Dutch pedophiles to launch political party...

[OklahomaTuba]

They really love the kids over there. :eek:

Hopefully they won't be starting any sister parties in stoolwater anytime soon.


AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc

[Scott D]

[rick james]hashish is a helluva drug[/rick james]

[OklahomaTuba]

Seems they left out in the cold those diverse and open minded souls that engage in relations with plants.

Always taking a seat at the back of the bus the plant f***ers are. What, not good enough for the pedo-beastacrats are they? Well screw em!

Its like they just threw in the whole "sex with animals" thing at the last second and didn't even think about the plant f***ers. Bunch of bigoted facists these jerks are.

[yermom]

twelve year olds need lovin' too

[Vaevictis]

You can love kids. Just don't love kids.

I can forsee the parents of some molested kid starting a party to make it legal for citizens to summarily execute people who take advantage of the pedophile party's platform. I'd join.

(And a friend of mine posted that on IRC a little while ago. My first thought was, "OklahomaTuba in 3... 2... 1...". Heh.)

[Scott D]

you and me both Vae.

[Vaevictis]

By the way: Put your money where your mouth is. (http://www.protect.org/)

[Scott D]

I don't see anything about executions

[etouffee]

favorite quote from the dutch pedophiles:


"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals,"

Priceless.

[Vaevictis]

Hey, gotta start somewhere. I'm quite satisfied to start with changing laws that make raping your own kids for years punishable by probation to something with real pound-me-in-the-*** prison terms.

[kernalsanders]

They should change their name to the Super Adventure Club.

[royalfan5]

What about the Plushies, or do they already have a party?

[handcrafted]

I'm interested to know from those who posted in this thread: on what basis do you condemn pedophiles?

[Vaevictis]

I'm interested to know from those who posted in this thread: on what basis do you condemn pedophiles?

Sex with kids is wrong?

[handcrafted]

Sex with kids is wrong?

I agree. I'm just trying to find out what you base that opinion on.

[Vaevictis]

I agree. I'm just trying to find out what you base that opinion on.

It's wrong. That's what I base it on.

... and I think I have an inkling where you're going on this. Don't bother. Just say, "I agree." and move on. :)

[OklahomaTuba]

It's wrong. That's what I base it on.

... and I think I have an inkling where you're going on this. Don't bother. Just say, "I agree." and move on. :)

So now you want to impose your morality on other people huh? Didn't realize you were one of those fundamentalist right wingers.

VaevictisTuba has a nice ring to it. ;)

[Vaevictis]

*smirk* Well, Tuba, since it's obvious from your comments that you're pro-pedophilia, I guess we have absolutely no common ground at all.

(I figure, why not complete the juxtaposition while we're at it :p)

[VeeJay]

Seems they left out in the cold those diverse and open minded souls that engage in relations with plants.

Always taking a seat at the back of the bus the plant f***ers are. What, not good enough for the pedo-beastacrats are they? Well screw em!

Its like they just threw in the whole "sex with animals" thing at the last second and didn't even think about the plant f***ers. Bunch of bigoted facists these jerks are.


Whoa, there. Let's re-think this. There's cucumbers and bananas, and then there's watermelons and what not.

[handcrafted]

*smirk* Well, Tuba, since it's obvious from your comments that you're pro-pedophilia, I guess we have absolutely no common ground at all.

(I figure, why not complete the juxtaposition while we're at it :p)

It's utterly amazing how quickly my point was made.

[Octavian]

handcrafted....there's an enormous difference between the two concepts to which I believe you're referring.

Two consenting adults.

One dominant adult, one subordinate child.

Not. even. close.

[Vaevictis]

I'm pretty sure you didn't even have to make your point. Anyone takes a minute to apply logic to the argument of "who are you to impose your values" realizes it's incorrect on its face.

While I won't say I've never used it (never is a long time), I'm certain it's one I rarely use, and almost never use when I'm discussing dispassionately (ie, thinking wholly logically).

Just about everyone imposes their own values on other people. You do it. I do it. You know what the difference is? You're wrong. ;p

[OklahomaTuba]

Whoa, there. Let's re-think this. There's cucumbers and bananas, and then there's watermelons and what not.

Don't start that racist anti-gender queer plantasexual crap now, you bigoted fascist fundamentalist monster.

[OklahomaTuba]

handcrafted....there's an enormous difference between the two concepts to which I believe you're referring.

Two consenting adults.

One dominant adult, one subordinate child.

Not. even. close.

Seems your beloved ACLU believes otherwise.

does NAMBLA ring any bells?

[bri]

As much as I hate to admit it, their slogan didn't seem that unreasonable:

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party: Because Our C*cks Look SO BIG In Their Tiny Little Hands

[Octavian]

Seems your beloved ACLU believes otherwise.

does NAMBLA ring any bells?

I'm not a member of either so that's pretty irrelevant.

I answered the hypothetical which was posed by handcrafted....and you turned the conversation away b/c you can't dispute my answer.

[Hamhock]

handcrafted....there's an enormous difference between the two concepts to which I believe you're referring.

Two consenting adults.

One dominant adult, one subordinate child.

Not. even. close.


Who determines age of consent?

[Octavian]

Who determines age of consent?

the same entity that determines all legalities....the state.

[handcrafted]

Just about everyone imposes their own values on other people. You do it. I do it. You know what the difference is?

Yes, I do. The difference is whether you come up with your own values, or whether you base them on an objective source.

[C&CDean]

the same entity that determines all legalities....the state.

And you're falling for it.

Personally, if it's groovy to butt**** a dude, who cares if he's only 9? And why is it suddenly OK to butt**** him on his 18th birthday, when it wasn't the day before?

You are the one without an argument here.

[Octavian]

Yes, I do. The difference is whether you come up with your own values, or whether you base them on an objective source.

which would be??

[yermom]

And you're falling for it.

Personally, if it's groovy to butt**** a dude, who cares if he's only 9? And why is it suddenly OK to butt**** him on his 18th birthday, when it wasn't the day before?

You are the one without an argument here.

well, on the same note it's magically ok to have straight sex with a girl on her 16th birthday and not the day before?

[yermom]

which would be??

i don't think there is anything objective about it, the answer is society

our culture has decided it was wrong. it's not like the bible lays out what the age of consent is, does it?

other cultures don't have the same view...

[C&CDean]

well, on the same note it's magically ok to have straight sex with a girl on her 16th birthday and not the day before?

16?? Perv.

[handcrafted]

the same entity that determines all legalities....the state.

Octavian's got a point, there. "Age of consent" as a bright line is a governmental-legal concoction. The fact is, people used to marry and have children at much earlier ages than they do now. Over time (especially in the last 150 years or so) its become fashionable to stretch out "childhood" to the longest extent possible. States required students to be schooled until around age 18. Artificial limits were placed on things like driving a vehicle and consuming alcoholic beverages. More kids than ever are expected to go to college and the employers promote this by their entry-level job requirements.

However, my original statement had nothing to do with what age a person is considered an adult. To me "pedophilia" involves unnatural affection for those who are clearly considered children, who cannot make informed choices, as opposed to adolescents who may or may not be able to make mature decisions, depending on their upbringing and environment. I was defining it in a moral sense, not a legal one.

[handcrafted]

which would be??

Well I know what mine is. What's yours?

[handcrafted]

And you're falling for it.

Personally, if it's groovy to butt**** a dude, who cares if he's only 9? And why is it suddenly OK to butt**** him on his 18th birthday, when it wasn't the day before?

You are the one without an argument here.

In the context of homosexual man-boy love, ed zachary. And I assume (though I don't know) that the NVD party in Holland doesn't discriminate between hetero-homo, because Holland as a whole doesn't, and the party wouldn't get any traction in the press if they did.

[C&CDean]

How do y'all know so much about foreign fags?

[Octavian]

Well I know what mine is. What's yours?

My contention would be that yours is the most single subjective piece of work in human history.

I don't have a problem w/ it being objective for you, I just dont think that should be transferred into law at all instances.

Dean, there's a huge difference between two consenting adults and two which are not. My oppinion that such an act between two consenting adults is horrendously gross doesnt mean I think my oppinion should be law.

There is a victim in one instance and in the other, there isn't.

[handcrafted]

My contention would be that yours is the most single subjective piece of work in human history.

And, of course, you'd be asked to prove your contention. And, you didn't answer my question.


I don't have a problem w/ it being objective for you

It would then not be objective. Something is "objective" if its the same for everyone.


I just dont think that should be transferred into law at all instances.

Depends on what you mean by "all instances", but I certainly agree that a) there are a great many legal issues the Bible does not address, b) parts of it only apply to the culture in which it was written, and c) even if we can't draw direct legal parallels in some cases, we can draw moral principles which should govern our modern laws.


Dean, there's a huge difference between two consenting adults and two which are not. My oppinion that such an act between two consenting adults is horrendously gross doesnt mean I think my oppinion should be law.

There is a victim in one instance and in the other, there isn't.

And so if someone else's opinion is different, who's right?

[handcrafted]

How do y'all know so much about foreign fags?

From domestic fags.

[Hamhock]

the same entity that determines all legalities....the state.


So what's wrong with them legally lowering the age? Just because you think it's wrong? I'm sure they have a very different opinion of right and wrong.

[TUSooner]

Whassup? Is somebody actually defending pederasty? Surely not. And I hope the Dutch can draw a line SOMEWERE.

[Scott D]

Octavian's got a point, there. "Age of consent" as a bright line is a governmental-legal concoction. The fact is, people used to marry and have children at much earlier ages than they do now. Over time (especially in the last 150 years or so) its become fashionable to stretch out "childhood" to the longest extent possible. States required students to be schooled until around age 18. Artificial limits were placed on things like driving a vehicle and consuming alcoholic beverages. More kids than ever are expected to go to college and the employers promote this by their entry-level job requirements.

However, my original statement had nothing to do with what age a person is considered an adult. To me "pedophilia" involves unnatural affection for those who are clearly considered children, who cannot make informed choices, as opposed to adolescents who may or may not be able to make mature decisions, depending on their upbringing and environment. I was defining it in a moral sense, not a legal one.

I'm just curious where you stand in regards to individuals whom have stunted mental capacity, or personality 'disorders' in regards to this subject.

[Octavian]

And, of course, you'd be asked to prove your contention. And, you didn't answer my question.

prove the Bible is subjective? I dont think I need to provide a link to the different Christian religious denominations throughout history. Sufficed to say, if you've ever seen a Catholic Church and any other sort of church, then there ya go.


It would then not be objective. Something is "objective" if its the same for everyone.

yep...and its not.


Depends on what you mean by "all instances", but I certainly agree that a) there are a great many legal issues the Bible does not address, b) parts of it only apply to the culture in which it was written, and c) even if we can't draw direct legal parallels in some cases, we can draw moral principles which should govern our modern laws.

This is why I dont mind the Ten Commandments at courthouses. Its a sociohistorical reference to a Western moral code. That the majority of the Commandments aren't law is an example of the American rejection of theocratic governance.

A society based on Liberal (capital "L") principles is what this place was supposed to be all about: liberty and justice for all


And so if someone else's opinion is different, who's right?

again, the point being that our perceptions of morality lead us back to the principles of legal protection for everyone.


Whassup? Is somebody actually defending pederasty? Surely not.

no way! :eek:

I'm defending the notion that all American adults should have the same rights as all other American adults. Pretty radical huh?

(I chased the rabbit down the hole, I know....)

[yermom]

16?? Perv.

that's the current age according to Dutch law apparently

[handcrafted]

I'm just curious where you stand in regards to individuals whom have stunted mental capacity, or personality 'disorders' in regards to this subject.

I don't think I can answer that. Those are very broad categories. Whether a person has the mental capacity to make informed choices or not affects a whole range of their legal rights, but the determination of capacity is usually done on an individual basis.

[Scott D]

I don't think I can answer that. Those are very broad categories. Whether a person has the mental capacity to make informed choices or not affects a whole range of their legal rights, but the determination of capacity is usually done on an individual basis.

Well, what would be your gut feeling regarding both classes of individuals?

[1stTimeCaller]

So is it cool or not cool to love the childrens? I'm chaparonneing (sp?) a cub scout/ brownie dance this coming weekend and I need to know.

TIA.

[yermom]

Well, what would be your gut feeling regarding both classes of individuals?

so should there be a competency test for people to consent to sex?

what if an 8 year old can pass?

8 year olds, dude

[Scott D]

so there should be a competency test for people to have sex?

what if an 8 year old can pass?

8 year olds, dude

sadly 8 year olds would probably score better than 28 year olds in this day and age.

It's more a thought process of how do you define child and adult. If someone is 40+ year olds but "has the thought process of a 7 year old" are they an adult or a child?

If someone has a 'split personality' that happens to be say a 10 year old...is that person an adult or child?

[handcrafted]

prove the Bible is subjective? I dont think I need to provide a link to the different Christian religious denominations throughout history. Sufficed to say, if you've ever seen a Catholic Church and any other sort of church, then there ya go.

You're confusing the objectivity of the Bible with the fact that imperfect people are interpreting it. Just because different people may have subjective views of it does not render the Bible itself subjective. It is what it is. Strictly speaking, though, the "objective moral standard" is God Himself, the Bible being the way He communicates the standard to us. For there to be law, there must be law-giver.


This is why I dont mind the Ten Commandments at courthouses. Its a sociohistorical reference to a Western moral code. That the majority of the Commandments aren't law is an example of the American rejection of theocratic governance.

The Ten Commandments have nothing to do with theocratic governance. You're confusing moral law with a system of government. They are not the same thing. A theocracy is a church-run state. Americans reject theocratic governance because it leads to corruption of the church.

Basing a nation's laws on an objective moral standard does not create a "theocracy". All nations do this, because the absence of an "objective moral standard", i.e., a totally subjective legal system, would result in a complete breakdown of society. As far as the decalogue goes, its rejection shows the level of depravity to which our society has sunk.


I'm defending the notion that all American adults should have the same rights as all other American adults. Pretty radical huh?

That's one of those phrases that sounds good, but when you really analyze it, it doesn't say anything.

[handcrafted]

Well, what would be your gut feeling regarding both classes of individuals?

I'm afraid I don't have a "gut feeling" on that, sorry.

[Scott D]

well go at the scenarios I posed in response to the post by yermom.

[handcrafted]

sadly 8 year olds would probably score better than 28 year olds in this day and age.

It's more a thought process of how do you define child and adult. If someone is 40+ year olds but "has the thought process of a 7 year old" are they an adult or a child?

Okay, since you gave a specific example. In this case the person would probably be adjudicated to be incompetent and would have a legal guardian appointed. Sex with this individual would be morally wrong no matter what the circumstances.


If someone has a 'split personality' that happens to be say a 10 year old...is that person an adult or child?

If the neurosis can be treated so that the person can function with their primary or "adult" personality at some level of normality, then they can be treated as an adult. If not, then no. It's going to be situationally specific, no two cases are alike.

[Hatfield]

gives a whole new meaning to shaking hands and kissing babies.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

And I hope the Dutch can draw a line SOMEWERE.

I see this line being drawn down the middle of a head of cabbage...

[Scott D]

Okay, since you gave a specific example. In this case the person would probably be adjudicated to be incompetent and would have a legal guardian appointed. Sex with this individual would be morally wrong no matter what the circumstances.



If the neurosis can be treated so that the person can function with their primary or "adult" personality at some level of normality, then they can be treated as an adult. If not, then no. It's going to be situationally specific, no two cases are alike.

You might be surprized to find that we are in agreement here...and why I may have an issue with how we are going to be defining Adult and Child.

The reason I bring up the latter is based off of an actual trial that took place in 1990. The conviction I believe has since been overturned. I apologize in advance for how long the quoted part is.


The giving of evidence in court by different alters, and the implicit acceptance that individual personalities can exist as autonomous entities within an individual person, can result in ever more complicated tangles of confusion about the attribution of moral and legal responsibility and can lead to laughable scenes at court (Halleck, 1988). A defining case of the legal and procedural difficulties that can arise is that of the State of Wisconsin v. Mark A. Peterson in 1990, when six of the supposed 47 personalities of a female witness were sworn in separately. The 26 year-old Sarah complained that two of her personalities, a child and an adult, had been raped by Peterson, a 29-year-old grocery worker. It was alleged that Peterson had made friends with another 26-year-old personality, called "Franny". He had then been instrumental in calling forth "Jennifer", a 20-year-old personality, who, according to Franny, "liked to dance and have fun". Peterson and Jennifer then had sex in the back of his car. During intercourse, another personality suddenly intruded, that of a six-year old named Emily. Peterson allegedly told Jennifer to tell Emily to keep their activities "a secret". Instead, Franny and Emily "told" Sarah, the "predominant personality", who made a complaint to the police. Neither Franny, nor Emily, nor Sarah was said to have consented to sexual intercourse. After a one day pre- trial hearing (Slovenko, 1989; Los Angeles Times, 1990; Saks, 1994), the main trial attracted national media attention (Time Inc. Magazine Company and Compact Almanac, 1990; Washington Post, 1990a; Washington Post, 1990b).

When Sarah, the complainant took the witness stand, the District Attorney summoned in turn a number of her personalities. At one point, the prosecutor and the judge later recalled, she switched briefly into the personality of a dog (New York Times, 1994).The judge required the woman to take an oath each time that she changed personality, and the lawyers formally introduced themselves to each different personality. The District Attorney began with Franny, who talked of meeting Peterson in a coffee shop, and telling him in conversation of her unusual affliction. "I recall telling him that there were many of us in the body". Franny remembered him asking to meet Jennifer, but had "no personal knowledge" of what happened after that, because she hadn't been present. The district attorney then called forth Jennifer, who waved at the jury, shouting "Hi!" in a voice different to that of Sarah or Franny. Several jurors lifted their hands to wave back. Jennifer described in detail the sexual act in which she had agreed to engage, with (apparently) no understanding of what had been going on. Asked by the defending attorney: "Didn't the two of you have sex?". She replied: "I dunno. What's sex?" Jennifer did however reveal that she had at some point undergone a tubal ligation. Jennifer denied being a multiple personality or being in treatment with a therapist or giving such information to Peterson. The district attorney suggested to the jury that it was obvious that none of the individual personalities had a mental illness; they were a mental illness. The defence attorney made motions in the absence of the jury, reasoning that his client had sex with Jennifer, that Jennifer was "in touch with reality", and that, even if Sarah didn't know what she was doing in the front seat of Peterson's car, Jennifer did. Peterson then testified that he thought he was having sex with Franny. He stated that he did not know she was ill, but thought she was "a possible promiscuous person", (a statement that acquired new meaning in the light of the number of personalities allegedly involved in, or at least in "the body" at the time of, the sexual act). The prosecution introduced psychiatrists who testified that Sarah was suffering from multiple personality disorder, with the number of alter personalities varying from eighteen to forty-six, some of which were "fragments", carrying only certain emotions. Sarah's therapist related to the court that Emily, the six-year old victim, sometimes ate crayons which the other personalities then had to spit out.

The judge at the outset cautioned those in court that the case was a sensitive one and "not a circus". Events suggested otherwise. Spectators queued from the early hours for a seat in court, and folding chairs had been brought into the courtroom in order to increase its capacity. The judge had to warn the audience that those leaving to go to the "bathroom" were likely to find that they had lost their places upon their return. The District Attorney screened his jury pool by asking for a show of hands from those who thought the case too bizarre to contemplate. "You will get the chance to observe her transform from one personality to another", he said. "It is somewhat dramatic and most unusual. Is there anyone who feels they could not be part of that process?" No hands were raised. Awaiting the verdict, Sarah held audience with the press. She recounted that she had a personality called "Ginger", who enjoyed getting drunk and picking up men in bars. She refused to allow access to Ginger, stating that, when Ginger last appeared, she had "gone on a bender and nearly killed the body". Sarah stated that one of her personalities, "Leona", was an "empath", able to experience the emotions of all the alters, empath being a term absent from Webster's American Dictionary, but popularised in the television programme "Star Trek". It also transpired that a number of her personalities were male, although no- one appears to have asked her whether these were also raped. In exchange for a cigarette, she brought out a male personality called Evan. "Oh God", said Evan. "I'm wearing a dress! I hate it when that happens". Evan bemoaned the indignity of having to urinate in a sedentary position. "It's the way the body is built", he/she explained. "I tried it standing once, but I missed the john" (Time Inc. Magazine Company and Compact Almanac, 1990; Washington Post, 1990a; Washington Post, 1990b).

The jury found Peterson guilty of second degree sexual assault under a section of the criminal code making it an offence to have sexual intercourse knowingly with a person who suffers from a mental illness which renders that person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising his or her conduct. This offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years. A juror, discussing the jury's deliberations with a reporter after the trial, explained that it had not been necessary for the jury to decide whether Sarah had a multiple personality disorder, but rather whether or not she was ill. After the bizarre proceedings in court, the jury had been satisfied that she must be mentally ill in some way and that this must have been evident to Peterson. The conviction was reversed on appeal (Saks 1994), because the defendant's expert had not been permitted to examine the victim. Prosecutors decided not to retry the case, as a retrial was deemed too traumatic for the victim. The case is not unique in terms of a "multiple" complaining of rape (Saks, 1994). In a 1992 case, James and Marilyn Dorsey were found guilty of the rape of a "multiple". According to prosecutors, "the Dorseys would trigger the 24-year old's vulnerable, child-like persona and then abuse her. To call the 5-year old, they would talk about alleged molestations by the woman's grandfather" (Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 1992). Further examples of alters testifying may be found at various points in the discussion below. There are no other examples of canine alters in the witness box, but mythical beings and animals are not particularly rare in MPD sufferers. In a civil case in Wisconsin in 1997, Nadean Cool sued her therapist, who had brought out more than 120 personalities, including an angel, a devil and a duck. The therapist had then charged group therapy rates. The matter was settled out of court for $2.4 million (Loftus, 1997). Alter personalities discovered by other therapists have allegedly included lobsters, tigers, chickens and Ninja turtles (Observer, 1998).

[Octavian]

Just because different people may have subjective views of it does not render the Bible itself subjective. It is what it is.

Literally millions of people have died in the course of human history b/c humans interpretted the Good Book in different ways. If that's not subjectivity, then the concept doesn't exist.

It is what it is for you. Not everyone.


Americans reject theocratic governance because it leads to corruption of the church.

You've got it backwards. The Founders rejected religious institutions as a governing system b/c they were corrupt, biased, and absolutist.

They weren't trying to save the church (and b/c the colonies were mostly Protestant, there was no single "church"). They were trying to save the individuals of the republican state from religious rule.


Basing a nation's laws on an objective moral standard does not create a "theocracy". All nations do this, because the absence of an "objective moral standard", i.e., a totally subjective legal system, would result in a complete breakdown of society. As far as the decalogue goes, its rejection shows the level of depravity to which our society has sunk.

again, the Bible is not objective.


That's one of those phrases that sounds good, but when you really analyze it, it doesn't say anything.

what doesn't it say?

Let me state it again: I'm defending the notion that all American adults should be treated legally equal by the American state. That's it.


http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7761/rabbithole6oe.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Viking Kitten]

Has anybody quoted Austin Powers' dad and that line about having no tolerance for intolerance and the Dutch yet? I'm too lazy to read this whole thread to find out.

I get credit if nobody else did it first. For those keeping score at home, I mean.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Has anybody quoted Austin Powers' dad and that line about having no tolerance for intolerance and the Dutch yet? I'm too lazy to read this whole thread to find out.

I get credit if nobody else did it first. For those keeping score at home, I mean.

I kinda did with a 'cabbage' comment.

But not to the level you'd expect from me.

I'm sorry.

[1stTimeCaller]

+2, VK

[Scott D]

There are two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures.....and the Dutch.

:D

[Viking Kitten]

I kinda did with a 'cabbage' comment.

But not to the level you'd expect from me.

I'm sorry.

Blimey. Beat me to again, devil woman.

Can I have:

'I luf goooooooold.'

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Blimey. Beat me to again, devil woman.

Can I have:

'I luf goooooooold.'

BONUS POINTS!

'...a shmoke and pancake?...'

[Viking Kitten]

'these children are looking very toite.'

[handcrafted]

Literally millions of people have died in the course of human history b/c humans interpretted the Good Book in different ways. If that's not subjectivity, then the concept doesn't exist.

Okay, you and I are not communicating on the definition of "objective". Try this: "objects" are objective. Hence the name. "Ideas" are subjective. The measure of the truth of an idea is how well it agrees with objective reality. For instance, a rock is an objective thing. My idea of what the rock is or represents is subjective. My idea may be true or false, but the rock is just a rock. If I think the rock came from Mars, but it didn't, that doesn't change the rock. It just means I'm wrong in the way I think about it.


You've got it backwards. The Founders rejected religious institutions as a governing system b/c they were corrupt, biased, and absolutist.

They weren't trying to save the church (and b/c the colonies were mostly Protestant, there was no single "church"). They were trying to save the individuals of the republican state from religious rule.

How's that kool-aid taste? It's you that's got it backwards, my friend. Don't take your high school history teacher's word for it. Do some research.

[walkoffsooner]

If I see a grown man messing with a 12 year old, I'am going to try to rip his pants off and stick him.and I am not gay.Woman messing with 12 year old boy okay by me.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I was gonna go the way of the 'small hands' jokes but after ^ I just don't think it would be funny.

[bri]

I was gonna go the way of the 'small hands' jokes but after ^ I just don't think it would be funny.

Wise choice. "Small hands" jokes don't get any love in this thread...NO MATTER HOW HILARIOUS THEY WERE.

F*ckers.

[Scott D]

If I see a grown man messing with a 12 year old, I'am going to try to rip his pants off and stick him.and I am not gay.Woman messing with 12 year old boy okay by me.

this post makes absolutely no sense...and by no sense I mean it almost needs a dolemite translator used on it.

[Octavian]

How's that kool-aid taste? It's you that's got it backwards, my friend. Don't take your high school history teacher's word for it. Do some research.

All 18th and 19th century Lockean Liberal revolutions were launched, among other things, to decrease the power of religious institutions over societies.

[walkoffsooner]

this post makes absolutely no sense...and by no sense I mean it almost needs a dolemite translator used on it.
Don't be so hard on yourself.Its adult comedy.:D

[mdklatt]

You're confusing the objectivity of the Bible with the fact that imperfect people are interpreting it. Just because different people may have subjective views of it does not render the Bible itself subjective.

Since we don't have an objective interpretation of the Bible to go by this is a distinction without a difference.

[mdklatt]

twelve year olds need lovin' too

I know I did.

[Vaevictis]

Okay guys, let's play a game. If the Bible is the ideal arbiter of what is moral and what is not:

Is slavery okay? Is it moral?

'cuz, you know, the Bible says it is.

[Octavian]

Okay guys, let's play a game. If the Bible is the ideal arbiter of what is moral and what is not:

Is slavery okay? Is it moral?

'cuz, you know, the Bible says it is.

Someone may disagree w/ you on that.

Not that that would constitute subjectivity or anything ;)

[Vaevictis]

And let's play another game:

If two men are fighting in the presence of an 8 months pregnant woman, and the fight gets out of control, and the woman gets knocked about a little bit and miscarries, what should the penalty be?

[etouffee]

If two men are fighting in the presence of an 8 months pregnant woman, and the fight gets out of control, and the woman gets knocked about a little bit and miscarries, what should the penalty be?Reading this thread 5 times?

[Vaevictis]

Heh.

The correct answer is "pay a fine as demanded by the husband of the woman and accepted by a court."

Do keep in mind that if the child had been born, the answer would be "death."

(Gee, what does that say about the value of a human being prior to birth? Sounds to me as if the only value attached is monetary.)

[mdklatt]

Oooh--I wanna play. Is it okay for females to be gay and/or pet the porpoise? The Bible says man shall not lie down with man as he lies down with women, but it doesn't say anything about women lying down with women. Women can't be guilty of onanism because they have no seed to spill. And what was Onan guilty of, exactly? He was diddling his dead brother's wife just like God wanted when he pulled out early. Maybe it's not the spilling of your seed that's a sin, but not finishing off your partner.

:twinkies:


IBTD

[OklahomaTuba]

And what was Onan guilty of, exactly? He was diddling his dead brother's wife just like God wanted when he pulled out early. Maybe it's not the spilling of your seed that's a sin, but not finishing off your partner.

:twinkies:


IBTD
Just like God wanted????

Genesis 38:8-9

Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

[etouffee]

Just like God wanted????

:rolleyes:

Genesis 38:8-9It could be interpreted that way.
Judah told Onan to go knock up his dead brother's wife to continue the fambly bloodline, as was apparently his duty and the prevailing custom at the time. So he went and slept with her and God got ****ed and killed him. My reading of Gen 38, verses 1 thru 10, leads me to believe that God wasn't so much irked at Onan for nailing his dead brother's wife, what with that being duty and custom and whatnot. He was mad at him for jizzing on the ground.

If my interpretation is correct (and it may not be, for only Handbasket knows with perfect certainty what the Bible means), then mdklatt is also correct: God wanted Onan to get his brother's wife pregnant, and killed him for not doing so.

[OklahomaTuba]

It could be interpreted that way.
Judah told Onan to go knock up his dead brother's wife to continue the fambly bloodline, as was apparently his duty and the prevailing custom at the time. So he went and slept with her and God got ****ed and killed him. My reading of Gen 38, verses 1 thru 10, leads me to believe that God wasn't so much irked at Onan for nailing his dead brother's wife, what with that being duty and custom and whatnot. He was mad at him for jizzing on the ground.

If my interpretation is correct (and it may not be, for only Handbasket knows with perfect certainty what the Bible means), then mdklatt is also correct: God wanted Onan to get his brother's wife pregnant, and killed him for not doing so.

Ahh ok, I gotcha.

I agree then. :D

I was also thinking of some later stuff inwhich God becomes angry and decides to wash the earth clean of sin. Perhaps the tradition of levitican marriages was one aspect of this.

[Hamhock]

They weren't trying to save the church (and b/c the colonies were mostly Protestant, there was no single "church"). They were trying to save the individuals of the republican state from religious rule.



John Jay
(1st Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court)
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


Samuel Adams
"Impress the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls...in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."


United States Supreme Court - 1892
(Church of the Holy Trinity v. United Sates)
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation (state or national) because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation."

President Abraham Lincoln
"But for (the Bible) we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare...are to be found portrayed in it."

President John Quincy Adams
"It is essential, my son...that you should form and adopt certain rules or principles...It is in the Bible, you must learn them, and from the Bible how to practice them."

President John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[handcrafted]

All 18th and 19th century Lockean Liberal revolutions were launched, among other things, to decrease the power of religious institutions over societies.

In the sense of removing state sanctioned churches, I agree. But the American Revolution had a lot more to it than just that. Along those lines, though, the idea was to make sure that the Federal government could not declare a state church by edict. However, the intent was that the states could, if they so chose, and many of the colonies/early states were organized around one branch of Protestantism or the other.

In an attempt to un-jack the thread I'll mention that many of the Puritans and Separatists that founded the American colonies spent a lot of time in Holland before they got here. :)

[Hamhock]

Okay guys, let's play a game. If the Bible is the ideal arbiter of what is moral and what is not:

Is slavery okay? Is it moral?

'cuz, you know, the Bible says it is.

That's a good question. Obviously, the Bible speaks of slavery. God allowed His own chosen people to be enslaved. Also, the slavery contemplated in the Bible talks about conditions that were such that, the slaves often would choose to stay with their master, even when the appointed time for their freedom had come. Many conditions that exist in our conception of slavery and our specific country's history with slavery would not be acceptable by the Bible's standards.

[mdklatt]

John Jay


Dead.


Samuel Adams

Dead.



United States Supreme Court - 1892

Dead x 9.


President Abraham Lincoln

Dead.



President John Quincy Adams

Dead.



President John Adams

Dead.


We usually don't let politicians dictate policy once they're out of office, much less dead for 150+ years.

[handcrafted]

Since we don't have an objective interpretation of the Bible to go by this is a distinction without a difference.

Humans are incapable of a completely objective interpretation of anything. But it's a very important distinction. Saying that we cannot be completely objective isn't the same thing as saying that there is no objective interpretation.

[Hatfield]

can't wait to see what google has in store for this day

[Hamhock]

We usually don't let politicians dictate policy once they're out of office, much less dead for 150+ years.


I agree.

My comments were with respect to the aforemention intentions/frame of mind of our founding fathers.

[1stTimeCaller]

Dead.



Dead.




Dead x 9.



Dead.




Dead.




Dead.


We usually don't let politicians dictate policy once they're out of office, much less dead for 150+ years.

What about Neidermier?

[handcrafted]

And let's play another game:

If two men are fighting in the presence of an 8 months pregnant woman, and the fight gets out of control, and the woman gets knocked about a little bit and miscarries, what should the penalty be?

Living with Etouffe for a year.

[handcrafted]

Okay guys, let's play a game. If the Bible is the ideal arbiter of what is moral and what is not:

Is slavery okay? Is it moral?

'cuz, you know, the Bible says it is.

You can't read 17th and 18th century life into ancient cultures. It doesn't translate. The oppressive slavery of Africans by Europeans and Americans 200 years ago has no Biblical context, and of course it was wrong. When the Bible talks of "slavery" it most often refers to indentured servitude, which was a way of life for poor people back then. It was an accepted way to pay off one's debts instead of going to prison. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated "slave" can have multiple meanings, so you have to look at the context. The same word can also mean forced slavery through conquest or kidnapping, and this is clearly condemned throughout Scripture.

In today's USA, indentured servitude is no longer part of the economy, so now it is immoral. Back then, it wasn't. However, the "owner" of the bondservant had a moral obligation to treat the bondservant well and take care of him/her and his/her family. The mistreatment of the black slaves in the antebellum South would have been just as wrong in Biblical times as it was in the 18th century.

[handcrafted]

And let's play another game:

If two men are fighting in the presence of an 8 months pregnant woman, and the fight gets out of control, and the woman gets knocked about a little bit and miscarries, what should the penalty be?

Serious this time. The penalty should be negligent homicide for both men.

[handcrafted]

Heh.

The correct answer is "pay a fine as demanded by the husband of the woman and accepted by a court."

Do keep in mind that if the child had been born, the answer would be "death."

(Gee, what does that say about the value of a human being prior to birth? Sounds to me as if the only value attached is monetary.)

You're talking about ancient Israelite civil law, not moral law. The civil law is not meant for modern times. It's just the working out of the moral law in a specific culture at a specific time.

[handcrafted]

Oooh--I wanna play. Is it okay for females to be gay and/or pet the porpoise? The Bible says man shall not lie down with man as he lies down with women, but it doesn't say anything about women lying down with women. Women can't be guilty of onanism because they have no seed to spill. And what was Onan guilty of, exactly? He was diddling his dead brother's wife just like God wanted when he pulled out early. Maybe it's not the spilling of your seed that's a sin, but not finishing off your partner.

:twinkies:


IBTD

No, it's not okay to be a lesbian, alright? Man, woman, marriage.

And as for Onan, his sin was not fulfilling the law of Levirate marriage; that is, raising up a family in his brother's place. It was a cultural norm back then and a great insult and failure of responsibility if you didn't follow through. Onan didn't want to go to the trouble of being a family man, so he tried to dodge his responsibility. The passage has nothing to do with masturbation.

[handcrafted]

If my interpretation is correct (and it may not be, for only Handbasket knows with perfect certainty what the Bible means), then mdklatt is also correct: God wanted Onan to get his brother's wife pregnant, and killed him for not doing so.

That's right.

And listen, dude, you can debate with me without getting catty like some teenage girl, okay? I don't claim to have perfect Biblical interpretation skills, but I have studied the subject quite a lot. If you understand the historical context of what was written, many of the difficult passages become clearer, and the overall meaning of any given book is easily discerned.

[1stTimeCaller]

did we ever figure out the shellfish thingy?

[handcrafted]

Dead.
We usually don't let politicians dictate policy once they're out of office, much less dead for 150+ years.

Good grief, MD, you really are a product of the public schools, aren't you? I haven't seen anything that ignorant posted in a long time.

I guess the Constitution should just change on the whim of whomever is in office? Back in the day they called that a "dictatorship".

[handcrafted]

did we ever figure out the shellfish thingy?

Yes. Crawfish Etouffe is yummy. :D

[mdklatt]

Good grief, MD, you really are a product of the public schools, aren't you? I haven't seen anything that ignorant posted in a long time.

Well, all of us can't be home schooled. :rolleyes:



I guess the Constitution should just change on the whim of whomever is in office? Back in the day they called that a "dictatorship".

I realize that conservatives don't think things should ever change regardless of what's happening in the world around them. However, continuing to call the US a "Christian nation" based on what some people said 200 years ago ignores reality. A significant number of Americans are not Christians. Should they be deported? Have their right to vote taken away? Locked up in interment camps? What exactly does it mean to be a "Christian nation"? Religion is a personal choice, and the government has no business getting involved in that one way or another.

[Hamhock]

However, continuing to call the US a "Christian nation" based on what some people said 200 years ago ignores reality.

My only point in posting the quotes was to highlight the fact that many people, either out of ignorance or deception, distort the founding fathers' feelings on Christianity and its role in government. People cling to separation language found in a letter to a church by one man and ignore mounds of other evidence that the founders were God fearing man and intended their new country to abide by the same principles; Not force membership in a State Run church, but to acknowledge our rights are given to us by our Creator.


I realize your post was in jest, but what Christian has advocated deportation, incarceration, etc. of someone because they weren't Christian?

[mdklatt]

I realize your post was in jest, but what Christian has advocated deportation, incarceration, etc. of someone because they weren't Christian?

If we're going to keep calling ourselves a Christian nation, where does that leave all the non-Christians? The Founding Fathers didn't have to worry about a significant number of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, etc. back in the day. Regardless of their feeling on religion, it's clear that the Founding Fathers were worried about protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of majorities. That makes just as much sense today as it did back then. We've accumulated plenty of evidence over the past two centuries that explicitly mixing government and religion is bad for both. So even if seperation of church and state wasn't the law of land back then, it needs to be now.

[Hamhock]

If we're going to keep calling ourselves a Christian nation, where does that leave all the non-Christians?

Can you ask a more specific question? I believe that Biblical Christianity tells me to love the non-Christians as I love myself.




So even if seperation of church and state wasn't the law of land back then, it needs to be now.


And, apparently, the Dutch agree with you.

[mdklatt]

Can you ask a more specific question?


Do Christians have the right to encode their religious viewpoint into law simply because they're the majority?

[lefty]

My only point in posting the quotes was to highlight the fact that many people, either out of ignorance or deception, distort the founding fathers' feelings on Christianity and its role in government.

Consider this perspective. Is it ignorance or deception.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

[Hamhock]

I guess the answer to your question is yes.

Maybe I missed a civics class or two, but I thought that the majority, by being the majority, had the right to create the laws.

[1stTimeCaller]

I guess the answer to your question is yes.

Maybe I missed a civics class or two, but I thought that the majority, by being the majority, had the right to create the laws.

correct, hence the checks and balances in our Constitution to prevent the majority from trampeling the rights as set forth in the Constitution of the minority.

[Hamhock]

correct, hence the checks and balances in our Constitution to prevent the majority from trampeling the rights as set forth in the Constitution of the minority.


and so one needs to determine if the Constitution provides for an insulation of state from church.

[1stTimeCaller]

just remember, the higher the R value the better the insulation.

[Hamhock]

just remember, the higher the R value the better the insulation.


bat or blown?

[1stTimeCaller]

why do you hate rigid?

:D

[etouffee]

Maybe I missed a civics class or two, but I thought that the majority, by being the majority, had the right to create the laws.Not exactly. The majority elects people (congressmen and senators) to represent them in the legislative process. That doesn't mean their job is simply to do the bidding of the majority all the time; if they did, minorities would quickly become second class citizens utterly dominated by a ruling majority class.

[mdklatt]

and so one needs to determine if the Constitution provides for an insulation of state from church.

If it doesn't, we need an ammendment. Why do people want government meddling in their religious affairs (or vice versa)?

[Hamhock]

If it doesn't, we need an ammendment. Why do people want government meddling in their religious affairs (or vice versa)?


I agree with you on the surface, I don't want government meddling in my religious affairs. I also don't want the federal government telling the City Council of Podunk, USA they can't have a nativity scene on the lawn of the fire station, because that somehow is tantamount to a wholesale endorsement of Christianity or that Sally can't sing Amazing Grace at the talent show.

[handcrafted]

Do Christians have the right to encode their religious viewpoint into law simply because they're the majority?

Yes, we do. If you don't like it, move to Holland. :D

Next question?

geez, the Dutch are taking a pounding in this thread, arent' they?

[yermom]

Not exactly. The majority elects people (congressmen and senators) to represent them in the legislative process. That doesn't mean their job is simply to do the bidding of the majority all the time; if they did, minorities would quickly become second class citizens utterly dominated by a ruling majority class.

the constitution was actually set up so that the majority wouldn't be able to change laws easily, etc...

Madison was pretty afraid of what would happen if things went on the whim of the majority

[handcrafted]

If it doesn't, we need an ammendment. Why do people want government meddling in their religious affairs (or vice versa)?

The First Amendment is just fine the way it is. It just needs to be interpreted properly, in its historical context. That whole "intent of the framers" thing that until recently used to control how SCOTUS looked at these issues.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

i.e., there shall be no official Church of the United States, or any corresponding ecclesiastical authority within the Federal government.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

i.e., Congress shall not prevent citizens from conducting their religious activities as they see fit.

You don't really need any more than that. The problem recently, as Ham pointed out, is that the courts are so busy focusing on the first clause that they are not balancing it with the second. And, in large measure, the cases are directed against Christians (though there are exceptions).

[White House Boy]

Back to the original topic of discussion in this thread.... any "man" who wants to legalize the sodomization of a 12 year old child ought to enjoy the privilege of spending the rest of his God given life in an 8x8 cell with a 450 pound muscle laden serial killer with an proclivity for sexual deviance.

Just my two cents.

[Vaevictis]

Also, the slavery contemplated in the Bible talks about conditions that were such that, the slaves often would choose to stay with their master, even when the appointed time for their freedom had come.

Often, maybe. Always? No. There is no doubt that there were laws provided for involuntary servitude, especially for women and children. IIRC, most of the laws that provided for freedom after what, 7 years, were restricted to men. ("If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." Exodus 21:7.)


Many conditions that exist in our conception of slavery and our specific country's history with slavery would not be acceptable by the Bible's standards.

Okay, so let's say that we restrict slavery to standards acceptable under the Bible. Is it okay then?


The oppressive slavery of Africans by Europeans and Americans 200 years ago has no Biblical context, and of course it was wrong. When the Bible talks of "slavery" it most often refers to indentured servitude, which was a way of life for poor people back then.

Often, not always. And again, let's assume we restrict slavery to standards acceptable under Mosaic law. Is it okay then? Especially keeping in mind that indentured servitude applies only to men. Is permanent slavery of women ok?


You're talking about ancient Israelite civil law, not moral law. The civil law is not meant for modern times. It's just the working out of the moral law in a specific culture at a specific time.

This is law dictated BY GOD directly to Moses. To disagree with these laws is to disagree with God. To say that these laws are immoral is to say that God provided immoral laws. No volume of mealy-mouthed excuses about the antiquity of the laws is going to change that.

Either you agree with these laws, in effect condoning slavery and the rough treatment of unborn infants as not giving rise to criminal liability, OR you disagree with God. Either you say that these laws are moral, in effect condoning the morality of slavery and the rough treatment of unborn infants giving rise only to civil liability, OR you say that God provided immoral laws. You simply can not have it both ways.

So. Which way is it?

(Also, keep in mind that AFAIK, these laws were never "repealed" so to speak, so they should be in effect today, at the very least among the Jews. This is not a theoretical activity here.)

[Scott D]

You can't read 17th and 18th century life into ancient cultures. It doesn't translate. The oppressive slavery of Africans by Europeans and Americans 200 years ago has no Biblical context, and of course it was wrong. When the Bible talks of "slavery" it most often refers to indentured servitude, which was a way of life for poor people back then. It was an accepted way to pay off one's debts instead of going to prison. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated "slave" can have multiple meanings, so you have to look at the context. The same word can also mean forced slavery through conquest or kidnapping, and this is clearly condemned throughout Scripture.

In today's USA, indentured servitude is no longer part of the economy, so now it is immoral. Back then, it wasn't. However, the "owner" of the bondservant had a moral obligation to treat the bondservant well and take care of him/her and his/her family. The mistreatment of the black slaves in the antebellum South would have been just as wrong in Biblical times as it was in the 18th century.

Yet Christanity was used at the time as an 'excuse' as to why it was a just thing for them to be doing. Surely in your researching of the past you must be aware of the whole 'half human heathens needing direction' thought process that justified said 17th through 19th century slavery.

[crawfish]

Yet Christanity was used at the time as an 'excuse' as to why it was a just thing for them to be doing. Surely in your researching of the past you must be aware of the whole 'half human heathens needing direction' thought process that justified said 17th through 19th century slavery.

They had to ignore as much scripture as use to justify their actions.

If people want to do something badly enough they'll find some way to justify it.

[handcrafted]

This is law dictated BY GOD directly to Moses. To disagree with these laws is to disagree with God. To say that these laws are immoral is to say that God provided immoral laws. No volume of mealy-mouthed excuses about the antiquity of the laws is going to change that.

Either you agree with these laws, in effect condoning slavery and the rough treatment of unborn infants as not giving rise to criminal liability, OR you disagree with God. Either you say that these laws are moral, in effect condoning the morality of slavery and the rough treatment of unborn infants giving rise only to civil liability, OR you say that God provided immoral laws. You simply can not have it both ways.

So. Which way is it?

(Also, keep in mind that AFAIK, these laws were never "repealed" so to speak, so they should be in effect today, at the very least among the Jews. This is not a theoretical activity here.)

Here's the traditional interpretation. There are 3 types of law in the Old Testament: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The moral law, exemplified by the 10 Commandments and the principles flowing from them, govern all human conduct at all times. The ceremonial law (sacrifices, temple ceremony, food laws, clean/unclean things) was a type and shadow of the attributes and work of Christ and were indicators of the Holiness of God and how the Israelites were to set themselves apart from the other nations. Now that Christ has established his Church, there is no more need for ceremonial law.

The civil law was a code, consisting of specific cases in which the moral law was applied to a specific culture, like we use statutes and court decisions. Jesus himself said that some of the laws were given to Israel not because they were good ideas generally, but because of "the hardness of their hearts" (the divorce laws were a good example), i.e., these laws are there to govern Israelite society because of the way it operates, specifically. This "civil code" found in Exodus and Leviticus was given to the nation of Israel. When the nation of Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D., its civil law went with it. It's no more binding on us now than ancient Roman law is. This is not a "mealy-mouthed excuse", it's Biblical interpretation. The civil law was morally correct at the time it was given.

BTW there are some Christians who do agree with you, that the civil law is actually a moral imperative and is or should be binding on us to the extent that it can be applied now. They are called "theonomists" and they do make some compelling arguments. I myself can't quite go there because to a large extent I agree with the traditional interpretation. However, a perusal of the civil laws in the OT would reveal some which we would do well to re-implement. But slavery isn't one of them. It's just not a part of our economy or culture anymore. And, if you read the laws on slavery, they are all stated from the point of view of if you have slaves or servants, this is how you treat them. In fact, a lot of the other laws are also stated as hypothetical cases, not commandments. Nowhere is slavery commanded, except in the cases where the Israelites conquered another nation and were told to take captives, which seldom happened. In that case the slavery was morally justified because Israel was executing God's judgment on a pagan people.

[handcrafted]

They had to ignore as much scripture as use to justify their actions.

If people want to do something badly enough they'll find some way to justify it.

Ed Zachary.

[Vaevictis]

The point is, slavery is *permitted* under the laws that God gave the Israelites. Time-limited slavery for men, permenant slavery for women.

Is that morally correct?

And yes, saying that just because Israel fell and thus the point is moot is, in fact, a mealy-mouthed excuse. It doesn't change the fact that it happened, that God provided laws for it and thus justified it morally.

Either you agree that slavery is morally acceptable, or you agree that God set forth laws that are not morally acceptable. There is no middle ground. Stop dancing around the issue by saying that "Oh, that was thousands of years ago, and it doesn't apply anymore". That doesn't change the fact that it happened. Pick a side.

Of course, really, I know you can't. On the one hand, you agree with slavery and thus destroy any credibility you have. On the other, you disagree with the laws as set forth as God, describe them as immoral, and thus destroy any credibility you have. Like all people who try to use the Bible as the literal moral base of our society, you will dance around the issue, spouting mealy-mouthed platitudes about how it happened thousands of years ago, and how there were special circumstances because you have no other choice.

[1stTimeCaller]

what about the childrens?

[yermom]

you can keep them as slaves, but you can't have sex with them ;)

[handcrafted]

The point is, slavery is *permitted* under the laws that God gave the Israelites. Time-limited slavery for men, permenant slavery for women.

Is that morally correct?

And yes, saying that just because Israel fell and thus the point is moot is, in fact, a mealy-mouthed excuse. It doesn't change the fact that it happened, that God provided laws for it and thus justified it morally.

Either you agree that slavery is morally acceptable, or you agree that God set forth laws that are not morally acceptable. There is no middle ground. Stop dancing around the issue by saying that "Oh, that was thousands of years ago, and it doesn't apply anymore". That doesn't change the fact that it happened. Pick a side.

Of course, really, I know you can't. On the one hand, you agree with slavery and thus destroy any credibility you have. On the other, you disagree with the laws as set forth as God, describe them as immoral, and thus destroy any credibility you have. Like all people who try to use the Bible as the literal moral base of our society, you will dance around the issue, spouting mealy-mouthed platitudes about how it happened thousands of years ago, and how there were special circumstances because you have no other choice.

Biblical slavery is moral. What we had in the U.S. was not Biblical slavery. Therefore, it was immoral. I don't think I can get any clearer than that. You're engaging in a fallacy of characterizing the case as an either-or when it's not, and you're making category and context errors. The time and place something occurs *does* matter.

And, you can disagree with the traditional interpretation of the OT law if you want, and if you can back it up with solid exegesis. So far, I haven't seen any.

[1stTimeCaller]

Biblical slavery is moral. What we had in the U.S. was not Biblical slavery. Therefore, it was immoral. I don't think I can get any clearer than that.

what is the main difference and why?

honest question, I promise.

[handcrafted]

what is the main difference and why?

honest question, I promise.

Reread my earlier posts and you'll have your answer, but here's the reader's digest version:

Biblical slavery = indentured servitude (in most cases), an economic necessity back in that day

US/European enslavement of Africans = kidnapping and forced servitude with little or no remuneration coupled with mistreatment of said slaves. All actions forbidden generally by Scripture.

God did not generally command the Israelites to have slaves or bondservants. They were not breaking the law if they had none. (Ergo, neither are we). However, there were laws in place to address the situation where an Israelite did own slaves. It was common in ancient times to sell family members into servitude to pay one's debts, or (quite often) to give them a better life in a wealthier household. Servants were treated well and became de facto family members in some cases.

As a society we've done away with slavery and indentured servitude. In so doing, we have not violated any part of the Bible.

[1stTimeCaller]

OK, gotcha, I think.

Couldn't an argument be made that the economy of the South during slaveholding times necessitated the use of cheap slave labor? If they were not mistreated, and I maintain that most were treated well, and were only slaves for a period of time would that have made it morally OK? What would that time period be?

[handcrafted]

OK, gotcha, I think.

Couldn't an argument be made that the economy of the South during slaveholding times necessitated the use of cheap slave labor? If they were not mistreated, and I maintain that most were treated well, and were only slaves for a period of time would that have made it morally OK? What would that time period be?

I'm sure that was one of the arguments used by the South to justify themselves. Trouble is, the whole kidnapping thing makes the process immoral. If the slave/servant willingly went to work for the plantation owner, that's one thing. But kidnapping people from other countries is just morally wrong, period.

[Howzit]

What about when I have to put on handcuffs and lick Mrs Howzit's boots? That's morally ok, right?

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm sure that was one of the arguments used by the South to justify themselves. Trouble is, the whole kidnapping thing makes the process immoral. If the slave/servant willingly went to work for the plantation owner, that's one thing. But kidnapping people from other countries is just morally wrong, period.

Gotcha.

[1stTimeCaller]

What about when I have to put on handcuffs and lick Mrs Howzit's boots? That's morally ok, right?

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3C33%3A47%7Ffp342%3Enu%3D3267%3E63%3B%3E%3B%3A 8%3EWSNRCG%3D323379526675%3Cnu0mrj

[Vaevictis]

Biblical slavery is moral. What we had in the U.S. was not Biblical slavery. Therefore, it was immoral. I don't think I can get any clearer than that.

Fair enough. So, essentially what you're saying is that slavery is moral, provided the slaves are treated according to Biblical mores?



Biblical slavery = indentured servitude (in most cases), an economic necessity back in that day

For men. For women, not so.


But kidnapping people from other countries is just morally wrong, period.

Really. Period, huh.

From Numbers 31:

The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." (...)

The LORD said to Moses, (...) "Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. (...) From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle.

The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

[etouffee]

32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
yeah right. i'm not buyin it. maybe 32000 who wouldn't admit it out of fear for their safety.

[handcrafted]

From Numbers 31:

The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." (...)

The LORD said to Moses, (...) "Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. (...) From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle.

The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

Nice of you to conveniently leave out the context:

Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. 19 Encamp outside the camp seven days. Whoever of you has killed any person and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. 20 You shall purify every garment, every article of skin, all work of goats' hair, and every article of wood.”

The Israelite army was not supposed to take captives or plunder. But they did it anyway, and so they were required to give a percentage of the plunder to the people and to the priests. Moses followed God and made the best of the situation after the army commanders had sinned.

[Vaevictis]

Nice of you to conveniently leave out the context:

The Israelite army was not supposed to take captives or plunder. But they did it anyway, and so they were required to give a percentage of the plunder to the people and to the priests. Moses made the best of the situation after the army commanders had sinned.

Did they take the women against their will? Yes.

Is that kidnapping? Yes.

Did you not say that, "But kidnapping people from other countries is just morally wrong, period," thus suggesting that it is unequivocally wrong to do so (ie, context, among other things, is irrelevant)? Yes.

Just pointing out that for every act in the Bible that is blatantly immoral -- even acts which before hand (ie, forgetting they happened in the Bible) you would say are blatantly immoral -- you will produce an excuse.

[mdklatt]

The First Amendment is just fine the way it is. It just needs to be interpreted properly, in its historical context.

Screw historical context, we need a government that applies to today's world. The beauty (and curse) of the Constitution is that it's vague enough to allow for interpreation according the standards of the contemporary era. Trying to suss out the Framer's intent is 1) impossible; and 2) irrelevant.



That whole "intent of the framers" thing that until recently used to control how SCOTUS looked at these issues.


Thank goodness they're no longer trying to live in 1787.

[etouffee]

Trying to suss out the Framer's intent is 1) impossible; and 2) irrelevant. Well, normally, yeah. But you're talking to a man who can suss out GOD's intent. The framers are small potatoes for him. ;)

[handcrafted]

Did they take the women against their will? Yes.

Is that kidnapping? Yes.

Did you not say that, "But kidnapping people from other countries is just morally wrong, period," thus suggesting that it is unequivocally wrong to do so (ie, context, among other things, is irrelevant)? Yes.

Just pointing out that for every act in the Bible that is blatantly immoral -- even acts which before hand (ie, forgetting they happened in the Bible) you would say are blatantly immoral -- you will produce an excuse.

What exactly about that account in Numbers leads you to believe that the actions of the army commanders was moral?????? Clearly, God disapproved of it and so did Moses. Just because God decided to have mercy on 32,000 of the Midianite women (which, by the way, was also the nationality of Moses' wife), doesn't render the act of taking them moral. God did not say "oh that's okay". He rendered punishment on the soldiers for doing what they did.

I leave out, for the moment, the redemptive-historical significance of God's saving some people out of the gentile nation and leaving the rest to their deaths.

[handcrafted]

Well, normally, yeah. But you're talking to a man who can suss out GOD's intent. The framers are small potatoes for him. ;)

If by that, you mean "handcrafted can read", then yes. Have you heard of the Federalist Papers?

As far as God goes, does it not make sense that, if you grant that He speaks to us through the Bible, that He would have intended for us to understand it?

[handcrafted]

Screw historical context, we need a government that applies to today's world. The beauty (and curse) of the Constitution is that it's vague enough to allow for interpreation according the standards of the contemporary era. Trying to suss out the Framer's intent is 1) impossible; and 2) irrelevant.




Thank goodness they're no longer trying to live in 1787.

So, you'd be in favor of a new Constitutional Convention? The US government needs a makeover?

[mdklatt]

As far as God goes, does it not make sense that, if you grant that He speaks to us through the Bible, that He would have intended for us to understand it?

Well you'd think so, so what's the problem? Is God just a lousy writer?

[1stTimeCaller]

Did you guys know that Jesus got married?

That's wild, man.

[handcrafted]

Did you guys know that Jesus got married?

That's wild, man.

Post reported.

[Vaevictis]

God did not say "oh that's okay". He rendered punishment on the soldiers for doing what they did.

There you go, equivocating again. You said that it's wrong, period. Obviously, it's okay to keep kidnapped people as slaves, under the right circumstances, from what you're saying.

You have the right to that opinion, but hey, at least be honest about it.

[Octavian]

Did you guys know that Jesus got married?

That's wild, man.

ignorant dude, don't trust your public education high school teacher

[mdklatt]

Did you guys know that Jesus got married?

That's wild, man.

What did happen to Jesus after the Resurrection?

[mdklatt]

There you go, equivocating again. You said that it's wrong, period. Obviously, it's okay to keep kidnapped people as slaves, under the right circumstances, from what you're saying.



Why would God punish them if He thought it was okay? :confused:

[1stTimeCaller]

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, 'Tuba makes the best pedophile threads.'

[Vaevictis]

Why would God punish them if He thought it was okay? :confused:

Why would God keep them if he thought it wasn't?

It wasn't the kidnapping and taking of slaves that God took issue with, it was the fact that his orders were disobeyed that was the problem. (that's my best guess, anyway).

(I'm taking the "take vengeance" thing as an order to attack them and give quarter to no one. I could be wrong about that though.)

[handcrafted]

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. -- 1 Cor. 2:14-15

However, even given that, the Bible is not really that difficult to understand if you take the time, even if you're not a Christian (or Jewish). It takes some study, just like any ancient document. Plato isn't that easy to understand, either, unless you know something of the ancient Greek culture. Plenty of non-Christians understand what the Bible teaches just fine. They just don't believe that it's all accurate and inspired.

[mdklatt]

Why would God keep them if he thought it wasn't?

It wasn't the kidnapping and taking of slaves that God took issue with, it was the fact that his orders were disobeyed that was the problem. (that's my best guess, anyway).

I think the Bible says God is more of a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of deity. He's not to be held to the same standard as we are.

[mdklatt]

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. -- 1 Cor. 2:14-15


Well there you go.

[etouffee]

What did happen to Jesus after the Resurrection?Depends who you ask. The most interesting answers tend to come from Utah. :D

[etouffee]

Post reported.Reported for what? Repeating a theory you don't consider valid?

[handcrafted]

There you go, equivocating again. You said that it's wrong, period. Obviously, it's okay to keep kidnapped people as slaves, under the right circumstances, from what you're saying.

You have the right to that opinion, but hey, at least be honest about it.

You're not listening to me, or reading my posts, apparently. No equivocation. Let me say it a third time. What the Israelite soldiers did was morally wrong.

The account in Numbers 31 does not say anything about the women being kept as slaves. Many of them probably were taken as wives. Under the circumstances, in that culture, setting the women free would be more immoral than keeping them. They were unmarried, had nobody to provide for them, in a world where being young and female without a family pretty much meant you were destitute, unless you turned to prostitution. Turning them loose would have been tantamount to a death sentence. Keeping them in the nation of Israel meant that they had hope of a normal life, not to mention salvation, as at that time, the only way to become one of God's people was to become an Israelite. By marriage, they were made part of the nation.

[Octavian]

what we've learned so far:

The American Founders did not base the Revolution off the ideals of Enlightened Liberalism...they actually sought to establish institutions which made possible the rise of localized theocracy and really wanted to protect the Church from corruption. It must've happened the same way in France and Germany too. In fact, John Locke never existed.

On that note, nor did Martin Luther because The Bible is objective....period.

Slavery used to be OK b/c it was necessary.

mdk is a failed product of public schools.

Holland still sucks.

[1stTimeCaller]

:les: Damnit, I want to talk about the childrens!!

[handcrafted]

Why would God keep them if he thought it wasn't?

It wasn't the kidnapping and taking of slaves that God took issue with, it was the fact that his orders were disobeyed that was the problem. (that's my best guess, anyway).

(I'm taking the "take vengeance" thing as an order to attack them and give quarter to no one. I could be wrong about that though.)

This is sort of what I've been saying. The Israelites were generally not directed to take captives of any type. There are a couple of other considerations here, too, and you can call them whatever you want. Sometimes God's instructions to the Israelites come in the form of "don't do x unless I tell you to". I.e., certain activities are generally wrong unless God directs it for a specific purpose. When you get right down to it, all morally wrong actions can be defined as "not following God's instructions".

Second, a thing might be moral 2000 years ago and not moral now. For instance, 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to take territory by conquest. Now, it isn't. Just because there are some moral absolutes doesn't mean that each specific situation involves an absolute.

[etouffee]

:les: Damnit, I want to talk about the childrens!! I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be


Happy now?

[1stTimeCaller]

I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be


Happy now?

YES!!! I love Randy Watson and Sexual Chocolate!!!!!

[mdklatt]

The account in Numbers 31 does not say anything about the women being kept as slaves. Many of them probably were taken as wives. Under the circumstances, in that culture, setting the women free would be more immoral than keeping them.

Now this sounds like equivocation....

[etouffee]

500 years ago it was morally acceptable to take territory by conquest. Really? Why?

[Vaevictis]

You're not listening to me, or reading my posts, apparently. No equivocation. Let me say it a third time. What the Israelite soldiers did was morally wrong.

No, I'm reading what you're saying. I'm understanding too. Like I said: You are providing equivocation. It would be less moral to set them free is in fact, equivocation (and wrong, too).

Your original statement was that it is wrong, period. That means that there are no exceptions, no mitigating circumstances. Except, you have just said that there are, in fact exceptions and mitigating circumstances.

As far as why your stance is wrong is concerned: God could have just as easily set them free, taken the officer's share of the loot, bequeathed it to the former prisoners, and set the captains as *their* slaves. But instead, he chose to let Moses take the officers share for God, take a portion of the slaves for God, etc. Your option of poverty is not the only one. God, being God, has an infinate number of options to choose from.

[Vaevictis]

Under the circumstances, in that culture, setting the women free would be more immoral than keeping them.

Oh, and by the way, we have now come full circle:

The Bible is obviously not the source of morality. Even if you presume it is a source of morality, there are other factors.

I don't need the Bible to tell me that having sex with a 3 year old is bad. I just know it.

[handcrafted]

No, I'm reading what you're saying. I'm understanding too. Like I said: You are providing equivocation. It would be less moral to set them free is in fact, equivocation (and wrong, too).

Your original statement was that it is wrong, period. That means that there are no exceptions, no mitigating circumstances. Except, you have just said that there are, in fact exceptions and mitigating circumstances.

As far as why your stance is wrong is concerned: God could have just as easily set them free, taken the officer's share of the loot, bequeathed it to the former prisoners, and set the captains as *their* slaves. But instead, he chose to let Moses take the officers share for God, take a portion of the slaves for God, etc. Your option of poverty is not the only one.

People are sinners. God uses sinners to accomplish His purposes. God uses people where they are and doesn't give them more than they can handle in their situation. In that culture, women could not own property, hence they could not own slaves. The army officers would never have accepted that arrangement. And by taking the women into the nation, they were able to share in the wealth taken by the army. The concept of "freedom" as we know it did not exist for unmarried women in that day. I know it's hard, but try to think outside your little 21st century box.

[Octavian]

Oh, and by the way, we have now come full circle:

The Bible is obviously not the source of morality. Even if you presume it is a source of morality, there are other factors.

wrong again, heathen. Its the objective source of all of humanity's knowledge and accomplishment!!!1!

It should be law!!! All of it!!11!1

[Octavian]

The concept of "freedom" as we know it did not exist for unmarried women in that day. I know it's hard, but try to think outside your little 21st century box.

The concept of "freedom" is actually fairly new (and inconsistent w/ the Founding).

The original Liberal concept of personal "liberty" defined the Lockean Revolutions...or at least that's what my high school history teacher told me....cause thats where all my thoughts come from.

[handcrafted]

Oh, and by the way, we have now come full circle:

The Bible is obviously not the source of morality. Even if you presume it is a source of morality, there are other factors.

I don't need the Bible to tell me that having sex with a 3 year old is bad. I just know it.

Yeah, and you know why you know it? Because God created you and you bear His image. Part of that image is having an innnate knowledge of right and wrong. This is what I was originally getting at when I started this discussion.

I think I said this earlier, but perhaps I didn't. God is the source of morality. The Bible is God communicating to us about His redemption of the world. It contains moral instruction from God as well. In the areas in which it speaks, it is to be followed. In the areas in which it does not specifically speak, or which don't have any context in the year 2006, we can draw general principles from it in order to judge correct conduct in our society.

[handcrafted]

The concept of "freedom" is actually fairly new (and inconsistent w/ the Founding).

The original Liberal concept of personal "liberty" defined the Lockean Revolutions...or at least that's what my high school history teacher told me....cause thats where all my thoughts come from.

That's a fine way to look at it, IMO. I would add that the concept of personal "liberty" was not developed independent of religion, though. In fact, religion, specifically Protestant Christianity, was the basis for it.

[Octavian]

The Bible is God communicating to us about His redemption of the world. It contains moral instruction from God as well. In the areas in which it speaks, it is to be followed. In the areas in which it does not specifically speak, or which don't have any context in the year 2006, we can draw general principles from it in order to judge correct conduct in our society.

substitute God w/ Allah....Bible w/ Koran.

you just described Iran.

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, and you know why you know it? Because God created you and you bear His image.

And according to the Pope, you're a Catholic, you just don't know it. And according to Muhummad, you're a heathen that needs to be killed. To the old school Jews? Just a doomed gentile.

It may be, but it ain't so because you say it's so. You've got to have better reasons than that.

[handcrafted]

substitute God w/ Allah....Bible w/ Koran.

you just described Iran.

I didn't describe anything, but, whatever.

[Veritas]

Now how did we get from the joy of sex with kids to...well...whatever this is?

*shakes head*

[Vaevictis]

The army officers would never have accepted that arrangement.

God does not take orders from the army officers. The army officers take orders from God.

Mealy-mouthed excuse.

[1stTimeCaller]

That's a fine way to look at it, IMO. I would add that the concept of personal "liberty" was not developed independent of religion, though. In fact, religion, specifically Protestant Christianity, was the basis for it.

Oooh, I don't know about that. One of the world's foremost authorities on Liberty, Prof. Rufus Fears, the OU G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty, may disagree with you on that one.

[lefty]

With all due respect. Why did the world need redemption? I'm assuming that it had something to do with original sin (i.e. apples, serpents, Adam and Eve). Isn't god implicated in this? Was Eve set up by being offered the apple? Might this be entrapment?

[Vaevictis]

That's a fine way to look at it, IMO. I would add that the concept of personal "liberty" was not developed independent of religion, though. In fact, religion, specifically Protestant Christianity, was the basis for it.

So the ancient Greeks were Protestant? Awesome, I didn't know that.

[Octavian]

Now how did we get from the joy of sex with kids to...well...whatever this is?

*shakes head*

its the devil's fault.

I saw ITC w/ the devil....and Vaevictis

You should excercise your God-given powers:

http://img288.imageshack.us/img288/23/burnatthestake9nf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

;)

[handcrafted]

And according to the Pope, you're a Catholic, you just don't know it.

Heh. yeah. :) That one always makes me giggle.


And according to Muhummad, you're a heathen that needs to be killed.

Right again.


To the old school Jews? Just a doomed gentile.

Mmm-hmm.


It may be, but it ain't so because you say it's so. You've got to have better reasons than that.

I like Jesus' answer to that:

If anyone's will is to do God's [5] will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. --John 7:17-18

[1stTimeCaller]

I've been wanting to talk about the childrens all day and more importantly how to tell if Dateline is hiding in the house of your new hookup.

TIA.

[handcrafted]

So the ancient Greeks were Protestant? Awesome, I didn't know that.

Yeah, they just didn't know it. :D

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, [2] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’; [3]

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ [4]

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

--Acts 17:22-34

[handcrafted]

God does not take orders from the army officers. The army officers take orders from God.

Mealy-mouthed excuse.

God didn't give the army officers a chance to sin further by ignoring His word, which He knew they would do. It's called grace.

[handcrafted]

Oooh, I don't know about that. One of the world's foremost authorities on Liberty, Prof. Rufus Fears, the OU G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty, may disagree with you on that one.

So noted.

[handcrafted]

With all due respect. Why did the world need redemption? I'm assuming that it had something to do with original sin (i.e. apples, serpents, Adam and Eve). Isn't god implicated in this? Was Eve set up by being offered the apple? Might this be entrapment?

You're right about the why. As for God being implicated, well, in a way, He's implicated in everything that exists, by definition. But, Eve was a free moral creature, and she could have chosen to follow the rules. Satan's implicated too, of course. He bears partial responsibility for the fall.

You're also asking a question that has puzzled theologians for centuries. As to God's reason for allowing it to happen, that's not a piece of information we're given. However, I have heard one person say that, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, then they would be the saviors of the world and not Christ, and we would be worshipping them. We're clearly supposed to worship the Creator and not each other. So, the Fall was necessary.

[Vaevictis]

God didn't give the army officers a chance to sin further by ignoring His word, which He knew they would do. It's called grace.

Assumes facts not in evidence ;) If Moses gives them a direct order to do so, invoking God, with no wiggle room, how do we know they will not?

[Scott D]

You're right about the why. As for God being implicated, well, in a way, He's implicated in everything that exists, by definition. But, Eve was a free moral creature, and she could have chosen to follow the rules. Satan's implicated too, of course. He bears partial responsibility for the fall.

You're also asking a question that has puzzled theologians for centuries. As to God's reason for allowing it to happen, that's not a piece of information we're given. However, I have heard one person say that, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, then they would be the saviors of the world and not Christ, and we would be worshipping them. We're clearly supposed to worship the Creator and not each other. So, the Fall was necessary.

God will be hearing from my lawyers....he's going to have to pay me a huuuuuge settlement. I don't take kindly to entrapment by nobody...women, the police, or God. :D

[Vaevictis]

With all due respect. Why did the world need redemption? I'm assuming that it had something to do with original sin (i.e. apples, serpents, Adam and Eve). Isn't god implicated in this? Was Eve set up by being offered the apple? Might this be entrapment?

Now, I'm no biblical scholar or anything, but my interpretation is that God intended us to be more than just the children that Adam and Eve were.

God wants us to choose him, and the tree (and all the sins eating from the tree represents) was our other option, so to speak.

[Scott D]

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. -- 1 Cor. 2:14-15

There you go...God has commanded YOU to not judge me. :)

[lefty]

But if Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no need for redemption, and no need for savior(s). Wouldn't we want to worship the creator out of gratitude for our creation and not need any other reason?

[lefty]

Now, I'm no biblical scholar or anything, but my interpretation is that God intended us to be more than just the children that Adam and Eve were.

God wants us to choose him, and the tree (and all the sins eating from the tree represents) was our other option, so to speak.

So perhaps it's as simple as my father used to say: I brought you into this world, I can take you out.

[Vaevictis]

But if Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no need for redemption, and no need for savior(s). Wouldn't we want to worship the creator out of gratitude for our creation and not need any other reason?

And the love we would have had for God would have been the love of an infant for its mother. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's instinctual love, it's not like the kid has a choice.

My guess is that it's much more satisfying to have a grown up child who loves you and honors you because that child *wants* to, not because it's just a trait bred into it.

[Vaevictis]

And to give you an idea of where I'm coming from on this, God didn't just allow the Fall, he intended it.

If you create a being that is capable of sinning in that fasion, put it in a place where it can do so, and give it an infinite amount of time to do so, it will happen, eventually, and that is the scenario that was the Garden of Eden.

[crawfish]

There you go...God has commanded YOU to not judge me. :)

He made an exception for me, you sinful bastard. ;)

[Scott D]

He made an exception for me, you sinful bastard. ;)

he told me you can only stand in judgement of Howzit...because it'd be pointless to keep you from doing it :D

[lefty]

And to give you an idea of where I'm coming from on this, God didn't just allow the Fall, he intended it.

If you create a being that is capable of sinning in that fasion, put it in a place where it can do so, and give it an infinite amount of time to do so, it will happen, eventually, and that is the scenario that was the Garden of Eden.

I can follow what you're saying. However, (isn't there always a(n) however) that "worship" or "respect" seems to be based primarily on fear. In the short term, fear works pretty well. In the long term it breeds contempt.

[lefty]

I should have included complacency as another alternative.

[Vaevictis]

I can follow what you're saying. However, (isn't there always a(n) however) that "worship" or "respect" seems to be based primarily on fear. In the short term, fear works pretty well. In the long term it breeds contempt.

Well, you feared your parents at one point, yes? As you grew up, your relationship changed.

I can see an argument for the New Testament being evidence of the intent for the relationship to change from a fear and might based one (as in the Old Testament) to a love and respect based one.

The main thing to keep in mind that the history of this whole monotheistic Yaweh thing runs roughly a few thousands of years old. To God, that's peanuts. It might be that Jesus was sent in the metaphorical start of the adolesence of humanity.

[lefty]

On a side note, this thread has moved from pedophilia to original sin. Does this have metaphysical meaning?

[Vaevictis]

Absolutely not. It means handcrafted is a thread crapping troll.

;)

[lefty]

Well, you feared your parents at one point, yes? As you grew up, your relationship changed.

I can see an argument for the New Testament being evidence of the intent for the relationship to change from a fear and might based one (as in the Old Testament) to a love and respect based one.

The main thing to keep in mind that the history of this whole monotheistic Yaweh thing runs roughly a few thousands of years old. To God, that's peanuts. It might be that Jesus was sent in the metaphorical start of the adolesence of humanity.

This sounds reasonable. It just seems that every church service I've been to focuses on the fear part.

[Vaevictis]

This sounds reasonable. It just seems that every church service I've been to focuses on the fear part.

It's easier to manipulate the rabble when the rabble are afraid/angry/etc.

[Vaevictis]

It's easier to manipulate the rabble when the rabble are afraid/angry/etc.

In fact, it is because of this that I have the problems that I have with the Bible.

It's not that I have a beef with God or Jesus or anything. It's that after reading the Bible, it just *screams* at me that a goodly chunk of it was inserted by men trying to manipulate things to their own advantage.

I don't believe that God is the immoral dirty sh*tbag that some parts of the Bible paint him to be, so I have to conclude that at least some of it is just flat out wrong and/or deceitful.

[lefty]

The "logic" that humans are unable to be moral without the fear of retribution by some unknowable being makes no sense to me. It seems that much of the horrible things that humans have done to humans has been in the name of such beings. I think that it is much easier to do such things when one is able to justify those actions in the name of someone else (see all the studies that were done in response to WWII concerning the obedience to authority).

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't believe that God is the immoral dirty sh*tbag that some parts of the Bible paint him to be, so I have to conclude that at least some of it is just flat out wrong and/or deceitful.
Of course the fact that it was written by sinners thousands of years ago also must be considered.

[OklahomaTuba]

It seems that much of the horrible things that humans have done to humans has been in the name of such beings.
Yet most of the horrible things humans have done to each other in history have been done in the name of other humans, against the teachings of Jesus.

I suspect religious fanatacism comes in a far 2nd or 3rd compared to the havoc brought about by the followers of such people as Hilter, Stalin, Marx, Mao, Napolean, etc

[yermom]

hey, at least you guys are in the top 5 ;)

[White House Boy]

Of course the fact that it was written by sinners thousands of years ago also must be considered.

Though the hands of men may have been the conduit through which it was written, it is indeed the living, breathing Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 : All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

[etouffee]

edit--nevermind. someone already said what i was going to say.

[1stTimeCaller]

speaking of pedophiles did anyone catch Dateline last night? WTF is wrong with people? Especially the dude that brought his little boy in with him. Sad.

[yermom]

did they treat them like criminals too?

[1stTimeCaller]

for some reason they did. I think one tried to get political aslyum because he was Dutch.

[Howzit]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/31/sex.offender.suit.ap/index.html

Sex offenders suing because a law barring them from being within 1,000 ft of playgrounds/pools/parks with children present violates their rights.

[yermom]

they are lucky to not still be in jail or be relieved of their nads

they should have thought about going to church when they were raping little kids

[handcrafted]

Absolutely not. It means handcrafted is a thread crapping troll.

;)

I'll cop to that as far as this thread is concerned. ;) My original intent *was* to stir something up.

Metaphysical meaning? Of course it has. And oddly enough, the two of you (Vaev and lefty I mean) have hit on some of the major points of the original sin debate and the freewill controversy that have been floating around for hundreds of years.

I happen to be a Calvinist (so is Beano -- sorry to out you dude :)), so I do believe that God intended the Fall in some way, but in a way that does not remove the responsibility of Adam and Eve for doing the bad thing, and consequently, cursing the entire creation for which they were responsible. Others see it differently, but I think this is the only conclusion one can draw from Genesis as it's been presented to us. We don't get to know everything God knows (and of course we couldn't possibly), so there are some things we have to accept even though we don't understand the process or the reason. How Jesus could be both man and God at the same time, for instance. The Trinity. That sort of thing. However, we can definitely understand that Adam and Eve's sin cursed their offspring so that our wills are in bondage to evil, and the only way out is faith, whether under the Old Testament system, or under Christ.

Vaev made an excellent point about the relationship between God and man maturing over time. That's exactly what happened. Revelation was progressive, from the Genesis "don't eat that fruit" edict, through the law, down to Christ. At each stage humans gained a more full understanding of their place in creation.

And lefty, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience with fear-mongering churches. I have had similar experiences in the past, and I've also experienced the opposite (lukewarm fluff-and-bunnies let's all join hands and sing kum-bah-ya churches). If you live in the OKC area and you want some suggestions on where to go to get the real deal, peem me.

[handcrafted]

In fact, it is because of this that I have the problems that I have with the Bible.

It's not that I have a beef with God or Jesus or anything. It's that after reading the Bible, it just *screams* at me that a goodly chunk of it was inserted by men trying to manipulate things to their own advantage.

I don't believe that God is the immoral dirty sh*tbag that some parts of the Bible paint him to be, so I have to conclude that at least some of it is just flat out wrong and/or deceitful.

If you're really interested in studying this (and not just blindly believing that parts of the Bible are fabricated), you will be surprised at what you find. For starters, the text of the OT was substantially as we have it today by no later than 100 B.C., as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. So any so-called "insertions or additions" would had to have been made before that.

And as far as your accusation of God being immoral, I would simply say this: a) God defines morality, so it's not possible for Him to be "immoral", because "moral" is part of His nature; b) the incident or incidents to which you are referring are most probably God executing just judgment on evil persons. There are some actions which God commands us not to do, because he reserves that right for Himself, which, being King of the Universe, he kinda has the right to do. :)

Also, you can't use the moral law (the 10 Commandments) to analyze God's actions, because that's not what it's intended for. It's intended to guide *our* actions. The first 4 commandments outline our duty toward God, and the second 6 outline our duty toward each other. The moral law has nothing to do with God's right to do with the creation as He pleases. And if you presume to judge God based on your own corrupt sense of human morality, you're going to end up misleading yourself, because you can't trust your own feelings on the matter. That's another reason why Scripture is necessary. It guides us so that we don't just rely on our own sense of right and wrong, because we'll inevitably blow it.

[yermom]

well, if God made us in his own image, shouldn't it be a little weird to find some of his actions objectionable?

[Vaevictis]

If you're really interested in studying this (and not just blindly believing that parts of the Bible are fabricated), you will be surprised at what you find. For starters, the text of the OT was substantially as we have it today by no later than 100 B.C., as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. So any so-called "insertions or additions" would had to have been made before that.

Not suprised at all. Them thar Jews is dam good record keepers. ;)


And as far as your accusation of God being immoral, I would simply say this: a) God defines morality, so it's not possible for Him to be "immoral", because "moral" is part of His nature;

Yeah, well. The "do as I say, not as I do" thing never worked well on me as a kid. The usual result was me doing what I thought was correct, with me taking the person to task for their hypocracy. God, as the so to say "ultimate parent" gets the same treatment.


b) the incident or incidents to which you are referring are most probably God executing just judgment on evil persons.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, he actually *causes* persons to commit evil actions, then judges them for it (Pharoah's hardened heart immediately comes to mind). That's bullsh*t, IMHO.


There are some actions which God commands us not to do, because he reserves that right for Himself, which, being King of the Universe, he kinda has the right to do. :)

The power to do something is not the same as the right to do something. It may be that he has the right to do some of the things that I take objection to, but it takes more justification (in my mind than), "I am the creator, and whaddya gunna do about it anyway?"


It's intended to guide *our* actions. The first 4 commandments outline our duty toward God, and the second 6 outline our duty toward each other. The moral law has nothing to do with God's right to do with the creation as He pleases.

The Law binds the King just as much as as it binds the subject, else it is bad law. IMNSHO. Like I said, phenominal cosmic power is not automatic justification in my book. When you do something I think is morally questionable, it needs to be justified. It's just how I am. I was this same way with my parents as early as 5 years old.


And if you presume to judge God based on your own corrupt sense of human morality, you're going to end up misleading yourself, because you can't trust your own feelings on the matter.

Ultimately, my own feelings are all I've got, other than a book (or set of books) penned by the hands of humans I do not know. I am utterly incapable of taking such things on blind faith; I need the ability to independently verify the information, or at least the reliability of the source. Given that, I am sure you see my dilemma. :)

What it really boils down to for me is I cannot trust the hands of these humans I do not know, especially because I know the potential for them to have written these things just to vest themselves with power. I have to go with my gut instinct about what is right and what is wrong; somebody gave it to me for a reason ;)

[White House Boy]

Ultimately, my own feelings are all I've got, other than a book (or set of books) penned by the hands of humans I do not know. I am utterly incapable of taking such things on blind faith; I need the ability to independently verify the information, or at least the reliability of the source. Given that, I am sure you see my dilemma. :)

What it really boils down to for me is I cannot trust the hands of these humans I do not know, especially because I know the potential for them to have written these things just to vest themselves with power. I have to go with my gut instinct about what is right and what is wrong; somebody gave it to me for a reason ;)

May I recommend a couple of books for you to read?

Pick up a copy of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, and Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. I think that they might be worth your while.

[mdklatt]

Pick up a copy of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity

This is a coherent explanation of Christianity, but as a persuasive argument for Christianity it falls short. Everything rests on the premise that you believe the Bible in the first place.

[White House Boy]

This is a coherent explanation of Christianity, but as a persuasive argument for Christianity it falls short. Everything rests on the premise that you believe the Bible in the first place.


And thus my recommendation for McDowell's More Than a Carpenter.

[mdklatt]

And thus my recommendation for McDowell's More Than a Carpenter.

Carry on, then. :D