u/Lord-of-the---RINGS

House Frey's whole deal was charging a toll whenever someone wanted to use their bridge and Rob had to too by marrying a daughter. But the riverlands were at war at the time and the Tully's, their leige lords were directly under attack so every river lord was honor bound to help against the Lannisters so I dont get why they even had the right to ask a price for passage. Like I get charging a toll if the northmen wanted to cross to get to the reach or something but this was directly to help the Tully's, so denying the Starks passage was basically equal to denying the Tully's passage at a time of war. I'm not a historian but I don't think you can charge your own ally to cross like that in the middle of the war. That's like house Reed charging the Starks for allowing them to garisson Moat Calin in the middle of a literal war no Reed in their right mind would do that. Did this actually happen in midieval times?

Biological consciousness is designed never to stay satisfied. You feel an emptiness, you work to fill it, you experience a brief spike of relief, and then the baseline resets, forcing you to start hunting for the next fix. You work to maintain a body that inevitably decays anyway. If you don't exist you can't suffer at all. Humans freak out at this because the first thing our brain is programmed to think of is us losing the things we like and missing them but in reality once you no longer exist that feeling of wanting or missing things goes away too so that feeling is basically just FOMO. An unborn person doesn't have to deal with any of life's probelms but they don't miss anything about life either because they don't have a consciousness to do that.

I don't really get what was noble about it. Because wouldnt Jesus just know he can come back to life? I mean he could just turn off his nerves or something to prevent himself from feeling any pain at all. He only stayed "dead" for three days (I don't really get the significance of three days because couldnt he just come back immediately?). And why sacrifice himself on the cross to himself? I mean he could've just forgiven the world's sins normally why was the crucification part necessary? And after he came back, why did he just leave to get milk? He didn't even stay long enough to write the bible himself he left it to his disciples who we know nothing about and are just expected to trust them and believe that the bible was "divinely inspired" even tho Jesus himself never wrote it. His whole thing was his unparalleled love for everyone so why would he just leave with just a promise of coming back later and it's been more than two millennia since he's been gone. Make it make sense

I was recently having a discussion with my mom and we started to talk about a recent suicide that happend in the family. According to her said person was a traitor to the family and she chose to throw away the gift of life and cause everyone grief. After I said that people have the rights to do what they want with a gift even refuse it she said that "no it's a gift that you aren't allowed to throw away" because making people takes up a lot of resources so while you're "the owner you're not the main shareholder" so once you are born you have to live and you have to have kids because that's part of the duty. This is just insane. I think it's just practically psychotic that we are totally okay we bringing living beings to this world but they aren't allowed to leave if they want to, and then are expected to bring more people themselves because that's what society wants.

As a species becomes more intelligent, it gains the ability to step back and analyze the mechanics of life objective by objective. Eventually it will come to the realization that natural selection is a blind, ruthless engine that crafts feeling beings simply to consume, reproduce, and suffer, with no grand purpose at the end of it. We are starting to know and accept that and even today when anything that goes against the pronatalist agenda is seen as bad, u still see more and more people choosing to be childfree and many becoming antinatalists because logically, life is something completely unnecessary and chaotic and introduces unnecessary risk while non existnce has none of that. Could it be that the natural path of every intelligent species is to inevitably arrive to this conclusion and peacefully die out.

I don't think God is real, and that morality isn't something divine in any way. So as far as I understand morality is something that naturally evolved alongside us as we are social animals and things like feeding the poor or helping eachother keep the pack alive so on a fundamental level this type of "selflessness" is just pragmatic.

If someone acts "evil" they are a danger to the pack and face consequences so on a fundamental level not being "evil" is pragmatic for the individual too because of the fear of consequences . But what about situations where someone can get away without consequences. Like say u have a Nestle CEO or billionaire who has the option to do something selfish that's immoral but legal, so no consequences. In that case there's no chain holding them back except for empathy, which is itself something that has evolved alongside us to make sure we can survive and breed. Animals like wolves and elephants are capable of this empathy as well showing that this isn't something unique to us.

But we don't see sociopathic elephants that go against the herd. But humans, as their intellect grew probably began asking the question of why they must obey moral codes in such situations where they can get away with stuff. So I guess that's where religion played it's role do good get heaven do bad get Hell. Even this morality was ultimately subjective as people back then thought stuff like being gay was immoral too as they were all man made rules too.

So the way I see it, there's two things holding societys morality together like glue 1. Empathy 2. Pragmatism/consequences so whoever can bypass these safeguards...there's essentially norfinf stopping them from acting like Eric Cartman? Like the idea of there being no hell or heaven or divine scoreboard seems idk like we are all living in an anarchy server, but everyone has made up rules to help each other survive but over time the rules became engrained in our lives to point they became almost like facts so they are only real so long as you have a pragmatic reason to follow them or beleive in them?

My cousin took her life and I don't know how to feel about it

We'd been friends since middle school and we were quite close. She used to talk alot about stuff like nihilism, mortality god and was an antinatlist too. She had wanted to "opt out" of life or at least talked about it since she was 15.

She had a pretty priveleged life and yet was still unhappy. I feel kind of angry, especially after seeing all the grief and damage she caused, because while she did have some issues, her life for the most part wasn't bad the only problems she had were that she was probably neurodivergent, had anxiety and self esteem issues, was trans and lived in a very conservative society, and had made a couple of bad life choices. She just took antinatalism to a whole other extreme and became a promortalist.

Ive always strongly believed euthanesia and the right to end yourself should be a human right since no one really asks to be created but this has kind of shaken me. Am I a hypocrite for feeling angry at her? At the end of the day it was her life and her decision so I don't even know if I have a right to be mad. Her belief that nonexistence is better than existance is what caused her to end it all and now I don't know how I feel about it.

1.20% of all earnings from war are for the Prophet, his kinsmen and the needy. Some of it is going to the needy but why is the Prophet as well as his relatives getting a share out of these funds that should be spent on said needy people and why are they getting a larger share of the war spoils than the rest of the Muslim soldiers?

Know that whatever spoils you take, one-fifth is for Allah and the Messenger, his close relatives, orphans, the poor, and ˹needy˺ travellers, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and what We revealed to Our servant on that decisive day when the two armies met ˹at Badr˺. And Allah is Most Capable of everything.

2.He can marry any woman he wants without having to pay a dowry. The Quran flat out says that nobody else gets this privilege and it's for him alone.

O Prophet! We have made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their ˹full˺ dowries as well as those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession, whom Allah has granted you.1 And ˹you are allowed to marry˺ the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have emigrated like you. Also ˹allowed for marriage is˺ a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet ˹without dowry˺ if he is interested in marrying her—˹this is˺ exclusively for you, not for the rest of the believers.2 We know well what ˹rulings˺ We have ordained for the believers in relation to their wives and those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession. As such, there would be no blame on you*.

3.His wives aren't allowed to remarry after he is gone. Even if they feel lonely or desire to remarry for love, they can't and nobody is allowed to marry them.

And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.

4.When he developed feelings for his adopted sons wife Zianab, this verse allowed him to marry her because otherwise it would be considered incest. Its argued that this verse was just to legalize marriage between an adopted sons exwife and his adoptive father. But how is it any less incestuous than if the son was biological the bond is the same and the wife is still not blood related. The verse instead destroys the legal status of adoptive children by saying you can't treat them like biological children even if you love and raised them. And this verse happens to get revealed when the Prophet developed an attraction towards Zaids wife.

And ˹so˺ you were considering the people, whereas Allah was more worthy of your consideration. So when Zaid totally lost interest in ˹keeping˺ his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there would be no blame on the believers for marrying the ex-wives of their adopted sons after their divorce. And Allah’s command is totally binding.

Most arguments I've seen for God not revealing himself and being so elusive are that he wants us to have faith in him.

So a believer follows a path which relies on some rationalization or partial evidence which is the worlds complexity or it's existence itself. But faith is such an abstract thing that two people can reach wildly different conclusions using said evidence and that doesn't necessarily rely on their morality but can be a result of their deep rooted psychology.

A more skeptical person for instance might Also look at the world around us and see that there is currently no attempt by a higher being to contact us and validate their existence so he might have faith that either God isn't real or that whatever entity made the world doesnt care enough to interact with it or a sensitive and empathetic person may look at the uglier parts of nature like death disease animals eating eachother ect and come to have faith in the theory that the creator is in fact a very cruel and evil being.

The same evidence can lead to entirely different conclusions so God expecting everyone to just believe in him or his prophets because of evidence that only partially implies the existence of a creator doesn't make sense the only way for us to know anything about God is if he chooses to contact us and parents us with verifiable evidence because there's no point in a test where the same formula and same raw input can produce wildly diffent solutions with the method used to reach the "wrong" answer being just as valid as the one used to reach the right one.

*communication (made a typo in the title)

It doesn't make any sense that if God would pick a single human and send revelations only to said human and rely on this third part to convey his message to their communities even though a single human can only have a limited amount of outreach and most people wouldn't instantly believe a stranger who claims to talk to god. Like why send an angel to a prophet so the prophet can spread the message when you can just send an angel directly to every human being which is more efficient and can't go wrong. A human can die, be killed face struggles etc and even if god helps keep them alive eventually the prophet has to die too and their message may get corrupted over time.

So why not send an angel to directly deliver god's instructions to every human once they're sensible and old enough to understand them. Like if I made a game and wanted to give my players a set of instructions so they can understand the rules anf stuff I would probably make a manual or guide and leave it in the game or website or whatever for them.

A direct simple way for me to directly give my players advice that would help them and they can easily find it and it's just as I wrote it. But what if instead I get a random guy and give only him a copy of the instructions and tell him to make copies and deliver them to people by hand which has alot of problems like why would anyone trust the guide that came from a third party source rather than the creator of the game himself and what's worse is that later generations won't even be able to meet this messenger in person as he's mortal and is gone and they only have the guidebook he left which they can't be perfectly sure is true.

Why would you ask your cousin to deliver a really confidential and important message to your friend who's never seen your cousin before when you already have the option to call your friend and explain everything yourself.

Our lives are our own and we should be able to choose what to make of them. It's disgusting how if you even mention not enjoying life or feel 'ungrateful' for being born you're suddenly a selfish person. Life is like an awful simulation game I don't wanna play and the headset was put on my head without my permission but if I wanna take it off or feel angry about it I'm selfish because it will cause those around me pain and grief. You can choose to stay just for your loved ones and make what you can out of life but in the end how is it not selfish to force the person who didn't wanna be here to stay by guilt tripping them and making them feel like a monster for abandoning the people who put the headset on in the first place.

The fact that you're forced to choose between yourself and your loved one's happiness is itself a cruel joke where one side suffers either way and you're the monster if you choose yourself. Say I make a sentient AI that can feel sadness grief pain etc and love it greatly but the AI doesn't wanna be alive yet I refuse to let it go because of my own attachments to it. Is the AI evil for prioritizing itself over its creator in that situation? And if it is how is the creator not selfish for keeping their child alive against their will just so they don't have to deal with the grief of losing it (which they should've been prepared for before creating it). Life isn't a gift it's a subscription service you're not even allowed to think about cancelling without feeling like you're betraying everyone around you.