Nebraska bans death penalty

[Terralthra]

All very true, except that the secular philosophical systems have nothing enforcing them, (even if just in theory) other than the adherents own moral strength if you will.

Religious "moral" systems don't have anything enforcing them other than the adherents' own fear and ability to rationalize. I fail to see how that's a significant difference.

"I fail to see..."

If your argument is that there is some invisible enforcement mechanism, it's the worst enforcement mechanism ever, since there are still plenty of people murdering and stealing. Feel free to provide evidence of this enforcement mechanism.

[bilateralrope]

I will say that 'sinful' is a convenient shorthand for 'people often act in various malevolent ways, even when there's no good obvious reason to do so.'

When I think of things like some religious groups declaring homosexuality a sin, I can't help but think 'sinful' is just shorthand for 'doing stuff we don't like'.

[Ralin]

I will say that 'sinful' is a convenient shorthand for 'people often act in various malevolent ways, even when there's no good obvious reason to do so.'

When I think of things like some religious groups declaring homosexuality a sin, I can't help but think 'sinful' is just shorthand for 'doing stuff we don't like'.

I find it helps to realize that when Christians say something is a sin they don't really mean that it's immoral as we understand it (I.e., hurts someone directly or indirectly), they mean that it magically disrupts the sacred order of the universe as ordained by God

[Simon_Jester]

When I think of things like some religious groups declaring homosexuality a sin, I can't help but think 'sinful' is just shorthand for 'doing stuff we don't like'.

I find it helps to realize that when Christians say something is a sin they don't really mean that it's immoral as we understand it (I.e., hurts someone directly or indirectly), they mean that it magically disrupts the sacred order of the universe as ordained by God

On the other hand, most of the really significant ways in which one person can hurt another are considered sins. This is why Christianity hasn't just shriveled up and died of nobody caring over the past two millenia: it isn't purely an arbitrary pile of random taboos. There are random taboos thrown in there, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

[Other religions are about equally good at this, on the whole; it is not a uniquely Christian thing, it is a thing successful religions do. They provide a supernatural framework within which they define a moral code that is broadly consistent with the functioning of society.]

So 'sinful' is fairly effective at connoting "that which we know we ought not do, that which is even forbidden to do, but that which we do anyway due to some strange impulse within ourselves to ignore rules we think/know/believe are for our own good."

That's more or less what the word means to Christians as a rule, and it's actually a pretty useful word even if you disagree with most Christians about what does and does not fall in that category.

[SAMAS]

When I think of things like some religious groups declaring homosexuality a sin, I can't help but think 'sinful' is just shorthand for 'doing stuff we don't like'.

I find it helps to realize that when Christians say something is a sin they don't really mean that it's immoral as we understand it (I.e., hurts someone directly or indirectly), they mean that it magically disrupts the sacred order of the universe as ordained by God

On the other hand, most of the really significant ways in which one person can hurt another are considered sins. This is why Christianity hasn't just shriveled up and died of nobody caring over the past two millenia: it isn't purely an arbitrary pile of random taboos. There are random taboos thrown in there, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

You'll note that said random taboos are also usually the first things to be quietly ignored once they start conflicting with societal ethics (is that even the right term?).

So 'sinful' is fairly effective at connoting "that which we know we ought not do, that which is even forbidden to do, but that which we do anyway due to some strange impulse within ourselves to ignore rules we think/know/believe are for our own good."

That's more or less what the word means to Christians as a rule, and it's actually a pretty useful word even if you disagree with most Christians about what does and does not fall in that category.

That category is awfully broad, though. There's a difference between the "sin" of going against your diet with a delicious chocoloate cake, the "sin" of using non-socially-accepted recreational drugs(or the accepted ones, for that matter), the "sin" of not conforming to "acceptable" behaviors in your private life(as broadly as I can put it), or the sin of violently assaulting someone.

[Ralin]

On the other hand, most of the really significant ways in which one person can hurt another are considered sins. This is why Christianity hasn't just shriveled up and died of nobody caring over the past two millenia: it isn't purely an arbitrary pile of random taboos. There are random taboos thrown in there, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

Are they? Having other gods and blaspheming the Holy Spirit are two of the really big Christian sins and those aren't harmful outside the context of their delusional theology. Adultery? Pretty context dependent, and they think that lusting after someone else's spouse qualifies. I could go on but there are plenty more examples like that, and judging from how American Christians have dug their heels in over issues like gay rights it's pretty clear they take the "Harmless act forbidden by their stupid religion" sins at least as seriously as genuinely immoral things.

Or to put it more simply, there are have been plenty of societies that didn't think sodomy was a crime. I don't think there have been any who didn't have rules against murder. So no, they don't really overlap as much as you think.

[cmdrjones]

I will say that 'sinful' is a convenient shorthand for 'people often act in various malevolent ways, even when there's no good obvious reason to do so.'

When I think of things like some religious groups declaring homosexuality a sin, I can't help but think 'sinful' is just shorthand for 'doing stuff we don't like'.

To a certain extent that IS true, but, as i pointed out above, many of these people would replace the 'we' in that sentence with the source of religious authority. In other words, its not something they just made up for the hell of it.

And secondly, there are a LOT of other things that most western religions regard as sins far worse than homosexuality. Such as denying God's existence when you should know better.

[Ralin]

And secondly, there are a LOT of other things that most western religions regard as sins far worse than homosexuality. Such as denying God's existence when you should know better.

See what I mean?

Also: 'Western religions?'

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, most of the really significant ways in which one person can hurt another are considered sins. This is why Christianity hasn't just shriveled up and died of nobody caring over the past two millenia: it isn't purely an arbitrary pile of random taboos. There are random taboos thrown in there, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

Are they? Having other gods and blaspheming the Holy Spirit are two of the really big Christian sins and those aren't harmful outside the context of their delusional theology...

Excuse me, Ralin, but you literally just heard "Most examples of set A are in set B," and replied with "This is in set B, but is not in set A!"

Or to put it more simply, there are have been plenty of societies that didn't think sodomy was a crime. I don't think there have been any who didn't have rules against murder. So no, they don't really overlap as much as you think.

And here in your close, you're basically saying, "Simon, you said most things in set A are in set B. Therefore, you must think that set B and set A are nearly identical."

So all I can say to those things are:

Please review introductory set theory, and we can try this conversation over from the top.

As to the rest, I am prepared to debate the problem of their taboos being taken more seriously than their "all societies agree that this is wrong" things... after I am convinced that you understand why your opening and closing counterarguments were a no-sell when used against what I actually said.

And secondly, there are a LOT of other things that most western religions regard as sins far worse than homosexuality. Such as denying God's existence when you should know better.

I would humbly argue that, based on the available evidence in the world as you know it, you shouldn't know better. If faith is to be justified it almost has to be justified by private spiritual experiences that, by their very nature, are not deniable.

[Ralin]

On the other hand, most of the really significant ways in which one person can hurt another are considered sins. This is why Christianity hasn't just shriveled up and died of nobody caring over the past two millenia: it isn't purely an arbitrary pile of random taboos. There are random taboos thrown in there, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

Are they? Having other gods and blaspheming the Holy Spirit are two of the really big Christian sins and those aren't harmful outside the context of their delusional theology...

Excuse me, Ralin, but you literally just heard "Most examples of set A are in set B," and replied with "This is in set B, but is not in set A!"

Or to put it more simply, there are have been plenty of societies that didn't think sodomy was a crime. I don't think there have been any who didn't have rules against murder. So no, they don't really overlap as much as you think.

And here in your close, you're basically saying, "Simon, you said most things in set A are in set B. Therefore, you must think that set B and set A are nearly identical."

So all I can say to those things are:

Please review introductory set theory, and we can try this conversation over from the top.

As to the rest, I am prepared to debate the problem of their taboos being taken more seriously than their "all societies agree that this is wrong" things... after I am convinced that you understand why your opening and closing counterarguments were a no-sell when used against what I actually said.

No you posturing pseudo intellectual, I'm saying that Christian sins do not consistently line up with things that are genuinely immoral and that several of their worst sins aren't immoral anywhere other than their fucked up delusions.

Now fuck you I need to go take a shower because I just publicly agreed with Flagg

[cmdrjones]

And secondly, there are a LOT of other things that most western religions regard as sins far worse than homosexuality. Such as denying God's existence when you should know better.

I would humbly argue that, based on the available evidence in the world as you know it, you shouldn't know better. If faith is to be justified it almost has to be justified by private spiritual experiences that, by their very nature, are not deniable.[/quote]


Those are the people who SHOULD know better. Sinning against the Holy Spirit is KNOWING that God exists and then leading others astray on purpose.... That's the Morning Star.

[cmdrjones]

No you posturing pseudo intellectual, I'm saying that Christian sins do not consistently line up with things that are genuinely immoral and that several of their worst sins aren't immoral anywhere other than their fucked up delusions.

Now fuck you I need to go take a shower because I just publicly agreed with Flagg

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

[Alyrium Denryle]

No you posturing pseudo intellectual, I'm saying that Christian sins do not consistently line up with things that are genuinely immoral and that several of their worst sins aren't immoral anywhere other than their fucked up delusions.

Now fuck you I need to go take a shower because I just publicly agreed with Flagg

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

The hell it cant. Go read genesis again. The whole point of the narrative in genesis is that the human conscience is now, thanks to the tree of knowledge, just as capable of judging right from wrong as god himself.

Even if you dont take the story literally (which you should not, because that is insane), that part seems rather important. Morality then exists independently from god, and the human capacity to judge it is just as well developed. And, because both have free will, both can transgress.

Meaning that when we, as humans, judge god to be a petty malevolent terracidal douchebag, we are in fact perfectly capable of reaching that judgement correctly. Just because god claims to be good and just, does not mean he actually is. And the proof is in the divinely commanded genocide.

When you think about it--actually think about it--some of the rules in the abrahamic religions are in accordance with what we would consider good, some are fucking evil, and some are just arbitrary prescriptions. God's central desire seems to be that we worship him, and he leverages his power to reward and punish us for doing so (or not). He did not want us to eat the fruit, not for our own benefit, but for his. Because if we can judge him, we can decide he is a douche who ought be opposed instead of worshiped.

Of course, all that assumes we are not talking about a work of fiction. Which we are.

[Metahive]

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

Because pots are non-sentients, unfeeling objects?

If I created a sentient clay pot capable of reason and thought and continually abused it you can bet it could full well judge me for it.


Also, don't you godbots judge god one way or another by heaping adjectives like "good", "perfect" and "merciful" upon it? Tell me why that doesn't count.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

Because pots are non-sentients, unfeeling objects?

If I created a sentient clay pot capable of reason and thought and continually abused it you can bet it could full well judge me for it.


Also, don't you godbots judge god one way or another by heaping adjectives like "good", "perfect" and "merciful" upon it? Tell me why that doesn't count.

Oh, it is orwellian doublespeak. They redefine "good", "perfection", and "mercy" so that they line up with whatever god is, does, or commands.

God torturing Job (and murdering his family and friends) for no good reason is "good". Killing the first born of egypt is "justice". Sending people to hell for all eternity for the crime of being born is India is "mercy".

[Metahive]

O, I am aware of the religionist Humpty Dumpty routine. What I wanna' know from CobraCommander here is why this whole "y'all can't judge the LORD"-thing only applies to negative judgements but not to positive ones. If the pot can't judge the potter then the pot also can't deem the potter "good".

[cmdrjones]

O, I am aware of the religionist Humpty Dumpty routine. What I wanna' know from CobraCommander here is why this whole "y'all can't judge the LORD"-thing only applies to negative judgements but not to positive ones. If the pot can't judge the potter then the pot also can't deem the potter "good".

Do witnesses/audience members in a murder trial make the judgement or do they simply recognize the result?

[salm]

O, I am aware of the religionist Humpty Dumpty routine. What I wanna' know from CobraCommander here is why this whole "y'all can't judge the LORD"-thing only applies to negative judgements but not to positive ones. If the pot can't judge the potter then the pot also can't deem the potter "good".

Do witnesses/audience members in a murder trial make the judgement or do they simply recognize the result?

Depends. Smart members form their own opinion. Idiots later claim that they were only folloving orderz.

[cmdrjones]

O, I am aware of the religionist Humpty Dumpty routine. What I wanna' know from CobraCommander here is why this whole "y'all can't judge the LORD"-thing only applies to negative judgements but not to positive ones. If the pot can't judge the potter then the pot also can't deem the potter "good".

Do witnesses/audience members in a murder trial make the judgement or do they simply recognize the result?

Depends. Smart members form their own opinion. Idiots later claim that they were only folloving orderz.

Incorrect. They Judge judges, the witnesses either correctly discern what happened, or doze off etc.

hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

[Eternal_Freedom]

[
hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

Bullshit. My parents created me, and I judge them (well, mostly Dad) all the time.

A good God would not damn you to eternal torment simply for not believing in him. Nor would a just or merciful God.

[cmdrjones]

[
hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

Bullshit. My parents created me, and I judge them (well, mostly Dad) all the time.

A good God would not damn you to eternal torment simply for not believing in him. Nor would a just or merciful God.

This? Again? C'mon man, you can do better than the sunday school theology questions, right?

If God has both Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy how can he NOT honor your choice to go elsewhere and be apart from him if you reject him? Remember, in this context you ARE a soul, you only HAVE a body for a short time. If God is God and YOU reject HIM, and YOU are eternal, where do you think you'll end up? What would that place BE like after a few billion years of people who rejected the almighty showing up there and hanging out together? Now, imagine what that place would be like run by divine beings who KNEW God existed, who had BEEN in his presence and had rebelled then been cast out? Might'nt they be the tiniest bit jealous and angry over their massive mistake? Or does the phrase misery loves company make no sense to you?

PS the dad thing = understandable...

So, what does he do that torques you off so much? For me, my mom drives ME nuts. My dad was cool as hell.

[Simon_Jester]

No you posturing pseudo intellectual, I'm saying that Christian sins do not consistently line up with things that are genuinely immoral and that several of their worst sins aren't immoral anywhere other than their fucked up delusions.

In the process of repeating this truism, you missed my point.

My point is that Christianity would not have survived this long if it weren't for the fact that while it also bans random taboo things, it does ban most of the broad categories of things that genuinely harm other people. Or, at least, the things that overtly harm people in ways we can get universal agreement on being 'harm.'

If all Christianity did was ban a list of taboos, it would not have lasted. It survived because it provided a religious imprimatur (sometimes literally) to tell people "don't do this thing" when "this thing" was contrary to survival of society.

That is totally separate from the observation that Christianity also provides an imprimatur to tell people "don't do this thing" when "this thing is a harmless taboo."

...

It's like the theory of evolution. Because of evolution in action, we can safely assume that any complex biological mechanisms serves (or used to serve) some function that in some way contributed to the survival of the organism and the propagation of its genes. Purely parasitic and useless features don't last longer than it takes for them to mutate into irrelevant vestigial features.

If I say "peacock tails serve an evolutionary function or they wouldn't exist" and you say "but peacock tails weigh down the birds and make them likely to die, you idiot," you're missing the point.

Those are the people who SHOULD know better. Sinning against the Holy Spirit is KNOWING that God exists and then leading others astray on purpose.... That's the Morning Star.

1) Within the Christian framework, would you mind citing learned authorities to support this position? One of the biggest problems with Christian theology in the US is that it's so often practiced by amateurs who are poorly schooled in logic...

2) Standing temporarily without reference to the Christian framework, is there any actual living human that this could be said to apply to? If not, saying it is in human nature to "sin" in this way is meaningless.

The Pot cannot judge the Potter

And why not, pray tell?

...hence, the creation cannot judge the creator.

This is just repetition. Why would it be impossible for a creation to judge a creator, as a matter of logic? You say this as though it's as obvious as saying "circles cannot be square."

God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

Can you cite any actual philosophical argument to justify this? Several such arguments have been presented over the centuries. Do you know what they are? Or is that all you've got?

Personally, I am quite comfortable with the idea that it is not necessarily, automatically true that the creator of the universe be a good and just being.

This? Again? C'mon man, you can do better than the sunday school theology questions, right?

Sunday school is like... elementary school level. If you're going to advance arguments like this, you need to be prepared to defend them at the college level of philosophical understanding- that is, at the seminary level.

If God has both Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy how can he NOT honor your choice to go elsewhere and be apart from him if you reject him?

If he knows it's a crappy place, then to send people there when they are incapable of comprehending its crappiness and making a meaningful, informed decision would be neither merciful nor just.

In that case, a perfectly just and merciful god would forcibly 'straighten out' the parts of the afterlife not illuminated by his presence. He wouldn't just abandon them to random gangsters who then get unlimited license to prey on souls that did not and could not realistically know better, for eternity, based on short-term decisions made on the basis of totally inadequate information on Earth.

What would that place BE like after a few billion years of people who rejected the almighty showing up there and hanging out together? Now, imagine what that place would be like run by divine beings who KNEW God existed, who had BEEN in his presence and had rebelled then been cast out? Might'nt they be the tiniest bit jealous and angry over their massive mistake? Or does the phrase misery loves company make no sense to you?

In a cosmos rationally ordered by a just and merciful supreme deity, no such rebellious beings would be allowed that kind of power. A deity's creations' right to rebel against them would logically end when it interferes with their other creations- and a supreme deity has no need to tolerate such interference.

[Metahive]

Do witnesses/audience members in a murder trial make the judgement or do they simply recognize the result?

Quit the Humpty Dumpty routine and the semantics bullshit. We are not talking about rendering legal judgement but about simply assessing someone's character and attributes. If the pot can't judge the potter to be bad, why can he judge the potter to be good? Please explain the this seemingly inconsistent position.

hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

Do i need to remind you that you're trying to argue with someone who is not sharing your particular ideological blinders? I do not see the necessity to regard "god" as "something that's possessing all positive attributes and perfections", It's your goal to actually convince people here that this has to be the case. Simply asserting stuff is not the way to go. Then I might as well assert that "god" just means by "necessity" "homeless alcoholic bum" and I can do so with just as much justification as you.

[bilateralrope]

My point is that Christianity would not have survived this long if it weren't for the fact that while it also bans random taboo things, it does ban most of the broad categories of things that genuinely harm other people. Or, at least, the things that overtly harm people in ways we can get universal agreement on being 'harm.'

If all Christianity did was ban a list of taboos, it would not have lasted. It survived because it provided a religious imprimatur (sometimes literally) to tell people "don't do this thing" when "this thing" was contrary to survival of society.

That is totally separate from the observation that Christianity also provides an imprimatur to tell people "don't do this thing" when "this thing is a harmless taboo."

All that means is that they included things which would harm Christianity on the list of things they don't like. It doesn't make the list useful for determining what is and isn't moral behaviour.

[salm]

Incorrect. They Judge judges, the witnesses either correctly discern what happened, or doze off etc.

hence, the creation cannot judge the creator. God is MANIFESTLY Good, Just, Merciful etc because he is The God (Omnipotent, all powerful, Alpha and Omega... etc etc).

If he is not, then he is something imperfect that WE have created, as you said, a fiction, but if he is not....

The judge judges and everybody who assesses the situation based on the information he has judges as well. Some follow the judges word and believe him without questioning and other question the judges decision because his ruling might be antithetic to the information the people have.
If the judge rules based on secret information he doesn´t make public he deservs to be fired for being an intransparent cunt. In other words we have to judge the judge and if he sucks at his job we really don´t need him at all.