From my frame of mind, this is basically the route that KT takes: Making me the issue.
Switch the discussion from the extent to which you do address my point above, to a discussion of what I am doing here. Once I am exposed to be what you claim that I am in these discussions, the substantive discussion itself is beside the point.
So, I can only leave it to others to decide for themselves which of us is closer to whatever the whole truth here might possibly be.
Guilty as charged if I am being accused of focusing the exchange on the actual points being raised in the OP.
That’s what creating other threads is for, right? This thread allows those who do believe that the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave will reconfigure into their imagined fate on the other side of the grave.
But what does that mean when he or she encounters others who challenge the behaviors they choose. Either because their God has a different set of Commandments or because they do not believe in God at all.
Something [God or No God] is “in their head” “here and now” that prompts them to choose one set of behaviors rather than another. With zinnatt, I was interested in exploring both the manner in which he himself connected the dots here, and the manner in which he reacted to the components of my own moral narrative.
You’ll have to be more detailed here. I don’t even know what this is actually in reference to. Start from the beginning. What original quote, what response to it? What hypothetical tangent?
I was merely reacting to your driving on whatever side of the road “convention” by bringing it down to earth. What if a nation driving on the left merged with a nation driving on the right. And what if this behavior was a factor in regard to the OP. A behavior, in other words, that a God, the God, my God judged.
Or, for that matter, what if the merger involved a more controversial issue, like the death penalty. England abolished it in 1999, not so in any number of jurisdictions in America.
Does your own God include capital punishment in the commandment “thou shalt not kill”?
Right, like someone is forcing you to respond to me.
And one thing still has not changed: You have your God, you have your objective morality, you have your comfort and consolation.
So, for all practical purposes – and you know how important that is to me – you win. I have none of that.
Just thought of something…
You have your God, KT does not. You have your objective morality, KT does not. So, you have a frame of mind that begets a level of comfort and consolation that might be compared and contrasted to the comfort and consolation that KT’s pragmatism begets.
Why don’t the two of you beget a new thread. Discuss this given a context that most of us will be familiar with.
Not only to explore in more depth your own respective comforts and consolations, but to provide all the rest of us with an example of an exchange that entirely avoids all of the narcissistic pratfalls that my own posts exude.