WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

People criticize the laws in religious text because “why should some imaginary sky daddy tell you what to do?” when in reality it’s what our ancestors wrote from experience to create a happier, well adjusted society.

[–] 1 pt

Our ancestors wrote it down, but where did it come from? From them? No, such creative inspiration does not originate from human consciousness, it comes from a deeper source. All artists know this. These laws, which are designed to allow a human society to thrive and grow, came from some higher source of inspiration. Don't want to call it God? Why not? What's so terrible about admitting that there is a creative, inspirational source of good in the universe that can help and direct us, if we listen to it?

I would say based off my own life, that there has to be a God. A lot of times, things will happen in my life which outside of divine inspiration makes absolutely no sense, and are way to specific to have happened by chance

[–] 0 pt

Well, 1 outta 3 ain't bad. Tradition CAN be good, as long as the reasons it became a tradition still occur. Sometimes that is the case, but often tradition is just dead people's baggage, from a world that no longer exist

[–] 2 pts

This is the argument for deconstruction. And it has some points. But this argument has been used to discard traditions willy-nilly and that's a dangerous thing to do. You need to know, not just theorize, the reason for a tradition you wish to displace, because human societies have competed with each other for thousands of years (if not tens or hundreds of thousands), and those societies with traditions that worked better for them for whatever reason were selected for.

Holding traditions as sacrosanct is a strict conservative position, and societies do have to adapt to new conditions, so being strictly conservative isn't the best position, at least in my humble opinion. But I can respect them.

[–] 0 pt

Right on the center.