Atheist Morality

[Skeeter]

Why does it have to be more complex than that?

Seriously?

There are no situations where one must commit murder to avoid stealing, or commit perjury to avoid sexual immorality.

Someones right to defend themself, loved ones, strangers, and property butts up against the requirement not to murder. The more complex understanding of morality includes consideration of reasonable force and rational retreat, for example.

There is the situation where an evil doer holds a loved one hostage and at great peril in order to compel someone to commit a crime or immoral actions. Do you think there is a simple answer to this?

Do not murder

Unless some tries to steal your computer from your home at night

steal

Unless your ex-wife has possession of what once was your golf clubs

commit adultery,

A gigantic problem with Bible morality is that the punishment is not gauged to the crime. What is the wisdom is there is killing two people who just voluntarily break a promise? This is an escalation of violence!!

bear false witness, or covet.

There is little practicality to making thoughts alone immoral. One of the most human things to do is covet. A little coveting is expected. It is moral not to dwell on it or turn it into action. It is foolish to try to bar inevitable thoughts and feelings.

On these five commandments are built the foundation of most modern legal systems.

The first two have some merit. But, look at what is missing. Do not enslave other humans. Do not treat women and children like mere property. Do not abuse children. Central issues are absent and marginal issues are included in the Ten Commandments. Supporting a patriarch seems more important than morality.

And everyone knew stealing and killing are wrong without the commandments telling them. It is included i every legal system beore the Bible was written and is included independently in systems after it. There is evidence that humans know this inanely ( besides sociopaths).

Your knowledge of what constitutes which fallacy is poor, and if you did so, you would be incorrect.

Your use of logical fallacies is shallow and focused on gotcha moments. The list is presented to students at junior college to improve their position papers. That is a good use. At the graduate level there is a more thorough understanding of logic.

Your automatic poncing on stem words to identify a fallacy is nauseating. It is entirely appropriate to qualify conclusions with tentative statements of ownership rather than use absolute language. It seems to me that, my position is, I think, I believe, I do not believe all serve a very civil function in discussion and prevent the writer from coming of as if she believes she is the absolute arbiter of the matter. Your commentary on this kind of construction is always nonsensical.

An appeal to popularity relies on "how many people (population, popularity) believe it" to assert that something is correct.

If I were making the claim "because it has lasted 3500 years, therefore it's correct," that would be an appeal to tradition, not an appeal to popularity.

Technically true, but again misses the point that fallacy list are a heuristic device to help early learners. The fallacies overlap in meaning. Every appeal to tradition is also an appeal to popularity because traditions arise out popular practices over time.

I'm stating that the Bible is robust (as in, internally consistent, as you put it) enough to have lasted for 3500 years, despite errors creeping in, that it remains largely unaffected by such errors.

Something can be internally consistent and not last centuries. You are merging two concepts here, I think.

You asked me "Does it have reasonable internal consistency?" To which, I replied yes, it is robust enough to have lasted for 3500 years without much change.

Oh okay. I was referring to internally consistent within the work as a whole NOT over time.

In other words, it's both "emotions" AND "logical cogency."

I give the emotion manipulation factor much more weight than the insight it imparts as the reason for longevity.

The problem is that intentionally calling God using female terms goes against how He (yes, "He") describes Himself.

I thought you liberals were all about respecting people's pronouns. Guess not, eh?

Okay -- but when referring to a deity more generically to refer to many traditions at once, it should be fine to use other pronouns. Do you think there is something lessor about females?

Because the effect cannot be greater than the cause.

How does an atomic bomb work?

You and I as humans are persons, therefore the source of humans must be a person. We are living, therefore the source must be living. We can love, therefore the source must be loving. We can have relationships, therefore the source must be relational. We can be good, therefore the source must be good.

It does necessarily follow. All Artificial intelligence will be subject to its parameters no matter how good or evil the inventor. Evil could rise out of good because of unintended consequences.

 

[Right Divider]

How does an atomic bomb work?

Physics... do you have a problem with physics too?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Seriously?

You made the claim, I'm challenging it. So yes, seriously, Why does the basis for ethics have to be more complex than a child can understand?

The basis is: "Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do not covet."

Everything else follows from those.

Someones right to defend themself, loved ones, strangers, and property butts up against the requirement not to murder.

There is never a circumstance where one has to murder someone to defend themselves, et al.

The more complex understanding of morality includes consideration of reasonable force and rational retreat, for example.

Which wouldn't be the basis, now would it?

There is the situation where an evil doer holds a loved one hostage and at great peril in order to compel someone to commit a crime or immoral actions. Do you think there is a simple answer to this?

Yes.

You simply refuse to comply with his commands. If he kills the hostage, he is guilty of murder, and the other person is innocent. The same applies to terrorism: if a terrorist, say, takes over a plane, and takes control of the radio and demands a ransom on it, the terrorist's demands should be ignored, and the plane should be escorted to the nearest airport. Hopefully, the people on the plane can tie the terrorist up.

Unless some tries to steal your computer from your home at night

It is not murder to shoot an intruder in the dark, potentially killing him, where the possibility exists in the dark that he has a weapon to kill you or your loved ones with. One has the right to defend himself and those close to him in such a situation, up to and including killing someone upon escalation of force. It WOULD be murder if it was daytime, or in a well lit environment, if it is clear that the intruder does not have a weapon, but is only after your possessions, and you pull out your gun and shoot him dead despite him putting his hands up and backing towards the broken window he came through.

This is addressed in the Mosaic law, and is VERY clear.

Unless your ex-wife has possession of what once was your golf clubs

If it's no longer yours, as you posit, then you do not have the right to take it back. That would be theft.

A gigantic problem with Bible morality is that the punishment is not gauged to the crime.

Sure it is.

What is the wisdom is there is killing two people who just voluntarily break a promise?

It's not just a promise. It's a vow, between one man and one woman.

This is an escalation of violence!!

"Not gauged to the crime"? So destroying the bonds between a husband and wife, and ruining their children's lives as a result? How is that NOT worthy of the death penalty?

Jesus said that someone who causes a child to stumble, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and they be thrown into the sea with it.

There is little practicality to making thoughts alone immoral. One of the most human things to do is covet. A little coveting is expected. It is moral not to dwell on it or turn it into action. It is foolish to try to bar inevitable thoughts and feelings.

Coveting is not a crime (nor should it be). It IS, however, used to determine motive.

The first two have some merit. But, look at what is missing. Do not enslave other humans.

I asked you before, but which kind of slavery are you referring to, as there are multiple kinds of slavery?

Do not treat women and children like mere property.

You seem to think that treating a wife and her children as property of the husband is a bad thing. Why?

Do not abuse children.

Supra.

Central issues are absent and marginal issues are included in the Ten Commandments.

Such as?

Supporting a patriarch seems more important than morality.

Then you've missed the point.

And everyone knew stealing and killing are wrong without the commandments telling them.

Everyone inherently knows that murder is wrong, because it's written on everyone's hearts.

But it wasn't always a crime to murder. See below.

It is included in every legal system before the Bible was written and is included independently in systems after it.

The Bible was written over the course of about 1650 years, from Moses to John.

The reason every legal system has murder as a crime is because Noah, before Moses, and immediately after the flood, was given the command to put murderers to death.

There is evidence that humans know this innately (besides sociopaths).

I.e, "written on man's heart."

Something can be internally consistent and not last centuries.

Sure, but there aren't any books that were written by 40 different authors that are as internally consistent as the Bible is to compare it to.

I give the emotion manipulation factor much more weight than the insight it imparts as the reason for longevity.

You still haven't explained what it is you think is "emotionally manipulative" about the Bible...

Okay -- but when referring to a deity more generically to refer to many traditions at once, it should be fine to use other pronouns.

Except that we're not talking about "many traditions at once." We're talking about the Bible and God.

How does an atomic bomb work?

Similar to how a gun fires a bullet, releasing stored energy. There's a lot of stored energy inside of an atom.

Again, the effect cannot be greater than the cause.

It does necessarily follow.

Was this a typo on your part? Or are you actually agreeing with me?

All Artificial intelligence will be subject to its parameters no matter how good or evil the inventor.

Correct. Thus, "the effect cannot be greater than the cause."

Evil could rise out of good because of unintended consequences.

Only because there are more actors at play.

 

[Idolater]

Seriously?

You want morals to be complicated when they're not.

Someones right to defend themself, loved ones, strangers, and property butts up against the requirement not to murder.

No it doesn't. See below.

The more complex understanding of morality includes consideration of reasonable force and rational retreat, for example.

There is the situation where an evil doer holds a loved one hostage and at great peril in order to compel someone to commit a crime or immoral actions. Do you think there is a simple answer to this?

Yes: There's no wrong answer. The evil doer is entirely morally culpable for whatever you do. This is and should be obvious, only subtle and hidden for people like you who insist on imposing complexity where there is only putative simplicity.

Unless some tries to steal your computer from your home at night

AMR. Seriously? Murder? An illegal intruder comes into your home uninvited at night, you blow him away, and you call that murder? Dude.

Unless your ex-wife has possession of what once was your golf clubs


A gigantic problem with Bible morality is that the punishment is not gauged to the crime. What is the wisdom is there is killing two people who just voluntarily break a promise? This is an escalation of violence!!

Old Covenant, Old Testament, obsolescent. Straw man.

There is little practicality to making thoughts alone immoral. One of the most human things to do is covet. A little coveting is expected. It is moral not to dwell on it or turn it into action. It is foolish to try to bar inevitable thoughts and feelings.

Ethical declaration. Bald assertion. Begging the question.

We all have views.

The first two have some merit. But, look at what is missing. Do not enslave other humans. Do not treat women and children like mere property. Do not abuse children. Central issues are absent and marginal issues are included in the Ten Commandments. Supporting a patriarch seems more important than morality.

And everyone knew stealing and killing are wrong without the commandments telling them. It is included i every legal system beore the Bible was written and is included independently in systems after it. There is evidence that humans know this [innately(?)] ( besides sociopaths).

Thanks for supporting my American rights based absolute moral theory, and weakening your own utilitarianism.

Your use of logical fallacies is shallow and focused on gotcha moments. The list is presented to students at junior college to improve their position papers. That is a good use. At the graduate level there is a more thorough understanding of logic.

And no more thorough understanding of rhetoric.

Your automatic poncing on stem words to identify a fallacy is nauseating. It is entirely appropriate to qualify conclusions with tentative statements of ownership rather than use absolute language. It seems to me that, my position is, I think, I believe, I do not believe all serve a very civil function in discussion and prevent the writer from coming [off] as if she believes she is the absolute arbiter of the matter. Your commentary on this kind of construction is always nonsensical.

Technically true, but again misses the point that fallacy list are a heuristic device to help early learners.

And what helps the later learners, in your opinion? Once one advanced beyond the identification and eradication of all known logical fallacies; then what? In your opinion.

The fallacies overlap in meaning. Every appeal to tradition is also an appeal to popularity because traditions arise out popular practices over time.

There's a little truth in that, just a little, and you've exemplified a little bit of it, but largely no, the known and common fallacies are distinct from one another, that's why there's not just one logical fallacy. I mean . . . "Duh".

Something can be internally consistent and not last centuries. You are merging two concepts here, I think.

Oh okay. I was referring to internally consistent within the work as a whole NOT over time.



I give the emotion manipulation factor much more weight than the insight it imparts as the reason for longevity.

"Emotion manipulation" is easily defeated with the learning of and training in logical fallacies, just btw.

Okay -- but when referring to a deity more generically to refer to many traditions at once, it should be fine to use other pronouns. Do you think there is something lessor about females?

Do you? Thinking of the times you called me a girl.

How does an atomic bomb work?

It does necessarily follow. All Artificial intelligence will be subject to its parameters no matter how good or evil the inventor. Evil could rise out of good because of unintended consequences.

Your view on what constitutes evil is severely disfigured so this comment literally means nothing.

 

[Skeeter]

You made the claim, I'm challenging it. So yes, seriously, Why does the basis for ethics have to be more complex than a child can understand?

Because the application of simplistic notions leads to immoral results in a significant minority of situations.

The basis is: "Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do not covet."

Everything else follows from those.

There is never a circumstance where one has to murder someone to defend themselves, et al.

That's only because of circular reasoning. You define murder as bad killing and self-defense that results in death as good killing and not murder. This is a false dichotomy. Many translations of the commandments say thou shall not kill. It is better for humans to consider all killing of other humans as wrong but to varying degrees depending on the circumstances lest human life be marginalized, property be considered more valuable than human life, and homicide be viewed biasedly whereby killing an other is okay, but killing those in your circle is wrong.

You simply refuse to comply with his commands. If he kills the hostage, he is guilty of murder, and the other person is innocent.

If a drug addicted woman snatches a jewelry clerk's baby, and says just bring me that necklace worth $1000, she must refuse because she does not own the necklace? And, if she does, her hands should be removed? If she reported the incident as soon as reasonably possible after getting her baby back should would not be convicted of theft by US law --but God would judge her?? This is an example where simple absolute commands fails miserably. A dead baby and a saved necklace is the just result?

It is not murder to shoot an intruder in the dark, potentially killing him, where the possibility exists in the dark that he has a weapon to kill you or your loved ones with. One has the right to defend himself and those close to him in such a situation, up to and including killing someone upon escalation of force. It WOULD be murder if it was daytime, or in a well lit environment, if it is clear that the intruder does not have a weapon, but is only after your possessions, and you pull out your gun and shoot him dead despite him putting his hands up and backing towards the broken window he came through.

This is addressed in the Mosaic law, and is VERY clear.

Mistaken self-defense is a tragedy and not a just result. If someone comes into your apartment uninvited pushing through a cheap lock and you shoot him for fear he might hurt you, you think that is a just result even if he just entered the wrong apartment mistaking the floors? It was fine that you shot and asked questions later? You have no responsibility to try to assess the situation and/or potentially use less than lethal force?

Is it bloodlust and machismo or overvalue of property (trespass violation of home) that is being served here? Any moral system that cannot value human well being over property is flawed.

 

[marke]

Because the application of simplistic notions leads to immoral results in a significant minority of situations.
Is it bloodlust and machismo or overvalue of property (trespass violation of home) that is being served here? Any moral system that cannot value human well being over property is flawed.

God has given guidelines for good societies to follow. The death penalty for some crimes is the appropriate sentence for maintaining peace and security in any civilization. Killing in war is justified for reasons that are just, such as in fighting to free the slaves in America.

 

[Skeeter]

Golf Clubs
If it's no longer yours, as you posit, then you do not have the right to take it back. That would be theft.

But, you bought them before the marriage so they would be considered your property. Your ex-wife intentionally or mistakenly claimed they were bought after the marriage and the judge mistakenly considered them community property.

Scenario 2: What if you lent your neighbor the clubs and he says they are his now?

In either case there the clubs are visible in an open garage. Can you go get them?

It's not just a promise. It's a vow, between one man and one woman.

A promise and a vow are the about the same thing. Killing someone over a contract violation seems like a gross overreaction.

Side issue: Crimes of passion concerning infidelity are still given weight in the law. I think its foolish. If you kill your wife and her lover in the act, you should not get a lesser sentence.

"Not gauged to the crime"? So destroying the bonds between a husband and wife, and ruining their children's lives as a result? How is that NOT worthy of the death penalty?

Divorce causes a temporary unpheaval in a child's life quite universally but the long term effects vary. There are some poor outcomes. Many times the children are better off. The majority of the time there is net net difference in mental health outcomes.

So, no - killing people because there is a chance that children might be impacted negatively makes no sense.

Jesus said that someone who causes a child to stumble, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and they be thrown into the sea with it.

This is the kind of vague metaphor that is not clear enough to provide actual guidance.

Coveting is not a crime (nor should it be). It IS, however, used to determine motive.

True.

I asked you before, but which kind of slavery are you referring to, as there are multiple kinds of slavery?

ALL FORMS of slavery are immoral. Slavery based on race is even more egregious.

You seem to think that treating a wife and her children as property of the husband is a bad thing. Why?

Because they are human beings with their own identiies and autonomy.

Everyone inherently knows that murder is wrong, because it's written on everyone's hearts.

Okay. Why rewrite on a sti=one tablet as something special?

The Bible was written over the course of about 1650 years, from Moses to John.

The reason every legal system has murder as a crime is because Noah, before Moses, and immediately after the flood, was given the command to put murderers to death.

Every legal system? Doubtful. Chinese culture has such restriction without knowledge of a global flood.

Sure, but there aren't any books that were written by 40 different authors that are as internally consistent as the Bible is to compare it to.

The Bible is notoriously inconsistent. Just look at the accounts of finding Jesus was not in his tomb. Beside the minor detail conflicts -- One account has multiple people rising up out of their graves! How did the others miss that?

You still haven't explained what it is you think is "emotionally manipulative" about the Bible...

1) The threat of eternal damnation for temporary criminal behavior.
2) The Resurrection story - talk about a compelling twist. Soap operas also capitalize on this.
3) The sacrifice of a son taps into our innate familial ties and adds a level of importance
4) 87 virgins waiting for you taps into lust and excitement

Was this a typo on your part? Or are you actually agreeing with me?

Always assume a typo when we agree. LOL!

 

[Skeeter]

God has given guidelines for good societies to follow. The death penalty for some crimes is the appropriate sentence for maintaining peace and security in any civilization. Killing in war is justified for reasons that are just, such as in fighting to free the slaves in America.

When similar ends can be achieved without violence and mayhem, the violence and mayhem perpetrated is evil. Think Russia.

 

[marke]

When similar ends can be achieved without violence and mayhem, the violence and mayhem perpetrated is evil. Think Russia.

Wars started by evil men for evil purposes require good men to engage to defend innocent people and defend what is good and right. Killing is unavoidable in wars fought to restore, maintain, or establish what is right against wrongdoers.

Likewise, the death penalty should be a standard rule in civilized societies to maintain law and order and to deter violent crimes against innocent people.

 

[The Phoenix]

When similar ends can be achieved without violence and mayhem, the violence and mayhem perpetrated is evil. Think Russia.

Really? The government could have paid all the slave owners for their slaves, then subsidized the machinery necessary to do the work of slaves, then ended slavery, without a Civil War. What do you think of that.

 

[The Phoenix]

When similar ends can be achieved without violence and mayhem, the violence and mayhem perpetrated is evil. Think Russia.

Who says that violence and mayhem is bad? You? After all, if there is no God with the ultimate say in RIGHT and WRONG, then man decides what is right and wrong. So Who says that violence and mayhem is bad?

And by the way, Hitler did nothing wrong, nothing at all. After all, if there is no God with the ultimate say in RIGHT and WRONG, then man decides what is right and wrong, and Germany passed laws that said Jews could be killed and it was legal and therefore it was all good. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Right?

That is you position, right?

 

[JudgeRightly]

But, you bought them before the marriage so they would be considered your property.

Then it's a good idea not to get a divorce.

Scenario 2: What if you lent your neighbor the clubs and he says they are his now?

Then that's called theft, and you should bring the matter before a judge.

In either case there the clubs are visible in an open garage. Can you go get them?

In scenario 1? NO.

In scenario 2? Yes, but the matter should still be brought before a judge to punish the thief.

A promise and a vow are the about the same thing. Killing someone over a contract violation seems like a gross overreaction.

Your views on the importance of faithfulness within a marriage are showing.

Allowing adultery promotes sexual immorality, not just between a spouse and an adulterer/ess, but outside of marriage as well. It does harm to society.

Side issue: Crimes of passion concerning infidelity are still given weight in the law. I think its foolish. If you kill your wife and her lover in the act, you should not get a lesser sentence.

Allowing sexual immorality, or even not punishing it, results in more crimes being committed, and causes more grief for the victim of the crime.

Divorce causes a temporary unpheaval in a child's life quite universally but the long term effects vary. There are some poor outcomes. Many times the children are better off. The majority of the time there is net net difference in mental health outcomes.

We weren't talking about divorce though. We're talking about adultery.

Destroying a family because you cannot respect the contract that two people made not just between themselves, but with God and the rest of the world, should have harsh consequences.

So, no - killing people because there is a chance that children might be impacted negatively makes no sense.

It does when you consider that it's not just the children who are affected by adultery, but also the rest of the world.

This is the kind of vague metaphor that is not clear enough to provide actual guidance.

What's vague about it?

If a child is caused to sin or commit a crime, the one who caused them to should have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea.

Millstones weigh a lot. The result is that the one who caused the child to err is put to death.

ALL FORMS of slavery are immoral.

Wrong.

Let me ask you: For someone who steals a million dollars from a business, he's caught, and put on trial, the evidence is enough to convict, and his sentence is to pay back the million dollars, plus another million on top of that (this is a just punishment for thieves). Prior to him stealing the million dollars, he only had a few dollars to his name. How do you suggest he pay back the second million dollars that he is ordered to pay as restitution? He doesn't have the money, yet in order to bring justice, he must.

Slavery as a punishment for a crime is just. The solution to the above is not to just waive the second million, but to have him pay it back by working. He would be given work to do, and a place to live and sleep, and provided meals, but whatever he earned through his efforts would be given to the company he stole from, until he had paid off his debt, or up to seven years, whichever comes first.

Slavery based on race is even more egregious.

What Does the Bible Say About Slavery? | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Because they are human beings with their own identiies and autonomy.

Which doesn't answer the question.

Okay. Why rewrite on a stone tablet as something special?

As a witness against the wicked.

Every legal system? Doubtful.

Yes, every legal system.

Chinese culture has such restriction without knowledge of a global flood.

Incorrect.

The Chinese character for "boat" is a vessel with 8 mouths on it. That's not coincidence.

Also, almost every culture on earth has a flood story (or something resembling a flood).

Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Corinthians 1:20) One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family, has been the...

www.icr.org

Flood!

Over 300 flood legends from all round the world, including the Gilgamesh epic and several Australian Aboriginal stories, all point to the authenticity of the original Bible account in Genesis.

creation.com

Also: https://sites.pitt.edu/~dash/chinaflood.html

The Bible is notoriously inconsistent.

It's not.

Just look at the accounts of finding Jesus was not in his tomb.

What's inconsistent about them?

Beside the minor detail conflicts -- One account has multiple people rising up out of their graves! How did the others miss that?

You're gonna have to explain what you're even talking about...

1) The threat of eternal damnation for temporary criminal behavior.

Temporary?

When you sin against God, you have violated His laws. The only just punishment is to be separated from him.

Thankfully, God provided a way for those who have violated His law to be reconciled with Him.

2) The Resurrection story - talk about a compelling twist. Soap operas also capitalize on this.

There's an even bigger twist than that.

3) The sacrifice of a son taps into our innate familial ties and adds a level of importance

Ok.

4) 87 virgins waiting for you taps into lust and excitement

What are you even talking about at this point?

 

[Idolater]

Because the application of simplistic notions

See? Told ya.

leads to immoral results in a significant minority of situations.

You haven't demonstrated one yet. Try demonstrating just two to begin with, let's see if you can even produce two examples of this. I'll believe it when I see it.

That's only because of circular reasoning. You define murder as bad killing and self-defense that results in death as good killing and not murder. This is a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy. It's frankly unbelievably facile. You think it's circular reasoning to judge one killing categorically different from another killing? I mean wow, I guess, if this is real. But I'm having a difficult time accepting that this came out of your head unironically.

Many translations of the commandments say thou shall not kill. It is better for humans to consider all killing of other humans as wrong but to varying degrees depending on the circumstances lest human life be marginalized, property be considered more valuable than human life, and homicide be viewed biasedly whereby killing an other is okay, but killing those in your circle is wrong.

What if someone in your circle tries to kill you? Do you just say Oh well this guy's "in my circle" so I'll let him?

Actually come to think of it, that does happen. It happens in totalitarian or authoritarian and autocratic or dictatorial or absolute monarchistic regimes.

If a drug addicted woman snatches a jewelry clerk's baby, and says just bring me that necklace worth $1000, she must refuse because she does not own the necklace? And, if she does, her hands should be removed? If she reported the incident as soon as reasonably possible after getting her baby back should would not be convicted of theft by US law --but God would judge her?? This is an example where simple absolute commands fails miserably. A dead baby and a saved necklace is the just result?

This is only a struggle with the right against having your stuff stolen from you. That's the only problem you're having with rights as far as I can tell, and it's a common one, especially when people mistakenly believe that absolute rights based moral theory is the same as "capitalism". Which is an economic theory.

Mistaken self-defense is a tragedy and not a just result.

Absolutely. But is it a reason to deny us our absolute and inalienable right to self defense?

If someone comes into your apartment uninvited pushing through a cheap lock and you shoot him for fear he might hurt you, you think that is a just result even if he just entered the wrong apartment mistaking the floors?

You don't shoot him "for fear" of anything----he pushed his way into your home, he already justified getting shot.

And as agreed to above, mistaken self-defense is a tragedy and not a just result. Mistakes (honest ones, made in good faith) happen.

It was fine that you shot and asked questions later? You have no responsibility to try to assess the situation and/or potentially use less than lethal force?

This is tall order for the police, Skeeter, now you're wanting civilians to be able to do this? And otherwise what? You support the stripping of our rights? Then you have to strip the same rights from the police too.

Is it bloodlust and machismo or overvalue of property (trespass violation of home) that is being served here? Any moral system that cannot value human well being over property is flawed.

Again your one trouble, with the right against having your stuff stolen.

 

[Skeeter]

That is you position, right?

No. Read some of the thread a little before bringing up your straw man.

 

[Skeeter]

Then it's a good idea not to get a divorce.

Love of golf is not a sound basis for a marriage.

Then that's called theft, and you should bring the matter before a judge.

Easy to say harder to do. Dealing with the court system is arduous and time consuming.

In scenario 1? NO.

In scenario 2? Yes, but the matter should still be brought before a judge to punish the thief.

You can trespass to take your clubs in scenario 2, and will not be charged wit trespass in some jurisdictions.

Your views on the importance of faithfulness within a marriage are showing.

Your views on the lack of value you place on human life are showing (aside from a fetus.)

Allowing adultery promotes sexual immorality, not just between a spouse and an adulterer/ess, but outside of marriage as well. It does harm to society.

Adultery is no longer a crime in the United States. Such crimes butt up against basic freedoms and constitutional rights. Adultery is immoral because it involves deception. Social consequences like divorce and shunning are appropriate. Killing people to threaten other people not to do the crime is a very extreme measure. Many instances of infidelity result from poor impulse control. Most marriages can survive an infidelity. No marriage survives when the state murders one of its members. Yes murders. Killing someone for a crime of lower transgression is MURDER.

Allowing sexual immorality, or even not punishing it, results in more crimes being committed, and causes more grief for the victim of the crime.

Killing someone for infidelity hurts the victim more than the infidelity, Duh!

weren't talking about divorce though. We're talking about adultery.

Then how does infidelity destroy the marriage if it does not result in divorce. The kids need not ever know of the infidelity, and many families survive and thrive despite an infidelity.

Destroying a family because you cannot respect the contract that two people made not just between themselves, but with God and the rest of the world, should have harsh consequences.

The family is not destroyed although a setback is possible.

It does when you consider that it's not just the children who are affected by adultery, but also the rest of the world.

You are being a bit of a drama queen here.

What's vague about it?

If a child is caused to sin or commit a crime, the one who caused them to should have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea.

Millstones weigh a lot. The result is that the one who caused the child to err is put to death.

The children are responsible for their own crimes. An adult may contribute to the delinquency of a child, and should be punished. There are many punishments short of death that are more appropriate. Killing off people is not the only way to show you care, pal.

Let me ask you: For someone who steals a million dollars from a business, he's caught, and put on trial, the evidence is enough to convict, and his sentence is to pay back the million dollars, plus another million on top of that (this is a just punishment for thieves). Prior to him stealing the million dollars, he only had a few dollars to his name. How do you suggest he pay back the second million dollars that he is ordered to pay as restitution? He doesn't have the money, yet in order to bring justice, he must.

The first million is restitution damages, the second would be punitive damages, but that kind of award would not be made. Punitive damages are based on how much is needed to punish the particular defendant. A big corporation might have to pay a lot, but an individual like the one described would only be a given an amount he could reasonably pay over time. Let pretend some of the million he stole was unrecoverable for the example.

Slavery as a punishment for a crime is just. The solution to the above is not to just waive the second million, but to have him pay it back by working. He would be given work to do, and a place to live and sleep, and provided meals, but whatever he earned through his efforts would be given to the company he stole from, until he had paid off his debt, or up to seven years, whichever comes first.

Garnishing wages seems more appropriate, doesn't it? The thirteenth amendment of the Constitution is essential for a society that supports individual freedoms. A time-limited transgression of theft does not warrant giving a private citizen such power over someone else. Much strife and more conflict arises from slavery. Courts do not even grant injunctions to work either because it is so impractical. People resist and do not do a good job and they end up back in court. Imprisonment by the state with a work detail works better in some cases.

Slavery involves a massive usurping of freedom and theft of all the fruits of labor. Less severe and more easily enforced options are available.

Which doesn't answer the question.

Of course it does.

The Chinese character for "boat" is a vessel with 8 mouths on it. That's not coincidence.

A giant stretch.

Also, almost every culture on earth has a flood story (or something resembling a flood).

Not a global flood and not connected to commandments.

You're gonna have to explain what you're even talking about...

The account by Matthew following the execution of Christ describes others rising out of their tombs and returning to the city. This is you book, You should know this a lot better than me.

What are you even talking about at this point?

Okay. I slipped in something from the Koran. Do you see how Islam upped you one in the reward after death inducements?

 

[The Phoenix]

Who says that violence and mayhem is bad? You? After all, if there is no God with the ultimate say in RIGHT and WRONG, then man decides what is right and wrong. So Who says that violence and mayhem is bad?

And by the way, Hitler did nothing wrong, nothing at all. After all, if there is no God with the ultimate say in RIGHT and WRONG, then man decides what is right and wrong, and Germany passed laws that said Jews could be killed and it was legal and therefore it was all good. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Right?

That is you position, right?

No. Read some of the thread a little before bringing up your straw man.

Straw man? Okay, then if the is no god, who decided what is right and wrong?

 

[marke]

Then how does infidelity destroy the marriage if it does not result in divorce. The kids need not ever know of the infidelity, and many families survive and thrive despite an infidelity.

The unrighteous sinner does not see the problem with immorally satisfying his own selfish sexual needs because he/she wrongly imagines he has every right to control his own body no matter what his/her spouse or God may think. And criminal acts are permissible as long as they can be covered up, like participating in widespread voter fraud.

 

[PureX]

Straw man? Okay, then if the is no god, who decided what is right and wrong?

I think even God has deemed that every human has to determine for him/herself what is morally and ethically right and what is not. Otherwise, it would be exceedingly unfair for God to judge us for choices that we DIDN'T make.

 

[marke]

I think even God has deemed that every human has to determine for him/herself what is morally and ethically right and what is not. Otherwise, it would be exceedingly unfair for God to judge us for choices that we DIDN'T make.

God has given every human the responsibility to study the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes, not in the corruptible eyes of man.

 

[PureX]

God has given every human the responsibility to study the Bible to learn what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes, not in the corruptible eyes of man.

But still, WE have to decide that this is the case, and to do accordingly, or that it is not the case, and to do according to some other ethical methodology. Ultimately, WE decide what we think is God's will for us, or what other ethical imperative we believe is right for us to live by. And that is why we are being held responsible for our choices.