> I asked because I realized there's something we probably already agree on, as long as one twist is accounted for.
I'm sure we'd agree on many matters, at least those that belong squarely to the material realm. That's the good thing about material realm that as people think more and figure out more they gravitate towards unitary understanding of reality. Conversely when people ponder religious subjects they tend to very quickly split into myriad of denominations, each with their own mutually contradictory perfect revealed truths plain to understand, at least according to them.
> Even while we may disagree whether God exists, we can agree that such fake faith healers are criminals when money gets involved, right?
Even on moral matters we might largely agree, as long as we stick to humanistic morality, as distilled in Western culture with roots in biology of being members of a very social species. It's only when a person gets close to religion their morality gets twisted and evil starts to look like good and some good starts to look like evil.
I can fully agree that exploiting guillibility of others (esp vulnerable ones) for your own benefit (whatever it might be, monetary or not) and at their detriment, stealing their money, wasting their time and messing up their model of the world so it's less aligned with reality, is in fact a very evil. And any moral being should easily recognize evilness of it.
> I think you can agree everyone's Priority Number One Arrow should point at God. When someone's arrow isn't pointed at God, that's idolatry.
If in your religion giving someone your top priority is how you properly worship a God and only God deserves this kind of priority than yes, giving top priority to anything else (a hobby, a scam, but also your child, elderly parent or a beloved spouse) might be seen as idolatry from the point of view of your religion. It fits the definition of idolatry I cited. I hope it's not lost on you how evil it is, at least to anyone for anyone who's morality was not twisted by religion, to demand you don't give your loved one a top priority, because of how much harm to individuals and society that demand does bring.
> If this makes sense, let me know and I can get to the twist. Or maybe you can figure out the twist before I say it.
Please do continue. I'm curious where do your thoughts lead. Unfortunately I can't offer any guess.
If you __sincerely__ want to understand the answer to your question about babies dying, you should try steelmanning. It’s the opposite of strawmanning.
Steelmanning would not take the evil committed by humans and hang that around God's neck and blame him. Steelmanning would accept that free will means people can do things that God wouldn't himself choose, and when they do evil, they don't represent him.
Steelmanning would accept that if a Supreme Being exists, then that being is indeed supreme -- even though babies are precious, the supreme being has even more worth because he is supreme.
You and I have the same emotional reaction to something that violates our top priorities (humankind esp loved ones for you, God and then humankind esp loved ones for me)
Everyone's got a top priority. If there is a supreme being, the right top priority arrow should point at that being. Including the supreme being's own top priority arrow!
Otherwise God would be an idolater.
Many will find this repugnant. I know. Probably because we are accustomed to thinking on the level of fellow humans, we're all each worth exactly one human, no more no less.
But if you honestly want to know how this other math works, this is it. We're in the middle of a symphony and parts might sound like they need some resolution. And in the end there will be resolution and the whole symphony will show his supremacy in the _end_ because only in the end are all accounts truly settled. Before the end, things will appear incorrect.
Actually the easiest way to reconcile this in your mind is to imagine you're, say, a Van Halen fan at one of their concerts at the height of their popularity. You want them to go absolutely nuts on stage showing off, because they're the best band ever. When they magnify themselves on stage, it's what you paid to see.
Either you honestly want to understand and you'll steelman or you really just wanted to be a critic and you won't. Btw, I replied on the other branch as well
I'm sure we'd agree on many matters, at least those that belong squarely to the material realm. That's the good thing about material realm that as people think more and figure out more they gravitate towards unitary understanding of reality. Conversely when people ponder religious subjects they tend to very quickly split into myriad of denominations, each with their own mutually contradictory perfect revealed truths plain to understand, at least according to them.
> Even while we may disagree whether God exists, we can agree that such fake faith healers are criminals when money gets involved, right?
Even on moral matters we might largely agree, as long as we stick to humanistic morality, as distilled in Western culture with roots in biology of being members of a very social species. It's only when a person gets close to religion their morality gets twisted and evil starts to look like good and some good starts to look like evil.
I can fully agree that exploiting guillibility of others (esp vulnerable ones) for your own benefit (whatever it might be, monetary or not) and at their detriment, stealing their money, wasting their time and messing up their model of the world so it's less aligned with reality, is in fact a very evil. And any moral being should easily recognize evilness of it.
> I think you can agree everyone's Priority Number One Arrow should point at God. When someone's arrow isn't pointed at God, that's idolatry.
If in your religion giving someone your top priority is how you properly worship a God and only God deserves this kind of priority than yes, giving top priority to anything else (a hobby, a scam, but also your child, elderly parent or a beloved spouse) might be seen as idolatry from the point of view of your religion. It fits the definition of idolatry I cited. I hope it's not lost on you how evil it is, at least to anyone for anyone who's morality was not twisted by religion, to demand you don't give your loved one a top priority, because of how much harm to individuals and society that demand does bring.
> If this makes sense, let me know and I can get to the twist. Or maybe you can figure out the twist before I say it.
Please do continue. I'm curious where do your thoughts lead. Unfortunately I can't offer any guess.