The SimTropolis House of Worship

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: sam

...Happy spiritual birthday Joe (if it is appropriate to say that).quote>

I'm disappointed to report that I found myself "celebrating" the spiritual birthday in a rather mundane fashion. I spent the Saturday morning on the computer, did a family outing, and then spent the night back at the computer.  A par-for-the-course kind of day; and for the mostpart, whatever.  But by the time the day was over and into Sunday, I did some introspective and realized that I really didn't spend it doing extra Bible study or maybe some good deeds or whatnot.  Of course any day could & probably should be spent doing that anyway.  But what I did realize is that after a course of time that I have gotten into such ritualized routine, that a lot of what I do, even if there is positive effect for others; it still comes done to my own personal comfort.  A spiritual mid-life crisis??  Oh well, so much for being third. 

[RiverCocytus 0]

I hate to interrupt, but I think I'm involved in a sort of a spiritual battle at the moment. Could you all pray for me? Even you who claim to unbelief, pray for me to God.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Ezekiel, 22

1 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2 Now, thou, son of man, wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city? yea, thou shalt shew her all her abominations.

3 Then say thou, Thus saith the Lord GOD, The city sheddeth blood in the midst of it, that her time may come, and maketh idols against herself to defile herself.

4 Thou art become guilty in thy blood that thou has shed; and hast defiled thyself in thine idols which thou hast made; and thou hast caused they days to draw near, and art come even unto thy years: therefore have I made thee a reproach unto the heathen, and a mocking to all countries.

5 Those that be near, and those that be far from thee, shall mock thee, which art infamous and much vexed.

6 Behold, the princes of Israel, every one were in thee to their power to shed blood.

7 In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of theee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherlesss and the widow.

8 Thou hast despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my sabbaths.

-- (continues on to describe the abominations & God's wrath -- things such as adultery, usury etc)

23 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

24 Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.

25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.

26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

27 Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.

28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.

29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.

30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed uopn their heads, saith the Lord GOD.

[jglei701 8]

Right here for ya River. Feel free to PM me if you need to talk to somebody about it.

[jglei701 8]

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in ALL CREATION will be albe to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Romans 8:38-39

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: RiverCocytus I hate to interrupt, but I think I'm involved in a sort of a spiritual battle at the moment. Could you all pray for me? Even you who claim to unbelief, pray for me to God.quote>

Be careful what you ask for. Me praying for you on such a thing would mean praying you'll ditch organized religion and make all your own decisions on morality.

Also, there have been a ton of Bible quotes in this thread, but no quotes from any other holy books. How fair is that?

So I will now quote the entirety of my own 'holy book':

-Thou shalt worship nothing as sacred or holy and condemn nothing as unholy.

-Thou shalt trust thyne own judgement on morality before that of anyone else.

-Thou shalt not interfere with the rights of others to believe and say as they please.

-Thou shalt allow anyone to do anything that does not negatively affect anyone else, unless the victim is deserving or it is necessary for the greater good.

-Thou shalt tell the truth, no matter how much it hurts.

-Thou shalt think with thyne brain, not thyne stomach or thyne gonads.

-Thou shalt make an attempt to understand that which thyne does not.

-Thou shalt respect anyone who has not given you a reason not to.

-Thou shalt not ignore thyne surroundings.

-Thou shalt not accept anything as fact without solid evidence.

There's my ten commandments.

(and yes I just made all that up on the spot. Still all good advice, though.)

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

actually some of those ten are Biblical messages also. After we read the Bibles ten commandments, we should read some more, because there is alot more than just the ten major commandments, from the stone tablets. Ethics and etiquette, conducting business, social skills and more...

RiverCocytus: Praise you Father, great and glorious! We need you again Abba. RC needs your guidance. I need your guidance. We are asking for your solution Father. We will no longer worry, because we know you will guide us. Thank you for loving us so much Abba.  We send it to you Father, through Jesus. Selah.

Ahhh Ezekiel. Quite an interesting prophet, RC.

I always read Proverbs, or any of Pauls teaching, when I have a struggle of any sorts. Maybe ol' Solomon can show you something new, eh?

EDIT: Actually, I am getting alot of insight from those verses, RC.

Can anyone think of famous one liners of wisdom, that actually originated from the Bible?

This is the dawning of the age of aquarius

There is nothing new under the sun

History is destined to repeat itself

Faith can move mountains

Just a few of many....

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: RiverCocytus I hate to interrupt, but I think I'm involved in a sort of a spiritual battle at the moment. Could you all pray for me? Even you who claim to unbelief, pray for me to God.quote>

Be careful what you ask for. Me praying for you on such a thing would mean praying you'll ditch organized religion and make all your own decisions on morality.

Also, there have been a ton of Bible quotes in this thread, but no quotes from any other holy books. How fair is that?

So I will now quote the entirety of my own 'holy book':

-Thou shalt worship nothing as sacred or holy and condemn nothing as unholy.

-Thou shalt trust thyne own judgement on morality before that of anyone else.

-Thou shalt not interfere with the rights of others to believe and say as they please.

-Thou shalt allow anyone to do anything that does not negatively affect anyone else, unless the victim is deserving or it is necessary for the greater good.

-Thou shalt tell the truth, no matter how much it hurts.

-Thou shalt think with thyne brain, not thyne stomach or thyne gonads.

-Thou shalt make an attempt to understand that which thyne does not.

-Thou shalt respect anyone who has not given you a reason not to.

-Thou shalt not ignore thyne surroundings.

-Thou shalt not accept anything as fact without solid evidence.

There's my ten commandments.

(and yes I just made all that up on the spot. Still all good advice, though.)quote>

 

Hmm...you make it seem as though the Ten Commandments are something trivial in our lives. What you've just written could even be construed as mockery of God's Laws, but....

I'm sure it says somewhere in the Bible not to mock God or His Words, but I guess you don't care =). According to your laws, numbers 1, 2, 3...well, pretty much all of them, what you've done is perfectly fine.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

I still like the one about telling the truth, no matter how much it hurts.

That was a question in Christian ethics class.

Should we always tell the truth, even if it seems like a harmless cover up, or way to save someone elses feeling from getting hurt?

[Joesocwork 4]

Sometimes this thread goes way over my head, but I can at least understand a simple prayer request and I'll keep you in mine.

[moganite 4]

Hope things are going ok for you River Hope it turns out ok too.

Any how duke 87 had a good idea post your value and norms

Rules i Try to live by

-Respect you fellow man

- Murder is wrong unless it is in self defence and the ONLY solution

- theivery is unaccaptable except for situations where survivial is at stake

- protect peoples lives

- Never discrimate against others using things that cannot be change or are trivial (politics /religion) Also every one has equal rights

- dont cheat on your partner

- Never blindly accept something ask questions

- Demand proof of everything even that which cant be proven

- Treat others how you want them to treat you

- Dont let your gonads/ guts tell you what to do

- Worship on what is truly worthy

- Help other people it may later end up helping you later, help any one who asks for it.

- Tell the truth but be gentle with how you tell it

- Don't judge others unfairly or on the basis of gossip or hearsay

[RiverCocytus 0]

Thanks, guys.

I posted Ezekiel (King James) because it was the chapter I was reading last night, and it just smacked me right in the face. The whole of it could be applied to almost any Christianized country nowadays. (In other words, we ought to know better.) There's a lot of lines in there about opressing the poor and the alien, and though in the USA in particular even the poor are not that poor, there is something else to it. We don't starve the poor, we don't really deny them medical help, nor do we really kick them out of our cities, etc. But the kind of oppression is different.

Also, I think there is something about the whole immigration debate compiled in there somewhere. Some people seem to want to let immigrants in only because it upsets others, or to let them in for their own selfish gain. This is abusing the stranger/alien; in this way, I think we can be 'doing' what seems to be right, but it is only an outward thing, in reality we still are covetous in our hearts and seek to gain at the expense of these strangers.

Something I think every nation should be considering when thinking about immigration; are we letting people in because we respect them as humans, or is it because we want to abuse them? Is it because we are friendly with their home nation, or because we have some political agenda?

---

Moganite: your personal rules read almost exactly like a church covenant (in some churches they are written in the front of every hymnal.) sans the direct mention of Jesus.

Sort of proves the idea of civic virtues.

---

I have often noted that the bible does not presrcibe a particular form of government. My opinion then is, as members of society, we ought to choose a form of government that is not hostile to Christianity. The properties of that society might vary; I prefer our (USA's) constitution to anything else... but actively supporting a government that works against Christianity seems dangerous if not outright sinful. I am of the opinion that what the USA needs now is not different laws or a better consitution, but better leaders. Our constitution is strong, but only as strong as the men and women who work in the institutions that embody it.

I'm sure there are other governments that have a similar problem... I am against the idea of an established religion (think state religion, A LA middle ages, or Islamic countries like UAE...) because it is antithetical to the aims of Christ, that is, that each shall be given a choice to choose or reject God. -HOWEVER- as I said, I am also against a de-establishment government, that is, one that seeks to remove all religious ideas, symbols and associations from itself. Christianity may be a voluntary religion entirely, but it is still a public religion. Forcing people to not display Christian religious symbols or speech relating to Christianity is working against us, and is not within the bounds of the Constitution.

What I am trying to say is, if there is a Ten Commandments in a courtroom, it is there because someone wanted it there, not because the government mandated that everyone respect the ten commandments (although the last 5 certainly are completely in our law.) However, mandating that we CAN'T have the 10 Commandments on display is an establishment of a state religion; in fact, it is the establishment of a kind of secular faith, mandated by goverment bodies and laws. It should be the choice of the courtroom/state/county or otherwise whether the 10 can be displayed; not a mandate by the Fed or other higher authority telling them whether they can or not.

Establishment clause was a great idea. Too bad we messed it up.

[jglei701 8]

I'm not sure I agree with that RC (the Bible not promoting a certain type of government). Check out this website: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xian-pol.html . It may not promote a certain TYPE of government (you're right as far as that goes) but it does show what the Bible says about government and how we deal with it.

[moganite 4]

That article while intersting has a cristian weay of lloking at things will hvae to reread it at a later date. It does to me and it appears to be theological in nature, the form of government it is promoting. that article basically says that a government with God as the head of state is better than any others yet there is evidence to the contrary and it goes both ways. Theocracy has too much potential for abuse by the human institustions that can claim they are gods right hand man and use that clain to justify anything.

I am of the mind that govvernment must be for the people and by the people and from the the people, and that religon and government has no businees interferring in each other.

[ephorex_77 0]

"The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." - Pope Leo XIII

"...it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man." - Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo wrote that more than a century ago in he face of humanism and modernism and societal "progress". Look at how America and indeed the world in the West is today. The rights of men supercede that of anything else. Morals?? Ethics?? Religion?? All sidelined for our "rights under our Constitution". OUR, MINE, RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EVERYTHING POSSIBLY CONCEIVED. Freedom to sin, to blaspheme, to schism, to abuse, to molest, to attack, to vilify, to soil, to render eveything decent in this world void. All in the name of unbridled, unlimited "freedom".

I agree totally with that article afore-posted, although being a Catholic, it is natural that I would like for it to be based on the Catholic religion.

And also, I'm in exam mode at the moment, but I haven't forgotten to reply about the Inquisition etc.; I'll do tha after the exams are over. I'll be popping in intermittently though.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77 "The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." - Pope Leo XIII 

"...it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man." - Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo wrote that more than a century ago in he face of humanism and modernism and societal "progress". Look at how America and indeed the world in the West is today. The rights of men supercede that of anything else. Morals?? Ethics?? Religion?? All sidelined for our "rights under our Constitution". OUR, MINE, RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EVERYTHING POSSIBLY CONCEIVED. Freedom to sin, to blaspheme, to schism, to abuse, to molest, to attack, to vilify, to soil, to render eveything decent in this world void. All in the name of unbridled, unlimited "freedom".  quote>

Historically, the early colonists who came to the North American continent were seeking religious freedom.  They had their beliefs and wanted to worship in the way they saw fit.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but it sounds as though you are saying that governments have a God-given right (or maybe the word is "obligation")  to oppress people.

Talk to just about any American, whatever their religious beliefs, and they will tell you that their freedom is not "unbridled and unlimited".  There is, to pick one item out of your list, no freedom to molest.

I agree totally with that article afore-posted, although being a Catholic, it is natural that I would like for it to be based on the Catholic religion.   quote>

 

Again, we return to the issue of there being many people, as equally convinced as you are, that their religion (while different from yours) is the correct one.  As the saying goes, no one died and made any of us God so Person A does not get to tell Person B that their beliefs are wrong.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77 "The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." - Pope Leo XIII

quote>

It seems to me that God doesn't need any rights.  He can do anything he wants and nobody and nothing could stop him.  Rights are needed for humans so that the few cannot oppress the many and, more importantly, the many cannot oppress the few.

ISF

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Again, we return to the issue of there being many people, as equally convinced as you are, that their religion (while different from yours) is the correct one.  As the saying goes, no one died and made any of us God so Person A does not get to tell Person B that their beliefs are wrong.quote>

 

With all due respect, though SkiGeek,  this goes both ways... who are you to tell Euphorex that he's wrong?

I think oftentimes lost in the "politically correct" view of relativism and the "there's no one right answer" line of thinking is an underlying theme of the politically correct one telling the exclusivist they're wrong.  That ultimately, at least in my mind, discredits their beliefs, because it makes them conditional... the ideas they like, they keep, but ones they don't like, they don't keep.

Just my 2 cents.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: jglei701

With all due respect, though SkiGeek,  this goes both ways... who are you to tell Euphorex that he's wrong?

I think oftentimes lost in the "politically correct" view of relativism and the "there's no one right answer" line of thinking is an underlying theme of the politically correct one telling the exclusivist they're wrong.  That ultimately, at least in my mind, discredits their beliefs, because it makes them conditional... the ideas they like, they keep, but ones they don't like, they don't keep.

Just my 2 cents.quote>

Exclusivist?  meaning a person who believes that his particular flavor of whichever religion is the only true path?  Okay, I can go with that definition.

As I mentioned earlier, I honestly believe it is the single most destructive belief on the planet.  I believe there has been far too much mayhem and destruction because Group X believes they are morally superior to Group Y.  Even if it is just an excuse, as many people claim, I believe that using God to treat each other this way is an offense against God.

Just my 2 cents.

[moganite 4]

Ephorex

Pope Leo wrote that more than a century ago in he face of humanism and modernism and societal "progress". Look at how America and indeed the world in the West is today. The rights of men supercede that of anything else. Morals?? Ethics?? Religion?? All sidelined for our "rights under our Constitution". OUR, MINE, RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EVERYTHING POSSIBLY CONCEIVED. Freedom to sin, to blaspheme, to schism, to abuse, to molest, to attack, to vilify, to soil, to render eveything decent in this world void. All in the name of unbridled, unlimited "freedo quote>

Do you really think that freedom is those things and that someones rights extinguish those of annother?

My awnser is NO

just becuase you have freedom does that give you the right to impinge on the rights of others and guess what ? you have the right to be free from abuse, molestation,attack,vilification,soiling or what ever nasty you can think of . You are also free from  being forced into anything what is so wrong about having freedom to believe in what you want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone?

EDIT to elimate offensive tone

The annother thing organised religion is good for is those who find the freedom from choice  liberating.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: moganite Ephorex

Pope Leo wrote that more than a century ago in he face of humanism and modernism and societal "progress". Look at how America and indeed the world in the West is today. The rights of men supercede that of anything else. Morals?? Ethics?? Religion?? All sidelined for our "rights under our Constitution". OUR, MINE, RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EVERYTHING POSSIBLY CONCEIVED. Freedom to sin, to blaspheme, to schism, to abuse, to molest, to attack, to vilify, to soil, to render eveything decent in this world void. All in the name of unbridled, unlimited "freedo quote>

Do you really think that freedom is those things and that someones rights extinguish those of annother?

My awnser is NO

just becuase you have freedom does that give you the right to impinge on the rights of others and guess what ? you have the right to be free from abuse, molestation,attack,vilification,soiling or what ever nasty you can think of . You are also free from  being forced into anything what is so wrong about having freedom to believe in what you want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone?

EDIT to elimate offensive tone

The annother thing organised religion is good for is those who find the freedom from choice  liberating.quote>

 

Hmm...a typical response. 

Ok, let's assume that something is acceptable if it doesn't harm (which is a fluid definition anyway) anyone. Sure, I can accept that working definition. 

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation. Suppose a mother and her son love each other *very* much. By *very* I mean beyond what is normally the case. Ok. So then shall we say to them "Please, go ahead. Marry your mother, consummate the marriage and we'll be having a little bundle of joy 9 months later!" They aren't harming one another right?? They aren't being forced into anything right?? It's mutual consent right??

So, let's move on to another hypothetical situation. Suppose a human and a non-human organism *love* each other very* much. If care is taken to ensure that the physical wellbeing of the non-human oganism is protected, should we say "Please, go ahead and *enjoy* yourself, but make sure not to hurt the non-human organism!! Otherwise, PETA will be after you"?? It's not hurting anyone (anything). Surely it's a *loving* relationship. 

There is another act which I (and many billions of others) find unacceptable and abominable, but it has already been codified in many places as law, most notably in Britain and Amsterdam. Because of intense moderator scrutiny, that particular act can't be described, but I'm sure many of you know what is on my mind. Do you find the two examples above repulsive, abominable, reprehensible etc.?? Is it beyond the scope of reason that in the near future, those acts will be, as with the one in our world today, tolerated and even lauded?? Those acts above don't hurt anybody right??

That is the excuse and reasoning behind the approving of certain things in our world today. But aren't the examples that I stated above perfect examples of a "loving and caring" relationship, which is repeated so often today, it's in danger of becoming a cliché?? Should they be allowed too by the same token; the same reasoning??

Also, allow me to point out (as did another individual some time ago) that this post is representive of MY OPINIONS and PERSONAL views, just as it is the case with many others' (including many mods and admins) criticising of religion. Criticism (in varying degrees of intensity) on this thread, when directed towards religion or other associated topics, is allowed, so allow me the same liberty by which to criticise things which many billions of others and myself, disapprove of. I hope you find my request to leave this post unmolested reasonable and quite within the bounds of fairness.

[moganite 4]

you you want your post up in the inerests of fairness then this on must remain also. Even if you find it foffensive as that is your choice  and i don't mean to offend  merely discuss the concepts using the propper words. Hope you can also grany my request the same consideration

Ephorex

Your first example hmmm.

Ther is s pecial name for that if you refer to livestock , line breeding that is where the father or mother mates with their own progeny to concentrate genese its a common prcitce in agriculture to have one bull to sire a number of heifers that are both his daughters and granddaughters. It is strange that one pracitse is allowed and the other is pohibited. The downsides are due to the concentration of genteic material  ie genetic abnormlities that result  infatalities or spontaneous abortions and loss of genteic diversity.

You also have alot of ethical issues relating to consent of the son or daughter  and were they forced into it. There is also an abuse dyanmic that can produce the same effect (better the devil you know)

I would look at the history  and psycholog of both people and ask is there an abuse dynamic, what is really going on.This is also a grey area and it is very difficulty to get a coherent  and intelligent awnser together.

Also looking athe the biblical account of Adam and Eve and their chilrden Who did Adams' and Eves' children marry /have sex with to make more children if mating woth siblings and relatives was a sin? By definition they are all related. This is true if you take the bible literally and as the unfailing word of god.

 There are 3 choices have sex wtih and marry a parrent, Have sex with and marry a sibling or the third one is introduction of new genetic material. which one is it? the first 2 result in a sin and its a sin that was forced on us by the curse and by a vengeful god ... maybe he wanted that to happen force them into a sin of his own making.  the third alternative is even worse if you belive in the infallability of god and the bible as Gods' word. It is God willingly added new genteic material  secretly and then willingly OMITTED the point of mentioning it in his own chronicle and thus intenionally commited a sin , a lie of ommision.

Reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam

Second example

Beastiality as the biblical word for it or Zophillia

Again a grey area but thats ok life is not  black and white

Why is it grey  the issiue of wheter animals are sentient and can they love in the same way humans love. You also have the issue of abuse/injury/cruelty in there. The chruchs' position is that any sex that is not reproductive is wrong comes into alot of the prohibitions in western culture. There is no grounds for it being wrong on the basis of disease though some diseasea are transmissible in both directions the same is true of human inercourse.  Often there is greater risk to the human than the animal.

The issue of consent as there is considerable debate about are animals sentient and what ones i would tend to say until we know for sure  it is possible but unlikely. the next thing is how does an animal give infromed consent it cant speak any human language though there may be some understanding of the humans language.

Sexuality is a complex beast and it can be extremly difficult to change and even when you succed you are causing alot of psychological damage on the individual. some of these encounters are the result of curiosity and some times its the way people or animals are attracted to other species this has been observed in alot of species being raised by a closely related or similar species, remember that video footage of a donkey chasing down a man?

reference to zophillia /beastiality again wiki the peer reviewed  encylopediea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastiality

You may find homosexual marriage a problem but it is no rean to deny 2 people 2 consenting adults to do what they want with their bodies. As long as they dont force it on anyoneelse and its not where it can be seen (like heterosexual sex) i am fine with it.

If you are going to presecute someone because their sexuality is a sin in YOUR God's eyes then where does it end ? mental illness ? blond hair blue eyes or any other combination you want?  the poor? the old? people who dont believe exactly the same thing as you? the disabled? black ? white? anything differnt from you?

 It puts you on a very slipery slope to EVIL. Also everything that was mentioned immediately above has happend before atl least once in history (Nazi, Germany to name one). Yoe can belive what ever you want becuse there is nothing that grants you that power Also the majority can be wrong just look at slavery.

Again if there is abuse of most sorts then i am against it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

That is the excuse and reasoning behind the approving of certain things in our world today. But aren't the examples that I stated above perfect examples of a "loving and caring" relationship, which is repeated so often today, it's in danger of becoming a cliché?? Should they be allowed too by the same token; the same reasoning??

quote>

 

No, they are not perfect examples.  In the examples you gave, everyone involved was a not  "consenting adult".  Societies can, in in my opinion should, protect the non-consenting and the non-adult.

In the case of parent-child incest (whether the child has reached adult age or not), there is the issue of genetic damage to the baby (who is obviously a non-consenting, non-adult).  

There is also the issue of "crossing the line of authority" which is why some places have laws protecting subordinates from their bosses, for instance.  (Such laws usually include wording about "unwanted" or "unwelcome" sexual advances.)

[moganite 4]

I forgot about that but even had i remembered i would of left it til a later time my post was getting a bit long i did mention it but in a round about way.

Thanks Ski for getting what i missed.

[Sam 163]

The two examples Ephorex gave would violate the harm none principal, at least as I apply it, and would therefore not be permitted under that reasoning (some valid reasons as given in Ski Geek's and Moganite's messages). Sometimes the harm that would result is not obvious at first glance and needs careful thinking through.

As an example of how I apply the harm none principal to myself, lets say I want to take up smoking. Would my version of the harm none principal allow me to do this? No. If I smoked I would be harming myself (damage to lungs and heart etc, risk of cancer). If I harm myself then I also harm those who care about my wellbeing. If I smoke in a public place or near others then I harm them too.

However the way I use the harm none principal also usually prevents me from interfering with the free will and choices of another so it would also not normally be acceptable for me to consider another person wrong if they choose to smoke in private (even if they are harming themselves). Others have the freedom to make their own choices.

There would be exceptions to this. As SkiGeek mentioned society has a responsibility to protect the non-adult or non-consenting. I would consider it perfectly reasonable and consistent with the harm none principal for a government to legislate against the sale of cigarettes to children, or pass laws preventing smoking in public places to protect the health and rights of its citizens.

Relationships where there are differing levels of power or responsibility have further implications to be considered under the harm none principal, than relationships where there is equality of power and responsibility.

I have used smoking as an example only, as it may be a little less contentious than some of the others previously raised. However as mentioned my opinions expressed are mine only and I consider it wrong for me to expect others to believe the same as I do. I've only mentioned a few things I consider important in illustrating the harm none principal here. There are other principals I use to moderate it, such as self responsibility, which I won't go into here.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Hmm, here is something that I have come to understand.

We are taught two things, one, or the other, or both. People typically believe one or the other. Here they are

1. There is no wrong way

2. There is only one right way

Sound familiar? I hope so.

They're both wrong. Of course, living in the world exposes that they are a fallacy. Why do we accept them as a teaching?

But listen; they're not completely wrong. In fact, in particular contexts, like certain scientific law, they are completely correct.

For instance, when it comes to -Unlawfully killing someone- there is only one right way. Not doing it.

Another instance, what should your favorite color be? Eh, there's no wrong answer (I guess, exept to not be able to decide.. )

What I've found is that there are many right and wrong ways, and how 'good' or 'beneficial' or 'damaging' they are vary; in a sense, there is only a fluid definition of equality among them.

Larger things in life tend to hold this characteristic. For instance, if you are making a computer program, there is more than one way to correctly program the functions you would need. There are also a bunch of very wrong ways to do it. Among the wrong and right ways there really is no sense of 'equality' -- some right ways might work but are very inefficient, some ways might be wrong only in that they don't do all the functions, others are wrong in that they aren't valid statements of the language and do not compile.

In the individual instances of code there may be situations where there is one right and one wrong way, and others where it is up to preference.

I think it is a matter of principles, rules and preferences. Principles are something that you follow (as best as possibly) unconditionally. For instance, most would be against something like incest, murder, thievery, adultery, etc, unconditionally.

Rules are things that fall between principles and preferences. They exist in the 'many right and wrong ways' category. They might be speeding laws, or they might be rules about church, such as whether we can talk during certain things, what day we go to worship, etc. Think of things that you could think of doing a different way, but you can also think of many right and wrong ways to go about it. That's a rule, or at least, how I define one.

Preferences are simply that; preferences. The biggest error you can make is to elevate your preferences to the level of being principle. They can be rules, sure, I guess, depending on the context; sometimes a decision needs to be made. But not everything is preference. Everyone knows this, but typically people assign 'preference' and 'principle' to whatever they see fit, usually to forward their own personal opinion.

One of the most difficult decisions we have is determining principle from preference; what rules should we have? We become 'fundamentalist' in some regard when preferences are bleeding into rules and rules into principles; especially if we hold all things to be principle. A sad mistake, I think.

---

In any case, I think that the cause of heresy is not people reading and interpretting the word on their own, but instead, particular people write interpretations or works that are not the word, and people substitute the word for them. In many cases I've seen an exclusive work being used as either the Word or as an interpretter for it. This is why I will never write a guide to the Bible; or at least, do so with caution. People in religion tend to say things with utmost certainty which are a matter of opinion. Sometimes it is done out of uncautious conviction, other times it is done with manipulating others in mind. This is why I believe in being skeptical about such things. In fact, it is said that you must 'test every spirit' - what I think this means is that when someone brings forth a religious idea, no matter what conviction they seem to have about it you must not simply accept it before testing it.

I had something interesting to say about Intentionalism and the Bible, but I'll save it for another time.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: RiverCocytus 

. . .

I think it is a matter of principles, rules and preferences. Principles are something that you follow (as best as possibly) unconditionally. For instance, most would be against something like incest, murder, thievery, adultery, etc, unconditionally.

Rules are things that fall between principles and preferences. They exist in the 'many right and wrong ways' category. They might be speeding laws, or they might be rules about church, such as whether we can talk during certain things, what day we go to worship, etc. Think of things that you could think of doing a different way, but you can also think of many right and wrong ways to go about it. That's a rule, or at least, how I define one.

Preferences are simply that; preferences. The biggest error you can make is to elevate your preferences to the level of being principle. They can be rules, sure, I guess, depending on the context; sometimes a decision needs to be made. But not everything is preference. Everyone knows this, but typically people assign 'preference' and 'principle' to whatever they see fit, usually to forward their own personal opinion.

. . . 

quote>

 

Very nicely put!  I think that is an excellent way of looking at it.

[moganite 4]

That whole post is excellent River and succinct

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

Moganites quote:

"Also looking a the the biblical account of Adam and Eve and their chilrden Who did Adams' and Eves' children marry /have sex with to make more children if mating woth siblings and relatives was a sin? By definition they are all related. This is true if you take the bible literally and as the unfailing word of god. "

Remember that A&E were perfect specimens; no flaws or degradation of DNA. The Bible carefully chooses it's time to specify the laws of sexuality. As the lineage broke down, so was it seperated.

Also read Genesis carefully; Caan and Abel were not Eves FIRST children. They were only her first children "concieved and delivered in sorrows"

Before they were banned from the Garden; child birth was painless and thousands of offspring could have already been born. Genesis focus' on the sin of the appointed rulers of the Garden, not the subjects, as they are not important to the stories message to man.

Remember that "day" was 1000 years in the Garden also? READ this Verse:

Genesis chapter 2 verse 17

 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in that DAY  that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die(within the 1000 year day)"

Adam was 777 years old when he died the physical death.

After the decay was let loose on the world; no man or woman ever again lived passed 1000 years. With each generation in the Bible; Their life spans were shortened more and more.

Noahs flood made a HUGE decline in life spans occur in the Bible. Something in the enviroment changed that day(again within 1000 years)

The flood of the Bible is truth. Wherever you find the truth, you always find a parallel half-truth to that. One that appears more reasonable, yet  humanized.

Gilgamesh story is the similar, yet convincing more reasonable story, that makes the flood story of the Bible sound feasible and misunderstood.

That is an important ingredient in Satans untruth; it must be a different but more physical explaination of an identical event.

Adam and Eve of the Garden, most certainly could let their offspring mate: perfect DNA , means perfect offspring with no flaws or physical abnormalities. God made incest a sin, when humans became flawed on a genetic level. remember that sin is defined by its' consequences.

There was NO consequence to a perfect conception. This is also why Mary's virgin birth was also NOT a sin; because it was a perfect conception!

RiverCocytus: What is present in your entire last post, friend? You said it; a single right answer is always different answers in different situations. This requires a spiritual answer or what the hebrews called "council"

Only God can know the outcome before it happens, so only God can give "devine council".

Basically, you are back on my previous question: Is there ever a situation, where a lie is the right answer?

[moganite 4]

Frndofyaweh

Re the 1000 earth years = 1 god day ?  why  could this be on a logarithmic scale ? why coulddn't it be 5000 trillion years and god just tell us it was one day?

Thousands of children why aren't they mentioned? And they did not  the sin of the father and thus must be considered not sinners and not expelled .... wouldnt god know instantly being infinetly powerful and knowing? would any of these kids be kicked out  for something that their father did remember that they would have no knowledge of the sin  unless it was communicated and it could not of been communicated without  arcane (magical ?) means.

 

Also what sort of time frame are we talking about the biblical/Eden time frame or earth? remember wouldnt adam experience a god(or  Eden) day as only one day as 1 day and not 1000 years? No time frame is given in god/eden days or earth days. it can be anything that the religous authourity says it its it is fluid. Sounds strange for something thats is supposed to be built on unyielding truth. No evidence of children other than that infered/hypothesised.

Also what form did the serpent have in the garden of eden? It obviously  had legs, also snakes do have legs just vestigal ones that are not visible.

 your quote Genisis 2 ch 17meant that everything will die no time frame is given other than  the one you infered or hypothesised or gave in the brakets. If so it would of read today or in 100 years and been explicit not implicit. The use of the language is not clear and no correlation can be made.

Genetics what evidence is ther of perfect cells in Adam  and Eve? if Those cells were perfect would they stil be around today even with the curse? Pefect cells never die. They never get cancer or disease or age and never suffer degradation Also the bible does not say when Adam and Eve will die (as far as i know)

Also if their genes were both pefect then wouldn't they give rise to a generation of perfect genetic children. That in turn give rise to perfect children etc. Inbreeding would have no consequences yet we know it does.

Refering to genetic disease where is the evidence that states that the number/incidence of genetic diseases has been rising for thousands if not millions of years. The problem is ironically you cannot use infromation gathered in the last 250 years or so as we have been busy polluting our enviroment and that would  also give the same effects as genetic diseases rising Also theour knowldege of genetic diseases was limtied to 2 in the preindustrila era  heamophillia( blood loving=>vampire) and sickle cell anemia which the mechanisim was discovered in the early industrial revolution  you can use modern science on the people but  they all must be preindustrial to show the increase. Remember gentic diseases such as cystic fibrosis would of  killed pretty quickly or severly hindered the abiltiy to reproduce.

Biblical flood

Where did all that water go? marine ecosystems  How did they survive as a all freshwater species cannot tolerate sea water and the hydrostatic pressure would of killed all immobile organisims we are talking about 8.9 km of water here. How did reef systems survive as even slight changes in temperature are killing them today? how did the verebrate populations survive as alot of the species they depend on require nutrients to survive? Toxic algal blooms how large were they?

 Finally a quote

The flood of the Bible is truth. Wherever you find the truth, you always find a parallel half-truth to that. One that appears more reasonable, yet  humanized.

Gilgamesh story is the similar, yet convincing more reasonable story, that makes the flood story of the Bible sound feasible and misunderstood.

That is an important ingredient in Satans untruth; it must be a different but more physical explaination of an identical event.quote>

Hmmm does that mean that science in explaining the world in pyhsical terms Satans work does that mean you should NOT use technology as it is a product of Satan. As sicence often gives a conflicting awnser to the biblica account/ accepted church wisdom of the time does that mean all science is work of the devil .. even offically endorsed by religion science? Am I to swallow gods statements without asking questions and be gulible like  wildebeasts?

That is the position the churh had a few hundred years ago as evidence through out history.

The problem is religion cannot explain everything and Science cannot explain that which cant be measured. Religon has trouble with  application into new areas and can only explain a set of phenomena what if a new phenomena comes along?  one that goes againts the accepted wisdom is that phenomena Satans work?

Laslt there is no such thing as a virgin birth that is male  as that would be parthenogenisis or natural cloning and result in only female children as there is no Y chromosone present. For this i am using the word virgin in the modern sense.  could it mean first birth? as in unspoiled until that time.