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 donât care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. Itâs not that the text wasnât available, itâs not that they havenât 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 donât care. How to make people care? Actually believing in Godâs 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 theyâre killed or suffer when theyâre raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company wouldâve 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 arenât nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official âguideâ 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 âmy morality is the only moralityâ.
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 âtelephoneâ.
The explanation of âthe gameâ we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it âwereâ 100% accurate itâs till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasnât considered murder, because they werenât considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said âgod said itâs cool, so donât worryâ. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with âi never said killing certain people was fineâ, you know that isnât what i meant, Iâm (still) talking about that âmy morality is the only moralityâ surety youâve been using to pretend nuance doesnât exist.
âMurderâ 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 beliefs⊠I mean, sure, if youâre a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as âgraceâ and âunderstanding Jesus (a man) is Godâ. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, letâs say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend theyâre more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think âoh but they said they were religious and believed in Godâ and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits youâll 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 youâre moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in Godâs laws and His judgement or you donât go but do believe, they cannot both coexist⊠because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and youâd 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 canât sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say âbut those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didnât read it properlyâ, thatâs mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldnât, i know iâm not taking you seriously, maybe iâm the minority here.
Though i will say the lolâs do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can âno true scotsmanâ as much as you like but itâs 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 donât you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And itâs not that they didnât read it properly, itâs that they simply donât care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnât, they wouldnât care. They donât believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and theyâre easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatâs up, they simply donât care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itâs not a âno true Scotsmanâ, itâs more like âif Iâm raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iâm a good moral man, a believer whoâs afraid of Godâs judgment, and you believe me, youâre mentally challengedâ. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, itâs not that âmy morality is the only moralityâ, 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 donât even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, theyâll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves theyâre 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 itâs just a matter of perspective, lol). But you canât argue against God. And Iâm 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 theyâre 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 donât 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 wasnât 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, iâm just guessing though, not my area and still donât need to have a good example for a point i wasnât 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 moralityâ thing, i cannot stress enough how much of a red flag that one is.
And itâs not that they didnât read it properly, itâs that they simply donât care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnât, they wouldnât care. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatâs up, they simply donât care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itâs not a âno true Scotsmanâ, itâs more like âif Iâm raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iâm a good moral man, a believer whoâs afraid of Godâs judgment, and you believe me, youâre mentally challengedâ. 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 âholyâ warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.
They arenât <insert deity here>'s children so itâs fine.
If this leads them to the righteous path, itâs fine.
They arenât real people so it doesnât apply.
Itâs not stealing itâs 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.
Iâm 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 donât exist because it doesnât 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 wouldâve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereâs 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 youâre not married to, well, thatâs on you (didnât 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 Godâs judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canât do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
And how are people not being âreal peopleâ a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenât? Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child? What? Which divine mandate? Iâm only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurâan, but again, I donât see âGod chose me so I can be immoralâ in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus. And the Qurâan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itâs even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itâs better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war. And all youâve 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 itâs a good policy to be honest), thatâs why they had to spin it in the first place. You canât both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youâre 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 wouldnât, thatâs 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.
Didnât happen, read it again.
If God wanted us to be perfect, he wouldâve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereâs no perfection in this world.
Rampant speculation and irrelevant.
So i see this big wall of text, to save time Iâm just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that Iâve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up Iâll 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.
âMy interpretation is correct"
âIâm surprised you donât understandâ
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 youâre not married to, well, thatâs on you (didnât a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?).
âMy interpretation is correct"
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godâs judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canât do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
âi genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctââ
And how are people not being âreal peopleâ a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenât?
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 donât 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.
Iâm going to add âFeigned Ignoranceâ 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
Iâm only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurâan, but again, I donât see âGod chose me so I can be immoralâ in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus.
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
You know thatâs not what Iâm saying, there wouldnât need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.
And the Qurâan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itâs even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itâs better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war.
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem iâve been referencing(mostly), itâs the room for interpretation.
And all youâve given me is examples of heresy, not belief.
oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats
âMy interpretation is correct"
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
Come on, man. Of course these people exist
Nearly thereâŠso closeâŠ
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 itâs a good policy to be honest), thatâs 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 iâm sure youâll have lots of fun dodging.
How important is intent.
If a âbad appleâ misleads people into murdering for the âgreater goodâ 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 canât both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youâre actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
You absolutely can, itâs a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.
A big one being, âfuck it Iâm going to hell forever anyway, whatâs one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?â.
Depends on the circumstances but yes, intent is what matters the most, itâs just harder to see than actions. Itâs important to double check the info before you go around murdering innocents, lol. But I assume many of these just wanted the money that came with it and said âfuck morals, fuck relevant informationâ. The Americans who signed up to kill brown people in the Middle East in the early 00s fall into this category, for example. Would they be exempted? Of course not, they like everyone else had the duty to act right, and they like everyone else knew murder was wrong (in the information era who can claim ignorance when it comes to the guidance of the prophets? Everything is freely available online, you either care or you donât) and they still went ahead for whatever reason. Shouldâve double checked! But they werenât too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.
Again, you keep on mentioning viewpoints but you still havenât provided a single one you stand by that I donât and that directly contradicts the TC (whilst also being morally right, ofc, I doubt you want to pronounce yourself a villain). You yourself agree with them besides the ones that involve the Creator⊠And how could I interpret 1 as 0 unless Iâm just blind and my opinion should be disregarded? How could I interpret âdonât killâ as âkill if theyâre brown/if they have things you like/if you feel like itâ? How can anyone? Which interpretation of the TC can give you something that goes squarely against the literal meanings of these phrases ?
I really donât know what youâre saying and Iâm not feigning ignorance, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of people and reality. You believe in gravity (and something in your tummy feels funny when you look from a balcony on the 12th floor), I believe in God, His judgement, the moral duty He has imposed on us and Heaven and Hell as our final destinations (and I also feel something when I transgress, everyone does at the beginning, then they either learn to pay attention to it or ignore it). And just like you wouldnât jump out of a building unless you lost your mind because you would end up flattened, so would I and everyone on my side not commit great transgressions because we know what will happen. Perhaps you have a moment of insanity, idk, for whatever biological reason something in your brain just malfunctions⊠well, as soon as you come down from it youâd greatly repent your actions, make amends, seek solutions for this insanity, maybe even get yourself locked up so you donât do it again! But, again, most people donât just randomly murder or rape when their whole lives they didnât even punch anyone. And those who do and claim to believe in something that disagrees with it, like the TC, are simply lying about their beliefs. They have and they will continue doing it because some people are just too dumb to realize it and they have no morals so itâs completely win-win for them.
âI said lol, because Iâm so right itâs laughableâ
to the shortcuts, to save more time.
Depends on the circumstances but yes, intent is what matters the most, itâs just harder to see than actions. Itâs important to double check the info before you go around murdering innocents, lol.
âI said lol, because Iâm so right itâs laughableâ
Ok, i was wrong here, you didnât dodge entirely, you acknowledged intent as a thing here and then completely ignored it in your following replies.
But I assume many of these just wanted the money that came with it and said âfuck morals, fuck relevant informationâ.
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
Again, ignoring that there are people that believe what they are doing is just and moral.
The Americans who signed up to kill brown people in the Middle East in the early 00s fall into this category, for example. Would they be exempted? Of course not, they like everyone else had the duty to act right, and they like everyone else knew murder was wrong (in the information era who can claim ignorance when it comes to the guidance of the prophets? Everything is freely available online, you either care or you donât) and they still went ahead for whatever reason.
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
Shouldâve double checked! But they werenât too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
Again, you keep on mentioning viewpoints but you still havenât provided a single one you stand by that I donât and that directly contradicts the TC (whilst also being morally right, ofc, I doubt you want to pronounce yourself a villain).
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
I already told you why, i donât think there is a interesting conversation about comparative viewpoints to be had with someone who uses âbecause some things just areâ or âbecause god said soâ as actual arguments.
Thereâs generally no room for any other viewpoint with such a person, itâd just be wasted breath.
Or, more succinctly, Thereâs no good way to discuss reason with someone who isnât using it.
You yourself agree with them besides the ones that involve the CreatorâŠ
Unfounded assumptions.
Especially seeing as you claimed, immediately before this, that i havenât given any of my own viewpoints.
And how could I interpret 1 as 0 unless Iâm just blind and my opinion should be disregarded?
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
How could I interpret âdonât killâ as âkill if theyâre brown/if they have things you like/if you feel like itâ? How can anyone?
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
Nobody was aksing you to, all i said was that snot all interpretations match your own.
Which interpretation of the TC can give you something that goes squarely against the literal meanings of these phrases ?
There is a whole thread of examples here, find one yourself.
I really donât know what youâre saying and Iâm not feigning ignorance, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of people and reality.
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
You believe in gravity (and something in your tummy feels funny when you look from a balcony on the 12th floor), I believe in God, His judgement, the moral duty He has imposed on us and Heaven and Hell as our final destinations (and I also feel something when I transgress,
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
I believe in the scientific theory of the effects of what we call gravity, until something else comes up to change that belief.
Your belief is faith because there is no proof.
I have no problem with faith, as long as itâs not imposed upon others.
everyone does at the beginning, then they either learn to pay attention to it or ignore it).
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
And just like you wouldnât jump out of a building unless you lost your mind because you would end up flattened, so would I and everyone on my side not commit great transgressions because we know what will happen.
âMy interpretation is correctâ
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
Perhaps you have a moment of insanity, idk, for whatever biological reason something in your brain just malfunctions⊠well, as soon as you come down from it youâd greatly repent your actions, make amends, seek solutions for this insanity, maybe even get yourself locked up so you donât do it again!
âMy morality is the only correct moralityâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
But, again, most people donât just randomly murder or rape when their whole lives they didnât even punch anyone.
Agreed.
But as youâve repeatedly demonstrated, you refuse to (or simply canât) acknowledge that there are people who do those things because they think it is right to do so.
And those who do and claim to believe in something that disagrees with it, like the TC, are simply lying about their beliefs.
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
They have and they will continue doing it because some people are just too dumb to realize it and they have no morals so itâs completely win-win for them.
âFeigned Ignoranceâ
âMy interpretation is correctâ
"i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith donât understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correctâ
âthe baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mineâ
The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that arenât nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official âguideâ 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 âmy morality is the only moralityâ.
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 âtelephoneâ.
The explanation of âthe gameâ we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it âwereâ 100% accurate itâs till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasnât considered murder, because they werenât considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said âgod said itâs cool, so donât worryâ. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with âi never said killing certain people was fineâ, you know that isnât what i meant, Iâm (still) talking about that âmy morality is the only moralityâ surety youâve been using to pretend nuance doesnât exist.
âMurderâ 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 canât sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say âbut those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didnât read it properlyâ, thatâs mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldnât, i know iâm not taking you seriously, maybe iâm the minority here.
Though i will say the lolâs do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can âno true scotsmanâ as much as you like but itâs 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 donât you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And itâs not that they didnât read it properly, itâs that they simply donât care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didnât, they wouldnât care. They donât believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and theyâre easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know whatâs up, they simply donât care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. Itâs not a âno true Scotsmanâ, itâs more like âif Iâm raping a child and you find me and I tell you Iâm a good moral man, a believer whoâs afraid of Godâs judgment, and you believe me, youâre mentally challengedâ. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, itâs not that âmy morality is the only moralityâ, 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 donât even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, theyâll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves theyâre 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 itâs just a matter of perspective, lol). But you canât argue against God. And Iâm 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 theyâre 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 wasnât 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, iâm just guessing though, not my area and still donât need to have a good example for a point i wasnât 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 moralityâ 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 âholyâ warriors and zealots who wholeheartedly believe(d) in their interpretation of the guidelines.
Come on now, pretending an easily provable demographic of people donât exist because it doesnât 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 wouldâve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as thereâs 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 youâre not married to, well, thatâs on you (didnât 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 Godâs judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canât do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
And how are people not being âreal peopleâ a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others arenât? Why is murdering an innocent adult okay but not an innocent child? What? Which divine mandate? Iâm only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qurâan, but again, I donât see âGod chose me so I can be immoralâ in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus. And the Qurâan is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how itâs even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but itâs better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war. And all youâve 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 itâs a good policy to be honest), thatâs why they had to spin it in the first place. You canât both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless youâre 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 wouldnât, thatâs what area experts are for.
Interesting questions, for a conversation where the answer are relevant to the discussion.
Didnât happen, read it again.
Rampant speculation and irrelevant.
So i see this big wall of text, to save time Iâm just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that Iâve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up Iâll address that directly.
But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and Godâs judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you canât 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 donât 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.
Iâm going to add âFeigned Ignoranceâ 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 thatâs not what Iâm saying, there wouldnât 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 iâve been referencing(mostly), itâs the room for interpretation.
oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats
Nearly thereâŠso closeâŠ
Aww , so close, yet so far.
But this in an interesting segue into a topic iâm sure youâll have lots of fun dodging.
How important is intent.
If a âbad appleâ misleads people into murdering for the âgreater goodâ 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, itâs a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.
A big one being, âfuck it Iâm going to hell forever anyway, whatâs one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?â.
Damn that shorthand really does make this quicker
Depends on the circumstances but yes, intent is what matters the most, itâs just harder to see than actions. Itâs important to double check the info before you go around murdering innocents, lol. But I assume many of these just wanted the money that came with it and said âfuck morals, fuck relevant informationâ. The Americans who signed up to kill brown people in the Middle East in the early 00s fall into this category, for example. Would they be exempted? Of course not, they like everyone else had the duty to act right, and they like everyone else knew murder was wrong (in the information era who can claim ignorance when it comes to the guidance of the prophets? Everything is freely available online, you either care or you donât) and they still went ahead for whatever reason. Shouldâve double checked! But they werenât too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.
Again, you keep on mentioning viewpoints but you still havenât provided a single one you stand by that I donât and that directly contradicts the TC (whilst also being morally right, ofc, I doubt you want to pronounce yourself a villain). You yourself agree with them besides the ones that involve the Creator⊠And how could I interpret 1 as 0 unless Iâm just blind and my opinion should be disregarded? How could I interpret âdonât killâ as âkill if theyâre brown/if they have things you like/if you feel like itâ? How can anyone? Which interpretation of the TC can give you something that goes squarely against the literal meanings of these phrases ?
I really donât know what youâre saying and Iâm not feigning ignorance, I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of people and reality. You believe in gravity (and something in your tummy feels funny when you look from a balcony on the 12th floor), I believe in God, His judgement, the moral duty He has imposed on us and Heaven and Hell as our final destinations (and I also feel something when I transgress, everyone does at the beginning, then they either learn to pay attention to it or ignore it). And just like you wouldnât jump out of a building unless you lost your mind because you would end up flattened, so would I and everyone on my side not commit great transgressions because we know what will happen. Perhaps you have a moment of insanity, idk, for whatever biological reason something in your brain just malfunctions⊠well, as soon as you come down from it youâd greatly repent your actions, make amends, seek solutions for this insanity, maybe even get yourself locked up so you donât do it again! But, again, most people donât just randomly murder or rape when their whole lives they didnât even punch anyone. And those who do and claim to believe in something that disagrees with it, like the TC, are simply lying about their beliefs. They have and they will continue doing it because some people are just too dumb to realize it and they have no morals so itâs completely win-win for them.
Iâm going to add
to the shortcuts, to save more time.
Ok, i was wrong here, you didnât dodge entirely, you acknowledged intent as a thing here and then completely ignored it in your following replies.
Again, ignoring that there are people that believe what they are doing is just and moral.
Shouldâve double checked! But they werenât too stupid to get it, just intellectually lazy and overall uncaring, and disregarding that responsibility and then committing atrocities is enough to land you in Hell, especially if you never repent. Will the leaders have a harsher sentence? Definitely.
I already told you why, i donât think there is a interesting conversation about comparative viewpoints to be had with someone who uses âbecause some things just areâ or âbecause god said soâ as actual arguments.
Thereâs generally no room for any other viewpoint with such a person, itâd just be wasted breath.
Or, more succinctly, Thereâs no good way to discuss reason with someone who isnât using it.
Unfounded assumptions.
Especially seeing as you claimed, immediately before this, that i havenât given any of my own viewpoints.
Nobody was aksing you to, all i said was that snot all interpretations match your own.
There is a whole thread of examples here, find one yourself.
I believe in the scientific theory of the effects of what we call gravity, until something else comes up to change that belief.
Your belief is faith because there is no proof.
I have no problem with faith, as long as itâs not imposed upon others.
Agreed.
But as youâve repeatedly demonstrated, you refuse to (or simply canât) acknowledge that there are people who do those things because they think it is right to do so.
wow , that really is a timesaver.