| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> >
> > > What makes the body happy in turn, I think, would also make the soul happy,
> > > and vice versa. Christianity is not about denying the body in favour of the
> > > soul. Whoever is spouting that brand of whatever hasn't understood the
> > > simple and undeniable idea that God created the body, with all it's ability
> > > to experience pleasure. Where's the problem in experienceing joy, love,
> > > happiness, sensualness, whatever. Where in my Bible does it say to deny
> > > these things?
> >
> > OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to
> > covet the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a
> > sin to nail your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her
> > husband does too?
> >
> > There seems to be no lee-way in the commandments.
>
> Here's a thought--with freedom comes responsibility.
>
> Stop twisting and making irrelevant points--that point you made has nothing
> to do with my idea, which is the non-separation of body and soul. Nowhere
> in the 10 commandments does it command 'Thou shalt not derive physical
> pleasure'. What they do say is to do things in a responsible manner, or
> that which could be summed up into a golden rule 'do unto others...'
>
> Nailing your neighbours wife is not morally right, even if you, your
> neighbours wife and your neighbours wife's husband think it's okay.
I think Chris's point is that this is an absolute of Mosaic Law that goes
against the "experiencing joy, love, happiness, sensualness, whatever" that
was suggested as all ok in your comments. I'm certain that you didn't
intend the "where-ever and however" that he infered in that quote, though.
> (this little post isn't a 'all laws are good' post--if a man made law is
> unjust or needs changing, then go ahead and change it. Now show me where
> *not* following any of the 10 commandments would be better for you (over the
> course of your life, to battle against the 'well, nailing my neighbours wife
> certainly "feels" better right when i'm doing it) than following them)
A very solid case could be made to show that "Honor thy Father and Mother"
could be very detrimental to someone's mental and physical health if said
parents are abusive.
A very solid historical case *has* been made to show that "Thou Shalt Not
Steal" can in some cases be dodged with impunity until the day you die. I
point you in the direction of several medieval robber barons, some of whom
got toppled; some of whom lived contentedly to a ripe old age quite unpunished.
Mosiac Law includes the concept of Divine Wrath for mis-stepping very much
*because* there is often no personal detriment to breaking it. It's (IMHO)
an early moral standard enforced by a primitive understanding of God, to be
as clear a guideline as possible for a less-developed human culture.
Lots and lots of religions have had (and will continue to have, I'm sure)
varying complexities of moral yardsticks, as the culture they are
referencing changes and evolves. To pull two examples out of my hat, modern
Christianity has in general a much more advanced moral understanding (Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you) than early Old Testament
understanding (Thou shalt...). Just as modern Wicca ('An it harm none, thy
will be done') is a much more advanced moral standard than the ancient
Druidic teachings it evolved from.
thanks,
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) And I think my point, reiterated, is that Chris twisted it into saying the Mosaic law says you cannot derive pleasure from living, which is far from the truth. Nowhere in the testaments does this concept even exist. I am not a biblical scholar (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I have a problem with this form of the Golden Rule -- it's in the form of an exhortation to some kind of action. I prefer "Do not unto others as you would have others not do unto you." Point being: I want to be left alone. The form you have (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Here's a thought--with freedom comes responsibility. Stop twisting and making irrelevant points--that point you made has nothing to do with my idea, which is the non-separation of body and soul. Nowhere in the 10 commandments does it command (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
