(yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible)
We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal.
In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law.
We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer.
When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for:
(a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting …
… Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony.
… And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution.
So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon.
There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology.
There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments.
That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises.
Not much to do about it.
Edit