I refuse to define "objective morality" as I honestly have no clue what that is supposed to mean, it's a term that Christians tend to throw around on here, not something I believe exists, or ever could.
Morality is inherently based on opinions, preferences, value judgments. Opinions are inherently subjective, relative, self-decided.
Facts are objective, that God created everything and everyone and has some commands or doctrines for us to follow are al factual claims.
But whether God's proclamations are moral is an issue for us to decide, for as long as we can decide otherwise, there is no objective morality in these commandments.
There would be a bette3r case to be made if we were programmed by God to follow some script like a machine, but alas we are not, and if we were, there'd likely be nobody making such a claim.
Furthermore, God himself has no creator, he follows no moral commandments of is own, God, as a being with a mind, is not an objective source of morality in himself by this fact of his inherent nature, even if he had a God of his own, where does that "SuperGod" get HIS morals from?
If morality is a part of God's inherent nature, that's to say that he has no free will to be anything except perfectly good, then that's to say that he has his own inherent preferences regarding how he and others should conduct themselves.
Guess who else has that? Everybody. Why is his perfect goodness greater than ours? how would we know if that was the case? Because he created everything? If so, then let me introduce you to the teabag and various other inventions which are commonly used in ways that are in stark contrast to the intent of their original creators, new application that were acknowledged even by the creators themselves as being a better usage of their creation.
Lastly, the claim that God is good because he is inherently aligned with good by nature, is saying that some objective "goodness" exists outside of God, for without some external standard the statement becomes a meaningless tautology along the lines of the infamous logical tautology "True or False: This Statement Is False".
If tings are good because God commands them, we go back to is authority on being the creator of all, ruling out the very real possibility that we were made by an evil God, or that God could command anything and it would be moral, no matter how reprehensible it would seem to us (such as that we should commit the rape, torture, and murder of our own children).
The other source of God's authority is his power, or the prophecy that he will ultimately win in the end, or that we are rewarded with heaven and punished with hell depending upon whether we listen to him. All of these boils down to "might makes right", which is a philosophy I'm inclined to agree with, see as the common thread behind all good guys is that they are memetic victors, who are morally correct by the dubious virtue that most people within our culture agrees that they are at this location and time.
It could be that at some point God simply changes his mind to make the exact opposite of what is right today into what is morally correct tomorrow, and you'd have to accept it as being objectively Good, again, no matter how morally distasteful it is to you, there's another possibility, too.
But it could also be that God being strong enough to impose his force on others could not be guaranteed to always be the case, perhaps in some circumstances someone were to kill God or otherwise put him in a role with less power, would that make the usurper the new standard of morality? What if it were the very symbol of evil which exists in out culture today (Lucifer, Satan, the Devil)?
Would a morality that is so potentially vulnerable to being so completely flipped on it's head by the outcome of a fight or the changing of a mind be able to be accurately described as "objective"?
Holy shit. Huff less farts faggot. You're simply parroting kike and anti-Christian horseshit.
If you want to make the argument that God isn't good, go ahead, make it. However, look at God's laws and understand the uphill battle.
Take the 10 commandments, for example. Which of those do you believe are anything other that reasonable and good (in the good versus evil sense)?
After coming to the conclusion that "God is good", and I'm not saying that you have or that you must, there are God's laws written in words that are relatively easy to understand, and haven't changed in 4000 years. (Muh "other translations" aside, at a minimum you could use the 411 year old text, the KJV)
The only "subjective" arguments to be made about what is and isn't a violations of God's law is to simply argue "what words means". You can induce alternate meaning to words and phrases, and many do, but the argument then becomes an issue of specificity, which can be settled by using other parts of the Bible to reinforce your position. However, this isn't about "subjectivity" this is about, like I said, specificity. The two people are parcsing semantics and generally agree that the law should be obeyed.
Moral relativism is the greatest flaw in paganism, which includes the Talmud following fake jew heathens, non-religious philosophies, and atheists. And because of their inability to justify their positions on morality, since there is no written word, these faggots try and suggest that religions, namely Christianity are no better because the written word can have a variety of interpretations.
All I can argue is that God isn't necessarily good, not that he is or isn't.
I can also ask what it means to be good? doing or saying things that you, or others, or society, or the prevalent meta-cultural narrative find to be preferable compared to other things (especially those which are considered aversive, which we consider to be evil)? Is good good because it is generally preferred, and evil evil because it is generally hated?
-
Can you describe the ten commandments of which you speak?
The laws may not have changed in 4,000 years, but how has the way they were followed changed? are some ignored or violated while others are followed? are some interpreted differently at different times by different people? Furthermore, how sure are you that the laws haven't been changed in 4,000 years, especially since that if they were changed, there'd also be some concealment of the evidence of the change that was made? Were all the laws written at once, by the same source? Were they written by the source credited at all? do you even know what the laws are, and accept them (without making excuses as to why you don't have to follow them or haven't violated them)?
I haven't yet made a semantic argument ITT, never have I attempted to twist the meaning of some word, in fact, I've made a police of specifically trying to avoid it by addressing multiple types of meanings that could be ascribed to some contentious wording or phrasing, I like to be generous.
None of my arguments in the previous post are based on a debate of interpretations, either, many of them will take the basic premise of a religious morality on it's face, assuming it to be true, and then arguing from there, you are trying to shift the argument to someplace else, and I'm willing to follow, but so far a lot of what is written by you in this post is unrelated to the post it's responding to.
So the argument now is that the morality of the Bible is beyond reproach, perhaps it's better than any other moral ideal, or perhaps the fact that it's written down and has been for a while is enough to set it above any other that hasn't been written down so long ago.
Or perhaps the argument is that it's sufficient, and we've had it for a while, and tat things were good when we followed it, and that you think things are worse now and that it's due to us straying away from using it as the basis of our morality.
All I can argue is that God isn't necessarily good, not that he is or isn't.
Of course you can't. Because forming an actual opinion is beyond you. You lack fortitude. You lack history. You lack an ability to look at a situation and make a determination based on a reasonable perception of what is good.
That's you're fucking problem. You could, in one moment, support mass genocide of half the planet, for the good of the other half of humanity, and in the next moment, demand action on climate change that sky rockets enegy prices to save an insignificant insect from going extinct.
I can form an opinion on what's moral, but I will not be able to honestly say it's anything more than an opinion.
You on the other hand seem to not be troubled by the fact that your moral compass is a matter of opinion, not factual certainties.
Now I realize there's elements outside of moral opinions that lead is to hold the positions that we do, we've got genetic traits in put DNA to optimize our ability to increase the number of organisms with genes like our own, and morality is a set of psychological properties that come as a result of that.
Thus the genuine moral opinions we could express with with degree of authenticity are limited by the nature of this origin.
I see a lot of utility in a religious morality, despite it not being truly "objective" the convincing claim that it is is enough to make many people follow the laws laid down by it.
I think we could design a cool religion that unequivocally supports the ideas that we'd prefer people live their lives by.
Making a new religion is easy, you start with a cult, and build it up from there, then through various means you expand it until it overtakes the mainstream of society.
It might be a good time for it, considering that we might see the end of pax judaica and the return to the ages of empires again, where every people returns to the older way of thinking that we had before the end of the industrial revolution.
Different nations and tribes of people fighting to conquer conquer world through military campaign against those unlike themselves.
Various families seeking to be the family that rules the world in the absence of the jewish international banking dynasties that currently run it, before dying out in the war that sprung forth from their failed attempt at an ultimate consolidation of their power.
This would be a lasting lesson on the limits of soft power and scheaming machinations.
It would also be an end to the false doctrines of equality, globalism, and egalitarianism, along with all that other jewish poison we had accepted for so long.
It'd be a scathing lesson on the futility of even a very limited and tightly regulated form of democracy, perhaps there'd be other lessons as well, like how government is all about power, with the romantic notions that conservatives have about government being dispelled, the importance of an armed and untrusting citizenry, and the dangers of a government that runs too many monopolies, how even benign seeming government services like public healthcare and welfare can easily lead to a nightmare dystopic situation.
My moral compass is right in line with God's law and has been established as moral by centuries of opinion, history, experience, and discussion.
No it hasn't.
For centuries civilization flourished without Christianity.
For centuries under Christianity civilization flourished while the majority of the population were little more than nominally Christian, being biblically illiterate and almost entirely ignorant about their own religion, and most of them practicing a form of Christianity that was heavily mixed with local paganism, something you'd find heretical (a byproduct of their people's initial induction into Christianity involving syncretism).
Under both jewish subversion and the corruption of gentiles had repeatedly taken hold, bringing nations into decline and fall.
Even when the population was wholly Christian in the modern sense, they were practicing a very different religion to what you'd endorse, with all manner of practices and beliefs that you would consider to be degenerate, and even then there was the cycle of prosperity and decline, subversion and corruption.
Additionally, many of the Christian nations in these times were of different opinions as to what constitutes a Christian morality, sometimes vastly different, and Christian morals had changed over time, both in getting stricter and in loosening up, no denomination is completely in line with biblical teaching, and I think if there was some form of Christianity that was practiced that was completely in line with the Bible you'd likely reject it.
Other question include: "How important was giving consideration to Christianity in the moral decisions made by Christians of any time?", "Has Christianity ever been a tool of subversion, corruption, and degeneracy? <- you likely know multiple examples of when it was", "Considering that Christianity has shown itself capable of being cringe and bluepilled, Has non-Christianity ever shown itself compatible with being based and redpilled? <- again, you'd likely know multiple examples of when it was", "Is the problem really a lack of religiosity, or is it the vacuum left behind in the absence of it being filled with an unsuitable replacement?", "What exactly is a Christian morality in practice? is it following the noahide laws of the ten commandments? is it following the teachings of jesus christ? How was the biblical morality intended to be observed in one's earthly life? would any morality based on the scriptures actually work in reality if they were truly followed to the letter?".
There's probably more, but I'm tired right now, see you in the morning..
For centuries civilization flourished without Christianity.
No it didn't.
Under both jewish subversion and the corruption of gentiles had repeatedly taken hold, bringing nations into decline and fall.
That's prophesy.
Even when the population was wholly Christian in the modern sense, they were practicing a very different religion to what you'd endorse
Bullshit
Additionally, many of the Christian nations in these times were of different opinions as to what constitutes a Christian morality,
Not true.
What exactly is a Christian morality in practice?
Obedience to God's law.
would any morality based on the scriptures actually work in reality if they were truly followed to the letter?"
If everyone obeyed God's law to the letter, this earth would be as close to eden as we can be.
How about this, homo, get more specific. Which law do you have a problem with? Of course, you probably won't, because that will defeat your argument.
You can't define "good". You can't acknowledge God is good. You keep the issue vague to push moral relativism. That's the point. It's the same moral relativism that had abortions go from being a crime at any stage to listening to government officials talking about the need for post birth abortions. It's how society is corrupted. Destroyed. It would be best for society if someone just threw you off a roof.
I think the solution is that instead of rejecting post modernism, we follow its logic to the ultimate conclusion, one that favors the far right.
Think of the premises carefully, then you will realize that they ultimately favor us and our ideas, which work out better when applied in reality.
Post post modernism.
Besides this point, I've got not just else to say to you, half the time you are responding as if you're replies are to someone else's posts, addressing points I've never made as if o made them, which means my actual input doesn't really matter to you, and the other half the time you are getting increasingly hostile as you attempt to seem as hard-core as you could be, while you direct false accusations my way of being a supporter of things which I've never given my support to, here or elsewhere.
There's nothing left for me in this engagement. At the very least we should take a break from this until we can collect ourselves and come back with clearer heads.
I'm agnostic but I believe in good and evil and we can see it naturally. Anyone seeing a kid being beat or raped knows it is wrong.
Not sure how to go deeper then that. In a natural human society on the small scale we want good friends good food good wife and family and what takes away from that is bad or evil.
So if morality requires a "creator" (in this instance, God), does it require God?
Someone who doesn't believe in God, but believes in evolution, will be able to determine that what separates good from evil is whether or not something is conducive to the propagation of the genes that their DNA possesses.
Evolutionary morality is therefore objective in the same way any religious morality is, that being that the source of their creation (as themselves) by way of the bundling together of the properties which comprise them (genetic traits), has a selective criteria that is basically a moral commandment coming from some higher force (rules of nature, as you put it, natural law).
In tis view, if we see good and evil naturally, it is because we have been programmed over generations to perceive some tings as being one or the other, we experience a positive response to some things which we call good, and negative responses to some others which we call evil, and this is because good things are good for the spreading of our genes, and evil things are bad for the spreading of our genes.
Though most of these standards evolved to exist within the context of a smaller and closely related society (within Dunbar's number and biologically descending from the same 6 founders) - yes, just as in the Bible and basically every holy book, all human societies, races, and in fact the whole of the human species had originated from a very few people, typically around six of them, via lots of incest at the beginning.
These moral instincts are significantly less applicable to the more globalized world we live in today, especially as we live now in groups that far exceed the limits of both Dunbar and even Maltheus.
The Maltheusean limit does not just apply to natural population limiters like resource availability, but it operates on it's own, enforcing itself through other means when populations get too large, even in the complete absence of limiters the population will begin to collapse as it will limit itself.
This was most famously displayed in the "mouse utopia" experiment, we are programmed to destroy ourselves under such circumstances.
It'd be better to go back to living in the 100-200 (average 150) groups of people who share common descent (such as race) which we are most adapted to living in, because if we don't do so by choice, we will see the horrors of mouse utopia reach their fullest climax and meet the end that returns us down to this level by bloody and brute force means.
We need common descent too, as we see in Putnam's work on analyzing the effects of diversity, diversity plus proximity leads inevitably to hostilities that climax in war, not culture war, I'm talking people killing each other, full blown violent conflict.
White people, Male people, Heterosexuals, Christians, and Americans are being targeted right now, I can see that, they are scapegoated for everything that could possibly be blamed on them, but eventually they will stop trying to make peace, the varieties of all these groups that are willing to restrain themselves from violence in response to this escalating mistreatment are dying out, and it is those who are the ones that old back the individuals among them who are willing to be violent, especially since the other side will only increase the hatred being incited against them and focused upon them, eventually this will result in everything boiling over into open bloodshed, this is a lesson that history has shown us time and time again.
When that happens, the Straight White Christian Men of America may win, or they may not, they may fight, or they may not, but either way it's guaranteed that if they do go to war on behalf of themselves against their oppressors, they will certainty put up one hell of a fight.
Says you, while crying like a woman, trying to silence me. I didn't even engage with you, pedo. You're following me around the site, like a parasite looking for a new host -- and you will be outed every time. Dont like it? Stop responding to me.
christ cuck? you're literally responding on a philosophy thread where I am refuting dogma. Of course, your IQ is so low, I wouldn't expect you to have noticed.
I wonder what your infatuation with Christianity is all about, anyway. I haven't seen that much hatred toward Christians, except from say, from a particular group. Are you saying you're not Jewish?
Split personalities? Mikenigger has posts that are substantially more sane. Maybe he saves his better comments to use on his non-throwaway account, expecting to get banned.
what I think you're asking is how are things in Japan going so well.
I can guess as to why, but I can tell you one of the reason it's not:
it's not because they are all Christians living in fear of God's wrath, demanding people behave "morally" correct, else spend eternity burning in hell.
Imagine you want to drive to Washington from California And you head South on the freeway.
It'll be said that you're headed the "Wrong" way. But you aren't going the morally wrong way. You aren't evil for having headed the incorrect direction. You're merely doing something that isn't conducive to getting to your destination.
Likewise, when you turn around and head north towards Washington. You aren't suddenly morally good for having made this correction.
Notice you're merely taking the most functionally correct path, given your stated destination.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 07:13:26 ago (+1/-0)
God's law is fixed. It isn't to be bent and twisted to make some things that are clearly in violation of law, okay.
Explain what you mean.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:22:29 ago (+0/-0)
Morality is inherently based on opinions, preferences, value judgments.
Opinions are inherently subjective, relative, self-decided.
Facts are objective, that God created everything and everyone and has some commands or doctrines for us to follow are al factual claims.
But whether God's proclamations are moral is an issue for us to decide, for as long as we can decide otherwise, there is no objective morality in these commandments.
There would be a bette3r case to be made if we were programmed by God to follow some script like a machine, but alas we are not, and if we were, there'd likely be nobody making such a claim.
Furthermore, God himself has no creator, he follows no moral commandments of is own, God, as a being with a mind, is not an objective source of morality in himself by this fact of his inherent nature, even if he had a God of his own, where does that "SuperGod" get HIS morals from?
If morality is a part of God's inherent nature, that's to say that he has no free will to be anything except perfectly good, then that's to say that he has his own inherent preferences regarding how he and others should conduct themselves.
Guess who else has that? Everybody. Why is his perfect goodness greater than ours? how would we know if that was the case? Because he created everything? If so, then let me introduce you to the teabag and various other inventions which are commonly used in ways that are in stark contrast to the intent of their original creators, new application that were acknowledged even by the creators themselves as being a better usage of their creation.
Lastly, the claim that God is good because he is inherently aligned with good by nature, is saying that some objective "goodness" exists outside of God, for without some external standard the statement becomes a meaningless tautology along the lines of the infamous logical tautology "True or False: This Statement Is False".
If tings are good because God commands them, we go back to is authority on being the creator of all, ruling out the very real possibility that we were made by an evil God, or that God could command anything and it would be moral, no matter how reprehensible it would seem to us (such as that we should commit the rape, torture, and murder of our own children).
The other source of God's authority is his power, or the prophecy that he will ultimately win in the end, or that we are rewarded with heaven and punished with hell depending upon whether we listen to him. All of these boils down to "might makes right", which is a philosophy I'm inclined to agree with, see as the common thread behind all good guys is that they are memetic victors, who are morally correct by the dubious virtue that most people within our culture agrees that they are at this location and time.
It could be that at some point God simply changes his mind to make the exact opposite of what is right today into what is morally correct tomorrow, and you'd have to accept it as being objectively Good, again, no matter how morally distasteful it is to you, there's another possibility, too.
But it could also be that God being strong enough to impose his force on others could not be guaranteed to always be the case, perhaps in some circumstances someone were to kill God or otherwise put him in a role with less power, would that make the usurper the new standard of morality? What if it were the very symbol of evil which exists in out culture today (Lucifer, Satan, the Devil)?
Would a morality that is so potentially vulnerable to being so completely flipped on it's head by the outcome of a fight or the changing of a mind be able to be accurately described as "objective"?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 16:32:15 ago (+0/-0)
If you want to make the argument that God isn't good, go ahead, make it. However, look at God's laws and understand the uphill battle.
Take the 10 commandments, for example. Which of those do you believe are anything other that reasonable and good (in the good versus evil sense)?
After coming to the conclusion that "God is good", and I'm not saying that you have or that you must, there are God's laws written in words that are relatively easy to understand, and haven't changed in 4000 years. (Muh "other translations" aside, at a minimum you could use the 411 year old text, the KJV)
The only "subjective" arguments to be made about what is and isn't a violations of God's law is to simply argue "what words means". You can induce alternate meaning to words and phrases, and many do, but the argument then becomes an issue of specificity, which can be settled by using other parts of the Bible to reinforce your position. However, this isn't about "subjectivity" this is about, like I said, specificity. The two people are parcsing semantics and generally agree that the law should be obeyed.
Moral relativism is the greatest flaw in paganism, which includes the Talmud following fake jew heathens, non-religious philosophies, and atheists. And because of their inability to justify their positions on morality, since there is no written word, these faggots try and suggest that religions, namely Christianity are no better because the written word can have a variety of interpretations.
It's fucking lame.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 17:06:07 ago (+0/-0)
I can also ask what it means to be good? doing or saying things that you, or others, or society, or the prevalent meta-cultural narrative find to be preferable compared to other things (especially those which are considered aversive, which we consider to be evil)? Is good good because it is generally preferred, and evil evil because it is generally hated?
-
Can you describe the ten commandments of which you speak?
The laws may not have changed in 4,000 years, but how has the way they were followed changed? are some ignored or violated while others are followed? are some interpreted differently at different times by different people? Furthermore, how sure are you that the laws haven't been changed in 4,000 years, especially since that if they were changed, there'd also be some concealment of the evidence of the change that was made? Were all the laws written at once, by the same source? Were they written by the source credited at all? do you even know what the laws are, and accept them (without making excuses as to why you don't have to follow them or haven't violated them)?
I haven't yet made a semantic argument ITT, never have I attempted to twist the meaning of some word, in fact, I've made a police of specifically trying to avoid it by addressing multiple types of meanings that could be ascribed to some contentious wording or phrasing, I like to be generous.
None of my arguments in the previous post are based on a debate of interpretations, either, many of them will take the basic premise of a religious morality on it's face, assuming it to be true, and then arguing from there, you are trying to shift the argument to someplace else, and I'm willing to follow, but so far a lot of what is written by you in this post is unrelated to the post it's responding to.
So the argument now is that the morality of the Bible is beyond reproach, perhaps it's better than any other moral ideal, or perhaps the fact that it's written down and has been for a while is enough to set it above any other that hasn't been written down so long ago.
Or perhaps the argument is that it's sufficient, and we've had it for a while, and tat things were good when we followed it, and that you think things are worse now and that it's due to us straying away from using it as the basis of our morality.
Enlighten me here, What exactly is your argument?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 18:24:21 ago (+0/-0)
Of course you can't. Because forming an actual opinion is beyond you. You lack fortitude. You lack history. You lack an ability to look at a situation and make a determination based on a reasonable perception of what is good.
That's you're fucking problem. You could, in one moment, support mass genocide of half the planet, for the good of the other half of humanity, and in the next moment, demand action on climate change that sky rockets enegy prices to save an insignificant insect from going extinct.
IT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 21:00:41 ago (+0/-0)
You on the other hand seem to not be troubled by the fact that your moral compass is a matter of opinion, not factual certainties.
Now I realize there's elements outside of moral opinions that lead is to hold the positions that we do, we've got genetic traits in put DNA to optimize our ability to increase the number of organisms with genes like our own, and morality is a set of psychological properties that come as a result of that.
Thus the genuine moral opinions we could express with with degree of authenticity are limited by the nature of this origin.
I see a lot of utility in a religious morality, despite it not being truly "objective" the convincing claim that it is is enough to make many people follow the laws laid down by it.
I think we could design a cool religion that unequivocally supports the ideas that we'd prefer people live their lives by.
Making a new religion is easy, you start with a cult, and build it up from there, then through various means you expand it until it overtakes the mainstream of society.
It might be a good time for it, considering that we might see the end of pax judaica and the return to the ages of empires again, where every people returns to the older way of thinking that we had before the end of the industrial revolution.
Different nations and tribes of people fighting to conquer conquer world through military campaign against those unlike themselves.
Various families seeking to be the family that rules the world in the absence of the jewish international banking dynasties that currently run it, before dying out in the war that sprung forth from their failed attempt at an ultimate consolidation of their power.
This would be a lasting lesson on the limits of soft power and scheaming machinations.
It would also be an end to the false doctrines of equality, globalism, and egalitarianism, along with all that other jewish poison we had accepted for so long.
It'd be a scathing lesson on the futility of even a very limited and tightly regulated form of democracy, perhaps there'd be other lessons as well, like how government is all about power, with the romantic notions that conservatives have about government being dispelled, the importance of an armed and untrusting citizenry, and the dangers of a government that runs too many monopolies, how even benign seeming government services like public healthcare and welfare can easily lead to a nightmare dystopic situation.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 21:51:51 ago (+0/-0)
Again, cause your a wimpy faggot with no morals. Easily steered by idiocy and retardism. You're what's wrong with you.
My moral compass is right in line with God's law and has been established as moral by centuries of opinion, history, experience, and discussion.
It isn't hard. It isn't complex. It may be nuanced but only around semantics.
Put down the fucking bong and either take less meds or more of them. You're fucking retarded.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 06:39:13 ago (+0/-0)
No it hasn't.
For centuries civilization flourished without Christianity.
For centuries under Christianity civilization flourished while the majority of the population were little more than nominally Christian, being biblically illiterate and almost entirely ignorant about their own religion, and most of them practicing a form of Christianity that was heavily mixed with local paganism, something you'd find heretical (a byproduct of their people's initial induction into Christianity involving syncretism).
Under both jewish subversion and the corruption of gentiles had repeatedly taken hold, bringing nations into decline and fall.
Even when the population was wholly Christian in the modern sense, they were practicing a very different religion to what you'd endorse, with all manner of practices and beliefs that you would consider to be degenerate, and even then there was the cycle of prosperity and decline, subversion and corruption.
Additionally, many of the Christian nations in these times were of different opinions as to what constitutes a Christian morality, sometimes vastly different, and Christian morals had changed over time, both in getting stricter and in loosening up, no denomination is completely in line with biblical teaching, and I think if there was some form of Christianity that was practiced that was completely in line with the Bible you'd likely reject it.
Other question include: "How important was giving consideration to Christianity in the moral decisions made by Christians of any time?", "Has Christianity ever been a tool of subversion, corruption, and degeneracy? <- you likely know multiple examples of when it was", "Considering that Christianity has shown itself capable of being cringe and bluepilled, Has non-Christianity ever shown itself compatible with being based and redpilled? <- again, you'd likely know multiple examples of when it was", "Is the problem really a lack of religiosity, or is it the vacuum left behind in the absence of it being filled with an unsuitable replacement?", "What exactly is a Christian morality in practice? is it following the noahide laws of the ten commandments? is it following the teachings of jesus christ? How was the biblical morality intended to be observed in one's earthly life? would any morality based on the scriptures actually work in reality if they were truly followed to the letter?".
There's probably more, but I'm tired right now, see you in the morning..
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 06:55:45 ago (+0/-0)
No it didn't.
That's prophesy.
Bullshit
Not true.
Obedience to God's law.
If everyone obeyed God's law to the letter, this earth would be as close to eden as we can be.
How about this, homo, get more specific. Which law do you have a problem with? Of course, you probably won't, because that will defeat your argument.
You can't define "good". You can't acknowledge God is good. You keep the issue vague to push moral relativism. That's the point. It's the same moral relativism that had abortions go from being a crime at any stage to listening to government officials talking about the need for post birth abortions. It's how society is corrupted. Destroyed. It would be best for society if someone just threw you off a roof.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 08:40:53 ago (+0/-0)
Think of the premises carefully, then you will realize that they ultimately favor us and our ideas, which work out better when applied in reality.
Post post modernism.
Besides this point, I've got not just else to say to you, half the time you are responding as if you're replies are to someone else's posts, addressing points I've never made as if o made them, which means my actual input doesn't really matter to you, and the other half the time you are getting increasingly hostile as you attempt to seem as hard-core as you could be, while you direct false accusations my way of being a supporter of things which I've never given my support to, here or elsewhere.
There's nothing left for me in this engagement. At the very least we should take a break from this until we can collect ourselves and come back with clearer heads.
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 14:00:17 ago (+0/-0)
Where does that come from? A creator?
I'm agnostic but I believe in good and evil and we can see it naturally. Anyone seeing a kid being beat or raped knows it is wrong.
Not sure how to go deeper then that. In a natural human society on the small scale we want good friends good food good wife and family and what takes away from that is bad or evil.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 14:38:39 ago (+0/-0)*
Someone who doesn't believe in God, but believes in evolution, will be able to determine that what separates good from evil is whether or not something is conducive to the propagation of the genes that their DNA possesses.
Evolutionary morality is therefore objective in the same way any religious morality is, that being that the source of their creation (as themselves) by way of the bundling together of the properties which comprise them (genetic traits), has a selective criteria that is basically a moral commandment coming from some higher force (rules of nature, as you put it, natural law).
In tis view, if we see good and evil naturally, it is because we have been programmed over generations to perceive some tings as being one or the other, we experience a positive response to some things which we call good, and negative responses to some others which we call evil, and this is because good things are good for the spreading of our genes, and evil things are bad for the spreading of our genes.
Though most of these standards evolved to exist within the context of a smaller and closely related society (within Dunbar's number and biologically descending from the same 6 founders) - yes, just as in the Bible and basically every holy book, all human societies, races, and in fact the whole of the human species had originated from a very few people, typically around six of them, via lots of incest at the beginning.
These moral instincts are significantly less applicable to the more globalized world we live in today, especially as we live now in groups that far exceed the limits of both Dunbar and even Maltheus.
The Maltheusean limit does not just apply to natural population limiters like resource availability, but it operates on it's own, enforcing itself through other means when populations get too large, even in the complete absence of limiters the population will begin to collapse as it will limit itself.
This was most famously displayed in the "mouse utopia" experiment, we are programmed to destroy ourselves under such circumstances.
It'd be better to go back to living in the 100-200 (average 150) groups of people who share common descent (such as race) which we are most adapted to living in, because if we don't do so by choice, we will see the horrors of mouse utopia reach their fullest climax and meet the end that returns us down to this level by bloody and brute force means.
We need common descent too, as we see in Putnam's work on analyzing the effects of diversity, diversity plus proximity leads inevitably to hostilities that climax in war, not culture war, I'm talking people killing each other, full blown violent conflict.
White people, Male people, Heterosexuals, Christians, and Americans are being targeted right now, I can see that, they are scapegoated for everything that could possibly be blamed on them, but eventually they will stop trying to make peace, the varieties of all these groups that are willing to restrain themselves from violence in response to this escalating mistreatment are dying out, and it is those who are the ones that old back the individuals among them who are willing to be violent, especially since the other side will only increase the hatred being incited against them and focused upon them, eventually this will result in everything boiling over into open bloodshed, this is a lesson that history has shown us time and time again.
When that happens, the Straight White Christian Men of America may win, or they may not, they may fight, or they may not, but either way it's guaranteed that if they do go to war on behalf of themselves against their oppressors, they will certainty put up one hell of a fight.
[ + ] WanderingToast
[ - ] WanderingToast 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 12:26:07 ago (+0/-0)
The principle of Polarity tells us that 'Good' and 'Bad' are polar opposites of the same thing.
At one end sits God, the all, creation - Only God in its divine creative form can be completely 'Good'.
To be 'more good' one must align oneself closer to the divine essence of creation, God in its pure and divine form.
But religion is not the study of God, it is the interpretation and often misrepresentation of man's ego in the face of God.
There are however universal truths that have filtered their way into religion.
The principle of correspondence being one of them.
"As above so below, as below so above' or to put a Christian spin on it. "In heaven as it is on earth"
We can observe the fractal nature of the universe, and understand that these fractal structures exist within ourselves also.
A fractal can be something that has both a finite and infinite on the same scale, within the same structure, image or equation.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 10:21:42 ago (+0/-0)
Counterfeit
Avoid "right" or "wrong" or "good" and "bad"; rather notice what works and what doesn't work.
To determine what works, first decide what it is you are looking to accomplish.
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 12:24:13 ago (+1/-1)
Grown ass men who still have imaginary friends fail at life
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:16:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:17:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:25:31 ago (+0/-0)
https://files.catbox.moe/0n1bwx.jpeg
I have admissions screenshooted from your pal, blumen, as well.
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:28:38 ago (+0/-0)
Grow some balls niglet
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:30:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:51:38 ago (+0/-0)
Cry harder with your false accusations
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 17:26:45 ago (+0/-0)
I wonder what your infatuation with Christianity is all about, anyway. I haven't seen that much hatred toward Christians, except from say, from a particular group. Are you saying you're not Jewish?
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 18:41:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] WanderingToast
[ - ] WanderingToast 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 19:43:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 24, 2022 20:47:09 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 14:00:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:39:37 ago (+0/-0)
I can guess as to why, but I can tell you one of the reason it's not:
it's not because they are all Christians living in fear of God's wrath, demanding people behave "morally" correct, else spend eternity burning in hell.
That, I can assure you of.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 14:57:58 ago (+0/-0)
I thought I was supposed to be the paradoxical one.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.7 yearsAug 23, 2022 15:22:47 ago (+0/-0)
Imagine you want to drive to Washington from California
And you head South on the freeway.
It'll be said that you're headed the "Wrong" way. But you aren't going the morally wrong way. You aren't evil for having headed the incorrect direction. You're merely doing something that isn't conducive to getting to your destination.
Likewise, when you turn around and head north towards Washington. You aren't suddenly morally good for having made this correction.
Notice you're merely taking the most functionally correct path, given your stated destination.
God is not judging you on this.