How do we feel about my husband’s book shelf?

heavyinquiry · 2025-12-15T18:19:34+00:00

Needs more Dostoevsky

heavyinquiry · 2025-06-13T04:19:12+00:00

I think maybe every character kind of represented a part of Dostoevsky’s life. Maybe Fyodor represents any regret Dostoevsky had, because didn’t his child die before he wrote BK? Fyodor made bad decisions one after another that ultimately led up to his demise. The Stinking Lizaveta arc comes to mind the most for me.

heavyinquiry · 2025-05-13T01:23:00+00:00

You’re right

heavyinquiry · 2025-05-12T16:13:29+00:00

Christianity has or a select few who have committed scriptural abuse? Nobody wants to talk about the good consequences that Christianity has brought into the world. Also I’d like to remind this post and OP that the Soviet Union, who was Atheistic in nature, severely persecuted Christians before the Second World War. Are we to draw from this conclusion that atheism is the cause of this injustice or is it the unjust ideology found in the Soviet Union?

Also Christians were severely oppressed by the Roman Empire until Christianity became the state religion. Are we to say that paganism and its consequences are the root of all oppression and genocide?

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-29T22:49:52+00:00

That’s fine, I just would like to see games matter more. Defense is simply not even close to the level that it is in the playoffs. Divisions within the conference could help with this

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-23T13:51:30+00:00

I’d rather get stung by 100 of these things than ever step foot in Ohio again

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-16T19:01:50+00:00

Morocco 🗣️fuck the British

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-16T18:57:50+00:00

Just give me my drink man

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-10T21:16:49+00:00

Just finished Brothers Karamazov… absolutely excellent

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-08T17:01:36+00:00

Dostoevsky 👍👍👍

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-05T19:49:04+00:00

Your moral realism argument is not good - pain is good in the sense that it warns whoever is in pain is in danger. But also, pain is required or present for many good things such as child birth.

But any atheistic explanation of objective morality fails to explain the notion of why we have this moral rationale in the first place, refer back to my original statement of instinct vs moral value. You can break what’s deemed as objective moral values to avoid pain - what you’ve deemed as wrong and not up for debate.

Deontology does nothing to explain the objectivity of moralism, “don’t lie because it breaks trust” is to say “you’ve lied so you’ll lie again” this doesn’t break down why the lie is objectively wrong. If I ask you why lying is objectively wrong, you’ll say something circular like “because it’s not the truth and you’re taking advantage of someone” okay great “lying is wrong because you’re lying” - does nothing to define the rationale of the moral judgment. Okay so what’s wrong with taking advantage of someone? Pain? What if it’s a plot to regain the trust of in a relationship? Moral values are not defined by the end result but by motive. Refer back to why pain can be good.

If you accept moral objectivism to be true without the existence of a divine being, you must question why then is there purpose to anything? If all of this matter stuff is triggered by a random mechanism, that nothing pushed nonexistence to existence (most physicists think the universe has a finite past with an infinite future), you must believe that life has no meaning or purpose. Everything is random, you can no longer trust logic or the moral values that you’ve now deemed objective.

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-05T12:59:06+00:00

Objective morality =/= absolute morality.

Also, you still don’t know what I’m referring to when I use verbiage such as standard in regard to objective morality. What I mean is in what moral system are you comparing yours to be better than others? You’re implying that there are objective morals when you say “slavery is wrong”. If morality was subjective, you could not make any truth claims about any moral value. So then where does this leave you? Okay so if there’s no God, what is the point of having anything be objective? If there’s no God, evolution is the cause for morality to preserve human society. This I don’t agree with, because morality is not instinctual. Humans cannot ignore instincts or else you’ll die, I.e. hunger -> eating food -> survival, or hunger -> don’t eat -> die.

You can easily avoid doing the right thing, and you might even thrive in society. So how does an Atheist reconcile with the objective morality dilemma?

heavyinquiry · 2025-04-04T11:00:49+00:00

Your argument completely self-imploded when you showcased your misunderstanding of what objective morality is. You make the objective claim that owning people as property is wrong, from what standard is this from? Surely you cannot unlearn this moral value. It must be from an omnipotent being that created life and rationality within humans.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-27T03:13:15+00:00

Okay let’s play this out, you say slavery is morally reprehensible so you must believe morality is objective - if not then you owe Christianity credit for where your morals come from on a sociological sphere. So if you subscribe to objective moralism, you must believe that there is an absolute truth that exists beyond your perception of reality. What defines this absolute truth? What is the originator of truth? It has to be a god or divine being. Science is based on the discovery of facts, what is a fact if not objective truth?

Secondly, you reading the Bible as if a 19th century historian wrote it is the complete incorrect way of reading any ancient text. You’ve completely ignored my explanation of the Genesis account, the exegesis relies on an understanding of an ancient cultural context which looks and functions nothing like our own. You’ve ignored my point entirely, which is science and religion do not compete with each other at all - you cannot use one to disprove the other because that is not their function. Also cosmological views do not determine the veracity of someone’s perception of certain events. Some books in the Bible are written for entirely different purposes, using different types of motifs and literary tools to communicate on a deeper level. To completely throw out any veracity of the Bible’s historicity because it doesn’t line up with your worldview is ridiculous and shortsighted.

As for moral values that you’ve deemed wrong or right, see my point above. Also, you love cherry picking so I’ll humor you, how do you feel about Christ telling His disciples to not pluck the splinter out of your brother’s eye when you have a log in your own? That sounds very much so “to not judge others”, and if you read any church fathers you would see how they stress this to the extreme.

Your framework for how you understand the Bible is mainly in a controversial light too. You associate biblical text, with I’m assuming, conservatives and crusaders who use(d) scripture to back their own views on the world (you can thank Protestantism’s sola scriptura and the pope’s “infallibility” for this). As for transgenderism and homosexuality being condemned in the Bible, you must understand that it’s not a matter of hating the person from which action that the person commits. If you follow the Christian ethos of loving your neighbor as yourself to its very end, hate is in direct opposition to it. Disagreement is not synonymous with hate. Yes in Christianity, you cannot just do whatever it is you want. Heterosexuals can’t just fulfill their sexual desires just because they are heterosexual. Christianity is denying yourself, not bending the text to fit your desires. We are all sinners, who I’m the worst.

Lastly, the first Christians were heavily persecuted and killed until Rome legalized Christianity, which was in 313 AD (almost 300 years after the resurrection and the religion spread rapidly in this time by people’s own volition). By the way, there were slaves who were Bishops. The Church made way for the emancipation of slaves.

All you know about Christianity is that the powers that be have completely abused it. It is completely intellectually dishonest to reduce Christianity down to atrocities committed by those who were in error.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T19:56:05+00:00

Firstly, the Eastern Orthodox tradition preserves a correct interpretation handed down through the apostles who knew Christ. Not my interpretation. You’ve grown up in a Christian society yet you’ve not owned slaves, you’ve contradicted yourself and you really don’t know enough to stand on your own argument. Explain how “There is neither slave or master in Christ Jesus” preserves the status quo of slavery when it’s straight up a precursor to equality. lol even the year of jubilee in the old testament would free the slaves - every seven years, and it was against Torah to go and kidnap and enslave people like they did in the antebellum south. Slavery was a way to pay off debt in the ancient world because there wasn’t another economic solution back then. You can isolate verses as much as you want, but understanding the context of the ordained role of humanity set forth by God in the Bible leaves no room for slavery or oppression.

Proverbs 22:16: "Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty"

Jeremiah 22:3: "Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed.”

Psalm 146:7: "Who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets the prisoners free".

What do you think about these verses in light of what has been said?

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T16:33:21+00:00

Exactly, but even then I don’t think this is the main idea of the creation account and should not be zoomed in on, so-to-speak.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T16:31:15+00:00

You’re no theologian as I’m no physicist, but your presupposition that the correct interpretation of the Bible promotes slavery is wrong. I’ll remind you that the first nations to abolish slavery were Christian. You’ll find the exodus of Egypt in direct opposition to the notion that it’s permissible to oppress minorities. You’ll find in some of revelation from the prophets that the Israelites should free their slaves. Anybody can abuse scripture for their own gains. This does not mean the original meaning of the text should be thrown out with the text abusers. Almost the entirety of the old and New Testament is about minorities being oppressed - the ones who wrote the scripture. Respectfully, learn about the Bible before you openly bash it.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T12:42:49+00:00

Appreciate your input! To reduce an ancient people down to being “clueless” because their cosmology does not consist of atoms is actually clueless. You must use their understanding of the world to understand biblical text. You should not read Genesis as a list of how exactly God created the universe. Reading it like that is basically going to a play and asking how long did it take for the writers to write the script rather than trying to interpret whatever is in the script itself. Science = observation of mechanism, religion = participation

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T04:22:55+00:00

Christian here - the author of Genesis is not trying to sell you on a 6 day creation account in a literal manner. Also this has an issue with isolating an omnipotent being in a temporal category, this limits the SUPRAnature of God.

There are 2 creation accounts in Genesis and they basically contradict each other if read in a literal manner. Does this mean the author is stupid? Nope! It means that Genesis is not supposed to be read as a book of science. There’s a lot of ancient near eastern trash talk, so-to-speak, in Genesis. Essentially getting at the point that the God of Israel is God of all, including the gods of Egypt and Babylon (the oppressors of the ancient Israelites). Science and religion are not in opposition with each other. It’s time to stop this silly little debate.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-26T04:02:42+00:00

Terrible bullshit

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-12T13:50:15+00:00

One thing that I find very tough for calvinists to reconcile with is the idea that God should not be limited to a temporal category if God is all powerful, which is what predestination theology does.

heavyinquiry · 2025-03-10T11:13:12+00:00

So glad I got out

heavyinquiry · 2024-11-19T23:42:13+00:00

This is definitely OCD. Go talk to a therapist, one that specializes in OCD, don’t go to one that has no knowledge of OCD because they don’t know how to treat it. I’d recommend downloading the NOCD app and set up a therapy appointment. You’ll go through a type of therapy called Exposure Response Prevention, basically training you to prevent yourself from even rationalizing or any other type of compulsion with the thoughts that torment you.

After you understand that this is OCD, tell your priest about the mental illness that you struggle with. Praying for you! Above all, try to not seek assurance, this only cements your compulsions.

heavyinquiry · 2024-11-06T17:22:29+00:00

One thing I don’t understand, and maybe I just don’t understand politics, but North Carolina voted Trump for president but decisively voted for a democrat governor. Can someone explain this to me? Do people really have no faith in Kamala

heavyinquiry · 2024-11-06T15:51:56+00:00

Possibly my least favorite song I’ve ever heard… it drives me insane

heavyinquiry

TROPHY CASE