I’m glad you feel it’s useful to use your platform to complain about my admitted shortcomings and the way I question the worldI am however curious how people (from your perspective) are suppose to learn and question terms without already being certain of themselves and these specific termsWhere does the nuance of “not knowing yet” come into play? Or do you believe we are supposed to more from certainty to certainty?And is not being certain immature and childish in your opinion? Is that a cop out?And lastly, if you are already defining me regardless of what I have explicitly said I haven’t defined, are you not then making it first my responsibility to disagree with your ability to interpret and listen and then simultaneously asking you to interpret and listen to the actual explanation? Which seems to be something you haven’t been able to do yet.I’m unsure how to answer your questions because you actually are not asking the next necessary question, because you are assuming many leaps between.
My response to her:
Thank you for getting back to me on this.
We are both questioning the world and the people around us, hopefully in a constructive way.
As someone interested in philosophy, I question how people use words.
Do people know what they are saying?
You say nothing can be known for sure.
It has been said that in life, we can only be certain of death and taxes.
But that’s hardly a moral conviction. Examples of moral conviction:
There should be a law against murder, theft, committing sexual offences etc.
If you have a moral conviction that these laws are necessary, then you would be prepared to discuss them. If you’re not certain, then you wouldn’t.
Brett isn’t prepared to argue about the Trinity with me because it’s not a moral certainty, just a dogma he has to affirm in order to claim to be a Trinitarian Christian.
I’m certain that Judaism and Islam forbid idolatry and that I have seen many idols of Jesus and Mary in the churches I have visited.
I was hoping you would state a moral conviction or two or even define a term or two as you say you make a point of defining terms.
Yes, I am driven crazy by TLC who have no moral convictions they would like to define or declare.
Maybe that is fundamentally the problem when no one seems to know what a moral conviction is and don’t care.
People are supposed to learn by asking questions and their question must at least be grammatically correct containing a subject and verb.
Can you give an example of what is sustainable but not right?
Can you give an example of what is unsustainable but right?
What do you mean by sustainable?
When you say right, do you mean moral?
When you say moral, do you just mean legal or Catholic or neither?
The question has to make sense to be answered properly.
If you cannot make it make sense, then the question is not ready to be asked, nor that it stopped anyone from rambling on.
Surely you have some moral convictions you’re prepared to declare or define.
Otherwise, you’re just being like Bison who says again and again that nothing can be known for certain and because of that, nothing need be done.
Are you really saying you have no moral convictions?
What are you uncertain about?
Which of my certainties do you question?
It seems impossible for you to be more specific, but I am certain I heard you say that you are known for defining your terms.
If you could try to answer my questions, perhaps we can move forward and make this exchange have a takeaway point someone can understand and agree or disagree with.
I have no idea what you mean by “the next necessary question”. Necessary for what?
1:00 The Seven Dwarves are simps.
2:00 Megan not defining her terms.
4:00 Is Christianity right and sustainable?
Is Christianity wrong and unsustainable?
11:00 Making the arguments for SK USA
12:00 The hypothetical situation of SK USA being adopted
14:00 Why the ancestors of 21st century Americans didn't believe in the Trinity
16:00 Gender segregation
17:00 Megan was saying she has no moral convictions.
18:00 PVK as panderer to Islamophobes
19:00 Mark Parker and Chris Howard
20:00 Chris Howard's children not baptised.
21:00 Organised religions > Eastern religions
22:00 Choosing between being Christian and American
23:00 The countries of Catholic monarchs no longer have an official religion.
25:00 Will Americans take their Christianity seriously enough to come back to Christendom ie the Church of England?
Episcopalian = Anglicans
26:00 Americans unable to pronounce correctly "Christendom"
28:00 American Football Teams
32:00 How to bond with Americans - not through their religion which they don't take seriously but through their favourite music, film or TV show.
33:00 Americans no longer speak the language of their European ancestors if they were not English-speaking.
34:00 Americans can never be part of Christendom.
35:00 Americans choosing the best religion in the world for them.
38:00 Shari is higher status than Nathan even if Sharia is obviously wrong because she is a female elder and can say anything however absurd without being contradicted.
39:00 Brett is nanny to the men.
40:00 Estuary protocols
41:00 Banned subjects at Estuary meetings: Claire Khaw, the Trinity, Secular Koranism?
42:00 American masculinity
43:00 If men really wanted to expedite matters, they would be talking to me instead of using Megan as as a filter.
44:00 Wanting government to improve as an American without considering whether Christianity has failed is to be a fat person wanting to lose weight but refusing to go on a diet or exercise
45:00 Nihilistic boomers who don't care about their children and lie to them to shut them up
46:00 Organised religion
47:00 If Jews built their Third Temple, they would have to restore the now extinct Sadducees.
48:00 No one wants the restoration of absolute monarchy, so it has to be sharia.
No comments:
Post a Comment