Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Every Catholic must assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Reason is not necessarily trustworthy and you haven’t justified that statement.

God said it was bad and that does make it bad, which was the point.

Reason is the least trustworthy metric there is, aside from every other metric. Have I not justified that you can't have reason and absolute faith? If you use absolute faith to determine your position on everything, than you can't use reason to determine your position. You may use it to support your position, but not to detrrmine it, because it has already been determined by faith.

Um no. The truth exists independent of God, even if he is real.

I disagree, trust in God is the most trustworthy thing to possess, i.e. Faith. Your underlying assumption is that reason and faith are contradictory or mutually exclusive, that to be reasonable you must forego faith, and to be pious you must forego reason. Human reason is fallen, as a consequence of the Fall, though not entirely corrupt of course because we may ascertain truthes by reason, and so human knowledge solely devoted to reason is defective, incomplete.

Truth is contingent on God, there is no Truth without God, and further God is Truth.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

It's not just a "statement in the bible", homosexuality as sin has been taught for centuries in almost all Churches. Only relatively recently has there been a mass movement to normalise homosexuality within Christianity. If we question all the teachings present in the Bible and the teachings of the Church, what do we have left? Nothing but opinions, and that leads to a discordant and divisive Christianity.

Christianity has been divisive and discordant since at least the Protestant Reformation, or the Great Schism earlier.

This happens with any group and isn’t unique to just Christians. And of course, this only highlights the importance of orthodoxy and church unity and moral excellence.

[Jolthig]

https://youtu.be/3fghJ1c02KQ

What an insane battle. The Japanese are the biggest trolls when it comes to war. Especially here in Iwo Jima.

Especially as the war was already lost. The were quite willing to knowingly slaughter their own troops and people for no good military purpose.

But that is how they were. They are different now.
Though as they have not fought since it is hard to tell how the will fight.

Yep. They were nuts. Fanatics of their religious cause.

[Diopolis]

From your point of view, nothing has meaning except the categorical rejection of any valid logic that could possibly condemn gay sex.

First you'll have to show me valid logic that can be used to condemn gay sex, and then see if I reject it. I haven't seen logic used to condemn homosexuality that can't also be used to condemn either sex for pleasure, marriage between atheists, straight anal sex, or sex where one or more of the participants are infertile.

Considering natural law also explicitly condemns straight anal sex and sex solely for pleasure/bonding, I fail to see your point.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Reason is the least trustworthy metric there is, aside from every other metric. Have I not justified that you can't have reason and absolute faith? If you use absolute faith to determine your position on everything, than you can't use reason to determine your position. You may use it to support your position, but not to detrrmine it, because it has already been determined by faith.

Um no. The truth exists independent of God, even if he is real.

I disagree, trust in God is the most trustworthy thing to possess, i.e. Faith. Your underlying assumption is that reason and faith are contradictory or mutually exclusive, that to be reasonable you must forego faith, and to be pious you must forego reason. Human reason is fallen, as a consequence of the Fall, though not entirely corrupt of course because we may ascertain truthes by reason, and so human knowledge solely devoted to reason is defective, incomplete.

Truth is contingent on God, there is no Truth without God, and further God is Truth.

Faith and reason are not entirely mutually exclusive, but they're not completely analagous either, and in areas where reason and faith contradict, I'm inclined to side with reason.

How is truth contingient on God? How is God truth?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

First you'll have to show me valid logic that can be used to condemn gay sex, and then see if I reject it. I haven't seen logic used to condemn homosexuality that can't also be used to condemn either sex for pleasure, marriage between atheists, straight anal sex, or sex where one or more of the participants are infertile.

Considering natural law also explicitly condemns straight anal sex and sex solely for pleasure/bonding, I fail to see your point.

To what natural law are you referring.

[Novus America]

Especially as the war was already lost. The were quite willing to knowingly slaughter their own troops and people for no good military purpose.

But that is how they were. They are different now.
Though as they have not fought since it is hard to tell how the will fight.

Yep. They were nuts. Fanatics of their religious cause.

Particularly messed up was Saipan. Japanese civilians were ordered to kill their children and themselves because it was feared if the surrendered and were treated well it would hurt Japanese will to fight to the death.
Women threw their children off cliffs.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Considering natural law also explicitly condemns straight anal sex and sex solely for pleasure/bonding, I fail to see your point.

To what natural law are you referring.

Natural law could perhaps, in very basic and somewhat oversimplified terms, be defined as those moral precepts which can be determined based on rational examination of the Creation, without direct revelation. IIRC, Aquinas delved into it.

[Hakons]

This is... exactly my point. No direction. No morality. No point. A very sorry existence, and one that needn't be so aimless.

Of all the objects in this world, and all the animals in this creation, we have been given intellect and soul to go beyond what is common to beasts. A rabbit can observe well enough, but it cannot rationalize. A fox can hunt, but it doesn't know why it hunts or if killing is right or wrong. You are different. You have intellect, a rational mind, a soul. You can observe and take action, but you can also rationalize, make abstraction, and tell what is right. It's time you use your given intellect and do a bit more than observing things and not making commitments. There is meaning, there is morality, and you don't die for nothing. Have a bit of imagination, and the world will be opened onto you.

As much as I don't want to seem to defend Kowani's worldview (because it's really dumb and untenable) I feel like you're projecting conclusions and other concepts on their worldview which aren't there. Kowani doesn't believe in a soul, and sees intellect as nothing more than a psychological function which has thrived because of natural selection. This isn't really that depressing or shows that Kowani doesn't have imagination (as though imagination is an acceptable argument for supposedly objective entities like souls).

Personally I would be more depressed if Christianity turned out to be true than atheism. A lot of people I love would suffer in eternal torment because they weren't believers, I would be trapped in a one-sided afterlife for all eternity with no room for change, and perhaps most strikingly to the imagination argument, this elaborate cosmos with one hundred billion galaxies and other wondrous phenomenon only exists because God wants people to make a simple decision.

I'm using soul as a synonym for intellect or reason. It's our consciousness that makes us different from animals. Perhaps you're right that Kowani sees that as not much of a distinction, but I haven't seen him say that before. I wasn't trying to frame his beliefs either, I'm trying to explain how I think he can live a more fulfilling life.

Imagination is used a bit abstractly here. I tried to make that clear by italicizing, but what I'm saying is that we can do a lot more than take things at face value. We can abstract, enlighten, and imagine. We can do more than reflect on what we observe with our senses. Perhaps I'm wrong, but Kowani sees everything with a scientific lense and discounts everything that is metaphysical or societal. In my opinion, that leaves out the best parts of life.

Wherever we end up after death, the Lord's justice will reign. Perhaps some would find that unjust, that some in their family would go to Hell, but what is the created's opinion to the creator (both in authority and competency)? Hell is a creation of our own action and volition. If we or our family members will to be apart from God, it will be done as we have decided and we will be apart from God eternally. Dante's Paradiso does a good job in trying to explain how our souls manage themselves in Heaven. Just as we do as we will in this life, Dante says that we will do as we will in the next. Souls in Heaven aren't trapped into one attitude, our wills are conformed with God's, so that everything we do is the will of God. What exactly we would do in Heaven is anyone's guess, but if it has one tenth less of the pains of this life and one tenth more of the joys, it would be worth it (though it is promised to have none of our pains and infinite our joys). Finally, we do not make just a single, simple decision. To follow God is to constantly try to enjoin our will to His. It is to try to make decisions for as long as we have breath that emulate His compassion and mercy. Rather than distract us from God or cause us to doubt His mission, the glory of the cosmos and the heavens, and truly the glory of the smallest animal or plant, point us towards the glory of Him who created them. We know not why this plant or that galaxy exists in splendor, but we have faith that this mystery, among others, will be revealed to us and that we will then fully appreciate their beauty more than we are able to now.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

I disagree, trust in God is the most trustworthy thing to possess, i.e. Faith. Your underlying assumption is that reason and faith are contradictory or mutually exclusive, that to be reasonable you must forego faith, and to be pious you must forego reason. Human reason is fallen, as a consequence of the Fall, though not entirely corrupt of course because we may ascertain truthes by reason, and so human knowledge solely devoted to reason is defective, incomplete.

Truth is contingent on God, there is no Truth without God, and further God is Truth.

Faith and reason are not entirely mutually exclusive, but they're not completely analagous either, and in areas where reason and faith contradict, I'm inclined to side with reason.

How is truth contingient on God? How is God truth?

If you don’t mind, I’ll answer your question in about a weeks time (and you may hold me to that). I’m currently separated from my Library at this moment.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

To what natural law are you referring.

Natural law could perhaps, in very basic and somewhat oversimplified terms, be defined as those moral precepts which can be determined based on rational examination of the Creation, without direct revelation. IIRC, Aquinas delved into it.

How can a rational examination of the world determine that anal sex and sex for pleasure is wrong?

[Jolthig]

Yep. They were nuts. Fanatics of their religious cause.

Particularly messed up was Saipan. Japanese civilians were ordered to kill their children and themselves because it was feared if the surrendered and were treated well it would hurt Japanese will to fight to the death.
Women threw their children off cliffs.

I recall that there was propaganda saying that the Americans would brutally slaughter them and they Ameticans are evil to their captives

[Jolthig]

Although this is well known, America has way too much of an us vs. them mentality among both liberals and conservatives. Had a conversation with a conservative today, and his views were way too one sided though I told him I'm pragmatic on politics and I'm neither conservative nor liberal. If we get our minds thinking again, we wouldn't have this us vs. them mentality.

[Diopolis]

Natural law could perhaps, in very basic and somewhat oversimplified terms, be defined as those moral precepts which can be determined based on rational examination of the Creation, without direct revelation. IIRC, Aquinas delved into it.

How can a rational examination of the world determine that anal sex and sex for pleasure is wrong?

Because the purpose of sex is to procreate.

[Novus America]

Particularly messed up was Saipan. Japanese civilians were ordered to kill their children and themselves because it was feared if the surrendered and were treated well it would hurt Japanese will to fight to the death.
Women threw their children off cliffs.

I recall that there was propaganda saying that the Americans would brutally slaughter them and they Ameticans are evil to their captives

There was such propaganda to encourage them. I blame less the people following the order, and more those who gave it.

[Novus America]

How can a rational examination of the world determine that anal sex and sex for pleasure is wrong?

Because the purpose of sex is to procreate.

That is a purpose, but not the only purpose.

[Hakons]

Because the purpose of sex is to procreate.

That is a purpose, but not the only purpose.

The other purpose being to unite male and female in Holy Matrimony

[Jolthig]

I recall that there was propaganda saying that the Americans would brutally slaughter them and they Ameticans are evil to their captives

There was such propaganda to encourage them. I blame less the people following the order, and more those who gave it.

That's what I'm saying. They were fanatics of their faith. Since they viewed their emperor as a demigod, and the fascists of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association really took advantage of that. Almost as if they made the emperor their puppet.

[Diopolis]

Because the purpose of sex is to procreate.

That is a purpose, but not the only purpose.

Ok. The Telos of sex is to procreate. To do that, it also creates pleasure, so that people will do it often enough to have babies, and has a bonding effect, so that people will stick together for the good of the children. But procreation is the primary purpose, and the other two are dependent on that one.

[Novus America]

Although this is well known, America has way too much of an us vs. them mentality among both liberals and conservatives. Had a conversation with a conservative today, and his views were way too one sided though I told him I'm pragmatic on politics and I'm neither conservative nor liberal. If we get our minds thinking again, we wouldn't have this us vs. them mentality.

A side effect of the end of the Cold War. When we had the Soviet Union we could agree they were the common threat. We needed an external threat to unite us.

It was actually proposed we go to war with the British to prevent the Civil War, the idea was that if we were in common struggle against a common enemy we would be less likely to fight each other.

We at least have a new Cold War now, but unfortunately many are still in denial it exists, and would rather fight against the other Americans than defend America.

[Diopolis]

Although this is well known, America has way too much of an us vs. them mentality among both liberals and conservatives. Had a conversation with a conservative today, and his views were way too one sided though I told him I'm pragmatic on politics and I'm neither conservative nor liberal. If we get our minds thinking again, we wouldn't have this us vs. them mentality.

A side effect of the end of the Cold War. When we had the Soviet Union we could agree they were the common threat. We needed an external threat to unite us.

It was actually proposed we go to war with the British to prevent the Civil War, the idea was that if we were in common struggle against a common enemy we would be less likely to fight each other.

We at least have a new Cold War now, but unfortunately many are still in denial it exists, and would rather fight against the other Americans than defend America.

We had communists among us trying to sabotage the first cold war too, you know.

[Novus America]

There was such propaganda to encourage them. I blame less the people following the order, and more those who gave it.

That's what I'm saying. They were fanatics of their faith. Since they viewed their emperor as a demigod, and the fascists of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association really took advantage of that. Almost as if they made the emperor their puppet.

Well the Emperor genuinely believed in what they were preaching. He was a weak man, but he was definitely culpable.

[Novus America]

A side effect of the end of the Cold War. When we had the Soviet Union we could agree they were the common threat. We needed an external threat to unite us.

It was actually proposed we go to war with the British to prevent the Civil War, the idea was that if we were in common struggle against a common enemy we would be less likely to fight each other.

We at least have a new Cold War now, but unfortunately many are still in denial it exists, and would rather fight against the other Americans than defend America.

We had communists among us trying to sabotage the first cold war too, you know.

We did.
But few people few much ideological affinity with the PRC directly.
Marxism, as deluded as it was, had a more universal appeal than “Xi Thought”.

Most the left in the US do not have an ideology in common, even if they believe the tech bro “free trade” BS. They do not want a brutal dictatorship that demands they worship some megalomaniac lunatic.

The tankies are few in number.

It is more a matter of ignorance and denial over outright malice.

[Kowani]

This is... exactly my point. No direction. No morality. No point. A very sorry existence, and one that needn't be so aimless.

Of all the objects in this world, and all the animals in this creation, we have been given intellect and soul to go beyond what is common to beasts. A rabbit can observe well enough, but it cannot rationalize. A fox can hunt, but it doesn't know why it hunts or if killing is right or wrong. You are different. You have intellect, a rational mind, a soul. You can observe and take action, but you can also rationalize, make abstraction, and tell what is right. It's time you use your given intellect and do a bit more than observing things and not making commitments. There is meaning, there is morality, and you don't die for nothing. Have a bit of imagination, and the world will be opened onto you.

As much as I don't want to seem to defend Kowani's worldview (because it's really dumb and untenable) I feel like you're projecting conclusions and other concepts on their worldview which aren't there. Kowani doesn't believe in a soul, and sees intellect as nothing more than a psychological function which has thrived because of natural selection. This isn't really that depressing or shows that Kowani doesn't have imagination (as though imagination is an acceptable argument for supposedly objective entities like souls).

Personally I would be more depressed if Christianity turned out to be true than atheism. A lot of people I love would suffer in eternal torment because they weren't believers, I would be trapped in a one-sided afterlife for all eternity with no room for change, and perhaps most strikingly to the imagination argument, this elaborate cosmos with one hundred billion galaxies and other wondrous phenomenon only exists because God wants people to make a simple decision.

Thank you, Hana.

As much as I don't want to seem to defend Kowani's worldview (because it's really dumb and untenable) I feel like you're projecting conclusions and other concepts on their worldview which aren't there. Kowani doesn't believe in a soul, and sees intellect as nothing more than a psychological function which has thrived because of natural selection. This isn't really that depressing or shows that Kowani doesn't have imagination (as though imagination is an acceptable argument for supposedly objective entities like souls).

Personally I would be more depressed if Christianity turned out to be true than atheism. A lot of people I love would suffer in eternal torment because they weren't believers, I would be trapped in a one-sided afterlife for all eternity with no room for change, and perhaps most strikingly to the imagination argument, this elaborate cosmos with one hundred billion galaxies and other wondrous phenomenon only exists because God wants people to make a simple decision.

I'm using soul as a synonym for intellect or reason. It's our consciousness that makes us different from animals. Perhaps you're right that Kowani sees that as not much of a distinction, but I haven't seen him say that before. I wasn't trying to frame his beliefs either, I'm trying to explain how I think he can live a more fulfilling life.

If people could stop making assumptions about how I live my life, that’d be great.

Imagination is used a bit abstractly here. I tried to make that clear by italicizing, but what I'm saying is that we can do a lot more than take things at face value. We can abstract, enlighten, and imagine.

I do abstract, actually. You just don’t like the conclusions I arrive at.

but Kowani sees everything with a scientific lense and discounts everything that is metaphysical or societal.

Metaphysical yes, societal, no.

In my opinion, that leaves out the best parts of life.

3 words-In my opinion. I enjoy my life just as much as anyone else here. In fact, considering the doom and gloom I see from all the reactionaries here, I’d say I enjoy it a bit more. And perhaps some of that is youthful naïveté, but it is still my lens-and I am quite happy to view the world through it.

Wherever we end up after death, the Lord's justice will reign.

“Justice”
An eternity of torment, for temporary crimes. Tortured beyond the end of the universe, for crimes that were physically impossible to avoid committing. That is not justice, that is tyranny and irrationality, dressed up in the rhetoric of a god.

Perhaps some would find that unjust, that some in their family would go to Hell, but what is the created's opinion to the creator (both in authority and competency)?

Logically unsound nonsense. The status’ of two beings is irrelevant when speaking of things such as these.

Hell is a creation of our own action and volition.

Literally untrue. God created hell, for we have not the power to do so.

If we or our family members will to be apart from God, it will be done as we have decided and we will be apart from God eternally.

Decide? Yeah, that’s fair to the millions of people who died never having heard of God. If saving souls is God’s mission, then he’s an absolute failure.

Dante's Paradiso does a good job in trying to explain how our souls manage themselves in Heaven.

I thought we couldn’t know what was in heaven?

Just as we do as we will in this life, Dante says that we will do as we will in the next. Souls in Heaven aren't trapped into one attitude, our wills are conformed with God's, so that everything we do is the will of God.

…Did you write that and manage to convince yourself that it made it true? If our wills are conformed with God’s, then we are trapped into one attitude, one way of being, then we are no longer anything but puppets. Making a mockery of the claim of Free Will being anything of importance.

What exactly we would do in Heaven is anyone's guess, but if it has one tenth less of the pains of this life and one tenth more of the joys, it would be worth it (though it is promised to have none of our pains and infinite our joys).

Impossible, not with Free Will. Millions of souls, together for eternity? Personality would not disappear into the abyss in heaven-or perhaps that is the nature of it all, which leads one to ask-which one is truly hell?

Finally, we do not make just a single, simple decision. To follow God is to constantly try to enjoin our will to His. It is to try to make decisions for as long as we have breath that emulate His compassion and mercy.

Ask the Midianites of divine mercy. Ask the souls in hell of divine mercy, and they shall laugh in your face. Ask every child, whose mother died in childbirth of Godly compassion. Ask the millions of species that existed just to die what they think of your God, and you shall receive a markedly different answer.

Rather than distract us from God or cause us to doubt His mission, the glory of the cosmos and the heavens, and truly the glory of the smallest animal or plant, point us towards the glory of Him who created them. We know not why this plant or that galaxy exists in splendor, but we have faith that this mystery, among others, will be revealed to us and that we will then fully appreciate their beauty more than we are able to now.

What cosmic arrogance.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

As much as I don't want to seem to defend Kowani's worldview (because it's really dumb and untenable) I feel like you're projecting conclusions and other concepts on their worldview which aren't there. Kowani doesn't believe in a soul, and sees intellect as nothing more than a psychological function which has thrived because of natural selection. This isn't really that depressing or shows that Kowani doesn't have imagination (as though imagination is an acceptable argument for supposedly objective entities like souls).

Personally I would be more depressed if Christianity turned out to be true than atheism. A lot of people I love would suffer in eternal torment because they weren't believers, I would be trapped in a one-sided afterlife for all eternity with no room for change, and perhaps most strikingly to the imagination argument, this elaborate cosmos with one hundred billion galaxies and other wondrous phenomenon only exists because God wants people to make a simple decision.

Thank you, Hana.

I'm using soul as a synonym for intellect or reason. It's our consciousness that makes us different from animals. Perhaps you're right that Kowani sees that as not much of a distinction, but I haven't seen him say that before. I wasn't trying to frame his beliefs either, I'm trying to explain how I think he can live a more fulfilling life.

If people could stop making assumptions about how I live my life, that’d be great.

Imagination is used a bit abstractly here. I tried to make that clear by italicizing, but what I'm saying is that we can do a lot more than take things at face value. We can abstract, enlighten, and imagine.

I do abstract, actually. You just don’t like the conclusions I arrive at.

but Kowani sees everything with a scientific lense and discounts everything that is metaphysical or societal.

Metaphysical yes, societal, no.

In my opinion, that leaves out the best parts of life.

3 words-In my opinion. I enjoy my life just as much as anyone else here. In fact, considering the doom and gloom I see from all the reactionaries here, I’d say I enjoy it a bit more. And perhaps some of that is youthful naïveté, but it is still my lens-and I am quite happy to view the world through it.

Wherever we end up after death, the Lord's justice will reign.

“Justice”
An eternity of torment, for temporary crimes. Tortured beyond the end of the universe, for crimes that were physically impossible to avoid committing. That is not justice, that is tyranny and irrationality, dressed up in the rhetoric of a god.

Perhaps some would find that unjust, that some in their family would go to Hell, but what is the created's opinion to the creator (both in authority and competency)?

Logically unsound nonsense. The status’ of two beings is irrelevant when speaking of things such as these.

Hell is a creation of our own action and volition.

Literally untrue. God created hell, for we have not the power to do so.

If we or our family members will to be apart from God, it will be done as we have decided and we will be apart from God eternally.

Decide? Yeah, that’s fair to the millions of people who died never having heard of God. If saving souls is God’s mission, then he’s an absolute failure.

Dante's Paradiso does a good job in trying to explain how our souls manage themselves in Heaven.

I thought we couldn’t know what was in heaven?

Just as we do as we will in this life, Dante says that we will do as we will in the next. Souls in Heaven aren't trapped into one attitude, our wills are conformed with God's, so that everything we do is the will of God.

…Did you write that and manage to convince yourself that it made it true? If our wills are conformed with God’s, then we are trapped into one attitude, one way of being, then we are no longer anything but puppets. Making a mockery of the claim of Free Will being anything of importance.

What exactly we would do in Heaven is anyone's guess, but if it has one tenth less of the pains of this life and one tenth more of the joys, it would be worth it (though it is promised to have none of our pains and infinite our joys).

Impossible, not with Free Will. Millions of souls, together for eternity? Personality would not disappear into the abyss in heaven-or perhaps that is the nature of it all, which leads one to ask-which one is truly hell?

Finally, we do not make just a single, simple decision. To follow God is to constantly try to enjoin our will to His. It is to try to make decisions for as long as we have breath that emulate His compassion and mercy.

Ask the Midianites of divine mercy. Ask the souls in hell of divine mercy, and they shall laugh in your face. Ask every child, whose mother died in childbirth of Godly compassion. Ask the millions of species that existed just to die what they think of your God, and you shall receive a markedly different answer.

Rather than distract us from God or cause us to doubt His mission, the glory of the cosmos and the heavens, and truly the glory of the smallest animal or plant, point us towards the glory of Him who created them. We know not why this plant or that galaxy exists in splendor, but we have faith that this mystery, among others, will be revealed to us and that we will then fully appreciate their beauty more than we are able to now.

What cosmic arrogance.

If I may, why are you speaking of justice and mercy (in a manner suggesting that such concepts have value beyond the merely instrumental) if you hold such concepts to be secondary or tertiary concerns when compared to the maximization of self's pleasure? I must admit that it's kind of odd since, based on your conception of Pure Logic™, you've previously stated that it would be acceptable for someone to torture a young child if it maximized their personal pleasure. No offense intended, mate.