I know I normaly don't post political things here but this one's been driving me batty since I heard about is
story (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Basically in Brazil a 9 year old girl was pregnant with twins, he step dad had been molesting her since the age of 6
So the mother took the girl to the doctor, and the doctor preformed an abortion. So the arch bishop of Brazil Excommunicated the mother, the doctor, the nurses, and everyone else involved in the operation except the girl (he wanted to but couldn't). But he didn't do anything to the step dad because 3 years of raping a child isn't nearly as bad as an abortion.
Argggh!
And people wonder why I consider pro-life folk inherently sexist... :erk
Yes, even if they're women, because nothing says "I respect your rights as a fellow human being" like forcing you to give birth and then punishing you for being a whore even after you supposedly do the "right" thing.
But, you know, the dad is real sorry, and penitence is the important part... /sarcasm
I share your horror, TGH. People are stupid. Especially when they use religion as an excuse to avoid rational thought.
Wow, people can still get excommunicated?
Technically speaking, Christianity prohibits you from punishing or condemning anyone for their sins. Protecting or helping people affected by a sinner is something expected out of true Christians, but actually going against and attacking the person performing the sin (whatever your definition of "sin") is not on. "'Let judgment be mine' says the Lord".
Excommunication is also a symptom of church arrogance, it only excludes people from the church, not the religion the church is meant to be a part of. God loves us all and accepts anyone who decides to return to him, according to Christian teaching.
You could make an argument that abortion is worse then rape, it's not in good taste to, but it's possible. The problem with the argument is that it all comes back to the same question: What is life? At what stage does it begin? Practically everyone agrees that killing a newborn baby fresh out of the womb is murder under any circumstance; pretty much everyone agrees that killing sperm or female eggs before they fuse together as a zygote is not immoral. So at what point between the two events is destroying what exist stop being immoral and start being moral. Is there even such a point? Is destroying any piece of life no matter how small immoral? Does morality even exist? Or are there varying degrees of morality depending on the stage of development?
It's a big issue with many questions seemingly impossible to answer, you can see why they're so much debate about it.
Oh and yeah, the rape of the daughter should definitely have been stopped beforehand. By who I'm not sure, but the girl had a mother and there were police, but obviously the archbishop probably only heard about this after the fact.
You know, for all the outrage, controversy and human rights issues the article appears to conjure up, it fails to answer the simple question, "Is the girl still being raped by her stepfather?"
Now this is one of the reasons all Christians get a bad rap.
Abortion is MEANT for cases just like this!
I am utterly against 'convenience abortions', in which young girls fool around wantonly and then dump the results of their filandering. I have a very old-fashioned view that one must live with the consequences of ones' actions. But for valid medical reasons and rape, those things are not the results of a woman's choices. A fetus with a severe birth defect likely to be fatal is not something one normally desires (though the issue gets iffy with anomalies such as Down Syndrome... personal choice is very much the only standard to go by there, though I could not personally abort such a child).
And a woman who is raped has NO CHOICE AT ALL! The resulting pregnancy is in fact (if one wishes to adhere to strict orthodoxy) an abomination as it results from a sinful act. Thus, the child will obviously have the spirit of a demon in it. :kruger
And add also the fact that this was an incestual rape, thus another sin! And incest is a REALLY BIG SIN!!! (= lots more demons = Legion?) In fact, if one really wanted to go all out, one could ponder the notion that the child might have become the Antichrist!! D:
So, the abortion would prevent demons from entering our world, and possibly prevent the Apocalypse. Therefore, I have demonstrated a religious reason in favor of the abortion in this case! :3
As for secular morality: again, there was no choice by the girl/woman to have the sexual acts, it was forced upon her, it was incestual (higher probability of deformity), and it was criminal.
So, abortion here is AOK all around.
TGH, I was actually thinking about posting this a while back, so this came as a bit of a surprise.
Trying to comprehend this really, really makes my brain hurt. I would have gotten into an angry rant, but I don't even feel energetic enough to wholly articulate how stupid this is. It's just as stupid as something that's really, really stupid.
But surely the man is a hero of the church, upholding the Pope's views on never ever using contraception.
yea... i gotta agree with Keaton and Alondro on this... the fact of the matter is, is that this is an extreme case where the views of the church need to be looked out and reviewed... if the church is supposed to be a symbol of morality and good, how can they do something like this?!... quite honestly, it's instances like this where Norse Paganism starts looking real good for a faith...
Alondro: Yeah, I see your points.
If the birth of a child is likely to kill the mother (whether conceived by choice or not), then that's definitely a strong reason and justification for having an abortion.
I'm not so sure as to whether or not the mother was raped should have much bearing on the decision to abort. I know that for the mother and the future of the child it can make the world of a difference, but a fetus is still a fetus, no matter how it was conceived.
By the way, if a fetus is aborted because a of a birth defect that was likely to be fatal, that's euthanasia.
If a fetus is aborted because it is diagnosed with Down Syndrom or similar condition, that's eugenics.
Of course, both terms require that a fetus is considered to be as much alive as any other person, but that leads us back into uncertain waters.
As for your "religious reason in favor of the abortion", I think we both agree that your stretching it there.
If you take a look at either the Poetic or Prose edda, it seems that the Norse had no real problem with incestual sexual affairs resulting in children........ At least if you're a God anyway. Humans might have been expected to be a little more straitlaced.
What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.
Saw this a little while ago. Don't have much to say about it other than that I have a very difficult time not wishing great amounts of harm on the father and those who are just using the poor girl's plight as a means to gain publicity (albeit, the wrong kind) over the abortion issue.
Human beings do terrible, ignorant things. It kind of just rolls off me at this point.
I only hope that there is some form of divine justice to sort these people out, because no amount of what I or anyone else could dole out would be enough.
Instead of debating abortion, which in light of the events surrounding the poor girl I feel would be in poor taste, I shall instead say that my heart goes to her, and her family. There are no words to express circumstances like this - I can say they're terrible, and fall far short of what needs to be said.
I hope sincerely that she is able to recover from this event, and that she and her family will be able to move on, in peace.
Keep in mind guys, the Pope himself said that abortions are bad. This from the same bunch of people that like to continually move around their pedophile priests who like to rape little boys.
Of course, christianity doesn't always deserve the bad rap it gets, it just has some of the loudest and most fanatical followers who somehow get access to the media.
As for the abortion and being excommunicated, the excommunications just a lame old scare tactic that they pull. Basically to try and scare others from doing anything similar and try to keep others obeying their petty little rules. Personally, getting excommunicated wouldn't change my life one bit.
As for the stepfather, he should be thrown in prison and experience rape first hand. I feel sorry for the girl for what happened to her, especially since she was only 9 years old, which is something the church doesn't seem to care about.
It's sad that the Catholic church is still stuck in the dark ages in so many ways.
crap like this is what turned me away from the clergy when i was younger- while studying to be a monk i noticed how much tripe like this exists because, like sofox stated before, the organization of the church now exists separately of the religion it represents. if you study the scriptures it is actually stated that a church is 'any two people who come together to discuss god', and thus completely invalidates the ability of the church to throw its weight around as an organization. also, congratulations, were a church.
i will refrain from bringing up my personal abortion story/history unless requested
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 11, 2009, 08:46:01 PMWhat is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.
You know, that's the thing, I'm not sure that there are punishments for anything in Catholic dogma. Except of course the punishment of going to hell for not following God's teachings, but I don't recall any teaching of how one man is meant to punish another man. Remember, Jesus himself prevented the stoning of an adulterer, and he regularly sat down with sinners saying that they were the ones who needed his teaching the most, and even went against the old testament teaching of "an eye for an eye".
Radar: I know where you are coming from, but please don't make such a general attack against the church. There's a priest who is a very close friend of my family, who's a great guy and devotes a lot of himself to God and spreading God's love. (He's also a generator of truly awful puns but that's another thing). During the time the whole controversy broke out, he received a hell of a time. He wasn't the only one. There are so many priests out there who generally were focused on helping their congregation and supporting people when they needed, and suddenly, through no action of their own, they are instantly being perceived as one of the worst sort of criminals.
All it took was a single child with a grudge, or misunderstanding, or something to prove, or whatever to accuse a priest of molestation and suddenly someone who may have been faithfully helping the community for 20-30 years would have his name dragged through the mud.
Brun: I find church very helpful. I think there are many ways that God's word can help us in life, and having a priest talk about one aspect or another can be really helpful. Many times times I had an issue of some sort, and hearing a reading or a priests thoughs on something really helped clear my thoughts.
Quote from: Sofox on March 12, 2009, 04:42:42 AM
You know, that's the thing, I'm not sure that there are punishments for anything in Catholic dogma. Except of course the punishment of going to hell for not following God's teachings
the idea of hell did not even exist until the third century AD, and to be honest the christian view of hell was borrowed from several earlier religions and remixed a bit, even the name hell was borrowed from other cultures as the concept did not have any basis in christian lore. technically the official view of the church on hell is that it is the state of a soul who is no longer in contact with god, demons are not even mentioned at all and seems to be mostly just popular imagery to scare people into "think like us or burn for eternity" mentality.
related is the notion that anyone who uses the term 'god fearing' is too ignorant of christianity or any of its derivatives to claim superiority to anyone. seriously, i have the urge to hit people who describe themselves as 'god fearing', if only because i doubt they would listen to an educational rant and im not really of any authority to enlighten them
The catholic church has acted in a profoundly retarded and disgraceful manner. None of the church leaders had the best interest of the victim at heart, but instead blindly followed their dogmas and religious convictions, no matter what kind of harm they do.
I hope that the bastard that hasa been raping his daughter for the past 3 years gets his due in prison, by his new bunk-mate Bubba.
I agree that the abortion was the right thing to do in this situation, considering the circumstances of the infants conception.
Abortion is not, and never should be simply out of 'conveniance'. In my opinion, everyone who wants to abort their unborn child should first get a session or two of counseling in order to determine why they want the pregnancy aborted.
Abortion remains a controversial topic, and no easy answers exist. Each case should be aproached with caution and wisdom, and not with overly rigid rules and dogma.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 11, 2009, 08:46:01 PM
What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judiasm treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.
The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.
(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )
I don't think these rules count as 'punishing accordingly' under modern laws and ethics. Making a woman marry her rapist is
not quite considered justice these days.
Incest is punishable by death, in the following situations: if a man has sex with his father's wife, the both are killed.
If a man has sex with his daughter in-law , they both die. If a man has sex with his wife and her mother, all three die. The only instance of a man having sex with his daughter that I could find is in Lot's case after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. He impregnated both his daughters while drunk, and apparently that was just peachy.
So, according to the bible, the 9 year old girl would be forced to marry her father, and the father would have to pay himself 50 shekels of silver. This, to put it mildly, is fucked up.
*sighs* There is no Christianity anymore. There is Biblicism. Christians are supposed to believe specifically in the teachings of Christ where I've seen most just tossing things from the bible and very few things are from the New Testament. I think we have something like that, believing in the Old but not the New Testament? Oh, wait, Judaism isn't that bad. Nevermind.
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.
(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )
So... what if it happened in the city, and someone heard it?
They get off scot free?
First off, this is sickening. I'm not ashamed of my faith, but I am losing more and more respect for the people who propagate it in ways like this.
I'm relieved to see that the President of Brazil is disgusted by this, and a Catholic too. It shows that the breed of Catholics I relate to are still out there and hopefully spreading. I also agree with the doctor that his excommunication will hopefully get people to realize that the abortion laws in the country need to be changed.
At first, the fact that the girl was in her fourth month bothered me a little. I'm pro-choice, but I think partial-birth abortions could almost be called murder; I'm glad it wasn't her third trimester when they did this. But I also know that a 9-year-old would probably die in childbirth, and what they did was the right thing, even if it was past the first trimester. So for this kind of thing, I'm willing to put my faith aside when judging their decision.
Quote from: Rakala on March 12, 2009, 08:02:33 AM
*sighs* There is no Christianity anymore. There is Biblicism. Christians are supposed to believe specifically in the teachings of Christ where I've seen most just tossing things from the bible and very few things are from the New Testament. I think we have something like that, believing in the Old but not the New Testament? Oh, wait, Judaism isn't that bad. Nevermind.
So...the ones who really should be ranting about homosexuality are Jewish people? And the New Testament has nothing against it? Add this to the whole "first commandment = not taking the Bible as a step-by-step manual" and the argument might be taken down at least a little bit. ...
I think I'll bring that up the next time I see a fundie on the street. :)
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 12, 2009, 08:16:23 AM
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.
(souce: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html )
So... what if it happened in the city, and someone heard it?
They get off scot free?
The laws seem to assume that is someone hears he woman cry out, then someone will save her from getting raped. What happens to the would-be rapist is not mentioned.
Yet again, I'm put into the position where I can either ignore egregious slanders against my faith from people who don't understand it - who do not wish to understand it - and move on with my day, hopefully without offending anyone, and living as best I can in peace with all of you. Or, I can defend my faith, and possibly make myself seem like an ass, and piss people off.
Every day, I hear something about how Christians are destroying the world, about how they support rape, about how they support racism or misogyny or the offense of the day - about how Christianity, full of ignorant and hateful people, are the worst thing to befall this world. And I'm getting tired - not angry or short of patience - just tired, from defending myself, even in my own mind.
So I will respond. And, attempt to explain those passages you mentioned, Vidar, as they were explained to me.
QuoteThe old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
That isn't what the passage says, firstly. Be intellectually honest.
QuoteIf the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
I think you mean, 'So much for gender equality before the Greeks figured out how to make togas'.
This passage did seem odd to me. So, I spoke to someone knowledgeable and asked them about it. They explained, again, that this wasn't written in 2009, when a woman could go out and get a job as a doctor or lawyer, or find herself on equal footing with men as far as means to support herself. Woman did not have the same rights then that they enjoyed today, not because this was the way God intended it, but because this was the
ancient world. I'll revisit this in a moment - but suffice it to say that the Law written in the Old Testament was written for the Israelites as they were - Galatians compares it to the way a Child acts, as compared in the New Testament to the way that a mature son of God acts. If I recall correctly, there's that story in the New Testament about how they drag a woman who'd been found in bed with another man before Christ, and ask him what should be done with her. And how he responds with that oft-repeated quote, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".
So, as it was explained to me, in the ancient world such as this, women did not have the same opportunities that they enjoy today. They had three options - marriage, begging, or prostitution. If the woman was raped, she was no longer a virgin, and would not be able to find a husband, which left her with begging or becoming a prostitute. So the law states that they will be married, so that the person who put her in this position will have to become the person to support her. It wasn't because the woman should love him, or because they had sex and -must- be married because of it.
Yep, Cog, that's how it was. In fact, the only ancient civilization in which women had very close to full equal rights with men was ancient Egypt.
There's a reason there were so many 'poor widows' in the Bible. Because when the husband died, they were screwed if there was little or no money saved up. :P
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 11, 2009, 08:46:01 PM
What is the prescribed penalty for rape in Catholic dogma anyway? I know Judaism treats it as a subset of assault, and punishes accordingly, but I'm not 100% certain that they're the same, even if there are some similarities.
The old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
If it was outside the city, then only the man gets stoned to death.
If the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
The new testament doesn't seem to say anything about rape.
*sighs* Ok, I feel obligated, since I opened this can of worms, to close it, at least where Judaism is concerned.
Firstly, for practical, day to day living, the five books of Moshe aren't the only sources, indeed not really the primary source of direction. You can open up to some divorce law, but there is no mention of marriage law anywhere. On two occasions I can think of off the top of my head, (proper slaughtering of animals for food and tefellin), there is a mention of "Do it, like I told you", with no mention of how the law is meant to be carried out, just that it should be carried out.
Rather, for a lot of practical, day to day law, most information is contained in the Mishnah and the Gemara, originally oral bodies of work that were written down roughly 100 and 500 C.E. respectively.
Now, right off the bat, on a practical level, abduction carries the death penalty. If the rapist the victim out of the room without his/her permission, and they can prove that in court, it's a beheading.
Now, in Gemara Nazikin (damages) Fourth chapter, it goes into all sorts of direct damage from one human being to another. (The previous three chapters more deal with animals, or out of control fires, or if you create a public hazard and someone gets hurt in it. etc.) Now, you'll notice right off the bat that nobody involved is taking the injunction of "eye for an eye" literally. Every instance of physical damage is settled monetarily.
For a direct assault, there are five (possibly six, if the court adds a punitive payment) Those are compensation for, physical damage, pain, embarrassment, lost wages, and medical bills. Doctor's bills and lost wages should be self explanatory, physical damage is calculated by the difference in value should the victim be sold as a slave before and after the assault, pain and embarrassment are somewhat involuted, being essentially what the court determines the "average" person would pay not to go through with the experience. In the case of a rape, those fees are likely to be extremely high.
In fact, later on in the chapter, it deals with the hypothetical case where a guy accidentally harms his wife while having consentual sex, and comes to the conclusion that if she presses charges, he would have to pay up. (although proving this can be somewhat problematic.)
Now, as for forced marriage, except in one case, they don't exist, at least not according to Jewish law. True, the family or whomever might put backdoor pressure on someone to say "I do" at the proverbial altar (there isn't a literal altar at a Jewish ceremony), but a coerced marriage isn't any good. In thecase of a rapist, s/he is forced to
offer to marry the victim, (if of opposite gender. Halachic Judiasm doesn't recognize homosexual marriage.) The offended party is under no obligation to accept it.
As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 01:59:31 PMAs for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)
Getting a Get ain't always that easy.
"I only want Shalom Bayit!" (http://www.unmaskedcomic.com/)
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
I don't think these rules count as 'punishing accordingly' under modern laws and ethics. Making a woman marry her rapist is not quite considered justice these days.
actually in Mexico and parts of south america it IS the law that a rape victim must marry their rapist. i doubt i am alone in thinking this does not set a good foundation for a healthy relationship
Quote from: Brunhidden on March 12, 2009, 02:59:42 PM
actually in Mexico and parts of south america it IS the law that a rape victim must marry their rapist. i doubt i am alone in thinking this does not set a good foundation for a healthy relationship
Now I'm reminded of 'The Royal Forester'. Specifically:
She went up to the King's high door
She knocked and she went in
Said "One of your chancellor's rob'bed me
And he's robbed me right and clean"
"Has he robbed you of your mantle,
Has he robbed you of your ring?"
"No, he'd robbed me of my maidenhead
And another I cannot find"
"Then if he be a married man
Then hang'ed he shall be
And if he be a single man
He shall marry thee"
This couple they got married
They live in Huntley town
She's the earl of Airlie's daughter
And he's the blacksmith's son--The Royal Forester, Steeleye Span (from an earlier work, first published c.1293)
Since I'm probably the only person who's even heard of Steeleye Span, they were a British band from about 1968-1976 who performed electric arrangements of traditional folk songs.
EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQ6m9shBb8
The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.
So, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
Yet again, I'm put into the position where I can either ignore egregious slanders against my faith from people who don't understand it - who do not wish to understand it - and move on with my day, hopefully without offending anyone, and living as best I can in peace with all of you. Or, I can defend my faith, and possibly make myself seem like an ass, and piss people off.
It was not my intention to attack your faith, so my apologies if it seems like it. I was meant as an explanation of what the bible says about rape as I understand it.
As long as you don't start calling people dirty little hussies or something, there's little chance that you'll piss off too many people here, so go ahead, please.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
Every day, I hear something about how fundamentalist Christians are destroying the world, about how they support rape, about how they support racism or misogyny or the offense of the day - about how Christianity, full of ignorant and hateful people, are the worst thing to befall this world. And I'm getting tired - not angry or short of patience - just tired, from defending myself, even in my own mind.
Most of those are at the fringe of christianity, I freely admit, but that's where the dangerous people are. The KKK is one example, and the leaders of catholic church aren't really in any well-thinking man's good book right now either, though for different reasons.
It's things like the reaction of the church leaders to the plight of this Brazilian girl that piss me off.
Notice that I am not including the followers of the catholic church. Most of them seem like reasonable people who can decide for themselves what is right and wrong without looking to the pope for guidance.
I can't imagine there being many catholics who aren't ashamed of the conduct of the vatican right now.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
So I will respond. And, attempt to explain those passages you mentioned, Vidar, as they were explained to me.
QuoteThe old testament punishes rape like this: if the woman was not a virgin, or was betrothed to someone, and it happened in the city, and nobody heard it happen, the rapist and the woman get stoned to death.
That isn't what the passage says, firstly. Be intellectually honest.
The actual passage from deuteronomy is like this:
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
QuoteIf the woman was a virgin, and not about to be married, then the man has to pay 50 shekels of silver, and the woman must marry her rapist, and she can't file for divorce. (so much for gender equality in the bible).
I think you mean, 'So much for gender equality before the Greeks figured out how to make togas'.
The quote for this passage is this also in deuteronomy:
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
I hear a lot about how the bible is the inerrant and revealed word of god, and how it contains no errors, and is perfect in every way.
If it was, then it would have a clear message of gender equality, and not shamelessly promote sexual discrimination the way it does. If it was indeed from god, we could expect nothing less. Yet these passages reveal that at least this chapter is written by men, and therefore these laws are the product of their time, and do contain errors, and in this instance, something that would be considered a disgrace before human rights.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
This passage did seem odd to me. So, I spoke to someone knowledgeable and asked them about it. They explained, again, that this wasn't written in 2009, when a woman could go out and get a job as a doctor or lawyer, or find herself on equal footing with men as far as means to support herself. Woman did not have the same rights then that they enjoyed today, not because this was the way God intended it, but because this was the ancient world. I'll revisit this in a moment - but suffice it to say that the Law written in the Old Testament was written for the Israelites as they were - Galatians compares it to the way a Child acts, as compared in the New Testament to the way that a mature son of God acts. If I recall correctly, there's that story in the New Testament about how they drag a woman who'd been found in bed with another man before Christ, and ask him what should be done with her. And how he responds with that oft-repeated quote, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".
So I take it we agree that at least this part of the bible was written by men in a comparatively primitive patriarchal society, and that this merely reflects the Israelite society at the time.
Unfortunately, many churches still teach that all of the bible must be revered as the inspired word of god. Some go so far as to say that all of it must be taken literally.
Pretty much all churches base their dogma on the bible, or their interpretation of it. (Exceptions include mormonism, which has it's own holy book for the most part).
In this instance the inhumane nature of the catholic dogma as revealed by the clergy has been revealed: the clergy of the catholic church deems the life of a 9 year old rape victim less then important then the 2 fetuses in her womb, and the clergy has yet to condemn the rape itself as well, AFAIK.
Not that I exclude faith of the followers of the catholic church again, and focus only on the clergy and their dogma.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 12, 2009, 11:32:03 AM
So, as it was explained to me, in the ancient world such as this, women did not have the same opportunities that they enjoyed today. They had three options - marriage, begging, or prostitution. If the woman was raped, she was no longer a virgin, and would not be able to find a husband, which left her with begging or becoming a prostitute. So the law states that they will be married, so that the person who put her in this position will have to become the person to support her. It wasn't because the woman should love him, or because they had sex and -must- be married because of it.
I find that this line of reasoning does not take the feelings of the woman into account. Who would want to have anything to do with someone who violated them in such a manner, let alone be made to live under the same roof?
Also, who is going to protect the woman should the man decide to take her against her will again? Under biblical law he can do this without penalty, as this woman is now his wife, and the wife must be subservient to her husband.
The rape laws of the bible are hopelessly inadequate in even the most basic situations, and where obviously not made with any female input.
Quote from: Alondro
Yep, Cog, that's how it was. In fact, the only ancient civilization in which women had very close to full equal rights with men was ancient Egypt.
If I remember correctly, the Celts also had rather better women's rights than the ancient Israelites or the Romans.
For instance, if a woman's husband was more into boys than his wife she could divorce him, and she would get half of all the assets involved in the marriage, and would be free to marry whomever she pleased again. The Celts also had much less of a fascination with virginity then the Romans or the middle-eastern cultures.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar
<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>
As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)
Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.
*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*
BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on March 12, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*
BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*
Blasphemy and desecration!!! Let's talk about Steeleye Span instead...
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 12, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.
What that song crucially misses is the penalty for rape that the king decrees (3rd verse down) which was why I thought of it. In
The Ups and Downs it's more a case of "Boy meets girl, shags her and runs away with no repercussions". Whereas the forester guy almost danced the same jig as Dorcan did, so to speak.
QuoteSo, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]
Cool.
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on March 12, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*
BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*
* sets stack of the holy books of all religions on the floor *
Have fun, kids! Just remember not to poke each other's eyes out.
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar
<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>
As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)
Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.
On the other hand, I don't think that many follow the exact wording of the old testament. Besides, a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally, or at least, that's what I was taught.
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 01:59:31 PM
Firstly, for practical, day to day living, the five books of Moshe aren't the only sources, indeed not really the primary source of direction. You can open up to some divorce law, but there is no mention of marriage law anywhere. On two occasions I can think of off the top of my head, (proper slaughtering of animals for food and tefellin), there is a mention of "Do it, like I told you", with no mention of how the law is meant to be carried out, just that it should be carried out.
Rather, for a lot of practical, day to day law, most information is contained in the Mishnah and the Gemara, originally oral bodies of work that were written down roughly 100 and 500 C.E. respectively.
To which, I would say that Mishnah and Gemara have a better handle on these issues, as they were answered by rabbinic counsels as these issues came to surface.
Quote from: Tapewolf on March 12, 2009, 04:11:02 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 12, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.
What that song crucially misses is the penalty for rape that the king decrees (3rd verse down) which was why I thought of it. In The Ups and Downs it's more a case of "Boy meets girl, shags her and runs away with no repercussions". Whereas the forester guy almost danced the same jig as Dorcan did, so to speak.
Yeah, I think the hemp fandango is missing from the Ups & Downs. It's been a while since I listened to it, though. I'm working my way through the album now. After which I shall probably let the player keep churning through the Ohaikau Express, Voltaire, We Are Ferrets, The Cruxshadows (with umlaut), and Type O Negative.
Just to see where the player runs. After that it gets a bit strange, and I shall probably find something else to listen to.
Quote from: Tapewolf on March 12, 2009, 04:11:02 PM
QuoteSo, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]
Cool.
I thought so. But then, I listen to all sorts of weird stuff, so what would I know? ;-]
Quote from: The1Kobra on March 12, 2009, 04:19:30 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar
<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>
As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)
Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.
On the other hand, I don't think that many follow the exact wording of the old testament. Besides, a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally, or at least, that's what I was taught.
Much of the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally, such as most of Genesis, but these are the laws the people of Israel were supposed to follow. I don't see how you can take these as allegory.
Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 04:29:46 PM
Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?
Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 04:29:46 PM
Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?
Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
I'm more impressed by verse 30.
"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." (Source (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html))
So... Crossdressing is fine, as long as your sons don't find your clothes? Hmmm...
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on March 12, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*
BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*
* sets stack of the holy books of all religions on the floor *
Have fun, kids! Just remember not to poke each other's eyes out.
Crap, I'm a Deist. As far as I can tell, there is no bible for us! *throws a science textbook instead*
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 04:29:46 PM
Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit Aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?
Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
I take issue with your translation that you used previously.
Devarim, Perek 22, Psukim 28 כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ
If a man comes across a young girl, that was not betrothed, and takes hold of her, and rapes her, and they are discovered.
Two points here. בְתוּלָה is often used in Christian circles to mean virgin. I forget the exact line, but it's in Ezekiel somewhere (I think, might be Jeremiah. One of the later prophets anyway) that says along the liens of, and a בְתוּלָה will give birth to a boy and......... Christian theology tends to take it as a prophecy predicting Jesus. Jewish theology tends to cite it as a prediction of immorality, that even girls under the age of marriage are giving birth. (And at least according to the letter of the law, a girl can get married at twelve.) אֹרָשָׂה is usually given as betrothed, but that isn't quite correct. Technically, marriage in Judaism is a several step process. An אֹרָשָׂה has gone through the first step, but not the successive ones. She's still considered married though, albeit incompletely, so if she's sleeping with someone else consentually, (no direct bearing on this case, but earlier, the one about the possible death penalty, its because adultery carries the death penalty. Just fooling around before you are married only carries whipping as a penalty.) it's adultery. This however, says she is completely unattached.
29 וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ, לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ--חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ--לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו.
And the man that was with her shall give to the father of the woman 50 silver shekels; (Shekel is a unit of weight. This is an era before the idea of coinage really caught on. I'm not sure how much money that comes out to be.) And he shall offer to marry her, because he has harmed her; he may not send her away, all of his life.
That part after the last semicolon is particularly significant. The phrase used to discuss divorce in the Tanach is "וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת" Literally, and he shall write her a book of separation. (or bill of separation might be better.) The line of לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו means more along the lines of "he is obligated to support her, and can't just kick her out on the street afterwards."
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 12, 2009, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 12, 2009, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on March 12, 2009, 04:29:46 PM
Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit Aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?
Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?
I'm more impressed by verse 30.
"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." (Source (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/22.html))
So... Crossdressing is fine, as long as your sons don't find your clothes? Hmmm...
I'm not crazy about this translation either. Not to begin with, at least in my edition, chapter 22 only has 29 psukim. The business about marrying the father's wife is the first pasuk of chapter 23.
לֹא-יִקַּח אִישׁ, אֶת-אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו; וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה, כְּנַף אָבִיו
could be rendered as, "A man shall not marry the wife of his father; (this includes if she's not biologically related to him by the way.) nor shall he remove his father's robe. I suppose כְּנַף could mean skirt, it refers to any sort of loose garment, but I don't think it means skirt here, in light of 22:5
לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה:
Male clothes shall not be worn on a woman, and a man shall not put on a females garb.
So no, you can't crossdress. Sowwy.
In conclusion, I want to mention how much of a pain it is to type in Hebrew. I have to point and peck for crying out loud!
I'm impressed, Corgatha. Truly.
The level of dedication needed to explain all this (and the explanation is welcome, I might add) is over and above the call.
... Especially since I was more or less taking the piss - hence why I posted my source (Skeptics Annotated Bible? Yeah, like that's a reputable copy... If I was serious, I'd use the New King James or some other recent translation; sadly, I don't speak hebrew, nor aramaic, nor greek, and hence can't read the originals...)
I was aware that the bible frowned upon crossdressing. It seemed unusual to me, in light of that, that someone had translated it as "skirt" rather than "robe"...
Just because I'm now all curious and stuff: does "לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו", as you quoted above - and the previous sentence, for that matter - suggest to you that whilst he's expected to support her, he's not expected to be allowed any, ah, let's call them "conjugal visits", I suppose? I mean, being required to support a woman and not get any of the benefits is about what I'd expect, but I'm curious if that was the underlying meaning that they were referring to _then_, if you follow me...
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 12, 2009, 07:37:21 PM
I was aware that the bible frowned upon crossdressing. It seemed unusual to me, in light of that, that someone had translated it as "skirt" rather than "robe"...
Just because I'm now all curious and stuff: does "לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו", as you quoted above - and the previous sentence, for that matter - suggest to you that whilst he's expected to support her, he's not expected to be allowed any, ah, let's call them "conjugal visits", I suppose? I mean, being required to support a woman and not get any of the benefits is about what I'd expect, but I'm curious if that was the underlying meaning that they were referring to _then_, if you follow me...
Well, what constitutes male and female's clothing varies from culture to culture. It never says anywhere that I'm aware of what is defined as man's clothing and woman's clothing. I mean, a kilt is almost a skirt, right? And guys wear that.
*flees all the Scotsmen*
But as for the second point, I'm not really sure. The technicalities of what exactly a rapist is obligated in isn't something I've devoted a lot of time to. I suppose I could ask around a bit, look it up, but at the level of a two second analysis, I think you hit it pretty squarely, that a rapist is expected to support his victim, especially since she might not be able to catch a husband to support her (working with the most common assumption that this is a man raping a woman.). But like I said, I don't really know offhand. I could look it up though, shouldn't take too long.
Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on March 12, 2009, 04:09:17 PM
*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*
BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*
!
*begins to beat on everyone's head until he hits neck!*
I shall take this as the prevailing wisdom and not continue this discussion here. :B
Well as I grew up in the church (a non denominational one, neither catholic or denominational), I can't say I know enough to translate it from the original Hebrew. As I didnt feel like looking through my bible for a few small versus... I used Google. Found a few things I read before but never really spent much time on.
After looking up 'rape in the bible' and 'murder in the bible' I found a few of the verses that I have read before but didn't really care to look up one by one. If you look it up yourself in google, you should get similar results, most of them biased though. But they do quote versus.
On rape, there are times where men were commanded to take wives of the virgins of a captured city. All other men, women, and children were to be slaughtered, no exceptions. This is found in the old testament, at least to the best of my knowledge.
One law of the old testament states "if men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (A footnote says 'or she has a miscarriage') but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Long, i know. That's in exodus 21:22-25.
So it seems that the bible, or at least the old testament, does allow rape in certain instances, but abortion or causing an unborn child to be harmed or killed, is a no no.
I just wanted to add that as what the scripture, or at least my bible, says. Can't say i'm really biased for one side or the other, that's just what it says.
The Old Testament's problems stem from the fact that it's composed of many pieces of text compiled over thousands of years. The most erroneous are those that include a great deal Jewish military prowice. There was a certain case with King Hezekiah having won a certain battle, when the archeaological evidence overwhelmingly reveals that Israel lost badly!
That's why I'm always hesitant to go into Leviticus and so forth for all the laws, because they tended to be overburdened and altered over time to fit what the leaders wanted.
The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law. And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!
Quote from: Alondro on March 13, 2009, 09:34:20 AM
The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law. And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!
I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier.
And George Carlin "proved" that you could cut it down to only three commandments...
"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nooky."
"Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man from the one you pray to."
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."
But, yes. The Ten Commandments are the most basic and fundamental of the laws that the three Abrahamic faiths should be following, but seem to have a few problems doing so. It's a shame. They'd be a lot more popular if they did.
I think the problem is not the people following those ten. It's the people who aren't, who are giving all the rest a bad name.
Which, as you say, is a shame. It's a great idea - how wonderful it would be if we could all be nice to each other for a change.
(and then get nailed to a tree for making such a heinous suggestion...)
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 10:10:19 AM
I think the problem is not the people following those ten. It's the people who aren't, who are giving all the rest a bad name.
Which, as you say, is a shame. It's a great idea - how wonderful it would be if we could all be nice to each other for a change.
(and then get nailed to a tree for making such a heinous suggestion...)
The irony is just sickening. And it's always the ones who don't play nicely who give the rest a bad name. Which sucks.
Quote from: Alondro on March 13, 2009, 09:34:20 AM
The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law. And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!
I have a few issues with those commandments.
First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.
The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me
This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.
The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.
You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.
The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.
This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.
The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy
Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.
The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.
Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops. Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.
The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder
In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.
The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.
You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enfoeced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?
The eighth: thou shalt not steal
I can agree with this one.
The nineth: thou shalt not bear false witness
I agree with ths one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the nazis, now do you?
The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.
George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.
Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatently pander to god's ego.
Quote from: Jairus on March 13, 2009, 09:59:56 AM
I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier
In a perfect world this one little law would be the basis for all society. Until then we'll just have to settle for what we've got.
Quote from: The DXM on March 13, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: Jairus on March 13, 2009, 09:59:56 AM
I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier
In a perfect world this one little law would be the basis for all society. Until then we'll just have to settle for what we've got.
Of course, then you have to factor in the nutjobs who enjoy giving
and receiving horrible evil... but that's stretching the topic just a little.
And personally, I would like people to respect that I am an atheist and not try to force their beliefs on me, so I in turn respect their beliefs and don't try to "convert" them. So far, it seems to work out okay, though I'm betting that someday I'll bump into some jackass for whom that isn't good enough and thinks I'm the spawn of Satan or something like that. In that case, I'll probably just take a leaf from the decent dude Jesus' book and turn the other cheek.
I note you keep shifting the goalposts, Vidar.
I'll demonstrate:
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.
The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me
This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.
I'm sorry? Who said these needed to be applied to everyone? Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.
However, the only people we're talking about applying them to are those who are claiming to follow these already, yet are screaming about killing the heathens. I don't notice you in that crowd - was there something you wanted to tell us?
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.
You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.
You're paraphrasing the original meaning, and then picking the paraphrasing to pieces and objecting to it. The original is "thou shalt not make graven images of your god" - which, if you look in the old churches, is usually pretty accurate. There are no images of god. There are lots of images of saints, angels, cherubim, seraphim, you name it. No god.
The only exception to this is the cross, and only the Roman Catholics keep god nailed to it, as it were. Even then, there's a little poetic licence to let you sneak around the edges - it's not an image of God, theoretically, it's a reminder of his sacrifice on our behalf. Or so I understand.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.
This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.
And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.
I have EVERY right to be offended if you say something that I take exception to. That's what free speech is. Your right to speak. My right to respond. Neither of us is free to make an affray, or riot, or break things. I'm perfectly allowed to speak right back, though.
Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy
Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.
Correct.
But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?
On could argue that the idea is that one doesn't work every day of the week, and take some time off from work to ponder the universe around you, which isn't a bad idea, but it's not in the specific wording, so we'll just let that idea slide for the moment.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.
Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops. Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.
Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.
It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.
And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder
In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.
... And, if everyone - all around the world - avoiding killing anyone, how would a war start, then? Who's first?
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.
You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enfoeced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?
Thou Shalt Not Get Nooky Outside Of Marriage, because it pisses people off, and tends to result in children who don't have parents to support them. These aims are reasonable, I would have thought.
Marriage is left up to the local judges. If the judges are happy to let you have three husbands, I'm certainly not going to argue with them. The only reason it's usually one of each is that that's the optimal for reproducing. Anything more is harder to get started. Particularly when you're talking about teenagers, whose brains are in their pants.
Once you get older, it's more organised. And that's one of the reasons that western societies are starting to branch out - people are living longer, getting married later, and hence starting to consider marriage after the testosterone/oestrogen has a chance to wear off. But that's a conversation for another thread.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The eighth: thou shalt not steal
I can agree with this one.
So glad.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The nineth: thou shalt not bear false witness
I agree with ths one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the nazis, now do you?
If the German army had been following these rules, it wouldn't have been a problem, would it?
Situational ethics is a slippery slope, though. It's hard to say where you should draw the line, because it's so easy to move it...
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.
George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.
And that's worked so well for the USA, hasn't it. What was your economy doing just now? What was that thing that happened the other year, oh, about 8 years ago now? Obviously unrelated to the conspicuous consumerism of the States, obviously.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatently pander to god's ego.
Did we say they covered everything? No. We just suggested that it might be a nice idea if people started following them. Not exclusively, just at all. Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?
I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:
Quote
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Deuteronomy&verse=6:5&src=HE), respectively.
I don't know how we got to the "Ten Commandments" from rape vs. abortion, but to continue the off-topic I just have a couple of things to say:
First of all, there ARE no "Ten Commandments." In the original Jewish tradition, they're more like declarations of faith. The first is "I, THE LORD, am your God." That's it. Period. Is that a commandment, as we understand the term? I suppose you could interpret it as the commandment, "Worship ME," coming from Yahweh, but the way it's phrased it doesn't seem to be commanding anything.
Secondly, if you really look it up in the Bible, there are only NINE commandments, not ten. That's why the religious traditions have to interpret what exactly makes up the "ten" Commandments, as ten sounds more official (as George Carlin put it), and that's why Jews, Catholics, and Protestants each have different reckonings of what the "ten" are. Going by Vidar's reckoning (which is the Protestant reckoning), the first two "commandments" are actually only one. God is basically saying "Worship ME, and ME alone." The "first" commandment is "Worship NO ONE except me," and the "second" is "Worship NOTHING except me." Not a whole world of difference there.
Catholics are even weirder, splitting the LAST commandment into two, such that the "ninth" Commandment becomes "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." That doesn't make any sense at all, since 1) "wife" is NOT the first thing the Bible says NOT to covet, "house" is; and 2) "wife" doesn't even get its own sentence aside from any other things we're told not to covet, only "house" does. If they wanted to split that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," into two, it would have made more sense to have the "ninth" be "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house." Also, why of all the commandments would they split up that one anyway?
Third, the "Ten Commandments" are just another example of JEWISH law being considered the "Word of God" by CHRISTIANS (like the creation story). It was the ISRAELITES to whom Yahweh said only to worship Him, and to keep the Sabbath (which meant Saturday, the seventh day of the week). Christians were never required to follow these laws because they're part of the "Old Testament," that is, the "Old Covenant" with God (meaning with the tribes of Israel). If Christians were required to follow these, then they should follow the 613 mitzvot (or "commandments") that the Jews are supposed to follow as well--which in its turn means that Christians should really NOT be Christians as we understand them today, but should instead be Jews (plus belief in Jesus as mashiach, or messiah)--makes perfect sense to me, since that's more or less what Jesus and his followers were, but do you hear anyone arguing for that?
Back to the whole abortion thing....
My view is that, once the fetus is developed enough that it has a good chance of survival outside the womb (irrespective of whether it will actually BE outside the womb yet), that's the point where "abortion" becomes "murder." Before then I consider it a ball of unspecialized cells that are being parasitic to the mother (granted with a different set of chromosomes than she has, inherited from conception), so while I'm not pro-abortion even then, I believe the mother has the right to decide whether to allow that to develop into a genuine person or whether to eliminate it from her system--that is, until the decision becomes made for her. Treat the "thing" as what it IS, not what it could potentially be.
And as thoroughly against rape as I am, my view on this matter doesn't change if the fetus was conceived from a rape--if the one who was raped waits too long and the pregnancy doesn't affect her adversely, I would prefer that she have the baby and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it. At most, get a C-section and have it removed, but not actually killed (since it has a good chance of surviving outside the womb by then anyway). Before that critical point in pregnancy, of course she has the right to kill the parasitic spawn of the man who did this to her, but after that I consider it an innocent person who never did anything intentional to harm her.
My view also doesn't change if the baby is the product of incest--how do you think the royal family does its business? :P If they're going to be weak and sickly anyway, let nature weed them out, but don't raise a hand to help them along the way (again, AFTER it becomes developed enough to survive outside the womb).
My apologies if I sound heartless, but I'm trying to remain emotionally distant and only (or at least mostly) use my brain to decide my opinions on this matter.
Quote from: Jairus on March 13, 2009, 12:03:45 PM
Of course, then you have to factor in the nutjobs who enjoy giving and receiving horrible evil... but that's stretching the topic just a little.
Oh, I don't know about that. I find it unlikely at best that anyone sincerely wants to be harmed. Some people aren't exactly afraid of breaking the ice, so to speak, but that doesn't mean they want to be hurt by anyone else.
But unfortunately we're speaking in ideals here so that's simply never going to happen. Or at least, not in my life time, I think.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
I note you keep shifting the goalposts, Vidar.
I'll demonstrate:
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.
The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me
This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.
I'm sorry? Who said these needed to be applied to everyone?
Alondro did, actually. He calls the commandments 'the basis of god's law', and wants them to be ' followed to the letter'. Now, a law applies to everyone, unless stated otherwise in the law itself.
If you could choose which law you follow and which you could ignore, then you have anarchy.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.
Those are descent guidelines, to be sure, but ' love your neighbour' and ' be nice to people' aren't part of the 10 commandments. You are changing goal posts now.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
However, the only people we're talking about applying them to are those who are claiming to follow these already, yet are screaming about killing the heathens. I don't notice you in that crowd - was there something you wanted to tell us?
Just that the 10 commandments are deeply flawed, and claiming that if everyone followed them the world would be a better place is probably false. We can make better laws ourselves, and have done. It's currently called 'the law'. It's a work in progress, and can be improved, but we've come a long way since the bronze age.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.
You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.
You're paraphrasing the original meaning, and then picking the paraphrasing to pieces and objecting to it. The original is "thou shalt not make graven images of your god" - which, if you look in the old churches, is usually pretty accurate. There are no images of god. There are lots of images of saints, angels, cherubim, seraphim, you name it. No god.
The following image can be seen on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel:
(http://artcess.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/creationofadam.jpeg)
Tell me, who is that on the right?
I'm pretty sure this is not the only image of god in a church.
Also, the commandment does not limit to images of god. It forbids making 'idols' of 'anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth', and that would include angels, cherubim, seraphim, devils, demons, and satan.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
The only exception to this is the cross, and only the Roman Catholics keep god nailed to it, as it were. Even then, there's a little poetic licence to let you sneak around the edges - it's not an image of God, theoretically, it's a reminder of his sacrifice on our behalf. Or so I understand.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.
This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.
And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.
Saying 'goddammit' is a far cry from punching you in the face.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
I have EVERY right to be offended if you say something that I take exception to. That's what free speech is. Your right to speak. My right to respond. Neither of us is free to make an affray, or riot, or break things. I'm perfectly allowed to speak right back, though.
You are indeed allowed to state you opinion on my swearing, however, you are not allowed to stop me from doing so, and that is exactly what this commandment does: it forbids me from swearing.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.
Not quite. I never said you could not speak out against me, or my use of language. I'm defending myself against the commandment that Alondro would like to see everyone adhere to.
It seeks to limit what I can and cannot say.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy
Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.
Correct.
But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?
I'm an atheist, actually. I've already stated that Alondro would like to see everyone follow the 10 commandments. I take issue with that since I do not follow the christian faith, and I take issue with someone wanting to apply the rules of his faith unto me.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
On could argue that the idea is that one doesn't work every day of the week, and take some time off from work to ponder the universe around you, which isn't a bad idea, but it's not in the specific wording, so we'll just let that idea slide for the moment.
You could argue that that is the idea, however, the commandment specifically mentions the Sabbath, and not just a random day of the week.
Remember, in the bible the Apostles where getting flack for grinding a small amount of wheat in their hand on the sabbath, and in another verse someone was stoned to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Biblical laws are not taken liberally in the bible. Why would you interpret them otherwise?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.
Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops. Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.
Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.
It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.
And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.
Honor and respect go hand in hand. If you respect someone, you honor them.
And again, Alondro would have everyone follow the 10 commandments as law.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder
In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.
... And, if everyone - all around the world - avoiding killing anyone, how would a war start, then? Who's first?
Wars have lots of causes. Religion, economics, attempted world conquest by a madman, natural resources, etc.
Also, the 'if' you propose is quote a big 'if', unfortunately. There's over 6 billion people packed on this world, and it's almost inevitable that someone is going to kill someone.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.
You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enforced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?
Thou Shalt Not Get Nooky Outside Of Marriage, because it pisses people off, and tends to result in children who don't have parents to support them. These aims are reasonable, I would have thought.
Marriage is left up to the local judges. If the judges are happy to let you have three husbands, I'm certainly not going to argue with them. The only reason it's usually one of each is that that's the optimal for reproducing. Anything more is harder to get started. Particularly when you're talking about teenagers, whose brains are in their pants.
Once you get older, it's more organised. And that's one of the reasons that western societies are starting to branch out - people are living longer, getting married later, and hence starting to consider marriage after the testosterone/oestrogen has a chance to wear off. But that's a conversation for another thread.
Quite so. Still, not everyone has the same ideas about marriage. Some couples like to exchange partners for a night as an adventure of sorts. The commandment would abolish this sort of thing, just because that is the rules.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The eighth: thou shalt not steal
I can agree with this one.
So glad.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The ninth: thou shalt not bear false witness
I agree with this one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the Nazis, now do you?
If the German army had been following these rules, it wouldn't have been a problem, would it?
Situational ethics is a slippery slope, though. It's hard to say where you should draw the line, because it's so easy to move it...
It's called 'moral relativism'. Some people don't like it, but that's because they can afford to hold moral near absolutes in the civilization we have constructed for ourselves. At times the rules of life that we have are no longer sufficient, and we have to rely on our own wisdom to decide whether following a rule is the right thing to do or not.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.
George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.
And that's worked so well for the USA, hasn't it. What was your economy doing just now? What was that thing that happened the other year, oh, about 8 years ago now? Obviously unrelated to the conspicuous consumerism of the States, obviously.
Not quite. The current financial crisis can't be reduced to 'people by too much stuff' so easily, but that's for another thread.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 11:24:46 AM
Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatantly pander to god's ego.
Did we say they covered everything? No. We just suggested that it might be a nice idea if people started following them. Not exclusively, just at all.
They most certainly don't cover everything. In fact some of them are outright discriminating.
We can do better, and have done better, many times over. We have laws that apply equally on everyone, regardless of belief, skin color, gender, and hopefully soon also on sexual preference.
The 10 commandments don't even give people basic human rights, and that should be the basis of the law.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?
It isn't, yet god tells the Israelites to kill the Canaanites mere verses after the 10 commandments. He makes the rules, and then commands his people to violate them at his command? What's up with that?
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:
Quote
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Deuteronomy&verse=6:5&src=HE), respectively.
[/quote]
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't believe in your god, and I most certainly don't love him above all. Making that into law would, again, lead to a theocracy, and I object to that.
'Love your neighbour' is something that I might be able to do if my neighbours would actually do the same. Right now, however, they are more interested in shoving their respective faiths down my throat and gleefully telling my I will burn in hell for all time, rather than show any kind of love, respect, or even dignity.
I might have more respect for christianity if the christians would follow their own rules and show compassion for their fellow human beings.
The clergy catholic church has now shown what the claims of love from them are worth: nothing. They regard adherence to their dogma more valuable than the life and well-being of a 9 year old rape victim to such an extent that they would condemn everyone who helped this girl to hell.
This is not a position that I can respect.
</wall of text>
...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.
Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.
And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.
...I think most of us do agree with you, Robbychu, even if we aren't as vehement about it. I certainly agree with you.
Quote from: Robbychu on March 13, 2009, 04:38:48 PM
...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.
Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.
And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.
Sadly, I fear the anti-abortionists would see this as proof that they're right and that those who condemn the rapist father are wrong. You're basically supporting
killing there (never mind the context), and they claim they're dead set
against killing (seeing abortion in that category), and they probably see killing as worse than rape, since rape at least allows the victim to live.
I don't know about a "moral spectrum" whereby one could judge whether it's worse to end someone else's life or to emotionally scar them for life, but this is precisely why I personally have gotten out of the habit of idealism and crusading for moral absolutism. I'm not telling
you what to do, just giving my own experience. As depraved as that father is, I personally don't want to sink to his level (or possibly below it) because I should know better, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I contributed to that kind of evil, even if it were only in thought and not direct deed (and especially if I did so in the name of good).
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Alondro did, actually. He calls the commandments 'the basis of god's law', and wants them to be ' followed to the letter'. Now, a law applies to everyone, unless stated otherwise in the law itself.
If you could choose which law you follow and which you could ignore, then you have anarchy.
So he did. My apologies - both to you and to Alondro.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.
Those are descent guidelines, to be sure, but ' love your neighbour' and ' be nice to people' aren't part of the 10 commandments. You are changing goal posts now.
True, and I feel slightly ashamed at that.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
The following image can be seen on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel:
(http://artcess.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/creationofadam.jpeg)
Tell me, who is that on the right?
I'm pretty sure this is not the only image of god in a church.
Also, the commandment does not limit to images of god. It forbids making 'idols' of 'anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth', and that would include angels, cherubim, seraphim, devils, demons, and satan.
I'm not sure. I know who it appears to be to me, but tha may or may not be what the original artist intended.
Further, it's not the matter of making images of things. It's the matter of worshipping them - something clearer, I think, in the original Hebrew, but sadly difficult to succinctly explain in English.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.
Saying 'goddammit' is a far cry from punching you in the face.
True. However, it's infringing on your rights in the same way that stopping you from speaking is. My right to swing my arm about ends where your nose begins, is the phrase I had in mind - I may not have been as clear as I'd like.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.
Not quite. I never said you could not speak out against me, or my use of language. I'm defending myself against the commandment that Alondro would like to see everyone adhere to.
It seeks to limit what I can and cannot say.
You have a point.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Correct.
But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?
I'm an atheist, actually. I've already stated that Alondro would like to see everyone follow the 10 commandments. I take issue with that since I do not follow the christian faith, and I take issue with someone wanting to apply the rules of his faith unto me.
I'm an apathetic agnostic. Interesting that it's us two arguing over the biblical rules, isn't it? ;-]
And your point about Alondro is fair enough. I'm perfectly happy to have rules for me, and I might suggest they be useful rules for you, but I'm not going to force them down your throat. If you want to follow them, neat.
Sadly, many people fail to respect your decision, and your ability to make it. :-/
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
You could argue that that is the idea, however, the commandment specifically mentions the Sabbath, and not just a random day of the week.
Remember, in the bible the Apostles where getting flack for grinding a small amount of wheat in their hand on the sabbath, and in another verse someone was stoned to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Biblical laws are not taken liberally in the bible. Why would you interpret them otherwise?
There
is the side of things that we're talking about the old testament, here, and the new one has some new rules that supercede the old ones. But that's getting a bit far afield.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.
It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.
And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.
Honor and respect go hand in hand. If you respect someone, you honor them.
... and if they don't respect you, and fail to care for you, it'd be nice if you can, but we won't hold you to it. That's the general idea of the New Testament, as I understand it. I could well be wrong, this is not unusual for me, but I do try to keep an open mind...
I'll admit the rules as written don't exactly agree with me, here, though. ;-]
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Wars have lots of causes. Religion, economics, attempted world conquest by a madman, natural resources, etc.
Also, the 'if' you propose is quote a big 'if', unfortunately. There's over 6 billion people packed on this world, and it's almost inevitable that someone is going to kill someone.
It was meant to be a huge, overly demanding if, yes. I don't expect such a case to be. I'm merely suggesting the thought experiment.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
It's called 'moral relativism'. Some people don't like it, but that's because they can afford to hold moral near absolutes in the civilization we have constructed for ourselves. At times the rules of life that we have are no longer sufficient, and we have to rely on our own wisdom to decide whether following a rule is the right thing to do or not.
Mmm. It's still a slippery slope.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?
It isn't, yet god tells the Israelites to kill the Canaanites mere verses after the 10 commandments. He makes the rules, and then commands his people to violate them at his command? What's up with that?
Sod if I know. Apparently he has a plan; it doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:
Quote
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Deuteronomy&verse=6:5&src=HE), respectively.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't believe in your god, and I most certainly don't love him above all. Making that into law would, again, lead to a theocracy, and I object to that.
[/quote]
Point of order - he's not my god. I'm not so sure he even exists; something else for another thread somewhere else.
Quote from: Vidar on March 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
'Love your neighbour' is something that I might be able to do if my neighbours would actually do the same. Right now, however, they are more interested in shoving their respective faiths down my throat and gleefully telling my I will burn in hell for all time, rather than show any kind of love, respect, or even dignity.
I might have more respect for christianity if the christians would follow their own rules and show compassion for their fellow human beings.
The clergy catholic church has now shown what the claims of love from them are worth: nothing. They regard adherence to their dogma more valuable than the life and well-being of a 9 year old rape victim to such an extent that they would condemn everyone who helped this girl to hell.
This is not a position that I can respect.
</wall of text>
Point. I'm more than happy to agree with you about the clergy of the catholic church, as long as you limit it to those directly responsible for this travesty, and their superiors - all the way up to Pope Benedict, if necessary. Not that that is all that far, as I understand it.
I know a number of priests who would be as horrified as you at what's happened here. I'm sure they'd feel this was overkill, and that there's a much better way of dealing with it. I'm not sure what that would be, as they're far more forgiving than I am - my solution would involve anthills and stakes, probably - but I feel sure they'd have some clever ideas.
Or maybe not so clever ideas, in some cases. They're only human, they get to make mistakes like the rest of us. And who knows, maybe this particular bishop is one of those people making mistakes...
Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 13, 2009, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: Robbychu on March 13, 2009, 04:38:48 PM
...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.
Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.
And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.
Sadly, I fear the anti-abortionists would see this as proof that they're right and that those who condemn the rapist father are wrong. You're basically supporting killing there (never mind the context), and they claim they're dead set against killing (seeing abortion in that category), and they probably see killing as worse than rape, since rape at least allows the victim to live.
I don't know about a "moral spectrum" whereby one could judge whether it's worse to end someone else's life or to emotionally scar them for life, but this is precisely why I personally have gotten out of the habit of idealism and crusading for moral absolutism. I'm not telling you what to do, just giving my own experience. As depraved as that father is, I personally don't want to sink to his level (or possibly below it) because I should know better, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I contributed to that kind of evil, even if it were only in thought and not direct deed (and especially if I did so in the name of good).
...wow people actually took my rage as a desire to act/accusation at the rest of you. IT WASN'T MEANT THAT WAY, DUDES. I need to lern to speek.
BUUUUUT on to the explaination. Murder is lower on the spectrum then rape, due to the lack of mental trauma for the murder victim. Murder victims are dead, they cannot suffer any further. Rape and abuse victims live with the event for the rest of their lives, and can be completely broken by this. I know that at least some choose to commit suicide due to the events. Their lives are altered in ways I cannot comprehend, and have no desire to comprehend. That, and there is always a cutoff point for abortion: Birth. Before that, you can argue trimesters all you want, but you will never agree.
I just also happen to have a violent streak a mile wide and minimal impulse control. I don't represent the human population at large, let alone the small group you single out. Hell, if they did, they'd have to assume that all pro-choicers were mildly psychopathic deviant schoolgirls on speed who like video games. Not exactly accurate, amirite?
Quote from: Robbychu on March 13, 2009, 05:08:13 PM
...wow people actually took my rage as a desire to act/accusation at the rest of you. IT WASN'T MEANT THAT WAY, DUDES. I need to lern to speek.
BUUUUUT on to the explaination. Murder is lower on the spectrum then rape, due to the lack of mental trauma for the murder victim. Murder victims are dead, they cannot suffer any further. Rape and abuse victims live with the event for the rest of their lives, and can be completely broken by this. I know that at least some choose to commit suicide due to the events. Their lives are altered in ways I cannot comprehend, and have no desire to comprehend. That, and there is always a cutoff point for abortion: Birth. Before that, you can argue trimesters all you want, but you will never agree.
I just also happen to have a violent streak a mile wide and minimal impulse control. I don't represent the human population at large, let alone the small group you single out. Hell, if they did, they'd have to assume that all pro-choicers were mildly psychopathic deviant schoolgirls on speed who like video games. Not exactly accurate, amirite?
I didn't mean my own comment as an accusation either, and I don't condemn you for your views, just trying to explain my own, and why I hold them.
You're right about the victims of successful murders having their suffering ending, but then there's always the argument about before this (as well as failed attempts)--what about victims of
attempted murder, in other words? I imagine that would be very similar trauma to that of rape, although granted it wouldn't result in a pregnancy. Either way it's a violation of basic human rights to live, and to live free from terror of someone else who is so selfish that they don't care who they hurt in order to get satisfaction.
Anyway, I may not agree with you entirely, but I will say this in your defense: you at least understand that you don't represent humanity at large, and have indicated that you're a thinking person and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with you--you didn't condemn me for what I said, for example. Not everyone with such extreme views can argue the same.
It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.
Quote from: rabid_fox on March 13, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.
I think he's mistaken, there.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on March 13, 2009, 08:57:42 PM
Quote from: rabid_fox on March 13, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.
I think he's mistaken, there.
I agree... but I suppose that depends on how it's meant. Does he believe I exist or does he believe I'll do the right thing?
If the first was it, why would God need to believe i exist? If he's omniscient, he knows for sure.
If it's the second... Not everyone is going to go to heaven, according to the bible. If he is all knowing, then shouldnt he know whether or not i'll do the right thing? He wouldnt need to believe, he would already know.
So he either knows I exist or knows I will do something. It's different than how we have to believe in him.
I don't know how this is turning into a religious thread, but....
If God is omniscient, in other words, all knowing, then how CAN God believe in ANYTHING? Including Himself?
Exactly.
And it's related to religion in why they were okay with the rape of a 9 year old, but abortion deserves excommunication
Quote from: rabid_fox on March 13, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.
I believe he's a she, and this is what my views are towards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Wow, I step away for a day, and this thread balloons.
Too tired and lazy to go into Hebrew etymology, or fiddle around with multiple quote pyramids, so I'm just going to say my piece and you're going to bear with me if you want to understand.
Firstly. I don't know where' you're getting your Bible (old testament) whatever translated Vidar, but
I would like to sit down with this person and have a detailed discussion about Hebrew grammar and vocabulary with them. It's probably a derivative of the King James bible, which I dislike intensely. (They don't even get the first sentance right!) It's probably not their fault, if I recall correctly, going backwards from english it went English->Dutch->French->Latin->Greek-> Hebrew. And a chain that long is almost certainly going to leave a lot of stuff out in translation.
Ba'al Hadad has it right though. Transliterated, it's Aseret Ha-divros. Ten phrases, or utterances if you want to be formal. The word for command in Hebrew is Tzeevah.
Anyway, about the third commandment. It isn't really so much about profanity, although that is also discouraged. It's more in the sense of formal oath taking (and breaking.) Saying "Goddammnit" is not breaking the idea. Saying "In the Lord's name I swear I will do such and such" and then not doing it is.
Going down to number eight, stealing more refers to stealing people, not objects.
Commandment number nine is more restricted than you seem to be taking it. It refers quite literally not to any degree of lying (quite a few biblican figures lie through their teeth) but to lying in court. (Which usually violates #3 as well.) Interesting to note, that in at least rabbinic Jewish authority, the penalty for perjury is whatever is at stake in the court case attempting to be decided.
Again, it's hard to put into English, but "covet" is something of a misnomer for number 10. And it's a bit more specific than that. To illustrate, suppose your next door neighbor has a nice house, that you like. If you want a nice house too, you might be a little too involved in the physical world to appease the most ardent rabbis, but you're not too bad. What is really off the mark here is if you want his house. If you would take a still nicer house over his, you're fine. It's more along the lines of wanting to be someone else, and assuming their state in life, than wanting to be richer or more powerful.
As Ba'al Hadad said again too, there are more to the Law than just those 10 phrases. Quite a bit more. One of the guys I read, forget who, basically came up with the theory that those are the ten most basic formulations of the laws, and that everything else could derive back to one of them. For example, any commandment involving social relations at some level derives from Honor your father and mother.
Oh, and about the sistine chapel pic. When I went to Italy last summer, one of the Rabbis of my acquaintance basically said that one as a religious Jew shouldn't go into the chapel because it's full of idolatry. (I ignored him. The art is great.)
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe tomorrow I'll have more energy to irritate you people.
Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 13, 2009, 05:21:15 PM
I didn't mean my own comment as an accusation either, and I don't condemn you for your views, just trying to explain my own, and why I hold them.
You're right about the victims of successful murders having their suffering ending, but then there's always the argument about before this (as well as failed attempts)--what about victims of attempted murder, in other words? I imagine that would be very similar trauma to that of rape, although granted it wouldn't result in a pregnancy. Either way it's a violation of basic human rights to live, and to live free from terror of someone else who is so selfish that they don't care who they hurt in order to get satisfaction.
Anyway, I may not agree with you entirely, but I will say this in your defense: you at least understand that you don't represent humanity at large, and have indicated that you're a thinking person and acknowledge that not everyone will agree with you--you didn't condemn me for what I said, for example. Not everyone with such extreme views can argue the same.
Ah. I didn't catch that. Hard to do so when all you have to work from is text.
Hn. Didn't think of that. In that case though, I'll put it up there with rape. Nobody should be forced to live with that sort of fear, and while I wish I could remove the emotional effects, I do not have that power.
I agree with you there. This is one of the few things I feel
really strongly about as well, so I tend to be rather... impulsive in my posting decisions. I appreciate the mini debate. :3
I just wanted to type that this is one of the most interesting topics I've read, and there are people on this message board who are far too smart for me. :januscat
Truthfully, at this point and forgive me for this, but I think the Catholic church should be dissolved. They have been responsible for, either directly or indirectly, more atrocities throughout the centuries than any other church or religion. Anyone who supports pedophilia, rape, murder and genocide without remorse should not be allowed to continue. Christianity as a whole, I don't have a particular issue with, even though I am an Athiest, but Catholocism has been responsible for way too much bad to be allowed continued existance.
Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg)
Well, I'm not one for caring whether an institutions like the church is good or evil or should exist or not.
But as for the Epicurs quote........
According to that little matrix he set up ,we have 4 possibilities. God Powerful and Good, God Powerful and Not Good, God Not Powerful and Good, and God Not Powerful and Not Good.
If God is impotent, why bother worshipping is a statement I'll agree with.
If God is Powerful but not good, then there is little reason to worship, except for fear of retribution.
But most religions nowadays hold that God is both omnipotent and with some sort of good will for us in mind, and I think that's the thrust of where you're going with this.
Now, I can only give you a Jewish perspective, but I don't think it's too far out.
First premise. Material well being takes a back seat to spiritual well being. It is better to be poor and righteous than rich and a disgusting person. From this, we would then be led to the idea that God is looking out more for the soul than the body, when it comes to well being. (And it does have to be for our well being. If you hold to the idea that God is omnipotent, than what can a human do for God ?)
But then of course, that leads to the question of what is good for the soul? For that, I'm going to have to draw back on another premise drawn from Jewish sources, namely that God creates imperfections for people to put aright. It is usually cited as the reason for circumcision. If you have those then, the idea ought to become clear. God allows people quite a wide latitude of free will. If everyone who committed such a minor sin as taking eggs from a bird without sending the moher away first was instantly struck by a bolt of lightning, can one really be said to have free will? It would be like having a gun held to the head for your entire life. And without that free will, without the ability to choose between good and evil, there isn't a lot of point to the whole idea of spiritual existance.
In summary, at least to Jewish belief. God allows a very high degree of free will, and views that the right to make choices supersedes other rights.
Quote from: radarnocturn on March 13, 2009, 10:32:27 PM
Quote from: rabid_fox on March 13, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
It's ok if you don't believe in God; he believes in you.
I believe he's a she, and this is what my views are towards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
God is actually an energy entity from the previous universe who must consume worlds to survive!
Oh wait... that was Galactus. :B
First of all I am disgusted by the actions of Archbishop Sobrinho and I'm not even Catholic. As sickened as I am, I can understand the worldview behind what he did.
In this mindset, abortion is considered a mortal sin and an automatic excommunication, even in the case of rape and incest. After all, the "children" (fetuses) didn't get to choose their father and shouldn't suffer for his sins. Two wrongs don't make a right and to deprive another human life is murder, period.
With regard to why the rape isn't an automatic excommunication, you have to remember that as horrible as rape is, it is an extension of sex, an act to bring life to the world. Since contraception can't be proven to be used, Furthermore, since this was her stepfather, it's not "technically" incest. At worst, what he did was coerced extramarital sex with a minor and given that his children have been killed as a result and he has confessed according to another source, he is already suffering and at least showing the beginnings of repentance.
The bottom line is that it's "babies at any cost."
Quote from: Destina Faroda on March 15, 2009, 12:46:00 AM
The bottom line is that it's "babies at any cost."
I think you've made a good summation of their position without actually agreeing with it.
And I think "babies at any cost" is a biased notion, one that all mammalian species are to some degree guilty of. We can't have many children--especially women, but even men can't if they're only allowed to be monogamous--and so we have more invested in each individual child, and since human babies are born prematurely they need to be raised by adults, therefore we're programmed to see them as "cute" so we will raise them (even though objectively they are parasites--not only feeding off the mother's body while she's pregnant, but also after birth, when nursing).
Not that I think it's no sin to kill a baby--after all, they are just following their instincts, just as adults are following theirs when they allow this sort of thing to happen--but I think it's stupid to put them on a pedestal as "unspoiled" and "innocent." After all, this then begs the question, at what point do you forfeit this universal worship? When are you "not so cute" anymore? And more importantly, WHY?
Quote from: Teroniss on March 14, 2009, 01:18:11 PM
Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg)
Probably a discussion for another thread, but...
This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?
The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.
Quote from: The DXM on March 15, 2009, 05:37:40 AM
Quote from: Teroniss on March 14, 2009, 01:18:11 PM
Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg)
Probably a discussion for another thread, but...
This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?
The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe that gods exist, and that we made them up. Though part of the original chain of thought that led me down that path was a bit of dissatisfaction with the Christian god I grew up with.
As a minor side-note, when I swear, I try to say "godsdammit!" Why curse something with only one god when I can call on the
entire pantheon of divine beings that have ever been believed to have existed? Fair's fair.
I'm a panist, myself. I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.
Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 15, 2009, 12:30:21 PM
I'm a panist, myself. I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.
You mean Pantheist? Panist to me either suggests that you worship Pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(mythology)) or that you play/worship the piano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pianist).
Quote from: Jairus on March 15, 2009, 12:33:41 PM
Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 15, 2009, 12:30:21 PM
I'm a panist, myself. I just think that fundamentalism and atheism are both unnecessary extremes, and my view is based on what I've learned about the universe from various disciplines.
You mean Pantheist? Panist to me either suggests that you worship Pan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(mythology)) or that you play/worship the piano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pianist).
Heh, no--"panist" is more all-encompassing than "pantheist," and so I like that term better. But "pantheist" is the closest of what you've suggested to what I mean (although I can knock out a simple tune by ear if given a few minutes practice....).
Quote from: Baal Hadad on March 15, 2009, 12:47:01 PM
Heh, no--"panist" is more all-encompassing than "pantheist," and so I like that term better. But "pantheist" is the closest of what you've suggested to what I mean (although I can knock out a simple tune by ear if given a few minutes practice....).
I assumed you meant Pan-worshipper as well :3
If my latin still serves, I'd say he means that he literally worships (appreciates, thinks well of, etc etc) the planet, or 'everything', as opposed to thinking that everything or the planet is 'god'.
Quote from: Cogidubnus on March 15, 2009, 01:12:19 PM
If my latin still serves, I'd say he means that he literally worships (appreciates, thinks well of, etc etc) the planet, or 'everything', as opposed to thinking that everything or the planet is 'god'.
I believe it's Greek, not Latin, and basically what I mean is that I believe (sorry to continue the off-topicness) that everything that is possible is real (though humans are only capable of being aware of so much at one time), and that everything that exists is part of a greater entity--the "all" or "Pan" in "panism"--and that this whole is conscious. Hence that can be thought of as "pantheistic" but I use a word that is more all-encompassing than one that specifically refers to God(s) or religion(s) of any kind.
Quote from: The DXM on March 15, 2009, 05:37:40 AM
Quote from: Teroniss on March 14, 2009, 01:18:11 PM
Also, I apologize beforehand again, but this picture properly summarizes my thoughts on the whole issue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/Teroniss/atheistsgc1.jpg)
Probably a discussion for another thread, but...
This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?
The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.
the point of the poster is that the proposition of an all-powerful loving just and merciful being is incongruent with the reality around us. Evil happens, often not through our own choice, and no god is doing anything about it. Why would that be?
The poster points to all logical options.
Quote from: The DXM on March 15, 2009, 05:37:40 AM
Probably a discussion for another thread, but...
This has been a continuous point of confusion in regards to Atheism for me. Do Atheists not believe in god because they simply think he/she/it doesn't exist? Or because they disagree with how he/she/it does business, thus meriting that It must not be a god on that basis?
The prior I understand, the latter's always been a puzzle for me to work over.
Actually, it depends on which aetheists you talk to. Bottom line is, none of us believe in gods or afterlife or other things like that, though the reasons can vary, and that's all. Some of us don't believe because we think it's al hypocritical, some of us because there's no proof, or simply the reasons you specified. The reason really isn't relevant, the only commonality is we all don't believe.
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on March 15, 2009, 03:05:50 PM
Actually, it depends on which aetheists you talk to. Bottom line is, none of us believe in gods or afterlife or other things like that, though the reasons can vary, and that's all. Some of us don't believe because we think it's al hypocritical, some of us because there's no proof, or simply the reasons you specified. The reason really isn't relevant, the only commonality is we all don't believe.
One can be an atheist and still believe in some kind of afterexistence. I refer you to Peter F Hamilton's
Nights Dawn trilogy for an example. Or Philip Jose Farmer's
Riverworld series (though that was effectively man-made).
More to the point, the idea of a separate consciousness or that sentience may not be confined to currently-understood laws of physics does not necessarily imply (or require) the existence of a divinity.
Personally I'm agnostic.
Quote from: Tapewolf on March 15, 2009, 03:12:45 PM
One can be an atheist and still believe in some kind of afterexistence. I refer you to Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy for an example. Or Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series (though that was effectively man-made).
More to the point, the idea of a separate consciousness or that sentience may not be confined to currently-understood laws of physics does not necessarily imply (or require) the existence of a divinity.
...From what I understand, isn't that what agnostic
is? You believe in afterlife/some kind of divinity, but no specifics like an organized church?
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on March 15, 2009, 03:15:16 PM
...From what I understand, isn't that what agnostic is? You believe in afterlife/some kind of divinity, but no specifics like an organized church?
By definition, an agnostic doesn't know whether there is a god or not. I still say you're mixing the ideas of deities and afterlife.
Huh. Different definition. I thought that one was for an "on-the-fence" or "don't care" aetheist.
...Then what is someone who believes in something but isn't tied to any organized religion called?
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on March 15, 2009, 03:21:57 PM
...Then what is someone who believes in something but isn't tied to any organized religion called?
Deism usually fits the bill.
Quote from: techmaster-glitch on March 15, 2009, 03:21:57 PM
Huh. Different definition. I thought that one was for an "on-the-fence" or "don't care" aetheist.
...Then what is someone who believes in something but isn't tied to any organized religion called?
A lunatic.
What? You said what is someone like that "called"--you didn't say what someone like that IS. :P
Seriously, though, I'd say "spiritual" for that. As far as atheism/agnosticism not necessarily meaning believing in nothing, I'd put forth Buddhism for consideration. Buddhism teaches that nothing lasts forever, and that includes the gods, so they're not worthy of worship. It's called a religion, but basically it teaches moderation and rightness in order to extinguish your desires and by extension your suffering--rather than teaching about any divinity.
EDIT: I don't know if I'd define Deism that way--Deism is when you believe in a God, but you believe that God was creator and only that, not interfering with His creation in any way, therefore prayer (at least prayers of request, if not thanks) is useless, as is believing "God is on my side," or "God will protect me," or "God will do anything that requires more involvement than just having created everything."
From my experience people who believe in something or some sort of higher being but aren't a part of organized religion title themselves "nondenominational." This is interesting to me as nondenominational has become a denomination of its own with many of them that go to a church and study some sort of scripture while refusing to say they're a part of a specific religion.
As for reasons to believe in some sort of deity, some people do so because they don't feel fulfilled unless they do believe, some people don't actually believe but say they do to have a way to supposedly justify their highly unethical/illegal actions, some people are too afraid to not believe because they think if there's no god there's no afterlife which is frightening for them. I've heard a variety of other reasons people believe in a god or gods. As for me, I believe in God simply because it's impossible for me not to believe in God. And believe me, I've had many people attempt to prove to me that He does not exist. :januscat
Before anyone can convince me there is no God whatsoever, they must first be able to explain what 96% of the universe is composed of.
Simply saying 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' doesn't cut it... as no one knows what those two things actually are. And when you can't explain the vast majority of energy in the universe, you have alot of explaining to do! Not to mention several other quantum oddities that don't exactly fit in any leading theories, but are demonstrated to be very real.
Neither do I think that any religion has the whole truth. All have been corrupted by greedy leaders twisting the words to fit what will benefit them most.
Quote from: Alondro on March 15, 2009, 07:27:16 PM
Before anyone can convince me there is no God whatsoever, they must first be able to explain what 96% of the universe is composed of.
Simply saying 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' doesn't cut it... as no one knows what those two things actually are. And when you can't explain the vast majority of energy in the universe, you have alot of explaining to do! Not to mention several other quantum oddities that don't exactly fit in any leading theories, but are demonstrated to be very real.
Neither do I think that any religion has the whole truth. All have been corrupted by greedy leaders twisting the words to fit what will benefit them most.
Another reason I'm a panist. There are no greedy leaders and anyway it can't be corrupted by twisting words.
It is true that we don't know everything about the universe, but to me it makes just as little sense to believe in God because of that as to disbelieve in God because of that. "I don't know" only proves that we're finite and that we don't know everything--it proves nothing more or less than that.
Hmm, well for the idea fo an athiest believing in something after death is rare, since there aren't many ideas that don't seem hypocritical of the athiesm idea. Personally, I go with the rare thought brought about by physics, in that everything contains energy, and energy cannot be destoryed, only transferred. In that thought, I believe when a person dies, there energy is transferred back into the universe to be used for another purpose; be it to make new life, or as much as to power the locomotion of a random object.
As for my poster, the idea behind me posting it coems from the last line. If God is neither willing nor able, why do we call him God? In that idea, even if an entity we call god exists, he is not an all powerful diety, and therefore, in my thoughts, no god.
Forgive me my thoughts if I am offending anyone btw >.>
Quote from: Alondro on March 15, 2009, 07:27:16 PM
Before anyone can convince me there is no God whatsoever, they must first be able to explain what 96% of the universe is composed of.
Simply saying 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' doesn't cut it... as no one knows what those two things actually are. And when you can't explain the vast majority of energy in the universe, you have alot of explaining to do! Not to mention several other quantum oddities that don't exactly fit in any leading theories, but are demonstrated to be very real.
Neither do I think that any religion has the whole truth. All have been corrupted by greedy leaders twisting the words to fit what will benefit them most.
Science doesn't explain everything yet, but in my opinion a gap in our knowledge doesn't justify a belief in a god. It just means that we don't yet know.
Quote from: Vidar on March 16, 2009, 04:57:35 AM
Science doesn't explain everything yet, but in my opinion a gap in our knowledge doesn't justify a belief in a god. It just means that we don't yet know.
That one is a particularly tricky chestnut, as the belief that 96% of the universe is missing may be flawed in and of itself.
or of course, the fact that we now knot that what was conventionally thought of 'solid matter' is over 99.99999999999999% empty space, its impossible for any two items to actually touch, and we barely have a clue what gravity really is other then the stuff that makes things drop