Religion

[greatguy]

Ok, we should have a standard definition of what a 'crime' is. My definition is, "an act commited by a human which threatens or hurts the life, property, or freedom of another human without mutual consent by both parties, with the exemption of retribution for crimes commited by the victim." Lawbreaking is occasionally a crime, and sometimes not a crime.

 

Or "crime" can be replaced with another word. We just need to understand each other.

[TikindiDragon]

Ok, we should have a standard definition of what a 'crime' is. My definition is, "an act commited by a human which threatens or hurts the life, property, or freedom of another human without mutual consent by both parties, with the exemption of retribution for crimes commited by the victim." Lawbreaking is occasionally a crime, and sometimes not a crime.

 

Or "crime" can be replaced with another word. We just need to understand each other.

There are standard definitions of words. They are in the Dictionary. In the case of crime the definition is as follows:

 

Crime (noun)

1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

2: a grave offense especially against morality

3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>

4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food>

 

So, ah, your definition is actually wrong. By definition a 'crime' is breaking the law (note #1 - the other 3 all stem from it. 1 is the primary definition). You cannot, in a debate, attempt to define your own words. Because the way most people will understand them is the dictionary definition.

[philpot123]

Yet another thing I don't understand about Christianity. Why does it only count sometimes (usually when it's convenient for the person)? How do they decide which laws are to be followed and which ones aren't?

Covenant theology is the concept that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and expounded upon by the person and work of Christ. The ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant were fulfilled in Christ, and as such we are not bound by them any longer under the New Covenant. However, the moral laws in the OT are just as binding as they ever were. Thus, the typical Reformed understanding of the relation between Old and New Testament is that there is more than one type of law to be found in the OT. There's ceremonial precepts that the people under the covenant had to follow, there's judicial instructions for how Israel's government was to function, and there's moral law, that all humans are held accountable to. The difference between ceremonial/moral is typically found in the prescribed punishment. Uncleanliness vs. Death. There's some very thorough books on Covenant Theology if you ever want to check it out. Jews like Noble will shake their head at this understanding of the OT, though.

 

 

 

 

Noble, quick question on Proverbs 23. My translation renders it "If you STRIKE him with the rod, he will not die." In your opinion, is this metaphorical, or an improper rendering of the original language?

Edited February 5, 2013 by philpot123

[greatguy]

There are standard definitions of words. They are in the Dictionary. In the case of crime the definition is as follows:

 

Crime (noun)

1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

2: a grave offense especially against morality

3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>

4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food>

 

So, ah, your definition is actually wrong. By definition a 'crime' is breaking the law (note #1 - the other 3 all stem from it. 1 is the primary definition). You cannot, in a debate, attempt to define your own words. Because the way most people will understand them is the dictionary definition.

I was using the third definition, but O.K. Uhm, does "moral crime" work then?

 

But back on topic:

 

@LascielsShadow, is abuse better or worse than pornography?

 

I do not condone pornography, prostitution, or sex appeal. Still, I wouldn't stop people from doing such things because they have a right to do them. Religons (including mine) have no right to force others to obey their teachings. This also applies to personal codes of ethics.

[Alpha1]

That's just not true. Consensual polygamy is illegal in the US, and considered a crime -- not because it harms anyone but because the government doesn't know how to tax it, and doesn't want to try and untangle three or more sets of rights.

 

Many people who don’t believe gay marriage is right also believe it’s harmful to society, so I’m sure they also would think the same about polygamy.

 

Noble, quick question on Proverbs 23. My translation renders it "If you STRIKE him with the rod, he will not die." In your opinion, is this metaphorical, or an improper rendering of the original language?

 

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/...fa-5002332404fd

 

JPS Tanakh says beat and "rod". I think that one can mean multiple things. As Noble pointed out, a shepard's staff is one. Did you see my post? If you take it literally, doesn't it seem more random/odd that it says that you won't die?

[TikindiDragon]

I was using the third definition, but O.K. Uhm, does "moral crime" work then?

The 3rd definition relates back to the 1st - 'criminal activity' being 'activities against the law'. Moral crime kinda works, but do bear in mind that any use of the word 'crime' tends to carry legal overtones (with the exception of it's use in the 4th sense, which is broadly light-hearted).

[philpot123]

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/...fa-5002332404fd

 

JPS Tanakh says beat and "rod". I think that one can mean multiple things. As Noble pointed out, a shepard's staff is one. Did you see my post? If you take it literally, doesn't it seem more random/odd that it says that you won't die?

I mean, if you take it as permission to physically discipline your child, I would assume it means that physical discipline won't be overly harmful to the child. If it's metaphorical and doesn't permit physical punishment, I would take it to mean that if you "strike him with the rod," discipline will cause him to avoid death. But again, this is without original language.

[KageSora]

Others already said more of what I would have said if I'd been around to reply, but I think it'd be off-topic to continue that train of discussion here.

 

There's an American Politic's thread (which I will say has contained some SHINING examples of the "POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY AND DON'T DESERVE HELP" idea in the past). There's also the sexism thread for the rape culture and females as sex objects topic. I'm not sure if there's one for cultural issues in general.

 

 

I will, though, respond to this (and I can respond to the rest via PM or in another thread, if you'd like to continue to debate the subject):

 

That's...sorta the point of this thread?

I don't necessarily see this as a thread where we're supposed to change other people to match our views, but as a place where we can share our views and our information on them to gain a better understanding of others. If we change the view of another person, or have ours changed, that's just a side effect of the exchanging of information.

 

There is a very real, and important, difference between attempting to change the mind of another person through debate and attempting to beat another person into changing their views with implications that they're lesser than you because of their views and that they're horrible people who condone horrible things.

[NobleOwl]

Noble, quick question on Proverbs 23. My translation renders it "If you STRIKE him with the rod, he will not die." In your opinion, is this metaphorical, or an improper rendering of the original language?

 

Mistranslation/improper rendering. The word for rod is "shebet," which was forbidden from using to actively strike anything, living or dead, unless one's life was in danger and you were unable to escape, even then it was frowned upon.

[NixAyum]

The 3rd definition relates back to the 1st - 'criminal activity' being 'activities against the law'. Moral crime kinda works, but do bear in mind that any use of the word 'crime' tends to carry legal overtones (with the exception of it's use in the 4th sense, which is broadly light-hearted).

"Moral crime" also sounds like it has a terribly great amount of room for relativity. Some people consider X (drinking, drugs, sex, gay anything, abortion, etc etc) immoral and that it would be a moral crime to do these things and some do not, so how does one address that? (I guess this would be a question for greatguy.)

[Tabitah]

And the same thing could be sad for any Abrahamic religion. The only difference is that the west has abandoned those beliefs while the Islam still clings to it. But all of them had the same starting point.

Oh yes, that is so true...they do always forget what they have done in the past in the name of religion and believing.

 

And I know a lot of them believing but not living their religion at all. And when somebody does that, like i.e. moslem are doing that, people think they are crazy or ancient or what ever.

 

I don't know if I can express me right here because the topic is very difficult and extensive.

 

The problem is that we can only have a right and clear opinion about other religion (in which we didn't grew up) when we really are living a periode with their members and not by 'I heard' or by 'I read' and especially not by the image which is showing of them, especially the islamic image in the west world media!

[Anbu Bee]

The problem is that we can only have a right and clear opinion about other religion (in which we didn't grew up) when we really are living a periode with their members and not by 'I heard' or by 'I read' and especially not by the image which is showing of them, especially the islamic image in the west world media!

Totally, true.

 

the media really can be bias sometimes.

[St. Jimmy]

The ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant were fulfilled in Christ, and as such we are not bound by them any longer under the New Covenant. However, the moral laws in the OT are just as binding as they ever were.

Late, but why does it seem like what's considered ceremonial law are the things that would inconvenience you (like not wearing mixed fabrics or shaving), while moral laws are things that take away rights from others (gay marriage)?

 

Not trying to attack here... it just seems awfully convenient for Christians with what laws they pick to follow.

[kiffren]

The problem is that we can only have a right and clear opinion about other religion (in which we didn't grew up) when we really are living a periode with their members and not by 'I heard' or by 'I read' and especially not by the  image which is showing of them, especially the islamic image in the west world media!

I would disagree. You can form a very good opinion of other religions by reading stuff about them. Wikipedia is a great source, and reading forums or websites by members of that religion for members of that religion help as well.

 

Though I do agree that the media is extremely biased.

Edited February 6, 2013 by kiffren

[Anbu Bee]

I would disagree. You can form a very good opinion of other religions by reading stuff about them. Wikipedia is a great source, and reading forums or websites by members of that religion for members of that religion help as well.

 

Though I do agree that the media is extremely biased.

 

 

I would have to disagree

for instance people who can't distinguish betwwen a "Sufi" and a "Sunni" might get them completely confused, a "Sufi" studys "sufism" and I have read sufi writings, they contradict the man path of Islam in general, not only do they practically "worship" Prophet Muhammed(they give him attributes that Allah said only belongs to him, like All-Seeing), they do very violent rituals, like the one when they beat themselves, that document about sharia law that pointoforigin pulled up was based on their rulings.

Sunni muslims are the ones that follow the understanding of the Qur'aan the way the Prophet and the Prophets companions understood them.

 

 

[TikindiDragon]

 

I would have to disagree

for instance people who can't distinguish betwwen a "Sufi" and a "Sunni" might get them completely confused, a "Sufi" studys "sufism" and I have read sufi writings, they contradict the man path of Islam in general, not only do they practically "worship" Prophet Muhammed(they give him attributes that Allah said only belongs to him, like All-Seeing), they do very violent rituals, like the one when they beat themselves, that document about sharia law that pointoforigin pulled up was based on their rulings.

Sunni muslims are the ones that follow the understanding of the Qur'aan the way the Prophet and the Prophets companions understood them.

You may want to be careful that you don't step too much into saying that [x] branch is not Islam. You may not agree with their practise of it, but that's a different thing. It's very much like the (incredibly annoying) Evangelical Christians who try to insist that Catholicism isn't Christianity. I imagine that many who do follow Sufi teachings consider themselves to be good Muslims.

 

Personally I'd rather know more about the practise of Sunni Islam, rather than hearing you denigrate Sufi.

[Tabitah]

I would disagree. You can form a very good opinion of other religions by reading stuff about them. Wikipedia is a great source, and reading forums or websites by members of that religion for members of that religion help as well.

 

Though I do agree that the media is extremely biased.

When you are pointing on forums that does mean the same thing for me. I meant like you have to SEE (=understanding)how people do live, how they do practice their religion. Of course you can also read what people are writing in forums, that is like talking to somebody. I did not mean 'living' litterary, I meant that a simple discription on a webpage does not giving the right impression of a religion.

I bet some informations without knowing any people of them may seem very strange.

 

 

In example the prejudgement in islam religion that men are not good with their wifes. That is simply not true. When they are then because of their worse character and not because the religion has teached them or do allow them!

You find beating men in every culture and religion ;-)

 

And believing people, really people who are practicing religion every day (no matter which one) they are not beating/angry.

 

In fact the rules of islam are the same as in nearly every religion, beeing good, believing in god, praying, respect other humans and also animals.

 

That's it.

 

And well, for me that seems quite natural, even without god has to tell us

 

[philpot123]

Late, but why does it seem like what's considered ceremonial law are the things that would inconvenience you (like not wearing mixed fabrics or shaving), while moral laws are things that take away rights from others (gay marriage)?

 

Not trying to attack here... it just seems awfully convenient for Christians with what laws they pick to follow.

Again, it has to do with the prescribed penalty. Death vs. Uncleanness. I understand your hesitancy, though. The role of the OT law in the life of a Christian is probably the foremost interpretive difficulty we have to deal with. I'll see if I can't find a transcribed lecture or article on the subject from someone who can explain it better than I to send to you.

 

If you want to understand exactly my position on this, I ascribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 19 provides the points on God's Law. It's not an argument for or a defense of the beliefs, but simply a statement of them.

 

Westminster Confession of Faith

 

Mistranslation/improper rendering. The word for rod is "shebet," which was forbidden from using to actively strike anything, living or dead, unless one's life was in danger and you were unable to escape, even then it was frowned upon.

 

Thanks so much! I'm hoping to study Hebrew at college, so hopefully I'll be able to have a better handle on some of this stuff eventually

Edited February 7, 2013 by philpot123

[Alpha1]

I mean, if you take it as permission to physically discipline your child, I would assume it means that physical discipline won't be overly harmful to the child. If it's metaphorical and doesn't permit physical punishment, I would take it to mean that if you "strike him with the rod," discipline will cause him to avoid death. But again, this is without original language.

 

It makes God a liar.

 

The Talmud does say this, though.

 

"What [was the incident] of the domestic in Rabbi's house? It was one of the maidservants in Rabbi's house that had noticed a man beating his grown-up son and said, Let that fellow be under a shammetha! because he sinned against the words [of Holy Writ]: Put not a stumbling-block before the blind.15 For it is taught: ‘And put not a stumbling-block before the blind’, that text applies16 to one who beats his grown-up son.17"

 

 

[Slaskia]

I'm surprised no one posted about the Pope intending to step down at the end of the month (then again, this may not be the approprate thread for it, not sure).

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/13...-of-the-church/

 

I honestly did not know a pope could just 'resign' like this. Then again, he's the first one to do so in 600 years, so I guess it's easy to think that, ya know?

 

Anyway, the main reason for this post is that I've been seeing mention of something called 'Prophecy of the Popes', or 'St Malachy's Prophecy'. Doing a google search seems to show a number of catholic sites talking about it, as supposedly this prophecy states that our current pope would be the last 'true' pope: the next one would be a false prophet (or antichrist) that would being about the apocalyse (Wiki). However, the wiki mentions that some historians think the whole thing is fake.

 

I personally not sure what to think of it, as it is the first time I've even heard of this particular prophecy. I'm more of a Nostradomis believer myself.

 

What are your thoughts on it?

[Zigadooz]

It seems as though it would be highly frowned upon for a pope to resign... Are there any Catholics here on the thread that can give us some insight?

 

Having been Mormon for a couple of years in high school, it's hard for me to even imagine what would happen if the president of the church (who is supposed to be a prophet) decided he wanted to step down. I'm not sure it's ever been done, or that there are even procedures for something like that.

 

On the earlier topic, I do think you need to know at least a hand-full of people from a religion (and know them very well!) to get a good idea of what the religion really is in a cultural sense. For example, my grandparents are the most genuine, sincere Mormons I have ever met. Mormon missionaries, when you first meet them, almost seem inhuman to me because they're so perfect. I though all Mormons were like my grandparents and missionaries, but when I joined the church, I heard the missionaries joking together about putting hot sauce in eachother's drinks and going to hang out with the single's ward for volleyball on Wednesdays. I found out that the girls my age were almost all sexually active to some extent (a HUGE no-no) and most of the adults weren't even close to being "good Mormons" like my grandparents are. I'm not saying they're all bad, but at their worst Mormons can be two-faced, and essentially liars, because they aren't frequently practicing what they preach. At their best, Mormons are kind, super generous, unbelievably devout and some of the best people you'll ever meet.

 

I figure every religion has a big variety from good to bad, with the best being amazing and the worst being absolutely appalling.

[PointOfOrigin]

It seems as though it would be highly frowned upon for a pope to resign... Are there any Catholics here on the thread that can give us some insight?

Coming from a very Catholic country and family, most of us don't care (at least where I live). The only times when I hear it being mentioned is in joking context.

 

 

[Zigadooz]

Coming from a very Catholic country and family, most of us don't care (at least where I live). The only times when I hear it being mentioned is in joking context.

Is the pope not taken as seriously as he was in centuries past, then? I always figured he was just a couple of levels below Jesus in the Catholic faith.

[TikindiDragon]

Is the pope not taken as seriously as he was in centuries past, then? I always figured he was just a couple of levels below Jesus in the Catholic faith.

There was plenty of not taking the Pope seriously going on in the past, as it happens. Go look up Pope Alexander VI. Also note Benedict IX - who was forced to resign, and was rumoured to have 'sold' the papacy when he did so.

 

Incidently Pope John Paul II had left a letter outlining conditions under which he should be considered to have resigned (noteably incurable illness and coma) and Pius XII (during WWII) was rumoured to have left letters stating he should be considered to have resigned should he be captured by Nazi forces.

 

So, while one hasn't happened in many years, papal resignations for various reasons are not unknown.

[PointOfOrigin]

Is the pope not taken as seriously as he was in centuries past, then? I always figured he was just a couple of levels below Jesus in the Catholic faith.

I wouldn't say that people don't respect him. It's just that there is a new one about every ten years and we are just used to their switches. But John Paul II was the more loved one from my experience.