Heroscapers
Go Back   Heroscapers > Off-Topic > General
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness.

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #649  
Old January 31st, 2014, 11:03 AM
Aldin's Avatar
Aldin Aldin is offline
Site Admin & Professional SideBoarder
 
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: TN - Nashville
Posts: 13,547
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 4
Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer
Re: Any other childfree people here?

So Ranior... it sickens you when a child proclaims a love of science because a teacher taught them to love science? That seems weird coming from you, but I guess it's good to know...

~Aldin, wondering what the list of acceptable things for kids to believe without the intellectual rigor to understand them is in Ranior's mind

He either fears his fate too much
or his desserts are small
That dares not put it to the touch
to gain or lose it all
~James Graham
  #650  
Old January 31st, 2014, 11:43 AM
Anonymous's Avatar
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
 
Join Date: November 9, 2008
Location: USA - SD - Hot Springs
Posts: 442
Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby!
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Responses in Blue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy Orang View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldin View Post
So you think any rule that is perfect should exist in all times and all places?

~Aldin, curiosly
Not all the time, no, but a set of laws where gathering sticks on a Saturday receives death while raping an unmarried girl means that you are forced upon that girl for life is cruel and ridiculous in any circumstance. Tell me when that is ever justified. Also tell me why that should work that way then but not now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This law, like the law regarding widows we talked about way earlier in this thread is actually a merciful law on God's part for the protection of the woman in question. In the Middle Eastern culture of the time, no man would willingly marry a non-virgin. Since women were not able to provide for themselves in that culture, they usually had to rely on their husbands or other relatives for material support. In this case, the raped woman would have been treated as a cultural pariah, and no one would have been willing to marry her. She would have had no means of material support and probably would have died very quickly.

For that reason, God, in his law, requires the rapist to marry the woman. Note that the rapist is never allowed to divorce her. This was to ensure that the victim would always have a source of material support and would not be left out in the cold with no marriage prospects and no one to take care of her. In essence, the law allows the rapist to live because he is needed to ensure that the victim would be able to survive. God is preventing the victim's life from being completely destroyed by her assailant. It is actually a merciful law.
Okay, I can sort of see that, but couldn't God just have made clear to them the flaws in their culture? They were obviously willing to follow him. These are not the only laws that treat women as possessions, though. There are laws saying that if a man sees a beautiful woman and is attracted to her during the plundering of a city then he may take her as a wife (note the may and the fact that it's only if he's attracted to her - this is a law treating women as plunder, not one that forces the man to give her material support).

Regarding the question involving the culture, God gave the Israelites laws realizing that they were stubborn.

For example in Matthew 19:8 Jesus, speaking about divorce says:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

So we see here that God realized that the Israelites' hearts were hard, and thus some of the the laws he gave them in that cultural context took that into account. God knew that the Israelites' hearts would be hard toward an innocent victim of rape, and thus he put into place a societal safety net in order to protect those women. Secondly, if you read almost any of the Old Testament, it's quickly apparent that the Israelites are usually not willing to follow God or his rules.

I think a similar issue, God passing laws in order to protect vulnerable individuals from the hard hearts of the culture at the time, is also present in the account regarding females captured in war.

In the Ancient Near East at the time, women were not treated as equals. During warfare, captured women were at the mercy of their captors, and were usually raped and sexually abused, while often being left to die afterward.

In the passage you are referring to in Deuteronomy, God is providing that foreign woman with legal protection. The man has to let the woman have a month to mourn her family. She is also provided shelter and allowed to clean up. In addition, the man must marry the woman before engaging in any sort of sexual behavior, meaning he can't just rape her and leave her to die. He has to provide for her. He is also not allowed to then treat her as a slave or to sell her to someone else as a slave.

In essence, God is providing legal protections for the woman in question and forcing the Israelite men to marry and provide for such women, rather than raping them and then leaving them to die. Any law even recognizing the humanity of captured female prisoners of war, let alone providing them with any sort of legal protections, is practically unheard of from other contemporary sources in the Ancient Near East.

He's still allowing women to be taken as plunder - can't he just say that anyone found raping a woman in war would be killed? He does that enough with other stuff. Also, let's remember rape is not one of the Ten Commandments, so God considers it less of a concern than gathering sticks on the Sabbath - that's a pretty twisted view of morality.


Well, perhaps God wanted the Israelite men to have an avenue by which they would marry these female captives so as to provide the women with a possible means of support? I'm not really sure. Although I expect part of the reason was, like the laws on divorce, because their hearts were hard.

Regarding your allegation that God cares less about rape than Sabbath-breaking because it's not in the Ten Commandments, it does not mean that God considers it less of a sin. In fact, God clearly condemns rape in the law, which we already looked at. The Ten Commandments were the laws that God gave that were most prominent to the Israelites, because they were the issues that the Israelite community would most likely have to deal with. The truth of the matter is that murder, stealing, and Sabbath-breaking were much more prevalent in Israelite society than rape was. So, the ten commandments were the laws that were the most important for God to communicate to the people directly, while supplying prohibitions against rape and other less common crimes through Moses, who read those commands from God to the entire community as well. It's not that Sabbath-breaking is worse than rape. It's just that the Ten Commandments emphasize the more prevalent issues that the Israelites were going to face.

For example, most parents teaching their kids at an early age tend to focus on presenting actions such as stealing toys from other kids and punching other kids as morally wrong. They don't usually emphasize to their kids that insurance fraud is wrong, even though it is, because it is highly unlikely that their kid is going to engage in insurance fraud. It's a similar situation here. It is not that Sabbath-breaking is worse than rape, it's just that God directly gave the Israelite community the Sabbath-breaking law because he knew the issue would need to be addressed, and rape was a much less prevalent issue in the Israelite community. It is still an important issue, but it was less prevalent in the Israelite culture and thus it was saved for the later part of the law that was passed through Moses rather than being delivered directly by God through the Ten Commandments.


I'm sorry, I did see something that quoted it out of context, and if I'm wrong, I apologise.

It's fine. Just don't always take everything you read or hear out of context at face value, especially when its coming from a source hostile to the material in question, whether that material be religious texts, political speeches, or catchy news soundbites.

There are, however, plenty of other examples of God sanctioned atrocities, such as the ones committed by Joshua which involved the raising of towns and the murder of every living thing, be they men, women, livestock or babies. Remember, God is love.

I'm assuming you are talking about the Israelite conquest of Canaan. If you look at the cultures at issue, these cultures were notorious throughout the Ancient Near East for child sacrifice, violence, aggressive unprovoked destructive attacks on neighboring nations, ritual incest, cultic prostitution, and other heinous crimes. They were loathed not only by the Israelites but by almost all their neighbors. They were essentially the North Korea of the Ancient Near East in terms of international diplomacy. God was bringing judgment upon them by using the Israelites to remove them from the land and force their culture to dissimilate while also providing the Israelites with a place of their own. Scripture makes it quite clear that this invasion was judgment for the heinous crimes these people groups had committed against their own children, against the nations around them, against the Israelites, and against God.

When God gives instructions regarding these nations, the majority of his statements involve "driving them out". That is, the primary goal of the invasion was to force these evil people to leave the land, leading to them being assimilated into other cultures, which would prevent their particularly vicious and evil culture from perpetuating. Annihilation was only to be implemented if they refuse to disperse fro their cities.

It is worth noting that these people were familiar with YHWH and had been being warned for decades in advance about the coming judgment. There is also archaeological evidence that the people groups in question were politically allied with Egypt, so they would have known about the Israelite escape from Egypt and would have had a significant incentive to try to recapture the Israelites for him. They clearly knew about the Israelites and about their territorial claims.

These people had ample time to leave. It was only if they refused to leave and remain in the city that they were to be destroyed. Deuteronomy also stipulates that before attacking a city the Israelites were required to offer them a peaceful surrender in which the people are taken captive and engaged in forced labor rather than being killed. So, in essence, the people have been warned to leave for decades. They were being punished for the atrocities they had committed. They were offered the option to leave peacefully. If they chose to stay in the city in spite of this offer, they were still offered the option to surrender peacefully and go into forced labor. It was only if they stubbornly ignored the decades of warnings, refused to leave the area peacefully, and refused the option of surrender that they would be annihilated. As a result, most of the people left in the cities would have been the diehard proponents of a morally bankrupt culture that embraced child sacrifice, ritual incest, ritual prostitution, aggressive, unprovoked attacks against their international neighbors and other such actions, while the innocent had already been given plenty of time to leave.

For a much better explanation of this issue, I think this article does an excellent job, and provides external sources for the archaeological and historical information. I would highly recommend you take a look at it, Lazy.
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
On a different note, Ranior, or anyone else who shares his position for that matter, if you don’t mind me asking a few clarifying positions about your position? Does moral behavior merely mean avoiding actions that cause suffering? Or do we have a moral obligation to actively take actions to minimize the suffering of others when and where we can?

Last edited by Anonymous; January 31st, 2014 at 04:29 PM.
  #651  
Old January 31st, 2014, 12:31 PM
Ranior's Avatar
Ranior Ranior is offline
#1 CoN Player & Charos Cultist innocently oiling another man
 
Join Date: January 9, 2009
Location: USA-WI-Madison
Posts: 8,437
Images: 14
Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun Ranior is a penguin with a machine gun
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldin View Post
So Ranior... it sickens you when a child proclaims a love of science because a teacher taught them to love science? That seems weird coming from you, but I guess it's good to know...

~Aldin, wondering what the list of acceptable things for kids to believe without the intellectual rigor to understand them is in Ranior's mind
It depends on how it happened.

I might not have stated things with the clarity I had hoped, so let me try and explain. I am not a fan of indoctrinating kids.

If a teacher was to tell a child that science is the best subject and that he must believe in it or bad things will occur, and enoucraged him to constantly recite scientific ideas and then the child "happened" to "love" science, that would be despicable. The choice was removed from the child, they never had the true option to follow what they would have chosen themsevles. They were indoctrinated into believing something.

However teachers rarely work like that. They teach a lot about the world, and present their side of things--without threats that the child will be punished if they don't listen, and without being taught that they have to love the subject.

On the other hand, as a child I never had a choice about religion. I was raised as a Lutheran. I never got to select which religion I wanted to learn about, and never got to learn about any others. I was repeadetly told that I had to love and trust god and pray to him for forgivness for the sins I had committed/been born with. I never got to choose where to go, or when to go, but I repreadetly had to. (Now schools also work like this, but again a school is teaching, not indoctrinating, or at least it shouldn't be). Now not all children are brought up this way, and surely not all children who profess religious belief were indoctrinated into it. But I surely cannot thing of anything in this world that uses indoctrination quite so much as religion, and I can't think of any group of individuals more indoctrinated into a belief than children.

There is a significant difference about forcing your beliefs upon others, or instead teaching an individual about what you believe and letting them choose. I loathe the former but am for the latter.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
On a different note, Ranior, or anyone else who shares his position for that matter, if you don’t mind me asking a few clarifying positions about your position? Does moral behavior merely mean avoiding actions that cause suffering? Or do we have a moral obligation to actively take actions to minimize the suffering of others when and where we can?
I think it is obligatory to not take actions that cause suffering, it is wrong to knowingly harm someone else, unless somehow in doing so you are causing less harm overall. (Self-defense, saving others lives by incapacitating a killer, etc.)

As for taking actions that help others...I tend to think is more morally praiseworthy but not obligatory. It's good to help others, and it's admirable to donate money to the less fortunate, but I'm not sure if it's mandatory or obligatory in my mind.

Then again, everytime I think about the suffering of those far away from me, such as the abject poverty many children live with and die with in Africa, I sometimes start to think that I have a moral obligation to send them any aid that I don't myself need to survive, as to not surely causes them more suffering than if I would. I struggle with answering those exact questions of what should I do, what am I required to do, what is best to do, etc all the time. I do not and will not claim to have the answers to what is best to do in every situation. I know the guiding principles I go by, and I think generally it is the moral guidlines that most of us are guided by. I personally I am still figuring out where those guidelines take me in different situations in life.

Ranior is DJ Khosumet the current and hopefully future Dark Lord...
in THE FRACTAL COMPLEX
  #652  
Old January 31st, 2014, 12:59 PM
Aldin's Avatar
Aldin Aldin is offline
Site Admin & Professional SideBoarder
 
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: TN - Nashville
Posts: 13,547
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 4
Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer
Re: Any other childfree people here?

I hate to say it Ranior, but I think the line you are drawing between teaching and indoctrination is pretty blurry. Most kids spend more time at school than at church. Heck, most kids spend more time learning at school than they spend learning at home. It's pretty hard for parents to subject kids to 20 some odd hours of training per week in addition to school.

School has punishments when you don't repeat the answers they want to hear, and rewards those who excel on various areas publicly in front of the other attendees. You are required to sit and be politely attentive, regardless of whether or not you agree - and again, there are punishments if you don't. If you skip a day - punishment.

Did you have a choice about whether or not to learn English? Math? Science? Not really, certainly not in any significant way while you were young. I'm having a difficult time divining how you determine what is teaching and what is indoctrination.

~Aldin, who actually is pretty sure he knows how you draw the line but isn't sure you do

He either fears his fate too much
or his desserts are small
That dares not put it to the touch
to gain or lose it all
~James Graham
  #653  
Old January 31st, 2014, 02:00 PM
Anonymous's Avatar
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
 
Join Date: November 9, 2008
Location: USA - SD - Hot Springs
Posts: 442
Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby! Anonymous rolls all skulls baby!
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranior
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
On a different note, Ranior, or anyone else who shares his position for that matter, if you don’t mind me asking a few clarifying positions about your position? Does moral behavior merely mean avoiding actions that cause suffering? Or do we have a moral obligation to actively take actions to minimize the suffering of others when and where we can?
I think it is obligatory to not take actions that cause suffering, it is wrong to knowingly harm someone else, unless somehow in doing so you are causing less harm overall. (Self-defense, saving others lives by incapacitating a killer, etc.)

As for taking actions that help others...I tend to think is more morally praiseworthy but not obligatory. It's good to help others, and it's admirable to donate money to the less fortunate, but I'm not sure if it's mandatory or obligatory in my mind.

Then again, everytime I think about the suffering of those far away from me, such as the abject poverty many children live with and die with in Africa, I sometimes start to think that I have a moral obligation to send them any aid that I don't myself need to survive, as to not surely causes them more suffering than if I would. I struggle with answering those exact questions of what should I do, what am I required to do, what is best to do, etc all the time. I do not and will not claim to have the answers to what is best to do in every situation. I know the guiding principles I go by, and I think generally it is the moral guidlines that most of us are guided by. I personally I am still figuring out where those guidelines take me in different situations in life.
That sounds pretty close to a form of negative utilitarianism, to use the philosophical term. Some utilitarians view the maximization of pleasure or happiness as a moral good and weigh it against the minimization of pain. Negative utilitarians merely focus on the minimization of pain, or to use your term, which I agree is a fuller, richer word, suffering. I don't want to assume what your view is here. Do you think that the maximization of pleasure (or happiness) is a moral good and should be factored into moral decisions? Or do you think the moral focus should only be predicated on the minimization of suffering?
  #654  
Old January 31st, 2014, 02:44 PM
Tornado's Avatar
Tornado Tornado is offline
Fan Fiction Prompt Master
 
Join Date: August 11, 2010
Location: USA - MI - Kalamazoo
Posts: 35,169
Images: 398
Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldin View Post

Asking me about the American Indians is interesting, but how could I possibly know? I could ask you if the American Indians deserved an afterlife. The question is so broad as to be unanswerable even if you knew each and every American Indian throughout the course of history. Since neither of us claims that type of knowledge, how can either of us know?
I will put it another way. Do you believe every single American Indian that ever lived before the Bible was brought to the Americas deserved eternal damnation for not knowing of the existence of Jesus?
I believe many had an enviable relationship with nature and their version of God. It seems strange that they were left out of Enlightenment for so long.
Why did God create humans and then choose to save such a small part of the population? We are His creations, if we are flawed, that is by design but we are punished because we were made this way?
Indians were all deemed unworthy simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Thank you for your time and insight.


Does anyone here watch Wretched hosted by Todd Friel?

A cloud can change its semblance, yet retain its will
With the intimacy of destruction, One knows what it is to be alive
The empty sky holds no reflection, for sorrow
- Eslo Rudkey
  #655  
Old January 31st, 2014, 02:46 PM
caps's Avatar
caps caps is offline
My six-year-old sister-in-law calls the shots
 
Join Date: October 6, 2010
Location: USA - CO - Denver area
Posts: 16,674
Images: 352
caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth caps is a man of the cloth
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldin View Post

Asking me about the American Indians is interesting, but how could I possibly know? I could ask you if the American Indians deserved an afterlife. The question is so broad as to be unanswerable even if you knew each and every American Indian throughout the course of history. Since neither of us claims that type of knowledge, how can either of us know?
I will put it another way. Do you believe every single American Indian that ever lived before the Bible was brought to the Americas deserved eternal damnation for not knowing of the existence of Jesus?
I believe many had an enviable relationship with nature and their version of God. It seems strange that they were left out of Enlightenment for so long.
Why did God create humans and then choose to save such a small part of the population? We are His creations, if we are flawed, that is by design but we are punished because we were made this way?
Indians were all deemed unworthy simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Thank you for your time and insight.


Does anyone here watch Wretched hosted by Todd Friel?
My take has been that the Bible doesn't explicitly address that. I believe that God is Good and He is Just, and that He will do what is Good and Just for people who have not heard of Him, whatever that may be.

Formerly known as capsocrates
--
Remixed Master Sets - challenge yourself with new terrain combinations!
--
Colorado Fall 2023 Multiplayer Madness
--
caps's Customs Redux - caps's multiplayer maps - caps's maps - Seagate

--
Continuing Classic Heroscape: C3V SoV
  #656  
Old January 31st, 2014, 02:52 PM
Tornado's Avatar
Tornado Tornado is offline
Fan Fiction Prompt Master
 
Join Date: August 11, 2010
Location: USA - MI - Kalamazoo
Posts: 35,169
Images: 398
Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth
Re: Any other childfree people here?

I would like to believe that too, cap.

Not all seem to agree with that notion.

A cloud can change its semblance, yet retain its will
With the intimacy of destruction, One knows what it is to be alive
The empty sky holds no reflection, for sorrow
- Eslo Rudkey
  #657  
Old January 31st, 2014, 04:01 PM
Aldin's Avatar
Aldin Aldin is offline
Site Admin & Professional SideBoarder
 
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: TN - Nashville
Posts: 13,547
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 4
Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
I will put it another way. Do you believe every single American Indian that ever lived before the Bible was brought to the Americas deserved eternal damnation for not knowing of the existence of Jesus?
I've kinda answered this, but let me state it more broadly. The only redemptive act in the Bible was Jesus' perfect life, death on the cross and subsequent resurrection and ascension circa 30AD or so. That redemption must apply to everyone who will be in Heaven. Since many people who will be in Heaven died before 30AD, it must be possible to be redeemed by Jesus without ever having heard of Jesus.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that redemption through Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God. My interpretation of this is that those who earnestly seek to know God can find Him and be reconciled to Him without knowing Jesus' name. At the same time, if they were introduced to Jesus, they would instantly recognize Him as their redeemer. So anyone who rejects Jesus would not have some other method of being reconciled to God.

~Aldin, wondering if we're going to end up discussing the nature of time

He either fears his fate too much
or his desserts are small
That dares not put it to the touch
to gain or lose it all
~James Graham
  #658  
Old January 31st, 2014, 04:16 PM
Tornado's Avatar
Tornado Tornado is offline
Fan Fiction Prompt Master
 
Join Date: August 11, 2010
Location: USA - MI - Kalamazoo
Posts: 35,169
Images: 398
Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth Tornado is a man of the cloth
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Thank you.

So if you can go to Heaven without ever knowing of Jesus, why do we need Christianity?

I will refer back to American Indians. If they were indeed going to Heaven before the knowledge of the Bible, were they better off knowing of it? Countless numbers of Indians who would have been saved are now damned because someone brought knowledge of the Bible to their people and they chose not to accept it, something they were already doing beforehand.

This feels wrong to me. How can you be living a Heaven worthy life, change nothing and go to Hell?

A cloud can change its semblance, yet retain its will
With the intimacy of destruction, One knows what it is to be alive
The empty sky holds no reflection, for sorrow
- Eslo Rudkey
  #659  
Old January 31st, 2014, 04:28 PM
Aldin's Avatar
Aldin Aldin is offline
Site Admin & Professional SideBoarder
 
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Location: TN - Nashville
Posts: 13,547
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 4
Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer Aldin is a wielder of the Ban Hammer
Re: Any other childfree people here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado View Post
How can you be living a Heaven worthy life, change nothing and go to Hell?
You can't. I tried to be very specific in that second paragraph. There is no such thing as a Heaven-worthy life. There is only a God seeking life. No one went to hell because they learned about Jesus.

Learning about Jesus only completes the story for the God seeker.

~Aldin, livingly

He either fears his fate too much
or his desserts are small
That dares not put it to the touch
to gain or lose it all
~James Graham
  #660  
Old January 31st, 2014, 04:31 PM
Crixus33's Avatar
Crixus33 Crixus33 is offline
Pssst...
 
Join Date: October 6, 2012
Location: USA - KY - Louisville
Posts: 1,199
Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness Crixus33 wears ripped pants of awesomeness
Re: Any other childfree people here?

@Ranior: What I have been told is that the morning-after-pill makes the lining of the uterus prone to rejecting the blastocyst from attaching itself, which I would consider abortion as the zygote/blastocyst was killed by artificial means. Note artificial, if the uterus naturally rejects the blastocysts that is a great sadness but not abortion because it was not purposefully induced. It is a miscarriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy Orang View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crixus33 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy Orang View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crixus33 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy Orang View Post
Please, please quit that job. That is one thing I cannot stand. You are filling children's minds with this before they are mature enough to make a choice, and what they learn at that age may well stay with them forever, especially if it's saying that they're all evil no matter what. Please, please wait until they're old enough to think rationally and not just believe every word they're spoon-fed.
So, you would wish that we stop teaching children about God. Okay, but how is that not imposing your beliefs on ours? You don't want us to spread our religion to others even though our religion expressly tells us to evangelize to all people? That seems a little harsh seeing that we already shouldn't voice our opinions against certain societal issues (such as you have expressed) about homosexuality or the New York Times (trying to find a link, but I have seen it in the actual paper entitled: Take the Politics Out of Abortion) saying we shouldn't voice our opinion about abortion but that we can't even so much as speak about God. How is that not imposing atheist/agnostic beliefs on Christians or any other religious group (Islam/Judaism/Hindu/Buddhism/etc.) of people? Not to mention White Knight only mentioned youth, which could mean (generally when applied to youth groups) 5-18, usually for those 10-16. I consider most people 13 or up able to make a choice for his/herself about religion and would argue even that a 10 year could.
I'm not forcing my views on you, I'm merely logically debating my views - I don't have an issue with Christians doing that with people who are interested. I do have an issue with Christians going out of their way to try to convert people (think Jehovah's Witnesses), and I especially have a problem with parents and the clergy grooming children who are too young to think logically about it for themselves to be Christian. Young children's minds are undeveloped and inherently trusting - you should wait until they're old enough to think for themselves to bring this up, and then as a debate rather than going on a mission to convert them. You mention 13 year olds and 10 year olds? These aren't the ages that are indoctrinated - children are indoctrinated slowly and incipiently from the cradle, and that can have a massive impact on them and stifle their free thought. Children should not be raised to follow any specific religion or lack of it - they should be allowed to choose when they're old enough.
I meant if it were to be we couldn't teach our faith to children wouldn't that be imposing someone else's beliefs on any religion. And you can't say children should be raised without any specific religion or lack of it. If you raise a child without telling them about a god then that is being raised in a setting in a lack of religion. So you do have a problem with us practicing our faith, that is a key component to our religion, spreading so everyone can hear. How could anyone be interested in our faith if we didn't make our religion public knowledge? They wouldn't know our religion existed if we couldn't talk about it to others.

I don't have a problem with you making your religion public knowledge, but I do have a problem with you imposing it on people, which is what canvassing from people such as the Jehovah's Witnesses does, and I especially have a problem with the indoctrination of children as that basically effects their free will and ability to think adversely. If your religion requires you foisting your views on a child who trusts you and is too young to think critically about it, then yes, I have a problem with it. I also never said raise them without mentioning a God - mentioning different religions is fine, even mentioning what you believe is fine, but don't try to force them into accepting your beliefs.
We do not force them into accepting our beliefs at Catholic (and I assume Christian) schools. There are plenty of kids that I have known that were atheist or Baptist that went with me to my high school and elementary/middle school. None accepted Catholicism other than one girl and her older sister (they were Baptist I think), this was in high school so I would say they were old enough to make the choice. You give to little credit to children, there have been plenty of children raised their whole life in Catholic schools that flat out rejected the faith. I teach second grade aged children about God, many are sent there by their parents and a few are vocal in class as what they don't believe as true in the Bible. I only provide them information and so did my schools when I was growing up. Now when you say they force us to recite prayers/lists I'm not sure what you mean. They do make sure when we were going to make a sacrament prepare us for them and yes it did require some memorization so that we could participate in the ceremony, but I wasn't forced to make the sacraments. In fact our teachers advocated to us, especially at Confirmation (where you say for yourself I am a Catholic), don't do it if your not ready, if you want to wait or even not sure you ever will you didn't have to be Confirmed. And our religion does not require us to force our views on our children, it does force us to tell them about it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also I think I may have come to a personal revelation as to maybe (again maybe and this is only my point of view) as to why God would be against homosexuality. And it starts with abortion. LazyO (or anyone who is agnostic/atheist) can you at least understand why some people are against abortion without bringing religion into the equation? Why some people would be opposed to killing any human life based on morals/logic? As abortion is the ending of a human's life and that some people don't want any human life to be killed regardless of sentience/consciousness. Can you see why people view it as compassionate to respect even the most helpless of life?
I can understand that, yes - I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Basically, what it comes down to is whether you respect sentience or life in general - I respect the first more since it is the life that can feel, and so I believe that until the baby can feel (I don't know when that is so I can't really determine when it should or shouldn't be done) the mother has more rights. Also, if you just respect life, then oh, those poor micro-organisms!
I really don't understand how that equated to homosexuality, though...
I'll be getting there. So now that you can understand that viewpoint lets talk about pre-marital sex. So you can understand why someone would be against abortion so logically it would make sense for someone who is against abortion to prevent cases where abortion may arise such as an unwanted pregnancy. Agreed. Unwanted pregnancies most commonly occur during sex outside of two people married to each other, such as fornication, adultery, and pre-marital sex. Agreed We don't want unwanted pregnancies because these lead to the unnecessary abortions we want to prevent. Agreed - even though I'm not against abortion, I agree it's something that you should try to avoid. So wouldn't it be logical to just say people shouldn't engage in actions that leave them predisposed to having an unwanted pregnancy? You could argue they should use protection, well some forms of contraception kill the embryo such as the morning after pill which is still basically abortion, and as far as I'm aware no protection is perfect so an unwanted pregnancy could occur. Does that make logical sense to you? Back in the days of the Israelites, then yes, that would make sense, but if that's where the law comes from, then it is one of the ones that's outdated now. There are plenty of forms of contraception that don't kill an embryo. The condom is probably the perfect one - if it doesn't break, there's no chance of impregnating the woman and it doesn't kill the fetus. So, if that's where the law comes from, then the Church should actively encourage the use of condoms if you do not want children. It doesn't - in fact, the Pope considers it the work of the devil, and his teachings actively influence the spread of AIDs in Africa.
[/quote][/QUOTE]
Well I'm arguing to your logic so I can't use why the Church is against contraception for other reasons, because they require you to believe in God which does not pertain to your logic. I'm trying to see if I can argue this with the assumption God is not real, we'll see if I can. Again no protection is perfect not to mention other reasons as to why people don't use it (its too much effort, I prefer unprotected sex, I forgot it and didn't expect to get lucky tonight, I'm drunk/buzzed/inebriated and don't remember to use it, etc.) My question is can you see why people would be against pre-marital sex, logically, so as to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? We are only right now discussing pre-marital sex, fornication, what have you, without contraception or either participating party lacking genitalia.

"Hello my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."~Inigo Montoya.


Pssst...

Last edited by Crixus33; January 31st, 2014 at 05:55 PM. Reason: tried to fix multiquotes
Closed Thread

Go Back   Heroscapers > Off-Topic > General
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hi there people ! Objebrork General 2 November 5th, 2010 11:35 AM
Is Q9 really as bad as people say? Archkyrie11 HeroScape General Discussion 42 July 24th, 2009 10:36 AM
Will people buy??? chief Custom Units & Army Cards 10 December 9th, 2008 01:57 PM
Shouldn't you People be in bed? Nwojedi General 29 July 27th, 2007 04:43 AM
Eww...i can't believe people eat this! K/H_Addict General 9 July 3rd, 2007 10:13 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Heroscape background footer

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.