Page 2 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Should civil authorities enforce religious doctrine on morality?
Yes, definitely. 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Yes, mostly. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Maybe yes, maybe no. 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
No, mostly. 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
No, definitely. 74%  74%  [ 25 ]
Total votes : 34

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 8:04 am

AngelRho wrote:
They absolutely should. Biblical laws are consistent with the way our world was created and are therefore objective. They exist in nature, are measurable, and are tangible. You don’t even have to read the Bible or even believe God exists to infer these laws.
Why Biblical law?  Why not Quranic or Mitakshara/Dayabhaga law?  Or even Wiccan law?

But, if you're going to insist on Biblical law, then which Bible?  Old Testament only?  Why not the New Testament and the Apocrypha as well?  King James, Revised Standard, Latin Vulgate, or any of dozens of other translations are available.

Once all that is decided, then which Christian faith?  Now it gets really sticky, because there are over 14,000 distinct sects within the Christian tradition, each one of them claiming they're the "One True Way".

I eagerly await your response.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

26 Aug 2020, 9:12 am

The State should enforce Morality Laws, though not religious morality laws but ethical and scientifically explainable morality laws.

That could be anything that Science says inflicts unnecessary suffering of any kind. Unnecessary suffering could be ritualized circumcision on anyone who did not willingly/voluntarily agree so - which basically means ban male/female circumcision before the age of 18.

Science should dictate our lives and our ethics and morality.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 26 Aug 2020, 9:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 9:19 am

I was with you until you got to that part about punishing "heretics of science".


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

26 Aug 2020, 9:20 am

Fnord wrote:
I was with you until you got to that part about punishing "heretics of science".


Please explain to me why anti-science heretics deserve rights?



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

26 Aug 2020, 9:22 am

It's totally fine with me to be religious. But you must never let God be above Logic.

Logic always comes first. Then Mathematics. Then The Scientific Method.

- Then God.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 9:25 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I was with you until you got to that part about punishing "heretics of science".
Please explain to me why anti-science heretics deserve rights?
For the same reason gays, lesbians, trans-genders, POCs, women, children, autistics, and so forth deserve rights:

They Are All People.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

26 Aug 2020, 9:34 am

Fnord wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I was with you until you got to that part about punishing "heretics of science".
Please explain to me why anti-science heretics deserve rights?
For the same reason gays, lesbians, trans-genders, POCs, women, children, autistics, and so forth deserve rights:

They Are All People.


If I remove all the deprivation of rights for opposition, would you agree with my statement that Science should rule our lives?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 9:43 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I was with you until you got to that part about punishing "heretics of science".
Please explain to me why anti-science heretics deserve rights?
For the same reason gays, lesbians, trans-genders, POCs, women, children, autistics, and so forth deserve rights: They Are All People.
If I remove all the deprivation of rights for opposition, would you otherwise agree with my statement that Science should rule our lives?
I would agree only that logic and reason, supported by verifiable facts, should rule our lives.

Suspicions, speculation, assumptions, presumptions, inference, guesses, prejudice, rumors, and accusations are not evidence.  Neither are belief, faith, intuition, opinion, feelings, or superstition.  Magic and 'psychic' abilities have never been proven, and anyone without a degree in a particular field of study cannot claim to be an expert in that field.

That narrows down the population to a very few who could be the effective 'scientific' leaders you implied.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,020
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Aug 2020, 10:05 am

Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
They absolutely should. Biblical laws are consistent with the way our world was created and are therefore objective. They exist in nature, are measurable, and are tangible. You don’t even have to read the Bible or even believe God exists to infer these laws.
Why Biblical law?  Why not Quranic or Mitakshara/Dayabhaga law?  Or even Wiccan law?

But, if you're going to insist on Biblical law, then which Bible?  Old Testament only?  Why not the New Testament and the Apocrypha as well?  King James, Revised Standard, Latin Vulgate, or any of dozens of other translations are available.

Once all that is decided, then which Christian faith?  Now it gets really sticky, because there are over 14,000 distinct sects within the Christian tradition, each one of them claiming they're the "One True Way".

I eagerly await your response.

You’re making this needlessly complicated. Apocrypha are questionable in relation to divine inspiration or reliable source. MOST any translation is just fine as long as the source accounts for ancient manuscripts such as the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and the Greek New Testament. I prefer a translation that is optimally balanced between literal translation and the intended meaning.

The only faith that matters is the one that holds Christ sufficient for salvation. The Old Testament is summed up as 1. Love God, and 2. Love everyone else just as you love yourself. Laws that establish an orderly society are example of people showing love for one another. Is it wrong that people expect fidelity from a spouse, or to live without fear of being murdered? Is honest weights and measures too much to ask? Is punishment fitting the crime too much to ask in the way of justice? Or if people disagree with the government, is it really so bad to expect people at least refrain from causing trouble? You can’t force unbelievers to accept Jesus or believe in God. But obeying God’s commands is, by OT standards, loving God. You can be a law abiding atheist, love God, and still not believe. It won’t get you into heaven, but you at least get to enjoy everything this life has to offer.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 10:39 am

AngelRho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
They absolutely should. Biblical laws are consistent with the way our world was created and are therefore objective. They exist in nature, are measurable, and are tangible. You don’t even have to read the Bible or even believe God exists to infer these laws.
Why Biblical law?  Why not Quranic or Mitakshara/Dayabhaga law?  Or even Wiccan law?  But, if you're going to insist on Biblical law, then which Bible?  Old Testament only?  Why not the New Testament and the Apocrypha as well?  King James, Revised Standard, Latin Vulgate, or any of dozens of other translations are available.  Once all that is decided, then which Christian faith?  Now it gets really sticky, because there are over 14,000 distinct sects within the Christian tradition, each one of them claiming they're the "One True Way".  I eagerly await your response.
You’re making this needlessly complicated...
No, the oversimplification you presented is the problem.  I have had this debate many times before -- even during regular meetings with the other elders -- and it always broke down over which Biblical laws should be enforced by secular authorities, which Bible translation to use, and even which religion expressed the greater morality.  I guaranty that the Baptists would want the KJV as the standard, and that the RCC would want to include the Apocrypha, as well as the worship of Mary.  Other sects would want their standards raised, and even the non-Christian "Christian" sects would want theirs to be foremost in consideration.

Look up the doctrines of the Latter-Day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, 7th-Day Adventists, and even the Branch Davidians.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,334
Location: Reading, England

26 Aug 2020, 10:41 am

We should take no heed of religion either when determining right and wrong, or setting laws.

Occasionally, religious teachings may, coincidentally, coincide with morality, sensible legality, or both. That's not a problem. But morality is something quite separate from what was written down hundreds or even thousands of years ago.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 71,174
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Aug 2020, 10:46 am

Religious teaching frequently correlates well with morality.

I feel like religion has quelled the base emotions of many....and also evoked some base emotions.

In any government, we should use some of the precepts which religions have promulgated.

But religion itself, as a full entity, must not be made part of government.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 10:48 am

The_Walrus wrote:
... But morality is something quite separate from what was written down hundreds or even thousands of years ago.
Agreed.  However, if Biblical law was enforced, I'm sure I could get a better price for my daughter than a sheep and two goats...

:wink: That was a joke.  I have no daughters.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,020
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Aug 2020, 11:22 am

Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
They absolutely should. Biblical laws are consistent with the way our world was created and are therefore objective. They exist in nature, are measurable, and are tangible. You don’t even have to read the Bible or even believe God exists to infer these laws.
Why Biblical law?  Why not Quranic or Mitakshara/Dayabhaga law?  Or even Wiccan law?  But, if you're going to insist on Biblical law, then which Bible?  Old Testament only?  Why not the New Testament and the Apocrypha as well?  King James, Revised Standard, Latin Vulgate, or any of dozens of other translations are available.  Once all that is decided, then which Christian faith?  Now it gets really sticky, because there are over 14,000 distinct sects within the Christian tradition, each one of them claiming they're the "One True Way".  I eagerly await your response.
You’re making this needlessly complicated...
No, the oversimplification you presented is the problem.  I have had this debate many times before -- even during regular meetings with the other elders -- and it always broke down over which Biblical laws should be enforced by secular authorities, which Bible translation to use, and even which religion expressed the greater morality.  I guaranty that the Baptists would want the KJV as the standard, and that the RCC would want to include the Apocrypha, as well as the worship of Mary.  Other sects would want their standards raised, and even the non-Christian "Christian" sects would want theirs to be foremost in consideration.

Look up the doctrines of the Latter-Day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, 7th-Day Adventists, and even the Branch Davidians.

KJV? BAPTISTS??? Which Baptist denomination?

I actually do like the NKJV, but I prefer the HCSB translation. Most people I know like the ESV. But they all have the same sources. I THINK KJV/NKJV lean a little more on the Vulgate than I would like. As long as it’s not New World or The Message, odds are it’s ok!

I’m more of a solas guy. The doctrines you mentioned either go extra-Biblical or require a rewrite of scripture to fit the doctrine. Even some Southern Baptists these days lean towards insufficiency of scripture. Also, don’t forget SBC people are of the make up your own mind persuasion. We are predominantly Conservative, yes. But over the last decade there’s been a bit of Calvinism creeping in. Our beliefs aren’t THAT unified. Plus, local associations are autonomous. If you don’t toe the Watchtower line, by contrast, your own family won’t even acknowledge you

And don’t even get me started on the RCC. I’m actually relieved to be away from that now. I did enjoy the masses and playing piano for them, but the Mary worship was a bit much for my taste. Certain groups like that take theology so far out of scripture it no longer even really resembles anything Christ-like.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,018
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 11:35 am

^I think you really do understand and share most of my perspective.  And while we can agree that many religious laws (not just of the Christian religions) are the basis for many secular laws (and good ones, too), the disagreement is on the issue of civil authorities -- municipal police, county sheriffs, and state troopers enforcing religious laws is something with which I simply cannot agree.

I've seen the results first-hand in the Middle East -- police harassing young women because their burkas were a little too snug around their hips and breasts, hotel rooms and foreigners' luggage being searched for Bibles and liquor, and the threats of arrest for not recognizing the muezzin's Call to Prayer.  These are the images I see when considering the topic of this thread -- police intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens under the authority of religious leaders.

I can only imagine what the Spanish Inquisition was like, but there are eye-witness accounts of their atrocities, too.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

26 Aug 2020, 1:59 pm

Fnord wrote:
^I think you really do understand and share most of my perspective.  And while we can agree that many religious laws (not just of the Christian religions) are the basis for many secular laws (and good ones, too), the disagreement is on the issue of civil authorities -- municipal police, county sheriffs, and state troopers enforcing religious laws is something with which I simply cannot agree.

I've seen the results first-hand in the Middle East -- police harassing young women because their burkas were a little too snug around their hips and breasts, hotel rooms and foreigners' luggage being searched for Bibles and liquor, and the threats of arrest for not recognizing the muezzin's Call to Prayer.  These are the images I see when considering the topic of this thread -- police intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens under the authority of religious leaders.

I can only imagine what the Spanish Inquisition was like, but there are eye-witness accounts of their atrocities, too.


At last, I can agree to something you wrote. And that's exactly why I cannot understand why you disagree with me when I say that people who are in favor of exactly these kinds of religious morality laws, should be persecuted.

Religious nuts trying to impose their foolish laws deserve to be persecuted by the very same means they want enforced on others.

You claim they "are people too". I say no, they are not people-people. They are scum.

The very least one should expect from your neighbor, and of oneself - is to fight by any means available and neccessary, one's enemies.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek". I say forget that foolish s**t. Revenge is a neccessity and it makes you feel good.
EDIT: But I would be happy to know a different perspective on that matter.

- And just for the record, I'm not refering to any particular members in this thread. I don't know of anyone on WP who would defend these attrocities in the Middle East.

But they do exist out there. And I don't like them. Defending burning at the stake for "believing in false gods" should put that same person on the stake instead, is my opinion.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 26 Aug 2020, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.