The Religion of Blinding Bluster

[Arthur Brain]

I was not intending to insult. I was hoping to stop this litany of silly questions. As I have already stated several times, now, the point is that WE DON'T KNOW how the future will play out. So we don't know what will be considered "a moral imperative" in the future. What we do know is that moral imperatives were quite different in the past from what they are now. And that they will be likely to continue changing in the future. How they will change is impossible to say, but THAT they will change is an easy prediction.

Some people already think violating other people sexually is an acceptable moral behavior. In fact, it remains a common practice in warfare among a number of nations of the world to kill the enemy males, and rape the enemy females, because the children of those rapes will be of "mixed" heritage, helping to disuade them from seeking vengeance when they become the next generation of adults.

You keep blindly insisting that your personal moral imperatives are absolute and unquestionable, and yet the rest of the world manages to continually prove that to be untrue.

What "litany of silly questions"? Sure, we don't know exactly how things are going to pan out in the future but barring an extinction level event it's a safe bet that technology will advance and if recent history has told us anything (in the West at least) it's that people's rights and freedoms will continue to expand. We've already seen the collapse of segregation, the rights of women to vote and to have equality along with homosexuals being allowed the same freedoms as straight folk and a stringent tightening in laws that protect children and give them a voice. All in the last hundred years. You've talked about some vague and undefined advancement in tech that somehow makes most people want to abandon loving relationships and when this tech breaks down would prefer to have rape as a norm or something instead. Would that be a societal advance in your opinion? Supposing it's also the future that it's all okay to rob and murder folk when they're going shopping or something as well for some vague and unspecified reason?

Your war analogy fails all ends up. I highly doubt that those who force themselves on other people consider it upstanding and moral to rape their victims during conflict and those that do so are rightfully regarded as war criminals and rapists with no justification for their actions and those caught rightfully pay the price. I'll ask you again, have you seen the after effects of rape and what it can do to the victim? Have you?

"Blindly insisting my personal moral imperatives"? Wow, you're not patronising, self righteous and puffed up at all are you? Again, if society devolves to it being okay for rape to be acceptable then it deserves to die out. Heck, maybe there's a viable reason for children to be raped and killed if it serves some vague purpose as well in your world but not in mine.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, and my point is that it is the greater good that determines what is "right and wrong" is a world where moral imperatives are not absolute. That is in the world we are living in.

What "greater good" could be served by rape not being deemed an immoral act? What's your idea of the "greater good" itself even?

 

[Hoping]

Then why ask about the Mosaic Law, when I'm talking about Romans 1?

The topic was, using OT punishments for modern times. (post 232, 248)
ie., death penalties.
Why jettison the Law of Moses but continue to pursue Mosaic punishments?

 

[ok doser]

... it remains a common practice in warfare among a number of nations of the world to kill the enemy males, and rape the enemy females, because the children of those rapes will be of "mixed" heritage, helping to disuade them from seeking vengeance when they become the next generation of adults.

And you have no basis upon which to condemn that practice

 

[Hoping]

They are all relative and subjective because of our limited human perspective.

One would have to have grown up totally apart from civilization to find those three things at all acceptable.
Are they really OK in your perspective?

 

[Hoping]

Where did you see that "this text was authored by Me, God" quote? Because your interpretation of some vague poetic phrase isn't going to stand as the equivalent. Sorry.

I don't see anything vague about it, but if you do, that is up to you, having used your own described vague perspective.

 

[Hoping]

Even today killing our fellow humans is routinely deemed necessary for the future of humanity. Millions of them. And yet one rape makes humanity not worth saving in your eyes? The rape of a woman that refuses to offer her reproductive self to save the human species?

You should change your name to "Mr. Hypothetical"

You have some very strange priorities, friend.

You must be reading too much sci-fi.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The topic was, using OT punishments for modern times. (post 232, 248)
ie., death penalties.

Again, because you still don't get it yet:

Romans 1 is not "OT."

Paul, in the New Testament, says that criminals such as murderers and the sexually immoral "are deserving of death."

Paul is advocating the death penalty!

I don't know how to make it any clearer!

Why jettison the Law of Moses but continue to pursue Mosaic punishments?

In a nutshell: Because God never revoked the moral laws, and because God is just, we know that the punishments that He gave to accompany those laws are just.

The standard is justice, Hoping, not the Mosaic law. To the extent that any nation's laws reflect God's principles of justice, to that extent, they are just.

The death penalty predates the Mosaic law, which shows that morality is absolute, not dependent on a specific set of rules, and therefore any punishments for crimes will always be just, no matter what era we live in.

God said, that if someone sheds a man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. That's not an observation, it's a command, and God never revoked the death penalty for capital crimes.

 

[marke]

I was not intending to insult. I was hoping to stop this litany of silly questions. As I have already stated several times, now, the point is that WE DON'T KNOW how the future will play out. So we don't know what will be considered "a moral imperative" in the future. What we do know is that moral imperatives were quite different in the past from what they are now. And that they will be likely to continue changing in the future. How they will change is impossible to say, but THAT they will change is an easy prediction.

Some people already think violating other people sexually is an acceptable moral behavior. In fact, it remains a common practice in warfare among a number of nations of the world to kill the enemy males, and rape the enemy females, because the children of those rapes will be of "mixed" heritage, helping to disuade them from seeking vengeance when they become the next generation of adults.

You keep blindly insisting that your personal moral imperatives are absolute and unquestionable, and yet the rest of the world manages to continually prove that to be untrue.

The fact that tribal barbarian savages see nothing wrong with nudity, cannibalism, sexual perversion, voter fraud, lying, looting, or whatever does not mean wickedness is acceptable behavior.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Even today killing our fellow humans is routinely deemed necessary for the future of humanity. Millions of them. And yet one rape makes humanity not worth saving in your eyes? The rape of a woman that refuses to offer her reproductive self to save the human species?

You have some very strange priorities, friend.

Who routinely deems it necessary to kill millions of fellow human beings for the future of humanity exactly? Funny how you accuse others of having strange priorities when you like to distance yourself from absolutes.

 

[Right Divider]

Same concept. Those Redeemed through Christ rejoice with this, rather than quibble over language.

Thanks for your wisdom to pursue the Truth of a personal salvation through Jesus.

The Born Again Nation (Part 4/6 of Remnant Issues)​

 

[PureX]

The best way to do that is by punishing criminals swiftly and painfully.

No, the best way to do that is to separate the abusers from the victims via prisons, work camps, and so on. When we allow the government to decide who needs "punished" and how badly we will then need someone to protect us from THEM. The same as when religions try to decide who needs to be "punished" and who doesn't. Because these decisions cannot be entrusted to men. They have to be entrusted to God. In the meantime, then, we do what we have to, to keep everyone safe from those who just will not live peacefully with others. Not because we are justified in punishing each other, but because we have the right to protect ourselves from those who would seek to harm us.

"Punishment" is the meting out of justice.

No, it's just vengeance by another name. Justice is the attempt to repair the damage done by a criminal act. Which all too often is not possible. Hence, the common desire for vengeance.

 

[PureX]

Who routinely deems it necessary to kill millions of fellow human beings for the future of humanity exactly?

We do, every time we decide to make war on those we deem to be a threat to humanity.

Funny how you accuse others of having strange priorities when you like to distance yourself from absolutes.

Only from the fantasy that we humans can determine an absolute.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We do, every time we decide to make war on those we deem to be a threat to humanity.

Only from the fantasy that we humans can determine an absolute.

How are you not declaring absolutes yourself here?

 

[PureX]

What "litany of silly questions"? Sure, we don't know exactly how things are going to pan out in the future but barring an extinction level event it's a safe bet that technology will advance and if recent history has told us anything (in the West at least) it's that people's rights and freedoms will continue to expand. We've already seen the collapse of segregation, the rights of women to vote and to have equality along with homosexuals being allowed the same freedoms as straight folk and a stringent tightening in laws that protect children and give them a voice. All in the last hundred years. You've talked about some vague and undefined advancement in tech that somehow makes most people want to abandon loving relationships and when this tech breaks down would prefer to have rape as a norm or something instead. Would that be a societal advance in your opinion? Supposing it's also the future that it's all okay to rob and murder folk when they're going shopping or something as well for some vague and unspecified reason?

Your war analogy fails all ends up. I highly doubt that those who force themselves on other people consider it upstanding and moral to rape their victims during conflict and those that do so are rightfully regarded as war criminals and rapists with no justification for their actions and those caught rightfully pay the price. I'll ask you again, have you seen the after effects of rape and what it can do to the victim? Have you?

"Blindly insisting my personal moral imperatives"? Wow, you're not patronising, self righteous and puffed up at all are you? Again, if society devolves to it being okay for rape to be acceptable then it deserves to die out. Heck, maybe there's a viable reason for children to be raped and killed if it serves some vague purpose as well in your world but not in mine.

Again, the point is that you are not God. So you have no idea what the future will bring or how we will decide to deal with it. Just as your opinions about when and why humanity "deserves to die out" are equally irrelevant to reality. I'm not saying you don't have a right to form your own opinions. We all do. But opinions about what is right are just that, our opinions. They do not define anything but our own point of view. And proclaiming them to be "the absolute truth" doesn't change that. They're still just our opinions, and the world will contiue to be as it is.

 

[PureX]

One would have to have grown up totally apart from civilization to find those three things at all acceptable.
Are they really OK in your perspective?

They have been deemed acceptable in many cultures throughout history. Lots of people even today still think they are acceptable. Which is why they still occur. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this? Every human being and human society decides for themselves what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is apparently how God wants it. So why are you so insistent that everyone else should follow your opinions about it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, the point is that you are not God. So you have no idea what the future will bring or how we will decide to deal with it, Just as your opinions about when and why humanity "deserves to die out" are equally irrelevant to reality. I'm not saying you don't have a right to form your own opinions. We all do. But opinions about what is right are just that, our opinions. They do not define anything but our own point of view. And proclaiming them "the absolute truth" doesn't change that. They're still just our opinions.

Never claimed to be or anything akin and you yourself don't know what the future will hold and so what? I don't need to know to be able to categorically state that there's no justification for rape. I don't shy away from absolutes and as much as you may think you're not doing so you are with your own declarations in regards to other people's opinions cos you sure aren't shy of declaring all manner of your own are you? Is it possible in your opinion in a future society that to rape, torture and kill young children not be utterly immoral? There can somehow be a valid reason for that?

There's bluster going on alright but it's mainly with you. I'll ask you again, have you ever seen the after effects of what rape can do to a person? Answer please.

 

[Arthur Brain]

They have been deemed acceptable in many cultures throughout history. Lots of people even today still think they are acceptable. Which is why they still occur. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this? Every human being decides for themselves what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is apparently how God wants it. So why are you so insistent that everyone else should follow your opinions about it?

And? There's been all manner of barbarity and suffering inflicted in this world through the ages but that's no reason to excuse such in the present where we have societies that value civil liberties and to be free from the likes of rape etc that the law rightfully decrees a crime. You're one to talk about other people being insistent with their opinions being followed Pure, you really are. Care to be assaulted next time you leave your house and beaten to a pulp if society mandates that acceptable if you just happen to be out of luck and there's no real wrong with such an act? As of now that would rightfully be a crime.

 

[PureX]

Never claimed to be or anything akin and you yourself don't know what the future will hold and so what? I don't need to know to be able to categorically state that there's no justification for rape. I don't shy away from absolutes and as much as you may think you're not doing so you are with your own declarations in regards to other people's opinions cos you sure aren't shy of declaring all manner of your own are you? Is it possible in your opinion in a future society that to rape, torture and kill young children not be utterly immoral? There can somehow be a valid reason for that?

Various cultures have done those things in the past, mostly in the service of their gods. So it's not unreasonable to think humans may come to do them again at sometime in the future. So all these proclamation of absolute morality just don't seem to apply to the real world. If we can choose to ignore or deny an "absolute moral imperative" then it seems pretty silly to be calling it an absolute moral imperative. As it is clearly a subjectively chosen moral imperative.

 

[PureX]

And? There's been all manner of barbarity and suffering inflicted in this world through the ages but that's no reason to excuse such in the present where we have societies that value civil liberties and to be free from the likes of rape etc that the law rightfully decrees a crime. You're one to talk about other people being insistent with their opinions being followed Pure, you really are. Care to be assaulted next time you leave your house and beaten to a pulp if society mandates that acceptable if you just happen to be out of luck and there's no real wrong with such an act? As of now that would rightfully be a crime.

I don't think you've understood this conversation from the start.

I have nothing at all against people choosing to call rape, torture, and murder inexcusably wrong. I agree with them. My obection is to this weird insistence that once you have chosen this position, it has then somehow become "absolute". And it very clearly has not become absolute. It was a choice you made about a specific set of moral imperatives that you've chosen to hold to. That's it. Your choices do not define what is and is not morally absolute in the world. No one's choices do.