| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 body and soul.
> > 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.
Me? *I* don't have any other rule. I don't believe that gov't should
legislate morality and I absolutely applaud the Ontario gov't for starting
us on the road to same sex marriages. It's a Good Thing (tm). I think that
homosexuality is *not* an abomination, and I support their lifestyle, as I'm
sure they support mine (even tho that gets me in badly with some of my more
conservative friends)
> > 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.
That would probably hurt you, and since I don't like 'swinging my arm when
and where it may come in contact with your nose' even though you just asked
for it, I won't do it. There's my moral absolutes for you, my friend.
>
> 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?
A point I made quite clear in another post, which I'm sure is causing a
flurry of postings right now.
> Your reactionary morality must come from somewhere. Where?
My reactionary morality? How about the knee-jerk reactionaries that don't
like to be told they're wrong even when... wait for it, they're wrong... If
we have moral absolutes, there must be a right and there must be a wrong.
>
> > 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?
It may not be healthy for your health for one thing. Secondly, can you
think of an idea that may say, 'This instant gratification i have now could
potentially be detrimental to my emotional committment to my other half over
the span of years'? If you can't, well, then go for it. I do not impose my
moral absolutes on you. However, the *concept* that you may be harming your
relationship with your wife in the bigger picture of your lives together may
become a factor if you're sleeping around and so is she. For me, I choose
not to take that risk (free will, free choice). There's enuf for me wo
worry about in a relationship without adding to the concerns.
Again, I say 'all the power to you' if you want to sleep around--you're not
punching *my* nose (well, not directly anyway).
> > 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.
Again, people can do whatever they want (I made that point earlier, as Larry
said Dave K = Libertarian views)
But since we talked alot about science in this thread, can we think of a
hypothesis where what we do today can adversely impact our lives down the
road. If you feel like doin' it with sheep, it's up to you--you're an
adult. I will not help, nor do I want pictures of said event. In this
particular instance I cannot, off the top of my head, actually see a
physical, or emotional lasting trauma for doing so, but I wouldn't tell a
date (or a wife) if I had done any such activity in my past, either.
> 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.
And there are human justifications to, well, not sleep around. Nothing to
do with Christian ideals. And I do not enforce them on you--I am not moral
cop. You do what's best for you. Just understand and accept the
*potential* ramifications of your 'adult' choices.
>
> > 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.
I think that 60km/h (50 or 40, depending where you are)is a safe limit for
residential streets. If I was doing a hundered thru town and a kid jumped
in front of my car... well, i dunno the braking distances and such, but
needless to say, I believe that *certain* laws were implemented for our
sake. I would prefer to have *no* laws, but some people seem to want the
police around to keep them from doing stuff against the law (and some people
don't even care about the cops and break the law anyway).
>
> > 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.
Good for you and your kids. I hope it works out. Parenting is such a
finnicky thing. That's where my rule of non-interference comes full
force--I will never *ever* tell someone else how to raise their kids.
> > 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?
The freedom to choose comes the responsibility of the choice. If you want
to nail your neighbours wife, go ahead--I'm *not* stopping you. I won't wag
a finger and say 'That's morally wrong--it goes against my Christian ideals'
for my ideals only apply to me. If you do 'do it' though, understand the
ramifications of said life-style choices are also on your shoulders, and not
mine.
>
> > (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.
I think I'd rather work within the law to chage it--there's enuf room to
evolve the system into a better one by working within it than revolting
everytime I don't like something.
>
> > 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)
Next time I'm going to specify 'in context' everywhere, like when I should
be putting smileys on everything when I'm 'just kidding :)'.
There are sooo many interpretations of the bible, and I'm not a biblical
scholar, but for the love of everything, semantics. Yes they are. The
bible has to be taken as a whole. There's a passage somewhere which says
you can sell your daughter into slavery to pay off debts. That really
doesn't work now (nor did it probably work well back then, but again, I'm
Canadian and this country, anyway, really didn't like slavery to begin
with...) I mean, read Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2--they're not even close
tobeing similar. Many authors writing at many different times to get across
their point.
'Honour thy father and mother' went contrary to the Egyptian belief system
(where the Israelites just happen to be for many generations) which was when
you were no longer able to actively contribute to society (the weak, old and
infirm) you were left to die, even kicked out into the desert. Even in the
movie 'The 10 Commandments' they had that old lady greasing the rocks and
when she was stuck, the Egyptians were just going to push the rock into
place with her underneath. The commandment rallied against that very
concept. I don't think that my grandfather, in the home, should be
considered a lesser member of society. Darwinism 'survival of the fittest'
can take a back seat thank you very much.
Most of the bible was written in response to things around them. The reason
that the creation story is remarkably similar to the babylon story of
creation, is that it was most likely written whilst the Israelites *were* in
Babylon. It was written in a fashion of the time, and in a way to show how
what they believes was different than what the Babylonians believed (one god
instead of many).
>
> 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.
I agree. But you can still honour your parents. I know when I was younger
I wanted to do things to make my parents proud of me. Honouring does not
mean cow-towing to their every wim and desire. Honouring them does not mean
you can't contradict them if you feel that your idea is better. Honouring
them does not mean you have to stay in the house and live in the basement
until you're 25. Honouring them definitly does not mean staying in any sort
of abusive situation--let me be perfectly clear here--are you not honouring
them more by helping them become better people? Again, if there are moral
absolutes, and one of them is abuse, and there is abuse, then for the love
of all that is right and just and honourable, get them the help they need.
>
> 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?
As my OT professor would say, the word for kill here really can be
translated properly (as some texts do) into murder. Cold blooded killing.
I mean, we don't 'murder' those on death row (another flurry of posts), we
seek justice. A guy holding your kids hostages, my goodness man, I'll carry
your ammo! I'll help pull the trigger. Vengeance may be the Lords, but He
did give us Justice.
>
> 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.
And here I disagree--*not* following this commandment over the course of
your life *could* (high percent chance in my mind anyway, hence I follow it)
lead to greater harm. Forgetting STD,s 'n such, how can you keep the
concept that if you and your wife are 'swapping' that she won't find a
better physical lover than you? Or what keeps her from thinking that you
may find a better one--she may think perhaps you're doing someone on the
side, that she doesn't know about. I mean, you've opened up a Pandoras Box
of emotional issues. ow can you feel committed to one another wholely and
completely, when you're sleeping with other people? Nothing to do with
morals and integrity or Christian values (once again, not forced on
*anybody* by me) but just human nature. If you get beyond that, happy for
you. For me, I'm not opening that kettle of fish for the sake of instant
gratification now.
>
> 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.
Zap to today (which, again, was my point when I said, lets look at applying
these commandments to our lives *today*. I even said let's take them out of
*any* context and just, word for word, look at them). So you're starving
and you have no money and you have to feed the hungry kids at home. Ma
Baker just left a hot steaming apple pie in her window for cooling down.
You just happen to walk by at the same time--Did God understand your need
and 'supply' you with a means to remedy your situation, and therefore you
should steal the pie?
Ooooh toughie. If it were me, and me alone, I would knock on Ma Bakers door
and explain the situation. If she saw fit to give me the pie, so much the
better. If not, a difernt solution than stealing for I stand by my
convicitions *no matter* what the circumstance (I hope).
>
> 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.
Again, agreed. Speaking the *truth* at all times is the right thing to do
whether you believe in god, many gods, whether you're a dyslexic insomniac
agnostic staying up all night wondering if there's a dog, or no god, it
doesn't matter--truth can only do good in the long run.
>
> 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
No, my following my own little worldview over my lifetime (and the rules
within my worldview are in flux, and not rigid at all as some here suppose)
is what keeps me healthy and happy *today*--in a certain framework it has
nothing to do with God and, as such, I can appreciate the athiests for doing
the right thing even though they don't believe in God for I do do the right
thing *just because* I believe in God.
And trust me, I have lotsa lotsa fun ('xcept when work is stressing me out,
then I write lots here in .debate, and go home and play with LEGO.)
> wrote before.
>
> Chris
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| David, I get your stance on the commandment now. They aren't actually laws that God passed down about how to live your life. They're just good ideas. I'm pretty sure that's not how most Christians would characterize them, but that's really neither (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| I thought we might agree on something fundamental from the way you were talking. Alas... (...) I agree. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
