The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Kwak]

I'm a little unclear on how we need a god in order to feel empathy or construct a values system.

Given that we've already done this by constructing god in the first place and then ascribing a moral system given to us ' from' him we obviously don't.
But we might need to imbue it with the magic authority from a supernatural source to get people to actually accept that system, because people are fucking idiots. Just a basic marketing hook.

 

[Houseman]

Now this is pod-racing!

I'm stalling and deflecting?

Yes, because I'm asking you to explain how any reasonable person would have known that you switched arguments, and you aren't answering (despite saying that you would, but I guess that was a lie). So yes, you're stalling and deflecting.

But that fails your premise. If god is omnipotent and controls everything nothing is beyond him or out of his control. You can't have it both ways; either he can control everything, in which case modern laws are just as much his will as the Bible (moreso, in fact), or things are out of control in which case he's not am omnipotent arbiter who's word should be taken as law

God can control everything ≠ God does control everything.
It was never a premise that God does control everything.

Yeah no in all those examples you're still changing your mind. Situation has changed, so you've changed your ruling. You have looked at your old ruling, looked at the current situation, and decided that because of that situation the old rule needs to change. Still changing your mind.

This isn't even changing the ruling, this is just that the ruling no longer applies because certain conditions have been met.

Given the example of soda, the full rule could be "None of my children who are unable to procure food for themselves shall drink soda, outside of special occasions"
If you are unable to procure food for yourself, as if you were a toddler, you would hear "you are not allowed to drink soda". As a teenager you would hear "yes, you can drink soda". The children only hear "yes you can" or "no you can't". They do not hear the full explanation of the rule. There is one rule, and it is consistent. A child may just fall on one side of the rule or the other depending on their circumstances.

It's like you're saying that it's inconsistent that some people have a driver's license and others don't. It's not inconsistent. Some people qualify for and apply for a driver's license, and others don't. In certain places, once you pass a certain age, the "rules change", and you need to re-test in order to keep your license. Is this the government changing it's mind? "You were qualified before, but now since you're 75 years old, I've changed my mind, you're no longer qualified"?

I suggest you read your link again, as it clearly says the Greek use means prostitution

Where? In the Strong's Definitions section? That reads:

πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.

In Thayer's Greek Lexicon? That reads:

πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general

So no, it doesn't mean prostitution. Neither of the two definitions say it does.
Post a screenshot and then draw a big red circle around what causes you to think that the word means "prostitution", because I'm not seeing it.

So then that brings us back to the point of how much research I have to do exactly?

Enough so that a reasonable person (preferably your peers, if we're talking academics and scholars) wouldn't blame you for not missing something.

If it so easy to misinterpret the Bible based on which translation I have, based on how much knowledge I have, in what way is it a suitable guideline for morality?

It's only easy to misinterpret the bible if you don't do your research, and if you don't do your research, that's your own fault.
It's about as easy as failing a math test when you don't attend classes or study.

The premise as stated is that he gives his instructions via a book. Not just one book, not a book that must never change. And if the book can change once, why not again?

I agree, nobody said that "the book must never change". It's your argument that the book changing makes the book invalid, but you've yet to explain how that makes sense. In fact, your other argument is that change is good, and even that the more change, the better!

And how do you know its already done? The words of god already got updated once, old to new testament. Why should it not get updated again?

It doesn't matter whether or not the book is "done". What matters is whether or not the book is God's Word. If it's God's Word, we should listen to it, because it contains instructions for us. Whether or not those instructions will be updated sometime in the future is irrelevant.

It's your argument that the bible is outdated. Saying "it might be updated sometime later!" doesn't make it outdated. When that update comes out, then you can rightly say that the previous book is outdated, but not before.

What if the Bible tells you to do one thing but a law tells you to do another? Slavery, for example, since thats the starting topic. Jesus is pretty a-okay on the subject of slavery, I think you'll find a lot of countries are not. Which is gods word, which is Satan's?

There's no contradiction between the law and the Bible. Jesus never said "go and take slaves", or "go and kidnap people from other nations, making them your slaves" or "slavery is a right!" He only said "if you're a slave, continue to obey your master".

The regulation of a thing relies on the allowance of the thing. What Jesus said was to regulate, not allow or disallow.

Choose another example.

Addressing your edits:

Maybe god respects the fact that morals change with the times? Maybe he just thinks the old book is too cluttered and mistranslated and we need a new one. Maybe the new testament was neevr his word to begin with, being largely compiled of human hands. Lots of reasons why even an omniscient entity might need to make corrections

It's your argument. Does your argument rely on a bunch of maybes? Well then "maybe" you're wrong about the whole thing?

Please tell me how joining a Crusade and murdering thousands is a better moral code than, you know, not doing that

Please tell me where in the bible it says to do such a thing. Or are you working backwards through inductive reasoning again?

Which is why I asked you to tell me what the BIble does say about vaccinations. Because a god who can see all would have known about them and thought to include a few messages about them right?

Vaccinations are not a moral issue. The bible is a moral guide.
If you want to talk about the morality of spreading infectious diseases, that's covered under "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them" and "love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[fOx]

I'm a little unclear on how we need a god in order to feel empathy or construct a values system.

Well, it's more that any such value system is just as artificial as religion is supposed to be. Your concept of good, and mine, could be total opposites. So how do we decide what's good, and what's evil? At the end of the day, the question is decided by who can force their morality onto others through bruit force.

Practical egoism acknowledges this, and essentially throws the concept of good and evil out the door. People don't act out of a sense of morality. They behave based on their biology. Generally, people frame morality around whatever is beneficial for them personally. If you and me define morality differently, it's most likely because we are both fighting for our own vested interests, which are at odds with one another. To put it bluntly, if God is taken out of the picture, then I reject the concept of morality altogether. Your very concept of a "value system" is itself a philosophical stance that has evolved from religious ideas.

 

[Houseman]

Well, it's more that any such value system is just as artificial as religion is supposed to be. Your concept of good, and mine, could be total opposites. So how do we decide what's good, and what's evil? At the end of the day, the question is decided by who can force their morality onto others through bruit force.

Many philosophies are based on the reduction of pain. Pain is very real and not at all artificial. An action can be seen as morally good if it results in the most possible pleasure and the least possible pain. That's Act utilitarianism.

 

[Buyetyen]

Well, it's more that any such value system is just as artificial as religion is supposed to be. Your concept of good, and mine, could be total opposites. So how do we decide what's good, and what's evil? At the end of the day, the question is decided by who can force their morality onto others through bruit force.

Through the shared experience of being human. I don't need a god to tell me that I don't like being stabbed and can read in other people's words and behavior that they would not enjoy being stabbed either, so therefor I shouldn't stab people.

And, yes it will be an artificial construction. Just like languages, names, governments, currency and art. So what? I'm not sure what your point there is.

Practical egoism acknowledges this, and essentially throws the concept of good and evil out the door. People don't act out of a sense of morality. They behave based on their biology. Generally, people frame morality around whatever is beneficial for them personally. If you and me define morality differently, it's most likely because we are both fighting for our own vested interests, which are at odds with one another. To put it bluntly, if God is taken out of the picture, then I reject the concept of morality altogether. Your very concept of a "value system" is itself a philosophical stance that has evolved from religious ideas.

Which is essentialist bullshit. Humans are far more complicated than just our biological appetites. If you need the authority of a god to decide the difference between a bad thing and good thing, it's because you're an asshole and atheism is the excuse. That's "you" in the impersonal sense. In fact, the argument that it is impossible to function without the guidance of a supernatural authority is precisely the sales pitch evangelical Christianity uses to shit on anything that's inconvenient them. Do you really want to play advocate for that particular devil?

I'm a person. I'm capable of feeling empathy. When other people hurt, I hurt too. When other people are happy, I feel happy. I feel this not because a god demanded it of me, but because I'm human. This is part of the human condition. The idea of rejecting having a hierarchy of needs and values just because religions do the same thing is seriously fucking up the order of causality here and strikes me as more contrarian than anything else. It also assumes that morality can only be one way, rather than the reality that is an ever-evolving idea of how we behave with one another in a way that doesn't fuck everything up.

At the end of the day, some people are okay with saying, "Yelling at people is not nice," and some people would rather die. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that the human condition contains an equal capacity for greatness and atrocity.

 

[fOx]

Through the shared experience of being human. I don't need a god to tell me that I don't like being stabbed and can read in other people's words and behavior that they would not enjoy being stabbed either, so therefor I shouldn't stab people.

And, yes it will be an artificial construction. Just like languages, names, governments, currency and art. So what? I'm not sure what your point there is.



Which is bullshit. Humans are far more complicated than just our appetites. If you need the authority of a god to decide the difference between a bad thing and good thing, it's because you're an asshole and atheism is the excuse. That's "you" in the impersonal sense. In fact, the argument that it is impossible to function without the guidance of a supernatural authority is precisely the sales pitch evangelical Christianity uses to shit on anything that's inconvenient them. Do you really want to play advocate for that particular devil?

I'm a person. I'm capable of feeling empathy. When other people hurt, I hurt too. When other people are happy, I feel happy. I feel this not because a god demanded it of me, but because I'm human. This is part of the human condition. The idea of rejecting having a hierarchy of needs and values just because religions do the same thing is seriously fucking up the order of causality here and strikes me as more contrarian than anything else. It also assumes that morality can only be one way, rather than the reality that is an ever-evolving idea of how we behave with one another in a way that doesn't fuck everything up.

At the end of the day, some people are okay with saying, "Yelling at people is not nice," and some people would rather die. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that the human condition contains an equal capacity for greatness and atrocity.

See, this is why I say that humanists don't really think about their philosophy too deeply. They seem to think that everyone shares a somewhat similar world view or experience. And we don't. We can barely agree with one another in the same country. Let alone across the international lines. There are as many moralities as there are people. You may not want to be stabbed, but I may want, very badly, to kill you. Whose morally correct? Whose not? In the end, it makes not difference. The only thing that matters is who is able to win. Who is able to force their morality onto the other.

You said that I'm an asshole for needing a god to tell me the difference between "good" and "bad." But you language implies that good and bad are clearly defined constants. In reality, "good" and "bad" just mean "what I want," and "what I don't want." What I am saying is, good and bad do not exist. They are, as stirner would say, spooks. The fact that you're thinking in terms of good and bad means that you are still thinking within the terms of religious morality. You're thinking this way because, without realizing it, you're framework for morality was fundamentally molded by a society steeped in religion. The reason I say that nihilism and egoism work without religion, is because they cast off these assumptions entirely. People behave certain ways, because they want certain things. They want certain things, because their biology compels them to want it. What you call good and evil is just biological determinism.

 

[fOx]

Even your empathy is simply a biological quirk that exists to incline us to help one another, because it's good for the species. It evolved through evolution. This is checked by a sense of self preservation, which compels us to do what's best for us personally. Depending on the risks involved, one impulse may override the other.

And why do we help one another? Because it suits our self interest. You and me may find a piece of land. Neither of us are very strong individually, but together we are dangerous. We agree to split the land, and help one another protect it. Now, the best outcome for either of us would be if one of us could keep ALL the land. But we know that isn't possible. So we both get half the land, but have greater security. Because having half the land is not as good as having all the land, but having half the land is better then having NO land. Which is what would happen is another, stronger person took it from us. This is a simplification, but for all intents of purposes, these ideas are the basis of what you call "morality." But in reality, it's just a complex series of power games.

If what is beneficial for a person changes, then their idea of "morality" will often change to fit their personal wants and needs. It will change to suit their biological drives.

 

[Buyetyen]

See, this is why I say that humanists don't really think about their philosophy too deeply. They seem to think that everyone shares a somewhat similar world view or experience. And we don't. We can barely agree with one another in the same country. Let alone across the international lines. There are as many moralities as there are people. You may not want to be stabbed, but I may want, very badly, to kill you. Whose morally correct? Whose not? In the end, it makes not difference. The only thing that matters is who is able to win. Who is able to force their morality onto the other.

Indeed, as with all artificial constructs. What's your point?

You said that I'm an asshole for needing a god to tell me the difference between "good" and "bad." But you language implies that good and bad are clearly defined constants.

No, I said if you need an authority figure to puzzle out the difference between constructive and destructive actions, you have a fucking problem.

In reality, "good" and "bad" just mean "what I want," and "what I don't want." What I am saying is, good and bad do not exist. They are, as stirner would say, spooks.

I have said more than once than they are artificial constructs of humanity. Unlike you, I just don't give a shit. The words we're communicating with now are an artificial construct. The only reason you can understand anything I'm typing here is because you grew up in a society that told you that complex mouth-noises in certain orders have certain meanings with lots of possible combinations and each of those mouth-noises has a corresponding symbol for visual communication.

The fact that you're thinking in terms of good and bad means that you are still thinking within the terms of religious morality.

Which one? Because I can't help but notice that most major religions take a pretty hard stance against murdering your neighbor and stealing his stuff because you felt like it. Almost as if that's a sort of consensus in human psychology, that we can't function as a social group if we're stabbing each other in the back. Again, I reject the idea that religion is how we invented morality and ethics. I think both of things are just inevitable ideas given the way our brains are wired. As sentient creatures with a strong social drive and the capacity for abstract thought, at some point a tribe of hunter-gatherers is going to come to the conclusion, "We need to agree on a set of rules if we're going to survive together."

What do I calibrate my morality on? I personally place a high value on human life. I don't want to hurt people. I don't want to destroy things. Why do I need a god to think these things?

You're thinking this way because, without realizing it, you're framework for morality was fundamentally molded by a society steeped in religion.

So was yours. Again, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I'm pretty sure you didn't read Thus Spake Zarathustra and said, "Jesus was wrong, murder is a-okay." Yes, Christianity says it's bad to kill your neighbor or steal his wife. Why do I need god to agree that those are things I wouldn't want someone to do to me? This is where I think you're mixing up causality. Do we generally agree that murder is bad because somebody wrote it in a holy book 2000 years ago? Or because the overwhelming majority of us straight up don't want to be murdered?

The reason I say that nihilism and egoism work without religion, is because they cast off these assumptions entirely. People behave certain ways, because they want certain things. They want certain things, because their biology compels them to want it. What you call good and evil is just biological determinism.

I find the idea that human beings are nothing more than a grab-bag of biological impulses we can't control in any capacity to be hilariously fatalistic and also just deliberately over-looking everything else in the human condition. It's the excuse of destructive people with no self-control. And egoism isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with religious mania. Just look at Kanye West.

 

[fOx]

Indeed, as with all artificial constructs. What's your point?



No, I said if you need an authority figure to puzzle out the difference between constructive and destructive actions, you have a fucking problem.



I have said more than once than they are artificial constructs of humanity. Unlike you, I just don't give a shit. The words we're communicating with now are an artificial construct. The only reason you can understand anything I'm typing here is because you grew up in a society that told you that complex mouth-noises in certain orders have certain meanings with lots of possible combinations and each of those mouth-noises has a corresponding symbol for visual communication.



Which one? Because I can't help but notice that most major religions take a pretty hard stance against murdering your neighbor and stealing his stuff because you felt like it. Almost as if that's a sort of consensus in human psychology, that we can't function as a social group if we're stabbing each other in the back. Again, I reject the idea that religion is how we invented morality and ethics. I think both of things are just inevitable ideas given the way our brains are wired. As sentient creatures with a strong social drive and the capacity for abstract thought, at some point a tribe of hunter-gatherers is going to come to the conclusion, "We need to agree on a set of rules if we're going to survive together."

What do I calibrate my morality on? I personally place a high value on human life. I don't want to hurt people. I don't want to destroy things. Why do I need a god to think these things?



So was yours. Again, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. I'm pretty sure you didn't read Thus Spake Zarathustra and said, "Jesus was wrong, murder is a-okay." Yes, Christianity says it's bad to kill your neighbor or steal his wife. Why do I need god to agree that those are things I wouldn't want someone to do to me? This is where I think you're mixing up causality. Do we generally agree that murder is bad because somebody wrote it in a holy book 2000 years ago? Or because the overwhelming majority of us straight up don't want to be murdered?



I find the idea that human beings are nothing more than a grab-bag of biological impulses we can't control in any capacity to be hilariously fatalistic and also just deliberately over-looking everything else in the human condition. It's the excuse of destructive people with no self-control. And egoism isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with religious mania. Just look at Kanye West.

My point is that if morality is artificial, always changing, and wildly different between nations, districts, and individual human beings, then egoism and nihilism are far more honest and accurate ways to view the world then humanism, because these philosophies acknowledge the reality of the world more then humanism. They're also more intellectually honest, if you care about that at all. Maybe you don't.

 

[fOx]

You see, a lot of people think that they are motivated to do things because they are "good." Whatever that even means. Egoism acknowledges that that the cause and effect are reversed. People do what is most beneficial to them, and frame the idea of good and bad around that as a justification.

 

[Buyetyen]

My point is that if morality is artificial, always changing, and wildly different between nations, districts, and individual human beings, then egoism and nihilism are far more honest and accurate ways to view the world then humanism, because these philosophies acknowledge the reality of the world more then humanism. They're also more intellectually honest, if you care about that at all. Maybe you don't.

I reject the premise. As an atheist, I agree with you that there is no supernatural direction for human morality and ethics. We're a bunch of primates wearing shoes. Consider also the fact that we are capable of building the society you currently live in. So we're primates wearing shoes, but we were also the ones who invented the shoes. I do not believe that morality and ethics need to have an unwavering core defined by something like scripture. Human beings evolve and the things we create evolve with us. There is no end goal of perfect morality any more than there is a goal of perfect evolution.

Honesty is also another artificial construct predicated on an assumption that lying to other people is bad or at the least a destructive behavior. We can do the "turtles all the way down" argument, but that sounds about as appealing as asking Bill O'Reilly for romance advice. Still, in saying that egoism is superior because of its professed honesty, that is a value judgment. So obviously you yourself have some hierarchy of values. Is it conceivable to you that maybe that's just a natural, human thing to do? That it doesn't need to be imposed on us, if there weren't a values system already, we'd just make one?

You see, a lot of people think that they are motivated to do things because they are "good." Whatever that even means. Egoism acknowledges that that the cause and effect are reversed. People do what is most beneficial to them, and frame the idea of good and bad around that as a justification.

If the implication here is that I do not actually believe what I believe, that's rather presumptuous on your part. Also paints an even bleaker picture of the human condition than Thomas Ligotti.

 

[fOx]

I reject the premise. As an atheist, I agree with you that there is no supernatural direction for human morality and ethics. We're a bunch of primates wearing shoes. Consider also the fact that we are capable of building the society you currently live in. So we're primates wearing shoes, but we were also the ones who invented the shoes. I do not believe that morality and ethics need to have an unwavering core defined by something like scripture. Human beings evolve and the things we create evolve with us. There is no end goal of perfect morality any more than there is a goal of perfect evolution.

If you're going to believe in something that doesn't exist for the sake of personal convenience, then you may as well adopt religion

Honesty is also another artificial construct predicated on an assumption that lying to other people is bad or at the least a destructive behavior. We can do the "turtles all the way down" argument, but that sounds about as appealing as asking Bill O'Reilly for romance advice. Still, in saying that egoism is superior because of its professed honesty, that is a value judgment. So obviously you yourself have some hierarchy of values. Is it conceivable to you that maybe that's just a natural, human thing to do? That it doesn't need to be imposed on us, if there weren't a values system already, we'd just make one?

I mean, I'm religious, so of course I do.

But I was atheist for most of my life. And if you asked me back then whether I did, I would say no, of course not. It's all equally meaningless. The whole human race is without any value whatsoever, and we only act according to our base biological impulses. I followed hard core biological determinism. But regardless of whether you see honesty as more valuable then dishonest (I would have said that it doesn't matter), it is more "accurate." Whether or not you care about that, or "value" it is immaterial.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you're going to believe in something that doesn't exist for the sake of personal convenience, then you may as well adopt religion

The same is true of every abstract concept we take for granted in modern society. Things like currency, government and ideology are as real as we collectively agree they are. That religion's truth claims cannot stand up to scrutiny does not change the brute fact that the religion and the accompanying organization exist and are things people take actions for and because of. Indeed, one could make the argument that money has become a religion for many as they calibrate their entire values system around acquiring more of it. But then again, does belief necessarily a religion make?

I'm pretty sure I made this point earlier, but religion itself is more than just the scriptures. It's also the rituals, shared values, customs, community... These are all very complex concepts and your reponse to all of them more or less amounts to, "Whatever, it's all bullshit anyway."

I mean, I'm religious, so of course I do.

But I was atheist for most of my life. And if you asked me back then whether I did, I would say no, of course not. It's all equally meaningless. The whole human race is without any value whatsoever, and we only act according to our base biological impulses. I followed hard core biological determinism. But regardless of whether you see honesty as more valuable then dishonest (I would have said that it doesn't matter), it is more "accurate." Whether or not you care about that, or "value" it is immaterial.

Well, the biological determinist thing explains a lot of your assumptions about human behavior and psychology. I mean, they're still wrong but at least now I know what's informing them. And I seem to not be making myself clear. The human race does not require a meaning or exterior value to be bestowed upon it. We're alive and all we've got is each other. Make the most of it. If the human race has any value at all, it is because we have decided that our continued existence is preferable to oblivion.

And at this point, I'm having a bit of a hard time following. So you're religious, but existentialist. And if honesty doesn't matter, why did you even bring it up in the first place? And again, your idea of accuracy derives from biological determinism, which does not enjoy a lot of credibility in the scientific consensus to begin with, and a view of atheism that assumes everyone puts as little thought into it as you admit to having done. I keep saying that I don't need a religion to feel empathy, reciprocity, longing and all the other things that make up the human condition and you don't seem to believe me when I say that. They're real to me because I'm the one feeling them. So I'm going to act on them. And that goes for everything I do. Whether I'm participating in activism because I champion the cause or because something finally abraded enough of my thick skin off and I lose my temper.

I'm starting to suspect your problem with Absurdism, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that it takes your argument of, "It's all meaningless without god," and says, "So what?" Absurdists don't bother to create or look for meaning in an existential universe. They reject the idea that things need meaning or reasoning. An apple doesn't need a reason to be delicious, it just is. So enjoy it!

 

[fOx]

The same is true of every abstract concept we take for granted in modern society. Things like currency, government and ideology are as real as we collectively agree they are. That religion's truth claims cannot stand up to scrutiny does not change the brute fact that the religion and the accompanying organization exist and are things people take actions for and because of. Indeed, one could make the argument that money has become a religion for many as they calibrate their entire values system around acquiring more of it. But then again, does belief necessarily a religion make?

I'm pretty sure I made this point earlier, but religion itself is more than just the scriptures. It's also the rituals, shared values, customs, community... These are all very complex concepts and your reponse to all of them more or less amounts to, "Whatever, it's all bullshit anyway."

I feel like you're dancing around my points. If we can't collectively agree what "good" and "bad" are, and we can't agree what things fall under which umbrella, then what value do these terms have? Like I said previously, egoism is its own fully realized philosophy, and it's more suitable to the modern world then humanism. You seem to be completely ignoring what I've stated on this matter.

Well, the biological determinist thing explains a lot of your assumptions about human behavior and psychology. I mean, they're still wrong but at least now I know what's informing them. And I seem to not be making myself clear. The human race does not require a meaning or exterior value to be bestowed upon it. We're alive and all we've got is each other. Make the most of it. If the human race has any value at all, it is because we have decided that our continued existence is preferable to oblivion.

And at this point, I'm having a bit of a hard time following. So you're religious, but existentialist. And if honesty doesn't matter, why did you even bring it up in the first place? And again, your idea of accuracy derives from biological determinism, which does not enjoy a lot of credibility in the scientific consensus to begin with, and a view of atheism that assumes everyone puts as little thought into it as you admit to having done. I keep saying that I don't need a religion to feel empathy, reciprocity, longing and all the other things that make up the human condition and you don't seem to believe me when I say that. They're real to me because I'm the one feeling them. So I'm going to act on them. And that goes for everything I do. Whether I'm participating in activism because I champion the cause or because something finally abraded enough of my thick skin off and I lose my temper.

I'm starting to suspect your problem with Absurdism, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that it takes your argument of, "It's all meaningless without god," and says, "So what?" Absurdists don't bother to create or look for meaning in an existential universe. They reject the idea that things need meaning or reasoning. An apple doesn't need a reason to be delicious, it just is. So enjoy it!

I mean, you aren't even engaging any of the statements I've made. You hand waived biological determinism, for instance. But the simple reality is that you cannot be more then your biology allows you to be. You can not be something outside of what your biology is. The way you perceive the world around you- your sight, hearing, touch, whatever- intrinsically shape how you are able to understand the world around you. Your biology is imperfect, and so the data you gather will always be imperfect. You don't have free will, biologically. You want what your biology tells you you want. Did you know that, neurologically, you body prepares itself to perform an action before your conscious mind decides to do that action? Scientific data makes a mockery of the free will argument.

As for absurdism, my issue is simply that it is the most juvenile of all philosophies. I don't particularly care one way or the other, since it doesn't really matter. But absurdists claim that they have essentially found a solution to existential angst without betraying their logical mind. But they haven't really done either. They've essentially decided to ignore aspects of the universe that they don't like. They're welcome to do this, but they aren't being intellectually honest. They're no better then a religious person who comes to faith in order to escape existential pain.

As for my stance, I am a Christian Nihilist/christian egoist

 

[Neuromancer]

Where? In the Strong's Definitions section? That reads:

πορνεία porneía, por-ni'-ah; from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:—fornication.

In Thayer's Greek Lexicon? That reads:

πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general

So no, it doesn't mean prostitution. Neither of the two definitions say it does.
Post a screenshot and then draw a big red circle around what causes you to think that the word means "prostitution", because I'm not seeing it.

I am not sure what this Thayer guy has been smoking, but πορνη is Greek for prostitute and πορνεια is Greek for prostitution. It has been that way since Ancient Greece. In the original Προς Κορίνθιους Α'

Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος. τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν· ὁ δὲ Θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα καταργήσει. τὸ δὲ σῶμα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῷ Κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ Κύριος τῷ σώματι·

There are dozens of different words that could have been used instead of πορνείᾳ if the intent was to speak specifically about adultery, but that is not the point being made. The point being made, abundantly clear in the original script, is that although man is allowed to do as he wishes, he should be wise how he uses such freedom(Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει·), and be careful not to be ruled (ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος) by his desires.

 

[Buyetyen]

I feel like you're dancing around my points. If we can't collectively agree what "good" and "bad" are, and we can't agree what things fall under which umbrella, then what value do these terms have? Like I said previously, egoism is its own fully realized philosophy, and it's more suitable to the modern world then humanism. You seem to be completely ignoring what I've stated on this matter.

In how many countries is it legal to murder your neighbor because you decided you deserved his house more than he did? In how many countries is it legal to rape a child? Dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find a theocracy or two as an exception, but when you look at the laws of different countries long enough, you start to see some patterns.

Yes, we disagree on a lot of things. But if we had absolutely nothing in common and were never able to reach consensus, do you really think society would have gotten this far?

I mean, you aren't even engaging any of the statements I've made. You hand waived biological determinism, for instance.

Because biological determinism does not have any credibility. You may as well tell me you're basing your opinions on human behavior on alchemy.

As for absurdism, my issue is simply that it is the most juvenile of all philosophies. I don't particularly care one way or the other, since it doesn't really matter. But absurdists claim that they have essentially found a solution to existential angst without betraying their logical mind. But they haven't really done either. They've essentially decided to ignore aspects of the universe that they don't like. They're welcome to do this, but they aren't being intellectually honest. They're no better then a religious person who comes to faith in order to escape existential pain.

Doesn't really rebut my point. The premise of absurdism is that there is no inherent meaning to the universe and trying to find one is madness. There's enough happiness to be found in being alive. I'm not sure how that's intellectually dishonest. Do you just reject the premise that looking for meaning in a meaningless universe is absurd?

As for my stance, I am a Christian Nihilist/christian egoist

That's probably why we're not friends. I've met self-described nihilists and egoists before and we... didn't get along. I'm happy to let this conversation go and move on if you are.

 

[Houseman]

I am not sure what this Thayer guy has been smoking, but πορνη is Greek for prostitute and πορνεια is Greek for prostitution. It has been that way since Ancient Greece.

Do you have a source for that? I posted mine, so your word isn't terribly persuasive on its own

 

[Neuromancer]

Do you have a source for that? I posted mine, so your word isn't terribly persuasive on its own

I am Greek. Since second grade I have also spent 6 years studying Ancient Greek, and though speaking it is a tonguetwister, reading it is as easy as reading English. I know my language very well.

 

[Houseman]

I am Greek. Since second grade I have also spent 6 years studying Ancient Greek, and though speaking it is a tonguetwister, reading it is as easy as reading English. I know my language very well.

Good for you. Where's your link?

 

[Neuromancer]

Good for you. Where's your link?

So I have to prove that the word for prostitution in my language means prostitution in my language? I guess that's what I get for engaging with Jehovites.

Αποτελέσματα για: "Π"

www.greek-language.gr

πορνεία, ἡ, εκπόρνευση, πορνεία, σε Δημ.
πορνεῖον, τό, οίκος ανοχής, χαμαιτυπείο, σε Αριστοφ.
πορνεύω, I. παρέχω τον εαυτό μου, εκδίδομαι — Παθ., λέγεται για γυναίκα, είμαι ή γίνομαι πόρνη, σε Ηρόδ., Δημ. κ.λπ. ΙI. αμτβ. στην Ενεργ., = Παθ., σε Λουκ.
πόρνη, ἡ (πέρνημι), γυναίκα που εκδίδεται, σε Αριστοφ.
πορνίδιον, τό, υποκορ. του πόρνη, σε Αριστοφ. κ.λπ.
πορνικός, -ή, -όν (πόρνη), αυτός που ανήκει ή ταιριάζει στην πόρνη, πορνικὸν τέλος, φόρος που πληρώνουν όσοι εξασκούν πορνεία, σε Αισχίν.
πορνοβοσκέω, μέλ. -ήσω, διατηρώ πορνείο (οίκο ανοχής), σε Αριστοφ.
πορνοβοσκία, ἡ, το επάγγελμα του πορνοβοσκοῦ, σε Αισχίν.
πορνο-βοσκός, ὁ, αυτός που διατηρεί οίκο ανοχής, σε Αισχίν., Δημ.πορνο-φίλας, ὁ (φιλέω), αυτός που αγαπά τις πόρνες, σε Ανθ.