We talk a lot about the aberrant nature of religion and how its "morality" is so badly skewed by a deity who does as he/she/it pleases and whose actions are presupposed to be moral for no other reason than BECAUSE that deity did them.
It's another thing entirely to witness a conversation wherein someone espousing that belief system actually asserts that they would indulge in actions which to any of us would seem completely beyond the pale, but that he would engage in for no more reason than that they were endorsed by his god.
This is another one of those videos you may not want to see on a full stomach.
Thunderfoot has a way of asking the hard questions and calling immoral "immoral". I hope to have such courage. Oh! I can hear the family now! "Joan's gone bananas! She is headed for hell; we have to warn her!" or "Joan is immoral!"
Yes, if my calling religion immoral is immoral, I am.
Forewarned is forearmed!
How much more immoral do you need to get than Psalms 137:9? Or Judges 19:22-30? Or a supposed rabbi / savior who curses a tree that was incapable of producing fruit when he wanted it?
I have as much use for such morality as a snake has for shoes!
Morality, to me, is empowering flourishing, whether it is a human, a civilization, an animal, vegetable or mineral. If I cause harm to myself I commit an immoral act. If I cause harm to any of the other things I list, I am immoral, using my definition.
What is moral, for me, implies doing no harm. So how do I handle eating animal, vegetable or harming the environment by putting pollutants into the water, air or soils? I don't. By my own terms, I am immoral. If the law of nature is one element eating another to stay alive, or harming the environment, is that moral?
Grain grows, mouse eats grain, cat eats mouse, dog eats cat, bear eats dog, human eats bear; all motivated by survival and the urge to propagate. Where does morality reside in this scheme of things?
If humans need protein to thrive, and don't not know how to replace animal protein with vegetable protein, even vegetable is not thriving. Animal or vegetable protein goes through the mouth, into the digestive system, and excretes what isn't used in the nutrition cycle, to become fertilizer for the next cycle.
At some point, one eats another and does not care, or does not know, or chooses to thrive, sacrificing others. Facing the reality of a dog-eats-dog world, one makes choices and figures out a way to have self-respect.
Religion sticks its disgusting head in the tent and names another person or culture or element as "other" and adds that to the reason to kill them. For no other reason than some imaginary voice tells them, either through delusions or through holy scripture and ancient tradition, that killing is not only moral, it is required.
So, from where is one to set the line between moral and immoral? The only answer that makes sense, to me, to be moral is to empower flourishing of myself and others. The circle completes. The oroborus. Oh dear, here comes that fabled snake again.
Holy scripture, used to justify killing "others", is an immoral source, in my opinion. It focuses on thriving of one tribe over another. It does not seek to join self + other to find solutions to complex problems. That is why a nativity scene is immoral. It creates us vs. them. It does not motivate anyone to join with others in resolving problems or conflicts. It sets up an unnecessary conflict when cooperation benefits more.
Always thought that snake was over-verbose, myself! [GRIN!]
OK Loren. Let's read your definition of morality! I'm holding my breath!
I thought you said it pretty well, Joan: that which raises all boats at the expense of as few as possible, preferably NONE. There was another discussion about morality here on A|N where I gave a different expression to it. If I dug for a bit, I might find it, but it'd take a while.
BTW, I actually tried to read The Worm Oroboros once ... thus my previous comment! [grin!]