Genocide, and God

[Crystal Shards]

1. What is morally wrong, then?

2. Does that make amputations evil? They are harmful and injurious...

3. If I had a chance to win a game/race and I instead loss, it'd seem pretty unfortunate to me. Apparently that is evil...

4. What is bad conduct?

5. So being angry with someone for stealing my car is evil?

1. Anything that causes harm without reason or justice.

2. Um, no. They're done with reason, and that reason isn't injurious. It's to help (unless you're talking about torture, in which case: yes).

3. No. As it's not injurious. It's neutral. Unless you were stupid enough to bet a lot of money, which is then your fault.

4. Again, anything that causes harm without reason or justice.

5. No, that's reason.

Are you intentionally being daft? Just wondering.

[Csquared08]

1. Anything that causes harm without reason or justice.

2. Um, no. They're done with reason, and that reason isn't injurious. It's to help (unless you're talking about torture, in which case: yes).

3. No. As it's not injurious. It's neutral. Unless you were stupid enough to bet a lot of money, which is then your fault.

4. Again, anything that causes harm without reason or justice.

5. No, that's reason.

Are you intentionally being daft? Just wondering.

1. Then what would reason or justice be?

2. Then shouldn't 'within reason' be added to the definition?

3. Alright then. How about a competitive event in which everything goes wrong. Certainly fits the bill of 'characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering'

4. See #1

5. Justified anger is acceptable? If that is true, then shouldn't that be clarified in the definition for the definition to be accurate.

Partially.

[Crystal Shards]

1. Then what would reason or justice be?

2. Then shouldn't 'within reason' be added to the definition?

3. Alright then. How about a competitive event in which everything goes wrong. Certainly fits the bill of 'characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering'

4. See #1

5. Justified anger is acceptable? If that is true, then shouldn't that be clarified in the definition for the definition to be accurate.

Partially.

1. Reason: logic, least amount of harm and the greatest amount of good. Justice: same thing, only in response to an injurious action.

2. Um, it was in the definition.

3. No. Chance doesn't factor in, and again, it's not injurious. It doesn't cause harm.

4. See 1.

5. Um, it was in the definition.

I'm sorry, but I'm done with you until you actually learn to comprehend what you're reading.

[Csquared08]

I'm sorry, but I'm done with you until you actually learn to comprehend what you're reading.

Trust me, I do comprehend what I'm reading. I realize within reason is implied in the definition and that justified anger is implied to be acceptable.

But would the average human being understand those things to be true? If you cannot get the general populace to see that your point of view actually makes sense, then why bother trying with anyone?

[Crystal Shards]

I'd like to add this to the table of evidence: The True Story of a Gay Exorcism

There's no way a just God would allow this to happen or encourage it, as these people claim.

[Ignatius117]

I'd like to add this to the table of evidence: The True Story of a Gay Exorcism

There's no way a just God would allow this to happen or encourage it, as these people claim.

Which is precisely why I'm a Catholic. But, that, however, is beside the point. It is a terrible practice, and that isn't even the worst sort of thing I've heard of. Free will is at once a freedom and a bite in the ass; God does not come down from Heaven and smite these so-called "exorcists" because He is not just. He does not smite them because those exorcists will have to own up to it at the seat of judgement. Whether or not you believe in either God or judgement is out of the question; by their own religion, they are committing a grave sin. "For whatever you do to the least of these, so also you do to Me." It is a shame that so many do not heed those words from the same Gospel they claim to preach.

[Crystal Shards]

Which is precisely why I'm a Catholic. But, that, however, is beside the point. It is a terrible practice, and that isn't even the worst sort of thing I've heard of. Free will is at once a freedom and a bite in the ass; God does not come down from Heaven and smite these so-called "exorcists" because He is not just. He does not smite them because those exorcists will have to own up to it at the seat of judgement. Whether or not you believe in either God or judgement is out of the question; by their own religion, they are committing a grave sin. "For whatever you do to the least of these, so also you do to Me." It is a shame that so many do not heed those words from the same Gospel they claim to preach.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Catholics aren't any nicer to gays.

[Janissary]

Wow, there's so much fail in that article. So much.

[Shuuda]

Wow, there's so much fail in that article. So much.

Verbal warning for making a spam/pointless post. In the serious discussion area, please give at least some reasons if you disagree with something. Saying you think something is bad without explanation adds nothing to the discussion.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Shuuda

[Esau of Isaac]

Regardless, the definition of omni-benevolence remains the same: A being that is omni-benevolent/all-loving can do no evil.

That begs the question: What is evil? As humans, many have defined evil as many different things, thus creating conflict. Either each and every human is incorrect about the true essence of evil or a particular human (or group) has got what evil actually is right.

The first is more on the money, but still wrong. Evil is a subjective concept. It doesn't really exist.

But the majority of people will agree on commonalities between their views of evil. Enough so that someone arguing that murder and genocide are benevolent actions is going to be seen as totally fucking batshit insane.

For example: If you were to ask someone on the street what freedom was, you'd get some sort of answer. You ask someone else, you're likely to get a different answer. Which person correctly knows the essence of freedom? In all likelihood, neither of them do.

Because freedom is utilized in many different worldviews. They all have a good idea of what you're talking about, but they'll probably say something like "...Well, which freedom"?

[Ignatius117]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Catholics aren't any nicer to gays.

You'd be surprised... I'll just post this link here:

http://pewsitter.com/view_news_id_35081.php

While I don't agree with gays being married (married in the religious sense, mind you) I see no problem with abolishing government-recognized marriage and instituting civil unions as the legalistic norm for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage was and is a religious practice, and if we truly want separation of church and state, then marriages should be merely a religious formality, and civil unions would carry the same legal weight we today apply to marriage. It may seem like minor semantics, but it gives gays their rights and doesn't infringe upon a religion's beliefs by forcing them to marry gays. Though, whether gays can be married in the eyes of a church is another matter entirely.

[Crystal Shards]

You'd be surprised... I'll just post this link here:

http://pewsitter.com...ws_id_35081.php

While I don't agree with gays being married (married in the religious sense, mind you) I see no problem with abolishing government-recognized marriage and instituting civil unions as the legalistic norm for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage was and is a religious practice, and if we truly want separation of church and state, then marriages should be merely a religious formality, and civil unions would carry the same legal weight we today apply to marriage. It may seem like minor semantics, but it gives gays their rights and doesn't infringe upon a religion's beliefs by forcing them to marry gays. Though, whether gays can be married in the eyes of a church is another matter entirely.

First off, that's one parish, and it's certainly not the Vatican. So, nice try. New York is pretty well-known to generally be openly GLBT-supportive. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

And wrong. WEDDINGS are a religious practice. MARRIAGE was around long before the church came into the picture. It started out as a transfer of property. What property? The wife. A marriage is a contract. A wedding is a religious service. No one's asking for gay weddings (though I imagine some gays want weddings, but that they'd have to do on their own, just like anyone else), as that would be against the whole freedom of religion thing. They're asking to be allowed to enter into a contract (which is what a marriage is) as two consenting adults. There's a distinct difference there, and most people who are "against" gay marriage don't know it because they're too busy listening to the scare-mongering bullshit their priest yammers on about instead of actually doing research for themselves. Giving gays the right to marry gives gays their rights and doesn't infringe upon a religion's beliefs either.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Ignatius117]

First off, that's one parish, and it's certainly not the Vatican. So, nice try. New York is pretty well-known to generally be openly GLBT-supportive. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

And wrong. WEDDINGS are a religious practice. MARRIAGE was around long before the church came into the picture. It started out as a transfer of property. What property? The wife. A marriage is a contract. A wedding is a religious service. No one's asking for gay weddings (though I imagine some gays want weddings, but that they'd have to do on their own, just like anyone else), as that would be against the whole freedom of religion thing. They're asking to be allowed to enter into a contract (which is what a marriage is) as two consenting adults. There's a distinct difference there, and most people who are "against" gay marriage don't know it because they're too busy listening to the scare-mongering bullshit their priest yammers on about instead of actually doing research for themselves. Giving gays the right to marry gives gays their rights and doesn't infringe upon a religion's beliefs either.

To be honest, I've never seen someone get so upset over minor semantics.

[Crystal Shards]

To be honest, I've never seen someone get so upset over minor semantics.

I'm not upset, and that's anything but minor. If people are going to try to use religion to withhold rights from people, they need to at least understand what the fuck they're talking about.

[Ignatius117]

I'm not upset, and that's anything but minor. If people are going to try to use religion to withhold rights from people, they need to at least understand what the fuck they're talking about.

Even given choice of words, you know exactly what I mean. Don't try to discredit me, or anyone else holding the same position as I am, over something so trivial as that. My point is, if we separate the religious ceremonies from the legal contracts, then we would have far less problems. Given the current scenario, it is gays walking down the aisle in a church that raises eyebrows, and not necessarily giving gays full legal right (granted, there are some who would object to granting rights as well). In fact, there are occasionally even legal benefits non-married gays living together enjoy over non-married heterosexual couples living together; I remember when insurance for something (unemployment, if memory serves) was denied a friend of my family and their long-time partner because they weren't married, though gays enjoyed the ability to obtain that insurance in what were otherwise the same circumstances. This was in Ohio, JSYK.

My point is, if you SEPARATE the LEGAL JOINING OF TWO PERSONS from the RELIGIOUS BINDING OF FLESH AND SOUL, then gays would have a much easier time of it, and this wouldn't be nearly such a political war.

[Crystal Shards]

Even given choice of words, you know exactly what I mean. Don't try to discredit me, or anyone else holding the same position as I am, over something so trivial as that. My point is, if we separate the religious ceremonies from the legal contracts, then we would have far less problems. Given the current scenario, it is gays walking down the aisle in a church that raises eyebrows, and not necessarily giving gays full legal right (granted, there are some who would object to granting rights as well). In fact, there are occasionally even legal benefits non-married gays living together enjoy over non-married heterosexual couples living together; I remember when insurance for something (unemployment, if memory serves) was denied a friend of my family and their long-time partner because they weren't married, though gays enjoyed the ability to obtain that insurance in what were otherwise the same circumstances. This was in Ohio, JSYK.

My point is, if you SEPARATE the LEGAL JOINING OF TWO PERSONS from the RELIGIOUS BINDING OF FLESH AND SOUL, then gays would have a much easier time of it, and this wouldn't be nearly such a political war.

It. is. not. trivial.

People say over and over that marriage is religious, and IT'S NOT. They use that line of reasoning to deny people the right to marry whoever they choose. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SEPARATE. Religious idiots have been merging the two for a very long time. Even if you have a wedding, you're not married until you fill out the legal paperwork. It's ALWAYS been separate. ALWAYS. That's my motherfucking point. It's not minor semantics. I mean it's obvious you don't understand what you're talking about because you're babbling on about civil unions, which even if they're applied to everyone they're a step BACKWARD. Civil unions are recognized only in the state they're given with (with few exceptions) whereas marriages offer more benefits to partners and are recognized nationally and internationally. So no, civil unions aren't the answer. Marriage is.

[Narga_Rocks]

Just out of curiosity, would anybody like to explain to me why a topic about Genocide is now talking about Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage?

[Crystal Shards]

Just out of curiosity, would anybody like to explain to me why a topic about Genocide is now talking about Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage?

My fault. I posted to an article about gay exorcisms as an example of people using religion to justify terrible things, someone said "lol I'm Catholic we're nice to gays" and that's how it got off.

[Narga_Rocks]

My fault. I posted to an article about gay exorcisms as an example of people using religion to justify terrible things, someone said "lol I'm Catholic we're nice to gays" and that's how it got off.

Well, if anyone wants to reply to your most recent post on that matter they should make a new topic. With so many going off-topic this time I won't bother handing anything out. This time.

[quanta]

Sweet Jesus. I'm not gonna read the last 4 pages. I have a couple things to say. Prince of Ravens... you don't understand what infinity is (you don't need to fulfill every possibility or even have a chance to do so to be infinite... there are many different types and sizes of infinity), nor do you have a precise enough definition of what "existence" means (for your... "proof") (and the way you're using it, insane semantic and logical clarity and precision are necessary). And no "existence" is not something trivial to define from a logical point of view unless your going to just allow the essentially trivial one (which... wouldn't help you). You don't have anything even resembling a logical proof.

Second, this is getting boring, so I'm going to do something different for once. I'm going to assume that we're not all crazy, and that we've progressed at least as far as some of the Catholic philosophers, which means if we hold the omnipotence, omniscient blah blah blah doctrine to be true, what we actually mean is that God is all-whatever EXCEPT that he must obey the rules of logic (a further, perfectly reasonable extension of this doctrine could be that God logically bound himself to obey certain physical laws in creating a universe, but hey, let's pretend not).

Third, to those who say you need evil to understand what good is... the issue is far from obvious. Whether or not this is true in some given system or for some reasons depends heavily on what you mean by "good" and "evil" (already loaded terms), as well as what you mean by things like... understand. I can conceive of a universe where volume is not preserved under rotation and translation. I do not need to actually see this happen to conceive of this possibility. Similarly, beings of pure good who had never known evil may be able to conceive of the possibility without ever seeing it. How exactly they do this and how much they understand would be intimately tied to their mental and physical faculties and such, but it is easily conceivable. I could come up with stupidly contrived examples that made it really explicit... but that would be silly. I'll sketch the idea anyways. Maybe they have a magical computer which allows them to study every physical possibility from a microscopic level building up (conceivable if requiring something far beyond the capability of any actual or maybe even theoretical computer). It doesn't really matter how. If you allow a separation between rules for their body and for their behavior and mind, they may be able to investigate every physical possibility if evil isn't barred physically, some of those may simply not align with any choices they will make.

[Crystal Shards]

A friend of mine posted this on some article where people were bitching about gay priests and I thought it summed up my views quite nicely:

The Greatest Story Ever Told:

In the beginning, God himself created man and woman and placed them in a garden, in "his own image", but got righteously angry at them when they ate, against his wish, and after being tempted by a talking serpent that god himself had somehow allowed to slither about in the garden, a tasty, beautiful fruit, though he himself had placed it there but neglected to instill in his creations the knowledge of good and evil so that they would know it was wrong to eat it. Being omniscient, of course, he knew all this before he started, but was apparently unable to do anything about it because he had planned it this way from the beginning, and apparently god cannot change anything he already knows, in spite of the fact that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Later, God himself impregnated a virgin so that he himself could be born a human, a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger.

Of course, he waited several thousand years to implement this divine plan, in the meantime taking the righteous action of drowning every creature on the planet except a few he could stuff on a boat. Not to mention handing down a Law that served to further condemn every one of us, and in which Law he himself had them frequently sacrifice animals to appease himself, though he knew the blood of animals didn't really appease himself.

God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself.

He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he'd be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself.

He himself then sent himself (or a ghost of himself, if you please) back to earth to be a comfort to us, though he himself is still sitting at the right hand of himself.

And, glory hallelujah, he himself promised that he himself will return someday, though he himself is already here, and will still be there, to snatch up those who believe the god blood sacrifice story he himself told us, and kill the rest of us who don't believe the god blood sacrifice story, no matter how nice we were otherwise. But, since killing us isn't enough to appease his righteousness, he himself will then judge us, though according to ManGod he himself will also not judge us, and being a god of love will cast most of us into hell for an eternity of suffering. He has to, of course, because he is a righteous, just god, and can't figure out a way to save anyone who hasn't been redeemed by god-blood, even though he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and loves us all.

- Author Unknown

[Fenrir]

That made a hell of a lot of sense. I say that i believe in God, but i do not like most of the things he does.

[volkethereaper]

I believe in a Supreme Being, but I also believe taht it is not retrained in the same way we are. I see no reasons (scientific or otherwise) to think that we, in some form or another, haven't always been and won't always be. Make of this what you will. With that perspective, nothing we do has all that much an effect on the universe, nor should it. However, due to our lives being bound by a mortal perspective, we shouldn't act in a way that is "immoral" by mortal standards. The Supreme Being's commandments and laws were established to make our mortal existances easier. The Supreme Being, who is not bound by this mortal perspective, need not act according to it. Plus, it adds to its mystique.

Edited July 22, 2010 by volkethereaper