What do you think about this situation?

[Cortavar]

The only irredeemable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

The only worthy atonement for sins is a perfect substitute for the punishment. Thankfully, there is good news.

How do I commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Please tell me so I don't end up in the same afterlife as child rapists, however repentant.

 

[Voidiris]

It does, in fact. If you were old—say, a middle-aged man—saying this and combined with what you previously said about the act not being sad, horrific, or even irredemable—perhaps not on ScribbleHub—but you'd be squarely bullied off the internet. This is the privilege you have courtesy of being young.

Thank you for the clarification and I already had some experience with bullying.

I know you like to say morality is relative and what not, but just in this instance, let us establish: child thing is bad and a morally reprehensible thing to do. The second is that, under no circumstances, you can posit it as a natural thing to do. Now, if you don't see it already, what you did here was shift the blame from the person to their trait.

Morality is relativ but the action is still amoral to do in this society. I think about the natural you misunderstood me because I didn't clarify it, the things he did post rape were natural things to do from my evaluation of his character, the problem is that my evaluation is not the definition as it's everyones else, we only know that part of the man's live but for many this part is already quite conclusive, I'm part of that group. Some psychologist see a certain a amount of narcissism as healthy, off course like everything else it can go to extreme lenghts, I already wrote the rest about narcissism in my last comment. People are made up from traits, so blaming a certain trait of a person is the same as blaming the person except you are more accurate in the description. Blaming a trait is the same as blaming a person.

Dogs are dogs, and they bite. You justified it calling, 'well, he is a narcissist. It is only natural for them.' Essentially, the person's behavior is expected and understandable given they are narcissistic, thus excusing their action, for such acts are natural for them. It isn't, no matter if they are low-life, under influence, narcissistic, lured, etc.

I don't try to justify his behavior, I tried to explain it. Sounds like the same but is quite different, justifying would be finding reasons why his actions are moral, explaining his behavior tries to understand why he did what he did, of course the explanation can be used as a justification when you see the reasons as just. It doesn't matter how natural ones action are, you can say that everything we ever did was natural behavior because we are limited by the brains. Funnily enough there is an argument to be made that he is more moral than real child abuser but most most will see a child abuser as a child abuser no matter what, what is quite understandable.

I see here you have a double standard, yet you very well understand that "Natural" are two different things. One is the nature of things "expected to act like" and the other is "to be low-life". I was going to be quiet, but your double standard couldn't be more evident here: people who call Nature cruel think Nature has this will of doing the bad to people, and you are probably the type of person who humanizes Nature and other things that are not HUMANS.

That's the funny part about people that hate such people, they see them less as human because they don't want to be associated with them. They think that being evil or being good is a choice but we are made by our environment, it's quite questionable how many things we do is our choice because we were raised by our environment that formed who we are, of course nobody cares about that, life is cruel because it is so and not because somebody chose it to be so, agency is quite the questionable thing.
Then it's even more funnier if such a person supports anti animal abuse campaigns, or things that are less then human but the humanity never mattered anyway.

Never confuse the meaning of what NATURE means. Nature is not morality. People have natures, and people have moral acts. It's called Ethic and Morals for a reason. You are saying that everything should be the same, and you fail to understand that Philosophy has debated the separation of these before even the FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Your argument is so silly it is laughable. You cannot understand that people have compulsions (which do not justify their actions)? And to say "It's natural" does not mean someone is saying "Oh, but I of course agree with the act, it's in their nature!" Only a select few individuals who believe in a very exclusive world view that excludes most that which Science and Philosophy has been fighting for are so extreme to fail to understand this; afterall, it's been under the study of PHILOSOPHY, and THEOLOGY, even before SCIENCE was a thing.

I personally see the world as a place where people try to fulfill there hedonic desires and they only see there own truth. Nobody cares about the (objective) truth, everybody cares only about the (subjective) truth. That's were the morality is subjective part comes from and don't mistake myself as believing that I ever said the (objective) truth.
I honestly respect you for at least trying to convince me of your point and I think I could definitely explained it better, but from what I saw you didn't even read my entire comment part about narcissism.
This discussion was definitely fun.

 

[TsumiHokiro]

I honestly respect you for at least trying to convince me of your point and I think I could definitely explained it better, but from what I saw you didn't even read my entire comment part about narcissism.
This discussion was definitely fun.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I wasn't addressing you, hence, I did not address your post. I have no problems with what you said, and therefore, did not quote you. As I mentioned before, I was going to stay quiet until the comment I quoted, and therefore, to me, anything before that is mote. Sorry for ignoring you.

 

[Voidiris]

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I wasn't addressing you, hence, I did not address your post. I have no problems with what you said, and therefore, did not quote you. As I mentioned before, I was going to stay quiet until the comment I quoted, and therefore, to me, anything before that is mote. Sorry for ignoring you.

I wanted to say that to Reina, I should really learn to clarify but most wouldn't get it or even care anyway, it even creates more conflict and I still don't care, whatever .

 

[J_Chemist]

One Two, tickle my shoe.
Three four, I'm gonna splatter his brain matter on the floor.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

How do I commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Please tell me so I don't end up in the same afterlife as child rapists, however repentant.

Essentially, the sin is to reject the works of God and be in open opposition to Him. This is a heart issue, not just a slip of the tongue or a moment of confusion.
A huge flag for this is when one denies the work and person of Jesus Christ. At some point, a person will be unable to turn to God because of stubbornness and hate towards Him.

 

[2wordsperminute]

I personally see the world as a place where people try to fulfill there hedonic desires and they only see there own truth.

The first there should be their btw

 

[Voidiris]

The first there should be their btw

?

 

[2wordsperminute]

?

You're right both need to be their

 

[Reinaislost]

I see here you have a double standard, yet you very well understand that "Natural" are two different things. One is the nature of things "expected to act like" and the other is "to be low-life". I was going to be quiet, but your double standard couldn't be more evident here: people who call Nature cruel think Nature has this will of doing the bad to people, and you are probably the type of person who humanizes Nature and other things that are not HUMANS.

I'm sorry. First, my first inclination was to ignore this since it felt like a huge extrapolation of what I was saying, plus being rude. And I'm not smart, unfortunately (poor justification); I had difficulty understanding some of the points. But I'd try my best to explain. Again, my apologies if my previous instances of communication came off as argumentative.

For this discussion, I'm going to limit the usage of the word 'natural' to 'in accordance with one's nature.' And this is not going to be related to Voidiris; I'm going to concede I'm the major one who is at fault here.

Nature is perhaps not morality, and I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd think the opposite rings true—morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature. Following your lead, I divide it into two categories: our natural behavior (what is expected) and innate traits.

By this definition, if I say my innate trait is that I'm not smart, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it difficult to understand hard subjects. If I say I'm shy, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it hard to enter an ongoing discussion. Similarly, narcissism (ego) is an innate trait, just as compulsiveness is a natural behavior. The innate trait for the latter could vary, but they point out one thing: that they are all human traits. The justification I made is: I'm human; humans find it difficult to understand. And my previous example of 'dogs are dogs, and they bite (natural behavior).'

So yes, you got it right; I can say 'it's in our nature' to the comment that it was natural. It is in our nature, which is precisely why it is expected. But life would be too easy if we could blame everything on the fact that we are humans. Or not being smart for failing an exam.

We understand intuitively that our traits aren't all there is—we aren't code programs (we could be, though). If this were the case, we wouldn't do anything that is outside our natural behaviors; we would not change, foresee, or better ourselves. But we could tell right from wrong (morality), good from bad (judgement), we could be analytical or emotional, etc. They are huge facets that dictate our lives. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believed nature and morality were the same.

The major mistake I made previously was that I said 'under no circumstances, it is natural,' but perhaps it'd be more correct to say, 'under no circumstances, it is right regardless of the nature of the person.' Of course, there may be exceptions, but the thought is that the trait isn't an excuse. The difference of: the person is doing this because he is narcissistic vs. it is natural for a narcissistic person to do this.

Let me know if you have any objections or if I didn't address some parts well. Good day!

 

[Nyctoria]

How do I commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Carefully.

 

[CheertheSecond]

I find this pretty weird.

Wouldn't a good person's greatest nightmare be one where they enjoyed a bad deed? It would not only be super ooc but so contradicting to their true nature that it feels like a demon just possessed them to ruin their life.

Also, would a single mistake like looking away from the street for one second due to some distraction and scoring triple kills from a passing group of kinders made a person vile? Wouldn't they just be a pitiful person?

 

[Voidiris]

First, my first inclination was to ignore this since it felt like a huge extrapolation of what I was saying, plus being rude.

Well yes it is, that doesn't make it any better.

Again, my apologies if my previous instances of communication came off as argumentative.

It only makes sense to be argumentative in such a scenario.

For this discussion, I'm going to limit the usage of the word 'natural' to 'in accordance with one's nature.' And this is not going to be related to Voidiris; I'm going to concede I'm the major one who is at fault here.

No, you just don't ignore me even more and that should be the way I used the word.

Nature is perhaps not morality, and I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd think the opposite rings true—morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature.

Indeed but it's too a part of our personality what we see as good and evil and It would be dehumanizing to think otherwise.

Following your lead, I divide it into two categories: our natural behavior (what is expected) and innate traits.

So our natural behavior are social expectations and our innate traits the ability of our body and in this case our brain.

And my previous example of 'dogs are dogs, and they bite (natural behavior).'

Funnily enough you can train dogs to not bite, the same is true for human, a mistreated dog will definitely bite, of course I don't say that the rapist was mistreated but the alcohol consume could imply a lot. Which would make this situation more interesting by adding a layer of redemption VS retribution. Those who support retribution are here definitely in the majority because the entire societal justice system is based off retribution or how I like to say it vengeance. If someone argued for a redemption based justice system they would support the actions the man took post rape and even find them as good because the man has felt guilty about the actions.

So yes, you got it right; I can say 'it's in our nature' to the comment that it was natural. It is in our nature, which is precisely why it is expected. But life would be too easy if we could blame everything on the fact that we are humans. Or not being smart for failing an exam.

Well we can definitely blame everything on the fact that we are human but that wouldn't be helpful

We understand intuitively that our traits aren't all there is—we aren't code programs (we could be, though).

Indeed traits are just a describtion to our current state of mind and we are code programs that take in information and change our behavior with the information gained, or not when the information is too different to ours or the current memeplex is hostile to the potential new information. I called our personalities btw an memeplex.

If this were the case, we wouldn't do anything that is outside our natural behaviors; we would not change, foresee, or better ourselves.

Why can't change be a part of our nature, refer to the above comments.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believed nature and morality were the same.

I don't know why he thought that but you definetly sounded like a person that sees morality as objective, people justify or the reason they do that is because they are religious or see morality as a part of nature.

The difference of: the person is doing this because he is narcissistic vs. it is natural for a narcissistic person to do this.

I explained it already two times I mean what his post rape actions were natural if he was a person that had lower imhibitiom and in a drunken state raped his child, after that he realized it and he probably has stopped using alcohol or drunk even more, his ego, his narcissism was shattered by this because he saw that they aren't a good person, then he tried to make up for it or rather he wanted to repair his ego by showing that he can be a good person. I don't know the backstory so I needed to make some logical assumptions.

Wouldn't a good person's greatest nightmare be one where they enjoyed a bad deed? It would not only be super ooc but so contradicting to their true nature that it feels like a demon just possessed them to ruin their life.

Indeed, it would be the worst expirence for the moral narcissism of a person.

Also, would a single mistake like looking away from the street for one second due to some distraction and scoring triple kills from a passing group of kinders made a person vile? Wouldn't they just be a pitiful person?

No it wouldn't, in this society you are either a horrible monster or a good person, there are only bad and good person for most and one instance of such a case will most already hate them even if they themself are the result of the failures of society. Understanding, empathy and such are things are just things the moral ego desires to have, even if they are bullshit.

 

[Azure_Fog]

My opinion is very simple~ Not my problem~

 

[TsumiHokiro]

I'm sorry. First, my first inclination was to ignore this since it felt like a huge extrapolation of what I was saying, plus being rude. And I'm not smart, unfortunately (poor justification); I had difficulty understanding some of the points. But I'd try my best to explain. Again, my apologies if my previous instances of communication came off as argumentative.

For this discussion, I'm going to limit the usage of the word 'natural' to 'in accordance with one's nature.' And this is not going to be related to Voidiris; I'm going to concede I'm the major one who is at fault here.

Nature is perhaps not morality, and I'd be inclined to agree, but I'd think the opposite rings true—morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature. Following your lead, I divide it into two categories: our natural behavior (what is expected) and innate traits.

By this definition, if I say my innate trait is that I'm not smart, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it difficult to understand hard subjects. If I say I'm shy, my natural behavior would be that I'd find it hard to enter an ongoing discussion. Similarly, narcissism (ego) is an innate trait, just as compulsiveness is a natural behavior. The innate trait for the latter could vary, but they point out one thing: that they are all human traits. The justification I made is: I'm human; humans find it difficult to understand. And my previous example of 'dogs are dogs, and they bite (natural behavior).'

So yes, you got it right; I can say 'it's in our nature' to the comment that it was natural. It is in our nature, which is precisely why it is expected. But life would be too easy if we could blame everything on the fact that we are humans. Or not being smart for failing an exam.

We understand intuitively that our traits aren't all there is—we aren't code programs (we could be, though). If this were the case, we wouldn't do anything that is outside our natural behaviors; we would not change, foresee, or better ourselves. But we could tell right from wrong (morality), good from bad (judgement), we could be analytical or emotional, etc. They are huge facets that dictate our lives. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believed nature and morality were the same.

The major mistake I made previously was that I said 'under no circumstances, it is natural,' but perhaps it'd be more correct to say, 'under no circumstances, it is right regardless of the nature of the person.' Of course, there may be exceptions, but the thought is that the trait isn't an excuse. The difference of: the person is doing this because he is narcissistic vs. it is natural for a narcissistic person to do this.

Let me know if you have any objections or if I didn't address some parts well. Good day!

If I was rude to you, it was because what you wrote seemed to me to be extremely rude as well, but let's get to facts:

It's very unusual to define something using the same word, not very define-y. An egg is an egg-y shaped thing. Not very explicative at all. What is "one's nature" in the end? You never told me what you expected it to be by the end of your definition. Only later on do you dabble a bit more on it, and you are talking about "traits" and, once again, "natural" behaviour. What is natural to you? It is also different from "innate", for "innate" means you are born with, or are you saying "natural" is something "innate" to people?

Allow me to politely disagree with this: "morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature." You have not searched what is Ethics and what is Moral. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply the concepts quite a bit, but not without losing most of their differences.
Ethics are things you wish and not wish to be done to yourself just by existing. YOURSELF. You do not wish people to kill you because you wish to live. You wish to have food because you do not wish to hunger. You wish to have clothes because you do not wish to feel cold or burn under the hot Sun. Thanks to these, you also understand the wish of others similar to yourself (most likely humans, but also animals) for they also will have these same needs.
Morals are things that only exist because we live in groups: I shall pay with money instead of demanding good exchange, I shall not post lewd content because it is bad for children's upbringing and might offend others, I shall obey to my boss because they're my work senior. Morals makes it possible for social life possible with its many nuances, without so many conflicts.

Morals, however, are not naturally understood. They require people to live in Society, whereas Ethics are 'naturally' understood, since all you require is to be alive and have a will. Therefore, people more often than not fail their Morals than their Ethics.

Which gets me to the point, why did I assume you were someone who assumed Morals is a natural thing? Because before you admitted it right now on this post of yours (You do not understand the difference between Ethics and Morals) your "Dog" example is the very thing which reminds me of people who do not understand that "Ethics" are different from "Morality". A Trait may or may not be a permanent feature of someone, but you are treating them as permanent features.

If you had a more scientific mindset, you wouldn't blame dogs for biting people, but instead wonder what went wrong for it to have to bite the person. See, I'm not saying it's OK for the dog to bite people (something is wrong!) but it might not have been the dog's fault at all.

And to finish this, we are not born with this seemly magical skill of being able to know what is right and what is wrong, but we learn it as we grow up from the tender age of newborn to the end of our lives. We live in society, and it is society that dictates what is right and what is wrong. You would do well to remember that our values today are very different from those of a hundred years ago, which were even more different from those of a hundred years. And on and on. Time changes society, which changes its values.

 

[Voidiris]

If I was rude to you, it was because what you wrote seemed to me to be extremely rude as well, but let's get to facts:

It's very unusual to define something using the same word, not very define-y. An egg is an egg-y shaped thing. Not very explicative at all. What is "one's nature" in the end? You never told me what you expected it to be by the end of your definition. Only later on do you dabble a bit more on it, and you are talking about "traits" and, once again, "natural" behaviour. What is natural to you? It is also different from "innate", for "innate" means you are born with, or are you saying "natural" is something "innate" to people?

Allow me to politely disagree with this: "morality, the ability to tell right from wrong, is in our nature." You have not searched what is Ethics and what is Moral. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply the concepts quite a bit, but not without losing most of their differences.
Ethics are things you wish and not wish to be done to yourself just by existing. YOURSELF. You do not wish people to kill you because you wish to live. You wish to have food because you do not wish to hunger. You wish to have clothes because you do not wish to feel cold or burn under the hot Sun. Thanks to these, you also understand the wish of others similar to yourself (most likely humans, but also animals) for they also will have these same needs.
Morals are things that only exist because we live in groups: I shall pay with money instead of demanding good exchange, I shall not post lewd content because it is bad for children's upbringing and might offend others, I shall obey to my boss because they're my work senior. Morals makes it possible for social life possible with its many nuances, without so many conflicts.

Morals, however, are not naturally understood. They require people to live in Society, whereas Ethics are 'naturally' understood, since all you require is to be alive and have a will. Therefore, people more often than not fail their Morals than their Ethics.

Which gets me to the point, why did I assume you were someone who assumed Morals is a natural thing? Because before you admitted it right now on this post of yours (You do not understand the difference between Ethics and Morals) your "Dog" example is the very thing which reminds me of people who do not understand that "Ethics" are different from "Morality". A Trait may or may not be a permanent feature of someone, but you are treating them as permanent features.

If you had a more scientific mindset, you wouldn't blame dogs for biting people, but instead wonder what went wrong for it to have to bite the person. See, I'm not saying it's OK for the dog to bite people (something is wrong!) but it might not have been the dog's fault at all.

And to finish this, we are not born with this seemly magical skill of being able to know what is right and what is wrong, but we learn it as we grow up from the tender age of newborn to the end of our lives. We live in society, and it is society that dictates what is right and what is wrong. You would do well to remember that our values today are very different from those of a hundred years ago, which were even more different from those of a hundred years. And on and on. Time changes society, which changes its values.

I think I will have an emotional breakdown if Reina responses to you.