ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:35 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 6:27 am 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
first off, i agree with the common statement that worship and prayer should be allowed, (so long as it doesn't interfere with health regulations. do the chicken killing at home)

but it should not be required.

now, i wanted to comment on the '10 commandments in the courtroom' thing, but i realized idon't actually KNOW what the 10 commandments are, so i had to look them up. which is proof that at least one person didn't have a religion he didn't want shoved down his throat.

so here we go...the 10 Commandments as laws...or basis for law:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

whoop, civil liberties straight out the window already. does this commandment mean "you must worship THIS god or none?" or "Above all others" it's this sort of talk that leadfs to the death of 'infidels'

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

more 'my way or the highway' where's these moral origins of our law?

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

apparently, this one actually has nothing to do with swearing at all. it's more to do about 'contracts' made 'in the name of the lord' sort of a sacred oath. again, totally irrelevent to anyone who does not worship this god, who's a sinner (and a criminal?) anyway.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

many people work on sundays. and it's certainly not illegal. on another note...does that seem like a lot of words to say "you get sundays off. worship me."?

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

the essay i'm getting the commandments from (which i'll credit and link at the end of this boring post) has some things to say about this commandment promising that those that look after their parents and elderly will have a long life. it's a nice sentiment (with no basis in fact) but doesn't have much relevance, apart from care for the elderly in nursing homes or whatever.

"Thou shalt not kill."

ok, so now wer'e finally getting to commandments that laws can actually be based on. but really, this statement is WAY too broad to be a defining law, in my opinion. but it IS a begginning i suppose.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

i'm not clear, do people still go to jail or get hung for this one? insome religions divorce is illegal, and any relationships that occur afterward is still adultery. this one sounds outdated too.

"Thou shalt not steal."

Ok, so now we are talking. this one we can most likely reach some consensus on. however this commandment doesn'treally define theft at all, but it is a basis. did we really need god to tell us this one to figure it out though?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

ok, so this one fits as well, according to my reference. it's about not commiting purgery. this does directly relate to courtroom laws, if that's the case.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

does this mean 'do not have desires or feel envy'? i'm lost on this one. the essay mentions stuff about the commandment shifting the word slave to man/maidservant, to keep up with the times. is this pertinent to Law?

so, i'll total up. and bear in mind these are all opinions i have reached based on the information i hunted down. here we go:

pertinent to law: 3 commandments.

not pertinent to law: 6 commandments.

undecided: 1 commandment.

this post was terribly long, and likely boring. but i must say that i learned something about how lucky i am to grow up in a country where i can reach the age of 24 and not know the basis of a religion i'm not part of, and not be forced to know. yay us!

now to credit that article, which listed the ten commandments, and had some explanations which were helpful and enlightening in some respects. whether it has any truth...like i'd know... the link!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 8:55 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
the fact that God is thrown in there shows that it favors 'a religion' because the 10 commandments are meant to also be a religious...thing...yeah...

^_^

Anyway, I don't have a problem with it. You still say 'so help you god' when you swear to lie, cheat, and sling dirt on everyone you thought was ok, so I don't see a problem with displaying the 10 commandments. That, however, is a personal thing.

Edit: Uh...yeah...maybe next time I won't contradict myself...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kills Commies on 2002-11-04 09:01 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 9:38 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Grr. Bastards. Lying, filthy bastards . . .

No, not mad and KC. I don't mind that. I mean the whole "Lying while under oath" thing.

Liars drive me nuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:07 am 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
hehe, i don't 'lie', i 'tell stories'.

one is for being an asshole, the other is for entertaining those whose lives are full of facts.

NEVER let the facts get in the way of a good truth.

lying is really too much hard work...if i lie to someone, then i have to remember that bullshit in case i have to re-tell it later, and i have enough trouble remembering what ACTUALLY happened, let alone making shit up.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 4:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3246
Location: Frigid/boiling midwest.
Frankly, I think the four noble truths of Buddhism would be better suited for the classroom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 5:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
I disagree. At least with the Ten Commandments, you can make a (very) weak argument that they represent general standards of good conduct rather than religious dogma; the Noble Truths are so intertwined with Buddhism that upholding them as rules or ideals to follow would essentially be an attempt to convert those subject to said ideals to Buddhism.

That said, though, I don't think associating any kind of religious message, be it Christian, Buddhist or otherwise, with a governmental institution is a good idea.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 6:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3246
Location: Frigid/boiling midwest.
I do agree that 'twould be better not to have any religious beliefs systems forced on the classroom, but I feel that the idea that human suffering comes from rampant desire a better point to make that "you shall worship no God before me"

That said, I still don't see Buddhism as being as great as everybody makes it out to be.

_________________
n(people that love you) - n(your mum)=0


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 8:46 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Playing devil's advocate, how can a government tell people what to do without bringing religion into it?

"Uhh... Go shoot people. God told me to do it!"

"Well, stupid army people, there is no god - I'll just do whatever the fuck I want to. There's no afterlife or purpose to life anyway."

"You're right, screw the army!"

That's why religion was developed in the first place - it's impossible to organize a society without fear of god because at the core everyone is a selfish prick who'd rather stay home and smoke pot all day and fornicate all willy-nilly than actually have a job or do productive work or such - though I'm generalizing from self here, my whole anti-social personality disorder thingee interfering with my logic and such. But if everyone does that nothing ever gets done - everyone has to forage for himself, build his own home, yadda-yadda. So what a few brilliant people back in the day invented the afterlife, and organized society by saying "If you don't do that, God will punish you!" They then lived lives of brilliant excess built upon the backs of the stupid people, but since life was better now than it was before, no-one complained.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:24 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
That's the "morals are inherently religious" argument, and it's just wrong. It is perfectly possible to develop a moral system without necessarily believing in a future state of rewards and punishments; it just takes a bit more thought than listening to burning shrubbery.

Personally, I think it likely that the moral aspects of religion emerged as a way to <i>codify</i> morality; it makes raising children, punishing criminals, and such easier if you can just tell them to read the fucking manual, so to speak.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:31 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
I'm just saying it's difficult to justify morals of ANY kind without either a philisophical or religious or pragmatic basis. You can't just have abstract morality - e.g. "I'm not going to kill people because it's wrong." You have to justify it "God told me that killing is wrong" because if you think about it pragmatically, you'd conclude "I can't kill this person because bad things would happen if I got caught." Why would you get thrown in jail - because "God said killing is wrong" or "The country cannot support itself if its citizens kill each other randomly. If we outlaw murder, then we do not have to worry as much about our own murders, our people will not live in fear, and we will become a new world power." I am saying that the morality of the general populace originated from the belief in the occult, which evolved eventually into religion. The architects of religion as the ancients knew it most likely based morality off of pragmatic principles designed to benefit themselves, and as a side effect benefit the entire population. I never said in my previous post that all morality is religious. I say that morality generally is religious-based because that is how it is spread. Most pragmatic morality is similar to religious morality - minus the bullshit, of course - but I imagine precious few of us obtained pragmatic morality without first being brainwashed by religion. Those that do manage to escape indoctrination at home aquire it socially. That's a fact of life - it's necessary for society as we know it, and I thus cannot say that religion was bad for the development of humanity. While random bad things occur and there are societal ills, there will always be a need for religion, even by the most self-sufficient of us all.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
That, and you don't take into account contractualist thinking (ie, peopel will set aside their own interests in favor of being safe)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 2:52 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Wouldn't that fall under pragmatism? Besides, I think contractionalism is pretty much the basis of all religion in general "If you are a good person you will go to heaven." If people didn't think that way, I'd imagine conversations like this one would be common:

"If you don't stop killing people you're going to hell... A bad, bad place where you go after you die."

"Screw you!" *kills the preacher*

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group