Lots of believers on this team...

[chicowalker]

Boy, you just refuse to answer any questions without a question....lol.

Right and wrong is a morality issue which can then lead to "law" or even lawlessness. (see look.......no question in my answer)

Let me try this one more time and see if I can get an answer from you that isn't a question:

Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Individuals, groups, who?

Yes, because I want to know your answer -- because, frankly, I don't think you would act that way just because god and religion went out the window.

The answer to your question is all of the above.

To your earlier question of why the golden rule -- because if followed, we would live in as nearly a perfect world as possible, without the kind of religious rules that divide people. Plus it's quite simple.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Yes, because I want to know your answer -- because, frankly, I don't think you would act that way just because god and religion went out the window.

The answer to your question is all of the above.

To your earlier question of why the golden rule -- because if followed, we would live in as nearly a perfect world as possible, without the kind of religious rules that divide people. Plus it's quite simple.

All of the above???....if everyone agrees it would make it a de facto group decision. So what if my group believes that cannibalism is ok? Is that ok?

What if my "group" disagrees with what I believe is right or wrong? Who's right then?

So, The golden rule..."do unto others as you would want them to do unto you".

Ok, so if I was ok with being stoned to death if I commit adultery then I can inflict that punishment on adulterers?
If I was ok with having my hands chopped off if I steal, then I can chop someone else's hands off who steals?
If I'm ok with being whipped for being publically drunk, then I can whip drunks?


The bottom line is that if there is no God , there are no unalienable rights. So then the individual or the "group" decides what it right and wrong. The reality though is that whoever is more powerful will decide right and wrong. History shows this to be true time after time after time. Bascially, might makes right...survival of the fittest.

 

[chicowalker]

All of the above???....if everyone agrees it would make it a de facto group decision. So what if my group believes that cannibalism is ok? Is that ok?

What if my "group" disagrees with what I believe is right or wrong? Who's right then?

So, The golden rule..."do unto others as you would want them to do unto you".

Ok, so if I was ok with being stoned to death if I commit adultery then I can inflict that punishment on adulterers?
If I was ok with having my hands chopped off if I steal, then I can chop someone else's hands off who steals?
If I'm ok with being whipped for being publically drunk, then I can whip drunks?


The bottom line is that if there is no God , there are no unalienable rights. So then the individual or the "group" decides what it right and wrong. The reality though is that whoever is more powerful will decide right and wrong. History shows this to be true time after time after time. Bascially, might makes right...survival of the fittest.

No, what I'm saying is that there are different forms if right and wrong, as I alluded to before. There are laws, there are societal and other group norms, there are individual values.

I'll answer more fully when I'm back at my laptop.

You still haven't answered my question. Would you just rape and pillage in the absence of religious faith?

 

[Christiancat]

Here is the phrase you linked to:

"NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: DEUTERONOMY 23:1-6
1"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. 2No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord. 3No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the Lord, 4because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5Nevertheless, the Lord your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the Lord your God loves you. 6You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days."




Why is the onus on the CHILD, not the adulterer?


I read through that link and all the definitions and cannot find the answer there to my clear question.

Do you have any?

I don't have an answer for your question at the moment.

 

[shmessy]

I don't have an answer for your question at the moment.

No problem, Cat. I appreciate your honesty and candor, as opposed to Oldrover's certitude and defensiveness.

I have a real problem with Deutoronomy's treatment of out-of-wedlock children. Ostracizing the victim, not the person who did he act, to me, is a far worse injustice.

I hope there is an answer in the scriptures to that.

 

[BBoverRR]

The problem comes when you decide what "treating people right" means.

I have a feeling you'd be just fine with someone having a abortion while I know that abortion kills a human being.

Also, I'm sure you'd be ok with "consenting adults" practicing just about any sexual "desire" they might want to experience, no?

So who decides what's right and what's wrong? The majority? The individual?
Are there no unalienable rights that are endowed to us by our creator?

If there is no creator, why even bother with "right and wrong"? Look at nature.....the strong survive. The weak perish.

1. What a woman wishes to do with her uterus is her business. There are plenty of reasons to get an abortion and I leave that decision up to the woman herself. It's not my right, nor anyone else's, to dictate her actions.

2. Same as above. Consenting adults can do whatever they damn well please. Live and let live. Gay? That's fine. Bi? Go for it. In a romantic relationship with a sibling? None of my damn business, I wish you luck.

I think we should classify "treating people right" by letting everyone live their own lives and be who they are so long as they're not hurting anybody else.

 

[everlong]

Yes, because I want to know your answer -- .

You're wasting your time with RIPF. He never answers the hard questions or deflects. When pressed on Catholic priest scandals he asked why everybody wasn't as outraged with teachers. First off they are just look at Jerry Sandusky and the lunch lady from Weymouth recently in the news but the fact that he even asks that question shows it's protecting the doctrine above showing compassion.

I end up using the Ghandi quote in these threads all the time. (paraphrasing) I like your Christ very much. It's your Christians I have an issue with. They are not very Christ like.

 

[chicowalker]

All of the above???....if everyone agrees it would make it a de facto group decision. So what if my group believes that cannibalism is ok? Is that ok?

What if my "group" disagrees with what I believe is right or wrong? Who's right then?

So, The golden rule..."do unto others as you would want them to do unto you".

Ok, so if I was ok with being stoned to death if I commit adultery then I can inflict that punishment on adulterers?
If I was ok with having my hands chopped off if I steal, then I can chop someone else's hands off who steals?
If I'm ok with being whipped for being publically drunk, then I can whip drunks?


The bottom line is that if there is no God , there are no unalienable rights. So then the individual or the "group" decides what it right and wrong. The reality though is that whoever is more powerful will decide right and wrong. History shows this to be true time after time after time. Bascially, might makes right...survival of the fittest.

All of the above -- as I said last night, there are different forms if right and wrong; and there are laws, there are societal and other group norms, there are individual values.

Take sex. There may be group norms about what is "proper" and what is not. The law may take those norms into account but won't necessarily instill them as law. And the individual may fall in line with those norms, or have individual values that vary -- if an individual's values vary too far, they may face mocking, ostracization or criminal punishment. Thus "all of the above."

You seem to want absolute answers here re right and wrong, but a lot of that isn't black and white. Which is a big reason we have laws but is also part of the reasons that neither the law nor individual values are absolute arbiters of right and wrong.

Finally, unalienable rights. Why do they have to come only from god? Because the founding fathers cited a "Creator"? I think you're putting too much importance on the words of the founding fathers, if that's the case. I'd say our unalienable rights come simply from existing. I don't need to think we were created by god to think there are some basic human values, rights and dignity that should be respected among us.

So what's the answer to my question: Would you just rape and pillage in the absence of religious faith?

edit: btw, just to be clear, re the golden rule, I wasn't suggesting that as a basis for laws or punishment, but instead as a guide to how to live a decent life. It's not perfect, but for anybody who isn't a lunatic, it would work pretty well

 

[RI Patriots fan]

All of the above -- as I said last night, there are different forms if right and wrong; and there are laws, there are societal and other group norms, there are individual values.

Take sex. There may be group norms about what is "proper" and what is not. The law may take those norms into account but won't necessarily instill them as law. And the individual may fall in line with those norms, or have individual values that vary -- if an individual's values vary too far, they may face mocking, ostracization or criminal punishment. Thus "all of the above."

You seem to want absolute answers here re right and wrong, but a lot of that isn't black and white. Which is a big reason we have laws but is also part of the reasons that neither the law nor individual values are absolute arbiters of right and wrong.

Finally, unalienable rights. Why do they have to come only from god? Because the founding fathers cited a "Creator"? I think you're putting too much importance on the words of the founding fathers, if that's the case. I'd say our unalienable rights come simply from existing. I don't need to think we were created by god to think there are some basic human values, rights and dignity that should be respected among us.

So what's the answer to my question: Would you just rape and pillage in the absence of religious faith?

edit: btw, just to be clear, re the golden rule, I wasn't suggesting that as a basis for laws or punishment, but instead as a guide to how to live a decent life. It's not perfect, but for anybody who isn't a lunatic, it would work pretty well

All of the above is not an answer lol. Again, what if the two (individual/group) disagree?


Are you saying that the individual decides what's right and wrong and the group decides what lawful and unlawful?

Well, if "existence" is the source of unalienable rights wouldn't that mean that everything that exists has the same unalienable rights? So my catcus plant has the same rights as I do?

My car has the same rights as I do?

I'm the one putting too much importance on the founding fathers??? Aren't you the one who placed so much importance on the US Constitution? Should we ignore their words there as well?

 

[oldrover]

No problem, Cat. I appreciate your honesty and candor, as opposed to Oldrover's certitude and defensiveness.

I have a real problem with Deutoronomy's treatment of out-of-wedlock children. Ostracizing the victim, not the person who did he act, to me, is a far worse injustice.

I hope there is an answer in the scriptures to that.

I do have certitude. Absolutely. Defensiveness... dunno where you're getting that from.

However, look at Deuteronomy this way... if you place a high value on children born within the sacrament of marriage, then what could be a bigger punishment to a parent than personally causing their child grief? That's a big motivator for a parent to follow God's bidding and not give into temptation.

 

[chicowalker]

All of the above is not an answer lol. Again, what if the two (individual/group) disagree?


Are you saying that the individual decides what's right and wrong and the group decides what lawful and unlawful?

Well, if "existence" is the source of unalienable rights wouldn't that mean that everything that exists has the same unalienable rights? So my catcus plant has the same rights as I do?

My car has the same rights as I do?

I'm the one putting too much importance on the founding fathers??? Aren't you the one who placed so much importance on the US Constitution? Should we ignore their words there as well?

\

Of course it's an answer. It's also reality. You seem to want some neat black and white answer when that's not reality.

Things disagree all the time. I think smoking marijuana is perfectly fine. California state law says that recreational use (or use without a license, anyway) is wrong.

Cacti and cars? No, I was referring to people. I thought that would be clear... and if it's not, then weren't cacti created by the same "Creator" that you, or the founding fathers, think man was created by?

I place great importance on the US Constitution when it comes to US law, the limits on our government and the rights of citizens within the US. That's pretty limited in the grand scheme of things, despite being pretty important for legal matters in our country. The founding fathers citing a "Creator," however, means very little in discussing something like right and wrong. And clearly they were quite fallible, as all men are, even when it comes to right and wrong.

So you still haven't answered my question. Would you just rape and pillage in the absence of religious faith?

 

[shmessy]

I do have certitude. Absolutely. Defensiveness... dunno where you're getting that from.

However, look at Deuteronomy this way... if you place a high value on children born within the sacrament of marriage, then what could be a bigger punishment to a parent than personally causing their child grief? That's a big motivator for a parent to follow God's bidding and not give into temptation.

So the perpetrator goes unpunished and the innocent child is ostracized as punishment to the perpetrator? This is something you have no concern about? Just complete certitude?

Sounds like a Human Shield School of Religion.

So, in your moral code, the perpetrator of a sin is accepted, but the child born from that act is ostracized. I am SO thankful not to exist in your realm of certitude.

 

[oldrover]

I am not saying your supposition is true, though your interpretation is a reasonable one.

As one priest put it to me since you asked the question, in Deuteronomy 23:2, the Mosaic Law says, "The child begotten out of wedlock or incest shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." What this was saying is the child born out of wedlock was illegitimate and unworthy of Israelite citizenship for ten generations. This does not mean, as some mistakenly think, that an illegitimate person cannot be saved or be used greatly by God. His mercy and grace through Christ are sufficient for all.

 

[shmessy]

I am not saying your supposition is true, though your interpretation is a reasonable one.

As one priest put it to me since you asked the question, in Deuteronomy 23:2, the Mosaic Law says, "The child begotten out of wedlock or incest shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." What this was saying is the child born out of wedlock was illegitimate and unworthy of Israelite citizenship for ten generations. This does not mean, as some mistakenly think, that an illegitimate person cannot be saved or be used greatly by God. His mercy and grace through Christ are sufficient for all.

But the PERPETRATOR can "enter the congregation of the Lord".

I'm sorry, Rover, but that is classic "Blame the victim, absolve the perpetrator" theology.

Morally and ethically, I see that as abominable.

 

[shmessy]

I do have certitude. Absolutely. Defensiveness... dunno where you're getting that from.

However, look at Deuteronomy this way... if you place a high value on children born within the sacrament of marriage, then what could be a bigger punishment to a parent than personally causing their child grief? That's a big motivator for a parent to follow God's bidding and not give into temptation.

No offense, but here you are showing great ignorance of history.

Who had most children out of wedlock in biblical times? Answer: Soldiers who raped slaves or women of vanquished tribes.

Do you think those men hung around and grieved over the destinies of those children?????

No, Rover. The bible was written BY men FOR men to do, what was considered in those times, men things.

 

[oldrover]

You're making my point. People are sinners.

God made His covenant with the Jews, and established the Rules.

If men HAD followed the Rules, there would not be an issue.

But men sinned. And sinned. And sinned again. And sinned again.

So God made a new covenant through the body and blood of His son Jesus.

 

[shmessy]

You're making my point. People are sinners.

God made His covenant with the Jews, and established the Rules.

If men HAD followed the Rules, there would not be an issue.

But men sinned. And sinned. And sinned again. And sinned again.

So God made a new covenant through the body and blood of His son Jesus.

.....so the innocent child of the wedlock is barred, but the perpetrator can be accepted .

It is what it is, and anyone reading this can see it for what it is.

Soldier Rapist > Innocent Child in the eyes of your theology.

And you accept that (with "certitude") as justifiable. I pity you.

 

[The Brandon Five]

But the PERPETRATOR can "enter the congregation of the Lord".

I'm sorry, Rover, but that is classic "Blame the victim, absolve the perpetrator" theology.

Morally and ethically, I see that as abominable.

No offense, but here you are showing great ignorance of history.

Who had most children out of wedlock in biblical times? Answer: Soldiers who raped slaves or women of vanquished tribes.

Do you think those men hung around and grieved over the destinies of those children?????

No, Rover. The bible was written BY men FOR men to do, what was considered in those times, men things.

So you think that soldiers from other tribes who had raped Jewish women were part of the congregation of the Lord? Not seeing it.

Also, your assertion that most illegitimate births were the result of rape in wartime is without attribution. Are you talking about Roman-occupied Israel?

 

[shmessy]

So you think that soldiers from other tribes who had raped Jewish women were part of the congregation of the Lord? Not seeing it.

Also, your assertion that most illegitimate births were the result of rape in wartime is without attribution. Are you talking about Roman-occupied Israel?

Heck, the bible is filled with Jewish soldiers raping women from other tribes too!

This is endemic in the bible. You can try to narrow it down as much as you want, but the common thread is that INNOCENT children and women are constantly used as material to be punished for crimes done TO them by men in the bible. Hey, it's ok, they're only women and children!

Deutoronomy is FILLED with this evil:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 KJV - When thou goest forth to war against - Bible Gateway

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man happens to meet a virgin who - Bible Gateway

So is Judges:

Judges 21 - Wives for the Benjamites - The men of - Bible Gateway

Here's a beauty from 2 Samuel:

2 Samuel 12:11-14 - ?This is what the LORD says: ?Out - Bible Gateway


.. this is just a small sampling - - it goes on and on.

Religion is MAN MADE.

I believe in a Creator. A Creator that I am far too small to know and understand. I am in awe of any power that could have created such a vast universe. I don't go for the version drummed up religion manufacturers.

 

[oldrover]

Well, we have most of that in common then. Which is good.