Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Luigison on November 21, 2008, 11:38:02 AM
-
I made a 2.7 and therefor am a liberal airhead.
What's your score? http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
I debated over putting this here. If Steve or anyone else sees it best in Not at the Dinner Table I won't argue.
-
I have a 2.8. Another liberal airhead.
-
I got 3.83. I'm within normal limits.
"You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American."
-
2.6333333333333333
I'm a liberal airhead. Do you have to be a fascist/racist or hate gay people to get anything else?
-
2.7666666666666666
All the cynical questions and "people suck in general" questions are the reason I'm not in the <2 category.
-
3.1333333333333333.
That was an interesting test thing.
-
3.533333333333333
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Hooray for me.
-
3.1666666666666665
-
2.633333333333333
Those questions are so skewed, it's hard to answer accurately.
-
1.733333333333333 here. This makes me a whining rotter.
-
Who edited my post? I never said any of that. >.>
-
3.2333333333333334
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Wow, I'm the same as you, NensonduBois! Is that good?
-
2.1
I don't see how anyone who gets a score like 4.4 can be revered like this to be honest, to score that high you have to be either very religious (and not in the good, self-improving way, but in the "I'm going to use religion to judge everyone different from me" way), a bigot, or a sociopath who thinks it should be illegal to disagree with him on social issues.
-
3.1.
Not having strong opinions wins the day I guess.
-
3.8666666666666667
-
Also, question 18 is terribly written -- I answered 6 because I read it as "personal issues" -- like, what I do in my own home/bedroom, what I do with my body, conversations I have with others on sensitive issues, etc. Considering 6 is "very fascist" it probably meant to mean "governmental doings". If you interpret it like I did, a 1 is most fascist and a 6 is least.
I'm changing my score to 1.93333...
-
2.7666666666666668
-
2.16
I'm a liberal airhead. Many years ago, I probably would have scored much higher.
-
The problem with any test like this is that no matter how fine-tuned it gets (and this one is on the higher end, as far as that goes), it still won't be able to avoid generalizing or oversimplifying. I have a feeling I would have scored higher had I been able to go deeper (inb4 Inception jokes) into the issues.
-
Scoring higher is a bad thing in my mind :(
-
And scoring lower is a bad thing in mine. That's generally the view that people on one side have of the other side.
-
So you'd rather have that guy in the empty suit make decisions for you? ... I don't see what's bad about wanting to make your own decisions without government intrusion.
to each his own, I guess. I do hope you, at the very least, didn't put anything above a 3 for question 16. Most of these questions I can see the other side, but disagree with it... but that one...
Also for some reason there's no option to move this to Not at the Dinner Table, even though I'm trying to do it. I think it thinks the child board is the same thing as the main board.
EDIT: never mind, found it.
-
I put a four, but that's probably the single most oversimplified question of the bunch, because it's a rather complicated issue.
-
There's a HUGE difference between not liking homosexuality and actually wanting to criminalise it.
-
I know that. But it fails to make clear what would be criminalized. Are you criminalizing people's being attracted to the same sex? If so, then I disagree. Or are you criminalizing their actually sleeping with people of the same sex? If so, then... well, I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't think it would necessarily be completely unreasonable. And the way it's worded... "Homosexuals are no better than criminals"... makes it seem as though homosexuality can be a homosexual's only defining trait. Maybe the homosexual in question is a decent guy who struggles with that one vice. A person doing a bad thing does not make him a "bad*" person.
*"Bad" meaning completely evil in the eyes of his fellow man; in the eyes of God, everyone is born a "bad" person.
-
2.6333 repeating.
What I got from this was "Fear and follow every order of your elders! If they are absent, Fear and follow every order of the Government! Then Fear and follow every order of God! FEAR! Also gay people are icky."
-
Oh, so you DO think what goes on in people's bedrooms is your, and the government's business.
In that case, we will NEVER see eye to eye on this, and I'll refrain from saying what I really think. Carry on.
EDIT: Ok, I have one comment, and I'm trying to post this from a point of view you are used to: By actually regulating and criminalising an act you see as an affront to God, you are saying that you know better than God what should be allowed in society. It's not your job to sort people out -- it's His.
-
Oh, so you DO think what goes on in people's bedrooms is your, and the government's business.
Did I not say that I'm not sure where I stand regarding that aspect of the issue?
EDIT: Ok, I have one comment, and I'm trying to post this from a point of view you are used to: By actually regulating and criminalising an act you see as an affront to God, you are saying that you know better than God what should be allowed in society. It's not your job to sort people out -- it's His.
By regulating and criminalizing an act that is an affront to God, we're doing what he told us to do. I'm pretty sure he didn't tell us to do nothing about it. And have you considered that our penalizing their actions is his method of "sorting them out"? Just because he's not smiting them with a lightning bolt where they stand doesn't mean he's not passing judgment.
-
You haven't been around, Insane Steve, so you probably don't know but you already described Turtlekid1 in your earlier post: "either very religious (and not in the good, self-improving way, but in the "I'm going to use religion to judge everyone different from me" way), a bigot, or a sociopath who thinks it should be illegal to disagree with him on social issues".
My favourite of his quotes is the time he told us he'd have no qualms with brutally murdering us all if he ever stopped believing in God.
-
Or are you criminalizing their actually sleeping with people of the same sex? If so, then... well, I'm not sure where I stand, but I don't think it would necessarily be completely unreasonable.
According to John Stuart Mill, the government has no right to infringe upon our autonomy. I pretty much agree with this because we're cognitively separated from one another. If I want to have sex with another man, I should be free to do so because I'm the only one who knows what's best for me. It doesn't infringe upon your right to have sex with a woman, and it certainly doesn't harm your autonomy in any conceivable way.
-
(and not in the good, self-improving way, but in the "I'm going to use religion to judge everyone different from me" way)
Asserting that someone is in the wrong is not judging them.
My favourite of his quotes is the time he told us he'd have no qualms with brutally murdering us all if he ever stopped believing in God.
My favorite of your quotes is the time you told me why I should have any qualms about it.
OH WAIT
-
By regulating and criminalizing an act that is an affront to God, we're doing what he told us to do.
That's a fallacious appeal to authority. How about giving an actual reason for the criminalization of homosexuality?
-
By regulating and criminalizing an act that is an affront to God, we're doing what he told us to do. I'm pretty sure he didn't tell us to do nothing about it. And have you considered that our penalizing their actions is his method of "sorting them out"? Just because he's not smiting them with a lightning bolt where they stand doesn't mean he's not passing judgment.
No, you're considering yourself better than God -- that is, more equipped to handle a subset of humanity. He didn't say anything about it -- so He's essentially "neutral" on how we should approach this, which in my interpretation means He'll sort them out. And before you pull out Leviticus 18:22 -- Read a bit further and see what other "crimes" are equally sinful. Go on , if you're not naked you're probably committing a sin on the order of sodomy right now.
Also I stopped believing in God before I first joined TMK, and I've never had the urge to murder someone. I live by the One Commandment, and I'm pretty sure all of the Ten Commandments can be reduced to this: The One Commandment is:
"Don't be an *******."
That would, believe it or not, include not killing people.
Also, just curious, what other things that are legal right now would be illegal in Turtlekid world?
-
That's a fallacious appeal to authority. How about giving an actual reason for the criminalization of homosexuality?
Says the guy who just sucked John Stuart Mill's dick.
-
Says the guy who just sucked John Stuart Mill's dick.
Whoa, don't tell Turtlekid this. Our prisons are crowded enough.
-
Says the guy who just sucked John Stuart Mill's dick.
No, I'm agreeing with Mill, numbnuts. It's okay to adopt a position similar to an authoritative person's position as long as you give a good reason for doing so. My reason (similar to Mill's) is that humans are essentially autonomous. We are cognitively separated from one another so we get to define what is pleasurable to us.
Turtlekid, on the other hand, said "God told me to." That's a fallacious appeal to authority. He gave no reason for his assertion other than a person in authority said it.
-
My favorite of your quotes is the time you told me why I should have any qualms about it.
OH WAIT
I don't bring it up to argue with you; I use it to show people that you're literally an insane sociopath.
-
I don't bring it up to argue with you; I use it to show people that you're literally an insane sociopath.
But no one has told me why that makes me insane and/or sociopathic, and more importantly, why those are bad things.
No, you're considering yourself better than God -- that is, more equipped to handle a subset of humanity. He didn't say anything about it -- so He's essentially "neutral" on how we should approach this, which in my interpretation means He'll sort them out. And before you pull out Leviticus 18:22 -- Read a bit further and see what other "crimes" are equally sinful. Go on , if you're not naked you're probably committing a sin on the order of sodomy right now.
There's a difference, though, between moral law (things like murder and sodomy) and ceremonial law (things like regulations for animal sacrifice), the latter of which are no longer relevant.
Also, just curious, what other things that are legal right now would be illegal in Turtlekid world?
Abortion. And reality television.
Turtlekid, on the other hand, said "God told me to." That's a fallacious appeal to authority. He gave no reason for his assertion other than a person in authority said it.
Why is it fallacious, and why do I need another reason? The God of the universe who made and is in charge of literally everything, who knows everything, tells you to do something. Do you really need another reason?
An "appeal to authority" can really only be fallacious if said authority is fallible.
-
But no one has told me why that makes me insane and/or sociopathic, and more importantly, why those are bad things.
So your argument is now that you don't understand why being insane and/or a sociopath is a bad thing?
I'm honestly not sure whose point you're trying to prove.
-
My argument is that you shouldn't assume that I know why those are bad things, and you shouldn't regard them as bad things unless you have a reason. I hear from PL that those are pretty important to have when you make claims.
-
Ok, so you're one of those types who cherry-picks from the Bible to justify your bigotry. Got it. If the word of God is infallible, as you think it is, you don't get to pick and choose what words you follow. Again, this means you think you're better than God is.
Abortion in literally all cases? Ok, hypothetical scenario here:
A woman, roughly 4 months pregnant, gets some tests done and discovers the unborn child has a rare condition called sirenomelia, otherwise known as Mermaid Syndrome. Further tests show that the child's kidneys/bladder will never function correctly, and as such the child has a zero percent chance of survival. (There are very very rare cases of children with this surviving, but if the kidney issues occur the child won't live a day.) During the extremely short time the child is alive, it will be in severe pain (don't GIS it, the images are pretty hideous). Now, fast forward a bit. The mother develops a fairly serious infection, and having to give birth, even via C-section, suddenly has a much higher chance of being fatal.
Now, given that there's zero chance of this fetus being viable, and there's a fairly high chance of the mother dying if the fetus isn't aborted, do you honestly think abortion, in this case, should be illegal?
If so, you are no longer able to call yourself "pro-life".
Reality TV ... heh, not sure what to say about that. I personally think lying to people on "news" programs should be illegal (if you want to lie, they have to be called "entertainment", NOT news). I'm looking at you, Rupert Murdoch.
Also I think the fact that you think that you "aren't sure" if my sex life should be the government's business is a sign of sociopathy -- you're actively trying to control and manipulate other people's lives. That is one of the defining traits of a sociopath.
-
Ok, so you're one of those types who cherry-picks from the Bible to justify your bigotry. Got it. If the word of God is infallible, as you think it is, you don't get to pick and choose what words you follow. Again, this means you think you're better than God is.
When did I ever say that I'm picking and choosing which laws I want to follow? The New Testament makes clear that ceremonial law is no longer necessary, since the need for sacrifice was fulfilled by Christ for good. Moral laws, regarding sin, are still very relevant, and still condemned in the New Testament just as much as in the Old.
Abortion in literally all cases? Ok, hypothetical scenario here:
A woman, roughly 4 months pregnant, gets some tests done and discovers the unborn child has a rare condition called sirenomelia, otherwise known as Mermaid Syndrome. Further tests show that the child's kidneys/bladder will never function correctly, and as such the child has a zero percent chance of survival. (There are very very rare cases of children with this surviving, but if the kidney issues occur the child won't live a day.) During the extremely short time the child is alive, it will be in severe pain (don't GIS it, the images are pretty hideous). Now, fast forward a bit. The mother develops a fairly serious infection, and having to give birth, even via C-section, suddenly has a much higher chance of being fatal.
Now, given that there's zero chance of this fetus being viable, and there's a fairly high chance of the mother dying if the fetus isn't aborted, do you honestly think abortion, in this case, should be illegal?
If so, you are no longer able to call yourself "pro-life".
But that's not like 99.9% of abortion cases. It's not a matter of taking a life, it's a matter of saving a life. Life of the mother cases are the only ones in which there's ever even a tiny shadow of a doubt. But again, they're the exception, not the rule.
Also I think the fact that you think that you "aren't sure" if my sex life should be the government's business is a sign of sociopathy -- you're actively trying to control and manipulate other people's lives. That is one of the defining traits of a sociopath.
If you want a system of law, then you're going to control elements of peoples' lives, no matter what. Do you think that, say, theft (because murder has been used as an example a lot lately) should be permissible as long as it's done in private?
Also, no one has explained to me yet why being a sociopath is bad.
Reality TV ... heh, not sure what to say about that.
That was just a joke. I just think reality TV is pox on the entertainment industry because it's a quick and lazy substitute for actual creativity, and because there are only so many time-slots, the genuinely good shows are the ones that get canceled because they don't make money as quickly. But there's nothing morally wrong with it, per se, and to discuss it in-depth is probably for a different thread (but who am I kidding, all NatDT discussions end up debating the morality of homosexuality eventually).
-
Why is it fallacious, and why do I need another reason? The God of the universe who made and is in charge of literally everything, who knows everything, tells you to do something. Do you really need another reason?
You cannot empirically prove that God exists. A claim that is asserted without proof can be denied without it. In short, your appeal to authority is its own reductio ad absurdum.
Think of it like this. I believe in a god who tells me to murder and slaughter little children. When I go to court, if my "reason" for doing so is "My god told me to do it!" they're going to throw my butt in jail.
An "appeal to authority" can really only be fallacious if said authority is fallible.
An appeal to authority is always fallacious because it's not really a reason for doing something. You can agree with what the authoritative figure is saying, but you have to give a reason for that also.
John Stuart Mill
Here's my authoritative figure,
I pretty much agree with this
here's me agreeing with him,
because we're cognitively separated from one another.
and here's my reason.
-
You cannot empirically prove that God exists.
No, but I can be pretty sure of it all the same.
Think of it like this. I believe in a god who tells me to murder and slaughter little children. When I go to court, if my "reason" for doing so is "My god told me to do it!" they're going to throw my ass in jail.
Actually, if you honestly believed that you were ordered by a deity to commit those crimes, you'd be more likely to be committed.
But it's irrelevant, anyway, since any "god" who advocates murder isn't God.
-
No, but I can be pretty sure of it all the same.
I'm pretty sure that an invisible blueberry muffin exists on Jupiter. Does that give my claim that homosexuality should be criminalized any weight?
But it's irrelevant, anyway, since any "god" who advocates murder isn't God.
That's highly debatable. God kills a whole bunch of people in the Bible.
-
I'm pretty sure that an invisible blueberry muffin exists on Jupiter. Does that give my claim that homosexuality should be criminalized any weight?
If there's evidence of its existing, and if it's the omnipotent creator of all things, and it says that sodomy is a sin, then I would say "yes."
That's highly debatable. God kills a whole bunch of people in the Bible.
Uh. He's God. He has every right to. And again, there's a difference between killing and murder.
-
But it's irrelevant, anyway, since any "god" who advocates murder isn't God.
You mean he isn't your God. Who are you to say whose God is real and whose isn't? How is that any different than any one saying your God isn't real?
-
If there's evidence of its existing
Only there isn't.
Uh. He's God. He has every right to.
-_____-
-
Only there isn't.
I think a gigantic historical chronicle that tells about the muffin and its laws in excruciating detail counts as evidence.
Also, you can prove whether there is or isn't a muffin on Jupiter. You can't prove there isn't a God.
-_____-
?
-
I think a gigantic historical chronicle that tells about the muffin and its laws in excruciating detail counts as evidence.
I assume you're talking about the Bible. And it's a very poorly written thing.
Also, you can prove whether there is or isn't a muffin on Jupiter. You can't prove there isn't a God.
No, you can't prove or disprove the existence of either. Based on the evidence or lack thereof you either believe or you don't. I wouldn't believe in flying muffins in space just as I wouldn't believe in God.
-
I assume you're talking about the Bible. And it's a very poorly written thing.
Uh... no?
No, you can't prove or disprove the existence of either. Based on the evidence or lack thereof you either believe or you don't. I wouldn't believe in flying muffins in space just as I wouldn't believe in God.
Wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to observe the planet Jupiter and find the muffin if it's there?
-
Wouldn't it be a relatively simple matter to observe the planet Jupiter and find the muffin if it's there?
Not if it's invisible. Like God. And God should be highly observable, considering that he "created" the universe.
-
Ah. I guess I missed the "invisible" part. But my point was that the muffin would be detectable with the instruments we have at our disposal.
-
And God should be highly observable, considering that he "created" the universe.
How do you know you're not seeing God everywhere? What do you have to compare it to? If everything in existence was created by God, then you've never seen anything not created by God, so how could you know the difference?
-
How do you know that you are?
-
When did I ever say that I'm picking and choosing which laws I want to follow? The New Testament makes clear that ceremonial law is no longer necessary, since the need for sacrifice was fulfilled by Christ for good. Moral laws, regarding sin, are still very relevant, and still condemned in the New Testament just as much as in the Old.
So my interpretation of the Bible is not the same as yours, then. Fair enough.
But that's not like 99.9% of abortion cases. It's not a matter of taking a life, it's a matter of saving a life. Life of the mother cases are the only ones in which there's ever even a tiny shadow of a doubt. But again, they're the exception, not the rule.
That was the point -- I was going for the logical extreme case here. That said, shouldn't these cases be handled separately, instead of just being all "Oops, too bad, see you in Hell because other people have non-procreational sex"?
If you want a system of law, then you're going to control elements of peoples' lives, no matter what. Do you think that, say, theft (because murder has been used as an example a lot lately) should be permissible as long as it's done in private?
There is a VERY critical difference between regulating what people do to other people non-consensually, what other people do with each other consensually, and what one does with themselves, in private. Murder, by definition, is an act where one party is non-consenting. In my mind, laws should only exist to protect against those. "Victimless crime" really should be an oxymoron, and not something people actually go to jail for. Of course where abortion gets weird. I see is as a breach against what one does with themself, because I don't think the fetus is alive until and unless it is viable. You think life starts at conception, so it's in the first case.
That said, if life begins at conception, shouldn't a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?
Also, no one has explained to me yet why being a sociopath is bad.
See, here's where I should describe what I mean by a sociopath. A sociopath only cares about themselves -- the thoughts and ideas of others bear no role in their decision. In some cases this is not bad, but if you take this to the logical extreme (e.g., killing people because you don't believe in God), it's very bad, indeed. By itself it's not bad, but it can lead to Very Bad Things in many situations.
Of course, my girlfriend argues that a formally defined sociopath also feels no emotion and can't be religious, but I'm not sure of either of those.
That was just a joke. I just think reality TV is pox on the entertainment industry because it's a quick and lazy substitute for actual creativity, and because there are only so many time-slots, the genuinely good shows are the ones that get canceled because they don't make money as quickly. But there's nothing morally wrong with it, per se, and to discuss it in-depth is probably for a different thread (but who am I kidding, all NatDT discussions end up debating the morality of homosexuality eventually).
Yea, figured. And threads only delve into homosexuality if people bring them up, though it appears I'm the one guilty of that in this thread.
EDIT: About a God who kills not being a real god, didn't God murder a bunch of people in the Bible? Some, for no real reason at all (e.g., Lot's wife)?
-
How do you know that you are?
I never said I was. But you can't prove you're not.
-
You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you. "I'm right because you can't prove I'm wrong" is incredibly fallacious. And, very common in religious debates.
-
You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you.
I was just about to say that. You're awesome.
"I'm right because you can't prove I'm wrong"
Yeah, that's the appeal to ignorance fallacy in case you guys were wondering.
I never said I was. But you can't prove you're not.
You're right, I can't. I don't believe it though, and that's based on the evidence or lack thereof.
EDIT: Does everyone in this thread know the difference between a belief and a claim? I just want to make sure.
-
There is a VERY critical difference between regulating what people do to other people non-consensually, what other people do with each other consensually, and what one does with themselves, in private. Murder, by definition, is an act where one party is non-consenting. In my mind, laws should only exist to protect against those.
Murder can still be committed against a person with a death wish, though. There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.
That said, if life begins at conception, shouldn't a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?
But in manslaughter cases, the killer still has control over his actions even if it's involuntary. When a woman miscarries, it's not a result of any particular action on her part.
See, here's where I should describe what I mean by a sociopath. A sociopath only cares about themselves -- the thoughts and ideas of others bear no role in their decision. In some cases this is not bad, but if you take this to the logical extreme (e.g., killing people because you don't believe in God), it's very bad, indeed. By itself it's not bad, but it can lead to Very Bad Things in many situations.
What bad things does it lead to, and why are they bad?
About a God who kills not being a real god, didn't God murder a bunch of people in the Bible? Some, for no real reason at all (e.g., Lot's wife)?
God never murdered anyone. He killed people, but it was never for no reason. Lot's wife disobeyed him in "looking back at the city," where "looking back" doesn't mean she just glanced back, but that she wanted to go back.
You're the one making the assertion, so the onus of proof is on you.
I didn't think anyone needed proof to make claims anymore, what with Darwinism being taught as absolute fact in public schools.
-
There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.
Whoa, rape is never consensual.
-
Murder can still be committed against a person with a death wish, though. There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.
Assisted suicide is not a crime in my ideal society. Statutory rape is a bit more finicky, but when people's lives are unconditionally ruined because they had sex with their 5-day younger girlfriends (which was legal the day before), or because a girl lies about her age to someone, there's issues with the law. I will say the sex offender list needs to be completely destroyed. Also, if a pre-pubescent girl wants sex, she's almost definitely not informed of any of the risks, which makes it de facto non-consensual in many cases.
But in manslaughter cases, the killer still has control over his actions even if it's involuntary. When a woman miscarries, it's not a result of any particular action on her part.
At least you can tell the difference. some (http://www.tnr.com/article/84511/georgia-legislation-abortion-miscarriage) people (http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/sum/hb1.htm) (By which, I mean elected state representatives) cannot.
What bad things does it lead to, and why are they bad?
In the most extreme cases, murder, and absolutely no feelings of remorse for it. In lesser extreme cases, less extreme results. Your responses have made me think you to be less sociopathic than first thought.
God never murdered anyone. He killed people, but it was never for no reason. Lot's wife disobeyed him in "looking back at the city," where "looking back" doesn't mean she just glanced back, but that she wanted to go back.
So if a woman disobeys her husband, it's grounds for justifiable homicide. Riiiiiiight.
I didn't think anyone needed proof to make claims anymore, what with Darwinism being taught as absolute fact in public schools.
Darwinism is taught as a theory, NOT an absolute truth. If tomorrow some archaeologist found indisputable proof of the existence of God, you better believe scientists (as well as myself) would stop believing it.
I really do want to see how you think, because I do encounter people with more extreme versions of your views all the time, and want to see why you think that. Considering your responses, a score of about 4 on the original test seems about right. I encounter 4.5-5s a lot and my heads figuratively explodes when I hear some of the things they say.
-
I made a mistake and edited your post instead of quoting it. My apolgies, please re-type your post if you'd like.
My best effort to re-construct it is:
1) Why is murder bad?
2) Lot's wife was killed because she disobeyed God, not Lot. Him should've been capitalized in the last post.
-
Why is murder bad, though?
Not really going to address your second part (Note -- I mistakenly edited the 2nd part, it basically said that Lot's wife disobeys God, and not Lot, and that's the critical difference), because I mean that's just a difference on how we interpret the Bible and God's law and stuff.
As for murder... I'm going to try to describe this as someone who doesn't believe in religion, so you can maybe see how morality is possible without religion:
When one makes a decision that impacts others, one has to consider two possible variables -- the net benefit/loss that you obtain, and the net benefit/loss that those you interact with gain. The determining of such things is very complex, but we won't need to define it for the final result. One should, as such, strive for as many +/+ actions as possible. This is trivial.
-/+ actions; that is, actions that benefit others at cost to you, are also, mostly, acceptable. However, if the - part is a lot more than the + part, then it's a bad action. If there's a good trade-off, it's a good action if you don't mind the losses.
-/- actions should be avoided at all costs. This should also be trivial. Except, people do them all the time.
+/-, that is, actions that help you at the expense of others... these are the difficult moral cases. Like, should I buy that cheap TV for my own enjoyment knowing someone's life was worsened by making it? This is where it's hard to quantify in a lot of cases....
But murder is not one of them. Murder has a benefit of negative infinity to the person you kill. There is NO gain at all that justifies the loss the other person faces. Period.
That's also where sociopathy is a bit dangerous -- if they don't care about other people, the "-" part will be very, very low compared to society's estimation. They may see such an action as beneficial to themselves when it's really not beneficial to society in just about everyone else's estimation.
-
Why is murder bad, though?
It's neither good nor bad. It's harmful to your well-being, but that's about it. It's punishable because it violates a person's "right" to autonomy, which I suppose makes it different than killing.
But as far as having a metaphysical essence, murder is no different than killing.
-
A great video by George Carlin on abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM
-
It's full of strawman and ad hominem arguments. It's overly vulgar and that guy seems like a git. No, that doesn't mean what he's saying isn't true. But it does make it hard to listen to.
And while he seems to take great pleasure in pointing out the ways in which conservatives and those of faith are supposedly against life, and while I'm sure he's hilarious if you like crude humor and a lack of logic, he fails to give a better alternative.
-
Um, because conservatives and those of faith ARE, a lot of the time, against life? Like, the only way you can call them "pro-life" is if you end the definition of life at birth.
"The only reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
~George Carlin (RIP)
-
How are they against life?
-
They're not... until you're born.
-
How?
-
It's overly vulgar and that guy seems like a git.
...and while I'm sure he's hilarious if you like crude humor and a lack of logic
Christ dude, it's supposed to be funny.
-
Oh, pro-death-after-birthers, let me count thine ways:
Most support abolishing any kind of standard health care for the poor. Children have no say in who they are born to. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, the bastion of right-wing lunacy himself, suggested "dumpster diving as a fun activiy for poor children." No, I am dead serious (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rush-limbaugh-thinks-hungry-children-should).
Most support completely de-funding school lunch programs. Which, for a lot of very poor children, is the only hot meal they get a day. Starve a poor child, they die. Again, pro-death.
Most support going to war for frivolous reasons. I don't need to comment on this.
A select few support killing abortion doctors. Again, this is a select few, but the hypocrisy is obscene.
And, almost all of them support the death penalty.
I've been drinking so I don't feel like delving deeper, but a lot of "pro-life" people don't give two [dukar]s if people die unnecessarily after they're born. As such, I equate someone saying they are "pro-life" to saying they are misogynists who only want to punish women for having sex.
-
Oh, and before you wonder how I can keep pulling these links from nowhere, my hatred for the social right as manifested itself to the point where I can instinctively remember hundreds of cases of things that **** me off. Also I visit fark.com a lot.
-
Most support abolishing any kind of standard health care for the poor. Children have no say in who they are born to. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, the bastion of right-wing lunacy himself, suggested "dumpster diving as a fun activiy for poor children." No, I am dead serious (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rush-limbaugh-thinks-hungry-children-should).
It's not the state's job to provide health care for anyone. It's for the individual to decide whether he wants to help those less fortunate. And this isn't about being for or against life. It's about being for or against the government telling people what to do with their money. Just a suggestion, but perhaps if politicians would give all the money that they spend on their election campaigns to charity, and if people in authority would be the first to take pay cuts in tough times, we wouldn't need government-funded health care.
Most support completely de-funding school lunch programs. Which, for a lot of very poor children, is the only hot meal they get a day. Starve a poor child, they die. Again, pro-death.
To be honest, I would just get rid of the public schools completely, so I don't understand what the huge deal is here. Again, it has nothing to do with being for or against life, it has to do with being for or against abuse of tax dollars. And again, if the massive money sink that is the public school weren't there, people could afford to be more generous.
Most support going to war for frivolous reasons. I don't need to comment on this.
I wouldn't say "most." Not if they actually hold to conservative values, anyway.
A select few support killing abortion doctors. Again, this is a select few, but the hypocrisy is obscene.
So long as it's not vigilantism (as in, the death penalty), this probably would be a good idea. Giving the death penalty to murderers isn't about destroying life, it's about honoring its value and protecting it from those who would take it unjustly.
And, almost all of them support the death penalty.
[See above]
I've been drinking so I don't feel like delving deeper, but a lot of "pro-life" people don't give two [dukar]s if people die unnecessarily after they're born. As such, I equate someone saying they are "pro-life" to saying they are misogynists who only want to punish women for having sex.
I think you're misunderstanding a lot of 'pro-life' people, then. It's not that they don't "give two [dukar]s." Do you really believe that most people are that apathetic? Many conservatives have a hard time supporting themselves and literally cannot afford to get involved. Others do get involved, of their own accord, without the state telling them that they need to (which is how it should be). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a conservative (and not some progressive flake that's registered as a Republican, mind you, but an actual conservative) who is truly apathetic and has no other reason for not being in support of government welfare.
What's more, abortion is different from not providing health care or school lunches because it is murder in and of itself, in the most direct way possible.
-
So the government should provide no health care, the government should provide no schools, but the government should arrest us if we stick our penis in a butt.
You have the most accurate CT of anyone on this board.
-
God never said "the government should provide health care and schools." He did say not to lay with a man as one lays with a woman. And I can't imagine how me, my CT, and/or its accuracy or lack thereof are relevant. I don't make the rules; it won't do you any good to attack me.
-
Did God ever say it's the government's job to enforce 'His laws'? God, as I understand Him, is a pretty big champion of Free Will. Isn't up to each of us, individually, to choose to live by his commandments? Why is it okay for another entity to tell me I don't have this choice when according to God I do?
-
I'm not sure, but I think God said something about not killing somewhere in the Bible, somewhere. I can't remember the verse, but it was with a few other base laws that God held especially dear. I think there were 10 in total.
That includes murderers and people you disagree with, by the way.
Seriously, your morals contradict themselves so often it's like I'm wasting my breath here.
-
Turtlekid, your god probably doesn't exist, so it's pointless to appeal to it.
You'd probably call someone crazy if they appealed to Allah or Shiva, right?
-
Did God ever say it's the government's job to enforce 'His laws'?
Um, yeah. That's why he laid out specific, extremely verbose instructions detailing what the government should do if the law was flouted, depending on how and why it was broken.
God, as I understand Him, is a pretty big champion of Free Will. Isn't up to each of us, individually, to choose to live by his commandments? Why is it okay for another entity to tell me I don't have this choice when according to God I do?
Don't kid yourself. The only choice God ever gave anyone is between obedience (life) and disobedience (death) and made it very clear that disobedience would gain nothing but death. Now apparently I'm clueless but I'm pretty sure the correct choice is "life."
I'm not sure, but I think God said something about not killing somewhere in the Bible, somewhere. I can't remember the verse, but it was with a few other base laws that God held especially dear. I think there were 10 in total.
That includes murderers and people you disagree with, by the way.
Seriously, your morals contradict themselves so often it's like I'm wasting my breath here.
Killing is not the same as murder.
Turtlekid, your god probably doesn't exist, so it's pointless to appeal to it.
You'd probably call someone crazy if they appealed to Allah or Shiva, right?
Yes, because they don't exist, whereas Yahweh does.
-
Yes, because they don't exist, whereas Yahweh does.
You'd be arguing on behalf of Allah if you were born in the Middle East, and you'd be convinced that Yahweh was not the true god.
Don't kid yourself. The only choice God ever gave anyone is between obedience (life) and disobedience (death) and made it very clear that disobedience would gain nothing but death. Now apparently I'm clueless but I'm pretty sure the correct choice is "life."
If people want to make the "wrong choice," let them.
-
Not necessarily.
And it's not really relevant one way or another, because my arguing on Allah's behalf wouldn't make him any more real.
-
my arguing on Allah's behalf wouldn't make him any more real.
It's the same thing for your god. >:(
-
No, it's not, because my God exists regardless of whether I argue the fact or not.
Although it's true that He can't be any more real because He's as real as it gets already.
-
And how can you be absolutely sure of that?
-
By reading the Bible and seeing the world around me.
Even if God's existence can't ever be scientifically proven, it's still the most reasonable explanation for everything.
-
A change of pace:
Um, yeah. That's why he laid out specific, extremely verbose instructions detailing what the government should do if the law was flouted, depending on how and why it was broken.
The old covenant, which included the setup for the government and sacrifice system of Israel, was intended to distinguish the Israelites as set apart, the one chosen people of God. Under the new covenant, that no longer applies.
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, One who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tabernacle that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
For He finds fault with them when He says:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand out of the house of Egypt.
For they did not continue in My covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, "Know the Lord,"
for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.
In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The old covenant where the law was external is over. In the new covenant, God's moral law is written on the hearts of His people. That means morality is no longer enforced by the government.
-
But the imperfection in the first covenant was that it required constant animal sacrifice, while the new covenant did away with that in Jesus, who was sacrificed once for all. And I'm pretty sure the early church was still pretty immoral even under the new covenant. You're always going to have to deal with human nature.
And if morality is not enforced by the government, why does the government exist?
-
Inconvenience was far from the biggest flaw the old covenant had. It was external, rather than written on our hearts, and never really sunk through. It was unable to save and was never meant to save because it was about actions, not the heart.
The American government exists to protect rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Protecting rights will often overlap with morality, but not always. Going to a monster truck rally instead of visiting your dying grandmother in the hospital is morally wrong. Killing someone is morally wrong. Eating excessive amounts of unhealthy food is morally wrong (the body is a temple and all that). Should the government punish all of those? (note that I didn't ask if they should punish them equally)
And I'm pretty sure the early church was still pretty immoral even under the new covenant. You're always going to have to deal with human nature.
True, but notice that in I Corinthians 5, where Paul writes to a church where "it is actually reported that there is sexual immorality ... and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife," he never makes any appeals for the government to do anything. He rebukes their immorality and demands that they excommunicate the guy sleeping with his stepmom, but never calls for a civil law against it.
In fact, in chapter 6, he rebukes Christians who rely on the courts and the government to settle disputes rather than dealing with them within the church.
There is still a need for moral guidelines, and for consequences for breaking them, but not from the government. Under the Constitution, the government's job is to protect our rights and give us security, and nothing in the Bible calls on it to go farther. Rather, it calls on us to do it ourselves.
-
I should also mention that the law is there to restrain the wickedness of those who don't have God's law written on their hearts.
And there is quite a bit in the Bible about the government's enforcing morality, in the first five books. If they're not relevant, then why bother including them in the Bible?
-
I should also mention that the law is there to restrain the wickedness of those who don't have God's law written on their hearts.
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
In the context of actually restraining wickedness and being an enforced code of conduct, the law was only given to Israel, God's people, to set them apart from pagans who didn't have the law. In a wider context, the law was given to all to act basically like Agent Cool Blue mouthwash -- it doesn't clean your mouth, it dyes the gunk that's already on your teeth blue so you can see how gunky your teeth are. The law exists to show us that we can't save ourselves.
"Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 5:20-21 (see also Romans 7)
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do." - Romans 8:3
"Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory." - II Corinthians 3:7-11
And let's not forget "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (James 2:10). Hard to run a government on a principle like that.
The law had a governmental aspect in the past for a season, but it is fundamentally soteriological (about salvation), pointing to the new covenant (Luke 24:44-47 and Romans 3:21ff, for starters).
And there is quite a bit in the Bible about the government's enforcing morality, in the first five books. If they're not relevant, then why bother including them in the Bible?
They were applicable in the old covenant. The old covenant is relevant to our understanding of the new covenant.
The Bible also has God ordering Noah to build an ark. Does that mean we should all build arks? All of the Bible is relevant to us today and should be read and understood, but not all of it directly applies to us today.
-
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
In the context of actually restraining wickedness and being an enforced code of conduct, the law was only given to Israel, God's people, to set them apart from pagans who didn't have the law. In a wider context, the law was given to all to act basically like Agent Cool Blue mouthwash -- it doesn't clean your mouth, it dyes the gunk that's already on your teeth blue so you can see how gunky your teeth are. The law exists to show us that we can't save ourselves.
The purpose doesn't justify people's sin, though, and people aren't excused from following the rules just because they can't do it perfectly.
-
The purpose doesn't justify people's sin, though, and people aren't excused from following the rules just because they can't do it perfectly.
We're not in disagreement on that. We're disagreeing on whether it's the government's job to deal with sin as defined by the Bible.
Biblically, I see no justification for putting the government in God's place, or setting up an old covenant theocracy in 2011. The Old Testament depicts a theocratic government under the old covenant, which has been entirely overruled by the new covenant. In the New Testament, the new covenant is never spoken of in a governmental context, only in spiritual terms ("My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." - John 18:36).
Just because something is a good thing to do doesn't mean the government should do it.
-
Then, again, what is the purpose of the government?
Protecting people's rights is a worthy goal, but the only reasons to do so are moral ones.
-
Your premise is that without God, there is ultimately no reason to do anything other than preserve one's own life. Very few people actually act that way, largely due to common grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace), but even if they all did, government could still exist:
I don't want to die. Other people don't want to die. We agree together to set up a government to stop people from killing us (even if none of us on our own actually cares about people killing the plural "us" and each one is only signing up to save himself). The people we put in the government keep us from getting killed so they don't lose their job.
It's possible to get the very basics of a government set up in a highly pragmatic, almost completely amoral and nihilistic setting, assuming only that the average person desires his or her own security. I wouldn't want to go to that extreme, of course, but it is possible.
-
But even in that context, the government has no obligation to protect anyone's rights short of protecting the people themselves from direct physical danger. If not having its citizens get killed were the driving force behind government, then a totalitarian structure (or other such form of government which disregards many or even most of the rights of its people) would be perfectly acceptable.
-
And that would be true, if all non-Christians were total nihilists. But regardless of whether nihilism is the only consistent philosophy for a non-Christian, it's not the one most non-Christians subscribe to. Most non-Christians still have consciences. Maybe they're being logically inconsistent by doing so, maybe not, but they do.
But let's not get off on a tangent. The topic of the debate is whether the Bible commands modern governments to enforce morality, not whether they would be philosophically obligated to in a hypothetical godless universe. Under the old covenant, the law was a code of conduct for one specific nation. Under the new covenant, the law is a revealer of sins which then gives way to forgiveness (for believers). Where does the Bible say anything about Christians using the Levitical law to set up an earthly government to rule over Christians and non-Christians alike?
(Not to mention the fact that you're probably breaking one of those commandments right now by wearing two kinds of fabric.)
-
But let's not get off on a tangent. The topic of the debate is whether the Bible commands modern governments to enforce morality, not whether they would be philosophically obligated to in a hypothetical godless universe. Under the old covenant, the law was a code of conduct for one specific nation. Under the new covenant, the law is a revealer of sins which then gives way to forgiveness (for believers). Where does the Bible say anything about Christians using the Levitical law to set up an earthly government to rule over Christians and non-Christians alike?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
(Not to mention the fact that you're probably breaking one of those commandments right now by wearing two kinds of fabric.)
I'm not breaking a commandment, though. Things like "don't wear two kinds of fabric" and "don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk" are meant to show wisdom and have underlying principles, rather than needing to be interpreted as literally as things like the ten commandments. Again, ceremonial ordinances like that are the ones that were rendered unnecessary by Jesus.
-
Romans 13 is addressed to subjects of governments. Specifically, it was addressed to people ruled by the Roman Empire, which wasn't exactly a Christian nation. I actually considered using it in my argument. You're arguing against the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (in a sense, the ruling authorities of America) on a matter of political rather than spiritual significance.
Romans 13 isn't written as a guide to politicians, and it certainly doesn't tell the Christians it's addressed to to go and take over the government and replace existing laws with old covenant law.
-
Romans 13 is addressed to subjects of governments. Specifically, it was addressed to people ruled by the Roman Empire, which wasn't exactly a Christian nation.
America isn't exactly a bastion of the Christian faith, either, anymore. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Romans 13 isn't written as a guide to politicians, and it certainly doesn't tell the Christians it's addressed to to go and take over the government and replace existing laws with old covenant law.
Old covenant law... as opposed to...?
-
Old covenant law as opposed to new covenant grace.
The point is, Romans 13 tells Christians to be subject to the government, whatever it is.
-
I'm confused as to what you think new covenant grace is. How does that work in reality? Can we just do whatever the heck we want? That can't be right, since Jesus and the New Testament authors spent quite a while condemning certain acts in no uncertain terms. What happens when someone sins?
Romans 13 also implies that the government is there for a reason.
-
I'm confused as to what you think new covenant grace is. How does that work in reality? Can we just do whatever the heck we want? That can't be right, since Jesus and the New Testament authors spent quite a while condemning certain acts in no uncertain terms. What happens when someone sins?
When a believer sins, they do what they need to do to repair any damages and reconcile any relationships, and they may be disciplined by their church body, but they're forgiven by God for that sin just like all the others (But, "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification." Romans 6:15-19).
When an unbeliever sins, they don't get disciplined by the church, because they're not in a church, and it's not like it's the first time they've sinned, so it's nothing new. The New Testament doesn't give any guidelines for us punishing people for sins beyond church discipline. And unlike in the Old Testament, the government is not the church. Under the old covenant, God set His people apart visibly as a physical nation. Under the new covenant, God sets His people apart on the inside, making external nationalities and boundaries meaningless. The kingdom is spiritual now.
There is no Biblical precedent for a government that rules believers and unbelievers alike under the Levitical code. Israel was God's chosen people. Today, God's chosen people are not a nation, but a mixed, scattered group of people held together by a belief.
You couldn't run a government of unbelievers under the Levitical law (especially if you include James 2:10). Every single person is guilty and deserving of eternal punishment. That's the whole point of the law. You can't run a human government where it's impossible to abide by the laws.
-
I hate this thread.
-
Just going to interrupt to just say that for once I totally appreciate Crosseyed's apparent sitting in the library just flipping through any book he can findjust so he can argue better. Carry on.
-
I'm pretty sure he knows this stuff by heart dude. CrossEyed is really ****ing smart.
-
Indeed. CE is comparable to C.S. Lewis, except that he's not dead.
Nonwithstanding, I give this thread an "F" score.
-
Thank God for CrossEyed7. I don't agree with his politics or believe in his religion but I respect his eloquence, patience, and kindness to his fellow man. CE7 well-represents the loving teachings of Jesus, in a way so many "conservatives" do not.
-
Jesus was a socialist with two dads.
But yea, I very much respect the teachings of actual Jesus. Too bad the right wing has invented "supply-side" Jesus which is basically the opposite of Jesus, expect also named Jesus.
-
The gentle Jesus and his scoundrel counterpart Christ, I always say.
-
When an unbeliever sins, they don't get disciplined by the church, because they're not in a church, and it's not like it's the first time they've sinned, so it's nothing new. The New Testament doesn't give any guidelines for us punishing people for sins beyond church discipline. And unlike in the Old Testament, the government is not the church. Under the old covenant, God set His people apart visibly as a physical nation. Under the new covenant, God sets His people apart on the inside, making external nationalities and boundaries meaningless. The kingdom is spiritual now.
Is it perfectly acceptable, then, to do nothing? More importantly, what are the implications? If God's law is optional, and we clearly can't be expected to follow it, why bother trying at all? In expecting only a certain group to follow God's law, you still have a law that's only given to that one group to set them apart. Unless I'm missing something, what you're suggesting isn't all that different from the Old Testament system, except people would make even less effort to not sin because there's absolutely no punishment to fear. Or maybe you suggest what is effectively moral relativism, where what is bad for one person or group is just fine for another?
There is no Biblical precedent for a government that rules believers and unbelievers alike under the Levitical code. Israel was God's chosen people. Today, God's chosen people are not a nation, but a mixed, scattered group of people held together by a belief.
Let's look at Romans 13 again.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
God establishes governments and leaders, even under the new covenant. The state can't just not have a role.
You couldn't run a government of unbelievers under the Levitical law (especially if you include James 2:10). Every single person is guilty and deserving of eternal punishment. That's the whole point of the law. You can't run a human government where it's impossible to abide by the laws.
Again, though, does that mean we should just scrap the whole thing and do nothing? Does that excuse people from obeying God? Can they just do whatever they like, the consequences, like them eventually, if we leave them to their devices, be [darn]ed?
-
Matthew 25:41-45
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Turtlekid1 wants us to spend taxpayer dollars arresting sodomists, because it is a sin, as stated by God.
Jesus directly states in Matthew 25 that in the final reckoning, those who did not feed the hungry, help strangers, clothe the naked, and comfort the sick will be "cursed into everlasting fire".
Turtlekid1 does not want us to spend taxpayer dollars to help "the least of these".
This is a contradiction, and illustrates how Turtlekid1's anti-gay values trump Republican government savings values, in spite of what the Bible says.
-
Turtlekid1 wants us to spend taxpayer dollars arresting sodomists, because it is a sin, as stated by God.
Jesus directly states in Matthew 25 that in the final reckoning, those who did not feed the hungry, help strangers, clothe the naked, and comfort the sick will be "cursed into everlasting fire".
Turtlekid1 does not want us to spend taxpayer dollars to help "the least of these".
This is a contradiction, and illustrates how Turtlekid1's anti-gay values trump Republican government savings values, in spite of what the Bible says.
I don't see the contradiction. Helping the "the least of these" is something we're supposed to do on our own, without being forced to by the government. Not allowing sodomites is something the government is supposed to do. By all means, spend money on charity. Just don't force people to spend money on charity.
-
But force people to oppress gays.
-
If by "oppress," you mean "don't let them sleep with people of the same sex," then yes. Something like that.
-
Is it perfectly acceptable, then, to do nothing?
No. I'm just saying there's no reason to make the government do it instead of doing it ourselves.
More importantly, what are the implications? If God's law is optional,
No.
and we clearly can't be expected to follow it,
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
Paul's words, not mine. Until a person undergoes a personal, individual, internal change of heart, he cannot submit to God's law.
So unless you're somehow going to set up a nation where you know every single person in it is a true believer, your system isn't going to work.
why bother trying at all?
Why should a Christian try to obey the law? Because we want to.
Why should an unbeliever try to obey the law? Well, I wouldn't argue that they should. It certainly wouldn't be my first advice to them.
In expecting only a certain group to follow God's law, you still have a law that's only given to that one group to set them apart.
Wait, are you implying that Christians shouldn't be set apart and different from the rest of the world?
Unless I'm missing something, what you're suggesting isn't all that different from the Old Testament system, except people would make even less effort to not sin because there's absolutely no punishment to fear.
What I'm suggesting is traditional Christian theology.
Or maybe you suggest what is effectively moral relativism, where what is bad for one person or group is just fine for another?
No.
Let's look at Romans 13 again.God establishes governments and leaders, even under the new covenant. The state can't just not have a role.
Once again, Romans 13 is written to the subjects, not the government. It's telling those ruled by governments that aren't the way they'd like them to be not to get upset about it. Which is why I'd suggest you find a different text to support your argument. Especially considering it's the only specific Biblical reference you've used.
Did the Roman government that Paul told his audience to submit to play a role in the way you say it should? The Roman government that fed Christians to lions and all that?
Again, though, does that mean we should just scrap the whole thing and do nothing?
No. It also doesn't mean that we should pick and choose which parts of the law we like the best to be part of the government and leave other ones out.
Does that excuse people from obeying God? Can they just do whatever they like, the consequences, like them eventually, if we leave them to their devices, be [darn]ed?
I see nothing in the Bible that indicates we must evangelize through legislation.
I don't see the contradiction. Helping the "the least of these" is something we're supposed to do on our own, without being forced to by the government. Not allowing sodomites is something the government is supposed to do. By all means, spend money on charity. Just don't force people to spend money on charity.
Why? How do you draw the distinction? Especially since Israel's government under Levitical law did help the least of these?
Workers were forbidden from picking all the grain on their field. If they dropped any, they were forbidden to pick it up, and they had to leave the corners, both so that poor people could go in and get it for themselves. That wasn't voluntary, that was required by the government. As was tithing. And the Year of Jubilee, where every 50 years, all property ownership was reverted.
Would you incorporate all those laws into your version of the U.S. government?
How can you say that the government must enforce morality, but must not enforce charity, especially going on an Old Testament standard, where the government did both (if you can even separate morality and charity, especially in the New Testament)? How can you see the verses that tell us we must give to the poor of our own accord and not see that obeying the law is the same thing?
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)
Jesus said that the whole Law boils down to "Love God and love your neighbor." If the government is going to enforce the Old Testament Law, that must include caring for the least of these. (Come to think of it, I can't recall ever seeing an actual Bible passage saying that the government shouldn't give to the poor.)
You're splitting the Law into morality and charity. Where do you get that split? Wouldn't you say it's immoral to not give to charity if you are able? Why shouldn't the government enforce that aspect of morality?
If all the Law is summed up with "Love God" and "Love your neighbor", how are you splitting it? Are you saying that "love your neighbor" is charity and "love God" is morality, and the government can force us to love God but can't force us to love our neighbor?
If your reasoning for why the government shouldn't enforce charity is because "God wants you to give from the heart," then why doesn't that also apply to morality? The government can't make you moral any more than it can make you charitable. Laws don't change hearts. So if you're not changing the heart, you can only be concerned with the external effects of forcing people to follow the law. But what positive net benefit does it have on society to stop people from sinning in ways that don't affect others (sinning against God, not against man)? And if you're concerned with the external effects, what about the external effects that forcing people to give to charity would have?
I thought this was kinda relevant in several places, but not relevant enough in any one place, so I'm just putting it here:
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
One last thing: The Bible is not written as advice for unbelievers to improve their life. You can find some good helpful stuff like that in there, but the only parts of the Bible that are addressed to unbelievers are the parts that say "Repent, and be forgiven." The Bible has no room to say to unbelievers "Well, you should repent, but if you're not gonna, then at least don't do it with a dude before you go to hell." The only thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers is "Stop not believing." The rest of it is written to God's people. In the past, that was the physical nation of Israel, but it is no longer a physical earthly nation, and has not been for the past 2,000 years.
Hebrews 8 again.
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, One who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tabernacle that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
For He finds fault with them when He says:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand out of the house of Egypt.
For they did not continue in My covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, "Know the Lord,"
for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.
In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Look at the Jeremiah passage that the author of Hebrews quotes in there. It's clearly referring to the church body, no longer a physical bounded nation. That's why Paul prescribed church discipline rather than civil legal punishment.
You're seeing a false dichotomy between an Old Testament theocracy (well, sort of a mishmash of one, but still) and anarchy. But the earthly government in the Old Testament was only meant to be a type and shadow of the heavenly kingdom that has been set up for the past two millennia. We can still have governments that keep us safe and give us liberty to follow Christ's teaching's the way we should. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what we've had in America for 250 years.
Yes, we still need government. But we don't need it to keep us moral. Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to keep them moral, which is far more powerful than any earthly government. Unbelievers cannot possibly follow the law, and even if they started, it still wouldn't solve their actual problem. So who would the government be doing a service to by requiring everyone to follow [parts of] Leviticus?
Why do you want the government to make people follow the law? Because they'll go to hell if they don't? Even if the government successfully prevented any future lawbreaking, they'd still go to hell for their past sins. Because God wants people to follow His law? He doesn't want people who are forced into it (which you agree with when it comes to charity).
For public safety, to keep us all from killing each other? Homosexuality poses no direct threat to public safety.
AND EVEN putting all that aside, how would you justify setting up an Old Testament theocracy under the United States Constitution? You can't.
I rest my case.
-
Dear God, I love CE, and if that's wrong, oh well.
Sincerely,
This apparent heathen.
-
In layman's terms, it's the government's job to protect us from each other, not from demons
-
No."For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
Paul's words, not mine. Until a person undergoes a personal, individual, internal change of heart, he cannot submit to God's law.
That verse isn't saying that men are incapable of doing anything right, though. It's saying that as long as men are unrepentant, their works alone are not going to cut it.
So unless you're somehow going to set up a nation where you know every single person in it is a true believer, your system isn't going to work.
But I could say the same to you. Unless everyone is a believer and wants to follow the law, they're not going to, and you're going to have a very depraved population.
Why should a Christian try to obey the law? Because we want to.
Why should an unbeliever try to obey the law? Well, I wouldn't argue that they should. It certainly wouldn't be my first advice to them.
So then, if unbelievers shouldn't [don't have to try to] obey the law, then you are asserting that it's optional and/or relative, are you not?
Once again, Romans 13 is written to the subjects, not the government. It's telling those ruled by governments that aren't the way they'd like them to be not to get upset about it. Which is why I'd suggest you find a different text to support your argument. Especially considering it's the only specific Biblical reference you've used.
Did the Roman government that Paul told his audience to submit to play a role in the way you say it should? The Roman government that fed Christians to lions and all that?
Paul wasn't referring only to the Roman government of the time, though. Notice the terminology: There is no authority except from God.
No. It also doesn't mean that we should pick and choose which parts of the law we like the best to be part of the government and leave other ones out.
Whether we like the law is irrelevant. I'm not picking and choosing what I like and don't like. I'm saying that there's a difference between moral law and ceremonial procedure, and that the latter (and only the latter) is no longer necessary thanks to Christ.
One last thing: The Bible is not written as advice for unbelievers to improve their life. You can find some good helpful stuff like that in there, but the only parts of the Bible that are addressed to unbelievers are the parts that say "Repent, and be forgiven." The Bible has no room to say to unbelievers "Well, you should repent, but if you're not gonna, then at least don't do it with a dude before you go to hell." The only thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers is "Stop not believing." The rest of it is written to God's people. In the past, that was the physical nation of Israel, but it is no longer a physical earthly nation, and has not been for the past 2,000 years.
The way I see it, though, either the law does apply to everyone, or it doesn't. There isn't only one thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers if they're to follow the same morals as we are. If they're not, then... dude, that's the definition of relativism - what's good and right for one group isn't necessarily for another.
Yes, we still need government. But we don't need it to keep us moral. Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to keep them moral, which is far more powerful than any earthly government. Unbelievers cannot possibly follow the law, and even if they started, it still wouldn't solve their actual problem. So who would the government be doing a service to by requiring everyone to follow [parts of] Leviticus?
The point is to restrain unbelievers from immorality, not to save them. If you got a pet, say, a large dog, and brought it home, would you just let it destroy your possessions just because it can't know any better on its own? No, you would restrain it first to prevent further damage before you try to train it to know what's acceptable and what isn't.
Homosexuality poses no direct threat to public safety.
Debatable, considering its effect on the institutions of marriage and family.
I really really do not have the time or energy to go much further into this at the moment, and I'm sorry I'm terrible at discussing this stuff, but further reading on the matter can be found here (http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gbbs.pdf).
The bottom line - the point I really want to make - is that the church and state are separate spheres of authority and while they need to work together, the church doesn't have the authority to administer justice.
-
Homosexuality poses no direct threat to public safety.
Debatable, considering its effect on the institutions of marriage and family.
I really really do not have the time or energy to go much further into this at the moment, and I'm sorry I'm terrible at discussing this stuff, but further reading on the matter can be found here (http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gbbs.pdf).
I didn't see anything in that book about homosexuality's supposed effect on the institutions of marriage and family. I might have missed it. Please enlighten me once you have time and energy.
-
That link was more concerning the nature of the law and how it applies today.
-
Guys, I think we're beating a dead horse.
-
Guys, I think we're beating a dead horse.
The corpse was unidentifiable days ago
Also pp. 270-284 of that .pdf is scary. Death penalty for adultery? Well, there goes like a quarter of the population, at least.
-
Debatable, considering its effect on the institutions of marriage and family.
Preventing corrosive change to a valuable institution is a substantial reason for preventing gay marriage...if your moral conviction isn't absurd that is.
Or are you claiming that society itself would fall apart if gays were allowed to marry?
-
Guys, I think we're beating a dead horse.
-
Death penalty for adultery? Well, there goes like a quarter of the population, at least.
I would've been put to death long ago. Because...you know, I "looked upon a woman with lust in my heart."
-
Well... in that case, there goes every non-asexual male in existence, also. The gays are already put to death for being gay.
And since the asexuals don't want to procreate, Biblical rule = extinction. wtg guys
-
extinction. wtg guys
And you say that like it's a bad thing!
-
2.8
Heh, I'm a liberal airhead.
-
Please try to stay on topic next time, coolkid.
-
Oh hey, a person who took the quiz.
I can't remember, did anyone else take it?
-
Please try to stay on topic next time, coolkid.
This post's irony level is off the charts. On one hand, he's asking me to stay with the relevant discussion, but the whole topic's purpose was to show your score on your quiz and such. I can't help but think that this is an incredible amount of irony, perhaps intended, perhaps not.
-
...he was being sarcastic.
-
*whoosh*
As I mentioned, I got a 2.1, but I interpreted one question in the opposite way to how it was intended so I got a de facto 1.933333 etc. I like how not wanting the government to butt into your personal life makes you a "whining rotter".
-
...he was being sarcastic.
In coolkid's defense, one tends to at least do a double-take when a mod says something like that.
-
Black Mage isn't a mod.
-
...Anymore, at least.
I forgot to record my score after completing the test, but I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3.16.
-
First they came for the bots,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a bot.
Then they came for the thread spammers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a thread spammer.
Then they came for the mods,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a mod.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to reopen my thread.
-
Eh, I doubt anyone has posted a score. It's probably all been debate as far as I can tell.
So, prepare for the highest score so far:
4.00 - You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Seems to sum me up, I suppose. I'm not on either extreme of the spectrum, but I probably lean a bit "right", in this sense.
I have a bit of a slightly stricter moral compass, but I'm tolerant of a number of things.
I try to respect all views, faiths, mindsets, morals, etc. until someone tries to aggressively force theirs on me. Now, that may sound misleading; no, that doesn't mean if someone pushes, say, a certain faith on me, that I will start losing respect for that faith. It means I'll start losing respect for that person. In this example, I'm not telling you you're wrong, or you're going to hell, or you're sinful, or evil, etc. etc., so I'd appreciate you not pushing exactly what I'm not doing to you on me, or actively having it in your thoughts towards me.
-
2.533333333333333
You are a liberal airhead.
I already knew I was.
-
I got 3.067, incidentally. Right on the borderline of being liberal.
Still voting for Palin next year, though.
-
3.83 this time, with the "3" repeating.
I don't know who I'm voting for next year, though. And that's actually a valid concern now that I'm a legal adult.
-
I got a 4.03 (rounding, of course). I suppose nobody here is surprised, especially considering how outspoken I used to be (and sometimes still am) on this forum. Oh well, I'm definitely more tolerant than I used to be (I disagreed with "homosexuals are the lowest form of life and ought to be punished" or however it was worded). I may be a Christian, but I'm not a Fred Phelps kind of Christian.
-
What's wrong with Fred Phelps? He's one of the greatest Olympic swimmers of our age!
-
I'm down to 3.0 now. Does that mean I'm officially a liberal? Or can I at least still be a moderate?
-
3.8. My views haven't really changed, only how I answered the questions, I suppose.
-
I'm down to 3.0 now. Does that mean I'm officially a liberal? Or can I at least still be a moderate?
Seems like a pretty moderate score to me. You only "officially" adhere to a political philosophy if you say you do.
-
3.1333333333333333
"You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American."
-
It's 2.3666666666666667 now. Wow, my score has dropped quite a bit, and I really would say I've become more liberal than I used to be. Also, the latter half of page 2 of this thread makes me chuckle, considering Turtlekid1 and CrossEyed7's current pony avatars during a serious debate.
-
I'm somewhere around 2.1 now.
-
Slightly...higher? 2.433333333333333
Hmm...
-
Holy bump, Batman.
But anyway, I thought it should be noted that this was the first time in my entire life that I've been called a Liberal anything. 2.6333...
Wow.
-
1.6, a whining rotter. Thanks quiz.
-
1.6666666666666667
You are a whining rotter.
Yep. Proud, because from this quiz, that's a compliment.
-
1.9
-
This test's title and how everyone posts their scores might make one think it's about virginity.
-
3.1, true American.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.fairfieldragbrai.com%2Fpictures%2Fwww.hdwallpapers.in%2Fwalls%2Fbald_eagle-normal.jpg&hash=c74f476e0383de806846f9271d6fdff3)
-
BP is all freedom.
-
Free as a bird, one might say.
-
Saw that coming
-
Turtlekid, normally I don't like you in this thread. However, you just made me love the everloving love out of you.
-
Saw that coming
Didn't fly under your radar?
-
I love this thread.
-
Now that I'm officially a liberal, I should probably get around to changing my voter registration one of these days. I'm still registered as a Republican from when I registered in 2008.
-
Now down to 1.533333...
Seriously, a score above about 3.5 or so on this indicates actual mental illness or irreversible indoctrination from the willfully ignorant. [darn]. Also seriously, did anyone notice the benchmark for the scale used here was from NINETEEN FIFTY?!? You know, when being against segregation was considered against society? Wow. And the average tally then is is STILL LESS THAN 4?!
EDIT: Also I noticed the descriptions for the extreme ends seems weirdly reversed. Yea, give the very direct uncreative insults to the far left, but give insults that REQUIRE historical knowledge and ability to interpret metaphor to the far right. How many 'Baggers out there would get the "black shirt" reference? I can probably count them on the the fingers of the right hand I'm not raising as a sign of some former foreign party's salute.