Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 03-18-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You lost me there.

You don't dispute that many people behave according to higher ethical standards than does the monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds.

You will be lost if you suppose that.

Earlier, I said 'I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me.' Your reply began, 'I'm sure you do ...'

If I have misunderstood what you meant by that, what did you mean by that?

Carry on reading.

I did. It didn’t help. Your meaning remains unclear to me.

J-D · 03-19-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I've always found that to be a somewhat question-begging distinction.

I don't see how. I think it must be culturally universal, or close to it, to have a prohibition on murder, and I think wherever that prohibition occurs there must be distinctions between those killings categorised as murders and those not so categorised. In New South Wales, for example, murder is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment but not all killings are murders. Is that 'question-begging'? How?

Precisely because "murder" is only a legal standard without any objective or uniform definition. The word, in a vaccuum, doesn't mean anything except "illegal killing," which, as I said, is question-begging, because killing a person "illegally" has no objective or universal definition. Under Levitical law, for instance, it is not illegal to kill your own slave. Killing your own slave is not "murder." It is illegal to kill somebody else's slave, but even then, it's not punished as murder, but only as a property crime.

So what kind of "murder" can we say is definitely forbidden by the Decalogue? There is virtually no kind of killing that the Bible doesn't condone somewhere, including mass infanticide. If "murder" doesn't cover slaughtering babies, then what does it cover?

The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) does not give a full definition of murder. That does not make the things it does have to say about murder meaningless. It relies for its operation on a legal understanding of the definition of 'murder' which was well established before 1958, and that context gives it useful meaning. Ancient Hebrews somehow transported to modern Victoria would be able to understand that general principle, even if they might be surprised by some of the specific rules in Victorian law about what's murder and what isn't. The same is true in reverse.

judge · 03-19-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Who are the "servants" being ordered to do the killing here? If the "King" is God. then who is God ordering to actually do the killing? When God says "kill them in front of me," who is he talking to?

Must be the Romans.

Joel 2

10 Before them the earth shakes,
the heavens tremble,
the sun and moon are darkened,
and the stars no longer shine.
11 The LORD thunders
at the head of his army;
his forces are beyond number,
and mighty is the army that obeys his command.
The day of the LORD is great;
it is dreadful.
Who can endure it

Isaiah 5
1 I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 “Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
5 Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
6 I will make it a wasteland,
neither pruned nor cultivated,
and briers and thorns will grow there.

sotto voce · 03-20-2012, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Who are the "servants" being ordered to do the killing here? If the "King" is God. then who is God ordering to actually do the killing? When God says "kill them in front of me," who is he talking to?

Must be the Romans.

One can hope it's only them.

But Jesus' hearers thought that the Romans were to be the ones killed. Wrong context, wrong interpretation.

judge · 03-20-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Must be the Romans.

One can hope it's only them.

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

sotto voce · 03-20-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Must be the Romans.

One can hope it's only them.

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

True, they did. Now read what I wrote after I wrote that.

judge · 03-22-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

True, they did. Now read what I wrote after I wrote that.

As you didn't back it up with evidence I ignored it.

sotto voce · 03-22-2012, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

True, they did. Now read what I wrote after I wrote that.

As you didn't back it up with evidence I ignored it.

Silence tends to signify agreement.

J-D · 03-22-2012, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

True, they did. Now read what I wrote after I wrote that.

As you didn't back it up with evidence I ignored it.

Silence tends to signify agreement.

By that logic, when I posted that your meaning was unclear and you didn't respond, your silence would have signified that you agreed that your meaning was unclear.

sotto voce · 03-22-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It already happened. The Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem.

True, they did. Now read what I wrote after I wrote that.

As you didn't back it up with evidence I ignored it.

Silence tends to signify agreement.

By that logic, when I posted that your meaning was unclear and you didn't respond, your silence would have signified that you agreed that your meaning was unclear.

That's not a conclusion justifiable from 'tends to'.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.