I disagree with the condescending nature of them as a whole - humanity knew it was bad to kill and rape before christianity. I don’t need 15 commandments written by man, masquerading as the word of the creator of the universe, to teach me how to behave. Wait did I say 15?
First of all, this is Abrahamic/Mosaic Judaism, it’s pure, ancient monotheism, not Christianity, and there’s a difference. But more importantly, it’s not condescending, it’s just a baseline moral framework, one that had to be ignored throughout history for there to be such things as the Dutch East India Company, King Leopold’s Congo, America as we know it, among others. You can’t tell me people follow it over there in Burgerland, right? Maybe a minority composed of people who truly fear God’s judgment and atheist leftists with clear hearts and minds, and that’s it. So no, even today, in many places in the world these very simple moral stances are not believed in and integrated into people’s ideologies.
I’m sure that’s understood by anyone who’s not in a coma and the silly one here is you. Again, if these basic sentences were part of people’s ideology in the West, we wouldn’t have Western imperialism (for example), and you’re here arguing against it? 🙄
Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.
I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?
Like in a religious sense, wouldn’t claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god’s intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you’re a prophet ).
Now, on to the actual response.
It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.
It’s clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don’t you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.
I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.
The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.
Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.
A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.
Send me a link when you’ve published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)
Of course I do, as much as anyone else. Or do you think only some people can interact with and have takes with these freely available texts? And these takes are more or less valid independently of who said them, of course that’s a matter of personal judgement so you’d also have to be assured enough to pronounce yourself on it (and you should be because God gave us all big brains!). But I’m not saying anything wild, or at least I don’t think so, you’d have to point it out to me. “God will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything to” is as cold a take as possible when it comes to Abrahamic to Muhammadian monotheism, lol. That’s my usual script, that and “start believing in objective reality and ethics, not everything is up for debate, not everything is negotiable, some things just are or aren’t, this is why the West is what it is, etc etc”, haha.
And yes, if I ever publish something I’ll let you know, but don’t hold your breath. 😞😅
Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qur’an. For real for real. “Qur’an: a Monotheist Translation” is a freely available app. And don’t forget that God is just Allah in English!
But I’m not saying anything wild, or at least I don’t think so, you’d have to point it out to me.
I would consider “Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have” to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
“God will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything to”
That’s a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it’s also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
“I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so”
If your reasoning boils down to “because god said so” that’s not a conversation, that’s a dictate because you can’t reason with someone who’s only basis is faith.
To me, that’s almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qur’an. For real for real. “Qur’an: a Monotheist Translation” is a freely available app. And don’t forget that God is just Allah in English!
I’m not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
start believing in objective reality and ethics
Isn’t going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
some things just are or aren’t
or “it is, because i/god said so”
Isn’t a basis for arguing objectivity, it’s hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on “My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don’t understand/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”
That’s not a good faith conversation, that’s a repetitive statement.
Viewpoints haven’t been proposed, at least not any I’d disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (“why no rape? Include no raping!”) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that you’d have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but it’s beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance. Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
And the Qur’an? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that I’m lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qur’an. I can’t even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and that’s just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! That’s another book recommendation, btw, it’s in the Bible.
Viewpoints haven’t been proposed, at least not any I’d disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (“why no rape? Include no raping!”) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that you’d have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
So…“Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have”
That aside, you’re response to that reply was essentially:
an agreement that it’s open to interpretation
you agreeing that your interpretation is similar to theirs
then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people don’t have the exact same interpretation as you.
Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they don’t like the vagueness of the original.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but it’s beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance.
An epistemological stance that conveniently doesn’t require you to actually engage with any argument you don’t want to “because it just is”.
Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
“Some things just are” is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)
And the Qur’an? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that I’m lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qur’an. I can’t even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and that’s just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! That’s another book recommendation, btw, it’s in the Bible.
Ah, i see, yeah, no.
If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, it’s not solid enough.
All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.
If i’m going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.
Otherwise that’s just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.
Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.
You can also save your “but free will” argument as well, i’m not saying don’t let us do stupid shit, I’m saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.
A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.
Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that can’t be lost or stolen would do it.
If it can’t be codified like that then it’s guidelines that are open to interpretation and i’m good with figuring that shit out myself.
Sure, if we were automatons this would’ve been an easy fix, but we’re not, that’s not how God made us. Of course, having this in mind will help you better conduct yourself, but first you have to believe in it and how many don’t?
The evidence is the reality that we’re not automatons? Idk why God made this whole thing, ourselves included, ofc I don’t, but this is not a question of faith and the unseen but just one of basic reality.
I disagree with the condescending nature of them as a whole - humanity knew it was bad to kill and rape before christianity. I don’t need 15 commandments written by man, masquerading as the word of the creator of the universe, to teach me how to behave. Wait did I say 15?
If somebody needs to ordered by a Deity (real or imaginary) to have Moral Values, they have issues.
Oh hey I watched that movie for the first time last week. Pretty entertaining. Love me some Mel Brooks.
He is the best!
First of all, this is Abrahamic/Mosaic Judaism, it’s pure, ancient monotheism, not Christianity, and there’s a difference. But more importantly, it’s not condescending, it’s just a baseline moral framework, one that had to be ignored throughout history for there to be such things as the Dutch East India Company, King Leopold’s Congo, America as we know it, among others. You can’t tell me people follow it over there in Burgerland, right? Maybe a minority composed of people who truly fear God’s judgment and atheist leftists with clear hearts and minds, and that’s it. So no, even today, in many places in the world these very simple moral stances are not believed in and integrated into people’s ideologies.
Even the least moronic commandment, the one against killing, is literally wrong.
Killing innocents should be prohibited, not killing generally or in self-defense. The rest is even sillier. Stuff about worshipping and graven images.
Religion makes it impossible for me to take humanity seriously.
I’m sure that’s understood by anyone who’s not in a coma and the silly one here is you. Again, if these basic sentences were part of people’s ideology in the West, we wouldn’t have Western imperialism (for example), and you’re here arguing against it? 🙄
Actually , before we get on to the original response, which, while somewhat sarcastic is a legitimate offer.
I do have an actual question, are you , as an individual allowed to claim that your interpretation is the correct one?
Like in a religious sense, wouldn’t claiming to be the only one with the real understanding of god’s intentions be some kind of blasphemy ( sort of like claiming you’re a prophet ).
Now, on to the actual response.
It sounds like you have the inside track on the correct interpretation of the sentences.
It’s clear we are all struggling with coming to the correct conclusions with the information available, why don’t you save us all the trouble of trying to figure out what was actually meant and publish a book with very clear, step by step definitions.
I, legitimately, would benefit from being able to reference something that could 100% keep me out of the bad place.
The existing texts are generically vague, linguistically shifting, contextually contradictory and subjective in many ways.
Not to mention thousands of years old and filtered through many many generations of truly shitty organisational power structures that changed them suit their own desires for power or control.
A genuine guide that covers all the contextual and subjective nuances would be a literal godsend.
Send me a link when you’ve published, I’ll even pre-order (well, I’ll probably look at the reviews first, I’m not an idiot)
Of course I do, as much as anyone else. Or do you think only some people can interact with and have takes with these freely available texts? And these takes are more or less valid independently of who said them, of course that’s a matter of personal judgement so you’d also have to be assured enough to pronounce yourself on it (and you should be because God gave us all big brains!). But I’m not saying anything wild, or at least I don’t think so, you’d have to point it out to me. “God will judge us all for our actions so be a righteous and virtuous boy/girl, a good slave of the Divine, to whom we all owe everything to” is as cold a take as possible when it comes to Abrahamic to Muhammadian monotheism, lol. That’s my usual script, that and “start believing in objective reality and ethics, not everything is up for debate, not everything is negotiable, some things just are or aren’t, this is why the West is what it is, etc etc”, haha.
And yes, if I ever publish something I’ll let you know, but don’t hold your breath. 😞😅
Btw, unironically, and remembering that whatever Western anti-islamic, racist take was pushed to get support for the Western/American wars in the Middle East, my best advice to you is to read the Qur’an. For real for real. “Qur’an: a Monotheist Translation” is a freely available app. And don’t forget that God is just Allah in English!
I would consider “Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have” to be fairly non-standard.
Not wild exactly, but certainly subjectively arrogant.
That’s a supremely weak foundation for actual conversation, not only is it couching your own interpretation as fact it’s also one of the strongest reasons you might not be considered to be conversing in good faith.
It amounts to:
“I believe we all owe god everything so you must follow along with my personal interpretation of what they are expecting, because i say god says it must be so”
If your reasoning boils down to “because god said so” that’s not a conversation, that’s a dictate because you can’t reason with someone who’s only basis is faith.
To me, that’s almost the exact reason organised religion is the greatest impediment to personal faith and/or worship.
Because when you take that attitude and scale it up, organised religion is the result and it leaves no room for anything else.
I’m not sure how that is related to anything being said, but genuinely, to what end?
All of the organised religions (cults over a certain size) have done heinous shit over the years, in conjunction with nations, empires, tribes etc.
Same as with basically all of the nations that have existed, using othering(religion being a top contender in that list) to justify whatever bullshit they want to do.
Isn’t going to work if all of the surrounding statements from you are based in faith.
or “it is, because i/god said so”
Isn’t a basis for arguing objectivity, it’s hiding behind faith as a means to not have to actually engage.
Your whole conversation history in this thread has been variations on “My interpretation is correct/the baseline moral standard you should all be adhering to should be the same as mine/I’m surprised you don’t understand/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”
That’s not a good faith conversation, that’s a repetitive statement.
Viewpoints haven’t been proposed, at least not any I’d disagree with or that go outside of the framework of Mosaic laws, for example. Only additions (“why no rape? Include no raping!”) that make sense and follow from/do not leave the same virtuous paradigm.
And saying that a death caused by self defense is not the same as violently going outside starting shit/killing people are not similar things just because someone died and that you’d have to be in a coma not to realize it is a pretty lukewarm take, lol.
And finally, saying some things are A and others are B, that truth exists regardless of our ability to get to it, and that not everything can change on the basis of our whims (right and wrong in every situation, for example, but it’s beyond morality) is just an epistemological stance. Nothing about faith, or religion, just how you see the world.
And the Qur’an? You mentioned wanting something solid, something extensive and well written and I know that, besides the fact that I’m lazy and easily distracted and will probably never write anything, even if I did write something of quality on the topic, it would not be better than the Qur’an. I can’t even write to the level of Ecclesiastes and that’s just Solomon speaking from lived and analysed experience! That’s another book recommendation, btw, it’s in the Bible.
Is that in response to something said or just a statement ?
So…“Only people in a coma wouldn’t come to the same exact interpretation as i have”
That aside, you’re response to that reply was essentially:
then proceeding to claim that western imperialism is because people don’t have the exact same interpretation as you.
Then for some reason pretending they were arguing against their own interpretation because they don’t like the vagueness of the original.
An epistemological stance that conveniently doesn’t require you to actually engage with any argument you don’t want to “because it just is”.
“Some things just are” is one of the the very definitions of faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof)
Ah, i see, yeah, no.
If it can be taken and used to justify atrocities, it’s not solid enough.
All the current religious texts have the same problem i described before.
If i’m going to follow the rules from an omniscient, omnipotent deity on how not to end up in an eternal suffering made specifically as punishment for not following said rules, that shit needs to be ironclad.
Otherwise that’s just someone setting up their own torture-based reality drama series with the deck stacked against us.
Why does it even need to be in writing, there are clearer ways to signal an imminent fuckup if you are all powerful.
You can also save your “but free will” argument as well, i’m not saying don’t let us do stupid shit, I’m saying use the infinite power and understanding to devise as way to absolutely certain we understand the game being played.
A three thousand year game of textual telephone with malicious actors inbetween, is not that.
Fuck-it, an indestructible book(even a pamphlet) everyone has their own copy of that can’t be lost or stolen would do it.
If it can’t be codified like that then it’s guidelines that are open to interpretation and i’m good with figuring that shit out myself.
God came down and delivered a perfect framework but everything is still broken? huh? I don’t get your argument here.
My man, did you forget about free will? 🤣
Sure, if we were automatons this would’ve been an easy fix, but we’re not, that’s not how God made us. Of course, having this in mind will help you better conduct yourself, but first you have to believe in it and how many don’t?
No I just wanted to see how fast the preacher would come out of you.
Some evidence would be great.
The evidence is the reality that we’re not automatons? Idk why God made this whole thing, ourselves included, ofc I don’t, but this is not a question of faith and the unseen but just one of basic reality.