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.
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 don’t care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. It’s not that the text wasn’t available, it’s not that they haven’t 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 don’t care. How to make people care? Actually believing in God’s 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 they’re killed or suffer when they’re raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company would’ve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.
And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefs… I mean, sure, if you’re a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as “grace” and “understanding Jesus (a man) is God”. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, let’s say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend they’re more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think “oh but they said they were religious and believed in God” and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits you’ll 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 you’re moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in God’s laws and His judgement or you don’t go but do believe, they cannot both coexist… because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and you’d have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!
Finally, not all “religious texts” are made equally, even the Bible acknowledges their different authors, whilst the Qur’an is understood as a message from the Divine, recited by prophet Muhammad. One is a collection, an anthology, the other one is a singular book.
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 don’t care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. It’s not that the text wasn’t available, it’s not that they haven’t 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 don’t care. How to make people care? Actually believing in God’s 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 they’re killed or suffer when they’re raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company would’ve 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 aren’t nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official “guide” 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 “my morality is the only morality”.
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 “telephone”.
The explanation of “the game” we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it “were” 100% accurate it’s till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasn’t considered murder, because they weren’t considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said “god said it’s cool, so don’t worry”. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with “i never said killing certain people was fine”, you know that isn’t what i meant, I’m (still) talking about that “my morality is the only morality” surety you’ve been using to pretend nuance doesn’t exist.
“Murder” 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 you’re a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as “grace” and “understanding Jesus (a man) is God”. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, let’s say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend they’re more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think “oh but they said they were religious and believed in God” and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits you’ll 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 you’re moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in God’s laws and His judgement or you don’t go but do believe, they cannot both coexist… because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and you’d 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 can’t sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say “but those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didn’t read it properly”, that’s mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldn’t, i know i’m not taking you seriously, maybe i’m the minority here.
Though i will say the lol’s do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can “no true scotsman” as much as you like but it’s 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 don’t you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And it’s not that they didn’t read it properly, it’s that they simply don’t care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didn’t, they wouldn’t care. They don’t believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and they’re easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know what’s up, they simply don’t care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. It’s not a “no true Scotsman”, it’s more like “if I’m raping a child and you find me and I tell you I’m a good moral man, a believer who’s afraid of God’s judgment, and you believe me, you’re mentally challenged”. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, it’s not that “my morality is the only morality”, 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 don’t even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, they’ll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves they’re 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 it’s just a matter of perspective, lol). But you can’t argue against God. And I’m 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 they’re 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.
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.
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 don’t care. Out of ignorance you might do something small, not rape or murder. It’s not that the text wasn’t available, it’s not that they haven’t 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 don’t care. How to make people care? Actually believing in God’s 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 they’re killed or suffer when they’re raped is not enough, else Kissinger and company would’ve been moral, lol, the is-ought problem remains a thing), and by default some will care more than others.
And on people justifying atrocities with their beliefs… I mean, sure, if you’re a Paulian Trinitarian who believes belief and acts are fundamentally disconnected, and striving to be moral is not as important as “grace” and “understanding Jesus (a man) is God”. Basically, if you take the tenets of Roman Catholicism and any offshoot seriously (and not, let’s say, the TC and the Sermon on the Mount), I can see how one could say A and do B and still pretend they’re more A than B. Only someone mentally off would think “oh but they said they were religious and believed in God” and take it seriously, lol. Come on, now, by their fruits you’ll 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 you’re moving thousands of kms to murder and pillage? How? You can either go on a Crusade and not believe in God’s laws and His judgement or you don’t go but do believe, they cannot both coexist… because you know all of this is a one way ticket to hell and you’d have to be a maniac to understand hell as the most terrible thing ever and still choose to jump into it through your actions!
Finally, not all “religious texts” are made equally, even the Bible acknowledges their different authors, whilst the Qur’an is understood as a message from the Divine, recited by prophet Muhammad. One is a collection, an anthology, the other one is a singular book.
The game has been explained poorly, and your reply lists a bunch of scenarios that aren’t nearly as cut and dry as you make them out to be.
And you only reinforce my point about the only official “guide” 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 “my morality is the only morality”.
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 “telephone”.
The explanation of “the game” we have right now is thousands of years of these small shifts deep in changes.
Even if it “were” 100% accurate it’s till open to linguistic and cultural interpretation.
There are/were times and places when killing certain groups of people wasn’t considered murder, because they weren’t considered people, and people of religion who were perfectly fine with it because someone they had faith in said “god said it’s cool, so don’t worry”. Not unlike you are now.
Before you come back with “i never said killing certain people was fine”, you know that isn’t what i meant, I’m (still) talking about that “my morality is the only morality” surety you’ve been using to pretend nuance doesn’t exist.
“Murder” 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 can’t sanely claim the texts are clear and in the same breath say “but those thousands/millions of nutjobs obviously didn’t read it properly”, that’s mental gymnastics of a level only spoken in hushed whispers by the firelight.
I mean you can/are but you probably shouldn’t, i know i’m not taking you seriously, maybe i’m the minority here.
Though i will say the lol’s do make for a convincing rebuttal.
You can “no true scotsman” as much as you like but it’s 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 don’t you give me an example of a better way to transmit information than through words, one that could have been applied throughout history?
And it’s not that they didn’t read it properly, it’s that they simply don’t care and scammed people. Even if they had read it, which they probably didn’t, they wouldn’t care. They don’t believe in any of it, so why would they care? They just know other people do and they’re easy prey. Evangelical megachurches and their priests all know what’s up, they simply don’t care. Rapey, pedophilic priests knew what was up. The leaders of the Crusades, with strong financial interests, knew what was up. It’s not a “no true Scotsman”, it’s more like “if I’m raping a child and you find me and I tell you I’m a good moral man, a believer who’s afraid of God’s judgment, and you believe me, you’re mentally challenged”. And many people are, I guess.
And btw, it’s not that “my morality is the only morality”, 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 don’t even have the notion of transgressing in their minds: if they like it, they’ll do it. Even if they rationalize it and do it, they only halfway admit to themselves they’re 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 it’s just a matter of perspective, lol). But you can’t argue against God. And I’m 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 they’re 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.