Kevin's Watch

Elfgirl wrote:Make that "Reproduction rights for good behaviour" or you'll take all the fun out of frakking!!

It is a sin to enjoy the act! It is for reproduction, and nothing more!


Regarding laws against suicide. Right?!? "Throw that corpse in the clink!"

Vraith -- thanks for the Emerson quote. I figured I hadn't been the first to think it up....

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I deny from the outset their claim to a right to expand a definition.

You don't need a right to change a definition. Definition evolves naturally through usage.

Point is, if something is admittedly a natural and normal thing, then talking "fair" about it is nonsense. Now if it is clearly and admittedly not a natural or normal thing, then of course, we want to do our best to correct it so it corresponds to that norm - that ideal. What we do not agree about is whether certain things are natural and normal. Where we agree, we will agree where fairness is applicable.

If we are naturally beings, everything we do must by definition be natural, otherwise it couldn't be done.

This is only to speak of our desires - what we may want rights and liberty for. But are all of our desires good things, merely because we desire them? Do we not show, again and again, that a great many of our desires wind up being harmful for us? Should a society be free to destroy itself? Or an individual? Why have there always been laws against suicide? Having a right to do something (and even being free to do it) does not make us right in doing it.

Not all desires are good for us or others, agreed. But this one in particular isn't harmful to anybody at all. And as for harming ourselves, well, that is and should be up to us. Harming ourselves isn't a "sin." It's just stupid. If you want to harm yourself, go right ahead.

As for laws against suicide, one of the most ridiculous concepts ever. Firmly rooted in the attempt to convince us that we do not have ownership of our own wills and bodies. A direct contradiction in fact, to the idea of free will.

--A

For most of that, well, you have your opinion, as I have mine. It remains to be seen who is right. Since the definition that Eastern Christians hold of sin IS much more "harming yourself", than "defying a legal system" as it is in the West, it follows that they are one and the same, whether the harm is perceived or not.

On suicide, not ridiculous at all ("ridiculous" means "worthy of being laughed at"). Suicide, if allowed, is the final "f*** you" to the universe. It does destroy the universe, as far as the individual is concerned. We don't talk about "ending it all" for nothing. From the Christian standpoint, it ends all possibility of repentance - of metanoia - changing one's mind and life, turning around. The person dies in an anti-God state of mind, one generally born of despair, a grave sin, and the opposite of the virtue of hope. Furthermore, the Christian view holds that our bodies are indeed not "our own". We did not make them, they are not the work of our hands, we did not choose whether to come into this world, neither are we free to stay longer than the time given to us. For Stoics, suicide was cool and logical. For the Christian, it is a form of insanity.

If we have free will, we have every "right" to end our lives if we want. If there are negative consequences, (in terms of an afterlife), well, that's what you have to put up with if you want free will. But whether it's insanity for christians is not the point. From a legal point of view though, a law against it is not only pointless, but unnecessarily restrictive.

--A

Fist and Faith wrote: It is a sin to enjoy the act! It is for reproduction, and nothing more!

not in Elfie's world!

Avatar wrote:If we have free will, we have every "right" to end our lives if we want. If there are negative consequences, (in terms of an afterlife), well, that's what you have to put up with if you want free will. But whether it's insanity for christians is not the point. From a legal point of view though, a law against it is not only pointless, but unnecessarily restrictive.

--A

Legalism can be used to justify tyranny as easily as individual freedom. Without a moral basis for your laws, your society will eventually become tyrannical or anarchical - which will lead to tyranny.

George Washington wrote:Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

At least no one will be able to say that they never saw these words of Washington before. Glad to have him on my side.

What's immoral about suicide?

--A

Avatar wrote:What's immoral about suicide?

--A

It is impossible to answer that question except from a moral basis. If you accept no moral basis, then you will not be able to understand any answer to that question.

Since answers from my faith will not be seen as authoritative, I see no point in responding. One must first value human life before one can begin to see that suicide is immoral. I think that what we need is Manalive. A pistol pointed at one's head by Innocent Smith is just the ticket to see without any sophistry whatsoever how valuable life is, and how awful it is to throw it away.

manalivethemovie.com/trailers.asp

How about that George Washington guy, huh?

rusmeister wrote:

Avatar wrote:What's immoral about suicide?

--A

It is impossible to answer that question except from a moral basis. If you accept no moral basis, then you will not be able to understand any answer to that question.

Since answers from my faith will not be seen as authoritative, I see no point in responding. One must first value human life before one can begin to see that suicide is immoral. I think that what we need is Manalive. A pistol pointed at one's head by Innocent Smith is just the ticket to see without any sophistry whatsoever how valuable life is, and how awful it is to throw it away.

manalivethemovie.com/trailers.asp

How about that George Washington guy, huh?

Of course, the main question then because "what gives life value?" For general basis, will say that life has value when it has 'x' (keep it very general). If we remove 'x', life ceases to have value, so why not throw it away?

I of course see the myriad objections to this thinking, but we are at the beginning of the analysis. We also have to consider who decides life has value, is it the owner of that life or those around him? Is it moral to force someone to live a pointless yet conscious vegetable life because one cannot let go? I ultimately believe that only the owner of the life in question has any right to judge if it has any value, he's ultimately the only person who experiences it in full. Can his decision affect other people? Of course, but that's a fact of life. Any person's decision will always affect countless people around him, that doesn't mean we should stop making them.

Just a quick messy post before P-chem lab... will revisit later (and watch the trailer )

rusmeister wrote:One must first value human life before one can begin to see that suicide is immoral.

One can also value human life, but value the right to choose one's own destiny more. Generic, across the board answers don't always work. If a person's life is filled with such pain that the person wants to end it, I believe it is wrong to force that life of pain to continue. That doesn't mean I'm immoral. It means my morals are different than yours. According to your morals, I am immoral. According to my morals, you are immoral.

rusmeister wrote: Legalism can be used to justify tyranny as easily as individual freedom. Without a moral basis for your laws, your society will eventually become tyrannical or anarchical - which will lead to tyranny.

The opposite of that is every bit as true, and has historically happened a lot more often. [By which I mean "morality" justifying "laws" and leading to tyranny.

But, to avoid the argument about "true" morality:
Neither of these things is, in actuallity, true: What is really true is that those with the will and means to become tyrants use morality and/or legalism...whichever tool works.

Vraith wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Legalism can be used to justify tyranny as easily as individual freedom. Without a moral basis for your laws, your society will eventually become tyrannical or anarchical - which will lead to tyranny.

The opposite of that is every bit as true, and has historically happened a lot more often. [By which I mean "morality" justifying "laws" and leading to tyranny.

But, to avoid the argument about "true" morality:
Neither of these things is, in actuallity, true: What is really true is that those with the will and means to become tyrants use morality and/or legalism...whichever tool works.

I'd say that your statement 'happens to not be the case'. I'd grant exceptions, but definitely not the rule.
While it may be true that tyrants have claimed some kind of moral basis to justify their actions, in general these have never been perceived as true, and not accepted by those on whom the tyranny was practiced or anyone else. Historically, morality has never pointed to all 360 degrees on the compass. The general variation could be said to not exceed 90 degrees. Thus, people in general never have agreed that a tyrant has the right to destroy his population, whatever claims he and his government might have made. They may agree to sacrifice in time of war, but not to oppression based on moral claims.
A lot of evil has been done in the name of morality or religion, but it has always been recognized as evil, and generally recognized right away. (And yes, exceptions can be found, but they remain exceptions.)

But I'd be most interested in what you have to say to George Washington. It's easy to refute me - people do it all the time. But the father of our country? Go ahead, take him on...

George was wrong. At least he was no more right than any other way of deciding these things. Look at the many country's, past and present, that have used religion to set the legal system. Has that worked particularly well?? No, it has not. It has not prevented legal torture, murder, rape...

Obviously, you will say, "That's because the people in power weren't real Christians. Some of those countries aren't Christian at all." True enough. So what? I'll tell you what... When you convince everybody that your version of Christianity is not only the one true version of Christianity, but that it matters which version is the true one, then I'll help you establish it as the rule of the land. I won't say I'll become a believer, because that's another matter entirely. I'm just saying, if you manage that, I'll help you.

What you're really saying, what you really mean, is not that religion should be the moral basis for our laws; it's that your religion should be the moral basis for our laws. Not Washington's. Not the Dalai Lama's. Not Mother Theresa's. Yours.

Many societies have survived a long time with many different religions as the moral basis. Many societies have survived a long time without any religion as the moral basis. The survival of society is not a difficult thing, even though some certainly have been completely self-destructive. The key is not figuring out how to make a society last. The key is how to do it without denying its individuals their freedom and equality.

rusmeister wrote:

Avatar wrote:What's immoral about suicide?

--A

It is impossible to answer that question except from a moral basis. If you accept no moral basis, then you will not be able to understand any answer to that question.

I value human life. I also value humankinds freedom of choice. If, as I believe, your life is your own, then it's your choice whether you want to continue it or end it. Anything else is merely slavery.

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:George was wrong. At least he was no more right than any other way of deciding these things. Look at the many country's, past and present, that have used religion to set the legal system. Has that worked particularly well?? No, it has not. It has not prevented legal torture, murder, rape...

Obviously, you will say, "That's because the people in power weren't real Christians. Some of those countries aren't Christian at all." True enough. So what? I'll tell you what... When you convince everybody that your version of Christianity is not only the one true version of Christianity, but that it matters which version is the true one, then I'll help you establish it as the rule of the land. I won't say I'll become a believer, because that's another matter entirely. I'm just saying, if you manage that, I'll help you.

What you're really saying, what you really mean, is not that religion should be the moral basis for our laws; it's that your religion should be the moral basis for our laws. Not Washington's. Not the Dalai Lama's. Not Mother Theresa's. Yours.

Many societies have survived a long time with many different religions as the moral basis. Many societies have survived a long time without any religion as the moral basis. The survival of society is not a difficult thing, even though some certainly have been completely self-destructive. The key is not figuring out how to make a society last. The key is how to do it without denying its individuals their freedom and equality.

Hi, Fist,
(Aside from withdrawing from posting so I can gather the energy to get in pt 2 for you before Great Lent starts, after which you'll have to wait for a couple of months, but still wanting to do just a little light posting...)

It's evidently not so obvious what I would say, because that's not what I would say.
I think I can start by saying that it's easy to say that Washington was wrong, but the premise on which you are saying he is wrong is, well, wrong: the idea that religion claims its principles will prevent crime and evil in general. It doesn't. Christianity (the religion primarily under question) certainly doesn't. Not does the version I accept (and similar ones) teach that more people, or even everyone becoming Christian will make them one whit better people. They will remain sinners, and will continue to commit every sin in the book (and some that aren't).

However, it does provide clear teachings which make it clear what needs to be done to fight sin, to fight this tendency toward evil in ourselves, and that when we fall down, that we are not to despair, but to get up again. Metanoia, repentance, means "turning around" when you have been going the wrong way. And it's not something that need be done only once. You need to repent every day. So we (of the really old traditions, anyway) are not shocked when Joe Christian, politician or not, is revealed in sin. We know that he needs to go and confess his sins to God, preferably in the presence of his priest, and turn around. REALLY turn around, just as we all need to. And that we are no better than him.

A basis that is objective, that the individual can't subvert to subjective ends, because there are objective measures by which to uncover individual deception, including self-deception, something that claims truth not made or determined by man, and thus subject to change, and thus, to manipulation, is essential to prevent political manipulation in favor of whatever is the spirit of the age at the moment, be it fascist, communist, capitalist, multiculturalist or nationalist. (Of course, all of those movements may try to use religion in name, but in the case of Christianity at any rate, it offers measuring sticks to show such manipulation for what it is.)

As to my faith, I do agree (with you insofar as it means that I think) that it would provide the very best moral basis for law. But even a much broader - and therefore diluted - Christian basis would still be better than other bases. The fact that all of the western civilization (that we praise so much) we have inherited developed specifically in a Christian environment is a huge hint that this is so. But Jewish, Islamic and Hinduist bases would still be better than the secular model that is being enforced today - one that takes "separation of church and state" to a level that fewer and fewer Christians today can accept - thus the Manhattan Declaration - to a level that means that what one believes may not influence one's politics - unless they are not Christian (or at least unless they are not religious). And as GKC recently pointed out to me, "secular" comes from "secolo". As Italian was my first foreign language, I saw in a flash what that meant. 'Of the time, of the age, that which is temporary and fashionable' - the "zeitgeist". Based on no permanent foundation.

When you say "Many societies have survived a long time with many different religions as the moral basis. " I have to say that those that were pluralist survived as long as they did to the extent that they agreed on morality. The Roman Empire is the best example you can offer, and it is when they disagreed that they began to polarize. The Coliseum, and the Emperor's policies, and the treatment of Christians had the opposite effect of the intended one. (Once you had emperors seriously claiming deity the general atheism - despite professed beliefs - becomes fairly clear.) The key thing to note about it is that it crumbled and collapsed. That it was far more a thing that flourished, grew and preserved a degree of freedom and equality as the Republic, before trying to absorb all the beliefs that empires must always do - which is why empires never last. The Pantheon was a final clue for me - although when I was a young and naive man visiting Rome, I didn't understand what I was looking at - that they had achieved a similar level of multiculturalism, to the point that it didn’t matter what one believed. The explanation that Chesterton offered in TEM made sense of everything. It wasn’t something that I had always believed and agreed in. It was a real revelation that made sense of the mass of details I had been taught or learned, but had never been taught to make sense of.

Even this light post took time and energy - right now my kids are sick, one seriously, and I'm holding down the fort. (For example, I've let my wife off to hang out with some friends for a couple of hours - while I'm at work she's home with multiple sick kids all day and trying not to go stir-crazy.)

At this exact moment, I am going to dismiss the previous conversation and give my own answer to the original post. I am doing this because at this moment I am God, and I have not given any contributors the ability to stop me.

As God now, the one thing I would have done differently had I been God then is this:

I would have ensured that everyone born knew that I existed and knew that I was God. I would not have left it up to you to decide for yourselves. There would be no faith in Me, there would be only knowledge.
You would not question whether or not I existed; you would not even have the ability to do so. You would all just know.

I would have given you all that gift.

That's a good gift indeed.

With that said, what if we just simply don't like you?

Ur-Bane! You're back! (We don't like you. )



--A

ur-bane wrote:At this exact moment, I am going to dismiss the previous conversation and give my own answer to the original post. I am doing this because at this moment I am God, and I have not given any contributors the ability to stop me.

As God now, the one thing I would have done differently had I been God then is this:

I would have ensured that everyone born knew that I existed and knew that I was God. I would not have left it up to you to decide for yourselves. There would be no faith in Me, there would be only knowledge.
You would not question whether or not I existed; you would not even have the ability to do so. You would all just know.

I would have given you all that gift.

BANGARANG!!! Doesn't mean I'll worship you, but I surely appreciate knowing you're there!

Hello, Av! Hello Fist! Hello all!
Knowing I am there as God doesn't require you to like me.