|
On May 28 2011 10:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Christians should not force anyone to do anything. Right from creation, right from the very beginning, God gave his children (us), free will to choose to obey, or choose to disobey. By disobeying, we make up our own rules!! (see Devil's conversation with Eve, "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." Ha - this is partially true - you won't "know" good and evil, you will DEFINE it once you reject God)
Load of crap. See the following:
+ Show Spoiler +God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I think it's a nice idea - the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His 'family' rather bigger. But I guess I'm basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We'll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 - and please note I don't wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I'm going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says 'if you eat from it you will surely die'. Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn't want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say 'kids, you have the following two options - you decide'? Instead, He says 'you must not take option 2'.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.
|
On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion.
It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that.
|
On May 28 2011 10:52 Vore210 wrote:
Its not so much putting the law on a pedestal as - the law was put there for a reason. Because stuff like this and far worse happen when RELIGION is on a pedestal (and it is, it really is).
There's a difference between putting religion on a pedestal and treating the religion the same as all other ideology.
You really think following a bronze age mythology book that has the first chunk talking about a god killing millions of people in jealous and spiteful rages, and in the second chunk saying "but he loves you" equates to "lets try making a fair and just society for everyone living in it?" Come on.
Nobody believes in the bronze age mythology shit. Modern Christianity is nearly as liberal as secular society, because despite what both atheists and Christians believe, religious norms change all the fucking time, and they follow the norms of the rest of society. For example, Episcopalians of 50 years ago would be horrified that Episcopalians today are just fine with gay priests.
And you could say exactly the same about conservatism. But at least you cant say liberalism isn't generally racist and non inclusive, and unfair to minorities. Conservatism is obviously much closer to fascism than liberalism is. Seem to shoot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
American Liberalism is generally racist and non-inclusive, which was the version of liberalism I was referring to. American Liberals don't give a shit about minorities, hence their support for anti-trade initiatives that make the rest of the world poorer in order to maintain the livelihoods of middle-class, White Americans.
In fact a lot of the things we in the west can be proud of today over the nations in the middle east are due entirely to an increasingly liberal mindset.
I'm a moral relativist. I agree, I think middle east countries are barbaric. But I can see that my judgment of them is pretty much biased by being raised in liberal ideology. Middle East countries are proud that they aren't so depraved as Western countries.
|
On May 28 2011 11:00 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion. It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that.
No, it doesn't take anything extraordinary. It's just a matter of getting five votes on the Supreme Court to agree to your interpretation. Surely you don't believe that the 1962 Supreme Court was privy to some ultimate truth about the Constitution's meaning. Because that's the very date when the Constitution went from allowing school prayer to forbidding it.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 28 2011 10:58 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Christians should not force anyone to do anything. Right from creation, right from the very beginning, God gave his children (us), free will to choose to obey, or choose to disobey. By disobeying, we make up our own rules!! (see Devil's conversation with Eve, "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." Ha - this is partially true - you won't "know" good and evil, you will DEFINE it once you reject God) Load of crap. See the following: + Show Spoiler +God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I think it's a nice idea - the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His 'family' rather bigger. But I guess I'm basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We'll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 - and please note I don't wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I'm going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says 'if you eat from it you will surely die'. Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn't want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say 'kids, you have the following two options - you decide'? Instead, He says 'you must not take option 2'.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.
What happened Tony? Why did you lose faith? Did you not read the gospels and were you not amazed at God's truth when you first believed?
"For not all have faith", indeed there will be apostates from Christianity, but why Tony?
|
On May 28 2011 11:04 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:00 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion. It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that. No, it doesn't take anything extraordinary. It's just a matter of getting five votes on the Supreme Court to agree to your interpretation. Surely you don't believe that the 1962 Supreme Court was privy to some ultimate truth about the Constitution's meaning. Because that's the very date when the Constitution went from allowing school prayer to forbidding it.
Yes, getting to the Supreme Court with your case and convincing the judges that youre right is nothing extraordinary at all.
...are you serious? Supreme Court cases are big deals.
|
On May 28 2011 11:05 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:58 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 10:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Christians should not force anyone to do anything. Right from creation, right from the very beginning, God gave his children (us), free will to choose to obey, or choose to disobey. By disobeying, we make up our own rules!! (see Devil's conversation with Eve, "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." Ha - this is partially true - you won't "know" good and evil, you will DEFINE it once you reject God) Load of crap. See the following: + Show Spoiler +God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I think it's a nice idea - the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His 'family' rather bigger. But I guess I'm basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We'll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 - and please note I don't wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I'm going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says 'if you eat from it you will surely die'. Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn't want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say 'kids, you have the following two options - you decide'? Instead, He says 'you must not take option 2'.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better. What happened Tony? Why did you lose faith? Did you not read the gospels and were you not amazed at God's truth when you first believed? "For not all have faith", indeed there will be apostates from Christianity, but why Tony?
Firstly, way to avoid the points made. Rather than admit that you don't have all the answers just turn the question around to something completely irrelevant. Secondly, if you're interested, you can see my previous blogs on the issue:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=6
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=5
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=4
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=3
|
On May 28 2011 11:09 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:04 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 11:00 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion. It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that. No, it doesn't take anything extraordinary. It's just a matter of getting five votes on the Supreme Court to agree to your interpretation. Surely you don't believe that the 1962 Supreme Court was privy to some ultimate truth about the Constitution's meaning. Because that's the very date when the Constitution went from allowing school prayer to forbidding it. Yes, getting to the Supreme Court with your case and convincing the judges that youre right is nothing extraordinary at all. ...are you serious? Supreme Court cases are big deals.
Um, but they aren't extraordinary. The Supreme Court hears 100 cases a year, I would not consider that "beyond ordinary."
In the specific case of school prayer, all it would take to allow it under the Constitution would be a Republican president in 2012 and Ginsburg's retirement. I would not consider those extraordinary events, even though Obama losing is pretty unlikely.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 11:03 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +And you could say exactly the same about conservatism. But at least you cant say liberalism isn't generally racist and non inclusive, and unfair to minorities. Conservatism is obviously much closer to fascism than liberalism is. Seem to shoot yourself in the foot with that analogy. American Liberalism is generally racist and non-inclusive, which was the version of liberalism I was referring to. American Liberals don't give a shit about minorities, hence their support for anti-trade initiatives that make the rest of the world poorer in order to maintain the livelihoods of middle-class, White Americans. Show nested quote +In fact a lot of the things we in the west can be proud of today over the nations in the middle east are due entirely to an increasingly liberal mindset. I'm a moral relativist. I agree, I think middle east countries are barbaric. But I can see that my judgment of them is pretty much biased by being raised in liberal ideology. Middle East countries are proud that they aren't so depraved as Western countries.
Wait, how is American Liberalism "racist and non-inclusive"? The argument conservatives LOVE to go to is that Liberalism is steering America towards socialism. Socialism is the exact opposite of being "non-inclusive". Liberals are the ones supporting welfare, medicare, affirmative action, etc. I dont believe racism is particular to either political viewpoint since Ive seen enough racists on both sides, but Liberalism is definitely not about being non-inclusive
|
On May 28 2011 11:10 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:09 Supamang wrote:On May 28 2011 11:04 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 11:00 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion. It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that. No, it doesn't take anything extraordinary. It's just a matter of getting five votes on the Supreme Court to agree to your interpretation. Surely you don't believe that the 1962 Supreme Court was privy to some ultimate truth about the Constitution's meaning. Because that's the very date when the Constitution went from allowing school prayer to forbidding it. Yes, getting to the Supreme Court with your case and convincing the judges that youre right is nothing extraordinary at all. ...are you serious? Supreme Court cases are big deals. Um, but they aren't extraordinary. The Supreme Court hears 100 cases a year, I would not consider that "beyond ordinary." In the specific case of school prayer, all it would take to allow it under the Constitution would be a Republican president in 2012 and Ginsburg's retirement. I would not consider those extraordinary events, even though Obama losing is pretty unlikely.
100 cases a year seems like a lot to you? Dunno, seems relatively small to me. And with that, does every case change the law? I doubt that Supreme Court judges get convinced every single time a case is brought up to them.
|
On May 28 2011 11:13 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:03 domovoi wrote:And you could say exactly the same about conservatism. But at least you cant say liberalism isn't generally racist and non inclusive, and unfair to minorities. Conservatism is obviously much closer to fascism than liberalism is. Seem to shoot yourself in the foot with that analogy. American Liberalism is generally racist and non-inclusive, which was the version of liberalism I was referring to. American Liberals don't give a shit about minorities, hence their support for anti-trade initiatives that make the rest of the world poorer in order to maintain the livelihoods of middle-class, White Americans. In fact a lot of the things we in the west can be proud of today over the nations in the middle east are due entirely to an increasingly liberal mindset. I'm a moral relativist. I agree, I think middle east countries are barbaric. But I can see that my judgment of them is pretty much biased by being raised in liberal ideology. Middle East countries are proud that they aren't so depraved as Western countries. Wait, how is American Liberalism "racist and non-inclusive"? The argument conservatives LOVE to go to is that Liberalism is steering America towards socialism. Socialism is the exact opposite of being "non-inclusive". Liberals are the ones supporting welfare, medicare, affirmative action, etc. I dont believe racism is particular to either political viewpoint since Ive seen enough racists on both sides, but Liberalism is definitely not about being non-inclusive
Conservatives are just overt xenophobes. Liberals claim to be non-inclusive, but they are just as tribalistic as anyone else. I can show you plenty of examples where liberals try to stop a speech by someone they disagree with. Liberals also hate Wal-Mart, even though it provides so many services for the poor. Beyond the hypocrisy, it's somewhat good that Liberals at least try to pretend to be non-inclusive, but I can't help but see past the bullshit about one political party being good and the other being evil.
|
I felt that this image, that I made of Brother Mack would be appropriate. :D
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 28 2011 11:17 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:10 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 11:09 Supamang wrote:On May 28 2011 11:04 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 11:00 TOloseGT wrote:On May 28 2011 10:56 domovoi wrote:On May 28 2011 10:53 Sentient wrote:On May 28 2011 10:42 domovoi wrote:
My point is that sitting through a commencement speech that you strongly disagree with is way worse than sitting through a one minute prayer. Yet somehow it's the innocuous prayer that offends. People against school prayer or the pledge of allegiance are just way too sensitive. Lighten up. I see it more as defending the constitution rather than attacking the prayer. The Constitution is just a piece of paper some dead guys wrote over 200 years ago using language so generic it can basically support any political position you wish, including allowing school prayer. Let's not turn law into a religion. It'll take something extraordinary to overturn legal precedence. I doubt this situation will do that. No, it doesn't take anything extraordinary. It's just a matter of getting five votes on the Supreme Court to agree to your interpretation. Surely you don't believe that the 1962 Supreme Court was privy to some ultimate truth about the Constitution's meaning. Because that's the very date when the Constitution went from allowing school prayer to forbidding it. Yes, getting to the Supreme Court with your case and convincing the judges that youre right is nothing extraordinary at all. ...are you serious? Supreme Court cases are big deals. Um, but they aren't extraordinary. The Supreme Court hears 100 cases a year, I would not consider that "beyond ordinary." In the specific case of school prayer, all it would take to allow it under the Constitution would be a Republican president in 2012 and Ginsburg's retirement. I would not consider those extraordinary events, even though Obama losing is pretty unlikely. 100 cases a year seems like a lot to you? Dunno, seems relatively small to me. And with that, does every case change the law? I doubt that Supreme Court judges get convinced every single time a case is brought up to them.
It's not a lot, but they're not in any way extraordinary. And yes, pretty much every non-per-curiam decision changes or clarifies the law in some fashion.
|
On May 28 2011 11:03 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 10:52 Vore210 wrote:
Its not so much putting the law on a pedestal as - the law was put there for a reason. Because stuff like this and far worse happen when RELIGION is on a pedestal (and it is, it really is). There's a difference between putting religion on a pedestal and treating the religion the same as all other ideology. Show nested quote +You really think following a bronze age mythology book that has the first chunk talking about a god killing millions of people in jealous and spiteful rages, and in the second chunk saying "but he loves you" equates to "lets try making a fair and just society for everyone living in it?" Come on. Nobody believes in the bronze age mythology shit. Modern Christianity is nearly as liberal as secular society, because despite what both atheists and Christians believe, religious norms change all the fucking time, and they follow the norms of the rest of society. For example, Episcopalians of 50 years ago would be horrified that Episcopalians today are just fine with gay priests. Show nested quote +And you could say exactly the same about conservatism. But at least you cant say liberalism isn't generally racist and non inclusive, and unfair to minorities. Conservatism is obviously much closer to fascism than liberalism is. Seem to shoot yourself in the foot with that analogy. American Liberalism is generally racist and non-inclusive, which was the version of liberalism I was referring to. American Liberals don't give a shit about minorities, hence their support for anti-trade initiatives that make the rest of the world poorer in order to maintain the livelihoods of middle-class, White Americans. Show nested quote +In fact a lot of the things we in the west can be proud of today over the nations in the middle east are due entirely to an increasingly liberal mindset. I'm a moral relativist. I agree, I think middle east countries are barbaric. But I can see that my judgment of them is pretty much biased by being raised in liberal ideology. Middle East countries are proud that they aren't so depraved as Western countries.
Oh I know they conform to a degree, but they prey on fears whenever they can. The two instances of the old testament where homosexuality is mentioned as a sin and nowhere else in the bible are hugely important these days, because the church preys on homophobia. But they don't conform out of any sort of goodness or morality, but because if they don't they'll be left biting the dust of a progressive society. So it tries to keep up and then hold us back as much as it can.
But equally you have to wonder, when less and less of the bible is being adhered to, and more people are going the path of individual spiritualism, does that not argue even more that religion should be kept out of places like schools? That's the only way it can be truly all-inclusive, which is the way our societies are heading.
I'm not sure how liberalism in the U.S can possibly stray so far from its roots when here in Europe its practically the opposite. What you described to me sounds atypically conservative. But im not going to pretend I know your political system that well.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 28 2011 11:10 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:05 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On May 28 2011 10:58 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 10:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Christians should not force anyone to do anything. Right from creation, right from the very beginning, God gave his children (us), free will to choose to obey, or choose to disobey. By disobeying, we make up our own rules!! (see Devil's conversation with Eve, "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." Ha - this is partially true - you won't "know" good and evil, you will DEFINE it once you reject God) Load of crap. See the following: + Show Spoiler +God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I think it's a nice idea - the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His 'family' rather bigger. But I guess I'm basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We'll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 - and please note I don't wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I'm going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says 'if you eat from it you will surely die'. Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn't want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say 'kids, you have the following two options - you decide'? Instead, He says 'you must not take option 2'.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better. What happened Tony? Why did you lose faith? Did you not read the gospels and were you not amazed at God's truth when you first believed? "For not all have faith", indeed there will be apostates from Christianity, but why Tony? Firstly, way to avoid the points made. Rather than admit that you don't have all the answers just turn the question around to something completely irrelevant. Secondly, if you're interested, you can see my previous blogs on the issue: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=6http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=5http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=4http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=3
Not avoiding mate, just not throwing pearls before swine. You of all should know that God is light and in him is only truth. If you failed to remain in truth and continue to believe in it, then I guess Satan's gripped you pretty well. No point wasting my time in a fruitless theology lesson
|
On May 28 2011 11:20 Vore210 wrote:
Oh I know they conform to a degree, but they prey on fears whenever they can. The two instances of the old testament where homosexuality is mentioned as a sin and nowhere else in the bible are hugely important these days, because the church preys on homophobia. But they don't conform out of any sort of goodness or morality, but because if they don't they'll be left biting the dust of a progressive society. So it tries to keep up and then hold us back as much as it can.
Exactly, but you're wrong when you characterize it as some overt attempt to "prey on fears." Homophobia was a widely accepted norm a mere 30-40 years ago (and still is even in many non-Christian and non-Muslim countries, especially those of the poorer variety), and was widely accepted for thousands and thousands of years. Not because some Semite wrote it in a book, but probably because of some evolutionary instinct. As with any norm, some people inevitably disagree with the changing of the homosexuality norm, though sexual norms are always a bit more sensitive (most likely because of the important role of sex in evolution and society building). And then they will use whatever they can to justify their position, just like people in favor of the norm change will use anything they can.
But equally you have to wonder, when less and less of the bible is being adhered to, and more people are going the path of individual spiritualism, does that not argue even more that religion should be kept out of places like schools? That's the only way it can be truly all-inclusive, which is the way our societies are heading.
The Bible is a big enough book covering a wide swath of time periods and people to most likely have something that'll support any particular norm that is bound to come up in the future. It's not really a matter of "less and less" adherence to the Bible, but rather emphasis on particular portions over others. Even during the Roman occupation when Jesus was around, this was happening.
I don't see why or how religion should be kept out of schools. Religion is just like any other ideology, and has an important role to play in propagating useful norms in society.
|
Funny that after reading everything that happened to this kid some of you focus on if HE was a jerk or not and choose to sidestep the main story. It seems very much like a way to excuse what was done to him. I read some of your posts as: "oh yeah I don't mean to excuse what happened to this kid but come on he was kind of a jerk, why couldn't he have kept his mouth shut." See what the problem with that kind of approach is?
|
Meanwhile, you are all still slaves in a country that is sinking. Nothing distracts the sheep like a "news" story about prayer in school.
|
On May 28 2011 11:31 Redunzl wrote:
Meanwhile, you are all still slaves in a country that is sinking. Nothing distracts the sheep like a "news" story about prayer in school.
You sure aren't a "sheep" distracted by the trivial news like we are. That why you're in general forums of a Starcraft website to tell us all about the more important thing you've being focusing on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/M5UwH.png)
