|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:41 AM |
|
|
|
In theft and murder there is actual harm done. He says purely moral reasons, I take that as can something be outlawed just for being immoral even if it does no actual objective harm. In my example, "not being mean" is not a religious trade either.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:47 AM |
|
|
If there's actual objective harm, it's immoral, because harm is a central determinant of whether something is immoral.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:53 AM |
|
|
|
Mvass, what part of purely can't you understand? Everything harmful can be considered immoral does not mean everything immoral is actually harmful (at least in measurable terms).
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:54 AM |
|
|
artu said:
In theft and murder there is actual harm done. He says purely moral reasons, I take that as can something be outlawed just for being immoral even if it does no actual objective harm. In my example, "not being mean" is not a religious trade either.
Most of the important laws deal with moral issues. Murder, rape, theft, ect.
And things like adultery DO in fact harm other people. Adultery harms the wronged spouse(s) and the children and related family members. If a nation wanted to make adultery illegal, as it once was in the US, and still is (technically) in some states, the state would be fully justified in doing so.
There is less of a justification for the state to make laws against immoral behavior that only affects the person engaging in it.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:02 AM |
|
|
|
If there is adultery, simply get a divorce. If your spouse is loyal to you just because he/she is afraid of the law, that marriage is practically over anyway. It's worse for the children to grow up among people who are together just because they are forced by the society. Besides, what will determine at which point adultery begins? A kiss, making out, a night spent together? Falling in love? How can the laws actually function in the matters of the heart?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:15 AM |
|
|
With adultery, the question is, what are the agreed-upon rules of the marriage? If the spouses want a formal agreement that neither of them should cheat on the other, then they can make that agreement and have the state enforce it. If not - if it's more of a "If you cheat on me, I'll strongly disapprove and maybe divorce you, but I wouldn't want the law coming after you" sort of attitude - then the state shouldn't punish the adulterer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:28 AM |
|
|
|
So in your case, there is not a single contract of marital law but couples decide what the contract is themselves. Let's say I'm a very jealous man, and I make my wife-to-be sign a contract that says she will be decapitated if she cheats on me. Say she was desperately in love with me and she signed that contract, what happens if she falls out of love over the years, has an affair? It's okay to decapitate her then?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:36 AM |
|
|
In that situation, if you care about her, you should release her from the contract. That said, she is bound by it - if she didn't want to be beheaded, she shouldn't have signed it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:43 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 09:26 AM |
|
|
To finish THIS part of the discussion, let me sum this up:
Starting with Moses, the Old Testament of the Bible is purely of historic interest, and relevant only for Jews, because what is told there, what god says and does, including the ten commandments, isn't relevant for anyone anymore, including the Jews.
Second, your opinion in the question of the death penalty is based on a letter written NOT by Jesus, that can - and in fact is easily - interpreted as telling, that the state HAS the power of the sword and MAY use it, if necessary, but nowhere is actually said, that it MUST do so.
What is more - you cannot argue with what God said about murderers before Moses, because the state - for example the ROMAN state - would not be obliged to do what God wanted (and didn't), because neither Rome not we are a Theocracy.
That doesn't leave much of a point.
Then the point of making laws based on MORAL.
It's what they DID in earlier times, but it's also completely and absolutely arbitrary, because moral is never impartial, but the law should be. If something is outlawed, it's because it's harmful, but a violation of people's sense of moral ISN'T harmful, because no one has a right that one's sense of moral isn't harmed.
That simple.
There is also a longish post of Elodin I will answer to later.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 03:30 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
To finish THIS part of the discussion, let me sum this up:
Starting with Moses, the Old Testament of the Bible is purely of historic interest, and relevant only for Jews, because what is told there, what god says and does, including the ten commandments, isn't relevant for anyone anymore, including the Jews.
There are still prophecies, types, and shadows and much to be learned there.
Quote:
Second, your opinion in the question of the death penalty is based on a letter written NOT by Jesus, that can - and in fact is easily - interpreted as telling, that the state HAS the power of the sword and MAY use it, if necessary, but nowhere is actually said, that it MUST do so.
The apostle Paul was hand picked by Jesus to be the apostle to the Gentiles and chosen to write two-thirds of the New Testament under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What Paul wrote are the words of Christ.
The New Testament in fact says the state is to be a terror to evil doers, a minister of God in executing the wrath of God upon evil doers with the power of the sword. That is God's expectation of governments. That is not to say that mercy can never be extended by the state, certainly the state can extend mercy from time to time based on circumstances. But when the state does not do what it is supposed to do in dealing with criminals the innocent suffer instead of the wicked.
Quote:
What is more - you cannot argue with what God said about murderers before Moses, because the state - for example the ROMAN state - would not be obliged to do what God wanted (and didn't), because neither Rome not we are a Theocracy.
I certainly can because what God said to Noah after he had judged the entire human race is for all of mankind. Immediately after the "reboot" God said to Noah that he requires that all murderers die by the hand of man. Murder not only is taking a person's life and future it is a slap in the face of God.
The refusal of liberal governments to restrain evil by executing the evil doers results in much suffering of innocent people.
Quote:
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Quote:
Then the point of making laws based on MORAL.
It's what they DID in earlier times, but it's also completely and absolutely arbitrary, because moral is never impartial, but the law should be.
Laws are never impartial. They are the result of somebody's morals. Sometimes the laws are based on the general consensus of society. Sometime politicians act as tyrants and impose their own morality on the people. In a democracy laws should be based on general consensus of the population but quite often laws are based solely on the will of legislators.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Laws are never impartial.
That's true. But they can be relatively impartial to, say, laws of 500 years ago. Laws evolve as we do. Let me ask you something, take a "classical" movie like The Bridges of Madison Country, standard story of adultery, do you think the character Meryl Streep plays should be punished by law for adultery, if so why?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 04:01 PM |
|
|
I did not watch that movie so I can't comment on it. I think the law should probably be something like if you commit adultery you forfeit all property rights and spousal support rights you would normally have in a divorce settlement. Your spouse gets everything but your clothes if they decide to divorce you because of your infidelity and you pay all court costs.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:32 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 17:32, 22 Aug 2013.
|
Oh come on, I just neutralized JJ. Where the hell did this Artu guy come from now.
El, refusing to accept for fact that the New Testament preaches capital punishment on the grounds of metaphorical mention of cold weaponry in a text that Jesus didn't participate in is not Scientology, but common sense.
Our fun, venomous exchange aside (considering we've reached Scientology, the next step would be for me to insinuate paid sexual activities with your close family), I simply strongly believe, based on both my own opinions and those of theologists that I spoke with, that you got it wrong. I don't doubt that you're an alright everyday person, but mate, let's face it, you're an imperialist by definition. You believe in the superiority of your state over any other on the planet, you believe it shouldn't obey international laws but set them, and above all, you believe in it 'guiding' the planet, and its authority stemming from the divine. I'm not mentioning this for no reason; I think your religious views are strongly tied to your political ones, and that you are, in your nature, an authoritarian person. The reason I discuss with you is not to change your beliefs, you're a grown man, but to see how exactly folks like you look at the world around you and how much detail and effort you put into incorporating things like religion into your mindset. Again, thank you for indulging me. Really.
Now, this goes for Artu as well:
Objectively, people have used religion to justify aggressive behavior and fear-mongering for a long time. But things like these are culled occasionally, sometimes by reforms such as Martin Luther's, sometimes by the Church itself after it starts dropping in power. Whether we admit it or not, there are things about every religion that are objective and eternal, and things that are prone to reinterpretation, reform and should be regarded in historical context. In the end, what is Christianity but a thorough reform of Judaism? Some accept it, some don't. Christianity reformed Judaism, councils of Nicaea reformed Christianity, and that's where us easterners 'stopped' (original Orthodox Christianity). The West continued - Catholicism 'reformed' Christianity again, Martin Luther reformed Catholicism, and whatever denomination Elodin follows probably reformed a reform of a reform of Protestantism. Even Islam is a continuation, or reform, of Christianity (they accept Christ as a prophet and follow the Abrahamic God). I believe these are different views on the same thing, yes, even Hinduism with its pantheon of elephant gods and many-armed goddesses. Disagreements between religions are a testament to differences between humans, not lack of existence of a higher power. Atheists disagree on these things too. Buddhists are atheistic in nature as well.
What you mentioned as a problem with religions, Artu, is that philosophers never regarded themselves as omniscient. This is true, though some were convinced beyond rational doubt that they are right about rather shaky claims (take MVass' views on a benevolent God making everyone happy, for instance  ). But you missed the crucial bit that religious philosophers weren't omniscient either, they just postulated the existence of an omniscient higher power in the root of the universe. Something many philosophers unrelated to the Church (like Descartes) did as well.
Atheists are still a small minority, and very vocal for their number. Not that it matters. I haven't noticed a serious amount of religious propaganda in most of the world in recent days, not counting things like the US 'one nation under God' kindergarten indoctrination. Even there, I've always been more worried about 'ONE NATION' rather than 'GOD' in that phrase. I'm not saying such propaganda doesn't exist, far from it, but at any rate, I'm not really bothered with parents telling their beliefs to their kids. Of course they'll do it. If the kids are reasonable, they'll be able to regard those beliefs critically when they grow up. Same goes for atheist parents as well. You seem vexed about the numbers, but I don't think they matter, if people are rational. There were exactly 0 Christians on the planet 2013 years ago. Whether your parents tell you God exists or not, it's far more important for them to teach you to be objective and think for your own - and even if they don't, it's up to you to find that out.
About my statements about members of other religions not automatically going to hell being wrong, why do you think that, Artu? I don't think it works that way, especially with people not introduced to Jesus and knowing nothing about it all. I'm not nerfing religions into anything. I'm living my religion as I believe it to function. You've misplaced your irritation. You oppose religion by definition, when you should oppose people who interpret it so that they harm you and people around you.
There is also no artificial symmetry of equal possibility of God existing or not. My ex of three years has studied probability and statistics in Uni, now she works for Microsoft, and she believes in God. It's far from impossible, and we can't talk probability. In order to do statistics about anything, you need the info. We lack the info. We're not talking flying spaghetti monsters here. We're talking a higher power in the scientifically unreachable root of creation.
Back to Elodin, if you believe Hell to be a physical place where people are tormented for all eternity without a chance for salvation, that's your inalienable right. You are perfectly entitled to believe in divinely sanctioned executions and a complete lack of responsibility for one's individual actions if they are done in service to the One Nation Under God (such as taking the life of a captured man). You are also allowed to regard every word in the Bible literally, from the sword to the lake of fire to the seven-headed dragon. What I personally believe, without any wish to offend you, is that Christ had a different view of the world, and that yours is not just a misinterpretation, but a dangerous one at that. It lends religious authority and divine justification to things that should be lent neither. I also base this on the Bible, just like you do.
Mvass, I'm running out of time (I've been on the seaside all this time, by the way. The afternoon swim is waiting, happiness is through the roof) so I'll put it concisely: the idea behind my questions was to illustrate that our notion of happiness is a complicated network with levels and differences and hundreds of factors and we, we as humanity and especially you and me, are far from entitled to believe we've proved or disproved God based on what we think he should do. Hell, if there wasn't for evolution, we wouldn't KNOW happiness at all. God making our brains permanently reacting chemically so as to make us feel happy, or God giving us Ferraris and making us all strong, beautiful and intelligent in an instant is not something I personally believe he would or should do at this or any point. He sowed the seeds of life. Life evolves. Perhaps that IS his way to make us all beautiful and intelligent. Perhaps we've been witnessing the metaphorical sixth day of Creation for the past few millions of years. Perhaps he'll rest once we reach the end of our journey and attain the transcendence you speak of. If you catch my drift.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 05:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:57, 22 Aug 2013.
|
Quote:
Objectively, people have used religion to justify aggressive behavior and fear-mongering for a long time. But things like these are culled occasionally, sometimes by reforms such as Martin Luther's, sometimes by the Church itself after it starts dropping in power. Whether we admit it or not, there are things about every religion that are objective and eternal, and things that are prone to reinterpretation, reform and should be regarded in historical context. In the end, what is Christianity but a thorough reform of Judaism?
Sigh... you either see HISTORY as the dominant factor in there or the dogma. I see history as the dominant factor, so I don't even need to justify the dogma. You've been trying to justify the dogma (objective and eternal). Simple challenge, make me believe in the eternal and objective by using the arguments of any religion... Not your nerfed spiritualism, the books themselves, go ahead...
Edit: I was gonna shut up and be nice but I couldn't resist. What kind of ****** up argument is "my ex works in the Microsoft!"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 06:12 PM |
|
|
Bak, while it's true that happiness isn't the simplest concept, the fact is that God isn't giving it to us under any formulation - not contentment, not orgasmic pleasure, not satisfying interpersonal relationships, nothing.
The point is, there are four possibilities:
1. God exists and is omnibenevolent in the sense that he always does as much as possible that is good for us. Because God doesn't make us as happy as possible, we can reject this possibility.
2. God exists and is omnibenevolent in some other sense - that is, what God calls "love" is different from anything that we humans call "love". An omniscient God would know how we humans use that term, and if His goal is to be understood by humans, he wouldn't intentionally confuse and mislead them.
3. God exists, but is not omnibenevolent. This is in line with the description of His actions in the Bible, but not with the concept of him being omnibenevolent. If you accept this, then you accept that the Bible is internally inconsistent about something that is a very fundamental Christian belief.
4. God doesn't exist.
There are better arguments against the existence of God - this particular one only applies to the Christian God. But because you're a Christian, this is relevant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 06:41 PM |
|
|
baklava said:
El, refusing to accept for fact that the New Testament preaches capital punishment on the grounds of metaphorical mention of cold weaponry in a text that Jesus didn't participate in is not Scientology, but common sense.
Paul was an apostle of Christ and wrote the words of Christ. If you reject Paul you reject Jesus. You cling to your theologians and creeds, I'll cling to Jesus and his Word.
Quote:
I don't doubt that you're an alright everyday person, but mate, let's face it, you're an imperialist by definition. You believe in the superiority of your state over any other on the planet, you believe it shouldn't obey international laws but set them, and above all, you believe in it 'guiding' the planet, and its authority stemming from the divine.
Nope, I'm not an imperialist and I've never said the US has authority from God to guide the planet. As for the rest, let's stick to religion in this topic, eh?
Quote:
I'm not mentioning this for no reason; I think your religious views are strongly tied to your political ones, and that you are, in your nature, an authoritarian person.
No, I read and study the Bible and my conclusions come from my prayers and studies over the last 40 years. You appeal to your denomination's theologians and creeds while I appeal to the Bible.
No, I'm not an authoritarian and I began life as a liberal.
Quote:
The reason I discuss with you is not to change your beliefs, you're a grown man, but to see how exactly folks like you look at the world around you and how much detail and effort you put into incorporating things like religion into your mindset. Again, thank you for indulging me. Really.
"Folks like me" study the Bible, pray and seek to understand what the Bible says rather than seek to defend a denominational teaching of what the Bible says.
Quote:
Back to Elodin, if you believe Hell to be a physical place where people are tormented for all eternity without a chance for salvation, that's your inalienable right.
It is what the Bible teaches. Feel free to call Jesus a liar.
Quote:
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Rev 14:
9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Quote:
You are perfectly entitled to believe in divinely sanctioned executions and a complete lack of responsibility for one's individual actions if they are done in service to the One Nation Under God (such as taking the life of a captured man).
According to the Bible God has always sanctioned the execution of criminals.
Quote:
You are also allowed to regard every word in the Bible literally, from the sword to the lake of fire to the seven-headed dragon.
Only an imbecile would take every word of the Bible literally. There are metaphors, hyperboles, parables, ect. Feel free to say, "Nuh-uh, the state does not have the authority to execute murderers, the state using the power of the sword to be an instrument of God's wrath and a terror to evil doers means the state is to preach the gospel to them and try to make the repent." But that position is irrational and not at all in accord with the passage in question or the rest of the Bible.
Quote:
What I personally believe, without any wish to offend you, is that Christ had a different view of the world, and that yours is not just a misinterpretation, but a dangerous one at that.
What I believe is you have studied the Bible very little and go by what your denomination says. You appeal to catechisms and your denomination's theologians rather than appealing to the Bible. I quote the Bible itself. I believe what I believe because of my study of the Bible, not because of my study of a denomination creed or catechism.
Quote:
It lends religious authority and divine justification to things that should be lent neither.
I'm not the one appealing to religious authorities, you the one appealing to your denomination. And you've decided to make things personal rather than appealing to the Bible for your arguments, unfortunately.
____________
Revelation
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 06:50 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
To finish THIS part of the discussion, let me sum this up:
Starting with Moses, the Old Testament of the Bible is purely of historic interest, and relevant only for Jews, because what is told there, what god says and does, including the ten commandments, isn't relevant for anyone anymore, including the Jews.
Second, your opinion in the question of the death penalty is based on a letter written NOT by Jesus, that can - and in fact is easily - interpreted as telling, that the state HAS the power of the sword and MAY use it, if necessary, but nowhere is actually said, that it MUST do so.
The Old Testament is the Old Law that some "practicing Jews" still follow, while some, once practicing Jews, have accepted Christ as the fulfillment of all the prophesies and the old Law; to now follow the focused teachings of the new Messiah or King. While still others, people of Jewish heritage that never followed Judaism, now follow Christ exactly like myself, a Gentile; someone from a family that did not accept the Old Law but regardless, still came in contact with it through its adaption into civil-law structures.
i.e. On one Law issue; Jesus saved a harlot from being "stoned by the Law", briefly the main point was that all there had sinned and no one had the right to stone.
JJ I think the obvious O.T & N.T. clashes between modern-day believer's that provides ample confusion for on-lookers, that are sincerely trying to understand how the Testaments work, has been around for a long while. Here's my thoughts about that;
When the Church began they were Christ-like and for "maybe a century" they stayed mostly Christ-like; meaning poor, loving, serving, etc.
But as time passed the Church began to move-away from the simple life of Jesus and drew closer to the tyranny of the Old-Law; meaning how Man (Leaders or the Power of Thrones) applied that Law and the usual corruption that followed by only embracing the old Law.
Note: <imo> On this point; there is a strange connection between the early days of the Christian Church based on Christ and the earlier pre-Christ days.
Paul fought a intelligence-war against Peter & James (the Jerusalem Church) when they were demanding that Gentiles use "the old ways of The-Law" When Paul clashed with them over circumcision-rites and that it harmed the freedom of Christ; he was fighting for the Establishment of the Christian church being based on Spirit and not Law. After a decade or so, Paul won (really He Taught) and the young Church benefitted and prospered by staying fixed on Christ.
This "law-battle" happens inside of every person because it is very hard to shake the shackles of legalism; it's the driving force of nearly everything today, so when we try to live simply by Spirit, all too soon if we're not careful we have left Christ behind (compassion)and we become more like the N.T. brothers John & James when they "told Jesus to rain-down fire on a town after they had not been welcomed"; Jesus rebuked them saying; "you know not the Spirit you are of".
Flash forward; over time the Church, on this Law-Path, grew into the Roman-Mess of "Serving Mammon and not God" (with a few exceptions) and created a very long list of crimes. They grabbed purple-robes for themselves and high-seats of honor, they said "Lord, Lord" but did not believe. They became a new version of the Jewish' San-Hendren and just like that group killed Christ, so the new preversion would kill anyone Christ-like.
"The Word" being freed and getting out to the People, was the salvation of the Church...sorta...for the ones that picked the Bible up then, went to doing the same things but for much different reasons. It's a long ugly tale that's a about Man and not Christ.
Many here believe in evolution, I do when it comes to the Mind of Man. After a long Church history of mixed-results between horrible atrocities and great good, most Christians today are about living the New Testament and not worshipping the OLD.
From my beginning, I've kept it all simple by staying fixed on Christ because; if I step away from Him, then I'm lost in Law and Religion. May that never be! 
@ Cor, it must be my browser needing a tweak because I'm quoting like I always have; well, except that one obvious goof.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 08:24 PM |
|
|
I think, that Bak made a very good post, worth a QP at that, that I will use to condensate his actual point, that it's not the religion or the god, that is important, but how humans interpret it and what they make of it for themlseves, their view on life and how they deal with others.
I can't help to direct a last word to Elodin - who cares what god supposedly said to Noah? Certainly not me, and I doubt the law inforcement does, either: If God wants to punish murderers, he should be God enough to do it himself.
Markkur, I have no idea what you want to say, since what you quoted is a sum-up of what Elodin said, but I suppose that in the end you say, that it all amounts to Jesus and focussing on him.
I suppose that focussing on him is better than focussing on anything else in the Bible, but in the end for me Confucius is doing fine half a millennium earlier, sso I don't need Jesus for this aspect of morale behaviour and so on.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 22, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:34, 22 Aug 2013.
|
Damn Markkur, you are a poet.
Edit: Overlapped with JJ's post, it appears sarcastic, it was not.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
