@ChifoiCristian Whoever wins the argument is the one who is shown strong. Your moral declaration here is essentially a no true scotsman position.
While your preference is noble, winning is what matters in the end, and the strong cannot hide behind their morals. They must fight better.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac Not shame, fear. Crippling, existential fear.
In regard to your second claim, I was quoting the bible again.
Best of luck out there, I've enjoyed our discussion.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac Religious scholars exist to prove god, not question him.
Questioning him, really questioning him and his existence, is taboo in the christian faith. It's seen as a slippery slope and is highly discouraged. It leads to the sin of unbelief which is unforgivable(hellfire).
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac It feels that way when you're in it. It's not consciously done either, "this is true because it's god's word, but it conflicts with something else that is evidently true, the problem must be with my understanding".
Questioning god leads to hellfire afterall, few risk it.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac I was quoting the bible. I think though your expressed position here does an excellent job of reinforcing my earlier point that people decide what they think, then read their holy books in such a way to agree with their thoughts after the fact.
It's not insidious, it's natural
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It's not the search for truth, it's the end of the search. There could be a wine loving octopus with a dutch accent living in the home next to yours. There's no way you can't know for sure.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac They are often sincere, but so too are the children who believe in Santa Claus. Debate and the challenging of our beliefs by critics is necessary to prevent us all from becoming believers in our own versions of Santa. Reality is sometimes hard to discover, we look for it anyway.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac I'll express the point more plainly.
The christian's standard of morality IS subjective morality.
They claim it's objective, but it's just people deciding whatever seems right in their current time, and then figuring out after the fact how to make their holy book say it too.
@Opus99323036775 @MelonieMac Guidelines like killing gay people and children that are disobedient? That sort of thing produces the healthiest societies you think..? It's got alot of history in the book and there's things worth considering in it, but I wouldn't idolize it.
@jacrabtree66@MelonieMac Is gluttony still a sin, or is that unpopular now? Last time I was in a church everyone was obese, did the unenlightened scholars of old just have that one wrong? Or do we just decide what's morally convenient to us and then tack on divine authority to what we decide?
@EmDubya36@MelonieMac We've seen what happens when religious people hold themselves as arbiters of morality as well. Same thing.
Perhaps preventing anyone from having too much control over the lives of others is the better take away here.
@JohnLis19387145@MelonieMac People have claimed logic and reason to commit any number of crimes, just like they have used the bible and visions from god.
The inquisitors of the 1600s believed in objective morality, as well as the slavers of the 1800s, the jews who genocided everyone in Canaan, and etc.
@irRickCharmElla@MelonieMac There are a number of problems with it. Enough that every generation changes the meaning of what was written to fit with what makes sense for their time.
In the 1800s people were using the bible to support slavery, now they use it to denigrate it. It's a dead book
@scottmelker@EmiMelker You have it backwards. Happy life, happy wife. I've never met a genuinely happy person who prioritized someone else's happiness before fixing their own.