For or against defining morality? I suppose I'm for it. Why follow something that's constantly changing? One day murder could be a crime and another day it could be the greatest accomplishment of ones life. What's right must be right and whats wrong must be wrong otherwise it's pointless to even have the word "moral". If morals are just a part of evolution than eventually it might be considered not only right but an obligation to kill other people just because the populations are so rediculously large. It isn't because I hate change that I say this as a counter to evolutionary morals its just that this makes morals self-destructive as would the entire human race. Now, if anyone is okay with destroying the world I can't argue with them. That's the most logical step to evolution and even the first law of thermodynamics.
In the bible (New Testament) Jesus is teaching the world a very specific way of life that is actually capable of going against the logically inevitable destruction of the human race. I find this fascinating. It's also similar to Ghandi who abhors any and all destruction of life. Maybe these people are natures counter to mankinds lust for destruction. How does one prevent chaos? Order. It could quite possibly be fulfilling the unconscious human races determination of self-preservation. The bible is so logically implemented to draw people to it through mankinds own lusts. The bible is a masterful piece of psychological twisting. For example, the bible, obviously, is a book intended to make people all around the world "moral". The bible is entirely communistic in its viewpoints. Certainly no person is going to randomly follow a book that strips mankind of its obsession with material goods without also implementing its own rewards. Thus comes the afterlife (I find this amusing because no afterlife is promised in the old testement and maybe the immortality mentioned is rather the preservation of the human race. That's just interpretation though). A place where everything we could ever want is given to us, how swell. Conveniently God is mute (For whatever reason). It's interesting that such a vaste amount of people talk to God and "have a personal relationship with God" but can't agree on what God is actually teaching them. I'm not going to say that people are simply hearing their own voice in their and that they are only feeding their own psychological impulses because I simply don't know. However, that seems most likely. The new testiment tells everyone to give all their money to the poor (This balances out wealth and raises the standard of living.) It's also convenient that we only get punished after we die. I can easily see that the bible (Possibly only the new testement) has only two possible origans: The first and most likely is that Jesus and/or a group of people wanted a better future for mankind so they created the greatest lie ever recorded for the betterment of everyone. The second is that God actually does exist but has an absolution fascination with pain, death, emotions, and the struggle between life and death (I find it strange that a God would have a mental disorder but that would have to be the case).
It's a masterful piece of writing but it seems to be built entirely upon beleif. It might not be a flaw, actually it was probably intentional, but it is something people should really consider. When I decide the kind of morals I want to follow (I'm on kind of a back-up system right now) I'm going to do it with both of my eyes wide open. Quite frankly, I'll probably do the same things I was taught as I grew up, most people do.
How's that for philosophy?
The bible is failing. Maybe its time mankind decided openly how they want to proceed throughout the hundreds of thousands of years that lay ahead of us.
