Crime Deadly gun Attack on French Magazine

[Arkain2K]

It's good to see that at least a few others out there actually understand deeper Christian theology. It's not that simple, and it takes some intellectual work to really get into it. But once you do, it's pretty rewarding stuff.

I thought you might appreciate this:

Fundamental observation of human nature is that humans twist things to suit their own self interest. Little children love making a game of this once they figure out. Tell them they have to eat their dinner before they can have dessert. They will take one tiny bite of dinner, smile, and say that they have literally complied with your request so it's time for dessert. It's a fundamental human trait. Pretty much every version of the genie with three wishes story is a variant on how things can get completely twisted while still complying with exact literal meaning.

One of the main points of the New Testament and the Jesus stories is to show how the legalistic Old Testament can be twisted good or evil, depending on the heart of the human applying it. And ultimately humans tend to twist hypocritical and evil because of their very self interested nature.

The Old Testament law of stoning for adultery is actually very just as long as it's a true covenant, freely agreed upon by everyone, and applied equally to everyone. That is how it's written down. But humans will never be able to get past their own selfishness to apply something justly like that. They will always be hypocrites. Everyone wants stoning when it's their wife that cheats. When they cheat themselves, well, now everyone wants mercy. It is totally hypocritical, and it always will be.

The story of the Pharisees bringing the adulteress to Jesus illustrates this. They are twisting the literal law in an evil way to try to trap Jesus. Reality is they are total hypocrites who don't give a damn about applying the law fairly. The law says that both the woman and the man get stoned. Where is the man? They said they caught her in the act of having sex with him. Either they were lying about that, or they let the guy get away. The Pharisees are being totally hypocritical about it, just like every strict legalist.

When Jesus points this out, the Pharisees leave. They know in their hearts they are being hypocrites. When they realize they can't hide behind the law to do it, they leave. Then Jesus can let the woman go without stoning because there is no one left who would stone her without being a hypocrite.

Jesus is demonstrating the total fairness of the Old Testament while simultaneously indicting all of humanity for being utterly unable to ever follow it in practice. That is why he presents the Golden Rule as an alternative. Every human already knows right from wrong naturally. Just follow that and do the Golden Rule. Any kind of strict legalist rules will always be hypocritical and corrupt because that is human nature.

You see this with strict legalist Christians. They are always hypocrites themselves. Fundamentalist preachers ranting against gays. Then they turn out to be cheating on their wives, sometimes with other men. It's just human nature.

That is the problem with this radical Islam. It's a strict, legalistic religious view that is totally corrupt. They are shooting up innocent people in France and crucifying children over in Iraq. It does not get much more twisted than that. But that is what always happens when humans try to make strict legalistic religions.

Christianity, as understood by the actual teachings and words of Jesus, is totally compatible with the secular Western world. In fact, the Golden Rule is what pretty much everyone in the Western world who doesn't believe in God wants done anyway. So the interests align exactly whether one believes or not.

Corrupt legalistic religious hierarchy is not compatible. The old Catholic Church was that way. It's mostly gone now. The new pope seems to be trying to rebuild the religion following the actual teachings of Jesus rather than following 2000 years of human corruption.

Radical Islam is the biggest threat out there right now. And even though most of the Muslims aren't radical, there are still a whole lot of radical Muslims out there. Way more than any other religion or ideology right now. It is a true threat to Western society, and it is completely incompatible.

 

[chardog]

he deserves a you win the internet award.

 

[dissolved]

Freedom of speech is protection from the government. Other people can retaliate against your speech but only within the confines of the law and usually with their own speech. Armed retaliation isnt within the law as a response to speech.

Sure, you might get your ass kicked, but lets not pretend its the same thing.

What

the

fuck?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

Metzitzah B'Peh

Just after circumcision:

The ancient method of performing metzitzah - metzitzah, or oral suction - has become controversial. The process has the mohel place his mouth directly on the circumcision wound to draw blood away from the cut. The vast majority of Jewish circumcision ceremonies do not use metzitzah b'peh, but some Hasidic Jews use it.

The act as part of the Talmud was done originally for hygenic reasons to remove blood away from the wound to prevent infection.

Jew haters champion this non-majority practice as something that somehow proves Jews are pedophiles (even though by religious practice it is out of religious tradition again for original reasons of hygien).

So you know.

I'm okay with it being made illegal, but it certainly wasn't a sexual exercise (albeit odd) which many try and skew it as being.

 

[RafailNadull]

The Old Testament law of stoning for adultery is actually very just as long as it's a true covenant, freely agreed upon by everyone, and applied equally to everyone

lol

 

[Luger]

Remember the people in the jewish store that hid away from the shooter?
The guy that hid them there and saved them was a Muslim himself

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Jewish-store-hid-customers-in-cold-store.html

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/bre...s-alive-thanks-to-lassana-bathily/2015/01/10/

"I went down to the freezer, I opened the door, there were several people who went in with me. I turned off the light and the freezer,"

"I brought them inside and I told them to stay calm here, I'm going to go out. When they got out, they thanked me."

“They cuffed me and held me for an hour and a half as if I was with them.”

Then he went back into the store, where the shooter was and got out through a lift and gave the police info on the situation.

 

[Andretti]

That's a hero right there.

 

[dissolved]

lol

It does seem like an odd part of the post . . . I believe he means "in a perfect world (or if everyone applied the law perfectly)."

 

[dissolved]

Remember the people in the jewish store that hid away from the shooter?
The guy that hid them there and saved them was a Muslim himself

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Jewish-store-hid-customers-in-cold-store.html

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/bre...s-alive-thanks-to-lassana-bathily/2015/01/10/




Then he went back into the store, where the shooter was and got out through a lift and gave the police info on the situation.

There are some who act on their humane instincts and do the right thing.

 

[Luger]

It does seem like an odd part of the post . . . I believe he means "in a perfect world (or if everyone applied the law perfectly)."

That is funny, as you are using the same argument as the pro sharia people.

You are forgiving stoning under the argument of "in a perfect world"...

People that want sharia law argue that cutting the hands of a thief is OK, since under pure sharia law, no person would have to steal.

Funny how the Abrahamic religions are so closely connected, and yet how easily you condemn each other.

 

[Luger]

There are some who act on their humane instincts and do the right thing.

And on the opposite side, of the 1/4th of the human population.
There are people that are pretty stupid/insane... and use the religion as a cause.

So if it is used wrong, the religion is to blame.
When they do something right, they are using "human instincts" right

 

[burningspear]

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

That's a hero right there.

I agree.

 

[Luger]

I agree.

Wow.
I did not expect that from you.
You are not as condemning as I thought.
Sorry for thinking about you that way.

 

[RafailNadull]

It does seem like an odd part of the post . . . I believe he means "in a perfect world (or if everyone applied the law perfectly)."

No, he seems to believe unanimous agreement by everyone could render any practice morally unobjectionable, or just.

Needless to say that this is hardly a consensus amongst moral philosophy scholars.

 

[Balto]

It does seem like an odd part of the post . . . I believe he means "in a perfect world (or if everyone applied the law perfectly)."

Yes, that is correct. It requires one to think in the abstract since it obviously does not work well with humans in practice.

We do have analogues to this even in our modern society though. You can catch an instant execution on the spot for relatively minor transgressions.

Jump the wrong fence, and your life can be taken on the spot. Instant death for trespassing seems a bit harsh? But the possibility of the Secret Service snipers on the roof firing on a White House fence trespasser does not strike us as odd. We just agree that is how it works.

The very notion of justice is that agreed upon penalties are applied consistently and equally to all. The fact that certain types of justice (in particular the legalistic moral codes that are central to the New Testament) always fail in practice by humans does not change the idea of justice in the abstract.

The central message of Jesus' debates with the Pharisees is to demonstrate that there is in fact a difference between theory and practice. An ideal theory can fail miserably in practice. The Old Testament law is such a theory.

The big divergence of Christianity was to get away from legalistic moral codes and just focus on following universal moral principles that are intuitively understood by all.

Jesus's message is extremely moderate. The definition of moderate is something that is not polarizing and is acceptable to just about everyone. The Golden Rule fits that. It is practical. It solves the issues created by legalistic moral codes. I believe it is a better way.

 

[Luger]

Yes, that is correct. It requires one to think in the abstract since it obviously does not work well with humans in practice.

We do have analogues to this even in our modern society though. You can catch an instant execution on the spot for relatively minor transgressions.

Jump the wrong fence, and your life can be taken on the spot. Instant death for trespassing seems a bit harsh? But the possibility of the Secret Service snipers on the roof firing on a White House fence trespasser does not strike us as odd. We just agree that is how it works.

The very notion of justice is that agreed upon penalties are applied consistently and equally to all. The fact that certain types of justice (in particular the legalistic moral codes that are central to the New Testament) always fail in practice by humans does not change the idea of justice in the abstract.

The central message of Jesus' debates with the Pharisees is to demonstrate that there is in fact a difference between theory and practice. An ideal theory can fail miserably in practice. The Old Testament law is such a theory.

The big divergence of Christianity was to get away from legalistic moral codes and just focus on following universal moral principles that are intuitively understood by all.

Jesus's message is extremely moderate. The definition of moderate is something that is not polarizing and is acceptable to just about everyone. The Golden Rule fits that. It is practical. It solves the issues created by legalistic moral codes. I believe it is a better way.

Your argument fits well with the pro sharia muslims.
Is it practical? Considering some values of certain people don't agree with religious texts.

Seems like you agree with stoning and what not.

If a modern person reads some of the laws of Moses and believes them seriously to be right, there is something seriously wrong with you/them.

 

[Balto]

Your argument fits well with the pro sharia muslims.
Is it practical? Considering some values of certain people don't agree with religious texts.

Seems like you agree with stoning and what not.

If a modern person reads some of the laws of Moses and believes them seriously to be right, there is something seriously wrong with you/them.

Lol you can twist my words all you want. I think my position is obvious.

Of course I do not agree with stoning. I do not want to be stoned for adultery. Neither do most people. That is exactly the reason why such laws fail in practice.

However, I am okay with paying a ticket for speeding. So are most people. So such a thing can succeed in practice.

The Golden Rule is just a compact way of expressing this universal notion of fairness. Would you want the same thing done to you in the same situation? If so, then it is fair and just. Pretty much everyone can get along with that.

You are just completely unable to step away from the problem in reality and put things in the abstract. In the abstract world, if you were okay with being stoned yourself for adultery, someone else being stoned for adultery would also seem just to you. But since in the real world you would not be okay with it, in the real world it does not seem okay to you. You need to think at a higher level for this type of problem.

Who cares if it is a consensus amongst philosophers? Good luck getting philosophers to agree on anything. Arguing with each other is what they do. Christianity is merely one type of philosophy. It makes sense to me. And it makes sense to quite a lot of other people too. It is a very practical philosophy.

 

[JonesBones]

I was thinking, would there be a solidarity with Westboro movement if they were killed? Dim some lights somewhere? Of course not.

 

[Luger]

Lol you can twist my words all you want. I think my position is obvious.

Of course I do not agree with stoning

The Old Testament law of stoning for adultery is actually very just as long as it's a true covenant, freely agreed upon by everyone, and applied equally to everyone

?

What am I missing

 

[Balto]

?

What am I missing

What you are missing is this:

What I AM willing to bound by and abide in PRACTICE is completely separate from what I COULD be willing to be bound by and abide in THEORY.

The two are completely separate notions. You will not understand what I mean unless you can separate things this way.