Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

Zillah

What percentage of bear attacks do you think would leave injuries that a doctor would describe as "scratches"?

JC 2K3

I never knew that the relative strength of a bear could so so important in theological discussion....

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

What percentage of bear attacks do you think would leave injuries that a doctor would describe as "scratches"?

Why, has a doctor been participating in this discussion?

I used the phrase 'scratched and bleeding', which would be consistent with the majority of non-fatal bear attacks. We're talking bears here, not Great White Sharks. According to a Journalism Professor, "Most of the bear attacks that are a result of people getting too close are pretty minor, such as bites and scratches," http://tnjn.com/2008/dec/02/ut-professors-discuss-why-bear/

You guys are funny - trying, and failing yet again, to present this as a mass slaughter by two turbo-charged killer ninja bears.

Zombrex

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I never knew that the relative strength of a bear could so so important in theological discussion....

It is when the bear (two actually) is used by God to punish children

PDN's excuse why this wasn't as bad as it seems was that the children probably got away with "scratches". God is all about the love after all. This ignores the fact that the bears were sent to maul the children, and the only way you survive a bear attack is if the bear is chased away. If the bear isn't going to be chased way by 40 screaming children the odds of the children surviving the attack are pretty slim.

But sure Jakkass is arguing that slavery is proper, Wolfsbane was recently arguing that genocide is ok, PDN arguing that a bear mauling a bunch of kids is fine is hardly the worse things in the world.

philologos

Actually Wicknight, the term used in the Hebrew is actually "youths" which lie anywhere between teenagers and young men. Just to clarify that "children" isn't the most accurate view of the passage.

Zillah

Ha, you know what I just realised? the quote is,

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

So...there were more than 42 of them, 42 is merely the amount of them that the bears managed to get! So it is in fact the bible that presents them as turbo-charged ninja bears, leaping from victim to victim, snatching them as they fled.

So, er, assuming that the damage done to the children is typical for bear attacks, do you consider bear attacks to be an appropriate punishment for young people who mock their elders?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Wicknight, the term used in the Hebrew is actually "youths" which lie anywhere between teenagers and young men. Just to clarify that "children" isn't the most accurate view of the passage.

You guys really come up with the silliest things to justify this stuff.

Two bears maul 42 12 year olds = Bad

Two bears maul 42 13 year olds = Good

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Why, has a doctor been participating in this discussion?

I used the phrase 'scratched and bleeding', which would be consistent with the majority of non-fatal bear attacks. We're talking bears here, not Great White Sharks. According to a Journalism Professor, "Most of the bear attacks that are a result of people getting too close are pretty minor, such as bites and scratches," http://tnjn.com/2008/dec/02/ut-professors-discuss-why-bear/

You guys are funny - trying, and failing yet again, to present this as a mass slaughter by two turbo-charged killer ninja bears.

Depending on the type of bear here now, a polar,brown or grizzley bear is equally if not more formidable than a great white shark. Polar bears have even been known to attack whales!! Black bears are smaller and less dangerous to humans( but are more likely to kill humans for food than the more dangerous grizzley). The area in the article you linked to would most likely be home to only black bears, they tend to run away from humans so scratched and bleeding is fair enough, in the case of a grizzley,brown or polar bear a scratch would most likely require reconstructive surgery. Since the story you guys are on about took place in,i'm guessing, the bible, implying isreal, i dont think theres any bears native to that area. The closest would be the asiatic black bear or the brown bear, if god wanted to smite someone he most likely would have used the brown bear as its bigger and would mutilate children more effectively.

robindch

This discussion reminds me of that bit from Bill Maher's Religulous where he asked some guy if he believes that Jonah lived inside a whale for three days. So the guy laughs and says, "You know, the bible doesn't say that it was a while, but a large fish instead!" and giggles so much that he quite forgets to say exactly what he believes.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Ha, you know what I just realised? the quote is,



So...there were more than 42 of them, 42 is merely the amount of them that the bears managed to get! So it is in fact the bible that presents them as turbo-charged ninja bears, leaping from victim to victim, snatching them as they fled.

So, er, assuming that the damage done to the children is typical for bear attacks, do you consider bear attacks to be an appropriate punishment for young people who mock their elders?

So there were more than 42 of these youths ganging up on one old man. How many more? 10? 100?

How many would it have to be before you realise the little ****s got what they deserved by getting scratched by bears?

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

So there were more than 42 of these youths ganging up on one old man. How many more? 10? 100?

How many would it have to be before you realise the little ****s got what they deserved by getting scratched by bears?

Now now, we had agreed on "torn" and "mauled". The answer is infinite. There could be a billion young people calling an old man bald and I don't think they deserve to be attacked by bears.

Please answer this yes/no question:
Do you believe that being attacked by bears (assuming they are typical bear attacks, not supernaturally made more or less dangerous) is an appropriate punishment for young people who shout disrespectful things at their elders?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Now now, we had agreed on "torn" and "mauled". The answer is infinite. There could be a billion young people calling an old man bald and I don't think they deserve to be attacked by bears.

Please answer this yes/no question:
Do you believe that being attacked by bears (assuming they are typical bear attacks, not supernaturally made more or less dangerous) is an appropriate punishment for young people who shout disrespectful things at their elders?

For a gang of them intimidating an old man - absolutely! A few such bears in Drimnagh would clean the area up wonderfully. The little ****s would be too terrified to go stabbing anyone in the head with screwdrivers.

Zillah

I like how you subtly equated making fun of a bald man with stabbing people in the head with screwdrivers. That was sly of you.

I think you're just bitter about being attacked when you were younger or something, you're not sounding very reasonable right now. I bet you've visualised it being that gang of youths being attacked by bears?

The little ****s.

Mickeroo

Funniest. Discussion. Ever.

Calibos

[Our Lord Elvis]
They're caught in a trap...woo..oooooh
They can't get out...woo..ooooh
They try and defend....... the indefensible...da..dada...da dada da da
[/Our Lord Elvis]

I swear to God, if I meet one of you guys in the street on the sabbath and I see you wearing clothes of mixed fibers or I see your kids are disobeying you, well, you're all getting a brick to the back of the head.

PDN

Calibos wrote: »

[Our Lord Elvis]
They're caught in a trap...woo..oooooh
They can't get out...woo..ooooh
They try and defend....... the indefensible...da..dada...da dada da da
[/Our Lord Elvis]

I swear to God, if I meet one of you guys in the street on the sabbath and I see you wearing clothes of mixed fibers or I see your kids are disobeying you, well, you're all getting a brick to the back of the head.

While you're quoting out of context don't forget to hit us if we haven't been circumcised. :rolleyes:

Zillah

I don't like your tone Calibos. Let's lock him in a room with a bear PDN, it's the right thing to do. Apparently.

Loxosceles

I am an atheist and a humanist and have been for a long time. But the protestant morality I grew up with was never lost. After years of various rebellions and spiritual poking about, I discovered that I had tossed out all the rubbish and kept the good bits. I like the fact that I can have morality on a practical level and not have any superstitions that supposedly back up said morality.

Because, when it comes down to it, I believe in easy divorce, family planning and openly dating. The relationships are stronger, the children are wanted and sexuality is not denied or closeted. I like communication too. But yet at the same time, I believe sex without love is immoral and any use of prostitution is dangerous to public health and denigrating the power and right of women.

My morality completely works elsewhere on a similar national level, in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and GB, and is inclusive of trusting, loving, moral, monogamous, devoted relationships, and in many ways my own strong morality is much more conservative than that of practicing Catholics.

But many religious people seem willing to insist that my views are the foundation for society falling apart at the seams, when the opposite is actually the intended effect.

lox.

Zillah

You didn't even mention bears Loxosceles.

Goduznt Xzst

Mickeroo wrote: »

Funniest. Discussion. Ever.

agreed I actually see this argument coming into the discussion at some point :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFO7Wo7ZCE

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

For a gang of them intimidating an old man - absolutely!

Wtf? Are you for real? Bear maulings are a morally justified response to disrespecting your elders?

Actually, I'm not that surprised since you are basing your moral compass on the bible, a book that condones child sacrifice. (Judges 11:29-11:40, for one of many examples)

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

Leaving aside the slavery aspect for a moment (and surely any post on morals in the bible that has to begin with that statement is an indictment in itself), is it morally ok to "put to death" someone for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)?

At that time yes, it would have been.

Romans 1:32 wrote:

They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die - yet they not only do them but even applaud those who do them

Romans 6:23 wrote:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Long story short, if we had lived in ancient Israel during the Torah times, yes our sins would have been deserving of death. However, because Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins, and that we have all been forgiven through him, what right do we have to condemn, judge, and punish others for their sins. We as Christians have availed of the free gift of God's salvation:

From a passage I was reading yesterday:

1 Corinthians 4:7-8 wrote:

For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

Ephesians 2:8 wrote:

For by grave you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

Romans 6:14 wrote:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace

If we have been forgiven by God for our iniquities through Jesus Christ, who are we to punish anyone anymore?

There's an entire parable concerning this in the Gospel of Matthew. (Matthew 18:23-35). So no, Christians can't punish by death, which is something they believe themselves to be saved by for forgiveness. However, we are deserving of death for our sins.

With an example of the Israelites stoning to death someone found gathering wood in a forest on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)

And where's the morality in this:

Naz_st wrote: »

If a man rapes a woman in a rural setting then he is to pay her father and marry the woman as his punishment, Deuteronomy 22:28. (it's different rules in the city, as in a city if the woman doesn't scream loud enough then it's her fault too and she is to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:23).

Actually Deuteronomy 22:28 doesn't describe rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28 wrote:

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act.

This link deals with it rather well.

Again, Deuteronomy 22:23 doesn't deal with rape. Infact the punishment for rape was taken rather seriously in Jewish times if you look to the incident of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 19 - 20. This was considered unacceptable in the eyes of the Jewish people. Likewise an incident in the book of Genesis provokes the anger of Jacobs sons in Genesis 34. One more incident of rape of King David's daughter by his son provokes David's son Absalom to anger 2 Samuel 13. It's clear that this was considered to be grossly immoral by the Jewish people.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

Naz_st wrote: »

And of course, children should be put to death for swearing at their parents (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18—21, Mark 7:9—13, and Matthew 15:4—7)

Under the law yes, under grace no. The moral laws of the Old Testament apply, however the penalties are no longer what they were due to the understanding of the Crucifixion. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins so that we could have a second chance at life, to live abundantly for Him (John 10:10).

Naz_st wrote: »

That's not to mention the genocide, human sacrifice and misogyny that is throughout. The notion that the bible is a guide to morality is at best laughable, but mostly delusional.

Are you speaking of the crucifixion when you talk of human sacrifice or are you talking of Abraham and Isaac, which was to make a point that human sacrifice amongst the Israelites would not be acceptable.

The notion that the Bible is a guide to morality is actually rather strong if you understand how Christians read the text first. If you actually read the New Testament you will see how Christians understand the Torah. Good rule of thumb to practice first before making inaccurate points about said understanding.

Take a read of the Proverbs, the Gospels and the New Testament Epistles as well as just casually judging the Torah and then tell me that it isn't a good guide of morality.

Naz_st wrote: »

Who did Adam and Eve's children procreate with?

The Bible doesn't mention. So nowhere in the text itself is incest encouraged, particularly for us today.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

agreed I actually see this argument coming into the discussion at some point :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFO7Wo7ZCE

Self-fulfilling propehcy?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

At that time yes, it would have been.

Ok, this is getting really <edit>coitally</edit> disturbing. In the last couple of days we've had two Christians confess that they believe it is/was morally correct to:

- Have young people mauled by bears for insulting someone
- Execute people for working on Sunday

You people are terrifyingly warped and only reinforce my belief that getting your morals from an ancient book is indeed an bloody stupid idea.

Any other monstrous draconian measures you'd like to advocate?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Originally Posted by Naz_st
Leaving aside the slavery aspect for a moment (and surely any post on morals in the bible that has to begin with that statement is an indictment in itself), is it morally ok to "put to death" someone for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)?
At that time yes, it would have been.
Long story short, if we had lived in ancient Israel during the Torah times, yes our sins would have been deserving of death. However, because Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins, and that we have all been forgiven through him, what right do we have to condemn, judge, and punish others for their sins. We as Christians have availed of the free gift of God's salvation:

Jakkass wrote: »

If we have been forgiven by God for our iniquities through Jesus Christ, who are we to punish anyone anymore?

Jakkass wrote: »

Originally Posted by Naz_st
And of course, children should be put to death for swearing at their parents (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18—21, Mark 7:9—13, and Matthew 15:4—7)
Under the law yes, under grace no. The moral laws of the Old Testament apply, however the penalties are no longer what they were due to the understanding of the Crucifixion. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins so that we could have a second chance at life, to live abundantly for Him (John 10:10).

This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that Jesus' crucifiction forgives all future sins as well as the past ones, and so we no longer need to punish for them. If this applies to 2 of the commandments (working on the sabbath and respecting your parents) then surely it applies to the rest. Is it no longer a sin to steal or kill etc because even if you do its automatically forgiven because of the crucifiction? Or is it a case of the sin still exists, but because of the crucifiction we shouldn't punish someone who kills or steals etc because they already have forgiveness from god? Should all the christian prisoners in jail be released because they have already been forgiven? And what about other, non commandment sins? Are we automatically forgiven for rape? Or violence? Or not believing in God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Deuteronomy 22:28 doesn't describe rape.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:28
If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act.

I'm curious as to what exactly you think deuteronomy means when it says "seizes her"?

Tim_Murphy

This thread has been a bit of an eye-opener for sure. It’s amazing how far people can go to justify and rationalise their beliefs. Nutters are nutters, religious or otherwise, but it’s crazy to see what apparently ‘normal’ or ‘moderate’ religious people can justify if their beliefs of choice require them to.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Ok, this is getting really <edit>coitally</edit> disturbing. In the last couple of days we've had two Christians confess that they believe it is/was morally correct to:

- Have young people mauled by bears for insulting someone
- Execute people for working on Sunday

You people are terrifyingly warped and only reinforce my belief that getting your morals from an ancient book is indeed an bloody stupid idea.

Any other monstrous draconian measures you'd like to advocate?

Ah, cut out the drama.

I expressed my opinion on the rightness of a God (whom you believe to be an imaginary being) punishing a gang of young hoodlums in an event thousands of years ago that you probably don't believe actually happened.

If you were really consistent in your beliefs, or a real atheist, then this would be no more shocking to you than someone saying that they consider it morally OK that Santa Claus goes down people's chimneys on Christmas Eve.

To present this as "advocating a draconian measure" is even more scatological than your usual crap.

(And BTW, Jakkass was talking about a Saturday not a Sunday).

pH

PDN wrote: »

(And BTW, Jakkass was talking about a Saturday not a Sunday).

That just sums you up, unjustifiable beliefs backed up with tortured logic, yet you still believe you score some sort of debating point by being pedantic and pointing out stuff like that.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

I expressed my opinion on the rightness of a God (whom you believe to be an imaginary being) punishing a gang of young hoodlums in an event thousands of years ago that you probably don't believe actually happened.

If you were really consistent in your beliefs, or a real atheist, then this would be no more shocking to you than someone saying that they consider it morally OK that Santa Claus goes down people's chimneys on Christmas Eve.

No, I didn't ask you if you thought it was ok for God to do it, I asked the question in a more broad sense. I asked "Is a bear attack an appropriate punishment..." rather than "Is it appropriate for God to punish..." Are you saying there is a difference? If God sends bears to maul children for insulting someone important to him it's ok, but if I did it it's wrong?

To present this as "advocating a draconian measure" is even more scatological than your usual crap.

You're condoning bear attacks on young people as a form of martial punishment. You can't really get any more draconian than that.

(And BTW, Jakkass was talking about a Saturday not a Sunday).

Because that's the important part of the discussion...

Dades

PDN, I think 'draconian' is quite an apt word for the punishments under discussion.

And I have to believe you'd agree, were it not written in the bible as something God authorised.