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 wouldn't, that's 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.
Didn't happen, read it again.
If God wanted us to be perfect, he would’ve made us without free will, just automatons following moral law, but he gave us free will and wants us to be good, as there’s no perfection in this world.
Rampant speculation and irrelevant.
So i see this big wall of text, to save time I’m just going to refer to the shorthand for you replies (that I’ve already mentioned) and possibly direct fallacies, if they apply, if something new comes up I’ll 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.
- “My interpretation is correct"
- "I’m surprised you don’t understand"
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 you’re not married to, well, that’s on you (didn’t a Brit king create a whole religion just to cheat?).
- “My interpretation is correct"
- "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"
But no one can, in good faith, both say they believe in the TC, for example, and God’s judgment and actively go against it. You can lie, to yourself and others, about it but you can’t do that in good faith. Who would rather taste Hell than not?
- "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"
- "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”"
And how are people not being “real people” a thing? Where does God say some people are people and others aren’t?
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 don't 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.
I'm going to add "Feigned Ignorance" 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
I’m only speaking for monotheism, best encapsulated in the Qur’an, but again, I don’t see “God chose me so I can be immoral” in the Mosaic laws, in Ecclesiastes or the message of Jesus.
- "Feigned Ignorance"
You know that's not what I’m saying, there wouldn't need to be an explicit entry about something there just has to be enough room for someone to interpret something that way.
And the Qur’an is pretty detailed when it comes to war and how it’s even better to release prisoners (some societies take no prisoners but it’s better not to kill in Islam and all of Abrahamic monotheism), even if they initiated the war.
- "Feigned Ignorance"
Again, you know this but what is actually written is not the problem i've been referencing(mostly), it's the room for interpretation.
And all you’ve given me is examples of heresy, not belief.
oh damn, got you a trifecta, congrats
- “My interpretation is correct"
- "the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine"
- "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
Come on, man. Of course these people exist
Nearly there...so close...
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 it’s a good policy to be honest), that’s 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 i'm sure you'll have lots of fun dodging.
How important is intent.
If a "bad apple" misleads people into murdering for the "greater good" 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 can’t both believe, truly, that your soul is going to Hell for committing grave transgressions and also commit them, unless you’re actually insane and want to be deservedly tortured for your own misdeeds forever. Most people are not crazy, though.
- "My interpretation is correct"
- "i genuinely in (good or more likely bad) faith don’t understand that viewpoints other than my own can be exist and/or be correct”
You absolutely can, it's a shitty system full l of logical loopholes.
A big one being, "fuck it I’m going to hell forever anyway, what's one more sin added to the list, where are they going to put me, super hell?".
Damn that shorthand really does make this quicker