That's fine. Virtue-ethics was invented by a pagan philosopher (Aristotle) anyway

>>18658915
Theists don't have a basis for ethics either because ethics doesn't exist.
>but I subjectively believe that an alien who created the world has a subjective opinion of what's good or bad
not a basis

>>18658921
Virtue ethics aren’t contingent on Zeus THO

>>18658941
Is that so? Then I guess OP is entirely wrong. Atheists can use a pagan philosophers framework as the basis for ethics
>Virtue ethics aren’t contingent on Zeus THO
Based

>>18658932
>Believing that God can't define what's right and wrong is not a basis.
You sound retarded. By defintion one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective. Not sure what you're arguing for since in your world view nothing is wrong or right so why are you seething for?

>>18658948
>By defintion one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective
Okay but you just made him up. I can claim my conscience is all-righteous therefore my personal ethics are transcendent and correct.

>>18658948
>one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective
He's all-righteous according to your subjective opinion. He's also endowed with consciousness in your opinion, which gives him a subjective viewpoint by definition.

>>18658954
So do ethics not exist or are you all-righteous? Which one is it retard?

>>18658956
Prove that I'm subjective.

Subjective beliefs don't matter as much as objective actions, which we can measure and use for a basis to judge a persons character. Patterns of behavior are more important than whether or not you believe in god. A virtuous person can only be defined as virtuous through patterns in their behavior, not through what god they do or do not believe in.

File: images-18.jpg (29 KB, 447x447)

29 KB JPG

>>18658921
>pagan
At least he didn't believe the heavens weren't real.

>>18658985
>heavens
Irrelevant. Virtue-ethics is functional, logically sound, separate from belief in supernatural things. You can compliment your belief in supernatural things with virtue-ethics, if you want, which is why it's based.

Virtues are universal, even in nature.

>>18658915
why would I need a "basis" for ethics

>>18658948
>By defintion one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective.
Ok so what happens when I disagree with him? He sends me to hell? Why does something that's objective require enforcement? When was the last time God had to send someone to hell over violating the laws of physics?

>>18658943
A pagan is not an atheist
Different concepts

>>18659027
>A pagan is not an atheist
No shit. Philosophical framework of virtue ethics works for them just as well.

Reminder that the central plank of Christianity is than a man can rape an unbaptised 3 year old to death and so long as he repents and is baptised on his deathbed he goes to heaven, while the 3 year old burns in hell.

>>18659029
>same framework works for both
No it doesn't. You're either retarded or maybe you don't know what the a- prefix in Greek means

>>18659064
Yes it does. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anybody can act in ways which demonstrate virtue. Anybody can observe virtuous behavior, and repeat those actions to improve their moral character. Your subjective belief in religion or lack of religion has nothing to do with it. That's the entire point.
>You're either retarded or maybe you don't know what the a- prefix in Greek means
Has nothing to do with virtue ethics.

>>18659073
How can you believe in pagan morality if you don't believe in pagan gods?
I believe in Christian morality since I believe in the Christian God.

File: philosophy vs semitic psy(...).png (860 KB, 1280x764)

860 KB PNG

>>18659095
>How can you believe in pagan morality if you don't believe in pagan gods?
Belief doesn't translate into morality. What about that doesn't make sense to you? Our moral character is measured and defined by our actions & behavior, not by what we claim is our belief.
>I believe in Christian morality since I believe in the Christian God.
Lol that's not morality, then. That's not even philosophy.

>>18659098
>Belief doesn't translate into morality
Wrong, it does. A moral person acts on their belief they are doing the right thing. Otherwise, why act at all?
>Our moral character is measured and defined by our actions & behavior, not by what we claim is our belief.
And where does your moral code come from? Who wrote it and what did they believe in? You either don't have one or you are being disingenuous on purpose
>Lol that's not morality, then.
Learn the definition of morality
>That's not even philosophy.
Learn the definition of philosophy and then go read St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

>>18659105
>A moral person acts on their belief they are doing the right thing.
A moral person acts according to virtues which contribute to a moral character. It's not a process that's hard to understand, unless you are psychologically handicapped. Belief in Semitic cult fiction doesn't help the process at all.
>Otherwise, why act at all?
We act to pursue either virtue or vice, sometimes both. Often life is a struggle to balance these things so that we can maintain a virtuous character. That process doesn't require a belief in god.
>And where does your moral code come from?
Virtue-ethics, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, a few other sources.
>Who wrote it and what did they believe in?
Aristotle and Plato mostly. 1,000 years of Greek intellectual inheritance, maintained through pagan academies in Athens. If you don't know what they believed then you are not educated enough to be having this conversation right now.
>go read St. Augustine and St. Thomas.
Lol okay anon. I've read plenty. You should stop being a coward about studying the history of philosophy.

>""The Thomistic synthesis of philosophy and theology would be impossible without the Dionysian inheritance, which in turn would be impossible without Proclus. Aquinas owes more to Proclus, mediated through Dionysius, than to any Christian source apart from Augustine. The debt is unacknowledged throughout because its acknowledgment would require recognizing that Catholic metaphysics is, in substantial part, pagan Neoplatonism."
>source: Wayne J. Hankey, God in Himself: Aquinas's Doctrine of God as Expounded in the Summa Theologiae, Oxford University Press, 1987; cf. Fran O'Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas, Brill, 1992

>muh SAINTS!
Every Catholic seminarian since the thirteenth century has been trained in a metaphysical system whose structural backbone is the work of a pagan philosopher whose school (pagan academy in Athens) the Catholic Church had worked three centuries to destroy. The irony is total. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) cites "Dionysius" 1,702 times in the Summa Theologiae, ranking him immediately after Augustine as the most-cited authority after Scripture. The entire Thomistic doctrine of divine names, analogical predication, the angelic hierarchies, and the sacramental economy rests on Dionysian foundations. Aquinas believed he was engaging with a disciple of Paul. He was engaging with Proclus. Catholics have no cope other than self-deception, which is to say a vice not a virtue. The process of intellectual honesty is retarded by Catholic belief.

>>18659105
By the late nineteenth century, the weight of philological evidence had become impossible for the Catholic Church to deny. The work of Koch and Stiglmayr in 1895 was followed by further studies throughout the twentieth century, all of which confirmed the pseudonymity of the corpus and its direct dependence on Proclus. The Catholic Church's response was characteristic: it quietly conceded the pseudonymity while continuing to treat the corpus as theologically authoritative. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 already acknowledged the forgery; the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 reaffirmed it; every modern Catholic reference work classifies the author as "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite" or "Ps.-Dionysius."

"The writings which have come down to us under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are now universally admitted to be the work of an unknown author of the late fifth or early sixth century, heavily dependent on the Neoplatonic school of Proclus. The traditional attribution to the disciple of Paul is without historical foundation."
>source: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 484
The admission is made in reference works. It is not preached from pulpits. The average Christian believer, in any of the three major branches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), does not know that the mystical theology of his tradition was authored by an anonymous forger pretending to be an apostolic disciple. He does not know that the angelic hierarchy he was taught as a child was designed by a pagan philosopher. He does not know that the sacramental theology that underlies his tradition's ritual life is Iamblichean theurgy in disguise. All you have is sophistry on your side with god, not facts of history or real moral philosophy. It's pathetic and disgusting, frankly. Practice self reflection while you study history some more, please. Beware of church father propaganda

>>18659118
>apart from Augustine
Lmaoing at your "source". Forgot to mention the other influence, the Bible itself
>A moral person acts according to virtues which contribute to a moral characte
That is just verbal diarrhea and means absolutely nothing. If you don't believe in your own morality, why should I?
>Belief in Semitic cult fiction
But the NT and OT were written in a well-known European language :-)
>Often life is a struggle to balance these things so that we can maintain a virtuous character. That process doesn't require a belief in god.
How do you maintain a virtuous character? Do you believe in Buddha or something?
>Virtue-ethics, Neoplatonism, Buddhism, a few other sources.
That's a bit of a mix and match, more suited for the local vegan café where you go and discuss important things
>Aristotle and Plato mostly. 1,000 years of Greek intellectual inheritance, maintained through pagan academies in Athens
Was there no morality before Plato? Why not go back to Socrates or even Anaximander? You're on a history board, try to argue more coherently.

>>18659136
>autistically kvetching about Proclus
Ok atheistic moshi, but St. Thomas is primarily Aristotelian and he firmly rejected any Proclian ideas that were not supportive of his theses. So (your) inane paragraph makes even less sense than your "moral code"

>>18659141
>Forgot to mention the other influence, the Bible itself
Which version from which century is "the Bible itself"? It's been transliterated to 4 different languages at different time periods, with many changes and alterations along the way. Lmaoing at your "source".
>But the NT and OT were written in a well-known European language :-)
>written in
Translated to* (from: Hebrew/Aramaic). I know intellectual honesty is not a Catholic virtue, but do try not to omit historical context when having a conversation regarding history. Thanks!
>How do you maintain a virtuous character?
By acting in a way which can be defined as moral behavior, or at the very least "decency". Do you know what the concept of decency is? They don't teach that virtue in the bible.
>Was there no morality before Plato?
Of course. Greece was connected to ancient Egypt and Babylon, where they shared and synthesized many philosophies and mutually advanced their own respective moral ethics. That intellectual inheritance is reflected in Neoplatonism, and in virtue ethics by Aristotle.

>>18658915
God is a fictional character, and he's a pretty nasty fictional character. What's the problem with pointing that out?

>>18659150
>doesn't address a single point in the post
>attacks the poster instead
Catholics act very Jewish. Yikes
>St. Thomas is primarily Aristotelian
No he's primarily Catholic actually. How could you get THAT wrong? May your god forgive you for being so stupid because I will not.

File: S112.png (216 KB, 711x583)

216 KB PNG

>>18658915
Reminder that morality is a spook.

>>18659152
>which version
The one St Thomas read? That would be the Latin Vulgate, you're welcome. I thought you were an expert in history and theology? What happened?
>Translated to
Um, pilpul much? Forgot about the NT chaimtheist? Or did you forget that the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic? I know intellectual honesty is not a talmudic atheist virtue, but do try not to omit historical context when having a conversation regarding history. Thanks!
>By acting in a way which can be defined as moral behavior, or at the very least "decency".
Milquetoast vague and utterly confused answer. I don't even know what to say to this beside a half-heartfelt "meh".
>Greece was connected to ancient Egypt and Babylon, where they shared and synthesized many philosophies and mutually advanced their own respective moral ethics.
Tell me about Homeric morality and virtue instead. I'm not interested in your gay "cosmopolitan" connections and despite all their borrowings and "exchanghes" the Greeks remained a thoroughly European people steeped in their own traditions. They had no need or use for morality from elsewhere because they already had it from their own ancestors

>>18659161
>begging for acceptance
Come on now long nose. We don't need to have THAT discussion here. It's already been covered by the great pagan scholar and statesman Publius Aelius Hadrianus
>doesn't address a single point in the post
You did not make a single point worth addressing
>No he's primarily Catholic actually
I mean, I did type St. so I acknowledged that first. Touché hooknose, thanks for playing

>>18659173
>The one St Thomas read? That would be the Latin Vulgate
see >>18659131
>Milquetoast vague and utterly confused answer. I don't even know what to say to this beside a half-heartfelt "meh".
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand virtue ethics at all. Tragic. Nor do you know anything about the forgeries included in your bible, or how those forgeries inspired your precious Saint Thomas. Even more tragic!

>>18659178
>see
I saw it and it means absolutely nothing as I already explained. It's not a gotcha, onlh a brainrotted talmudist would think it is because your kind is notoriously adverse to reason
>Spoken like someone who doesn't understand virtue ethics at all.
Did you learn a fancy new term at your local gay café. There is nothing to understand, because you have provided nothing to work with, beside mentioning Buddha, the Neoplatonists, and the kvetch about Proclus (still ongoing).
>forgeries included in your bible
Kvetch harder schlomo. The LXX and NT are perfect unlike your blasphemous rags

File: 1773413784755712.png (946 KB, 1912x3000)

946 KB PNG

Not interested in Catholic cope & sophistry, lashing out at people who are posting historical facts because it undermines their belief. Desperately trying to avoid engaging with the facts. Catholics are programmed to only ever be ""open minded"" with those who believe in the bible. Im just gonna finish cooking

Christianity acquired its mysticism in a single documented act of literary theft. At the beginning of the sixth century of the common era, an anonymous Syrian monk read the works of the pagan Neoplatonist Proclus, head of the Platonic Academy of Athens from 437 to 485 CE, along with the works of Proclus's predecessors Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus. This monk copied Proclus's system, with substantial portions reproduced verbatim or with minimal paraphrase, replaced the pagan divine names with Christian terminology, attached his forgery to the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (a figure mentioned briefly in Acts 17:34 as an Athenian convert of Paul), and released the resulting corpus into Byzantine circulation. The forgery was accepted as authentic apostolic writing for the next thousand years. It shaped every subsequent Christian mystical tradition, from Maximus the Confessor to Meister Eckhart to John of the Cross. Every Catholic sacramental theology, every Byzantine liturgical commentary, every Western scholastic doctrine of the angelic hierarchies, traces back to this document.

The document is a forgery. The author is pagan Proclus in Christian costume. This is not a theory. It is the unanimous conclusion of nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship, confirmed by line-by-line parallel textual analysis that any reader can verify in the critical editions. The Catholic Church itself has admitted the pseudonymity since the late nineteenth century, though it has continued to treat the corpus as theologically authoritative because removing it would dismantle most of the Christian mystical tradition.

>>18658915
Tell me, your religion says the world is an evil dark place, cursed.
How come doctors tell their patients to go out and breathe the natural world to get well?
Sounds an awful lot like paganism.

>>18659131
The wrong name thing isnt really the gotcha youre trying to make it out to be. Its just a mix up about who wrote it, not what it said. Aquinas took a few ideas from Dionysius and fixed the bad parts. His real "structural backbone" was Aristotle anyways.

>>18658941
They aren't contingent on Yahwe either.

File: damascius.png (1.98 MB, 1024x1024)

1.98 MB PNG

>>18659331
>Its just a mix up about who wrote it, not what it said. Aquinas took a few ideas from Dionysius and fixed the bad parts
That is viciously downplaying what happened. To understand the theft, one must first understand what was stolen. Proclus Diadochus (c. 412-485 CE) was the most systematic philosophical mind of late antiquity. He served as Diadochos, Successor, of the Platonic Academy in Athens for nearly fifty years. Under his leadership the Academy produced the most sophisticated metaphysical system the ancient world had ever articulated: a fully rigorous account of the procession of all reality from the ineffable One, through the noetic hierarchies, the psychic orders, and finally into embodied material being, with a corresponding doctrine of return through purification, illumination, and union (theurgic and contemplative).

Proclus's major works include the Elements of Theology (Stoicheiosis Theologike), 211 rigorously demonstrated metaphysical propositions in the Euclidean manner; the Platonic Theology (Peri tes kata Platona theologias), six books on the divine orders drawn from the Platonic dialogues; the Commentary on the Parmenides, the most sustained ancient analysis of the first hypothesis of that dialogue; the Commentary on the Timaeus, a three-thousand-page cosmological exposition; and shorter works including On Providence, On the Existence of Evils, and the hymns to the Gods. His teacher was Syrianus; his successors included Marinus (who wrote Proclus's biography, the Vita Procli) and eventually Damascius, the last Scholarch before the Academy's closure.The Academy was closed in 529 CE by the Christian Emperor Justinian I, whose legislation prohibited the teaching of pagan philosophy on pain of confiscation of property and loss of civil rights. The remaining philosophers, including Damascius and Simplicius, fled to the Sasanian court of Khosrow I before partially returning under treaty conditions.

File: plotinus.png (1.91 MB, 1024x1024)

1.91 MB PNG

"Proclus's system is the most complete expression of Neoplatonic metaphysics that has survived from antiquity. His influence on both Byzantine Christianity and Latin scholasticism was transmitted primarily through the Dionysian corpus, whose dependence on Proclus is by now universally recognized and textually demonstrable at every level of the system."
> E.R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1963, Introduction, pp. xxvi-xxxv
I can appreciate that people who believe in the bible don't recognize any contradicting sources. Because they are convinced that the bible itself is the perfect word of god and a infallible account of history itself. So for people who aren't close minded, who appreciate historical facts and aren't afraid to take it all in context, I hope you enjoy these posts.

The Neoplatonist Academy was closed in 529 CE by the Christian Emperor Justinian I, whose legislation prohibited the teaching of pagan philosophy on pain of confiscation of property and loss of civil rights. The remaining philosophers, including Damascius and Simplicius, fled to the Sasanian court of Khosrow I before partially returning under treaty conditions. The thousand-year continuous tradition of Greek philosophical instruction at Athens, begun by Plato in 387 BCE, was extinguished by imperial Christian decree.

Within a generation of the Academy's closure, the Dionysian corpus appeared. The timing is not coincidental. The corpus attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite consists of four major treatises and ten letters: On the Divine Names (De Divinis Nominibus), On the Mystical Theology (De Mystica Theologia), On the Celestial Hierarchy (De Caelesti Hierarchia), On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia), and the ten Epistles. These texts first surface in the historical record at a specific, dated moment: the Council of Constantinople held in 532 CE, just three years after Justinian closed the Academy (cont. in next post)

File: proclus.jpg (164 KB, 1920x1920)

164 KB JPG

At that council, convened to resolve the Christological dispute between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite parties, the Monophysite bishop Severus of Antioch and his supporters cited the Dionysian corpus as *authoritative apostolic writing* to support their theological position. The Chalcedonian bishop Hypatius of Ephesus immediately challenged the citation, pointing out that no Church Father before the sixth century had ever quoted these texts. No mention of them exists in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine, or Cyril of Alexandria. A corpus supposedly composed by a disciple of Paul, Hypatius noted, should have been known and cited by every subsequent Christian writer. The silence of five hundred years of patristic literature proved the corpus to be a recent fabrication. Hypatius's objection was overruled politically. The corpus was admitted as authentic and rapidly spread throughout Byzantine and then Latin Christendom. The first major Christian commentator to systematize the texts was John of Scythopolis around 540 CE, within a decade of their surfacing; his Scholia, expanded by Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century, became the standard Byzantine framework for reading the corpus. The texts were translated into Latin by John Scotus Eriugena in the ninth century at the court of Charles the Bald, introducing Dionysian theology to the Latin West, where it would become central to Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the late medieval mystical tradition.

""Hypatius of Ephesus objected at the Council of 532 that the writings cited under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were not in fact ancient, since none of the Fathers had ever referred to them. This objection, preserved in the conciliar acts, remains the earliest external evidence of the corpus and simultaneously the earliest rejection of its attributed authorship."

>>18658948
>By defintion one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective.
Now that you conceded Odin is objective, what will you do to worship him for the rest of your life?

File: aristotle.png (1.78 MB, 1024x1024)

1.78 MB PNG

The real Dionysius the Areopagite was a minor figure. Acts 17:34 mentions him in a single verse: "But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them." This is his only appearance in the New Testament. Later tradition identified him with a first-century bishop of Athens. No writings of any kind were attributed to him *before the sixth century*. A first-century Athenian convert of Paul could not possibly have written texts that quote Proclus, whose works were composed four hundred years later.

The pseudonymous author chose this name deliberately. A supposed disciple of Paul, converted at Athens (the heart of pagan philosophy), gives the forgery an impeccable apostolic pedigree and a specific cultural authority: a Christian convert who retains the philosophical depth of Athens. The name was chosen to neutralize the otherwise obvious objection that the theology of the corpus is Athenian Neoplatonism. By making the author a converted Athenian disciple of Paul, the forger pre-empts the accusation. The depth is Athenian, the frame is apostolic, and the reader is expected not to ask questions.

For nine hundred years the Dionysian corpus was *read as genuine apostolic writing*. In the Latin West it was ranked just below Scripture itself. Thomas Aquinas cites "Dionysius" 1,702 times in the Summa Theologiae, treating him as a primary authority on divine names, angelic hierarchies, and the nature of mystical union. The entire medieval doctrine of the nine choirs of angels (Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, Angels) comes directly from the Celestial Hierarchy. The Scholastic doctrine of analogical predication of divine names rests on the Divine Names. The mystical theology of darkness, unknowing, and apophatic ascent in Meister Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, and John of the Cross descends from the Mystical Theology. Catholicism is ignorance.

>>18658948
>By defintion one who is all-righteous cannot be subjective
God cannot know what you will do, so he can't be objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinianism#Predestination_and_omniscience
"The Socinians believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen) and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience."

>>18658915
>Reminder that gaytheists don't have a basis for ethics yet "God bad". Kek
the basis is your mind. until you cna prove otherwise and demonstrate there is an objective standard, the standards are subjective, no matter how much you dislike this, its the case.

(you will never reply to this with proof of your moral standard btw)

Morals and ethics emerge from social interaction and experience. For example, people don't like to be lied to, so they honor honesty and revile deception. That's a crosscultural value that's divinely endorsement in many different religions. Religions institutionalize moral, ethical and social values that are already present, but may not have any formal system or ideology to give them an authority that's set above simple social reciprocity. It's no coincidence that kings and priests cooperate closely in promoting social order. Spiritual authority and lawgiving are in many respects the same thing. Hammurabi decreed certain consumer protections, and because a Babylonian king was also the city's chief priest, the decree had divine backing, by way of Shamash. In reality, the court had obviously fielded some complaint from someone whose son was killed when a shittily built house collapsed. And the court thought, "Yeah, that sort of thing shouldn't happen." Shamash wouldn't like that, because we don't like it.

Then there's all the ritual fluff that people are supposed to observe. So that as long as they are dutifully avoiding taboos and conducting their prayers in the prescribed fashion, they are more likely to follow the rules that actually matter to society. Like don't murder, don't sleep with your friend's wife, etc.

>>18659023
If we're talking about the christian trinitarian God then you're making your own choice. So no one is sending you. You made the choice yourself.

>>18659003
>why would I need to know why right is right and wrong is wrong?
Are you this stupid?

>>18659055
Reminder that without Christian ethics you can't justify why the rape of a 3 year old is bad. Atheists are so retarded. They'll point out how "evil" something is yet can't justify why that act is evil.

>>18659907
>Morals and ethics emerge from social interaction and experience.
That makes no sense. Something that was wrong 100 years ago might be totally acceptable nowadays. In other words ethics have no meaning in your world view. It can mean anything to anyone and can change at any time. For example is jerking off morally wrong or right? If your answer has "it depends" in it then you're clearly a dipshit.

>>18660628
>Something that was wrong 100 years ago might be totally acceptable nowadays.
Practical wisdom is what we rely on to discern that. It compliments that anons description: "Morals and ethics emerge from social interaction and experience."
>That makes no sense
It does when you apply practical wisdom, like I said. True virtue never becomes obsolete either. Virtue ethics makes logical sense.

>>18660599
I don't understand. If God's morals are objective why can I violate them?

>>18660689
Because God gave (you) free will dummy

>>18660727
I have free will but only specifically when it comes to morals and if I don't use it correctly I get sent to the magic eternal assrape dungeon. That makes sense.

>>18660750
It's straight and narrow. We can only hope we make it

>>18660754
I still don't understand how something can be objective if I can contradict it but whatever. I don't want to ask too many questions and get sent to the assrape dungeon.

>>18660760
There is no assrape risk for asking questions. I'll try to explain as clearly as I can.
God's Morality is unchanged and unchangeable, but all His Commands can be broken, and are broken daily billions of times. It sounds like a paradox, and also looks like a weakness of God for allowing the current state of affairs to continue and just punish the bad ones in the Afterlife. Although if this were the case it would still be within God's rights to do, it is not so. My worldview has an active God (the Holy Spirit) Who is present here and now, and does wonders constantly. However, that does not mean we have only to rely on the Spirit and lead a passive life. There are some called to contemplation and hermitage and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they don't turn into parasites, which is unGodly because God is a Maker. Most of us are called to our own lives and must toil in this world while obeying God's Word as much as we can.

>>18660792
That's a lot of words to say literally nothing.

>>18660844
>pearls before swine
Well, I can't be faulted for trying. Anyway, it sounds like an operator-related issue on your end

>>18660858
Your argument is
>God's morality is objective because I say so, and even if that doesn't make any sense he's God so you gotta kinda go along with the program.

>>18660882
Not because I say so. I am just a mortal like you, I make mistakes like you. I said that morality comes from God and God plays an active part in this life

>>18659166
Pain isn't a spook though


And if you fuck with my recourses or cause me harm, you're going to experience it

>>18660643
>practical wisdom
Saying practical widsom isn't an argument. You clearly don't know what tf you're talking about. As I said morals and ethics can mean different things to different people and throughout different time periods. You've only made conjectures so far. Aristotle states that practical widsom is inherently relative proving my point and proving that you're an idiot since you didn't even bother to do any sort of research on the terms you were using.

>>18659569
None of this matters when the doctrine of Pseudo-Dionysius can be reconciled with the writings of the Fathers. If it can be, then it is not in error. To say that the Fathers did not cite him does not mean that his words are false.

>>18658915
In my experience, theists generally just project their own morals and biases (which are clearly shaped by their culture) onto their vision of god, and then pat themselves on the back for following their own/society's moral code while pretending it's backed by a higher power.

>>18662300
Practical wisdom & virtue are the basis for judging moral behavior, and for knowing what sort of person we should strive to become. That is virtue ethics in a nutshell. You're clearly very emotional about something that I've explained in simple terms.

>>18662308
>the doctrine of Pseudo-Dionysius can be reconciled with the writings of the Fathers
It literally cannot. That is why the church fathers edited the original, and added in new things that don't fit in with the metaphysical system as it was originally written in Athens (by pagans).
>If it can be, then it is not in error
Literally (definitionally) it cannot
>To say that the Fathers did not cite him does not mean that his words are false
It shows that "divine inspiration" as defined by the church is complete bullshit. The real Dionysius the Areopagite was a minor figure. Acts 17:34 mentions him in a single verse: "But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them." This is his only appearance in the New Testament. Later tradition identified him with a first-century bishop of Athens. No writings of any kind were attributed to him before the sixth century. A first-century Athenian convert of Paul could not possibly have written texts that quote Proclus, whose works were composed four hundred years later. The pseudonymous author chose this name deliberately. A supposed disciple of Paul, converted at Athens (the heart of pagan philosophy), gives the forgery an impeccable apostolic pedigree and a specific cultural authority: a Christian convert who retains the philosophical depth of Athens. The name was chosen to neutralize the otherwise obvious objection that the theology of the corpus is Athenian Neoplatonism. By making the author a converted Athenian disciple of Paul, the forger pre-empts the accusation. The depth is Athenian, the frame is apostolic, and the reader is expected not to ask questions. As is traditon

>>18662412
>cannot
Bet. You saying it definitionally cannot doesn’t mean anything. All you do is quote a bunch of history. There’s basically no theological refutation outside of nuh-uh. The Church theologians managed to do so anyway.

>>18658915
christard ethics: do this, don't do that, otherwise bearded man in the sky will throw you in magic lava.

>>18658915
>don't have a basis for ethics
Define "basis for ethics", different atheists prescribe to different things
>yet "god bad"
According to the Christian framework if you want to be logically consistent. When atheists say this it's always in the context of Christian morality and showing the contradiction. See problem of evil. Otherwise atheists don't believe in god at all.

>let me tell you about the guy who died to forgive your sins and avout magic lava after your forgiven sins arent forgiven at all

Trustworthy dude ..

>>18658915
Lol.

>>18658915
>gaytheists don't have a basis for ethics
only partially true.
Atheist liberals dont have a basis for ethics because they appeal to a form of creationism (evolution stopped at the neck) while also being anathema to actual divine creation.
Pagan Atheists like Varg or Spencer arguably Rowsell have a more enlightened view which is that morality is a biological instinct and so man can definitively find out moral truths based on instincts and social behaviors.