DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on June 04, 2007, 07:13:46 PM
-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/june/4.20.html
-
And so the way of non-Biblical standards being Absolute is fast slipping away...
-
And so the way of non-Biblical standards being Absolute is fast slipping away...
Actually, what is slipping away are Biblical standards being taken as absolute.
The only way to make a film about Noah and the Ark is to make it a comedy. Think about it.
History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce.
First, the inquisition, then Evan Almighty.
-
"Why do the wicked prosper?" once said a great man.
XO, this transition doesn't surprise me, only saddens me. But, it WAS expected and prognosticated about after all.
People will do whatever they feel is okay and that is the sad part because without Absolutes, there is no standard. And without standards, anarchy reigns. It only takes a healthy dose of good ole human nature.
-
I don't really see how firing an individual based on his or her sexuality is an issue of whether or not there are absolutes. I certainly do not see how claiming that AIDS is a punishment for immorality is an absolute (based on Biblical interpretation?).
As for standards, what do you expect from the multiplicity of rampant ipseity?
-
People will do whatever they feel is okay and that is the sad part because without Absolutes, there is no standard. And without standards, anarchy reigns. It only takes a healthy dose of good ole human nature.
=========================================================
I suggest that the source of standards should be something other than the Bible, being as the Bible condones capital punishment for a multiplicity of acts no civilized person could consider crimes (witchcraft, homosexuality, sassy children) as well as slavery, wifebeating, and eating cakes made of doo-doo.
It is also true that absolutes are often unjust: ie, executing anyone who kils anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.
We do not have anarchy in the USA. We have never enacted the Bible as law, either.
There is not, and never will be, a perfect state. There is always room for improvement, however.
-
JS: "I don't really see how firing an individual based on his or her sexuality is an issue of whether or not there are absolutes. "
Shall we get in to the issue, yet again, of what theWord of God says about such issues? Homosexuality, for example, is anathema.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the World says otherwise. So, should I expect different?
-
People will do whatever they feel is okay and that is the sad part because without Absolutes, there is no standard. And without standards, anarchy reigns. It only takes a healthy dose of good ole human nature.
=========================================================
I suggest that the source of standards should be something other than the Bible, being as the Bible condones capital punishment for a multiplicity of acts no civilized person could consider crimes (witchcraft, homosexuality, sassy children) as well as slavery, wifebeating, and eating cakes made of doo-doo.
It is also true that absolutes are often unjust: ie, executing anyone who kils anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.
We do not have anarchy in the USA. We have never enacted the Bible as law, either.
There is not, and never will be, a perfect state. There is always room for improvement, however.
Ok, so what do you suggest as the standards then, if not the Bible? Or should I ask?
-
How about the US Constitution?
British common law?
The Code Napoleon?
The Bible is not in the running here, and never was, and never will be. And that is a GOOD THING.
-
How about the US Constitution?
British common law?
The Code Napoleon?
The Bible is not in the running here, and never was, and never will be. And that is a GOOD THING.
What makes any of these a good thing?
-
JS: "I don't really see how firing an individual based on his or her sexuality is an issue of whether or not there are absolutes. "
Shall we get in to the issue, yet again, of what theWord of God says about such issues? Homosexuality, for example, is anathema.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the World says otherwise. So, should I expect different?
Homosexuality might be looked upon as a sin, but I do not recall it being said that hiring a sinner is a heinous act, nor do I recall it being said to remove all sinners from employment.
I certainly do not recall AIDS being pronounced as a condemnation of sin from God. I don't think God gave Evangelical Christians that authority to be sure.
It isn't a matter of the world "saying" otherwise. Every Christian must make penance.
-
You make an intriguing point here, JS. I have had homosexuals working for me and I could care less whether thye were of that persuaion or not as long as they got the job done. In fact, when I was in the Federal Service, my most producitve worker was a homosexual. He pulled my bacon out of the fire many many times. I also felt bad that I couldn't really compensate him for being so effective due to the dumb Federal Government pay scales. I was able to provide him with a $200 Special Act Award each year, but that was all.
So, would I fire someone becuae of his sexual orientation? No way! He/she should be held to the same standards as every other employee.
-
some of my most effective supervisors are gay.
as I always said in many post when it comes doing any job
I have yet heard anyone say gays are incompetent.
it`s always a policy issue never ability.
-
Homosexuality might be looked upon as a sin, but I do not recall it being said that hiring a sinner is a heinous act, nor do I recall it being said to remove all sinners from employment.
Ah, here we go...
Leviticus 18
1 And the LORD said to Moses,
2 "Say to the people of Israel, I am the LORD your God.
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.
4 You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God.
5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the LORD.
6 "None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.
7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.
10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister.
12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's near kinswoman. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near kinswoman.
14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; she is your brother's nakedness.
17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness.
18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive.
19 "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
20 And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her.
21 You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
23 And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion.
24 "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves;
25 and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you
27 (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled);
28 lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29 For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God."
Note especially verses 22 and 29. 22 pertains to homosexuality specifically, and 29 is the punishment for such, as well as all the other sins listed. Cutting a person off basically means casting them out, no longer allowing them to participate in or be members of the community. I think that would also mean not hiring them.
But then in Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
I'd say that definitely rules out hiring them. Ab-so-lutely.
-
How about the US Constitution?
British common law?
The Code Napoleon?
The Bible is not in the running here, and never was, and never will be. And that is a GOOD THING.
What makes any of these a good thing?
===========================================================================
It is a GOOD THING that the Bible is not the basis for our laws, and has never been the basis, and never will be the basis.
The deal is that some people, who have never actually READ the bloody thing, are entirely unaware of the hate, bigotry, and superstition that pervades the Bible. Perhaps you are one of those people.
These parts of the Bible are rarely used as the basis for sermons, and preachers tend to look the other way rather than get into the gory details.
But the Bible is homophobic, bigoted, anti-women, and even pro-slavery. It is just anti slavery if one proposes that the slaves be Hebrews, they being the Chosen People and all.
-
Note especially verses 22 and 29. 22 pertains to homosexuality specifically, and 29 is the punishment for such, as well as all the other sins listed. Cutting a person off basically means casting them out, no longer allowing them to participate in or be members of the community. I think that would also mean not hiring them.
These would be examples of the Mosaic Law that do not necessarily apply to Christians.
-
These would be examples of the Mosaic Law that do not necessarily apply to Christians.
=========================================================
On the other hand, you will find a definite homophobic trend in the works that are attributed to Paul.
The Holy Mother Church bases its exclusion of homos on the New Testament, mostly.
-
These would be examples of the Mosaic Law that do not necessarily apply to Christians.
=========================================================
On the other hand, you will find a definite homophobic trend in the works that are attributed to Paul.
The Holy Mother Church bases its exclusion of homos on the New Testament, mostly.
The Church does not "exclude" homosexuals at all.
-
The Holy Mother Church bases its exclusion of homos on the New Testament, mostly.
The Church does not "exclude" homosexuals at all.
=====================================
How many times has the Church prevented gays from marching in St Paddy's Day parades?
The Church excludes gays in the same way it excludes adulterers, fornicators and pederasts: they must confess, atone for their sins and promise to try to never sin again. Surely you know this.
If Adam and Steve try a little cheek-to-cheek at the sockhop at St Mary's, you know what will happen.
-
How about the US Constitution?
British common law?
The Code Napoleon?
The Bible is not in the running here, and never was, and never will be. And that is a GOOD THING.
What makes any of these a good thing?
===========================================================================
It is a GOOD THING that the Bible is not the basis for our laws, and has never been the basis, and never will be the basis.
The deal is that some people, who have never actually READ the bloody thing, are entirely unaware of the hate, bigotry, and superstition that pervades the Bible. Perhaps you are one of those people.
These parts of the Bible are rarely used as the basis for sermons, and preachers tend to look the other way rather than get into the gory details.
But the Bible is homophobic, bigoted, anti-women, and even pro-slavery. It is just anti slavery if one proposes that the slaves be Hebrews, they being the Chosen People and all.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
You leave me unanswered , what makes one of the , or any of the documents yo mentioned a good root of ethical law?
-
You leave me unanswered , what makes one of the , or any of the documents yo mentioned a good root of ethical law?
===============================================================
That was not your question. You question was what would be a better basis for law than the Bible.
Each of these attempts to describe an equal standard of justice for all. The Bible often had one standard for priests and kings and another for commoners. None of them attempts to punish sons and daughters for the sins of their parents, as the Bible frequently does. All leave religion out of the judging as well as the sentencing.
And that is just for starters.
-
Note especially verses 22 and 29. 22 pertains to homosexuality specifically, and 29 is the punishment for such, as well as all the other sins listed. Cutting a person off basically means casting them out, no longer allowing them to participate in or be members of the community. I think that would also mean not hiring them.
These would be examples of the Mosaic Law that do not necessarily apply to Christians.
i disagree. Jesus Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament.
-
doesn`t mosaic law state even that guilt is passed down through the generations.
meaning people do not have to commit or think of a crime to be guilty of it.
everybody was guilty in the old testament days.
-
<<You leave me unanswered , what makes one of the , or any of the documents yo mentioned a good root of ethical law?>>
Actually (not that it matters much) I thought that was the Professor's question. But it's a good question. Sorta lobbed slowly over the plate, so I figured somebody would pretty much have to answer it.
I won't speak for the Code Napoleon, but I'd assume it has the same virtues as English Common Law and the U.S. Constitution. the latter two recognize the innate worth and dignity of every single human being. Rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, male and female. As XO said, " Each of these attempts to describe an equal standard of justice for all."
Maybe you have to be some kind of outsider to appreciate this to its fullest extent. My mum's parents came to Canada from a little shit-hole in Poland where a Jew could be beaten to death in the street with less consequences for the killer than if he had killed a rich man's dog. They came suddenly into a world where the fundamental principle of English common law was the cornerstone of the local law: "the equality of the individual before the law." A fucking Jew who didn't speak a word of English had the exact same rights to the protection and benefit of the law as the Presbyterian son or daughter of people whose ancestors had settled this Province as Loyalist refugees from the American Revolution. And the U.S. Constitution went even farther, and wrote guarantees of religious freedom and state non-interference right into a Bill of Rights. Maybe that's nothing to you, but I will tell you, to my parents and to me that is one big fucking deal. You try to find anything like THAT in the Old Testament and you'll still be looking for it at the end of this Milennium.
-
i disagree. Jesus Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament.
======================================
I keep hearing this, but what Jesus was supposed to have had as his mission is not at all what he did.
He walked about for three years, got himself killed in a manner which was ever so grisly, but quite common for the times, and promised to return.
He wrote nothing, although the Jewish religion was and is one of the most literary religions ever devised.
He returned for one, maybe two brief instances, and mentioned that he would return yet again before those he was speaking to had died.
But they died, and no Jesus.
Almost 2000 years, and still no Jesus. The Witlesses say he popped in in 1918 and still has chosen to reveal himself. If we assume he was 33 when he left the first time and has not aged in Heaven, that's make him 122 years old. Of course, he might not have aged at all, but that seems a bit deceptive to me.
In terms of effective recognition, Mickey Mouse and Coca-Cola are better known than Jesus, despite his major head start.
Neither Mickey nor Coca Cola make any claims of being prophesied or of being perfect and eternal beings, although I suspect they are more eternal than any of us.
-
http://synaptoman.wordpress.com/
Extremes of the Scale
May 31st, 2007 · 1 Comment
I’ve often pondered the “grey areasâ€. The extremes, as well as the middle pieces of actions intrigue me. Any action can probably be termed, “right†or “wrongâ€, but confusion arises when you move along the scale to places where “only slightly wrong†and “not really right†are almost the same thing. Let me give you some examples from breaking news stories.
Littering
A court-sanctioned farm eviction recently took place in the Winelands district in South Africa. A Sheriff of the Court, with court order in hand, evicted a family from a house on a farm that they were illegally occupying. All of their furniture and possessions were unceremoniously dumped in a ditch, on one of the coldest nights of the year. Unable to take any action against the Sheriff for this heinous act, the Municipality charged him with littering on Municipal property (the ditch). Littering is “wrongâ€, but this must surely be regarded as a case of “extreme litteringâ€.
Throwing a cigarette butt into a gutter is also littering (which is wrong), but does the petty nature of this action make it “not so wrong†or “not quite right�
Murder
Murder is wrong, very wrong. Two young boys aged 7 and 12, from the Klawer district, hacked an eight-year-old friend to death this week with a homemade axe for R5 (US 70c) and some raisins. This is an extreme and barbaric act, which should result in the most extreme sentence available in our courts, but obviously it won’t, because of the age of the perpetrators. Does this make it “less wrong†than a similar murder committed by adults, and if so, why?
Eating Meat
A British performance artist has eaten a dog to protest against the royal family’s treatment of animals. Mark McGowan, a vegetarian, ate a plate of meatballs made from a corgi. Yoko Ono also tucked in to protest against fox hunting.
Why is this act so repulsive that it is classified, “very wrong†and yet we daily slaughter and eat millions of other mammals with senses and feelings? If eating a dog is “very wrongâ€, is eating a cow, “only slightly wrong†or is it “very rightâ€, and why?
From the above examples, one can conclude that once the action is classified, the slider on the scale is then moved left or right, depending on circumstances.
Circumstances could be;
Who did it? - murder by a minor is not as bad as murder by an adult
Where did they do it? - eating a dog in Seoul is not as bad as eating a dog in London.
When did they do it? - having unprotected sex in in the 60’s was safer than now.
Why did they do it? - stealing to feed one’s children is not as bad as plain stealing.
Enough for now.
Woof !!!
→ 1 CommentTags: South Africa · Ramblings
-
Where did they do it? - eating a dog in Seoul is not as bad as eating a dog in London.
don`t forget-it`s a corgi
they never tasted that good
dashund is much better tasting
very tender.
-
<<You leave me unanswered , what makes one of the , or any of the documents yo mentioned a good root of ethical law?>>
Actually (not that it matters much) I thought that was the Professor's question. But it's a good question. Sorta lobbed slowly over the plate, so I figured somebody would pretty much have to answer it.
I won't speak for the Code Napoleon, but I'd assume it has the same virtues as English Common Law and the U.S. Constitution. the latter two recognize the innate worth and dignity of every single human being. Rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, male and female. As XO said, " Each of these attempts to describe an equal standard of justice for all."
Maybe you have to be some kind of outsider to appreciate this to its fullest extent. My mum's parents came to Canada from a little shit-hole in Poland where a Jew could be beaten to death in the street with less consequences for the killer than if he had killed a rich man's dog. They came suddenly into a world where the fundamental principle of English common law was the cornerstone of the local law: "the equality of the individual before the law." A fucking Jew who didn't speak a word of English had the exact same rights to the protection and benefit of the law as the Presbyterian son or daughter of people whose ancestors had settled this Province as Loyalist refugees from the American Revolution. And the U.S. Constitution went even farther, and wrote guarantees of religious freedom and state non-interference right into a Bill of Rights. Maybe that's nothing to you, but I will tell you, to my parents and to me that is one big fucking deal. You try to find anything like THAT in the Old Testament and you'll still be looking for it at the end of this Milennium.
Did the Pre-Christian English law recognize the innate worth and dignity of every single human being. ?
This is a principal that can be found suggested in the Old Testiment and expounded well in the New Testiment.
Even the principal of an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a tooth is often misunderstood as a minimum but it is an egalitariam maximum.
Only one eye for an eye only one tooth for a tooth as if my teeth and yours were of equivelent worth.
-
Did the Pre-Christian English law recognize the innate worth and dignity of every single human being. ?
English Common Law was initially imposed by William the Bastard (later called Conqueror) and therefore is not pre-Christian (William was a "good Christian").
-
Ami has it right - - there was no "pre-Christian English common law." The laws of the pre-Christian and even the Christian Heptarchy were not common, which is to say that the laws of Sussex would not have been the laws of East Anglia or of Essex and so on.
But I think your point was probably that it was only through the influence of Christianity that the English common law came to recognize the dignity and worth of the individual. I would say that quite the opposite was true - - Christianity played a devastating role in the development of human rights in England (and on the Continent as well.) Men and women were disembowelled, burnt at the stake and killed after other horrible tortures for following the "wrong" religion at the wrong time. All with the blessings of the laws of England and its Church - - whichever one happened to be in the ascendancy at the time. In a long, slow process of weeding the Christian religion and its variations out of the laws of the state, Englishmen gradually grew to an appreciation of freedom of conscience and belief, as much from self-preservation and revulsion at the results of the imposition of "Christian values" on the law as from any ideological conviction.
-
I would say that quite the opposite was true - - Christianity played a devastating role in the development of human rights in England (and on the Continent as well.) Men and women were disembowelled, burnt at the stake and killed after other horrible tortures for following the "wrong" religion at the wrong time. All with the blessings of the laws of England and its Church - - whichever one happened to be in the ascendancy at the time. In a long, slow process of weeding the Christian religion and its variations out of the laws of the state, Englishmen gradually grew to an appreciation of freedom of conscience and belief, as much from self-preservation and revulsion at the results of the imposition of "Christian values" on the law as from any ideological conviction.
Well, I guess if you didn't mind the "trial by ordeal" law that existed prior to the imposition of "common law."
Actually, all your examples were the type of thing that was done under the trial by ordeal which existed prior to 1066. Stuff like carrying a red hot iron through town or snatching a stone from a pot of bioling water, and if your injuries healed within a certain period of time, you were innocent. The water test and the burning at the stake were practiced as ordeals as well. That type of thing was very common under the laws prior to William's invasion.
-
Actually, I was thinking more of fire as pure punishment for heretics than as a means of "trial by ordeal" - - as in Fox's Book of Martyrs, now on-line and free:
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox115.htm
religious tolerance entered into the English law after each religous faction fell under the other's power and their followers began wondering who's next.
-
religious tolerance entered into the English law after each religous faction fell under the other's power and their followers began wondering who's next.
Religious tolerance wasn't so big before the imposition of common law, either.
You act as if intolerance to other religions came with Christianity. It didn't.
-
<<You act as if intolerance to other religions came with Christianity. It didn't.>>
It obviously started in the Old Testament, but the Christians refined it into an art form. They brought it to its pinnacle.
-
It obviously started in the Old Testament, but the Christians refined it into an art form. They brought it to its pinnacle.
And all those intolerant "other" religions? No biggy? It's only bad if the Christians and Jews did it?