https://x.com/spectator/status/2021262912044585014?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://www.youthscape.co.uk/research/translating-god-yp-school
https://www.youthscape.co.uk/research/translating-god/home
One can only wonder where they are getting their information from. Heaven forbid that the God who Created the universe and all that exists not have a "god complex" or "mansplain" (Godsplain). This sounds like the sort of nonsense that Dan would latch on to.
38 comments:
Good golly! How about explaining to kids what Christianity is all about and how their perspective is so horribly flawed? That's what adults are supposed to provide for kids on ALL subjects, and no subject is more important than their relationship to God.
Yeah...this sounds like a Jeff St program. It sounds that stupid.
I looked briefly at the last two non-"X" sources. What exactly has you all emotional and bewildered? That they're asking young adults what they're thinking about God and biblical texts?
"exploring how young people understand and respond to the Christian story."
THAT is a bad thing or problematic somehow? Where WHO is getting WHAT information from?
Are you suggesting that these young people are reading the Bible and reaching conclusions you personally happen to disagree with, and THAT is a problem?
What information?
Truly, sir, you speak in vague inanities and you'd be a better communicator if, you know, you wrote to communicate.
Ahhhhh that deep, intentional, well considered study we’ve come to accept from you,
What I found interesting was their apparent problem with God having a “God complex” and Jesus “mansplaining”.
Their information about YHWH and Jesus, you idiot.
FYI, the “non X sources” are the literal freaking study referred to in the first link. I took pity on you and spoon fed them to you because otherwise you’d bitch and whine. Of course you did that anyway.
Well, Dan’s got nothing because he’s already defaulted to blaming me.
Because clearly YHWH should accommodate their misconceptions.
Craig...
"the “non X sources” are the literal freaking study referred to in the first link."
Well, see! You CAN do it. There you go!
Craig...
"What I found interesting was their apparent problem with God having a “God complex” and Jesus “mansplaining”."
Sooo... it "appears" (to you) that the young adults involved have an "apparent" perception that biblical texts (or maybe even human interpretations of those texts present a god as having a god complex.
And those young adults reaching a conclusion like that, "apparently " (to you) is a problem because... why? It seems they were just reading the biblical texts, right? And getting their information from that text, right?
If I find time, I'll see if I can read more, but it sounds more like a problem for tradionalists with fragile egos than any problem with those involved.
I only did it because you’d be too lazy to do it yourself. Not to mention how many times I went to the trouble of finding stories from sources that met your arbitrary standard. What I learned is that the source doesn’t matter, you just need an excuse.
The problem with the whole thing is the fact that they find it offensive that YHWH (ie God) would have a “God complex”. Of course YHWH has a himself complex. That a bunch of kids think that redefining YHWH and Jesus to fit 21st century norms and stereotypes is quite arrogant.
The notion of Jesus authoritatively teaching as mere “mansplaining” is likewise shoving the Historical Jesus in a 21st century liberal box.
I’m sure you’ll find things to defend and laud because you’re cut from a similar cloth.
Craig
Dan seems to be confused by something.
My blog, my posts, my rules. If he’s curious, he should be smart enough to do his own research. I am not obliged to post what he wants, using the arbitrary sources he wants, it to answer the way he wants. I choose grace in giving him virtual free rein to post almost any foolish garbage that he wants. But that doesn’t mean I have to indulge his every whim.
Craig...
"Of course YHWH has a himself complex. "
What a sad, pathetic and demeaning way to speak about an Almighty God of perfect love... that God would have to focus on God's self like a needy little man-boy with daddy issues. But it helps explain your voting patterns.
Not at all, I was sarcastically making the point that accusing YHWH is absurd.
That you chose to misunderstand isn’t a surprise.
Dan demeans and insults God by claiming to be a Christian. Christians don't vote for those who defend sexual perversion, covetousness and infanticide. Dan does. His voting patterns confirm his claim of devotion to God is a lie.
I’m just laughing at Dan not understanding the irony of people complaining that The Actual God has a “God complex”. Because these kids have a much better conception of the majesty and power of the God who created everything, than YHWH has about Himself.
Marshal...
Christians don't vote for those who defend sexual perversion, covetousness...
I don't know how y'all can hold your heads up with all that unmitigated gall and hypocrisy weighing you down.
You literally vored THREE times for the single most overtly deviant, hedonistic, blasphemous and actually perverted - OPENLY perverted POS presidenti in our nation's history, a man who covets EVERYTHING (MY Peace prize, MY Greenland, MY name on the arts center which I'M going to run, MY my my my.)
If it weren't for the depths of his depravity and hedonism - him and all his actual pedophile and misogynistic friends - you could be excused for thinking his brain was stuck in some narcissistic toddler phase.
THAT is what you vote for and defend.
While calling good, family-loving, hardworking citizens "perverts"...
Your blind hypocrisy is just hard to fathom. And you just continue to refuse to see it.
Craig...
Their information about YHWH and Jesus, you idiot.
Well, isn't the story about them READING THE BIBLE, and having a conversation about what they read?
If so, then they got their info, at least in part, from the Bible. Beyond that, they probably have some understandings gleaned from the cultural zeitgeist.
I guess you can make that assumption and ignore the possibility that the translation they were given, the interpretive framework they used, and that those who taught them had nothing to do with their ridiculous conclusions.
Because the “cultural zeitgeist” is absolutely essential to interpretation of Scripture in the best possible way. That’s kind of the point, that they seem to be imposing their version of the “cultural zeitgeist” on Scripture.
Given that you seem to do something similar, it’s no surprise that you are defending this foolishness.
Your TDS is showing, your research skills are lacking, your partisan fangs are out, and your commitment to Truth seems tenuous at best.
Re: cultural zeitgeist, perhaps I could have been more clear. I was speaking of the dominant themes in a given culture. In this case, church culture as it is portrayed by church/religious folks, left and right and in between. It sounds like they've picked up on some themes often promoted by some religious folks, outside of what the Bible says. Maybe not. I don't know if they offer that level of introspection in this particular write up.
Regardless, this small case study sounds like they were asking youths, especially non-religious youths, their understanding of the stories they read and talked about. That's fine with me. I encourage open conversations. Some of them reached conclusions I would disagree with, but then, that's the point.
I don't know how it lost my name on some of those. Fixed, I think.
As to my response to Marshal...
"Dan demeans and insults God by claiming to be a Christian. Christians don't vote for those who defend sexual perversion, covetousness and infanticide."
I responded respectfully and rationally and dispassionately to a ridiculous, over-the-top personal attack by rightly noting the irony of someone voting for an openly hedonistic, openly perverse and over-the-top covetous president to accuse others of voting for perversion and covetousness as ridiculously hypocritical.
And taking the attack so far as to say I'm not Christian for the crime of disagreeing with his personal partisan political views... well if there's a Derangement Syndrome happening here, it appears to be your collective Dan Derangement Syndrome.
By the way, has your president decided to push for prosecutions of actual pedophiles or is he still calling them lies? Still turning his back on the victims of child abuse? Still cuddling in bed with "his" Nobel prize?
Dan
Craig:
That a bunch of kids think that redefining YHWH and Jesus to fit 21st century norms and stereotypes is quite arrogant.
The notion of Jesus authoritatively teaching as mere “mansplaining” is likewise shoving the Historical Jesus in a 21st century liberal box.
They read stories. They were asked to offer their opinions on it. They did.
Your response? That they are ignorant and stupid, these few teenagers? Why don't these youth WANT to go to church, one wonders?
That’s so generous of you. Almost an apology even.
When you insist that you have evaluated your comments and concluded that you were perfectly respectful it’s not like you are an unbiased observer of your comments.
As to Art, I give him the same freedom I give you.
I’ll note that you’ve finally seemed to realize that the Epstein files don’t paint Trump to be the pedophile you slanderously referred to him as, and now are acting as if immediate indictments are some big conspiracy.
Biden had this stuff for 4 years, his VP was a prosecutor, why didn’t they indict anyone?
When you make these bizarre, vague, unsourced claims, you look more and more like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
As far as I’m concerned, prosecute them all. Unfortunately, I suspect that the DOJ doesn’t have the manpower to magically prosecute them all at once, nor does the federal judiciary have the docket space. Especially while the DFL clogs the federal docket with nonsense.
No, that wasn’t my response. My response was more focused on the arrogance of imposing a 21st century left wing social/political worldview on YHWH.
If anything this shows the effect of a post Christian, post modern, worldview.
But yes, I do find it hilarious that these kids accuse YHWH of having a God complex. As if He’s not actually God or something.
Pervert Dan, Being a pervert, you can only say what you do by perverting the word "pervert" or perversely misapplying it to Trump. While his past sexual behavior is certainly less than acceptable, it's hardly perverse, nor is it in the slightest manner uncommon for women and men of all ages and classes. Such people are far more common than the sexually moral...a phrase the meaning of which is unfamiliar to you. Seeking sex with hot babes isn't "perverse" by any stretch of the imagination, as it conforms with the most basic sexual instincts of our species. If he was seeking sex with men, that would be perverse. If he defended and/or promoted and/or celebrated and/or enabled men having sex with men, that would be perverse and make him as much a pervert as a man having sex with a man is.
While his past sexual dalliances certainly indicate immorality, the use of the word "depravity" is calculated to generate the same level of hate for him by others as you have for him as well as validate your own.
To call him hedonistic flies in the face of the actual definition of the word, the various forms in which it might manifest and your never having explained why it fits in your twisted, perverse mind as a proper term to affix to Trump.
While I wouldn't do it about myself if I had done what he's done for peace in the world, I don't begrudge him acknowledging the fact that he was worthy of at least consideration for the Nobel Prize, especially given unworthy people like Obama and Gore were awarded it.
He's not attempting to annex Greenland for himself, so to say "MY" Greenland...even if he actually said that, which I've not heard him say...only a hateful fake Christian like you would lie that he meant it sincerely.
Trump's efforts toward rehabbing the Center for Performing Arts and resolving its financial distress does make him a notable patron, which routinely leads to the patron's recognition somewhere enshrine within the location. His efforts to removing woke content alone makes him worthy. The best part of it, however, is that the names of the two presidents most well known for cheating on their wives now sit side by side in the name of the venue. Almost serendipitous, actually.
I voted not for Trump's faults, but for his abilities and the many achievements by which all Americans have benefited. He fixed many of the deadly problems caused or enabled by the two presidents who preceded him. He continues to confirm my choice was incredibly wise in being the unquestionably, obviously better choice in all three elections in which he ran. Those who disagree are some stupid people, dishonest people and perverts...or some combination of two or more of those. That makes you Mr. Hat Trick.
By even your measure of "good", when honestly understood, Trump is a good man who loves his family and is clearly hard-working. I used to say he did twice as much in one term as Obama did in two (which gives Obama credit as if he did anything worthwhile besides deporting lots of illegals), but now I can just as rightly say Trump's did more good for America in his first year of his second term than all twelve of the years with Obama and Biden in the Big Chair.
There's no bigger hypocrite here, than you Dan. You just project your evil onto better people.
"And taking the attack so far as to say I'm not Christian for the crime of disagreeing with his personal partisan political views..."
No...that's not it.
Perverse (various definitions/meanings from typical sources)
: turned away from what is right or good : corrupt
: improper, incorrect
: contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law
perverse verdict
: obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : wrongheaded
: arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy
...
The term "perverse" in the Bible is often used to describe actions, thoughts, or behaviors that deviate from what is considered morally right or acceptable according to God's standards. It is associated with a deliberate turning away from righteousness and truth, often leading to corruption and moral decay.
Something that's perverse is deviant — it's not completely acceptable, and it may be even a little strange.
Marshal...
While his past sexual behavior is certainly less than acceptable, it's hardly perverse, nor is it in the slightest manner uncommon for women and men of all ages and classes.
His ongoing, multiple behaviors are literally the definitions of perverse, depraved, vulgar, predatory, deviant and indecent.
Words have meanings beyond your random personal hunches.
It seems as though Dan thinks that married men having affairs and people being sexually promiscuous are uncommon behaviors. I may be crazy, but Trumps known sexual /moral failures are uncommon.
I’m not endorsing or excusing his actions, just noting that he’s hardly in the minority. Your overwrought, almost hysterical claims make you appear monomaniacal and obsessed with Trump’s past sex life.
But you obsess about what you want.
As noted, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy (JF and Ted), Clinton and Biden were hardly saints in their sexual lives, but let’s ignore that.
Craig...
it seems as though Dan thinks that married men having affairs and people being sexually promiscuous are uncommon behaviors.
?
No. Dan doesn't and it doesn't SEEM like Dan thinks that, because Dan didn't say anything like that.
What is your collective difficulty with reading comprehension?
I noted the definitions of perverse, which includes, in our context, comes down to...
turned away from what is right or good : corrupt
Your president, Epstein, B Clinton and others HAVE acted in a perverse manner, they HAVE repeatedly acted in corrupt, cheating ways, turning away from what is right.
Epstein, by his use and abuse of women and girls as property for his own pleasure and the perverse pleasure of many rich and powerful men.
Clinton, in his use and abuse of a very young adult intern in a unbalanced power arrangement.
Trump, in his use and abuse of power to sexually prey upon women AND girls... AND in how he boasted and laughed about it, AND in his refusal to be transparent in the Epstein investigation and, indeed, how he's treated it as if it were a hoax - whether it's because he is implicated in it OR he's merely defending his fellow rich predators... ALL of this is perverse behavior.
As is making the suggestion to chase "hot (girls and) women" is okay... as long as you're a male... that suggestion, itself, is perverse... it is corrupt and turning away from what is right and good.
Craig, will you not take this opportunity to correct Marshal for making such a vulgar and deviant suggestion?
Or are you on team Marshal/maga on this one?
My difficulty isn't with reading comprehension, it's with your rambling, vague, unfocused, blathering and trying to figure out what your point is under all of the BS. Maybe, in the future, try for clarity and focus in your comments. Be precise and specific.
Yes you did do that, for no apparent reason that I can discern. You seemed to be using your definitions to demonstrate that Trump was somehow "perverse", unfortunately you failed to connect the two and I was left to guess. One of the things we've learned from the Epstein Files is that Trump was actively engaged in reporting Epstein to the authorities. One other thing we've learned is that Trump has released, and continues to release, more of the Epstein Files than any previous president.
As I've noted, many modern presidents and candidates have been promiscuous in their sexual escapades. As I've also noted (as Scripture tells us as well) everyone turns away from what is right. (This clearly assumes an objective right and wrong, which you haven't demonstrated)
Well, I'm not sure who is making that suggestion, or by what standard chasing women is problematic. Chasing women (regardless of how hot they are) is literally behavior associated with virtually every single species including humans. Bizarrely enough, the literal future of the human race depends of "chasing" members of the opposite sex.
Obviously that covers a lot of territory, from wholesome and appropriate to completely inappropriate. For example a guy asking a girl out on a date is good. 12 cousins gang raping an innocent woman is not good.
As someone who takes my ethic around sexual expression from Scripture, I would suggest that any sex outside of a marriage between one man/one woman is a perversion of YHWH's intent for human sexuality. For those who cling to a Naturalist/Materialist/Darwinian worldview any behavior that maximizes the survival of a species (including rape) achieves the goal of perpetuating the species. For those in between, we live in a culture which encourages the "hook up", high "body count", and promiscuous sex. In our society, those things are considered good and accepted. The problem you have is that your subjective hunch about what is "right and good" when it comes to sexual mores is clearly not held by the majority of society. (Mine is likewise not held in high esteem) That I don't agree with the current social mores on sexual expression held by society doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge that Trump's behavior isn't out of line with society.
Dan, maybe you should be more concerned about your won reading comprehension. I was quite clear that I allow Art the same freedom I allow you (and anyone else, except...). So, I see no reason to allow you to dictate how I do things at my blog especially as you refuse to grant me reciprocal powers at yours.
I'm not on Art's "team" or your "team".
Given that you've dragged this completely off topic, I'll ask this.
By what moral standard is an older man engaging in a consensual relationship with a younger (even much younger woman) objectively wrong?
If young woman chooses to engage in prostitution (OF, porn, ect) by what standard is her choice wrong and by what standard is it wrong for her to interact with older men?
Is a sexual relationship between an older person and someone barely over the age of consent automatically "wrong"? If so, by what standard?
Can someone engaging in sexual conduct which you personally find to be subjectively wrong be referred to as engaging in wrong behavior?
Does someone reaching the age of consent automatically make any consensual sexual relationship they engage in right?
4 out of 5 of Dan's definitions fit Dan perfectly. But more to the point, given human sexuality as intended and defined by God, Dan is even more perverse than Trump has ever been. The middle definition ca be thrown out for this tangential discussion. The rest, as I said, describes Dan to a T and more accurately than the word describes Trump. Dan needs to remove the lumberyard from his own eye before he worries about the speck in Trump's.
Well, actually...Craig and I are on the "same team" on this point:
"I would suggest that any sex outside of a marriage between one man/one woman is a perversion of YHWH's intent for human sexuality."
That's EXACTLY what I believe and that's EXACTLY what Scripture teaches, so we can more bold in asserting as fact that fact you posted. As such, I can boldly point out that Dan absolutely strays from this truth in his love of homosexual behaviors.
And no, diggin' hot babes is NOT perversion. It's the normal response to the appearance of hot babes by normal males. Many, if not most, men dig hot cars, too. Also not perversion.
The bottom line remains true: Dan goes out of his way to describe Trump in the most negative terms he can conjure in order to rationalize or justify his abject and obvious hatred of Trump (and by extension, conservatives...and by further extension, conservative Christians, A.K.A. Christians) because Trump won't or hasn't promoted Dan's favored perversions, championed by the Democrat Party and marxists everywhere.
Finally for this comment offering, I would remind Dan of his presidential object of worship, Barack Hussein Milhouse Obama, who enjoyed the oral favors of a homosexual on at least two occasions whilst smoking crack. Talk about a pervert!
Again, just to demonstrate to you how to directly, clearly answer questions:
By what moral standard is an older man engaging in a consensual relationship with a younger (even much younger woman) objectively wrong?
It's not objectively provable by anyone, unless you want to accept the premise that child abuse is wrong and the "woman" in question is under age.
Nonetheless, if one accepts the premise that the person in power should not take advantage of the person beneath them: Powerful older men should not engage in sex with or otherwise take advantage of much younger women in subordinate positions (like a teen-aged beauty pageant girl or a barely adult intern) because that adult has a greater power level, leaving the young women or girls at a great disadvantage.
Do you disagree, EVEN IF you can't objectively prove it? (I've directly and clearly answered your question. Your turn. Of course, we know the likelihood of you answering directly is minimal.)
If young woman chooses to engage in prostitution (OF, porn, ect) by what standard is her choice wrong and by what standard is it wrong for her to interact with older men?
For the woman, it may not necessarily be wrong and certainly not objectively provably wrong. BUT, for the older, more powerful man, it is an abuse of power, IF you accept the rational premise that people in positions of power should not take advantage of that power, especially when we're talking about young women or girls.
Do you disagree?
Is a sexual relationship between an older person and someone barely over the age of consent automatically "wrong"? If so, by what standard?
Not in any objectively provable sense. No. Of course, not.
Do you agree that we can't objectively prove that such a relationship is automatically wrong?
On the other hand, by the REASONABLE standard that people in positions of power should not take advantage of that power and privilege to coerce young (or teen-aged or adolescent) women and girls, do you agree that it's wrong by THAT standard?
Can someone engaging in sexual conduct which you personally find to be subjectively wrong be referred to as engaging in wrong behavior?
Yes, of course. The wealthy man who convinces a 12 year old to have sex with him and he'll give her lots of money IS clearly wrong, even if we can't objectively prove it. Do you seriously disagree?
Does someone reaching the age of consent automatically make any consensual sexual relationship they engage in right?,/I>
No. Of course, not.
Now, some more questions for YOU to ignore, in spite of my showing how easy it is to directly answer questions:
Do you agree that we can't objectively prove that it's immoral for a 60 year old man with a great deal of money and privilege to convince a 16 year old to be naked in front of him?
EVEN THOUGH we can't objectively prove that, do you agree that it is clearly a perverted abuse of power for that 60 year old man to do that?
Again, more questions for you to ignore.
Craig, entirely missing the point, said:
Be precise and specific.
I was quite precise and specific AND I provided sources. The meaning of perverse is doing that which is "Turned away from Right or Good... Corrupt." according to normal definitions/understandings of Perverse.
Do you disagree with what I actually clearly stated?
On the flip side, and contrary to your piss-poor understanding of what I said, NOWHERE did I say that I " think that married men having affairs and people being sexually promiscuous are uncommon behaviors."
Do you recognize that simple reality?
That you choose to read INTO what I say (or what others say or what the Bible says) something that is not there is not my/our fault. That is all on you.
Do you understand that?
You could have just said that you don't have a standard and left it at that. The problem is that you clearly DO have a standard. It might be subjective and inconsistently applied, but it is a standard. You clearly want to be able to refer to some people as "wrong or immoral", yet absent a coherent moral standard which is consistent across time and place, you have no grounds to make the statements you make. The honest way to express yourself would be to say something like "I personally believe that its is wrong for Trump to do X.". That leaves it the realm of personal preference where it belongs.
"Do you disagree, EVEN IF you can't objectively prove it?"
As I don't accept your premise, I have no basis to agree or disagree with your conclusion. Sexual harassment (Clinton) is already illegal, and should be dealt with appropriately. Beyond that I believe that women have agency and are fully capable of making their own choices regarding who they "date". If a woman wants to trade sex for money and security, who am I to tell her no? I don't particularly like it, but it's clearly not wrong by any objective standard. It's essentially a business transaction.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. Anytime you place random restrictions or premises on a question, I will disagree based solely on that.
"Do you agree that we can't objectively prove that such a relationship is automatically wrong?"
Sure. Yet I'm not the one who keeps referring to these sorts of relationships as "wrong". If these types of relationships cannot be proven to be wrong, why do you spend so much time bitching about those who engage in them as is they are wrong?
"...do you agree that it's wrong by THAT standard?"
No. I do not think that dangling the trappings of wealth and power in from of a young woman to convince her to have a relationship with an older man is automatically wrong. As noted earlier, it's essentially a business transaction. She has something he wants (or vice versa) and he has something that she wants. As long as there is no force or threats of force involved, I don't see how you can declare such a relationship wrong.
AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, I believe that all sexual relationships outside of M/F marriage are wrong and would not ever condone or encourage such a relationship. But based on the morals and social mores of 21st century western society, these relationships are accepted.
"Do you seriously disagree?"
That depends. If you are suggesting that the behavior is objectively wrong, than I do not agree based on your repeated insistence that there is no provable objective morality. If you are suggesting that you personally find the behavior to violate your personal, subjective, hunches about right and wrong, then no. Given this, I find it strange that you don't seem to say much about the increasing number of countries that are lowering their age of consent resulting in girls as young a 9 being married. Given this, I find it strange that you don't seem to say much about the hundreds of thousands of children who are raped throughout Europe and the lack of harsh punishments for these rape gangs.
"Do you agree that we can't objectively prove that it's immoral for a 60 year old man with a great deal of money and privilege to convince a 16 year old to be naked in front of him?"
I agree that under your construct of subjective morality that you believe this to be the case. I would argue that it is problematic for ANY adult to be engaged with ANY child in a situation where either of them are either naked of dressed in a sexually provocative manner or sexualized. Would you agree? Would you have the same response if it was a 60 year old woman who convinced a 16 year old boy to be naked in front of her? What is the legal age of consent in the state or country where this is hypothetically happening? Presuming that the young person is of legal age, then I (based on the prevailing cultural standards) cannot see any grounds to object. Personally, I find it disgusting when any adult places any "child" in a position where they are being sexualized.
Hypothetically, let's say that this "60 year old man" was the best painter alive, and the 16 year old was modeling for him. Does that change the equation? Hypothetically, let's say that the 60 year old many was an OBGYN and that the room was an exam room in a clinic. Does that change the equation? The reason I suspect you'll be disappointed with my answer has more to do with the lack of clarity and detail in the question, than anything. Details matter.
"EVEN THOUGH we can't objectively prove that, do you agree that it is clearly a perverted abuse of power for that 60 year old man to do that?"
I don't have enough detail to answer that question. In a general sense, I would suggest that ANY instance of ANY person of authority placing ANY person under the legal age of consent in a position where they are being "displayed" in a manner that is likely to sexualize them is a problem.
To look at the situation another way. Let's say that this 16 year old has an OF or similar account, and produces content of a sexual nature. Is a 60 year old who pays her handsomely for her sexual content engaging in objectively wrong behavior?
Personally, I'm with Jesus about the "millstone" solution.
Your apparent precision and specificity on one area (copy/pasting definitions) doesn't follow through to other areas of your comment. Maybe I should have said "Be consistently precise and specific.".
I agree with the definition you copy/pasted.
I recognize that absent an objective definition of "right or good" that you are left with not much. When we live in a world that is trying to normalize pedophilia and infanticide, presenting these things as "right or good", or when many people accept a worldview that acknowledges that rape is a biological "good" in that it benefits the survival of the species, it seems clear that "right and good" can mean vastly different things to different people. For example, Iraq just decided that it is "right and good" to lower the age of "consent" to 9 because it was good enough for Mo.
The simple fact is that is the US in 2026, there is a vast portion of the culture that believes that hook ups are "right and good", porn/OF is "right and good", "sugar daddy" relationships are "right and good", and the affairs are "right and good". Unfortunately, you've bought into the notion that there is no "provable" "objective morality", which means (effective) that there is no "objective morality" in any meaningful sense. Thanks to the post modern worldview their is nothing True, which also refers to moral standards.
I completely understand that, under your subjective moral code, that you personally and subjectively find some people and behaviors to be subjectively wrong. Which is fine, until you start applying your subjective moral code to others who have a different subjective moral code.
Yes, I understand that often times I am forced to confront your vague comments and to attempt to determine what exactly you mean. That is why, when I do so, I always preface my conclusion with terms that indicate that I am NOT making a statement of fact, but expressing an opinion based on your comments. Do you understand the difference?
FYI, for all of your self congratulation, there are still multiple questions left ignored on at least one other thread. Maybe dial back the self congratulating puffery until you deal with
...the unanswered questions.
I accidentally hit publish.
"The meaning of perverse is doing that which is "Turned away from Right or Good... Corrupt.""
And thus does Dan indict himself as perverse, and validates my position that he's a pervert.
Post a Comment