Really? This is the best that christcucks have to offer? I was told Flannery O'Connor had more going on for her so I read both Complete Stories and Mystery and Manners and she is just a catholic televangelist
Very
>>24891229>If God isn't real why be moralchristians sometimes like to pretend simple empathy doesn't exist
>>24891229Who cares you cant argue with christians its a complete waste of your time to debate them let them worship a Jew and cut themselves for finding a woman attractive... Wwjd goy? Oy vey stop questioning the bible
>>24891241Empathy is untrustworthy. What if YOUR empathy and MY empathy lead us to different conclusions on what moral action to take?
Her books are still good
>>24891241It does exist, but it depends on the person. Some people are more empathetic than others, and the church exists to mitigate those levels into a cohesive whole.
>>24891242Well, why don't you, then?
>>24891229I'm not Christian however I think you might be missing the point. The idea is that without an absolute arbiter of morality then everything is subjective. Even Christians will admit not believers can be moral. Most atheist philosophers will also concede this as well.
>>24891249and what if YOUR interpretation of the bible is different from MY interpretation of the bible? same shit
>>24891370Alasdair McIntyre and Cornelius Van Til both talk about this
>>24891229That's the problem with centralized religion. It cannot look beyond itself, and therefore can never imagine that 'different' can, in somewhat rare cases, also mean 'better'. What you see here is just bitter xenophobia, where being a decent person has become synonymous with the absolute rigidity of the religious system one subscribes to
>>24891249So? There's no good or evil. Might is right.
>>24891370No, that's not quite what Christians are aiming for here, I think. The absolute arbiter could be something physical and inert, and morality could be emergent. They believe there is a magical quality to morals that is granted through divinity.
>>24891472Attributing cultural value to biology is an old outdated idea that's ignorant of the anthropology work showing the many varieties of living that exist, like cannibalism or sex slaves being normal; it only seems weird to us because it's a foreign culture.
>>24891431>It cannot look beyond itselfNor should it.
>>24891377>>24891431>>24891242Protestants, converts, pentecoastals, baptists whatever the fuck fail to realise that YES you can be wrong about the Bible, theology is indeed it's own specific field of study and you can fuck up. It's not about your interpretations or feelings but it's about what's out of the text and the countless oral and intellectual traditions that followed through with it. The Bible is not the definitive guide for all of christianity and has never been, it's the MAIN guide with tons of stuff being left to tradition and theological studies/contemplations. Freely questioning the Bible without further studying it or attempting to understand it is the equivalent of claiming "X doesn't hurt my health that's false" or "Y treatment is bad because my uncle told me" without ever stepping into medical school. Being wrong ain't that bad by itself if it's done with good intentions or a love for God deep down but if you're like those american pastors teaching burger gospel with LEDs and rave effects while claiming God will give money to the people in his church that's bound to get you to hell in ways even worst than if yoh just happened to be an atheist or followed another religion>>24891241>>24891229As someone who dropped out of catholic seminary and studied a fuck load of theology im gonna say that's a retarded argument. Even as christians we happen to be sinners and we can sin within christianity. The presence of Christ does not make anyone more moral but it makes us aware we are amoral by nature and need to fix ourselves for it. You can still be a good person but you're gonna attach yourself to highly subjective and everchanging ideals that might tone down how bad of a person you are. Christianity has an element of shame and humiliation that is inherent to the human experience, it's embarassing to confess, it's embarassing to admit you're wrong. Some people out there will kill someone believing they were fully a good person because they have no real reference for what a good person is. Traditional morality lacks that element of shame and improvement alongside the idea that you are ultimately a bad person (which is a thing most people can't admit or feel unsafe to do) and contorts itself to whatever the person holding it desires it to be so they can tell themselves they are a good person fighting the good fight. This just spirals out into people defending mass murder or justifying rape on the idea that according to their morals people "deserve" that, which is another whole ass pipeline by itself given that catholicism states only God knows what others deserve and it's unruly to make earthly judgements on their fate. It's not that people are amoral or evil without christianity but that morality doesn't really mean much without a strong foundation for it
>>24891241Empathy is an emotional state. You can't control when or for whom you experience empathy. If you build an ethic on empathy, that ethic will permit monstrous behaviour to those that do not trigger an empathy response. You can see this very clearly in the behaviour of left-wing types on twitter or what have you. Any serious ethic must posit some sort of absolute rights or duties that apply to all people at all times.
>>24891596>Empathy is an emotional state. You can't control when or for whom you experience empathyYou can't control who follows the word of god either. Either way, the government takes care of people who break the law. And the laws that the governments use are based on fairness and the reduction of suffering, AKA empathy.
>>24891596>You can't control when or for whom you experience empathyEmotional states are choices
>>24891605Laws are based on what's best for the state and it's rulers so it can keep itself functional and hopefully but not necessarily efficient. They are not inherently tied to morality whatsoever nor are they tied to pure logic. The state doesn't give healthcare, education and food out of the goodness of it's figurative heart but because those things can keep social coehesion towards it's specific goals
>>24891229It's pretty funny how often they have to argue through instrumentalism, in the sense of saying something akin to 'it will be really inconvenient if you don't believe in christianity'.
>>24891605>fairness and reduction of suffering Fairness has nothing at all to do with empathy, and empathy is quite often at odds with something being fair. As regards the reasons that specific laws are passed, in a liberal democracy at least, they are myriad and arise from electoral impetuses. Very often a liberal parliament will pass laws explicitly aimed at making a group suffer, simply because that group's suffering is popular with the voters. There is one place where empathy is always allowed into the system, and it's in mitigation/sentencing, but even that is bounded by sentencing guidelines in most cases.>>24891606Seneca? Is that you?
>>24891616>Laws are based on what's best for the state and it's rulersWith this logic the only reason we have laws is because it is profitable, which is a very cynical way of looking at it. I like to believe that even the most machiavellian politician still has sympathy for the murdered and that is why he is against death.>>24891627>simply because that group's suffering is popular with the votersYou are thinking nuance when I was considering base laws like murder and theft.
>>24891636>murder and theftLeaving murder aside for a second, there are certainly situations where it is profoundly cruel and unempathetic to punish people for theft. "All I did was steal some bread" is basically a cliché, used to critique the justice system. I had a client a while ago who was completely destitute and got six months for shoplifting groceries for her kids. She was a serial offender but still, that's hardly empathetic. I think fundamental prohibitions like those on theft or murder have very little to do with ensuring the best outcome. They're much more akin to a religious prohibition - thou shalt not x.
>>24891229>>24891241the actual answer is that christcuck and liberal morality is evil and enables evil
>>24891622That's just christian faith by itself though. God knows what's best and wants us to do what's best for ourselves but given that we have free will and that God respects said free will we can inevitably stray from His path in an attempt to empower ourselves. He's aware this happens and that's why He's all forgiving for every last one of our mistakes. However He also respects your choice of giving up on Him, hell is deep down just the abscence of God, you chose to live a godless life and you ended up in a place without Him. It's a bad and retarded choice but it's one he won't step in on beyond trying to enlighten you of your mistakes and save you from them. This also applies to one's own life, unchristian things tend to be fuckall awful decisions like adultery, prostitution or murder that fuck up your own life because you strayed from what God advised you should do and you got the natural consequences of it. It just so happens christian life is kinda a pretty well regulated and safe albeit unfun lifestyle
>>24891636>With this logic the only reason we have laws is because it is profitable, which is a very cynical way of looking at it.Profitable is not the exact word. More so efficient. Personally I believe human beings developed a sense of morality out of the objective fact that it helps our species keep itself in line and coehesive enough to form large scale societies, it's why we feel somewhat bad or dirty when we stray away from society's moral normal because there's something in our heads wiring us towards it. Base laws like "don't steal, don't do drugs, don't kill each other" do line up with our conventional sense of morality but they also line up for what makes a society not fall completely into chaos and anarchy which is why they are basically present in every single society ever. The basis for laws is to keep society running without dealing with issues humans make and it evolved into one that serves it's ruling class' interests. The state is meant to be a dettached entity from it's rulers and the worst possible states are the ones where said rulers dictated things based on superficial values of sheer morality and what they believed was ideologically right over efficiency, Pol Pot, Hoxha, Robespierre, Hitler, all of them had some type of personal belief stake with how they ruled and how their state behaved and it ALWAYS turns out gross
>>24891377Fuckin' A
>>24891684I misclicked im sorry I didn't mean to attach that image in I was gonna put this
>>24891684>>24891687mfw prince charming
