*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.
Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.

[BananaStand]

Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.

Separate and isolate menstruating women so you don't have to deal with their bullshit.

Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.

Your question is worded strangely. But I think this answers your question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

[oskar]

Separate and isolate menstruating women so you don't have to deal with their bullshit.

I would put that under immoral, as I assume would you. So if there are no moral values to be derived from scripture that you couldn't have arrived at otherwise, but there are a litany of immoral values, how can scripture be a source for moral values?

Your question is worded strangely. But I think this answers your question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

Could you just tell me what part of this nonsense you agree with so I don't have to go point for point on this load of shit.

[BananaStand]

So if there are no moral values to be derived from scripture that you couldn't have arrived at otherwise

What do you mean by "scripture"?

Many religions embrace the idea of sacrifice. Give up something now in return for something better later. Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Sacrifice is a common theme. So in a way you're right. We could understand the value of sacrifice without specifically relying on the story of Cain and Abel contained in what I believe you're referring to when you say "scripture"

But the point isn't that Cain and Abel weren't actually real people. It's just a fable used to embody the transcendent value of the notion of sacrifice as part of a recipe for meaningful being. Who knows how old that notion is. The book of Genesis might just be one branch of storytelling derived from a single source of values that is as old as consciousness itself.

Could you just tell me what part of this nonsense you agree with so I don't have to go point for point on this load of shit.

All of it

[wufwugy]

What do you mean by "scripture"?

Many religions embrace the idea of sacrifice. Give up something now in return for something better later. Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Sacrifice is a common theme. So in a way you're right. We could understand the value of sacrifice without specifically relying on the story of Cain and Abel contained in what I believe you're referring to when you say "scripture"

But the point isn't that Cain and Abel weren't actually real people. It's just a fable used to embody the transcendent value of the notion of sacrifice as part of a recipe for meaningful being. Who knows how old that notion is. The book of Genesis might just be one branch of storytelling derived from a single source of values that is as old as consciousness itself.



All of it

Spotless room is spotless.

[wufwugy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

I think that the "problem with atheism" as described is not accurate. Taking away God doesn't mean that anything is justified in the micro sense. What it means is that some important things change in the macro sense. Peterson has explained this well elsewhere (but not the video), and it is something IIRC Harris and Dawkins have agreed with somewhat tacitly.

[wufwugy]

Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.
Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.

It's about what "does happen". What "could happen" doesn't much help us.

What does happen is that when people believe certain things, they act them out. The question for religion is if it impacts what people believe (and thus how they act). I believe it does, and I believe the impact is powerful enough that the great prosperity of society can be credited in large part to Christianity. Also that the deterioration of Christianity results in unraveling prosperity, and that some historical unraveling of prosperity may have been due to "secularism".

Am I right? Who knows?