iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 7:18 pm
Huh?
God and religion exist "
for all practical purposes" in order to provide mere mortals with moral Commandments. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave that, if one embodies them, their souls "
for all practical purposes" become immortal and are at one with salvation for all the rest of eternity.
I was responding to what you wrote. You wrote that the consequences - going to hell, etc. - made your choice obvious. You made no case that if there was an all powerful being and the being wants us to do things, they must be objectively moral. You went directly to consequences in a practical sense.
What is Peter saying, that, given the Second Coming, if Jesus Christ Himself just touched down and confirmed beyond all doubt that the Christian God really is the only One True Path to immortality and salvation, he would still scoff and refuse to obey Him?
He may have said that. I'm not sure. But he is also pointing out that you did not present an argument that going along with God was moral, but rather you presented it as practical. Further you made no argument that just because an all powerful being says DO X, that makes it moral.
I was pretty clear about that too.
Would you? Would you confront Him, challenge Him, turn your back on Him?
That's doesn't matter. I didn't say your choice was wrong. I said it had nothing to do with morals. But some deity tells me to kill my wife he can go fuck himself.
And your reaction to him, where you assume he would say no to God, is that he might not be so brave when the actual choice came up. Again, not moral. You think considerations of self-protection would make him go along with this deity. Which is precisely what he is saying. It's a power issue and not a moral issue.
Back to Dylan...
God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No, "
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin', you better run"
Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"
After all, in regard to morality, how does Peter stack up against an all-knowing entity?
We don't know. I wouldn't kill my son for God. Do you have children? If yes, then I assume you would kill them if God asked you as he did Abraham. If not, then how would you know what you would do?
But all that's not at all the point.
You started talking about Hell. You talked about consequences.
Now you've shifted your focus in this post without admitting anything.
In your previous post you clearly talked about practical consequences. You weren't gonna risk hell miss out on Heaven.
YOu didn't say anything about how that deity must necessarily be moral. Now you've mentioned all-knowing. OK. You're actually starting to
make
a
different argument
and
one
that might, be an argument that such a deity must necessarily be moral.
But,
you
didn't before.
I won't hold my breathe waiting for you to acknowledge that I correctly responded to your previous post.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:17 pmYou didn't rebut his point, you confirmed it.
Maybe. But you have certainly not convinced me of that.
Show me where in that post you argued that such a deity must be moral. Show me anything in there that demonstrated that you were making a moral choice to go along with God.
I however can point out where you were thinking of THE CONSEQUENCES.
I know you think everyone else bears the onus cause....hm, can't think of a good reason.
But any normal person would have said: no, you interpreted my post incorrectly. Here's why and argue based on quotes from that post. But you don't do that.
Other normal people would have said something at least minimally conceding something: 'OK, I can see what you are responding to, Iwannaplato, I did focus on the consequences of doing or not doing what such a deity demands. I can see why you responded that way.' I could have been more clear. Or, 'frankly my sense of self-preservation made me think of the consequences first. You noticed that. But I also think that such a deity must be moral. Here's my argument now....' But no, none of those options did you take.
All you do is try to get me to argue the point more. Of course you're not convinced, because in practice in a dialogue with someone who disagrees with you, no one has ever been correct about what you said or did in a post. It must be wonderful for you.
Also you seem to be preventing yourself as fixed, despite telling us that your values have changed radically over time in a number of shifts. Perhaps tomorrow, when put in this scenario, you'd react differently. The news that there has been a Christian deity all along could well affect you in ways you cannot predict, especially given the amount of doubt about drawing both moral and factual conclusions you seem to have. How could you possibly know how you the biggest piece of information you could possibly get would affect you?
Again, what am I missing here? It's one thing to flounder in regard to objective morality given all of the many, many, many alleged one true paths there are to choose from:
I'm saying you are sure what you would do if you found out there was a Christian deity. But how could you, of all people, know how you would react, given how many thousands of times you've said that you have changed core beliefs. And finding out there was, after all, a Christian deity, would be one of the most powerful experiences of your life. But, no that would only change you the way you can predict. You don't seem so daseiny when it's convenient for you not to think that way. You know exactly how you would react to such a lifechanging event. Other people seem to think they know also. Of that you are skeptical.
Note to IC:
You explain it to him. In the interim, demonstrate to me that in fact the Christian God does exist and we'll both go after henry quirk to save his soul.
Oh, you could send him a pm. He might not read long posts between us, however much he must be obsessed with you.
