Written by: Simian
ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
"Moo," said the happy cow.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
Written by: Patriarch917
New Testament on Homosexuality:
Rom 1:26-27
1 Tim 1:10
1Cor 6:9
As far as condemning homosexuality on other grounds… there are a few ways to construct a moral framework, such as:
God’s law
Man’s law
Natural law
According to the Bible, God clearly condemns homosexuality. Since God defines what is good and evil, it is evil.
From a humanist perspective, homosexuality is wrong if it contradicts the morals that society has invented for itself. Thus, homosexuality can be condemned if enough people (a democracy) or the right people (other forms of government) decide that it is wrong.
From a naturalist perspective, actions can be judged “good” or “evil” based on whether they contribute to the fitness and survivability of our species. Thus, murder is wrong because if a disposition toward murder was allowed to spread through our species, our species would die. Therefore, we should execute or isolate murderers to eliminate their genes and their influence over others.
In the same way, homosexuality if allowed to spread would mean the death of our species. Homosexuality has no competitive advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, we should not allow them to spread their lifestyle through genes, or influencing others.
Of course, from a natural law there is also no reason not to condemn something unless it is positively contributing to the species. Therefore, we are allowed to condemn whatever we want unless there is some reason not to. Unless we can find some reason why homosexuality gives us a competitive advantage against other species, we should feel free not to encourage it, or even to discourage it for an arbitrary reason.
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Written by: Neon Shaolin
How about homosexuality cutting down on overpopulation of a species? Without homosexuality, a species will grow out of control and put a strain on the world's quickly dwindling resources. Otherwise we will literally eat ourselves into starvation...
Oh yeah, and which version of the Bible? The King James or the original Aramaic?
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Written by: Neon Shaolin
How do you know that God's plan isn't to honour those who see fault with his writing and work out for themselves what it means to be 'a good person' even if it contradicts the scriptures? Is it not more rewarding and transcedental for a parent if their child work out the values right and wrong themselves because they genuinely believe in them instead of following the rules to a tee without question to avoid eternal damnation?
Written by: Patriarch917
As a parent, I find that I am in a better position to determine the rules for my two year old than she is, because I have a better understanding of the world. Thus, rather than letting her work out for herself whether it is a good idea to play in the street, I will tell her the truth beforehand. The reason for this is that she cannot recover from the "errors" she would experience in the process of trial and error. It is no good to let her learn by experience that playing in traffic is a bad idea, since she will not be around to experience the benefits of the lesson after learning it.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
Written by: Patriarch917
Summary execution at age 65 would do much more to help with the overpopulation problem. However, this benefit is not enough to justify legalizing this policy, according to many systems of morality.
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Written by: Neon Shaolin
But then again, was there not a time when your parents told you not to play with fire?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Neon Shaolin
But then again, was there not a time when your parents told you not to play with fire?
No... they encouraged me to set fire to the garden (literally. I kid you not.), light fireworks, make bonfires and play with candles. All healthy childhood activities. Fire Spinning and Breathing is just an extension of that.
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
Written by: Neon Shaolin
You study law right? Have there not been times when the law, in its technicalities, have favoured the agressor?
For example, a man attempts to burgle a house but falls through the window and successfully sued the owner for shoddy workmanship. What is your angle on that?
Written by: Neon Shaolin
I am just asking you is it possible that thereare situations where the law/scriptures, for the sake of morality, cannot be followed to the letter?
Written by: Neon Shaolin
God is not an active parent in our sense in that he's not there to slap our wrists or give us stern words if we do something wrong. All you have to work on is guilt, the law and your own beliefs. Anything bad that happens to you after the act could be construded as bad luck, chaos, or if you choose to believe it -retribution.
Written by: Neon Shaolin
I want you to understand that I am not attacking you, I am just presenting you with another side to this argument which i really wish didn't have to exist but does. I just feel that whatever a person believes, if that belief gives a person comfort and makes their lives and the lives of other people around them better, then it should be embraced. But if that belief starts to impose upon the lives of others in a seriously negative way then its time to ask questions like we are doing now.
Written by: Neon Shaolin
The story of the Good Samaritan is overused but still carries a potent message. - it is not your beliefs but your actions which define you.
Written by: Patriarch917
Of course I understand that you are not attacking me. Disagreeing with someone is not equivalent to an attack . Your philosophy regarding the beliefs of others seems very "Libertarian." I would suggest considering adding another principle. If someone believes something that is not negatively affecting others, but will only hurt themselves, you have a responsibility to warn them about the consequences of their beliefs.
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
Written by: Neon Shaolin
I recall the story of a man (was it Abraham?) who was asked by God to kill his firstborn son. Does that not go against the 'Thou shall not kill' commandment? Would this happen today?
Written by:
Rather than focusing so much on the word "kill," I suggest you take a moment to consider the full purpose of the word "Thou."
Of course, we do not use the word "Thou" much in modern English, but we still know what it means. The verse is translated in modern English versions as "You shall not kill." I suggest that the word "You" is a very important, somewhat overlooked part of the commandment.
Obviously, it is not a sin for God to kill someone. God kills people every day, with a variety of methods for a variety of reasons. Sin, we know from the Bible, is not a violation of some moral standard that exists outside of God. Sin is a rebellion against God's commandment. God has the authority to decide, at any time and for any reason He sees fit, to kill someone.
However, I think that when God says "You shall not kill" He is explicitly stating that we do not have the authority to decide kill someone. The most obvious reason I can think of is that we are simply not capable of deciding when, where, how, and for what reason someone should be killed. Therefore, God has reserved that authority for Himself.
However, we know that God often chooses to work through agents, rather than directly. You are probably aware that God sends spiritual beings (we often call them "Angels") on missions to carry out His will. Indeed, when man was first created he was given the task of ruling over the earth.
It is not surprising to see then that, having made the decision that someone needs to be killed, God may assign that task to an angel (the Bible records this happening several times). We also know from scripture that God has also sometimes charged a person (or group of people) with the task of killing someone that God has decided needs to be killed. A dramatic example of this would be in First Samuel Chapter 15.
In American and English Law, there is a doctrine known as "Respondeat Superior" which basically says that a Master is responsible for the actions of his servant. Thus, when a woman had hot coffee spilled on her at a McDonalds drive through, she did not sue the employees who had prepared the coffee. She sued McDonalds who had ordered them to serve the coffee in that particular way.
The same principle seems to apply with God and His agents. The work that Angels do is properly called the work of God. So also are the things that God orders men to do. When God orders someone to be killed, it is really God that is doing the killing.
In the civil Laws given to Israel, officers of the government were commanded by God to execute certain criminals (murderers, kidnappers, etc.). However, they were not given the authority to decide on their own that other people should be killed (they could not impose a death penalty for speeding, for instance).
Would this happen today? The Law has not been destroyed. We humans still lack the authority to decide to kill someone. The only way that a person can take the life of another without sinning is by God choosing to kill someone, and authorizing a particular agent to carry that out.
Written by: Neon Shaolin
Would it not mean that God's views may have changed since the Old Testament? Therefore rendering the 'Thou shall not lie with man as with woman' quite outdated? Who was it that said that in the bible anyway? I cannot recall. Do you think it is at all possible that God's views could evolve along with humanity?
Written by:
Originally, there would have been no risk of this causing harmful deformities in the offspring. There is a problem today, because all of us have inherited copying mistakes in our genes, called mutations, which are usually harmful…
Fortunately, we carry two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent (called alleles). Usually we inherit mutations in different places, so usually the mutated gene’s effect is fully or partly masked by the ‘good’ gene. But if close relatives marry, then there is a one-in-four chance of a child inheriting mutant alleles in the same place (locus) from both parents. This one-in-four chance applies to each mutation, of which there are thousands, so the chance of some deformity is great.
But Adam and Eve were created ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) — the Hebrew meod tov, in the context of a finished creation which God had already called ‘good’ after most creation days, indicates physical perfection without any blemishes. …They would not have had copying mistakes, so brother-sister intermarriage would not have had the problem it has today. Harmful mutations would take many generations to accumulate to levels where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring. As mentioned, even Abraham, living long after the creation of mankind, married his half-sister Sarah, and they were the ancestors of the very vibrant Jewish people group.
But as many centuries passed, many harmful, degenerative mutations accumulated in the human gene pool. …This is probably a major reason for God giving laws to the Israelites through Moses against intermarriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18–20). Today there would be even more chance of deformity/disease in the offspring of such a union than in Moses’ time—consequently, even first cousin marriages are outlawed in many countries.
Written by: Neon Shaolin
What about my previous notion that God may have thrown in a few connundrums for people to work out what they SHOULD follow and what sounds suspect, therefore ignore it and choose the right path?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: Patriarch917Written by: Neon Shaolin
I recall the story of a man (was it Abraham?) who was asked by God to kill his firstborn son. Does that not go against the 'Thou shall not kill' commandment? Would this happen today?
You are correct, it was Abraham. You will probably recall that this was, in fact, a test and that God actually stopped Abraham from killing his son. I will address that in more detail at the end of this post...
.....This is evident from the story of God giving Abraham a commandment that He knew Abraham would not want to obey. The Bible says that God was testing Abraham. However, to pass the test Abraham was not expected to see a commandment he didn't like and choose to disobey. Rather, Abraham passed the test because he was willing to obey even a commandment which he did not like. This was proof of Abraham's childlike faith and trust that God would work all things out for the good. In fact, this was actually what happened. God did work it all out (He stopped Abraham's hand at the last minute, and provided a sacrifice to be put in the place of Abraham's son).
Again, the relationship between earthly parents and children are a good analogy to the relationship between us and our heavenly Father. When playing together, I will sometimes let my daughter climb onto her small step stool. I will then hold out my arms and tell her to "jump." I do not do this so that I can pull away at the last minute and let her fall. My intention is not to teach her the lesson that I cannot be trusted to care for her, and that obeying me leads to getting hurt. I do not hope to instill in her the lesson "my father's commandments are sometimes for my good, and are sometimes lies intended to hurt me, thus I should always doubt him and can only depend on my own judgment instead." This would be a horrible thing to do to my child.
Instead, when I ask her to take a very literal "leap of faith," I always make sure to catch her. She knows from experience that when she falls off her stepstool alone she can get hurt. However, I give her this seemingly ridiculous, harmful commandment in order to demonstrate that my commandments can be trusted never to be intended to hurt her.
Someday, a wasp is going to land on her back. When I yell "hold still" and run over to her, I do not want her to spin around, ask "why," and worry that I am about to kick her from behind. I want her to trust me so that I can flick the wasp away without her getting stung.
In the same way, when God asked Abraham to take the "leap of faith," it had the effect not only of testing whether Abraham really trusted God, but the results also served to strengthen Abraham's trust that God's commandments could always be followed in the future.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Written by: onewheeldave
Your child analogy initially seems plausible, but I fear that it is geared more towards justifying the Abraham story than it is about being a close analogy.
God was not asking Abraham to jump off a small step, God was commanding Abraham to execute his son, for no other reason than that God was commanding it.
I feel that a closer analogy would be you telling your child not to jump off a small step, but instead, telling your child to take a beloved family pet, for example, the cat; placing it in the microwave and switching it on.
Of course, you, taking the role of God, would intervene by disabling the oven so the cat remains unharmed, but the child would not know this until they had gone through the trauma of sincerely believing they were bringing about the death of a loved pet.
I think that this would be a far closer analogy of the Abraham incident, don't you?
I feel that your example deliberatly omits to include the very aspect that leads many to reject the truth/worth of the bible precisisly because of the Abraham story.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: Patriarch917
I would express it differently. There is not ethical problem with killing someone, if God has ordered you to do it.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917
"Ethical" values are derrived exclusively from either being in rebellion or in obedience to a commandment of God.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...