Is "the least holy" just as holy as "the most unholy"?

[Smacktard]

Well, is it?

 

[VashTheStampede]

I see it as two different things. Unholy being something that is purposely "evil". Not something that is necessarily quantifiable.

Like, to me, it's not a number line with 0 in the middle and "Most Holy" off to the right and "Most Unholy" off to the left.

If  that's your dogma, then yeah

But to me, something that is neutral is "least Holy" but not necessarily Unholy.

At least, according to all this shit I just made up just now.

 

[Jawneh]

Depends on whether the question is about religious beliefs or cheese.

 

[Smacktard]

Unholy being something that is purposely "evil". Not something that is necessarily quantifiable.

Can't you have degrees of unholiness, depending on how many religious taboos are broken?

But to me, something that is neutral is "least Holy" but not necessarily Unholy.

So something neutral would be less holy than something unholy?

Depends on whether the question is about religious beliefs or cheese.

Would the least hole-y cheese be just as hole-y as the most un-hole-y cheese?

 

[Jawneh]

Would the least hole-y cheese be just as hole-y as the most un-hole-y cheese?

Definitely. Core part of the definition of cheese is holes. Though lack of holes does not disqualify cheese from being cheese. Just different kinds of cheese.

We're also very close to the age old debate about donut "holes".

 

[Smacktard]

Definitely. Core part of the definition of cheese is holes. Though lack of holes does not disqualify cheese from being cheese. Just different kinds of cheese.

We're also very close to the age old debate about donut "holes".

Right, but the same thing does not necessarily apply to holiness. My wife thinks that least holy means neutral, in the same way that the most least unholy means neutral

Edit: fixed

 

[shortkut]

Not the same

Least holy - implies some amount of holiness that can be measured/detected

Unholy (to any degree) - implies an absence of holiness and some degree of evilness, the more unholy the more evil

 

[Jawneh]

Right, but the same thing does not necessarily apply to holiness. My wife thinks that least holy means neutral, in the same way that the most unholy means neutral

It depends. Is holiness and unholiness two distinct things or are they part of the same notion of "holiness" describing opposite ends of it. With the former there would be a neutral spot after which it moves towards the other. With the latter, the thread title would be correct.

So we got a scale going from negative infinity to positive infinity, where all negative us "unholiness" and positive is "holiness" where 0 is neutral. Or a scale from 0 or 1 to positive infinity where the lower number is deemed "unholier" than a higher one.

And we can have scales where ONLY the lack of "holiness" is considered unholy, or lack of "unholiness" is holy.

So er... We need more world building before we can decide.

 

[Kat]

My wife thinks that least holy means neutral, in the same way that the most unholy means neutral

Do you mean least unholy? A very unholy thing doesn't seem neutral to me

Can something be somewhat holy and somewhat unholy? Or does being at all unholy negate any possiblity of being holy?

That's not even looking like a word anymore.

 

[Smacktard]

Do you mean least unholy? A very unholy thing doesn't seem neutral to me

Yep, my mistake.

Can something be somewhat holy and somewhat unholy? Or does being at all unholy negate any possiblity of being holy?

This is a good question. I would think the presence of something unholy tarnishes something that's holy, making it unholy? Like multiplying a positive by a negative... And that the reverse is true: that placing/associating something holy with something unholy doesn't make that thing unholy.

I wonder if there is anything that could be considered both holy and unholy at the same time. I think of lecherous, corrupt, and sex-crazy popes of the medieval times and I just associate them with unholiness.

 

[Cole]

are least wet and least dry the same thing?

how about some one talking in a loud whisper, or some one yelling quietly?

I think fundamentally they'd be the same thing.

but our brain is going to separate them.

unholy and most Holy are opposite ends of the spectrum, least Holy and least unholy are probably very close to neutral, but maybe not exactly?

if most unholy, "Satan", is -10, and most Holy is "God" at 10, then -1 is like... a ghost that moves your coffee cup from one side of your desk to the other, and 1 is a religious leader who sometimes washes his dick in the holy water before a service, I think 0 becomes true neutral.

 

[Cole]

this reminds me of one of my go to joke insults is telling someone "if you entered an ugly contest, you'd win. or lose, whichever is funnier."

which would make you uglier, winning an ugly competition or losing one?

 

[Smacktard]

1 is a religious leader who sometimes washes his dick in the holy water before a service

This example had me rolling... But also thinking -- if a holy person does something unholy, does that not necessarily make him unholy, but rather drop his holiness level? How can you refer to a man who teabags the baptism water as "holy"? Even "just a little bit holy"?

I think he's neutral at best. If he only spits in it, maybe he'd be a 1.

 

[Smacktard]

are least wet and least dry the same thing?

Least wet and most dry sound like the same thing to me -- like the least wet thing would HAVE to be completely dry, right? And the least dry would have to be the MOST wet.

how about some one talking in a loud whisper, or some one yelling quietly?

I feel like these are different -- a loud whisper sounds clumsy, while a quiet yell seems intentional and angry.

 

[Jawneh]

are least wet and least dry the same thing?

Least wet and most dry sound like the same thing to me -- like the least wet thing would HAVE to be completely dry, right? And the least dry would have to be the MOST wet.

I'd think least wet is like a towel with just one corner being a little wet and least dry being a towel completely wet except just one corner still being dry.

If you break it down more mathematically, the "least" part in both would cancel eachother out, leaving us with just wet and dry. Or holy and unholy in our case.

 

[Cole]

This example had me rolling... But also thinking -- if a holy person does something unholy, does that not necessarily make him unholy, but rather drop his holiness level? How can you refer to a man who teabags the baptism water as "holy"? Even "just a little bit holy"?

I think he's neutral at best. If he only spits in it, maybe he'd be a 1.

so in my mind, Father Cockbath is a good guy, he doesn't diddle the little kids. doesn't preach hate, he's just a good religious leader.

but sometimes his balls get a little sweaty and he has to take care of it.

I think he's still a holy man.

Least wet and most dry sound like the same thing to me -- like the least wet thing would HAVE to be completely dry, right? And the least dry would have to be the MOST wet.

I feel like these are different -- a loud whisper sounds clumsy, while a quiet yell seems intentional and angry.

I can get behind the least wet/most dry thing. I was viewing it as more of a scale to 0.

and a loud whisper might sound clumsy, but is it the same volume as a quiet yell?

 

[Smacktard]

I'd think least wet is like a towel with just one corner being a little wet and least dry being a towel completely wet except just one corner still being dry

So if you had three towels -- one that was completely drenched, one that was a bit damp, and one that was completely dry, the least wet towel for you would be the one that's a bit damp?

so in my mind, Father Cockbath is a good guy, he doesn't diddle the little kids. doesn't preach hate, he's just a good religious leader.

but sometimes his balls get a little sweaty and he has to take care of it.

I think he's still a holy man.

If there's no ill intent, I can see him still being a holy man. Hell, I'd even give him higher than a 1 on the holy scale.

and a loud whisper might sound clumsy, but is it the same volume as a quiet yell?

I picture them both as the same volume yeah. Like, there's no distinction volume-wise, just intent

 

[Jawneh]

So if you had three towels -- one that was completely drenched, one that was a bit damp, and one that was completely dry, the least wet towel for you would be the one that's a bit damp?

Ye.

And it would also be the least dry if no other towels are introduced.

I guess we've come to a point where we can say that between something being 100% holy and 99% holy, the latter is the least holy. But does it still apply between 100% and 0% holy? Wouldn't 0% be complete absence of holy? Not necessarily unholy. Maybe 0 is limbo.

Now that I've thought about this more, I like the thought that they're mutually inclusive. We represent "holiness" with the color blue and "unholiness" with the color red. You may have as much holiness and unholiness as you can manage in a lifetime and it all gets represented with your own shade of purple. Unless you're an absolutist of either extreme which I'd argue is impossible.

If we do not include the extremes in the above view, then the least holy would indeed be the most unholy and vice versa.

 

[Smacktard]

Ye.

Surely something that represents 0 of something has the LEAST of that same thing. The least wet would be the one that's not wet at all. It's so not wet that it's dry -- it's the least wet.

Thinking of "the least holy" as the most unholy is still strange though... Like if I say "the least holy abomination" it conjures up images of a gruesome creature. But if I say "the least holy angel", I picture a dude-angel who's a bit of a slacker and drinks beers and watches Monster Truck rallies on Friday nights -- I don't picture a demonic angel or Satan or anything.