|
On May 12 2011 01:55 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +I'm pretty sure a huge amount of this is communication. When you say Christianity you are saying that PART of Christianity is responsible for the bill. When he says Christianity is not responsible he is saying the MAJORITY of Christianity is not responsible for the bill. Christianity is the story, the doctrine, the relics, the churches. It is everything about christianity that still exists when all humans are magically zapped away into the sky for rapture. Christians are the people. Christianity is anti-gay, christians are all across the spectrum. Some reject those passages, some embrace them, some try to twist them. They are still there regardless of how they are read. Show nested quote +He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It almost feels silly to keep explaining when you obviously refuse to understand. I explained it very clearly so you either failed to understand what i wrote or you purposefully ignored it and continued on with this bizare post. I am torn at this point. I either have to call you stupid for not understanding a very clear post or dishonest for understanding it but refusing to adress my actuall point rather then your fantasy version of what i said. Finally there is a bit of peculiar stuff about Islam. You seem to believe that in a world without Islam there would still be Islamic terrorists. This is both laughable and horribly off-topic. You are derailing this topic enough by intentionally miss-reading posts, don't add going off-topic to that list.
Resorting to insults is not the way to go about things, sir.
I understand what you are saying. Yes, anti-gay sentiments might not exist without Christianity. And yes, there would be no Islamic extremists without Islam.
BUT!
Causality does not always imply responsibility. That's what I'm getting at.
|
ok, so back to the earth, the 48 hours passed or are about to pass, any fresh updates?
|
On May 12 2011 02:34 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:31 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 02:29 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 01:10 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:54 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. I disagree. Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister? Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault? On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. No. It's not. The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion. Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name. You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw... These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself. The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
Yes please, a world where religion doesn't exist would be much preferable. The idea that religion is a prerequisite for morality and moral acts annoys me to no end.
|
|
|
On May 12 2011 02:34 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:31 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 02:29 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 01:10 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:54 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. I disagree. Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister? Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault? On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. No. It's not. The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion. Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name. You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw... These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself. The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion.
I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made.
The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
|
On May 12 2011 03:28 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:34 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 02:31 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 02:29 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 01:10 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:54 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. I disagree. Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister? Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault? On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. No. It's not. The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion. Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name. You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw... These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself. The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion. I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made. The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
In the end, it seems like there would just be one less scapegoat out of many. Wouldn't have a significant impact, IMO. People will always find a way to try and justify their actions. It's natural.
|
On May 12 2011 03:28 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 02:34 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 02:31 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 02:29 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 12 2011 01:10 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:54 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. I disagree. Maybe you can't share your ideas for fear that they will spawn something sinister? Maybe I don't like bunnies but I don't think we should kill them and I call myself an "anti-bunnier" then someone comes along and is like, "Let's kill all the bunnies!". Is that my fault? On May 12 2011 00:55 Craton wrote:On May 12 2011 00:53 jello_biafra wrote:On May 12 2011 00:26 Uhh Negative wrote:
He's saying that because Christianity is against gays, that is the reason why they are proposing to kill them.
It's kind of like saying Islamic radicals who suicide them self represent Islam and it's Islam's fault for existing that they are that way.
I guess now if you have an idea, and someone vastly misinterprets it then acts upon it, it's your fault.
People are always going to misinterpret and manipulate things to try and justify what they do. It IS Islam's fault that Islamic "extremists" exist. No. It's not. The sheer existence of Islam makes the world safe for the extremists, the Qu'ran is open for interpretation and there's no demonstrable standard for Islam that all Muslims should follow. Read The God Delusion. Last time I checked, the Christian Bible is open to interpretation as well. I point to the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Baptists, just as these extremists call themselves Muslim. The American Baptist Association has long ago stated that WBC is not a true Baptist church. The educated Islam community would say the same thing about these extremists. They are not practicing what the Islamic community would call true Islam, and give Islam a bad name. You could make the same argument for the Crusades btw... These extremists wouldn't be there at all without the religion itself. The crusades wouldn't have happened without the existence of Christianity. Which, might I add, caused more deaths then the current extremists. So should we have said that Chrisianity should not have existed? No. Christianity does a lot of good for the community. Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. In countries where it is popular, it fills the same role as Christianity does in the United States and other countries in which Christianity is the majority religion. I think that is what he's arguing. That without religion, you wouldn't have evil acts done in the name of religion. It's certainly an argument Richard Dawkins (whom he cites) has made. The more relevant question is, would things actually be better? I think the mid-20th century makes a case that if people weren't killing in the name of religion, they'd be killing in the name of something else.
I don't care for any religion at all, personally. I think it is not fair, however, to say that the world would be better without Islam, and not say the world would be better off without Christianity. They are so fucking similar!!! lolz Like Hobbes said, was it in Leviathan?, I'm paraphrasing, your personal beliefs are religion, the beliefs that are not similar to yours are superstition.
|
I agree, religions (as well as ideologies and cultures) should be judged by a consistent metric. You can't blame one for the crimes of its followers while absolving another with some "no true Scotsman" type argument.
|
You make these assertions failing to understand a simple thing, religion changes over time. You wont find people being burned on the stake for their beliefs, not because the bible has drastically changed but because people understood that one cannot interpret christian beliefs in such a manner.
Ooh, religion changes over time? Well that's great. When was the latest adition made to the bible? What's that? Over a thousand years ago?
The reading of religious scripture changes. The parts that get embraced and ignored changed. What is considered important and not important change but for all the things that change it is christianity itself that does not change.
The books, the stories, the relics, they are what they are. People call it a triangle one day and a square the next but it is what it is. How people read religion changes but the content of the religion itself hardly changes.
Up until the 1960's the anti-jewish movement was a big part of the church, this changed. A different reading was brought forwards for the death of christ and whom was to blame (wich is currently nobody).
As such the anti-gay parts of the bible will move forwards or backwards over time, just like how slavery for example moved in prominence. During the civil war the pro-slavery bible was used as justification for their slavery and infact the south was right. The bible does favour the Confederacy on that subject.
Still we changed our reading of it. But what has changed? Have the pages of the bible magically changed? No they haven't. We read them differently and ignore different parts but the content remains the same.
Individualism has made everyone claim their own version of christianity, many of wich haven't even ever read the bible. Take "transubstantiation" for example. How many catholics honestly believe that the eucharist turns into the physical flesh of jesus when consumed? And still this is the official position of the church.
You can quote Levictus or the insane evangilists that are believed to be responsible for this mess but you'll find that a majority of christians have nothing against homosexuals.The christians in Uganda are doing something that is unacceptable by christian standards (you asked for a statement from the Vatican = http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/vatican-speaks-out-against-uganda-anti-gay-laws ). So blaming the existence of christianinity is like blaming guns for the existence crime.
Majority rule doesn't change what the bible says. As all religious people, christians read through their book of choice with a pick and choose attitude. They focus more on the sermon on the mount and less on the kill gays and have slaves parts. This doesn't change that the bible is still anti-gay and pro slavery.
Please stop arguing about this,as it is more important to concentrate on solving of this mess than on directing the blame on parties that have stated this is not what they believe in.
Again, i haven't blamed all christians. Honestly i can't keep repeating this (altough it seems i have to).
Pointing blame is very important. Solving it more so but nobody here has the kind of influence to achieve anything meaningfull. All we can do is sign a petition and hope people that do have some influence decide to use it to prevent this atrocity.
Ofcourse i am not going to keep pointing to the source of this homophobia. Must we really spare the sensitivity of christians at the costs of the lives of homosexuals? We need to be reminded of what is the source of this homophobia. Just cause you don't like that christianity is responsible doesn't change that we shouldn't forget that it is. That whole "change reality to fit me" position is one you are best off without.
|
It doesn't matter whether some people who are "christian" embrace gays or not. The idea behind the Old Testament vs New Testament is not that the Old Testament is wrong. The whole bible is correct, but the Old Testament was more specifically for the people back then and certain applications (animal sacrifices, eye for an eye) became dated. Taking someone's life is a heavy burden, it can be a requirement although in this case I don't think it's proper. Ultimately they will be punished for it, and we shouldn't encourage it and more importantly try to save them.
Religions were created to give people light or guidance. Some have less then others, and can be wrong which is why any religion or sect/group who support homosexuality are mistaken/misguided. Picking and choosing isn't how it works either. You either go with it fully, or you're wrong.
|
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
|
On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing.
Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
|
On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
"Higher law" lol...
So two completely contradictory ideas can apparently be part of the same morality. That makes.... no sense.
The earth was flat in the past, but now it is round. It's not that one belief was false and the other true, we just moved to a "higher" truth. 
|
On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
|
On May 12 2011 06:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law. "Higher law" lol... So two completely contradictory ideas can apparently be part of the same morality. That makes.... no sense. The earth was flat in the past, but now it is round. It's not that one belief was false and the other true, we just moved to a "higher" truth.
Mercy and Justice, considered contradictory (they aren't) but both are required and served by God. I don't think I can explain it as well as other people can, justice is fulfilled completely but the Lord still has compassion on us. Makes our burdens light.
|
On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law.
That's the gist of what I'm talking about. Although I was more specifically thinking of when the Bible says that it's now okay to eat some foods that had previously been forbidden, ie when some of the ancient laws themselves were revoked. Eye for an eye vs Turn the other cheek is more dealing with how a Christian should respond to transgressions by another person. It doesn't invalidate the existing law; merely instructs the follower not to respond to someone wronging them.
|
On May 12 2011 06:42 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law. I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
The people then are not the people now. Men are not made equal. He only allows temptation as far as we are able to handle it, setting the bar high won't instantly make them stronger. There's a reason we were let on earth in the order that we are here, and why laws were made at certain times.
It does invalidate the other law though. Just because it's a similar law does not make the previous law correct in this time. You're in the wrong if you slap him back.
|
On May 12 2011 06:42 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law. I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?
Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
|
On May 12 2011 06:56 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law. I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it? Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them.
Don't buy it in the slightest, in fact, I see it as nothing more than a copout. Idea, to me, is the definition of far-fetched. God's going to change what he allows because he's not sure the people at the time will find what he says "practical"? Bullshit - he didn't seem to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when they were used to their lifestyles.
Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen.
|
On May 12 2011 07:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 06:56 Signet wrote:On May 12 2011 06:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 12 2011 06:36 manicshock wrote:On May 12 2011 06:29 Signet wrote:
Unless an Old Trstament law was specifically thrown out by God later in the Bible, reasoning that some were intended for all time while others were specifically for that time period is picking and choosing. Eye for an eye vs turning the other cheek. Completely contradictory, both in the bible. New Testament overwrote the old testament in some cases. This isn't picking and choosing rather moving to a higher law. I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it? Actually that idea isn't too far fetched. The optimal set of laws for primitive people living in small nomadic tribes 3000 years ago probably does differ some from the optimal laws for, say, a Western civilization. I totally get that, thousands of years ago, you might just have to execute a murderer, while today we could keep them in prison for life. Their laws were substandard for us, but our concept of justice might be impractical for them. Don't buy it in the slightest, in fact, I see it as nothing more than a copout. Idea, to me, is the definition of far-fetched. God's going to change what he allows because he's not sure the people at the time will find what he says "practical"? Bullshit - he didn't seem to spare Sodom and Gomorrah when they were used to their lifestyles. Absolutely blows my mind, really, that you would suggest God's fine with TELLING us certain laws that he doesn't even want to happen.
Slow down, my argument doesn't involve God, or Sodom or Gomorrah. You stated:
"I love it - if God wanted it to be the case why wouldn't he have just told that to humanity from the start? Preferred to have people for a few thousand years follow a subpar moral code, then decided he wasn't too fond of it?"
Which, at least as it comes across to me, implies that there should be a code that is best for people to follow "from the start" and remains the best code thereafter. I don't think this is the case. I think that the laws needed and practical to effectively govern a fledgling civilization 3000 years ago are different than the laws needed and practical to effectively govern an established civilization today. Note that this argument does not involve the existence of god (whether the laws are actually handed down from heaven or reinforced by a culturally imagined deity is irrelevant to whether they enable the society to function), nor does it imply that the Bible itself contains an optimal set of laws either for Old Testament times or for today. It is a statement that legal code A > legal code B under circumstances X does not imply A > B under Y. I'd make a similar argument about, say, optimal laws in 1790 versus optimal laws in 2011.
That's all. The rest is simply you projecting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
