he is perfectly moral

Moral is a touchy word, especially around deontologists

morality can be both but most of it is objective

like wasting water isn't that immoral when you live in an area where there is a lot of it but it's immoral in the desert

on the other hand things like murder is always immoral

even some of the stuff that doesn't make direct sense like sodomy or keeping families together is subject to objective morality.

@Eoppa hmm why?

They make a distinction between ethics, which is what everyone else calls morals anyways. And morals which is the application of ethics to them.

Ancaps usually use this distinction with the NAP

i dont understand how can someone disagree with god

he is the creator

the whole universe is made by him

And is continually sustained by him.

besides that rules that are made by yourself are arbitrary

why shouldnt it be anything else

@Florida Man anyway perhaps I do but I must dine at a suppertime feast first

Alright then

<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question 🔖

-Do you think that the Christians actually started the fire during Nero's reign in the Roman Empire? Why would they do so, and did Nero do well that he blamed them?

no

I think the filthy disgusting city started the fire

Probably not

It's very unlikely, and well, considering Christians were Nero's enemies, he did well. He did what he had to do, destroy his enemies.

Not really

Hmm. No, I do not think Christians did it. I don't see a motive. They were already outcasts as is, easy targets, hence why Nero blamed them so easily.

I agree, Christians had no motive for starting the fire

That and Nero was a bit paranoid

They had a motive, and a very good one, but they just didn't.

the houses were build pretty closely together.
it got started by accident but spread really fast.

wasnt nero the only emperor to convert to judaism?

yeah he was lmao http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11445-nero

I normally dislike Catholics but I'll make an exception because this one is very polite

I have 5 questions for Eoppa

Question 1. Christ stated that the church cannot fail, and that the church is that body which is comprised by the offices passed down by the apostles. But it is also true that the church is that body which possesses the true interpretation of scripture. According to Catholic doctrine, is it a) impossible for the current church to misinterpret scripture or b) possible for the church to misinterpret scripture upon which point the offices will be taken up by people who have not been anointed by a predecessor but possess the true interpretation?

Question 2. It is Catholic doctrine that a person possessing an office of the church cannot spread false doctrine while acting in his office. When do we know whether or not he is acting in his office? Is it when he is influenced by God? How do we know when that is? Is it just when he is speaking the truth? How do we know what the truth is if not verified by the grace of his office?

Question 3. Are you aware of any historical claims made by the Eastern Orthodox Church to apostolic legitimacy? Are they false or unfalsifiable? Or does that church claim to be the true church simply by the truth of its doctrine?

Question 4. Suppose a place where the true church has not ever visited. Suppose also a genuine bible makes its way into that place. Suppose lastly that a person reads the bible and comes to the same interpretation of the scripture disseminated by the true church. This person does not have church authority, but if they acted according to the accidentally (or perhaps divinely) inspired true interpretation of the scripture, would they then be acting with church authority?

Question 4.5: Do you agree with Vatican II?

Question 5. The officials of the church in the medieval ages were meant to disseminate the truth of the scripture to the people who could not read the bible. But the masses were held in Latin. Is this a contradiction or were the priests also supposed to teach the scripture in vernacular alongside the mass? Bonus: If the conduction of the mass in Latin did not have to do with teaching the scripture to the masses, why, then did Vatican II demand that the mass be conducted in vernacular?

Bonus question: Orthodox architecture is superior to Catholic architecture. Sorry, this is not a question, this is a fact.

@Eoppa done

Who the hell takes a 1 hour walk