But Iām not saying anything wild, or at least I donāt think so, youād have to point it out to me.
I would consider āOnly people in a coma wouldnāt come to the same exact interpretation as i haveā to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
āGod will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything toā
Thatās a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact itās also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
āI believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be soā
If your reasoning boils down to ābecause god said soā thatās not a conversation, thatās a dictate because you canāt reason with someone whoās only basis is faith.
To me, thatās almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qurāan. For real for real. āQurāan: a Monotheist Translationā is a freely available app. And donāt forget that God is just Allah in English!
Iām not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
start believing in objective reality and ethics
Isnāt going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
some things just are or arenāt
or āit is, because i/god said soā
Isnāt a basis for arguing objectivity, itās hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on āMy interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/Iām surprised you donāt understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donāt understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctā
Thatās not a good faith conversation, thatās a repetitive statement.
Viewpoints havenāt been proposed, at least not any Iād disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (āwhy no rape? Include no raping!ā) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that youād have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but itās beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance. Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
And the Qurāan? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that Iām lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qurāan. I canāt even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and thatās just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! Thatās another book recommendation, btw, itās in the Bible.
Viewpoints havenāt been proposed, at least not any Iād disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (āwhy no rape? Include no raping!ā) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that youād have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
Soā¦āOnly people in a coma wouldnāt come to the same exact interpretation as i haveā
That aside, youāre response to that reply was essentially:
an agreement that itās open to interpretation
you agreeing that your interpretation is similar to theirs
then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people donāt have the exact same interpretation as you.
Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they donāt like the vagueness of the original.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but itās beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance.
An epistemological stance that conveniently doesnāt require you to actually engage with any argument you donāt want to ābecause it just isā.
Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
āSome things just areā is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)
And the Qurāan? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that Iām lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qurāan. I canāt even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and thatās just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! Thatās another book recommendation, btw, itās in the Bible.
Ah, i see, yeah, no.
If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, itās not solid enough.
All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.
If iām going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.
Otherwise thatās just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.
Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.
You can also save your ābut free willā argument as well, iām not saying donāt let us do stupid shit, Iām saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.
A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.
Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that canāt be lost or stolen would do it.
If it canāt be codified like that then itās guidelines that are open to interpretation and iām good with figuring that shit out myself.
The game has been explained and being prosocial is pretty much in your bones, so we also got help from the get go. Do you want a book that mentions MySpace and ketamine? The base is there, things can follow or not, not everything needed to be said nor could they have been without being massively confusing for anyone listening to the message presently. People who transgress greatly (all the pedos in American politics, for instance) do it not out of ignorance but because they simply donāt care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. Itās not that the text wasnāt available, itās not that they havenāt heard what they should do or not do forever, this is evidenced by the way people who transgress greatly do it discreetly. They know, they just donāt care. How to make people care? Actually believing in Godās judgment is a way, believing in a non-negotiable encounter in which all your deeds are weighed and we all get what we deserve (and no confession or whatever religious trick could help you escape it). Idk other ways (no, recognising people die when theyāre killed or suffer when theyāre raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company wouldāve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.
And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefsā¦ I mean, sure, if youāre a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as āgraceā and āunderstanding Jesus (a man) is Godā. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, letās say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend theyāre more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think āoh but they said they were religious and believed in Godā and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits youāll recognise them. But how do you justify atrocities as a Mosaic monotheist, for instance? How do you go on a Crusade, so not a defensive war but youāre moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in Godās laws and His judgement or you donāt go but do believe, they cannot both coexistā¦ because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and youād have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!
Finally, not all āreligious textsā are made equally, even the Bible acknowledges their different authors, whilst the Qurāan is understood as a message from the Divine, recited by prophet Muhammad. One is a collection, an anthology, the other one is a singular book.
The game has been explained and being prosocial is pretty much in your bones, so we also got help from the get go. Do you want a book that mentions MySpace and ketamine? The base is there, things can follow or not, not everything needed to be said nor could they have been without being massively confusing for anyone listening to the message presently. People who transgress greatly (all the pedos in American politics, for instance) do it not out of ignorance but because they simply donāt care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. Itās not that the text wasnāt available, itās not that they havenāt heard what they should do or not do forever, this is evidenced by the way people who transgress greatly do it discreetly. They know, they just donāt care. How to make people care? Actually believing in Godās judgment is a way, believing in a non-negotiable encounter in which all your deeds are weighed and we all get what we deserve (and no confession or whatever religious trick could help you escape it). Idk other ways (no, recognising people die when theyāre killed or suffer when theyāre raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company wouldāve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.
The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that arenāt nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official āguideā we have being a book written and maintained by shitty people over thousands of years not being a convincing argument for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Again with the āmy morality is the only moralityā.
You want an objective fact?
Spoken and written language (on paper at least) is a poor medium for long term (hundreds of years) accurate transmission of data.
There are chronological shifts in meaning and usage, geographic differences, without even mentioning translation between entirely different languages.
There are words and concepts that exist in some languages and not in others.
The quintessential example of this is the game ātelephoneā.
The explanation of āthe gameā we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it āwereā 100% accurate itās till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasnāt considered murder, because they werenāt considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said āgod said itās cool, so donāt worryā. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with āi never said killing certain people was fineā, you know that isnāt what i meant, Iām (still) talking about that āmy morality is the only moralityā surety youāve been using to pretend nuance doesnāt exist.
āMurderā as a word means different things to different cultures at different times.
Same for adultery, stealing/theft, love, neighbour.
And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefsā¦ I mean, sure, if youāre a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as āgraceā and āunderstanding Jesus (a man) is Godā. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, letās say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend theyāre more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think āoh but they said they were religious and believed in Godā and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits youāll recognise them. But how do you justify atrocities as a Mosaic monotheist, for instance? How do you go on a Crusade, so not a defensive war but youāre moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in Godās laws and His judgement or you donāt go but do believe, they cannot both coexistā¦ because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and youād have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!
Absolute tripe, the crusades, the witch burnings, holy wars of all denominations, ethnic cleansings, the missionaries, fundamentalist paramilitaries, christofascists, honour killings, child brides, zealotry in general.
The long long history of child abuse in organised religions and the covering up of said abuse.
A lot of those were/are being undertaken by the leading authorities in whatever cult was/is in power at the time, individual fundamentalism and zealotry aside.
You canāt sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say ābut those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didnāt read it properlyā, thatās mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldnāt, i know iām not taking you seriously, maybe iām the minority here.
Though i will say the lolās do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can āno true scotsmanā as much as you like but itās not a convincing argument.
Words are the foundation of all of our knowledge, man. They both allow for and encapsulate our understanding (Wittgenstein paraphrase). Why donāt you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And itās not that they didnāt read it properly, itās that they simply donāt care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnāt, they wouldnāt care. They donāt believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and theyāre easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatās up, they simply donāt care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itās not a āno true Scotsmanā, itās more like āif Iām raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iām a good moral man, a believer whoās afraid of Godās judgment, and you believe me, youāre mentally challengedā. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, itās not that āmy morality is the only moralityā, is that moral standards exist independently of our whims and our ability to see quickly and clearly them, I just happen to be able to see it and admit it to myself. Even when I transgress, I know I am doing so and I feel bad about it, and it allows me to get better. Many people donāt even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, theyāll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves theyāre doing something wrong (because without the objective standards established by God, the Norths [you might go a bit northwest and be right, but never go south and be right about things], are you doing something wrong, really? The postmoderns say itās just a matter of perspective, lol). But you canāt argue against God. And Iām not alone (not that it matters necessarily but just for the record), since most of the world believes in objective moral truths, this problem is mostly just a thing in the postmodern West. And some religious people, by themselves or with different degrees of divine inspiration, have made it abundantly clear for everyone, because theyāre too entranced with Love Island to think about their lives and actions critically so God did us a solid and communicated things we always had the responsibility to explore.
Why donāt you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
Firstly : Why would i need to, i wasnāt claiming there was a better option ( at the time ).
Secondly : I specifically mentioned spoken and written(on paper) words, not just words in general.
Thirdly : if i had to guess, probably some form of math stored in some long term medium like diamond or something, iām just guessing though, not my area and still donāt need to have a good example for a point i wasnāt making.
Bonus : Another of my points was that why would i need to when there is an omnipotent deity around, whose job it is to do it.
My whole argument has been that i disagree with your repeated assertion that they are accurate to the original intention, easily understandable and not prone to misinterpretation (intentional and otherwise).
Also the "my morality is the only correct moralityā thing, i cannot stress enough how much of a red flag that one is.
And itās not that they didnāt read it properly, itās that they simply donāt care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnāt, they wouldnāt care. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatās up, they simply donāt care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itās not a āno true Scotsmanā, itās more like āif Iām raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iām a good moral man, a believer whoās afraid of Godās judgment, and you believe me, youāre mentally challengedā. And many people are, I guess.
You have to be intentionally skipping logical steps here, no way someone with your vocabulary accidentally overlooks the thousands/millions of āholyā warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.
They arenāt <insert deity here>'s children so itās fine.
If this leads them to the righteous path, itās fine.
They arenāt real people so it doesnāt apply.
Itās not stealing itās fundraising for the furthering of our divine cause.
If i kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers <insert deity here> will reward me.
if i dont kill/main/harm the infidels/blasphemers <insert deity here> will punish me.
Iām one of the chosen, i can do <x> because <insert deity here> has given me a divine mandate.
Come on now, pretending an easily provable demographic of people donāt exist because it doesnāt fit your narrative is the weakest of sauces.
How would people have read that math in the diamond?! And how would math transmit moral values? I feel like this leaves the realm of mathematics, lol. You complain about the best way to do things in this world (despite the time and alterations) but provide no alternative. If God wanted us to be perfect, he wouldāve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereās no perfection in this world. The direction and base idea of things like the TC are undeniable and easily understood, but if one wants to rationalize and deform the words therein they can, one can be as silly as possible if one wants to. If you want to rationalize murder even though they told you not to kill, or rationalize cheating even though they told you not to lust over women youāre not married to, well, thatās on you (didnāt a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?). And God will remind you of what you did and deal with you accordingly, of course. But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godās judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canāt do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
And how are people not being āreal peopleā a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenāt? Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child? What? Which divine mandate? Iām only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurāan, but again, I donāt see āGod chose me so I can be immoralā in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus. And the Qurāan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itās even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itās better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war. And all youāve given me is examples of heresy, not belief. Come on, man. Of course these people exist, and maybe that was the spin they used to convince others but they fully knew what was up (or they also lied to themselves a bit and only partially knew what was up, which is why itās a good policy to be honest), thatās why they had to spin it in the first place. You canāt both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youāre actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.
How would people have read that math in the diamond?!
You mean , how would i describe the process of doing the thing i specifically said was guesswork outside of my expertise and not relevant because it was referencing something never posited ?
I wouldnāt, thatās what area experts are for.
And how would math transmit moral values? I feel like this leaves the realm of mathematics, lol.
Interesting questions, for a conversation where the answer are relevant to the discussion.
You complain about the best way to do things in this world (despite the time and alterations) but provide no alternative.
Didnāt happen, read it again.
If God wanted us to be perfect, he wouldāve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereās no perfection in this world.
Rampant speculation and irrelevant.
So i see this big wall of text, to save time Iām just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that Iāve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up Iāll address that directly.
he direction and base idea of things like the TC are undeniable and easily understood, but if one wants to rationalize and deform the words therein they can, one can be as silly as possible if one wants to.
āMy interpretation is correct"
āIām surprised you donāt understandā
If you want to rationalize murder even though they told you not to kill, or rationalize cheating even though they told you not to lust over women youāre not married to, well, thatās on you (didnāt a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?).
āMy interpretation is correct"
āthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineā
But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godās judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canāt do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
āthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineā
āi genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donāt understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctāā
And how are people not being āreal peopleā a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenāt?
Not an actual thing i claimed or wish to, i said there are people who think/have though that, some of them bringing that into their religious doctrine.
I donāt buy you not understanding the concept of slavery, caste or any of the other systems that lead to personhood being revoked in some peoples minds.
Iām going to add āFeigned Ignoranceā to the list of autoreplies
Just in case, there was a big big war about this not so long ago.
Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child?
Not what i said, read it again.
What? Which divine mandate?
Any
Iām only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurāan, but again, I donāt see āGod chose me so I can be immoralā in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus.
āFeigned Ignoranceā
You know thatās not what Iām saying, there wouldnāt need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.
And the Qurāan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itās even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itās better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war.
āFeigned Ignoranceā
Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem iāve been referencing(mostly), itās the room for interpretation.
And all youāve given me is examples of heresy, not belief.
oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats
āMy interpretation is correct"
āthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineā
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donāt understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctā
Come on, man. Of course these people exist
Nearly thereā¦so closeā¦
and maybe that was the spin they used to convince others but they fully knew what was up (or they also lied to themselves a bit and only partially knew what was up, which is why itās a good policy to be honest), thatās why they had to spin it in the first place.
Aww , so close, yet so far.
But this in an interesting segue into a topic iām sure youāll have lots of fun dodging.
How important is intent.
If a ābad appleā misleads people into murdering for the āgreater goodā do those people get a pass because they thought they were doing the right thing ?
How about if they unwittingly (but directly) contribute to the murder of someone ?
You canāt both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youāre actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.
āMy interpretation is correctā
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donāt understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctā
You absolutely can, itās a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.
A big one being, āfuck it Iām going to hell forever anyway, whatās one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?ā.
I would consider āOnly people in a coma wouldnāt come to the same exact interpretation as i haveā to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
Thatās a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact itās also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
āI believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be soā
If your reasoning boils down to ābecause god said soā thatās not a conversation, thatās a dictate because you canāt reason with someone whoās only basis is faith.
To me, thatās almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
Iām not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
Isnāt going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
or āit is, because i/god said soā
Isnāt a basis for arguing objectivity, itās hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on āMy interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/Iām surprised you donāt understand/i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donāt understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctā
Thatās not a good faith conversation, thatās a repetitive statement.
Viewpoints havenāt been proposed, at least not any Iād disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (āwhy no rape? Include no raping!ā) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that youād have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but itās beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance. Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
And the Qurāan? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that Iām lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qurāan. I canāt even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and thatās just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! Thatās another book recommendation, btw, itās in the Bible.
Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?
Soā¦āOnly people in a coma wouldnāt come to the same exact interpretation as i haveā
That aside, youāre response to that reply was essentially:
then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people donāt have the exact same interpretation as you.
Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they donāt like the vagueness of the original.
An epistemological stance that conveniently doesnāt require you to actually engage with any argument you donāt want to ābecause it just isā.
āSome things just areā is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)
Ah, i see, yeah, no.
If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, itās not solid enough.
All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.
If iām going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.
Otherwise thatās just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.
Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.
You can also save your ābut free willā argument as well, iām not saying donāt let us do stupid shit, Iām saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.
A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.
Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that canāt be lost or stolen would do it.
If it canāt be codified like that then itās guidelines that are open to interpretation and iām good with figuring that shit out myself.
The game has been explained and being prosocial is pretty much in your bones, so we also got help from the get go. Do you want a book that mentions MySpace and ketamine? The base is there, things can follow or not, not everything needed to be said nor could they have been without being massively confusing for anyone listening to the message presently. People who transgress greatly (all the pedos in American politics, for instance) do it not out of ignorance but because they simply donāt care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. Itās not that the text wasnāt available, itās not that they havenāt heard what they should do or not do forever, this is evidenced by the way people who transgress greatly do it discreetly. They know, they just donāt care. How to make people care? Actually believing in Godās judgment is a way, believing in a non-negotiable encounter in which all your deeds are weighed and we all get what we deserve (and no confession or whatever religious trick could help you escape it). Idk other ways (no, recognising people die when theyāre killed or suffer when theyāre raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company wouldāve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.
And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefsā¦ I mean, sure, if youāre a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as āgraceā and āunderstanding Jesus (a man) is Godā. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, letās say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend theyāre more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think āoh but they said they were religious and believed in Godā and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits youāll recognise them. But how do you justify atrocities as a Mosaic monotheist, for instance? How do you go on a Crusade, so not a defensive war but youāre moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in Godās laws and His judgement or you donāt go but do believe, they cannot both coexistā¦ because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and youād have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!
Finally, not all āreligious textsā are made equally, even the Bible acknowledges their different authors, whilst the Qurāan is understood as a message from the Divine, recited by prophet Muhammad. One is a collection, an anthology, the other one is a singular book.
The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that arenāt nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official āguideā we have being a book written and maintained by shitty people over thousands of years not being a convincing argument for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Again with the āmy morality is the only moralityā.
You want an objective fact?
Spoken and written language (on paper at least) is a poor medium for long term (hundreds of years) accurate transmission of data.
There are chronological shifts in meaning and usage, geographic differences, without even mentioning translation between entirely different languages.
There are words and concepts that exist in some languages and not in others.
The quintessential example of this is the game ātelephoneā.
The explanation of āthe gameā we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it āwereā 100% accurate itās till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasnāt considered murder, because they werenāt considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said āgod said itās cool, so donāt worryā. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with āi never said killing certain people was fineā, you know that isnāt what i meant, Iām (still) talking about that āmy morality is the only moralityā surety youāve been using to pretend nuance doesnāt exist.
āMurderā as a word means different things to different cultures at different times.
Same for adultery, stealing/theft, love, neighbour.
Absolute tripe, the crusades, the witch burnings, holy wars of all denominations, ethnic cleansings, the missionaries, fundamentalist paramilitaries, christofascists, honour killings, child brides, zealotry in general.
The long long history of child abuse in organised religions and the covering up of said abuse.
A lot of those were/are being undertaken by the leading authorities in whatever cult was/is in power at the time, individual fundamentalism and zealotry aside.
You canāt sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say ābut those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didnāt read it properlyā, thatās mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldnāt, i know iām not taking you seriously, maybe iām the minority here.
Though i will say the lolās do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can āno true scotsmanā as much as you like but itās not a convincing argument.
Words are the foundation of all of our knowledge, man. They both allow for and encapsulate our understanding (Wittgenstein paraphrase). Why donāt you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And itās not that they didnāt read it properly, itās that they simply donāt care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnāt, they wouldnāt care. They donāt believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and theyāre easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatās up, they simply donāt care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itās not a āno true Scotsmanā, itās more like āif Iām raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iām a good moral man, a believer whoās afraid of Godās judgment, and you believe me, youāre mentally challengedā. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, itās not that āmy morality is the only moralityā, is that moral standards exist independently of our whims and our ability to see quickly and clearly them, I just happen to be able to see it and admit it to myself. Even when I transgress, I know I am doing so and I feel bad about it, and it allows me to get better. Many people donāt even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, theyāll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves theyāre doing something wrong (because without the objective standards established by God, the Norths [you might go a bit northwest and be right, but never go south and be right about things], are you doing something wrong, really? The postmoderns say itās just a matter of perspective, lol). But you canāt argue against God. And Iām not alone (not that it matters necessarily but just for the record), since most of the world believes in objective moral truths, this problem is mostly just a thing in the postmodern West. And some religious people, by themselves or with different degrees of divine inspiration, have made it abundantly clear for everyone, because theyāre too entranced with Love Island to think about their lives and actions critically so God did us a solid and communicated things we always had the responsibility to explore.
Firstly : Why would i need to, i wasnāt claiming there was a better option ( at the time ).
Secondly : I specifically mentioned spoken and written(on paper) words, not just words in general.
Thirdly : if i had to guess, probably some form of math stored in some long term medium like diamond or something, iām just guessing though, not my area and still donāt need to have a good example for a point i wasnāt making.
Bonus : Another of my points was that why would i need to when there is an omnipotent deity around, whose job it is to do it.
My whole argument has been that i disagree with your repeated assertion that they are accurate to the original intention, easily understandable and not prone to misinterpretation (intentional and otherwise).
Also the "my morality is the only correct moralityā thing, i cannot stress enough how much of a red flag that one is.
You have to be intentionally skipping logical steps here, no way someone with your vocabulary accidentally overlooks the thousands/millions of āholyā warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.
Come on now, pretending an easily provable demographic of people donāt exist because it doesnāt fit your narrative is the weakest of sauces.
You can do better.
How would people have read that math in the diamond?! And how would math transmit moral values? I feel like this leaves the realm of mathematics, lol. You complain about the best way to do things in this world (despite the time and alterations) but provide no alternative. If God wanted us to be perfect, he wouldāve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereās no perfection in this world. The direction and base idea of things like the TC are undeniable and easily understood, but if one wants to rationalize and deform the words therein they can, one can be as silly as possible if one wants to. If you want to rationalize murder even though they told you not to kill, or rationalize cheating even though they told you not to lust over women youāre not married to, well, thatās on you (didnāt a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?). And God will remind you of what you did and deal with you accordingly, of course. But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godās judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canāt do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
And how are people not being āreal peopleā a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenāt? Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child? What? Which divine mandate? Iām only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurāan, but again, I donāt see āGod chose me so I can be immoralā in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus. And the Qurāan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itās even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itās better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war. And all youāve given me is examples of heresy, not belief. Come on, man. Of course these people exist, and maybe that was the spin they used to convince others but they fully knew what was up (or they also lied to themselves a bit and only partially knew what was up, which is why itās a good policy to be honest), thatās why they had to spin it in the first place. You canāt both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youāre actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.
You mean , how would i describe the process of doing the thing i specifically said was guesswork outside of my expertise and not relevant because it was referencing something never posited ?
I wouldnāt, thatās what area experts are for.
Interesting questions, for a conversation where the answer are relevant to the discussion.
Didnāt happen, read it again.
Rampant speculation and irrelevant.
So i see this big wall of text, to save time Iām just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that Iāve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up Iāll address that directly.
But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godās judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canāt do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
Not an actual thing i claimed or wish to, i said there are people who think/have though that, some of them bringing that into their religious doctrine.
I donāt buy you not understanding the concept of slavery, caste or any of the other systems that lead to personhood being revoked in some peoples minds.
Iām going to add āFeigned Ignoranceā to the list of autoreplies
Just in case, there was a big big war about this not so long ago.
Not what i said, read it again.
Any
You know thatās not what Iām saying, there wouldnāt need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.
Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem iāve been referencing(mostly), itās the room for interpretation.
oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats
Nearly thereā¦so closeā¦
Aww , so close, yet so far.
But this in an interesting segue into a topic iām sure youāll have lots of fun dodging.
How important is intent.
If a ābad appleā misleads people into murdering for the āgreater goodā do those people get a pass because they thought they were doing the right thing ?
How about if they unwittingly (but directly) contribute to the murder of someone ?
You absolutely can, itās a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.
A big one being, āfuck it Iām going to hell forever anyway, whatās one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?ā.
Damn that shorthand really does make this quicker