What is objective morality? | Poal: Say what you want.

343

• (edited )

What does that term mean?

I guess it's not fair of me to ask without sharing my own understanding of it:

In my opinion, I think the objective moral standard is that which we can find in evolution, those who fulfill it get to live in those they leave behind and those who come after, and those who do not fulfill it are punished by being the end of their line.

The objective moral commandment is "thou shalt ensure the propagation of the copies of thy genes by the best means that are known by thee & at thine disposal". My practical understand of this as a general rule, is that I see moral behavior as a game, which I define here as "a goal to be pursued within a framework of restriction one may not violate in pursuit of the previously mentioned goal".

Proscriptive commandments, limited by Prohibitive commandments.

The proscriptive ("goal") aspect is ratio utilitarianism - all things that are positively perceived, like pleasure and happiness, placed in a ratio over all things that are negatively perceived, like suffering and sorrow, but with my addition of "scientifically justified beliefs" to the top half of the ratio, and "scientifically unjustified beliefs" at the bottom half. It should also take into account the long-term consequences and not just concern itself with the immediate, as a negative utilitarian might point out, the great momentary pleasure of the eating of a lotus leaf may be made insignificant when the far grater negative consequences of addiction and withdrawal are sure to follow after. It might feel good to chug sugary soda and munch on deep-fried potato chips, but obesity and digestive/reproductive/psychological problems are sure to follow, and the often under-estimated degree of living hell this is easily outweighs (lol) the short term pleasure from consuming a diet of junk.

The prohibitive ("rules") aspect is the Non-Aggression Principle - Simply put, it's a system of respecting the concepts of ownership and consent, everyone owns their person, which includes their bubble of personal space around themselves, and their property, which can include almost anything with few exceptions, that are typically cited as things like non-physical "property" ("Intellectual Property") and other people (some variants are only considering a particular category of people - "Living White Male Gentile Humans" - as being protected from ownership by law, or to be protected by law in any capacity). Any interaction with anything that is owned is prohibited unless it is consented to by the owner, this can involve things like consent on conditions ("you give me something I value more than what I have, and I'll give you something you value more than what you have" - the essence of barter), or the fact that consent that can be withdrawn, and the interaction has to be ended, as continuing it would be a violation of the NAP ("get off my property" being a classic example). This is the reason why laws like "do not kill" and "do not steal" work so well. The NAP doesn't applying to all being as people who can own things, some things are only worthy of being considered on the "property" side of things, for example, the farmer is a "person" but the cow is not, she is only worthy of moral consideration as his "property".

There is the third element, which most moral systems fail to even acknowledge, and in my opinion this is the part that separates a Fascist morality from other moral systems. That part is the acknowledgement that not all entities are morally equivalent, and that there exists a moral hierarchy that sets some above other in terms of moral priority. This is where Evolution comes in, as it forms the basis of a two-factor scaling of the extent of one's moral obligations to others, the two factors are genetic similarity (how many genes they and you share in common), and youth (those who are younger must ave moral priority over those who are older), it's the idea of a bunch of circles drawn around oneself, first around you and those who share 100% of your genetics, then around those who share 50% of your genetics, and so on, then you can arrange those inside these circles according to age, and establish their priority within those circles on that basis, younger over older. You can even put more importance on age than genetic similarity, making it so that the equation you use would place your grandchildren over your children in terms of the your priority of moral duties towards them.

You cannot love anything without hating that which threatens it, and unconditional love for everything is practically just another term for an attitude of complete and indiscriminate apathy. It is hate that gives substance to love, it is hate that bring love it's significance, without a component of hate for your love's anathema, your love for anything may well as not exist, one who loves truth must hate lies, one who loves their children must hate those who seek to cause them harm, one who loves their people must hate those who despise them. When we are forbidden to hate, we are forbidden to love as well.

You are your genes, they are what make you, you. It is not your components that make you unique, but the way they are put together, your genetics are the blueprints for that, and as such, they are your essence. Well, your essence is not just your own, but the composition of the essences of many others, you are literally made out of your ancestors, some part of the things that make them themselves, are literally what makes you yourself. Any attack on your ancestors or their people is also an attack on you, and should be responded to as such, in the appropriate manner, it is not an overreaction to lay the beat down on one who insults the honor of your forefathers, in a more honorable society, nothing would be seen as being more appropriate, alas, we do not live in a society that values honor (though it used to). You have every right to feel one with them, to take pride in their achievements, and shame in their failings, and to be concerned with which are which, as our (((history classes))) are most successful in convincing our children that the victories of their ancestors are to be seen as a source of shame and guilt, that they should mourn the successes of their people, and bemoan the evidence of their superiority. Even the dissident right has fallen into this trap, and tries to downplay or deny, rather than tackling the core assumption of the attacks, that these are to be seen by Whites as tragedies to be regretted and atoned for, rather than as epic tales of glorious feats to be honored and emulated.

Last thing I'd like to mention is traditionalism, as an atheist, I see valuing traditions as being quite scientific and practical, a tradition is any meme that has withstood many competitors and emerged from it as the one with more positive consequences and less negative ones. Scientifically speaking, traditions have been vindicated through the falsification process, so it is a practical act to assume them the position of incumbency, and to challenge any alternatives to prove their superiority to the existing order of things, rather than just blindly adopting and tolerating novelty for novelty sake (which is what "progressivism" essentially is). Traditions usually emerge from practicality, not impractical thinking, but the optimal path, determined by experimentation, they are often the solutions to problems we have forgotten about, and when we blindly remove the traditions, the problem that they were created to address return and rear their ugly heads, it is only from a position of comfort and ignorance that one could be so reckless as to just abandon or attack traditions so recklessly.

Discrimination against the other is good, because it closes the pool and allows your ideas to be made into reality far more easily, the more other groups you discriminate against, the stronger your ideas become as a result of the pool of competing ideas becoming smaller, even those who oppose discrimination should engage in it, because it is the only means of getting to the point where they can acquire the power necessary to enforce their anti-discriminatory, and give it substance.

What does that term mean? I guess it's not fair of me to ask without sharing my own understanding of it: In my opinion, I think the objective moral standard is that which we can find in evolution, those who fulfill it get to live in those they leave behind and those who come after, and those who do not fulfill it are punished by being the end of their line. The objective moral commandment is "thou shalt ensure the propagation of the copies of thy genes by the best means that are known by thee & at thine disposal". My practical understand of this as a general rule, is that I see moral behavior as a game, which I define here as "a goal to be pursued within a framework of restriction one may not violate in pursuit of the previously mentioned goal". Proscriptive commandments, limited by Prohibitive commandments. The proscriptive ("goal") aspect is ratio utilitarianism - all things that are positively perceived, like pleasure and happiness, placed in a ratio over all things that are negatively perceived, like suffering and sorrow, but with my addition of "scientifically justified beliefs" to the top half of the ratio, and "scientifically unjustified beliefs" at the bottom half. It should also take into account the long-term consequences and not just concern itself with the immediate, as a negative utilitarian might point out, the great momentary pleasure of the eating of a lotus leaf may be made insignificant when the far grater negative consequences of addiction and withdrawal are sure to follow after. It might feel good to chug sugary soda and munch on deep-fried potato chips, but obesity and digestive/reproductive/psychological problems are sure to follow, and the often under-estimated degree of living hell this is easily outweighs (lol) the short term pleasure from consuming a diet of junk. The prohibitive ("rules") aspect is the Non-Aggression Principle - Simply put, it's a system of respecting the concepts of ownership and consent, everyone owns their person, which includes their bubble of personal space around themselves, and their property, which can include almost anything with few exceptions, that are typically cited as things like non-physical "property" ("Intellectual Property") and other people (some variants are only considering a particular category of people - "Living White Male Gentile Humans" - as being protected from ownership by law, or to be protected by law in any capacity). Any interaction with anything that is owned is prohibited unless it is consented to by the owner, this can involve things like consent on conditions ("you give me something I value more than what I have, and I'll give you something you value more than what you have" - the essence of barter), or the fact that consent that can be withdrawn, and the interaction has to be ended, as continuing it would be a violation of the NAP ("get off my property" being a classic example). This is the reason why laws like "do not kill" and "do not steal" work so well. The NAP doesn't applying to all being as people who can own things, some things are only worthy of being considered on the "property" side of things, for example, the farmer is a "person" but the cow is not, she is only worthy of moral consideration as his "property". There is the third element, which most moral systems fail to even acknowledge, and in my opinion this is the part that separates a Fascist morality from other moral systems. That part is the acknowledgement that not all entities are morally equivalent, and that there exists a moral hierarchy that sets some above other in terms of moral priority. This is where Evolution comes in, as it forms the basis of a two-factor scaling of the extent of one's moral obligations to others, the two factors are genetic similarity (how many genes they and you share in common), and youth (those who are younger must ave moral priority over those who are older), it's the idea of a bunch of circles drawn around oneself, first around you and those who share 100% of your genetics, then around those who share 50% of your genetics, and so on, then you can arrange those inside these circles according to age, and establish their priority within those circles on that basis, younger over older. You can even put more importance on age than genetic similarity, making it so that the equation you use would place your grandchildren over your children in terms of the your priority of moral duties towards them. You cannot love anything without hating that which threatens it, and unconditional love for everything is practically just another term for an attitude of complete and indiscriminate apathy. It is hate that gives substance to love, it is hate that bring love it's significance, without a component of hate for your love's anathema, your love for anything may well as not exist, one who loves truth must hate lies, one who loves their children must hate those who seek to cause them harm, one who loves their people must hate those who despise them. When we are forbidden to hate, we are forbidden to love as well. You are your genes, they are what make you, you. It is not your components that make you unique, but the way they are put together, your genetics are the blueprints for that, and as such, they are your essence. Well, your essence is not just your own, but the composition of the essences of many others, you are literally made out of your ancestors, some part of the things that make them themselves, are literally what makes you yourself. Any attack on your ancestors or their people is also an attack on you, and should be responded to as such, in the appropriate manner, it is not an overreaction to lay the beat down on one who insults the honor of your forefathers, in a more honorable society, nothing would be seen as being more appropriate, alas, we do not live in a society that values honor (though it used to). You have every right to feel one with them, to take pride in their achievements, and shame in their failings, and to be concerned with which are which, as our (((history classes))) are most successful in convincing our children that the victories of their ancestors are to be seen as a source of shame and guilt, that they should mourn the successes of their people, and bemoan the evidence of their superiority. Even the dissident right has fallen into this trap, and tries to downplay or deny, rather than tackling the core assumption of the attacks, that these are to be seen by Whites as tragedies to be regretted and atoned for, rather than as epic tales of glorious feats to be honored and emulated. Last thing I'd like to mention is traditionalism, as an atheist, I see valuing traditions as being quite scientific and practical, a tradition is any meme that has withstood many competitors and emerged from it as the one with more positive consequences and less negative ones. Scientifically speaking, traditions have been vindicated through the falsification process, so it is a practical act to assume them the position of incumbency, and to challenge any alternatives to prove their superiority to the existing order of things, rather than just blindly adopting and tolerating novelty for novelty sake (which is what "progressivism" essentially is). Traditions usually emerge from practicality, not impractical thinking, but the optimal path, determined by experimentation, they are often the solutions to problems we have forgotten about, and when we blindly remove the traditions, the problem that they were created to address return and rear their ugly heads, it is only from a position of comfort and ignorance that one could be so reckless as to just abandon or attack traditions so recklessly. Discrimination against the other is good, because it closes the pool and allows your ideas to be made into reality far more easily, the more other groups you discriminate against, the stronger your ideas become as a result of the pool of competing ideas becoming smaller, even those who oppose discrimination should engage in it, because it is the only means of getting to the point where they can acquire the power necessary to enforce their anti-discriminatory, and give it substance.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I guess it's not fair of me to ask without sharing my own understanding of it:

Proscriptive commandments, limited by Prohibitive commandments.

I guess it's not fair of me to ask without sharing my own understanding of it: In my opinion, I think the objective moral standard is that which we can find in evolution, those who fulfill it get to live in those they leave behind and those who come after, and those who do not fulfill it are punished by being the end of their line. The objective moral commandment is "thou shalt ensure the propagation of the copies of thy genes by the best means that are known by thee & at thine disposal". My practical understand of this as a general rule, is that I see moral behavior as a game, which I define here as "a goal to be pursued within a framework of restriction one may not violate in pursuit of the previously mentioned goal". Proscriptive commandments, limited by Prohibitive commandments. The proscriptive ("goal") aspect is ratio utilitarianism - all things that are positively perceived, like pleasure and happiness, placed in a ratio over all things that are negatively perceived, like suffering and sorrow, but with my addition of "scientifically justified beliefs" to the top half of the ratio, and "scientifically unjustified beliefs" at the bottom half. It should also take into account the long-term consequences and not just concern itself with the immediate, as a negative utilitarian might point out, the great momentary pleasure of the eating of a lotus leaf may be made insignificant when the far grater negative consequences of addiction and withdrawal are sure to follow after. It might feel good to chug sugary soda and munch on deep-fried potato chips, but obesity and digestive/reproductive/psychological problems are sure to follow, and the often under-estimated degree of living hell this is easily outweighs (lol) the short term pleasure from consuming a diet of junk. The prohibitive ("rules") aspect is the Non-Aggression Principle - Simply put, it's a system of respecting the concepts of ownership and consent, everyone owns their person, which includes their bubble of personal space around themselves, and their property, which can include almost anything with few exceptions, that are typically cited as things like non-physical "property" ("Intellectual Property") and other people (some variants are only considering a particular category of people - "Living White Male Gentile Humans" - as being protected from ownership by law, or to be protected by law in any capacity). Any interaction with anything that is owned is prohibited unless it is consented to by the owner, this can involve things like consent on conditions ("you give me something I value more than what I have, and I'll give you something you value more than what you have" - the essence of barter), or the fact that consent that can be withdrawn, and the interaction has to be ended, as continuing it would be a violation of the NAP ("get off my property" being a classic example). This is the reason why laws like "do not kill" and "do not steal" work so well. The NAP doesn't applying to all being as people who can own things, some things are only worthy of being considered on the "property" side of things, for example, the farmer is a "person" but the cow is not, she is only worthy of moral consideration as his "property". There is the third element, which most moral systems fail to even acknowledge, and in my opinion this is the part that separates a Fascist morality from other moral systems. That part is the acknowledgement that not all entities are morally equivalent, and that there exists a moral hierarchy that sets some above other in terms of moral priority. This is where Evolution comes in, as it forms the basis of a two-factor scaling of the extent of one's moral obligations to others, the two factors are genetic similarity (how many genes they and you share in common), and youth (those who are younger must ave moral priority over those who are older), it's the idea of a bunch of circles drawn around oneself, first around you and those who share 100% of your genetics, then around those who share 50% of your genetics, and so on, then you can arrange those inside these circles according to age, and establish their priority within those circles on that basis, younger over older. You can even put more importance on age than genetic similarity, making it so that the equation you use would place your grandchildren over your children in terms of the your priority of moral duties towards them. You cannot love anything without hating that which threatens it, and unconditional love for everything is practically just another term for an attitude of complete and indiscriminate apathy. It is hate that gives substance to love, it is hate that bring love it's significance, without a component of hate for your love's anathema, your love for anything may well as not exist, one who loves truth must hate lies, one who loves their children must hate those who seek to cause them harm, one who loves their people must hate those who despise them. When we are forbidden to hate, we are forbidden to love as well. You are your genes, they are what make you, you. It is not your components that make you unique, but the way they are put together, your genetics are the blueprints for that, and as such, they are your essence. Well, your essence is not just your own, but the composition of the essences of many others, you are literally made out of your ancestors, some part of the things that make them themselves, are literally what makes you yourself. Any attack on your ancestors or their people is also an attack on you, and should be responded to as such, in the appropriate manner, it is not an overreaction to lay the beat down on one who insults the honor of your forefathers, in a more honorable society, nothing would be seen as being more appropriate, alas, we do not live in a society that values honor (though it used to). You have every right to feel one with them, to take pride in their achievements, and shame in their failings, and to be concerned with which are which, as our (((history classes))) are most successful in convincing our children that the victories of their ancestors are to be seen as a source of shame and guilt, that they should mourn the successes of their people, and bemoan the evidence of their superiority. Even the dissident right has fallen into this trap, and tries to downplay or deny, rather than tackling the core assumption of the attacks, that these are to be seen by Whites as tragedies to be regretted and atoned for, rather than as epic tales of glorious feats to be honored and emulated. Last thing I'd like to mention is traditionalism, as an atheist, I see valuing traditions as being quite scientific and practical, a tradition is any meme that has withstood many competitors and emerged from it as the one with more positive consequences and less negative ones. Scientifically speaking, traditions have been vindicated through the falsification process, so it is a practical act to assume them the position of incumbency, and to challenge any alternatives to prove their superiority to the existing order of things, rather than just blindly adopting and tolerating novelty for novelty sake (which is what "progressivism" essentially is). Traditions usually emerge from practicality, not impractical thinking, but the optimal path, determined by experimentation, they are often the solutions to problems we have forgotten about, and when we blindly remove the traditions, the problem that they were created to address return and rear their ugly heads, it is only from a position of comfort and ignorance that one could be so reckless as to just abandon or attack traditions so recklessly. Discrimination against the other is good, because it closes the pool and allows your ideas to be made into reality far more easily, the more other groups you discriminate against, the stronger your ideas become as a result of the pool of competing ideas becoming smaller, even those who oppose discrimination should engage in it, because it is the only means of getting to the point where they can acquire the power necessary to enforce their anti-discriminatory, and give it substance.

link

[–] • 2 pts

Decisions made for the benefit and survival of the self and the group.

Is it moral to kill people? Well it depends.....

There is no objective morality but there is objective immorality. There is no way to make a decision to benefit everyone but decisions can be made to hurt everyone.

Just my thoughts.

There is no objective morality but there is objective immorality

That's an interesting way to put it. Not so many "thou shalts" as there are "thou shalt nots".

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow.Feb 19, 2021 https://www.betterhelp.com › advice What Is Objective Morality & What Can It Teach Us? | BetterHelp Feedback About featured snippets

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The "opposite" would be subjective morality - which changes with the situation and is therefore not empyrical in its application (and therefore not morality).

For instance: "White colonialization hurt black people economically so now were going to take it back from white people."

In this example of subjective morality there are many concepts stated that are not only assumptive, but also extremely narrow in substantive evidence.

For example - WHICH white people? The Swedes? The Brits? The Irish? The Macedonians? Caucasian Libyans?

WHICH people's families actually owned slaves? And why should Irish and German and Italian descended Americans have to pay for the actions of early (((slave traders))), when the above named ethnicities came to America AFTER slavery was already abolished? They never owned slaves, nor benefitted from slave labor?

Why dont modern black people talk about modern slavery happening TODAY in their homeland of Africa? Or slave trade throughout islamic countries?

What about the people who are STILL slaves in 2021?

Subjective morality will attempt to shut you down logically BEFORE you can even think to ask these rational questions - it is what it is designed to do.

Subjective morality often will have us suspend our willingness for evidence because of an "emotional plea" - though this is not the crux of its flimsy construction, rather just another bolshevik affectation thrown on top to muddy the waters even further.

Deployers of subjective morality often intentionally discard/discount specific factual events which disprove the "thought experiment" they are making a case for - and instead will focus on a handful of chosen events both recent and past to build a narrative in which the propsed actions are then deemed "moral".

Subjective morality is jewish gold.

So ask the jew a question: as a white man, why should I care about the oppression of other races? would it not be my moral imperative to not only protect the privileges of my race, but also seek to expand them? what is in it for white people to support the empowerment of another race to which they do not belong? how will this make things better for us?

Shift to transactional paradigm, and see the kikes go ballistic, to do so is to challenge the underlying premise, that f a transformative objective morality, a subjective transactional one could really fuck them up.

If they try to attack you on the basis of "selfishness" and attack transactional morality on the basis of "capitalism", you can counter by saying that one who willingly suffers for the benefit of others is a victim of abuse, and one who unwillingly does so is also a victim, and so they are asking for you to submit to being a victim of others.

Say that it's a game, and that everyone should compete with one another in order to win, your race got what they have through struggle and doing their best, by building their strength and fighting for it or by making good trade-offs that disproportionately benefitted them in the long run.

If other races want what you got, they have to either fight for it, or make a good deal, your race has earned the right to what they have through doing what it took to attain it, the other races want it to be given to them on the basis of what? Why the hell should you give it up to them? where is the return on this investment that justifies the expense?

Fuck you fairness, I'm playing for my team, and wont let another have an unearned victory purely on the basis of pity at how pathetic they are, you want something? come and take it, if you can, you deserve to have it, if you cannot, then it was never meant for you and you shouldn't have it, same rule applies to the at of keeping hold of what you have.

What's in it for white men to be allies? what do we get from the deal, that justifies the sacrifice of working to undermine our own position of superiority? flip the narrative by actually playing their game, and attacking the central premise that serves as the foundation for all of it.

Make sure to point them out as preachers who cannot comprehend a morality that is more enlightened and less dogmatic than they own. Make them look like hucksters selling you on a scam.

Since nothing else is important to you except that the groups you being to get a good deal, this offer the jewish teacher is making to you is nothing more a charity for your own destruction, only a fool or a broken mind would take it.

A genocide of black by whites was immoral for blacks, but moral for whites. It was moral for whites because it benefitted them, it was immoral for blacks because it negatively impacted them. subjective morality, am I doing it right? So ask the jew a question: as a white man, why should I care about the oppression of other races? would it not be my moral imperative to not only protect the privileges of my race, but also seek to expand them? what is in it for white people to support the empowerment of another race to which they do not belong? how will this make things better for us? Shift to transactional paradigm, and see the kikes go ballistic, to do so is to challenge the underlying premise, that f a transformative objective morality, a subjective transactional one could really fuck them up. If they try to attack you on the basis of "selfishness" and attack transactional morality on the basis of "capitalism", you can counter by saying that one who willingly suffers for the benefit of others is a victim of abuse, and one who unwillingly does so is also a victim, and so they are asking for you to submit to being a victim of others. Say that it's a game, and that everyone should compete with one another in order to win, your race got what they have through struggle and doing their best, by building their strength and fighting for it or by making good trade-offs that disproportionately benefitted them in the long run. If other races want what you got, they have to either fight for it, or make a good deal, your race has earned the right to what they have through doing what it took to attain it, the other races want it to be given to them on the basis of what? Why the hell should you give it up to them? where is the return on this investment that justifies the expense? Fuck you fairness, I'm playing for my team, and wont let another have an unearned victory purely on the basis of pity at how pathetic they are, you want something? come and take it, if you can, you deserve to have it, if you cannot, then it was never meant for you and you shouldn't have it, same rule applies to the at of keeping hold of what you have. What's in it for white men to be allies? what do we get from the deal, that justifies the sacrifice of working to undermine our own position of superiority? flip the narrative by actually playing their game, and attacking the central premise that serves as the foundation for all of it. Make sure to point them out as preachers who cannot comprehend a morality that is more enlightened and less dogmatic than they own. Make them look like hucksters selling you on a scam. Since nothing else is important to you except that the groups you being to get a good deal, this offer the jewish teacher is making to you is nothing more a charity for your own destruction, only a fool or a broken mind would take it.

[–] • 1 pt

It's the assumption that the universe has an innate moral code hard wired into it, and that it will always be true regardless of your opinion about it.

E.g. killing is always bad, the jews are innocent, rape is always bad. Vs postmodernism where everything is relative.

I like the concept that there are some standards to the universe, but you lose me at how we find what those standards are. I'm a bit of a post modernist in the sense that we're subjective creatures; how can we identify something objectively true, without an objective foundation to stand on? As I see it, it's always going to be our subjective opinion on what objectively is good. Don't get me wrong, it can be a damn good opinion, but I fail to see how it can move from opinion to objective truth.

Sam Harris, who can be an obnoxious asshole, tried to address the concept in the book I think he did a reasonable job doing it but wasn't 100% convincing. His idea, distilled down so you don't have to read the book, is that something is bad if it causes harm to others and good if it benefits others. (Leaving the self out of it.) His attempts to quantify beneficial and harmful using the scientific method were where I feel he fell short.

[+] [deleted] • 1 pt

Define good, imported niggers are now better off here than in Africa, to the detriment of everyone else of course.

That's what I'm talking about. What is "good" when it refers to the society as a whole, as opposed to a subset of it?

Our knowledge of objective morality can also be called knowledge of good and evil. God didn't want us to know this power because "they will become as We are." But free will in the garden led our original ancestor to the original sin.

Some wish to forget it and say all is relative. Yin and yang is a good example of blurring good and evil.

But there is no mistaking that good and evil is universal and extends way beyond this realm and in to many other realms that humans were never meant to see.

[–] • 0 pt

Which brings up the doublminded question. Is the spirit real? If no spirit then we are just flesh bags, NPCs, animals with smartphones, dust. If there is a spirit then objective morality MUST have consequences or it is no longer objective. Morality goes out the window when in the grand of things. It also can be extrapolated to outside this solar system. Aliens have to obey that same morality if it is objective.

So this leaves a Christian with two paths:

Aliens are real. Christ didn't set foot and die on all the planets did he? If aliens then there is no significance to us and the book is a lie. There is no spirit. You are flesh. We are fleeting accidents.

The spirit is real. Christ set foot on Earth and gave Himself up as the perfect Lamb. Then no need for aliens.

The universe is bigger then we can see because it needs to be.

Seeing an edge of the universe would change our understanding of existence. We would be in a bubble instead of a universe. And then wonder what is outside the universe.

Nothing that happened on this planet is commensurate to the same happening on another planet. Another planet may not have had their Messianic experience yet.

After having visited the spirit realm multiple times through shamanic means I can tell you it is unbelievably real. Even after something as painless as a Reiki session, the amount of spirit you can feel and literally see in yourself and others and how auras interact, spirit is as real as it gets.

Those that are brainless NPCs have accepted satans lie and live for the flesh with not a thought given to the spirit. They refuse to acknowledge their stolen from God knowledge of good and evil and use it for discernment.

(post is archived)