Right to life.. right to anything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter R_Daneel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R_Daneel said:
That is his problem. Tell him to get over it.

Only if put into practise. If it stays an internal conviction, it does not hurt anyone - except God - as you say. But that is his problem, not ours. If he could fix the problem and does not do it, he can only blame himself. There are no excuses. You said that all (or almost all) civilized societies consider “hate” evil - even if not put into practice. Bring up some evidence for that claim.
Click to expand...
when it comes to what is evil, and therefore what would violate free will if He simply stopped all evil acts, than it his morality from which we judge.

he thinks that hate is an evil act, just as you showed by the earlier example of lust.

however, if you really need more evidence that hate is evil, beyond sexism and racism, then how about the hate crime laws? motivation is a part of the crime for them.

if hate isnt a separate idea from the crime alone, then what would be the point, you would charge them the regular charges, assault, or what have you.
 
R_Daneel said:
Oh, the po’ Gawd. He is huwt by ouw feelings. Is he not hurt by our actions? Obviously not, since he allows them. Is God more hurt by our thoughts than our actions? Obviously, since he allows the actions… You could not be more disrespectful toward God, even if you tried to spout such nonsense about him.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of back and forth before this, and it does not take an in-depth analysis of the thread to see some clear deficits of charity by many posters. Let’s all take a deep breath here and refocus for charity’s sake.

Without condoning anything said previously to this, a step in the quoted argument is plain wrong. “Is he not hurt by our actions? Obviously not, since he allows them.” No, sometimes our actions do hurt Him. He allows them not because they will never be painful but because allowing them (more strictly speaking, bestowing free will) was a profound act of love.

That is not an easy concept to wrap a finite mind around, but that’s the way it is. I suspect much of the rest follows, which must of course be totally revisited.
 
momor said:
Bad things happen because of original sin. I don’t claim to understand it but I accept it. I cannot begin to fathom God’s mind and plan for His creatures. I do know that God IS there to make good things out of the bad. It’s happened more than once in my life. It hasn’t been on my timetable, but I was always able to look back later and see how it happened. The longer I stayed mad, the longer it took to see it.
Click to expand...
I don’t live in your shoes.
 
Black_Rose said:
Do you live in Hong Kong or perhaps Singapore as an expatriate because Hong Kong is the only country that I know that has the attractiveness of Western capitalist prosperity without the right to vote for its citizens? (it also explains the very high gini coefficient in HK compared to the US and social democratic Western European nations since citizens cannot vote for politicians advocating the provision of public goods. )
Click to expand...
Nope, I came from one of the old satellite countries, and I live in the States. I left on my own accord (with my wife) and I love it.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
he thinks that hate is an evil act, just as you showed by the earlier example of lust.
Click to expand...
So God is simply an extended thought-police. A peeping Tom. Even judging your thoughts, your emotions, which are involuntary, and which you never intend to put into practice. As I said many times before. no matter how I tried, I could not be as disrespectful toward God as you are.
warpspeedpetey said:
however, if you really need more evidence that hate is evil, beyond sexism and racism, then how about the hate crime laws? motivation is a part of the crime for them.

if hate isnt a separate idea from the crime alone, then what would be the point, you would charge them the regular charges, assault, or what have you.
Click to expand...
And that is what should be the case. This whole hate-crime concept is a horrible mistake. Just because some idiot politicians come up which some newly concocted lunacy, it does not make those ideas valid.
 
manygift1spirit said:
No, sometimes our actions do hurt Him. He allows them not because they will never be painful but because allowing them (more strictly speaking, bestowing free will) was a profound act of love.
Click to expand...
How can anyone hurt an immutable being, who has no body, has no mind?
 
R_Daneel said:
I don’t accept the concept of thought-crime. Obviously, you do. An act, which is prevented from being carried out is a huge improvement over the one which is allowed to be executed. If you were the victim of that intended crime you would agree…
Click to expand...
Crime and sin are totally different, R Daneel.
You also seem to be ignoring inchoate crimes.
 
R_Daneel said:
No kidding. Crime makes sense, sin does not.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: I had hoped for a serious reply. Guess I’d better can the constructive point I was going to make about the difference between crime and sin. And ditto about inchoate crimes.
 
Doc_Keele said:
:hmmm: I had hoped for a serious reply. Guess I’d better can the constructive point I was going to make about the difference between crime and sin. And ditto about inchoate crimes.
Click to expand...
Crime is a legal construct. Sin is a theological one. Crime is violating some arbitrary law, whether that law makes sense or not. Sin is violating God’s commandment, whether it makes sense or not. On the surface it looks similar.

But they are not the same. If God orders you to commit a crime (murder), then you will be sinful if you refuse, and guilty of the crime if you comply.

Is this the kind of answer you were looking for?
 
R_Daneel said:
Crime is a legal construct. Sin is a theological one. Crime is violating some arbitrary law, whether that law makes sense or not. Sin is violating God’s commandment, whether it makes sense or not. On the surface it looks similar.

But they are not the same. If God orders you to commit a crime (murder), then you will be sinful if you refuse, and guilty of the crime if you comply.

Is this the kind of answer you were looking for?
Click to expand...
No, because it’s completely wrong. Crime is not a legal construct. Even anarchists and pre-legal societies recognize the concept of crime. And the differences you point out are not the ones I was going to.
 
R_Daneel said:
Well, then I am glad to stop this conversation here and now
Click to expand...
Sorry, you must already be out of your depth?🤷

You state one minute that
“Crime makes sense, sin does not.”
then you state that
“Crime is violating some arbitrary law, whether that law makes sense or not. Sin is violating God’s commandment, whether it makes sense or not.”

I know there’s something that doesn’t make any sense, and it’s not crime or sin!😃
 
Doc_Keele said:
No, because it’s completely wrong. Crime is not a legal construct. Even anarchists and pre-legal societies recognize the concept of crime.
Click to expand...
As if that would make a difference. Since you modified your post, I will have to point out that legal constructs (rules, regulations, laws) are not necessarily put down on paper, or papyrus, or clay tablets. Do you have anything to say, or are you interesting dancing?
 
I merely expanded my post to provide further explanation. You however have changed your position.
You stated that crime was a legal construct, now you state that rules, regulations and laws are legal constructs. So who’s dancing?

Incidentally you seem to have a misconception about what pre-legal means.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I merely expanded my post to provide further explanation. You however have changed your position.
You stated that crime was a legal construct, now you state that rules, regulations and laws are legal constructs. So who’s dancing?

Incidentally you seem to have a misconception about what pre-legal means.
Click to expand...
Sheesh. Violation of some rules, regulations, laws (whether they are spelled out or not) is considered a crime. Violation of some OTHER rules, regulations, laws (whether they are spelled out or not) is not considered a crime, it is considered a moral flaw. Sometimes the violation of yet another set of laws is considered a virtue. No, I did not change my position. When I made my first reply, I did not write a whole textbook, because I thought that you will understand what I meant. I guess I was wrong.

Do you have anything to say? About the subject, of course.
 
R_Daneel said:
Sheesh. Violation of some rules, regulations, laws (whether they are spelled out or not) is considered a crime. Violation of some OTHER rules, regulations, laws (whether they are spelled out or not) is not considered a crime, it is considered a moral flaw. Sometimes the violation of yet another set of laws is considered a virtue. No, I did not change my position. When I made my first reply, I did not write a whole textbook, because I thought that you will understand what I meant. I guess I was wrong.

Do you have anything to say? About the subject, of course.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:I can’t know what you thought, I can only know what you posted. Objective vs subjective.
And what you’ve posted so far about criminal law and crime is not only superficial but wrong. I understood what you posted, and if what you posted is not what you meant that the fault can only be yours. As I demonstrated with my quotes, you have changed your expressed position. It’s there in black and white.

Let’s analyse what you’ve said in this post. Essentially that there is criminal law and civil law. Hardly a groundbreaking analysis. What makes something criminal rather than civil? Now that’s the crux of the issue. It may be helpful to consider the purpose of criminal punishment, because this is the hallmark of criminal law - that one is punished. What do you think are the purposes of criminal punishment?
 
manygift1spirit said:
By transgressing its will.

Have you ever looked into a catechesal (sp?) primer? A lot of your concerns would be addressed.
Click to expand...
I have. Sorry no substantial answer was given. Shallow stuff, yes. Deep stuff, no.

For example the cathecism asserts that one can “know” about God through reason alone. Which means to me that faith is not required. Then it stops right there, giving this empty assertion. A proper way would have been to spell out, exactly, just HOW can one know about God through reason alone. It lacks the actual spelling out of the argument. So it is useless.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Let’s analyse what you’ve said in this post. Essentially that there is criminal law and civil law. Hardly a groundbreaking analysis. What makes something criminal rather than civil?
Click to expand...
Arbitrary distinction, at the whim of the lawmakers. Consider, there are local ordinances which criminalize the feeding of someone else’s parking meter. Such an act carries a fine (a form of punishment). Yet, the action is not harmful to the person whose meter expired, actually it is beneficial. Yet, the act is criminalized because it interferes with the goverment’s desire to collect more more money through imposing fines. Laws are mostly arbitrary. Some are more useful than others.
Doc_Keele said:
Now that’s the crux of the issue. It may be helpful to consider the purpose of criminal punishment, because this is the hallmark of criminal law - that one is punished. What do you think are the purposes of criminal punishment?
Click to expand...
Multiple purposes. Discouragement for others, retribution come to mind. Also the prevention of of repeating the same act by the same person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top