So In the US Catholics Charities are forced to end foster care on "moral" grounds

[JemyM]

JemyM do you know what the Corban scheme is?

http://www.google.se/search?q=Corba...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d9e2ef4366e12524

If you do then you are taking a sensible interpretation over a nonsensical interpretation. To me JemyM illustrates the point that the bible is not something to read without good instructions into how to read the bible. He doesnt read the context and that is a very dangerous thing to do with the bible, without context you can pretty much teach anything you want with the bible.

I use context;
* To establish that Jesus is indeed inconsistent rather than consistent
* To establish Jesus personality

I know no apologetic who do so, but I do know plenty who use confirmationbias, simply skipping all passages that go against the notion of Jesus as the perfect rolemodel, which is an inconsistent and flawed way of using context.

Now if Jesus was the son of God, and if the Bible was divinely inspired, we wouldn't have this debate at all. There would be only one way to intepret the Bible and it would be the most brilliant work ever written with almost no chance of interpreting it in more ways than one.

It doesn't to appear to be so, so what I disagree with is the notion that there is a right way to interpret the bible, and that's the crux. The whole notion of there being a right way to interpret the Bible is promoted so that some people can uplift their own moral standards to a godlike status. It is these people who like to instruct people to read the Bible in a certain way, just as every prophet have declared itself as the one with the power to understand the will of the Gods or the spirits and it's only through he or she we might know the true words of such entities.

So no, it's perfectly possible to analyse the Bible by your own expertise. My expertise combines the history of ideas, anthropology, sociology, psychology, moral philosophy, law, litterature, some theology and ofcourse the Bible itself. I apply bits and pieces out of all of these fields when I analyse scripture and I do so without the preset notion about what I am going to find.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

So basically you choose to interpret the passages in a way that is inconsistent rather than consistent. That passage is referring to "adult children" that can actually do the Corban scheme, not young children as Captain Buzzkill mentioned. You know this yet you rather take the interpretation that Jesus affirms the killing of young children. You dont see the issue with this? It seems you are seeking for evil in an attempt to justify your beliefs.

 

[Lord_Brownie]

The will of the people is really the driving point behind which biblepassages are quoted from the pulpit. In Sweden, in the Lutheran Church, you will most likely hear the pacifist quotes used. In the southern USA, "people who stand by the sword will die by the sword" might be substituted with "do not think I have came with peace, but with a sword".

Being from the southern USA and raised as a Southern Baptist (My grandfather was a southern Baptist minister) this quote was never used to spark or suggest violence (at least not at the churches I went to). Instead it was used to teach the lesson something along the lines of "character is fate, so be self-critical of how/what your character is". If you choose to be the one running around with the sword, you will wind up being the one killed by a sword.

The stereo type of the gun craving, religious, American mad-man is not a southern Baptist thing, but it is an odd strain that has cropped up in many churches (including some Baptist ones) around the country starting in the ‘80s. I find them disturbing to say the least. Though I don't normally have any problems with owning a firearm otherwise.

The will of the people is not the purpose of Sunday sermons. In fact there are times that the will of the people is what is being preached against. There are those, given any system of ethics, religious or otherwise, who will twist the common ills of humanity into a political/economic force saying the values of the system or tradition demand it. That God hates someone, or science demands religion be removed from people’s lives because they are irrational (what Dawkins appears to be saying). This is not a problem unique to religion, but a far too common problem in all of humanity.

LB

 

[JemyM]

So basically you choose to interpret the passages in a way that is inconsistent rather than consistent. That passage is referring to "adult children" that can actually do the Corban scheme, not young children as Captain Buzzkill mentioned. You know this yet you rather take the interpretation that Jesus affirms the killing of young children. You dont see the issue with this? It seems you are seeking for evil in an attempt to justify your beliefs.

I say this is a red herring that attempts to derail the original point.

Is it justifiable to kill someone because they do not support their parents financially?
Is it justifiable, ethic and moral to defend or promote a such law?

Neither the age, nor the scheme, change what I objected to.

It should also be remembered that the commandment prohibit murder. Murder is the act of killing which is not supported by the law. There are no cultures on earth which I know of in which murder is sanctioned by the community, to the contrary, all cultures one earth have regulations on when and when not killing is ok. At the time of Jesus there was plenty of laws that allowed you to kill and sometimes even urged you to kill. The law Jesus refers to urges you to kill.

 

[JemyM]

Being from the southern USA and raised as a Southern Baptist (My grandfather was a southern Baptist minister) this quote was never used to spark or suggest violence (at least not at the churches I went to). Instead it was used to teach the lesson something along the lines of "character is fate, so be self-critical of how/what your character is". If you choose to be the one running around with the sword, you will wind up being the one killed by a sword.

The stereo type of the gun craving, religious, American mad-man is not a southern Baptist thing, but it is an odd strain that has cropped up in many churches (including some Baptist ones) around the country starting in the ‘80s. I find them disturbing to say the least. Though I don't normally have any problems with owning a firearm otherwise.

The will of the people is not the purpose of Sunday sermons. In fact there are times that the will of the people is what is being preached against. There are those, given any system of ethics, religious or otherwise, who will twist the common ills of humanity into a political/economic force saying the values of the system or tradition demand it. That God hates someone, or science demands religion be removed from people’s lives because they are irrational (what Dawkins appears to be saying). This is not a problem unique to religion, but a far too common problem in all of humanity.

LB

Thanks for your clarification.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Jesus is the one who judges not us, in christianity Jesus is th eonly one that can judge. As for where it is justifiable, i think it is as a law. When people do such things and dont recieve punishment others follow. You dont think dishonoring ones parents is an evil thing to do?

 

[JemyM]

Jesus is the one who judges not us, in christianity Jesus is th eonly one that can judge. As for where it is justifiable, i think it is as a law. When people do such things and dont recieve punishment others follow.

We are perfectly fit to judge Jesus as we judge any prophet who claims to have divine powers or status.

You dont think dishonoring ones parents is an evil thing to do?

Such as Svetlana Iosifovna Dzhugashvili dishonering her father Joseph Stalin?

Sometimes dishonoring a parent is the good and moral thing to do. Nothing you do is justified by being a parent alone, respect must be earned, commanded respect must be opposed.

 

[Pladio]

Not if your parents are abusive and/or harmful to you...

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

I disagree, even if you parents are worthless, i dont believe you should speak bad of them. I believe in forgiving and honouring them.

 

[JemyM]

I disagree, even if you parents are worthless, i dont believe you should speak bad of them. I believe in forgiving and honouring them.

Seeing an action as essentially good is often necessary for good people to commit great evil.

Not holding someone responsible for their actions is the same as supporting those actions and becoming a perpetrator. This is true even if it was seen as a good action to do so.

The problem with the pedophilia within the Catholic Church was created by a such standard. The problem wasn't that pedophiles exist, they exist everywhere. The problem was that the view that the social structure is essentially good demanded on people to support the structure even when it had failed.

This is also why unconditional forgiveness is unethical. Conditional forgiveness is a much better standard to have.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

They definitely wont change when you curse them for some reason. However with forgiveness some change their ways. Cursing them and pointing out what they do wrong are two different things however.

And pedophelia in the catholic church wasnt created by such a standard. It was through fear and exploitation imo.

 

[dteowner]

Did I mention that Sweden is one of the least religious nations in the world? It's also one who haven't been in war since 1814.

You drag this tired crap out all the time and you get called out on it every time. I'd think you'd learn by now.

You're geographically isolated so you don't have many foreign invaders. When the world actually encroaches on your little haven, you sell anything and everything to the highest bidder and switch sides if the tides turn. You avoid war because you substitute opportunism for any sort of conviction. That's got absolutely nothing to do with religion, pro or con.

 

[JemyM]

You drag this tired crap out all the time and you get called out on it every time. I'd think you'd learn by now.

You're geographically isolated so you don't have many foreign invaders. When the world actually encroaches on your little haven, you sell anything and everything to the highest bidder and switch sides if the tides turn. You avoid war because you substitute opportunism for any sort of conviction. That's got absolutely nothing to do with religion, pro or con.

Perhaps this is 100% true. Even so it doesn't change whether or not religion is essential for pacifism.

 

[Benedict]

Always amazes me that people will maintain their faith even when it actively hurts vulnerable innocents, and often will still take the moral high ground and defend their faith as a positive force.

Out of interest, did any of you religious types see the story about the English bed & breakfast owning Christian who got fined for refusing to let a gay couple stay in the same room?

Personally I'm happy that our government is pressing on with a socially progressive agenda regardless of any religious hissy fits.

 

[dteowner]

Perhaps this is 100% true. Even so it doesn't change whether or not religion is essential for pacifism.

You're the one that tried to pass it off as supporting evidence.

 

[redman5427]

I just find sweeping generalizations like "All Catholics are mentally and emotional unstable" and " All Catholic priests are pedophiles" to be an argument that is not only logically flawed, they are also irresponsible and without evidence. Also, deeply offensive to me as a Catholic. How can a young college student say such things with your small amount of experience in life that appears to only be limited to a college campus? Ah, when I was your age I knew everything also.

I will stick to the Op's topic as you should and I will admit I have some issues with the dogma of my Church. My wife and I have fostered 5 children and we firmly believe the needs of the children out weigh politics, religious arguments,etc. Kids need food and a bed. A safe place to call home that they are not afraid to go to sleep at night and a school,friends, and playtime with their friends. Some kind of moral training is needed as well because I will tell you these kids come from a background where their values are completely backwards and wrong is right and right is just plain stupid. This a huge problem in our country and there are many foster kids that will never have a family and they grow up to become another statistic in our court system.

 

[JemyM]

I just find sweeping generalizations like "All Catholics are mentally and emotional unstable" and " All Catholic priests are pedophiles" to be an argument that is not only logically flawed, they are also irresponsible and without evidence. Also, deeply offensive to me as a Catholic. How can a young college student say such things with your small amount of experience in life that appears to only be limited to a college campus? Ah, when I was your age I knew everything also.

Count the fallacies.

Strawmen
* "All Catholics are mentally and emotional unstable"
* "All Catholic priests are pedophiles"

Red Herring / Appeal to Emotion (yeah, the "I'm Offended!"-card is starting to become a pretty tiresome way to dodging the issue)
* deeply offensive to me as a Catholic

Ad Hominem / Poisoning the Well
* small amount of experience in life
* when I was your age
* not only logically flawed, they are also irresponsible and without evidence

 

[JemyM]

You're the one that tried to pass it off as supporting evidence.

Yes, and?

 

[dteowner]

You threw it out as evidence that "atheist Sweden" is somehow pacifist strictly because it is atheist (to somehow prove that pacifism cannot be religiously induced) and then turn around and admit that your statement itself is crap. Doesn't say much for your argument when you discount your own supporting evidence, now does it.

If you're admitting your statement was crap, you knowingly threw out a red herring. Poor form for someone so quick to break out that tremendously impressive logical fallacy handbook. Kinda saws the legs right off your high horse, doncha think?

 

[Pladio]

dte, he was showing that pacifism is not exclusive to religion. He was not trying to show that pacifism cannot be induced religiously.