3 ms·

>Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: "Evil is a BS theological notion". But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong

>Also you are now claiming the exact opposite of what you said earlier: "Evil is a BS theological notion". But now you want to tell me what is objectively wrong? I dare you go ahead and try, haha.. For one, I fail to see where I claim the "exact opposite". Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). I also fail to see the "dare" in wanting me to say what is "objectively wrong". That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. That Cleopatra was in fact a guy from Bronx is "objectively wrong". And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong".

neumann_alfred 14y ago
Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). You cannot tell me what I mean by the word "evil". You can tell me how you interpret it, and I can tell you, and did so a lot of times, that you got it wrong. But then the ball just kinda flops around in your half of the court, repeating the same initial false claim about what I said. That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. Wow? I was obviously talking about moral judgement, not factual correctness. I asked for an apple, you gave me an orange. And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong". You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe. And you must be dense because I'm not interested in what YOU do with "evil", but in what people do in general. I don't even know you, so it should be _obvious_ that I did not start this thread with _your_ usage of "evil" in mind.

neumann_alfred 14y ago

Throughout the discourse I maintain that "evil is a theological notion" and one that doesn't describe reality (the two go hand in hand). You cannot tell me what I mean by the word "evil". You can tell me how you interpret it, and I can tell you, and did so a lot of times, that you got it wrong. But then the ball just kinda flops around in your half of the court, repeating the same initial false claim about what I said. That the Earth is flat is "objectively wrong" for example. Wow? I was obviously talking about moral judgement, not factual correctness. I asked for an apple, you gave me an orange. And that theological terms such as "evil" explain what people are in objective reality is "objectively wrong". You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>You must be some kind of masochist, because you STILL keep going on about that strawman. I told you, over and over again, I have my own compass for what I consider "good" or "evil", and anyone who isn't trying to be dense would know what that means. I never used to explain behaviour, but to describe. And you must be dense because I'm not interested in what YOU do with "evil", but in what people do in general. I don't even know you, so it should be _obvious_ that I did not start this thread with _your_ usage of "evil" in mind.