On Hell and Forgiveness

[Neo-Scholastic]

And therein lies the rub...you do not differentiate between accidental and essential properties except when you want to justify some secular morality based on the recognition of a common humanity, i.e. an essential human nature. Sorry, Jor, you cannot have it both ways.

I don't see how that in any way follows from what I said and seems like nothing more than an off-topic snipe. You're simply talking out of your ass again.
And you still don't understand what I have said on the subject and so are attacking a straw man of your own making.
Feel free to answer any of the questions Roadie hasn't answered. Or crawl back in your hole as you're wont to do.

I didn’t mean it as a snipe. Sounds like another example of casual writing not conveying the tone that comes from non-verbal cues. Nevertheless, I could indeed be misinterpreting your position, hence your accusation of my setting up a straw man. Be that as it may, I try to understand each of your posts as part of your overall philosophy. I assume you are striving towards intellectual integrity and I try to treat you as a complex individual rather than just a series of unconnected posts.

I am responding directly to your admission of being a mereological nihilist, i.e. that only fundamental particles and their interactions have true ontological status and these cannot be meaningfully assembled into wholes having distinct properties. On its own this seems like a defensible position and in that way is similar to other defensible positions like idealism and epiphenomenalism. It shares with those positions the ability to stand on its own against nearly all objections but doesn’t seem to integrate well with other philosophical concerns. Nihilism in one area has a tendency to spread out and taint positive positions. The Continental tradition seems to have embraced and resigned itself to the inevitability of nihilism and considers the analytic tradition woefully blind in that regard. As do I.

As such, I do not see how the arguments you make here can be made to work with the moral philosophy you’ve expressed elsewhere. If only fundamental particles have ontological status then a composite entity, like a human beings, doesn’t truly have ontological status. And since there cannot be actual facts about things that do not truly exist, it follows that there cannot be moral facts about human beings. I do not consider it off-topic to discuss with another AF member the implications his or her positions on one thread have on others.