Thread: morality

Yes that is what I am saying, How are you defining "divine law"?

There's nothing inherently wrong about wanting revenge in and of itself, and self-preservation is what we should all be concerned with. Who cares about their free will and choices? They're your enemy. Chances are good that they committed some sort of "free will violation" in order to become an enemy in the first place, so they get what they get. Ideally, the punishment should fit the crime, as they say, but that's all relative. Again, if you choose to take action, you also choose the repercussions of that action.[/QUOTE]

I have a very unique viewpoint on this. Having an enemy can be a blessing just like having a friend, but not if you harbor anger. I consider myself very skilled at avoiding situations where i would make an enemy. The easiest place to make enemies would be a place like fellow nurses working in the hospital backstabbing each other. Everyone is out for blood, so yes in this situation, as long as one has in his/her own conscious done the right thing by his/her colleagues, and is free of of hate in his heart, yes this is a situation where destroying the enemy is the right thing to do, and helpful to other nursing staff as well.

Using that definition i would agree with you. Something completely different comes to my mind when I think of divine law, the definition you gave me is actually how I would define Dao 道

yes thats right its undefinable, it really a matter of getting as close as we can but yes dao is always something even more then that, never arriving.
As for the cosmos keeping score, in terms of anything as abstract as good or bad is completely unconceivable to me.

I'm not a Satanist, so I can't and won't try to comment on Satanist perspectives about morality.

A more general observation about morality & religious/ spiritual/ philosophical 'commandments'. Many people who belong to or were raised in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic church community seem to have great difficulty understanding the concept of self-directed moral/ethical principles. They can't seem to grasp, how anyone could possess a moral or ethical 'compass', if that 'compass' doesn't take the form of very specific, eternal, unalterable 'rules' dictated by a God.

Some religious zealots can't comprehend that other persons could be guided by very powerful yet deeply personal experiences of empathy, compassion and reason - and guided just as consistently by these experiences as any Church Believer devoted to following 'God's commandments' might be. The fact that this inability to comprehend comes up, again & again, over & over throughout our society, leads me to believe that such religious zealots might not have a genuine experience of empathy or compassion, that excessively religious upbringings might actually inhibit the development of natural empathy and compassion, creating emotional cripples who really are dependent on someone else to tell them what is "right" and what is "wrong" behaviour.

Many people who belong to or were raised in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic church community seem to have great difficulty understanding the concept of self-directed moral/ethical principles. They can't seem to grasp, how anyone could possess a moral or ethical 'compass', if that 'compass' doesn't take the form of very specific, eternal, unalterable 'rules' dictated by a God.

Not just that specific concept, any concept these people don't understand the world like that. They use memorized sequential sets of rules to understand the world instead. The sequential items in a set don't have to be associated with each other. They are smart enough to memorize enough speech patterns though, to the point that they don't have to sound completely unable to conconceptualize (despite the fact that they are).
Now without being able to conceptualize, one is unable to reason, it is just based on rules. They're rules will easily get swayed to the general consensus.
Christianity or any other religion are

myths

(cleverly crafted stories, that are meant to help a person understand and utilize complex truths that would otherwise be to overwheming to be useful)
The problem is that these people can get literal to the point that not even these well-designed stories work