|
prefect posted:Wait, so "eating pork" is something that you should have to die before doing?  Wikipedia posted:Three exceptional sins In my defense its really early. I somehow managed to remember there are three things, and also managed to get them all wrong. So yah, don't gently caress your sister while bowing to an idol and stabbing a guy. And I need to learn to confirm before posting. jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 13:11 on May 22, 2012 |
#
?
May 22, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
So technically if you've had premarital sex you're already going to hell anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I'm a moron. Does war killing count as "murder"? Or is it just unauthorized/unapproved killing that's against the rules?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
prefect posted:Does war killing count as "murder"? Or is it just unauthorized/unapproved killing that's against the rules? As I understand the original meaning of "thou shalt not kill", it specifically referred to "unlawful killing". It's not murder if God approved of the action, or if they aren't one of The People (at least, from what I recall).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:And why is it a sure thing that Obama is the left wing Manchurian candidate that they've been claiming? The main FoxNewsBot I know believes Obama's a stealth Commie because he read Saul Alinsky while working as a community organizer. Saul Alinsky endorses using stealth, manipulation, and subterfuge to achieve your political ends, ergo, Obama, as closet Alinskiest, must be using those same tactics to turn America into Stalinist Russia, or Haight-Ashbury (same difference). quote:but it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone who presumably is what they are because they seem to be the types who like seeing EVIDENCE and PROOF and things like that. And yet, I've had actual contact with people who are just as open to take things solely on faith as is the average Bible thumper. My right-wing atheists (including right-wing Satanists) are of a more lolbertarian "You're Not the Boss Of Me" flavor. Ergo, God is not the Boss of them, the dumb climate is not the Boss of them, and the condescending, hand-wringing, politically-correct, regulate-everything, tax-everything, nanny statist Democrats are not the Boss of them. (Actually, I think what these types hate most about liberals is that they're "soft" and "nurturing," and that when they do oppress people, they do so largely out of a condescending, Mommy-Knows-Best desire to "help." Basically, they feel infantilized by liberals--and, certainly, I think liberals definitely have that tendency, so it's not just a figment of the conservative imagination. What is crazy, to my mind, is that they not only prefer, but actively cheer, the more overtly-fascist, Atten-hut, Listen-Here-You-Scum Republican style. They haven't just chosen the anal-fisting over the condescending head-pat as the lesser of the two evils---they actively prefer a government that unabashedly stomps on faces!) (And, come to think, though I honestly hate to throw around the word "misogyny," I think the shoe actually fits here, because hardcore conservatives definitely see Democrats as Mommy, and Republicans as Daddy.) But, even people who have a hard-on for proof and evidence are still--like most humans--largely using emotion to determine which data is salient and which logic, sound. It's hard for even an intellectually honest person to fully bypass their own filters--never mind the person whose main focus is actually on "winning" or "being right!" And, in my experience, atheists are hardly immune to favoring the evidence and proof that supports their preexisting worldview, while dismissing or rationalizing challenges to that worldview. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
prefect posted:Does war killing count as "murder"? Or is it just unauthorized/unapproved killing that's against the rules? It's a case where on paper it's pretty clear God doesn't want you killing unless he literally comes to you and goes 'ok, kill these dudes' ala David and all, but most scholars feel it's the typical 'well killing means UNLAWFUL killing' wiggle room that everyone else uses.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:And, in my experience, atheists are hardly immune to favoring the evidence and proof that supports their preexisting worldview, while dismissing or rationalizing challenges to that worldview. Exactly. Hell, some people are atheists simply because they're wired to not feel any kind of "spirituality." I'm that way. My mom tried to introduce me to all sorts of religious stuff, even super-humanist religions like Unitarian Universalism, and my reaction was bafflement of a "What am I missing?" variety.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It's a case where on paper it's pretty clear God doesn't want you killing unless he literally comes to you and goes 'ok, kill these dudes' ala David and all, but most scholars feel it's the typical 'well killing means UNLAWFUL killing' wiggle room that everyone else uses. Isn't that basically a useless tautology, though? It's a law that essentially amounts to "killing is bad except when it's all right". You may as well say, "don't eat pork unless it's kosher."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
NGL posted:Isn't that basically a useless tautology, though? It's a law that essentially amounts to "killing is bad except when it's all right". You may as well say, "don't eat pork unless it's kosher." More or less, most all of the Torah killing is done because God literally comes down/sends a herald to go 'yo, ok this time it's ok because I'm God and I made the drat rule', but people use that as excuses of 'oh well it was ok for David to kill people sooooo...' as if apparently God is still talking to people telling them it's cool.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
NGL posted:Isn't that basically a useless tautology, though? It's a law that essentially amounts to "killing is bad except when it's all right". But that is what the law of all modern societies say? Depending on the circumstances, you might kill someone and be convicted of murder, kill someone and convicted of only manslaughter, or kill someone and not face criminal charges. If you walk up to someone and just kill them for no reason its murder, if you end up killing someone while engaged in legit self-defense its not a crime at all - in other words "killing is bad except when it's alright", no?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But that is what the law of all modern societies say? Depending on the circumstances, you might kill someone and be convicted of murder, kill someone and convicted of only manslaughter, or kill someone and not face criminal charges. If you walk up to someone and just kill them for no reason its murder, if you end up killing someone while engaged in legit self-defense its not a crime at all - in other words "killing is bad except when it's alright", no? I'm pretty sure the laws in most states are a bit more nuanced than that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
NGL posted:I'm pretty sure the laws in most states are a bit more nuanced than that. They still add up to the same thing: killing is bad except when it isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It's a case where on paper it's pretty clear God doesn't want you killing unless he literally comes to you and goes 'ok, kill these dudes' ala David and all, but most scholars feel it's the typical 'well killing means UNLAWFUL killing' wiggle room that everyone else uses.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:The Torah has provisions for execution for capital crimes, including prohibitions against executing a person who has fled to a refuge city and a statute of limitations, and specific rules regarding the use of self-defense against someone breaking into one's home. Translating the term used in the Commandment as "murder" rather than "kill" is not "wiggle room"; it's consistent with the remainder of the Law. You're right, but it also teaches mercy as a heroic virtue, and let's not forget that the process for execution involved multiple approvals, restrictions, and procedures. Even Maimonides wrote that confessions were invalid because who knows if the guy is suicidal or shamed by the mere accusation and wants to die? This isn't even going into the complex definitions of 'capital' crimes in that day and how it changes to modern day. Basically at the very best 'kill vs murder' is the grayest area of Jewish philosophy, and I should have really answered with that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
peak debt posted:So technically if you've had premarital sex you're already going to hell anyway. Premarital sex is "fornication." You have to be married to commit adultery. I'm... not sure what Judaism has to say on fornication; I imagine it's still a sin, but probably not as high up as adultery.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also reminds me of one of the huge differences between the left and right. The left complains about things that happen. The right complains about things they THINK MAY happen.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Premarital sex is "fornication." You have to be married to commit adultery. I'm... not sure what Judaism has to say on fornication; I imagine it's still a sin, but probably not as high up as adultery. Not 100% but I'm pretty sure it's 'don't do it' but it's less than adultery since that involves breaking a vow before God, and fornication is just giving in to sin.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It's a case where on paper it's pretty clear God doesn't want you killing unless he literally comes to you and goes 'ok, kill these dudes' ala David and all, but most scholars feel it's the typical 'well killing means UNLAWFUL killing' wiggle room that everyone else uses. The way it was explained to me in a religion course was that "murder" was considered to only count against the group that one was in (Let's say, Christian on Christian would be a murder), while "killing" was to kill someone outside of that group, IE, an otherized person (Christian on Muslim would just be killing and pretty much okay, thus leading to situations like we've got from the Crusades and such).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Premarital sex is "fornication." You have to be married to commit adultery. I'm... not sure what Judaism has to say on fornication; I imagine it's still a sin, but probably not as high up as adultery. Adultery is any sex outside of wedlock. Any unmarried sex is adultery, and is therefore a sin. Stop conflating the modern meaning of "adultery" with the biblical one. Glitterbomber posted:It's a case where on paper it's pretty clear God doesn't want you killing unless he literally comes to you and goes 'ok, kill these dudes' ala David and all, but most scholars feel it's the typical 'well killing means UNLAWFUL killing' wiggle room that everyone else uses. This isn't true at all. What it comes down to is that most of the provisions of the Bible were written and interpreted only to apply to people of the tribe of God's chosen people, other Jews. It's only since Christianity and more modern interpretations that we've come to regard the 10 Commandments as applying to everyone. This is why from the standpoint of the Old Testament slavery is okay(provided they aren't Jews) despite very clearly being a violation of "Thou shall not steal." Many of the apparent contradictions in the Old Testament go away when you interpret it through that lens.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:The main FoxNewsBot I know believes Obama's a stealth Commie because he read Saul Alinsky while working as a community organizer. That's probably the most convincing argument I've heard for right wing atheists. It's also pretty durn depressing. OneEightHundred posted:I don't think that's really where you can draw the line considering the left's constant worrying about environmental issues and resource exhaustion. Ehhhhhhhhh...don't you think worrying about say large scale natural disasters some time in the future due to climate change, because almost the entire scientific community says it may happen is a tad different than say, someone thinking Obama forged his birth certificate?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:That's probably the most convincing argument I've heard for right wing atheists. It's also pretty durn depressing. Well, and most of it applies to non-atheist right-wingers, too, like Teabaggers. Theistic right-wingers have this uncanny way of making God the Boss of everyone but them, for example---but, besides that, most of it's the same. It's probably been posted before, but Bob Altermeyer's "The Authoritarians" (legitimately free online) explains a lot of what's going on here. Well, and I forgot to add that a lot of right-wingers are at peace with right-wing fascism because many of their leaders (especially these days) make sure to pepper the rhetoric with enough references to de-regulation, low (or no) taxes, gummint hands offa my Medicare, freedom, freedom, freedom, to make it sound like we're all marching towards a lovely, idyllic utopia that would make von Mises weep and Adam Smith cream himself with joy. If you're not a FILTHY DEGENERATE, you have nothing to fear! Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 15:00 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Adultery is any sex outside of wedlock. Any unmarried sex is adultery, and is therefore a sin. Stop conflating the modern meaning of "adultery" with the biblical one. But we are talking about the bible and Hebrew law, so wouldn't the biblical definition be correct? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:But we are talking about the bible and Hebrew law, so wouldn't the biblical definition be correct? Read the post I quoted. He stated that you had to be married to perform adultery. That's never been true from a biblical standpoint.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Adultery is any sex outside of wedlock. Any unmarried sex is adultery, and is therefore a sin. Stop conflating the modern meaning of "adultery" with the biblical one. The bible doesn't forbid Jews from enslaving Jews, although it does have different rules than for enslaving non-Jews. Slavery may be obviously theft to us, but to someone in a slave-owning society it's a completely natural kind of property right. (this is actually a pretty good example of how what constitutes a legitimate property right and what constitutes theft is much more dependent on social context than we tend to assume)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:The bible doesn't forbid Jews from enslaving Jews, although it does have different rules than for enslaving non-Jews. Slavery may be obviously theft to us, but to someone in a slave-owning society it's a completely natural kind of property right. (this is actually a pretty good example of how what constitutes a legitimate property right and what constitutes theft is much more dependent on social context than we tend to assume) I was discussing this with someone else online and some Evangelical comes in goes "The Bible doesn't justify slavery like when Black people were enslaved for the centuries prior to the civil war. It was a different kind of slavery where really poor people voluntarily became slaves in order to receive food and shelter." I responded that I wasn't sure if this was completely accurate because I'm not a historical or biblical scholar, but even if what this person said is 100% true, what's the loving difference? I know there is some Hebrew law governing the treatment of slaves (e.g. you can severely beat a slave as long he can get up within a certain number of days) that makes it different from colonial Black slavery, but if conditions are the same, what does it matter if you come to slavery through kidnapping vs. "voluntarily" becoming a slave because it's your only option other than death from starvation? Don't those kinds of coercive circumstances basically override the free will aspect that this Evangelical is trying to argue makes biblical slavery superior to 19th century slavery? It reminds me of the disconnect between conservatives and liberals over labor rights and civil rights. With many of the conservatives I know, their solution to abhorrent working conditions (e.g. extremely low pay, dangerous work environments, no health benefits, no maternity/paternity leave, etc.), as well abrogations of civil rights (e.g. anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage bans, redlining against minorities, etc.), is not to make those things illegal, but rather that the people suffering those things should just get up and move somewhere else where things are better for them. They either don't realize or just don't loving care (especially after I tell them) that the people suffering in these cases are those least able to get up and move and/or not regulating these things allows them to spread to those areas in which it is feasible for the suffering to move. So, it becomes another coercive relationship where the choice is abuse or starvation. This came up most recently when I was discussing the terrible plight of Chinese workers that manufacture and assemble a lot of American consumer products. One of the conservative people taking part in the discussion said that we don't need to do anything about it and shouldn't have to because those people can just work somewhere else if they don't like how Foxconn or other companies treat them. He was just completely impervious to the logic that all the other employers are at least just as bad, if not worse, so the only choice left is lovely work or the starvation of their whole families. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here, maybe a lapse in empathy or that, if they do mentally put themselves in these people's shoes, they aren't really getting what it's like and are totally underestimating what it is to suffer as they do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Adultery is any sex outside of wedlock. Any unmarried sex is adultery, and is therefore a sin. Stop conflating the modern meaning of "adultery" with the biblical one. I love the derails that this thread gets into. I'm always learning stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here, maybe a lapse in empathy or that, if they do mentally put themselves in these people's shoes, they aren't really getting what it's like and are totally underestimating what it is to suffer as they do. I have to think thats the Just World fallacy rearing its head again. Its really difficult to think of the world as totally capricious and cruel, because then the only thing seperating you from the abuses those Chinese workers suffer is luck. No one wants to think that the flip of a coin or one bad incident can put you in a similar situtation because that essentially makes you powerless. It has to be the fault of the victim somehow. Either they need to be a better worker or they should just remove themselves from the situation, there is always some magic escape option. That way you would never be stuck in that situation.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Read the post I quoted. He stated that you had to be married to perform adultery. That's never been true from a biblical standpoint. Are you allowed to be a married king and see a women who is married and then send her husband to his death so you can start banging her?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Adultery is any sex outside of wedlock. Any unmarried sex is adultery, and is therefore a sin. Stop conflating the modern meaning of "adultery" with the biblical one. Okay, I did a little research and the Old Testament seems to defines adultery as "a man sleeping with a married woman not his wife." (Source: Deuteronomy 22:22.) Though if someone has a source which says something different I'd be interested to see that as well.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Are you allowed to be a married king and see a women who is married and then send her husband to his death so you can start banging her? Let's get completely off-topic and do book recommendations!  This is a really good novel, written by the guy who wrote Catch-22 (a.k.a. "the best novel ever") about King David and his thoughts as he looks back on his life. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 14:08
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Are you allowed to be a married king and see a women who is married and then send her husband to his death so you can start banging her? Sort of. You wont be punished, but god will murder your kid.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Sort of. You wont be punished, but god will murder your kid. Which I think is a pretty big punishment. You entered into a marriage you shouldn't have so any outcome is doomed to bad luck. Sucks for the kid though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Read the post I quoted. He stated that you had to be married to perform adultery. That's never been true from a biblical standpoint. So...do you have any pre-Reformation sources to back up your claim that the term "adultery" has always, from a Biblical standpoint, been understood to include sex between two people, neither of whom were married?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Which I think is a pretty big punishment. You entered into a marriage you shouldn't have so any outcome is doomed to bad luck. Sucks for the kid though. You sort of have to take the Old Testament in context. Jews didn't really have a concept of hell, you're just dead. So the idea of punishment for sins is different than Christianity. The punishment had to happen while you were alive or (since that didn't always happen) to your descendants. So you family suffering for your sins really isn't too out of place in this framework.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Sorry to break up this theological debate, but I had to share something crazy I found on Conservapedia. I'm sure you've all seen this picture of PZ Myers that pops up whenever Conservative talks about atheists, evolution, obesity, or virtually any other subject.  Seems to come up a lot, right? Well, turns out it's on 48 different pages, and most of them are Conservative's dumb, no-content "essays." http://conservapedia.com/File:PzMyers2.jpg quote:Essay: A reply to atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers And on and on and on...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
quote:Please refer to Fig. 1.: Someone's dad at a bar. quote:"The Bible doesn't justify slavery like when Black people were enslaved for the centuries prior to the civil war. It was a different kind of slavery where really poor people voluntarily became slaves in order to receive food and shelter." If Biblical slavery is anything like Classical slavery then this is completely untrue. Slaves in antiquity were, as far as I'm aware, conquered peoples and their descendants along with the local underclass in general. Anyone who imagines that some sort of enlightened social contract was governing this process is either contemporaneous with the system or deluding themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Ying Par posted:Please refer to Fig. 1.: Someone's dad at a bar. You mean like when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and they had to have a mass slaughter in order to get free? edit ya meant Egypt bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Ying Par posted:Please refer to Fig. 1.: Someone's dad at a bar. This logic is what initially was even behind the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Most African slaves were those sold into it after inter-ethnic conflict in Africa (or at least this was the pretense many African slavers gave, in many cases people were just grabbed). You see the logic of war allowing you to take possession of the loser's labor as reparations appearing in a lot of European philosophers. Prior to that, slaves in Europe mostly came from Slavic regions, which in fact where the word is derived from. And that's not touching indentured servitude, which is what the evangelical was describing, and was also a terrible thing that led many people to "voluntarily" enslave themselves for a chance at survival. Depending on the contract you signed, you could even be sold as an indentured servant, and they certainly didn't have any more rights than slaves in most cultures where the practice existed. So really, evangelicals, don't try and defend Biblical slavery. It was exactly the same as the slavery you are trying to distance yourselves from. bobkatt013 posted:You mean like when the Israelites were enslaved in Europe and they had to have a mass slaughter in order to get free? What. Did you mean Egypt?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
I was going to say I thought it was an allusion to the "holocaust was bad but at least we got Israel" people but I couldn't remember if Aschafly was in that scene or not.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:You sort of have to take the Old Testament in context. Jews didn't really have a concept of hell, you're just dead. So the idea of punishment for sins is different than Christianity. The punishment had to happen while you were alive or (since that didn't always happen) to your descendants. So you family suffering for your sins really isn't too out of place in this framework. That's not entirely true. Yes, Jews don't believe in a distinct place called "hell" with a bunch of demons poking you in the rear end with pitchforks all eternity, but there is a conception of a torturous afterlife, as they view the afterlife in terms of degrees of distance from God. Bad deeds in life put you further away from God in the afterlife, and it's this distance from God which causes suffering and is therefore analogous to the Christian hell. colonelslime posted:This logic is what initially was even behind the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Most African slaves were those sold into it after inter-ethnic conflict in Africa (or at least this was the pretense many African slavers gave, in many cases people were just grabbed). You see the logic of war allowing you to take possession of the loser's labor as reparations appearing in a lot of European philosophers. Prior to that, slaves in Europe mostly came from Slavic regions, which in fact where the word is derived from. And that's not touching indentured servitude, which is what the evangelical was describing, and was also a terrible thing that led many people to "voluntarily" enslave themselves for a chance at survival. Depending on the contract you signed, you could even be sold as an indentured servant, and they certainly didn't have any more rights than slaves in most cultures where the practice existed. Alt least in the North American colonies, indentured servitude was somewhat distinct from slavery, because there was generally a well-defined end date for an indentured servant's term of service and they were generally guaranteed certain financial benefits (generally a small plot of land that you own outright) upon successfully completing their "contracts." In many cases, indentured servitude was basically the way many colonists paid for their transatlantic trip from Europe, as they were unable to afford it outright. One of the most fascinating things about Zinn's "A People's History of the US" to me was how indentured servants frequently became friends and allies with Black slaves to the point that they would escape together. It became so prevalent that many colonies enacted special laws and punishments to prevent this kind of fraternization and escape.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:08
|
|