Sounds like you believe intensely that Yahweh is a real person, force, or entity, you just define it as evil. The language you use about Christians is similar to the language Evangelical Christians use about Satanists.
Sounds like you believe intensely that Yahweh is a real person, force, or entity, you just define it as evil. The language you use about Christians is similar to the language Evangelical Christians use about Satanists.
Interesting that your reading comprehension is so poor.
“They are providing moral support for an immoral character.”
Do Christian evangelists refer to Satan as a “character”? No, they think Satan is real.
I certainly don’t consider a fictional *character* in a work of pseudo history and literature a real force or entity, but the people who worship him do. If there were people who truly believed Voldemort were returning and they wanted to please him, I’d disparage that as well. And you were the first to refer to anything as “evil” in this conversation, not me. But I have no problem assigning that word to a character who commands genocide; just like I wouldn’t have a problem assigning it to Voldemort. It just implies a kind of extreme moral depravity.
Satanists are some tiny irrelevant cult that has no meaningful affect on the world. Christians are arguably the most powerful cult in the world. And a powerful sect of Christians are currently conducting a genocide. And the main character of the book they revere allegedly commanded it in the same geographical region they are carrying it out today. It’s interesting you are so eager to defend it and disparage me for being passionate about it. That says nothing about Yahweh, which doesn’t exist, but it does say a lot about you.
Not clear on how one provides moral support to EITHER a deity OR a fictional character. Perhaps we're using different definitions of the phrase "moral support."
The description in Wikipedia is adequate actually(I don’t view it as an authority, but it still counts for an example of how I’m using it):
“Moral support is a way of giving support to a person or cause, or to one side in a conflict, without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement by supporting them.”
Promoting and honoring Yahweh is providing moral support to a particular “cause” — specifically the worship of Yahweh and allegiance to the myths and morals that he is connected to, such as the genocide of Canaanites or the murder of homosexuals. Just like honoring Hitler or disparaging moral condemnation of him would be providing moral support to the ideology he promoted. Or promoting and honoring Voldemort would be providing moral support to the ideology he promoted. When someone honors Yahweh, or disparages the moral condemnation of him, such as what you are doing, they are providing moral support to the ideology he allegedly promoted. Doesn’t matter if what a person is supporting is fictional.
It’s a fiction that a man can become a woman by changing his pronoun. That doesn’t mean a person can’t give moral support to it. It’s quite common in fact for people to say nonsense like “transwomen are women”, which is a form of moral support. If there is a novel with a character in it and that character zealously promotes the idea that 10 year old boys should get their genitals removed because they like the color pink, and actually performs the operations, and people are like “we should give equal dignity to the belief that the character is deserving of worship and reverence”, those people are giving post modern gender ideology moral support. They are giving moral support to something that *should be* disparaged. I’d wager we both think that revering that character should be disparaged; where we differ is that when someone reveres Yahweh, a character who commanded the genocide and slavery of infants, you think that that it should be given respect.
Without moral support a cause will weaken, if not die. Which is why it’s important to disparage the moral support of immoral causes. Which you are horribly failing at when you provide moral support for the reverence of one of the most evil characters ever imagined by humans. I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt you are just deeply ignorant of the horrific things that Yahweh says and does in the Bible, and you aren’t a fan of wanton torture, genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice, and you just unfortunately have been imbibing Yahweh apologia without actually going to the source, like a muggle Voldemort apologist who has never read Harry Potter but is really committed to the foolish and pernicious dogma of giving equal dignity to all ideology.
“Ooohhhh the Death Eaters told me Tom Riddle was a poor little orphan boy who just wants wizards to take care of us.” Stfu he is the Dark Lord.
So "moral support" and "affirmation of doctrine" and "proselytizing" are all synonyms for you. Gotcha.
They are not for me. In my definition, "the psychological value of encouragement" can only be provided to a living thing that has a psychology. One may give blanket support to all persons in a particular category, but not to the category itself. Subtle distinction, I suppose. But meaningful to me. 🤷♀️
When a person affirms or defends a doctrine, or honors a fictional character, in the social presence of others, it provides psychological encouragement to "a living thing that has a psychology" -- that is to other people listening, not the fictional character. It inspires other people to potentially embrace the behavior of the character or follow the doctrine or not resist the character or disagree with the doctrine. We can call that abracadabra, it doesnt matter -- when someone does it for Yahweh, Hitler, or Voldemort, it is immoral.
We've established that you consider certain things to be pure evil that morally must be opposed. Is there a corollary? Where do you see pure good that morally MUST be affirmed?
We have established your reading comprehension is abysmal.
I never once wrote the phrase “pure evil”. In fact in my prior comment I simply used the word “immoral”. Do you think nothing is immoral? What do you mean by “pure evil” and “pure good”? Are we playing dungeons and dragons?
Why does it seem you are so eager to attribute sentiment and beliefs I do not actually have? You take the word “immoral” and transform it into “pure evil.” I am ambivalent about whether I believe that is out of malice, prejudice, bigotry, or stupidity.
As for “room for disagreement”— you have been disagreeing with me this whole time. Why have you been imagining me as some sort of violent moral totalitarian out to destroy people who deviate even the slightest from my meticulous dogma? Why are you even asking the question when I have been patiently communicating with you this whole time without any threat whatsoever even as you compare my views to Mao?
I’d sit down and have tea with a klansman, if we could have an open discussion. Your perception of me is totally warped.
No, I wouldn't consider just having tea with Klansman "moral support"; particularly if I challenged their racial ideology during our conversation. If all someone did was regularly have tea with a Klansman, and never challenged their racial ideology, I'd probably consider that "moral support." Being "friends" with a Klansman and never challenging their racial ideology would usually be "moral support", albeit I suspect philosophical exceptions could be conceived. Like if a person was spying or trying to manipulate them in some form of clandestine fashion. That though is not my line of work.
Yes I'd have tea with a Zionist. I've had tea with Zionists already.
Boundaries are contextual, and since contexts are theoretically infinite, it would take an infinite amount of time for me to describe the details of all the boundaries for you, which is not something I'm interested in doing.
But if you have a question about a specific scenario, feel free to ask.
Daryl Davis gets called a traitor a lot for building friendships with KKK members. He doesn't have to spy, manipulate, or even challenge much. Friendship is a challenge all on its own.
Sounds like you believe intensely that Yahweh is a real person, force, or entity, you just define it as evil. The language you use about Christians is similar to the language Evangelical Christians use about Satanists.
Interesting.
Interesting that your reading comprehension is so poor.
“They are providing moral support for an immoral character.”
Do Christian evangelists refer to Satan as a “character”? No, they think Satan is real.
I certainly don’t consider a fictional *character* in a work of pseudo history and literature a real force or entity, but the people who worship him do. If there were people who truly believed Voldemort were returning and they wanted to please him, I’d disparage that as well. And you were the first to refer to anything as “evil” in this conversation, not me. But I have no problem assigning that word to a character who commands genocide; just like I wouldn’t have a problem assigning it to Voldemort. It just implies a kind of extreme moral depravity.
Satanists are some tiny irrelevant cult that has no meaningful affect on the world. Christians are arguably the most powerful cult in the world. And a powerful sect of Christians are currently conducting a genocide. And the main character of the book they revere allegedly commanded it in the same geographical region they are carrying it out today. It’s interesting you are so eager to defend it and disparage me for being passionate about it. That says nothing about Yahweh, which doesn’t exist, but it does say a lot about you.
Not clear on how one provides moral support to EITHER a deity OR a fictional character. Perhaps we're using different definitions of the phrase "moral support."
The description in Wikipedia is adequate actually(I don’t view it as an authority, but it still counts for an example of how I’m using it):
“Moral support is a way of giving support to a person or cause, or to one side in a conflict, without making any contribution beyond the emotional or psychological value of the encouragement by supporting them.”
Promoting and honoring Yahweh is providing moral support to a particular “cause” — specifically the worship of Yahweh and allegiance to the myths and morals that he is connected to, such as the genocide of Canaanites or the murder of homosexuals. Just like honoring Hitler or disparaging moral condemnation of him would be providing moral support to the ideology he promoted. Or promoting and honoring Voldemort would be providing moral support to the ideology he promoted. When someone honors Yahweh, or disparages the moral condemnation of him, such as what you are doing, they are providing moral support to the ideology he allegedly promoted. Doesn’t matter if what a person is supporting is fictional.
It’s a fiction that a man can become a woman by changing his pronoun. That doesn’t mean a person can’t give moral support to it. It’s quite common in fact for people to say nonsense like “transwomen are women”, which is a form of moral support. If there is a novel with a character in it and that character zealously promotes the idea that 10 year old boys should get their genitals removed because they like the color pink, and actually performs the operations, and people are like “we should give equal dignity to the belief that the character is deserving of worship and reverence”, those people are giving post modern gender ideology moral support. They are giving moral support to something that *should be* disparaged. I’d wager we both think that revering that character should be disparaged; where we differ is that when someone reveres Yahweh, a character who commanded the genocide and slavery of infants, you think that that it should be given respect.
Without moral support a cause will weaken, if not die. Which is why it’s important to disparage the moral support of immoral causes. Which you are horribly failing at when you provide moral support for the reverence of one of the most evil characters ever imagined by humans. I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt you are just deeply ignorant of the horrific things that Yahweh says and does in the Bible, and you aren’t a fan of wanton torture, genocide, slavery, and human sacrifice, and you just unfortunately have been imbibing Yahweh apologia without actually going to the source, like a muggle Voldemort apologist who has never read Harry Potter but is really committed to the foolish and pernicious dogma of giving equal dignity to all ideology.
“Ooohhhh the Death Eaters told me Tom Riddle was a poor little orphan boy who just wants wizards to take care of us.” Stfu he is the Dark Lord.
So "moral support" and "affirmation of doctrine" and "proselytizing" are all synonyms for you. Gotcha.
They are not for me. In my definition, "the psychological value of encouragement" can only be provided to a living thing that has a psychology. One may give blanket support to all persons in a particular category, but not to the category itself. Subtle distinction, I suppose. But meaningful to me. 🤷♀️
When a person affirms or defends a doctrine, or honors a fictional character, in the social presence of others, it provides psychological encouragement to "a living thing that has a psychology" -- that is to other people listening, not the fictional character. It inspires other people to potentially embrace the behavior of the character or follow the doctrine or not resist the character or disagree with the doctrine. We can call that abracadabra, it doesnt matter -- when someone does it for Yahweh, Hitler, or Voldemort, it is immoral.
We've established that you consider certain things to be pure evil that morally must be opposed. Is there a corollary? Where do you see pure good that morally MUST be affirmed?
Is there room for disagreement?
We have established your reading comprehension is abysmal.
I never once wrote the phrase “pure evil”. In fact in my prior comment I simply used the word “immoral”. Do you think nothing is immoral? What do you mean by “pure evil” and “pure good”? Are we playing dungeons and dragons?
Why does it seem you are so eager to attribute sentiment and beliefs I do not actually have? You take the word “immoral” and transform it into “pure evil.” I am ambivalent about whether I believe that is out of malice, prejudice, bigotry, or stupidity.
As for “room for disagreement”— you have been disagreeing with me this whole time. Why have you been imagining me as some sort of violent moral totalitarian out to destroy people who deviate even the slightest from my meticulous dogma? Why are you even asking the question when I have been patiently communicating with you this whole time without any threat whatsoever even as you compare my views to Mao?
I’d sit down and have tea with a klansman, if we could have an open discussion. Your perception of me is totally warped.
Okay, having tea is NOT "moral support". That's a good clarification. Would you be willing to have tea with a Zionist?
Where are the boundaries for you?
No, I wouldn't consider just having tea with Klansman "moral support"; particularly if I challenged their racial ideology during our conversation. If all someone did was regularly have tea with a Klansman, and never challenged their racial ideology, I'd probably consider that "moral support." Being "friends" with a Klansman and never challenging their racial ideology would usually be "moral support", albeit I suspect philosophical exceptions could be conceived. Like if a person was spying or trying to manipulate them in some form of clandestine fashion. That though is not my line of work.
Yes I'd have tea with a Zionist. I've had tea with Zionists already.
Boundaries are contextual, and since contexts are theoretically infinite, it would take an infinite amount of time for me to describe the details of all the boundaries for you, which is not something I'm interested in doing.
But if you have a question about a specific scenario, feel free to ask.
It's been a great conversation, but I'm gonna have to end it. I read this on my phone, and the columns of text are now too short to read! Thanks!
Daryl Davis gets called a traitor a lot for building friendships with KKK members. He doesn't have to spy, manipulate, or even challenge much. Friendship is a challenge all on its own.
Look him up.