Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 07-23-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
"The many" were the Aztecs, Mayans and other practicioners of human sacrifice. "The few" were those who were sacrificed.

What about consent of those who were affected by such laws? And quite a few sacrifices were consensual - very similar to Xian martyrdom. And the unwilling only became 'the few' when their populations were slaughtered in war.

winstonjen · 07-23-2003, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
That was not child sacrifice, it was punishment for a crime.

If you think what they referred to was a crime, and that it is a just punishment, then it is you who need help.

Keith · 07-23-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy

"That these creeps are attempting to confer value neutrality on intergenerational sex is nonetheless obvious to more people than just me."

Great point, yguy. And this value neutrality seems to be the logical place for a great many atheists to go with their moral relativism. Is that not scary?

Keith · 07-23-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

"No, dumb bell, Jesus takes the Jews to task for not obeying god's law (Lev 20:9) about beating disobedient children to death in the scene where they complain that he doesn't wash up before meals."

As I've already pointed out, only a person with almost no education could possibly read Mark 7:1-23 and think that Jesus was taking them to task for not beating disobedient children to death.

Keith · 07-23-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

"How about "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few"? Is that enough? Or do you want another reason?"

I want a reason that can actually be defended...as opposed to a reason which some accept by faith only because they think it sounds good.

winstonjen · 07-23-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I want a reason that can actually be defended...as opposed to a reason which some accept by faith only because they think it sounds good.

I think you're finally getting it. You seemed to think that because what you accepted as from god on faith was right. Now you say that it's not defensible.

Biff the unclean · 07-23-2003, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
As I've already pointed out, only a person with almost no education could possibly read Mark 7:1-23 and think that Jesus was taking them to task for not beating disobedient children to death.

Your pointing that out just shows that you can't read English. And that you are desperate that the bible not say what it actually does. As for no education I'll match my Ph.D. and Mensa membership against yours if you like.
But why do you think that it is okay for the other Israelites to stone disrespectful children but not for Jesus to?

HelenM · 07-24-2003, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Great point, yguy. And this value neutrality seems to be the logical place for a great many atheists to go with their moral relativism. Is that not scary?

This is what I call scary: theists acting on their beliefs and flying planes into skyscrapers.

Helen

HelenM · 07-24-2003, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Fine, I stand corrected on the technical point. That these creeps are attempting to confer value neutrality on intergenerational sex is nonetheless obvious to more people than just me.

It's best to be correct in your technical points. Otherwise your credibility will suffer.

Helen

yguy · 07-24-2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
What about consent of those who were affected by such laws? And quite a few sacrifices were consensual

Uh huh. No doubt the child sacrifices were every bit as consenting as those in the modern era who "consent" to be buggered by adults.

Quote:

- very similar to Xian martyrdom.

I don't know where you get that idea. The idea behind the martyrdom of Stephen, for instance, was not to sacrifice his life, but to tell the truth knowing he would be killed; i.e., his death was a definite possibility in his mind, but the goal of his actions, IMO. Had they not stoned him to death, I've no doubt he'd have been perfectly happt to keep on breathing. Yes, I know that Christ implied that martyrdom was an honor of sorts, but people who make it their life's ambition to be martyrs are, I suspect, in danger of ending up on the wrong side of the "pearly gates" when all is said and done.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.