| |
I thought we might agree on something fundamental from the way you were
talking. Alas...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Here's a thought--with freedom comes responsibility.
I agree.
> 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.
It does have to do with the pleasure of the flesh and the pleasure of the
spirit. I'm not twisting or making irrelevant points. And I think it's not
fair of you to claim that merely because you don't like them.
> What [the commandments] do say...could be summed up into a golden
> rule 'do unto others...'
I very much believe in the golden rule. When I don't slip up, I live my life
by it. It's just about the only rule that's sacred. But you have other rules
that I'm trying to determine.
> Nailing your neighbours wife is not morally right, even if you, your
> neighbours wife and your neighbours wife's husband think it's okay.
Bite me.
OK, now that that's out of the way, I want to know why. This is an example of
"an other" rule that isn't embodied by the Golden Rule. Because if I have no
problem with my neighbor nailing my wife, why is it immoral for me to bang his?
Your reactionary morality must come from somewhere. Where?
> You, however, can nail your own wife, and both of you can derive physical
> pleasure from it, and you'd both be okay in God's eyes. Your souls would
> probably also benefit from a good and healthy sex life, but again, that's
> the point.
But why not my wife and the neighbor's at the same time? Wouldn't my soul
benefit even more? And what if I liked guys too, and included the UPS driver?
Wouldn't that be even better for my soul?
If not, why not?
> There are moral absolutes, no matter what post modernity tells us. If you
> wanna discuss that, it's a whole different topic.
I go back and forth, but I think I agree. Hurting others is bad. But that's
simply derivative of the Golden Rule. Screwing horny sheep does not violate
that, however. But I bet you think that's a violation of some moral absolute.
But I'm not sure it's another topic. It seems to be to ride right along this
one.
> You may sa there's no leeway in the speed limit either. If it's 100 km/h
> then that's what it is--but wait--my goodness, look at that, you can go
> *any* speed between 0 and 100--that's like... ummm... at least 100 integer
> choices and an infinite number of choices if we get away from those pesky
> integers. That's alotta choices for our free will to do with as we please.
> But if you go 101 km/h, or 100.00000001 km/h, guess what?--you're breaking
> the law. So how 'bout living within it, it just might be good for you.
No. And yes. Obviously I _do_ live with it. But there are at least human
justifications for speed limits however much I might disagree with them.
Safety, revenue, etc.
> Somebody somewhere had a thought that placing limits on things would be good
> for you.
I don't think so. I think they thought that placing limits on things would be
good for _them._ They only told us that it was for our own good. I
understand that some people even fell for it.
> Sure, like a 5 year old trying to test the limits, we rail and
> rally against the imposed limits, but go ahead and touch the stove when it's
> hot, even tho we told you not to.
Thanks, I did. And that's how we learn best! Just for background, I have a
seven year old and a seven month old and the only limits I put on them have to
do with protecting my rights and spontaneous ones to keep them alive. They are
the same limits that I place on any other human being. And it works just fine
for me.
> Where'd it get you? There are so many
> possibilities and ways to live within Gods law and remain healthy and happy
> and derive physical, emotonal, intellectual and spiritual joy, and do as we
> want.
Unless you happen to want to nail the neighbor, right?
> (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.
Hear, hear! Or even just break it willy nilly.
> 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)
Uh oh. I don't actually know what they are. So I went looking. At
http://www.ainglkiss.com/10com/ there appear to be more than one set..? That
can't be right. So I looked at http://www.tencommandments.org/right.html and
oh-my what a sinkhole that is. Finally, I found a nift page at
http://www.tencommandments.org/right.html so now I can address your request.
(By the way, this is a little off topic for this paragraph but Exodus 20:5
makes God seem like kind of a dick.)
I had to look up 'graven image' and 'adultery' to be sure of what what under
commandment.
I guess it depends on what it means to keep the sabbath day holy. Does it mean
that I can't work that day? I have a lot of work to do and need every day. So
I think it's better for me to mow the lawn on Sundays. (Actually, I usually
work Fri-Mon, so I'd be really screwed)
What does it mean to honor your father and mother? In the days when that what
written, the patriarch was kind of a mini-king and adult sons were supposed to
obey. I don't think that following that would be better for me over my
lifetime.
Thou shalt not kill seems like a good idea in general, but what about wiggle
room? I'm pretty strongly in favor of killing folks that have broken into my
house and are threatening my children. Do you think I'm supposed to "not kill"
even under those circumstances?
I think of adultery in the same way. If you're hurting someone, then don't do
it. But if you're not, then go for it. If your marriage (and theirs) includes
the understanding, or better yet -- the encouragement, of extramarital sex,
then why the heck not? I think this is another commandment that, followed over
a lifetime, would at least sometimes degrade the quality of life.
What about stealing? Is there never a time when it makes sense? These
commandment seem so absolute. And I understand the punishments were quite
severe.
The one commandment that I really fundamentally agree with, and can't think of
any time that breaking it would really make sense is "thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbour." I could construct hypothetical situations
where doing so might make sense, but they seem cardboard.
So basically, your assertion that following these commandments over a lifetime
puts you better off than not, seems to depend entirely on the presense of a
reward-profering Jehova at the end. I'd prefer to have fun along the way, as I
wrote before.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I don't mind your points at all--I like them just fine, and I think I responded to them. The way I saw it, though, was twisting the original intent of the message, which is the bible does not deny physical pleasure and it does not separate the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
