Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@livinglava,

Quote:

Do you not accept that there is ultimate right and wrong? Do you think that you can pick and choose morality without knowing deep in your heart that you are engaged in self-deception to get away with things that are actually wrong?

It surprises me that you can ask these questions of others, even while you yourself engage in so many self deceptive, self serving behaviours (in areas related to answering these questions).

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Do you not accept that there is ultimate right and wrong? Do you think that you can pick and choose morality without knowing deep in your heart that you are engaged in self-deception to get away with things that are actually wrong?
It surprises me that you can ask these questions of others, even while you yourself engage in so many self deceptive, self serving behaviours (in areas related to answering these questions).

I wasn't making any moral assertion by asking. It was a purely philosophical question about how he thinks about moral/cultural relativism.

You seem to think that if someone mentions something, they have to be pure of it in their own personal lives to discuss it online. If that were the case, then no one could ever discuss anything because we are all guilty of sin in various ways.

Now stop the witch-hunting or don't post.

Further, why don't you answer the same question: do you think there are different moral paradigms to choose between or do you think there is right and wrong and relativism is just a way of rationalizing and denying what you actually know is wrong/right by conscience?

Please just answer this question and do start attacking and accusing me on a personal level as a distraction from the discussion.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You seem to think that if someone mentions something, they have to be pure of it in their own personal lives to discuss it online.

Not at all...just not to be blatantly hypocritical about it.

As an observation - your comment is yet another example of taking the extreme version of a post in order to avoid the obvious moderate implications (that it only means don't be blatantly hypocritical). This behaviour of taking the extreme to avoid the moderate is something I have pulled you up on previously...even while here you talk about avoiding self deception.

As for 'attacking you at a personal level'...I've never called you names...so it seems to me that what you mean is that you want any hypocritical (etc)behaviour of yours to not be pointed out or discussed.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
You seem to think that if someone mentions something, they have to be pure of it in their own personal lives to discuss it online.
Not at all...just not to be blatantly hypocritical about it.

As an observation - your comment is yet another example of taking the extreme version of a post in order to avoid the obvious moderate implications (that it only means don't be blatantly hypocritical). This behaviour of taking the extreme to avoid the moderate is something I have pulled you up on previously...even while here you talk about avoiding self deception.

Your moral reasoning is so convoluted. Splitting hairs in order to judge what is 'blatant' against what you deem more 'subtle' and thus forgivable is just bad logic and a terrible perversion of Christian salvation philosophy.

Quote:

As for 'attacking you at a personal level'...I've never called you names...so it seems to me that what you mean is that you want any hypocritical (etc)behaviour of yours to not be pointed out or discussed.

When you shift the issue of a discussion from moral relativism generally to a poster's personal history of hypocrisy or whatever it was you accused me of, that is making it personal.

You split hairs in order to deny the basic difference between general discussion and discussion focused on posters as individuals.

The solution is not to avoid name-calling, it's to keep general topical/content discussion as your priority. I am stooping low here to address you as a poster, but my goal is to shift the discussion back to the general level of discussing morality without focusing on any individual's personal behavior.

So to return to the original question that you took as an opportunity to accuse me of hypocrisy or inconsistency or whatever, do you think there are different moral paradigms that can be in conflict with each other but that are nevertheless no less than right and true at the level of ultimate authority/Truth; or do you think that interpreting philosophical differences between different religions to validate sin is just that, validation of sin?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

That's no splitting hairs between slight(or subtle), and blatant. If you would like, I can link the conversation where you continually engaged in such behaviours - even though I pointed each out to you, with explanation, over and over and over again. You know this, but avoid it in your reply.

Quote:

When you shift the issue of a discussion from moral relativism generally to a poster's personal history of hypocrisy or whatever it was you accused me of, that is making it personal.

And here you avoid your own words - 'personal attack'. Making something personal, and engaging in a personal attack can be very different things. Pointing out contradicting behaviours, it not a personal attack, as you wanted to initially claim.

The rest of your post is based on this faulty 'reasoning'. The same issue arose over and over again in other conversations, despite a litany of attempts to explain the problematic behaviour and how it contributes to your own self deceptions...it became so continual as to be wilful...and yet here you were talking about avoiding self deception.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That's no splitting hairs between slight(or subtle), and blatant. If you would like, I can link the conversation where you continually engaged in such behaviours - even though I pointed each out to you, with explanation, over and over and over again. You know this, but avoid it in your reply.

It's very difficult to communicate with you when you just fundamentally don't understand things I say before refuting them. You said that I was blatantly hypocritical in response to me saying that we all make mistakes. I.e. your response was something like, "yes we all make mistakes and they are forgivable IF they aren't too blatant, but yours was so blatant as to be unforgivable."

So it's like you're mixing the Christian idea of forgiving sin with the non-Christian idea of judging sin, and you're deciding whether to forgive or judge as a matter of blatant-vs-subtle. So it's like you're giving people a pass for sin if it's not too bad, but at some point you say the sin is too blatant to be forgivable and so you judge/condemn.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

It is difficult to converse with someone who cannot follow what they themselves said at the start of a conversation, or reinterprets what someone says to their own benefit. As example of the latter:

- you no longer argue that you aren't blatantly hypocritical in promoting trying to avoid self deception (you know there's too many examples of this on this forum)...rather you are trying to turn the conversation to (in your view) me allegedly saying that blatant hypocrisy is unforgivable etc...which is another falsehood you are trying to pedal. Learning and remedying problematic behaviours is to be lauded. However, you aren't doing this. So coming back to hypocrisy, have you ever wondered what the problem with hypocrisy is? Here are links to articles talking about different studies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/opinion/sunday/the-real-problem-with-hypocrisy.html

Quote:

Once you understand moral criticism this way, you can see why people feel deceived by hypocrites. In another set of studies, we found that people viewed hypocrites as dishonest — more dishonest, in fact, than people who uttered outright falsehoods. Remarkably, hypocrites were rated as less trustworthy, less likable and less morally upright than those who openly lied

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/we-dislike-hypocrites-because-they-deceive-us.html

Quote:

We’re averse to hypocrites because their disavowal of bad behavior sends a false signal, misleading us into thinking they’re virtuous when they’re not, according to findings in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The research shows that people dislike hypocrites more than those who openly admit to engaging in a behavior that they disapprove of.

These are of course just snippets, without specific context application.

Still, here you are, as a Christian, promoting morals and to avoid self deception, while engaging in dishonest posts and self deception. There's a long history of that, linkable, and you keep providing more examples, even in this short conversation.

I think it quite reasonable to point this out.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It is difficult to converse with someone who cannot follow what they themselves said at the start of a conversation, or reinterprets what someone says to their own benefit. As example of the latter:

- you no longer argue that you aren't blatantly hypocritical in promoting trying to avoid self deception (you know there's too many examples of this on this forum)...rather you are trying to turn the conversation to (in your view) me allegedly saying that blatant hypocrisy is unforgivable etc...which is another falsehood you are trying to pedal. Learning and remedying problematic behaviours is to be lauded. However, you aren't doing this. So coming back to hypocrisy, have you ever wondered what the problem with hypocrisy is? Here are links to articles talking about different studies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/opinion/sunday/the-real-problem-with-hypocrisy.html

Quote:
Once you understand moral criticism this way, you can see why people feel deceived by hypocrites. In another set of studies, we found that people viewed hypocrites as dishonest — more dishonest, in fact, than people who uttered outright falsehoods. Remarkably, hypocrites were rated as less trustworthy, less likable and less morally upright than those who openly lied

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/we-dislike-hypocrites-because-they-deceive-us.html

Quote:
We’re averse to hypocrites because their disavowal of bad behavior sends a false signal, misleading us into thinking they’re virtuous when they’re not, according to findings in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The research shows that people dislike hypocrites more than those who openly admit to engaging in a behavior that they disapprove of.
These are of course just snippets, without specific context application.

Still, here you are, as a Christian, promoting morals and to avoid self deception, while engaging in dishonest posts and self deception. There's a long history of that, linkable, and you keep providing more examples, even in this short conversation.

I think it quite reasonable to point this out.

You wrote all that just to accuse me of hypocrisy. Jesus loves sinners, including hypocrites. Stop being judgmental, or at least admit you are hypocritical for it (to God, not me or any other human) and move on with more productive rebuke.

At this point, I don't even know if the hypocrisy you accused me was in fact hypocricy, but I know you changed the subject and tired me out with your long-winded nitpicking.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

At this point, I don't even know if the hypocrisy you accused me was in fact hypocricy, . Anyone can click on that, and go back and see the issue...though it's a long conversation. Unfortunately, the behaviours you exhibited there, are also being exhibited by you in this conversation (and unfortunately, most conversations we engage in).

As for God forgiving hypocrites - I'm sure he does, although we all know exactly what Jesus thought of them (It so incensed him that he brought a whip out, committing the only act of violence we see him commit in the Bible). What then is the view of God when someone engages in knowledgeable, wilful, continual hypocrisy without even an attempt to change or improve?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

At this point, I don't even know if the hypocrisy you accused me was in fact hypocricy, . Anyone can click on that, and go back and see the issue...though it's a long conversation. Unfortunately, the behaviours you exhibited there, are also being exhibited by you in this conversation (and unfortunately, most conversations we engage in).

As for God forgiving hypocrites - I'm sure he does, although we all know exactly what Jesus thought of them (It so incensed him that he brought a whip out, committing the only act of violence we see him commit in the Bible). What then is the view of God when someone engages in knowledgeable, wilful, continual hypocrisy without even an attempt to change or improve?

You chnaged the subject in order to shift the discussion from a general one about the moral relativism of picking and choosing between the god names of different religion to accusing me to push me into self-defense.

You're just an ego-provocateur and not valuable for any kind of elucidating public discussion.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You come up with a lot of convoluted, self serving explanations for a very simple motivation - stop engaging in hypocrisy (and dishonesty, self deceit etc).

Your posts could be good, well thought out posts...but they fall so very far short while you claim to know morality etc...which you can't truly know while wilfully engaging in such.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You come up with a lot of convoluted, self serving explanations for a very simple motivation - stop engaging in dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Accusing people of generic sins like hypocrisy, self-deception, and being extreme instead of moderate is such a boring way of hijacking threads to provoke people into self-defense.

It's amazing to me that you can actually keep yourself interested in discussions by going around starting such senseless back-and-forth.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's amazing to me that you can actually keep yourself interested in discussions by going around starting such senseless back-and-forth.

It amazes me too. Its seems I value self honesty, well thought out arguments, and even a lack of hypocrisy.

As for provoking people into self defense. That is an unfortunate view - rather, I explain things in detail with the hope that it provokes people into thoughtfulness...and once against unfortunately, you don't choose that path.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
It's amazing to me that you can actually keep yourself interested in discussions by going around starting such senseless back-and-forth.
It amazes me too. Its seems I value self honesty, well thought out arguments, and even a lack of hypocrisy.

As for provoking people into self defense. That is an unfortunate view - rather, I explain things in detail with the hope that it provokes people into thoughtfulness...and once against unfortunately, you don't choose that path.

No, it's just a rhetorical house of mirrors that doesn't amount to much.

I gave you an exit from it by thinking about whether choosing Zeus over Jesus or some other god-name was anything more than a way of rationalizing making choices that you know are wrong in your conscience.

If you could avoid falling into the house of mirrors and just reflect on the question at the philosophical level, you might come up with an interesting thought on the subject.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

It is up to you whether or not you accept that explanation. No one can force you. It's like the Christian concept of people choosing whether or not to believe in God after hearing his word (ie the Bible). No one can force another to believe something they don't want to believe. That doesn't change the underlying causes, motivations etc. It just means some people won't accept such.

In the Christian world, as a consequence they will go on doing what they do in wilful ignorance.

As for your view - you do realise that if I held the motivation you believe I had, I wouldn't by now be bothering with explanation, and would resort to name calling etc (you can see this in people who are so motivated, over and over again). So there is a disconnect there that you aren't reconciling.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It is up to you whether or not you accept that explanation. No one can force you. It's like the Christian concept of people choosing whether or not to believe in God after hearing his word (ie the Bible). No one can force another to believe something they don't want to believe. That doesn't change the underlying causes, motivations etc. It just means some people won't accept such.

In the Christian world, as a consequence they will go on doing what they do in wilful ignorance.

Why do you think it's a question of belief and choice? Do you think that you have a choice whether to believe that 2+2=4? Can you name one difference in morality attributed to different religions that you can honestly say that both moralities are equally correct? Or do you see why one is right and the other is either wrong or has been misinterpreted to mean something that is wrong?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Why do you think it's a question of belief and choice? Do you think that you have a choice whether to believe that 2+2=4?

The answer to this is incredibly obvious. But in regards to the sentiment behind the asking of the question - you appear to agree with what I said.

The rest of your post goes on to what appears to be a new conversation. If I am missing some connection, then it needs further explanation.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Why do you think it's a question of belief and choice? Do you think that you have a choice whether to believe that 2+2=4?
The answer to this is incredibly obvious. But in regards to the sentiment behind the asking of the question - you appear to agree with what I said.

The rest of your post goes on to what appears to be a new conversation. If I am missing some connection, then it needs further explanation.

I don't know why relativism seems 'obvious' to you. The whole reason monotheism emerged was because people realized there's only one reality, one truth, i.e. because there can't be conflicting truths.

People don't want to get into conflicts so they either pretend like someone else's false truth is true to keep the peace, or they say that what's true for one person might not be true for another; but that is all just nicety for the sake of keeping the peace.

If people are able to keep the peace without lying about their honest belief about what is true, no one would say that they think some other opinion that conflicts with what they know to be true is also true.

E.g. if you think I'm a hypocrite and I don't, you're not going to think my belief is equally true to your belief. You're going to think you're right and I'm wrong, unless I am somehow able to show you the light of how I'm not actually a hypocrite and you were just not seeing things clearly.

Now, in light of all that, can you still argue that conflicting beliefs can both be true simultaneously? If they can, give one example of two conflicting 'truths' that you honestly see as equally true despite the fact that they conflict.

If you were able to do that, wouldn't that make you a hypocrite (as you are so fond of despising)? Or are there some things that are hypocritical while other things can simply co-exist in your mind as divergent 'truths' that are nonetheless equally true from your perspective?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Is it true that it is an insult to show the soles of your feet to another?

Is burping polite, or not?

Etc

2 Replies

@vikorr,

As for God being incredibly obvious. Most of the scientific world disagrees. Many people disagree, on very solid ground:
- God can't be proven with direct evidence (see, touch, hear etc the being known as God)
- Humans can attribute anything to God, and so God as a construct could be attributed to anything on earth (but to be believable, you have to come up with a believable contruct of the attributes and actions of God)

Within those two areas of human capability, God can either be explained to exist, or explained to not exist. This is incredibly obvious.

This is not the same as 2+2=4. Which is true no matter when, where, or to whom you explain it to (so long as they aren't so mentally impaired as to not be able to grasp maths at a fundamental level)

So the difference between the concept of God, and Mathematics, is obvious - incredibly so.

1 Reply

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know