society.

[Raaj4you]

Hmm good story. We people discriminate, gods don't discriminate. Gods are not shallow, thats why they are gods, we are humans.

Did you know this fact: In India, soil from brothels is used to make Goddess durga idols. If you don't use this soil, you can't make Goddess durga idols.

I was shocked to know this. See this is the proof that god doesn't discriminate.

I am a bit misogynist, but I love mother Goddesses: Saraswathi maa, Durga maa and Lakshmi maa.

[strateguy632]

i admit i must be very opinionated but in a polite way. i wanna respond to several points you wrote.
most importantly "crime against jesus to save adulteress" we know the accusation "king of jews" and the jew priest religious emphasis on certain things to accuse but your additions to the list are not only, beyond the accusation but also not worthy for death penalty.
only the priests religious accusation of claimed to be god was bad enough that they believed deserved death penalty. not disobey their interpretation to kill, that they abandoned agreed with jedus. also worthy emphasis is, jesus never sinned so could be the one to throw stone but did not throw a rock. setting an example.
b, your additions to the story "Jewish law that it was legal to stone an adulteress" which refers to court, but court was not mentioned and your additions were not in the story. the word justified is odd, just kuz they had an excuse, why would they want to? but they thought it was proper punishment not just optional until jesus taught them by words and example.
i did like your commentary sin is thought of adultery, that interpreted the text which is good and that addition is also plausible in story but not the other additions.
less important but still relevant is the issue of crime for which he was crucified, letting a woman touch or even a "filthy hoore" did not deserve even in their society death punishment. only as you concluded seemed wrong not severe.

[Exterminatore]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism


Pretty much fits the standard definition of anarchy.


Anarchism is the practice of anarchy.

[Guffrus]

Oh you did reply, but you are so fucking stupid you did in the wrong place.

Nice job genius.

Why weren't you capable of reading and understanding what you found?

It does state quite clearly quote:

the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

and if you knew what anarchist principles were you would understand that there are as I told you right at the beginning, rules embedded into the philosophy.

So, that is me being right, providing evidence etc.

Now are you going to grow some balls and apologise to me and elevate your understanding of the world or are am I blocking you?

Make your choice now please.

[Exterminatore]

And as I told you from the beginning, once you have rules it’s no longer anarchy.

Oh, I understand you probably don’t advocate the mindless violence associated with anarchy.

theanarchistlibrary.org/.../morpheus-basic-principles-of-anarchism

Says right there: “Anarchists are opposed to all states”

Therefore exactly as I said, no laws, no ruling body, no legislation, no one to enforce any rules.

Which gets right back to my original sarcastic statement about who will stop those who seek to establish governments? You have no one to stop them and no one to enforce laws.

What happens when 1 or many decide they’re not follow the rules? It results in light is right. Are you under the belief everyone will willingly abide by the rules? Is it not so Mankind is by nature rebellious? Look at yourself. You love rebellion.

This is a pipe dream buddy, that’s my point and it’s a dangerous concept.

[Exterminatore]

That article also used the term “anarchist” for those who espouse anarchism.

So those who practice anarchism are anarchists, and anarchists what anarchy. Maybe you don’t want a Mad Max world but that’s exactly what you’ll get. That’s my point also.

[Guffrus]

@Exterminatore All this time and you still have not actually bothered to go and read about anarchism.

All of your questions, all of your confusion can simply go away when you go and educate yourself.

As I have told you already, I am not going to educate you.

The answers you seek are out there, so either go and educate yourself or continue to be an ignorant fucking moron.

But I am not going to be investing my time into you.

[Exterminatore]

You already have invested your time in me.

I managed to waste your time, get you to keep nagging me about apologizing to you, and got you to get your panties in a wad over this dumb ass conversation.

I feel fulfilled.

Whose the dumb cunt now?

[Anonymous]

nit sure

[strateguy632]

in our generation people wouuld say "i dont sin" and therefore throw the rock. what about jesus himself? if he never sinned he could throw the rock? but which is more immoral adultery or killing the sinner?

[strateguy632]

oops, my continuation is by raaj.

[Jamie05rhs]

Neither do I judge promiscuous women either. They can be my friends, and I will love them and treat them like family. But only a fool would marry a whore.

(Notice that Jesus himself did not pursue a romantic relationship with any of them.)

[Jamie05rhs]

We may feel compassion in our hearts, yes. But when making important life decisions, we cannot be ruled by our emotions.

[Grond21]

Slight addendum. Jesus was not crucified because he did this with the adulterous woman. It was very overtly and specifically because he claimed to be God. The Jews made that clear

[AndrésC64]

The whole idea of the sacrifice is a joke. God "killed" himself so that he could "save" his children from his punishment for doing what he knew they were going to do before he created them exactly as he wanted.

He was tortured for a couple days, went to hell for a couple days and then went back to being his eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent self. That is not a sacrifice.

A sacrifice is not a sacrifice by definition if you get back what you supposedly sacrificed. At best, Jesus can
be said to have been temporarily inconvenienced for your sins.
-- Raven1

[Grond21]

Christians don't believe what you just said. That's a straw man

[AndrésC64]

Really? Christians don't believe that Jesus is God? They don't believe that Jesus was crucified? They don't believe that he died, went to hell, and then back to heaven? Do tell.

[Grond21]

Oh that's accurate, as you well know. But you left out many details that clarify exactly what Christians believe. And when those details are included it becomes clear that it's very reasonable. As opposed to your summary here.

In addition, your definition of sacrifice doesn't work. Would you say that a Jew who sacrificed their families artwork in the Holocaust and then had it returned 60 years later did not make a sacrifice? Because if you stick with this definition, you must say that

[AndrésC64]

What significant details did I leave out?

And your Jewish artwork analogy is flawed. When a human makes a sacrifice from that they really think that they are making a sacrifice. When God made his so-called sacrifice he knew that he was going to be back to his normal eternal, omnipotent, omniscient self. That is not a sacrifice. As the quote says, it's a temporary inconvenience.

[Grond21]

You left out the Dual nature of god. You also left out the difference in causality between knowing something to be true and causing something to be true. And that also explains on its own why the sacrifice was a true sacrifice.

Can you substantiate your claim that is sacrifice is only real if you don't get back what you gave up?

[AndrésC64]

Dual nature of god, so what?

And it doesn't matter the reason why something is true. The only thing that matters is that God knew that he was going to be back as his eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent self. That in and of itself makes it not a sacrifice.

What he did is no more of a sacrifice than if I lent you my lawn mower for the weekend. Yes, I wouldn't be able to cut my grass for the weekend. But right after that I could go back to cutting my grass every day of the week if I want it. Hardly a sacrifice. Again, temporary inconvenience at best. And even that is absurd. Why does there need to be any sacrifice at all? Couldn't he just forgive? Do you demand a bloody sacrifice before you forgive? Can you not forgive someone unless they offer you a bloody "sacrifice"?

[Grond21]

He never left as his eternal omniscient omnipresent self. So this comment shows you don't really understand the Nuance of what's actually being stated. What is believed by Christians.

As for the sacrifice, I think your perspective would change if you went through the most torturous process humans have ever invented. The humanity of Christ made the ultimate sacrifice. And that does have eternal value.
Has for God saving us some other way? He probably could have. Doesn't mean it was better,

[AndrésC64]

So his so-called sacrifice was even less of a sacrifice. Thanks.

And what is this most torturous process that humans invented? Is it worse than being tortured in hell for eternity? Because that's what I'm going to get for nothing more than a thought crime. And this eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being thinks it's a sacrifice to endure that for a couple of days. What a joke.

So you agree that God simply could have forgiven us with a thought. Nothing further required for forgiveness, just the way we forgive with nothing more than a thought. No sacrifice, and certainly no bloody sacrifice required. God is a sadistic idiot if that's the only way he could think of.

[Grond21]

I can't tell if you are willfully misunderstanding or if you really don't get it.

[AndrésC64]

I understand it perfectly well. The story is idiotic. And anyone that believes it is pretty dense themselves.

[Grond21]

I rest my case

[AndrésC64]

So you're telling me that you couldn't think of a better way to forgive people than having part of yourself killed? Because that's just plain stupid and depending on how you view God sadistic and/or masochistic. And that's the kind of God you worship? Wow

[strateguy632]

to gr, content because, you emphasized an important distinction, i agree with you

[strateguy632]

@AndrésC64 , content really, you just changed your list! admitting your first version was wrong.

[strateguy632]

@AndrésC64 , content joke, each detail you wrote has a flaw, accumulated in an absurd mock that does not apply to the story.
a, "God "killed" himself so that:"
god the father is spirit but jesus was in a body. not "self" the father personality spirit.
b, "he could "save" his children from his punishment"
not merely save but PAY DEBT, if only to save from HIS punishment could decide won't punish simply, and can be a pushover, but the issue was sin.
c, "doing what he knew they were going to do before"
despite "knowing what people chose will have chosen" the sinner did not know nor was forced to sin but chose to follow temptation, so deserved punishment for choice.
d, "he created them exactly as he wanted." sounds like writing the computer program 10 rem 20 do sin 30 get punished" but did not want "do sin" instead wanted human overcoming temptation therefore BOTH elements the weakness of temptation, but also the mind to resist... choose to go against nature which god did create but not for fall but to be tempted and still overcome. so that what happens when you hear christianity second hand, instead of at bible college or reading the religious text.

[Summeroflove]

All the anarchists are here to force their viewpoints on you

[Sixgunsound]

is it possible for philosophers to be outside morality?

[strateguy632]

impossible because they defined morality, still they can violate their own definition for example if bad and evil mean harm, as famous kant wrote, then anyone including kant can still act wrong breaking a window or harming a pet or worse if harming a human fetus, is harming.

[Smartman5]

I have no idea on the subject. but it was not Jesus who was crucified. Jesus did not actually die, his spirit ascended to heaven. when the apocalypse will come, Jesus will come back

[AndrésC64]

The so-called sacrifice is a joke. God had himself tortured for a couple days and then went to hell for a couple of days, and then went back to being his normal, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent self. That is not a sacrifice. And he performed this so-called sacrifice in order to "save" his children from his punishment of them for doing EXACTLY as he KNEW they would do BEFORE he created them EXACTLY as he wanted. Why not just forgive? How many people demand a bloody sacrifice before they forgive? Nobody.

A sacrifice is not a sacrifice by definition if you get back what you supposedly sacrificed. At best, Jesus can be said to have been temporarily inconvenienced for your sins.
-- Raven1

[strateguy632]

to sma, i agree with u, only body died but life named jesus moved, same as mortal death but where between your version heaven and andres reply to you hell, neithef kuz not desrve hell he went to the "storage" of souls called shol in book genesis, one more "stopover" according to book, returned to body tangible before as you wrote ascended etc.

[Anonymous]

Religion is bullshit, you should try anarchism it makes much more sense.

My freedom ends where yours begins.

[Exterminatore]

I want to sincerely thank you. Your statement here has single-handedly changed my political views.

See, I was a staunch conservative, greatly in favor of law and order and a well regimented society to prevent chaos.

Not any more.

I’m now an anarchist.

After reading this, I lamented as to why one would be an anarchist. There would be no police. No laws. No governing authorities. Disputes would be settled by might is right.

The murderer could murder freely. Who could stop him? No laws. No police. No governing authorities.

This is the perfect vehicle to eliminate people such as yourself and SJWs. After all. You can’t tell me I can’t murder and you have no advocate to go to. Might would be right and I could simply eliminate all you long haired, hippie, commie undesirables.

Voting is futile to restore society to sanity. We need anarchy. So we can freely purge the world of people who think this way and no one could stop us.

I’m on your side now my fellow anarchist. We are now comrads. Let us work together to destroy society so I can freely eliminate all people like you. We can revert to tribalism, where my tribe has the complete freeness to massacre all who think as you do.

Or we can just keep laws and such and not go down that ugly road. It doesn’t end well for complete freedom seekers such as you. What say ye?

I say, let freedom without restriction begin at once.

Also, I hope you aren’t one of these anti gun people. You’ll be needing those guns because people like me aren’t getting rid of ours.

After we are rid of people with your views, we can install fascism to ensure people like you don’t ever get a platform again.

Thank you again my fellow anarchist.

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore Unfortunately you are just another ignorant fucking moron who hasn't got the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no government.

The rules are embedded into the philosophy, which you would already know if you had bothered to find out anything at all about the subject.

[Exterminatore]

Hold on bud. I get I poured on the sarcasm in my statement but take a close look at what you just said.

“Anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no government.”

So who is it exactly that drafts legislation and enforces it…ummmm….. ahhhhhh……. mmmmmmmm……. oh I got it! The government.

You can espouse any kind of anarchism you want and what it means to you. Idc, but the bottom line is anarchy is no government and no government means no laws and no one to enforce laws. Once you have rules (laws) then you have government. Once you have someone to enforce those rules, you have government. Anarchy and laws and rules are diametrically opposed concepts.

Whatever your political philosophy it’s not true anarchy once you have laws and someone to enforce them. You’ll have to call it a different name.

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore You are a fucking moron.

Go and look it up you stupid cunt.

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore Seriously what is it with you people?

This site is just a fucking blizzard of unbelievably fucking stupid American cunts.

[Opinion Owner]

Are you fucking poisoning your water supply or something?

How can you all be so fucking dumb?

What did you do to yourselves?

[Exterminatore]

Easy Rambo. You’re calling me dumb and don’t know what anarchy is, but proclaim to be an anarchist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Right there in the first sentence:

“Anarchy is a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body.”

Once you make rules you’re governing people. No sense to make rules if you don’t enforce them. Once you’re enforcing rules you no longer have anarchy.

Anarchy results in might is right to settle disputes.

If you’re talking rules, you’re talking something other than anarchy.

If you want to refute what I said try doing it with facts. Saying this site is full of stupid Americans when that’s all you got for your point is ignorant. It’s equally arrogant when you clearly don’t even know what your talking about, but you’re the smart one here.

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore No.

It is not my fucking job to educate every one of you retarded motherfuckers.

You get in my face and tell me I am a fucking prick and then you want my help?

Go and fuck yourself.

I totally understand that you think you know what you are talking about, but you don't.

So either go and do your own fucking work and figure out why I am telling you are retarded or just go and kill yourself, I don't care which but I am fucking done trying to educate rude, arrogant, epically retarded cunts.

[Exterminatore]

Hahahahaha

The triggered anarchist I love it.

“Not my fucking job to educate everyone….” Because you can’t because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

When you and all your friends finally achieve anarchy, I will decorate my dwellings with your scalp.

Is it hard having a low IQ?

[Opinion Owner]

@Exterminatore Alright you ignorant cunt, you want me to throw you a bone?

The reason you are getting the wrong answer is because you are googling the wrong fucking word.

Why are you looking up what anarchy is when the subject is anarchism?

And no, you didn't trigger me, I was already triggered by someone who actually managed some how to be dumber than you, you are just getting the fall out from it.

So no you aren't important and no you aren't right, you're just a dumb cunt.

Now when you look up what anarchism is and realise that I am right and you are wrong lets see if you have the strength of character required to come back and apologise to me and actually thank me for elevating you.

I'm guessing you will either slink away in silence or just double down on your bullshit, tell lies, avoid everything that disagrees with your retarded world view etc.

If you do reply its going to be your last words so far as I am concerned, unless your apology is suitably humbled by the way so make them count.

I dont think you are capable of it, I doubt you will even understand what you read when you look up anarchism.

But these are your problems, not my problems.

[strateguy632]

if u say anarchism makes sense still not really logical kuz society made government due to whatever needs society needed like organising trash pick up. how can "make sense" for businesses and contracts without laws made by governments due to problematic contracts. anarchy is most harmful by undoing and ignoring the problems that caused governments to make laws. i am not defended king, they by force but explained government better than snarchy. reference shallow family guy series episode? "we need representatives etc. (they organised stuff) until peter the symbol of anarchy boasted "ALL WITHOUT GOVERNMENT" End quote.

[strateguy632]

@Exterminatore , content enforce PRECISELY the issue and i agree with u

[Opinion Owner]

@strateguy632 Ok, so you don't understand, how is that my problem?

[PainusNdeeAnus]

Morality is a lie so is immorality there is no right or wrong

[Summeroflove]

You have a reprobate mind if you can not distinguish right and wrong. So you don't think killing someone is wrong? Rape is wrong?

[Summeroflove]

Really dude?

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove what does wrong mean? Who decided those things were wrong?

[Summeroflove]

Common sense.

[Summeroflove]

Do you kill? Rape? Pillage? If not... Why not and if so please turn yourself in

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove no why should I live by someone else’s morals

[Summeroflove]

So you don't know right from wrong? You think it is fine to kill someone. You think it is fine to rape someone. You don't even make any sense with your answers. Some people choose not to have any morals

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove who told you that murder and rape was wrong? You only believe it because that’s what you were told

[Summeroflove]

That is pretty bad if you don't think that is wrong... I think you are a danger to yourself and others. Would you want someone killing you?

[Summeroflove]

You are a danger to yourself and others. I think you're a rapist and a killer

[Summeroflove]

Even people who are total atheists still have some sort of morals they go by

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove where do those come from? It’s like you are brainwashed or something how do we know that rape is bad when sex is natural? How is murder bad when death is inevitable?

[Summeroflove]

Because number one it isn't consent. You would not want someone just having sex with you that you were not attracted to. Sex is for marriage but even if you don't think that you don't want something like that.

Killing someone is obviously wrong. You have made ZERO valid points and I don't even know what you are getting at.

Would you kill or rape?

[Summeroflove]

Again as I say you are a danger to yourself and others and you're going to hurt someone one day. If you have no already.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove I wouldn’t care it’s just sex

People die anyways so how is murder wrong?

[Summeroflove]

So why have you not taken your own life then? Obviously you value that. So why would you take the life of another? Nobody wants your disgusting penis inside them

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove I’m not sure I don’t think about stuff like that but I didn’t ask to be here so I wouldn’t really care either way if I died

[Summeroflove]

You would kill someone

[Summeroflove]

you would rape someone and you see no problem wiht it. Reprobate mind

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove you’re a whack job bro I looked that word up and by definition everyone else is as well

[Summeroflove]

You think that you are in the right to kill and rape.

[Summeroflove]

You're the wackjob and a danger to society

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove maybe I am maybe I’m not there’s no way to know what’s right and what’s wrong

[Summeroflove]

Common sense. As I said before. Common sense. Even people who are not religious at all think there is a right and wrong.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove whose common sense? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?

[Summeroflove]

That you should not kill someone or rape someone. I think that you are psychopathy or sociopathy. You don't have any understanding of right and wrong. You are a serious danger.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove who decides what is right or wrong?

[Summeroflove]

Again... Common sense does.

[Summeroflove]

It is programmed into most people.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove so it has to be learned? So then what is good sense?

[Summeroflove]

Not doing things that will hurt others or yourself.

[Summeroflove]

I don't get how this is just so above your head.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove what if those others are hurting people themselves such as rapist and pedophiles why is murder and rape suddenly okay then?

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove would it be right to let them keep hurting others according to you then yes “not doing things to hurt others “

[Summeroflove]

Some real fucking retards on this site today. Some real fucktards. Let me tell you

[Summeroflove]

You're one of them!

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove I’m the fuckard yet you can’t tell me the source of this morality?

[Summeroflove]

It is above your head evidently

[Summeroflove]

I already gave you examples. You are a danger to yourself and others

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove no such thing as bad student only bad teacher - mr. miyagi

[Summeroflove]

There are plenty of bad students who just don't want to learn and refuse to listen

[Summeroflove]

You can't reason with a person whose unreasonable

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@Summeroflove it is the students job to learn I’ve been doing nothing but ask questions but making sure the student understands is the teachers job

[strateguy632]

to pain, content wrong youbsound like voldemort and your version of atheism is the freedom that allowed atheist Stalin and "noncatholic" hitler to mass murder. still writing openly helps readers prefer bible morality rather than your idea. some can't believe athists allow everything but you said it.