|
Who What Now posted:Murder only applies to the unlawful killing of an actual person. So you can't murder the unborn. Even taking a strict interpretation of "unlawful" to mean earthly law, it is still possible to murder the unborn. In cases of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child, the courts have considered it murder. But the real issue here is that if you are willing to conflate the idea of murder and earthly law so closely, then the word becomes useless as a moral term and becomes only a technical one, and an uncertain one, subject to the relative whims of whichever governmental system presently decides and enforces your law, no matter how outlandish. But murder is not a technical term, it is an impassioned and emotional one used colloquially to mean an unjust killing, and rightly so. Who What Now posted:"Yes but that's the wrong type of Theocracy. Ours will be different because *fart*" They are different religions, for one thing, I'd say that's a significant difference.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Even taking a strict interpretation of "unlawful" to mean earthly law, it is still possible to murder the unborn. In cases of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child, the courts have considered it murder. The Bible doesn't though. The response ranges from a fine (if it's done during an assault) to abortion being totally cool as long as you're forcing it on an unwilling woman because you think she's a cheating harlot. Abortion: Godly as long as the woman has no choice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Yes but that's the wrong type of Theocracy. Ours will be different because *fart*" Effectronica posted:Theocracy only applies to Christians? This is surely not reasonable. Who What Now posted:In America it does, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
What are the scriptural justifications for outlawing abortion besides PSA 139:13? e: because there are two striking examples of abortion being not murder in the OT. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Even taking a strict interpretation of "unlawful" to mean earthly law, it is still possible to murder the unborn. In cases of assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child, the courts have considered it murder. But the real issue here is that if you are willing to conflate the idea of murder and earthly law so closely, then the word becomes useless as a moral term and becomes only a technical one, and an uncertain one, subject to the relative whims of whichever governmental system presently decides and enforces your law, no matter how outlandish. But murder is not a technical term, it is an impassioned and emotional one used colloquially to mean an unjust killing, and rightly so. Even if we consider murder to be an "unjust" killing, that still doesn't apply to a willing termination of a pregnancy. What would be unjust would be the stripping away of bodily autonomy from an actual person. No matter how you slice it willful abortion by the mother is not murder. quote:They are different religions, for one thing, I'd say that's a significant difference. A slightly different veneer of paint on top doesn't change the corrupt and rotting core.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
You better sit down for this because it's going to blow your mind. Are you ready? Alright, hold on: There are other nations besides America. Trippy, huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What are the scriptural justifications for outlawing abortion besides PSA 139:13? Considering the multitudes of babies that Jehovah ordered be put to death or dashed upon the rocks, I'd wager not having an abortion or two is the more scripturally risky path.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:A slightly different veneer of paint on top doesn't change the corrupt and rotting core. but enough about atheism
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You better sit down for this because it's going to blow your mind. Are you ready? Alright, hold on: You're the one who said that Muslims can't have a theocracy
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:You're the one who said that Muslims can't have a theocracy No, I said Muslims can't have a theocracy in America..
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
do yourselves a favor and don't argue with WWN. He will shitpost all day and never make a single point if you let him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:do yourselves a favor and don't argue with WWN. He will shitpost all day and never make a single point if you let him. Hey that's not fair. Who What Now has a pretty big dog in this fight because if the Theocracy turns out to be Muslim after all, they will outlaw precious precious booze. But don't worry pony buddy  , based on your posts in the USPol thread your drink of choice should still be available because as far as I know there's nothing haram about paint thinner 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Word to the wise: unaccountable authority figures always end up being corrupt. The idea that if you could only get the good guys in power, and keep the bad guys out, is historical fantasy. What makes this doubly disgusting is that it claims that religious figures are more moral than other people, which as we've seen with the church abuse scandals, is not true. I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
OP, what do you mean by 'theocracy?' How much freedom should other religions have? How would the government be run- democracy, monarchy, etc.? And to everybody else you do realize that within Christianity there are thousands of splinter Protestant groups with different beliefs? And that while the Catholics have universal teaching they are currently in a state of widespread dissent and poor catechesis meaning that it's really hard to get two people who can accurately explain and agree on Church teaching, which is substantially different from Protestant beliefs? And that the OP is Orthodox, which is none of the above?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people. Well, putting people in authority based on their level of sexual repression seems to have failed, got any other ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people. Yeah, but a theocracy isn't going to be that much better at selecting good administrators- see the Papal states during the Early Modern period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Seriouspost: given that corruption is endemic in human affairs, the effects are best lessened by choosing a system that preserves accountability and minimizes the bad effects of the inevitable corrupt administrators rather than just hoping that we can keep the bad people out of power (we can't). Draping the government with the Mandate of Heaven and equating criticizing those in power with defying God is...problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I could not disagree more strongly with this. Some people are more ethical than others, which is to say, they are more proficient in ethics than others. The ideal system of government is going to have good people in power, and not bad people. I'm sure whatever system of government you prefer ultimately rests on this as well. The only real dispute is how you identify and select the good people. It's not about good vs. bad people, that is for children to argue over. It's about incentives, power structures, systems. But that's not for you is it? You'd rather make pointless judgments about characters, that are always retrospective and that can predict nothing. A scientific view of human beings and the society they live in must be based on observed human behavior, not imagined properties which we allocated according to how much we like the person. We can observe how people preference those they associate with over those they don't. We can observe how people tend to act in their self-interest, and then justify it later. To argue that some people could ignore their human nature and act in an atypical fashion is nothing but an act of blind faith: the substitution of reality with fantasy, the replacement of a real solution with moralistic bullshit. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey that's not fair. Who What Now has a pretty big dog in this fight because if the Theocracy turns out to be Muslim after all, they will outlaw precious precious booze. I was mostly joking in the USPol thread. Ever since I started seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication I haven't actually abused (or even drank much) alcohol in three months. Now before then I chugged paint thinner like my liver had offended me. But it's good to have your support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My question for the Christians who want theonomy or theocracy. I've had some of you tell me that those who aren't Christian or who don't sign onto Logocentric Trinitarianism are not our brothers and sisters. That is not, from what I see of the example of Christ presented in the gospels, in line with the example of Jesus. Which to me seems to be that we are all children of the Father and His brothers and sisters. That is to say it seems to be against the Logos and frankly against the vision of Kingdom of God presented in the New Testament. You do have to have some standards, personally I'd say ultimately anyone who loves Christ can use the word Christian. A Christian state would not be the literal "Kingdom of God," which is spiritual in nature. I'm just looking for the best system of governance and I don't think strict secularism is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I was mostly joking in the USPol thread. Ever since I started seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication I haven't actually abused (or even drank much) alcohol in three months. Aw jokes aside, I'm happy to hear that 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You do have to have some standards, personally I'd say ultimately anyone who loves Christ can use the word Christian. Muslims love Christ only slightly less than they love Mohammed. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Muslims love Christ only slightly less than they love Mohammed. And they really love Mohammed, so they probably still love Christ more than Christians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Muslims don't love Jesus as Christ AKA Gospel Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That is because you are gullible. You are someone who is easily fooled by empty rhetoric and vague promises, which is what delivers every single authoritarian shithole into existence. It's a recurring theme of history and it's still happening, right now, all over the world. Islamic theocrats promise to be really good too! Honest! You can trust them! Right? But to you, they're muslims and therefore bad, if only you could put good, christian people in. Ahh, but we already had that poo poo, and the people overthrew them in the French Revolution. I consider the French Revolution a very bad event, what with all the unjust mass murders and reign of terror and general societal upheaval, a republic so unstable it quickly became an empire, and then shifted into kingdom again, and then back into republic, and back into empire, and so on. It's mystifying to me that people could see it as something virtuous, I think more people should question their education. It absolutely is about good and bad people. Political systems are made up of people, and my ideal system encourages good behavior in people. I mostly agree with your last point, which I like because it implies that people can have better behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I consider the French Revolution a very bad event, what with all the unjust mass murders and reign of terror and general societal upheaval, a republic so unstable it quickly became an empire, and then shifted into kingdom again, and then back into republic, and back into empire, and so on. *Every repressive monarchy on the continent invades at once* My my, look how unstable and war-torn this democracy nonsense is without the Divine Hand of God appointing an appropriately violent overlord to keep the rabble in line 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
The Bourbon Monarchy was a shitshow and it deserved to die but let's not pretend the French Revolution was a great place to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Muslims love Christ only slightly less than they love Mohammed. A good point, although I think their Jesus is quite different than the biblical Jesus as Miltank pointed out. Not only in that he was never crucified, but his teachings were different too and more in line with Muhammad's ideas. But is it too much to say I think a Muslim could be "a good Christian?" It's possible, if they try to live Christ's teachings. e: I have to go to work, back later. Kyrie eleison fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The Bourbon Monarchy was a shitshow and it deserved to die but let's not pretend the French Revolution was a great place to be. Well sure, but it's pretty disingenuous to chalk up all of the instability, hysteria, and bloodiness of a revolution to inherent failures of secular government and completely ignore the atmosphere of a simultaneous invasion by every blood-drenched monarchy around them and a huge fifth column of former-aristocrat traitors who were more than happy to invite foreigners in to slaughter their own countrymen in the hopes of getting their posh status back. Dynastic struggles in Christian monarchies were bloody and horrible as gently caress (Wars of the Roses, anyone?), and historical theocracies have been more than willing to slaughter foreigners and their own people as well. It's worth noting that a major contributory to Egypt and the Levant being such a walk-over conquest for the Muslims is that Trinitarian Constantinople had been persecuting and murdering the gently caress out of Egyptian monophysites over obscure theological disagreements about what exactly Jesus' body was made out of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
It's not terribly hard to live by Jesus' teachings. You can accomplish the majority of what he taught simply by not being a dick and making an effort to help the poor and improve your community. I think the majority of people believe in doing those things, even if they are not always successful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's not terribly hard to live by Jesus' teachings. I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, there was a reason for all the anti-clerical stuff in the French Revolution? That it wasn't an impromptu event, but the inevitable explosion of hatred against a system of oppression, which the Church was an integral part of? The reign of terror as retribution against a regime of terror? No, of course not, it's just this ~bad thing~ that sprung up out of nowhere. Geez guys, why is this such an important part of Western History, it only redefined the relationship between the state and its people, ~what's the big deal~. I tell you now: real progress involves acknowledging how people actually act, and then moving on from there. Taking that into account, then mitigating it if necessary. A system where you get into power if you *pretty please promise to be good* is not a system of government that's ever going to realize it's on-paper design. You know what does work though? Changing the structures of power so it doesn't matter what kind of person is in power. That's that democracy does, that's what secularism does, and that's what future social orders must do: Change the tendencies and incentives of power to serve the interests of the people. That poo poo has worked wonders, why the gently caress would we abandon it for something that did not loving work when it was the only game in town? rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure, but it's pretty disingenuous to chalk up all of the instability, hysteria, and bloodiness of a revolution to inherent failures of secular government and completely ignore the atmosphere of a simultaneous invasion by every blood-drenched monarchy around them and a huge fifth column of former-aristocrat traitors who were more than happy to invite foreigners in to slaughter their own countrymen in the hopes of getting their posh status back. Yeah, I agree, I was just looking for acknowledgement on that. And like rudatron said above, getting the Church involved with state business just gets them blamed for whatever stupid poo poo the government does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I disagree. Ok fine. It's not terribly hard for people who aren't Milktank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok fine. It's not terribly hard for people who aren't Milktank. and the rest of the human race
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Funnily enough a lot of the hardcore anti-gay pro-monarchy Catholics I know are basically socialists in belief if not name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm just looking for the best system of governance and I don't think strict secularism is the way to go. Personally the more compelling argument would be that secular states aren't really secular, that in secular states the state religion(s) is(are) just hidden and that we should be honest about that. The US certainly isn't neutral in it's relationships to particular universals and some of them can definitely be idolatrous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:There's been a lot of dumb reddit talking points tossed about in this thread, but this is probably the most egregious. Maybe you should do a little research into what Catholics actually believe before spouting off like a petulant child. People in this thread have specifically poo poo on the ideas of female education, enfranchisement, and bodily autonomy. It's not "reddit talking points" when actual posters here are expressing the opinions you accuse me of strawmanning. Education, eh not that important Smoking Crow posted:The Catholic Church doesn't restrict women's access to education though? Also, I think being a chattel slave has more to do with lack of more important freedoms than reproductive rights and education. Women's bodies: property of the state! Smoking Crow posted:I didn't say anything about outlawing birth control, but abortion is a no. I think that birth control should be easily available because church teaching on it is "use your conscience." Dissenters: shut up about your heathen faith or suffer additional economic burdens for picking a God I don't like Miltank posted:They might try to but Islam doesn't really work in secret. It's all about carrying out ceremonial religious actions and I think someone might notice if a family stops eating during the daytime for a lunar month every year. If they really wanna be Muslim they can pay their taxes and be good little subjects. Women's medical decisions about contraceptives: State's prerogative! Miltank posted:I disagree that restricting access to contraceptive options reduces women to chattel. I'd get more but I'm tired. If you don't want to suffer reddit-level criticisms, maybe don't act like reddit religious-strawmen who want to own women, oppress the gays*, and impose sanctions on competing faiths? *To be fair, nobody has come right out and admitted they want to repress sexual minorities, but no one will give me a straight answer about whether they will have equal rights and whether "deviant" sex will be punished which is a pretty strong indicator that they want to perpetrate these repressions but don't want to say so. Feel free to prove me wrong on this point by coming right out and saying that sexual minorities will have full equality and protection from discrimination though!  Edit: Oh let's not forget you buttcoin smuggler posted:Is this board really so permeated with community college cultural Marxism that "life begins at conception" is considered a troll position? Really? The Bible is pretty cool with abortion in Leviticus and especially in Numbers, so it kinda just seems like you want to control women regardless of what your holy book says. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Personally the more compelling argument would be that secular states aren't really secular, that in secular states the state religion(s) is(are) just hidden and that we should be honest about that. The US certainly isn't neutral in it's relationships to particular universals and some of them can definitely be idolatrous. I don't think anyone denies that most states have de facto state religions and a few even codified that I'm their state constitutions. How much more honest about it can we really get?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 19:13
|
|