• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That is in regard to how you see influence and rebellion.
I see. You made a sweeping generalization about my writing based on your disagreement with me on those two words in Internet forum posts..

Yes with reward/punishment dynamics and learning methods.
Yes, your right about that. However, since it's unlikely that Augustus was talking about me being intentionally punished by my culture, we can eliminate that possibility. Agree?

Rebellion does not mean a mistake. Hypothetically rebelling against a tyrant to create a democracy is not a bad rebellion nor mistake.
You're taking the word out of context. My philosophy isn't a rebellion regardless of whether the rebellion is considered good or bad. Thus, that description of it would be a mistake.

Only with the negative emphasis you impart on words for little reason.
A sweeping generalization based on your preferred interpretation of two words.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You appear to be at the stage where you don't yet know enough to know what you don't know. You are so thoroughly trapped in your own cultural mindset that you are oblivious to the range of diverse views that exist across societies and eras.
In other words, you can't find flaws in my argument, so you'll take cheap shots at me personally?

You are a humanist (liberal Christianity minus the God bit) preaching a globalist salvation narrative (Jesus will return and unite the world reason and conscience will unite the world).

Christianity: teleological, universal, optimistic, salvation/utopian, progress guided by Divine Providence
You: teleological, universal, optimistic, salvation/utopian, progress guided by a transcendent universal human conscience.
My optimism is based on evidence that humanity has always been making moral progress. There's nothing to be saved from; nor is there a particular group that will be saved.

Almost all other historical societies: cyclical/chaotic, non-universal, tragic, capricious gods
And all of them making moral and social progress.

I'd be hard pressed to think of an ideology that actually has more evidence proving that it is false than your own.
A bold claim that you can't support with actual evidence.
It is basically up against the entirety of human history as well as numerous sciences (particularly evolutionary psychology), anthropology, etc.

"BERKELEY — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive."

That you think all it would take would be the objective presentation of evidence to create your worldview, is demonstrative of your lack of appreciation for human cultural diversity and the effect (and affect) this has on human cognition.
You jumped to a conclusion about what I think. Why should I be interested?

If you won't take my word for it, this is from a scientific paper about Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies:
I had time only to take a glance at it. The paragraph I read was about the strange rituals in Amazonian tribes.

I'll read it when I get time and try to figure out why you think weirdness is relevant to our discussion about moral progress.
 
Last edited:
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

I've no problem with the idea that people, in the right environment, can become more cooperative.

What I (and evolutionary psychology) disagree with is that, collectively, we can transcend the group identity component of our cognition.

What human history also tells us is that social changes that rely on the environment are rarely permanent.

And all of them making moral and social progress.

For most of them, the notion of moral progress would be nonsensical. It only makes sense when you have a teleological view of history, which most societies didn't

Also much of your vaulted moral progress has occurred in the past couple of centuries <1% of human history. Generalising based on such a small sample is highly problematic.

If there was a nuclear WW3, would you still expect to see your trends of 'moral progress' continue?

In other words, you can't find flaws in my argument, so you'll take cheap shots at me personally?.. I'll read it when I get time and try to figure out why you think weirdness is relevant to our discussion about moral progress.

It might help you to understand why generalising across cultures and eras is fundamentally flawed, which is the point I have been making but you believe doesn't exist.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I've no problem with the idea that people, in the right environment, can become more cooperative. What I (and evolutionary psychology) disagree with is that, collectively, we can transcend the group identity component of our cognition.
Evolution is a fact; however IMO you have to be naive to accept some of the "science" based on it. For example, in the first chapter of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins admitted that the hypothesis he was promoting had a hole in it. It didn't explain the huge factor of altruism in human nature.

That sent up a red flag for me because any hypothesis, even the weakest, can be patched. A "reciprocity patch" was applied to the altruism hole but the patch wasn't big enough. At my last count, there were seven reciprocity patches applied to the selfish gene hypothesis..

In the OP, I gave you the factor that Dawkins and many others have probably overlooked: The pain and pleasure centers of our brain are effective in moving us away from purely selfish motives. I wrote:

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When acting in our selfish interests causes harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

At UC Berkely they're saying their research supports the survival of the kindest

UC Berkeley Press Release (2009)
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
I see. You made a sweeping generalization about my writing based on your disagreement with me on those two words in Internet forum posts.

No as I point to a specific as per your idea of influence.

Yes, your right about that. However, since it's unlikely that Augustus was talking about me being intentionally punished by my culture, we can eliminate that possibility. Agree?

No as I have not read any clarification on his point as of yet.

You're taking the word out of context. My philosophy isn't a rebellion regardless of whether the rebellion is considered good or bad. Thus, that description of it would be a mistake.

You were the one that saw my point you rebellion against your culture. I provided an example of rebellion that isn't negative. If you want a cultural example a hypothetical culture that does not take care of it's poor.

A sweeping generalization based on your preferred interpretation of two words.

No as per your idea of rebellion seemed to hold a negative emphasis you didn't seem to want.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No as I point to a specific as per your idea of influence.
The sweeping generalization fallacy is essentially jumping to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. In post #135, you made this sweeping generalization about my writing based on your reading of my use of two words:
You have different ideas regarding the meaning of words and phrases that is atypical in my view.
On another point:
You were the one that saw my point you rebellion against your culture. I provided an example of rebellion that isn't negative. If you want a cultural example a hypothetical culture that does not take care of it's poor.
You' re not reading carefully. Once again, from my earlier post:

You're taking the word (rebellion) out of context. My philosophy isn't a rebellion regardless of whether the rebellion is considered good or bad. Thus, that description of it would be a mistake.
No as I have not read any clarification on his point as of yet.
Why do you need a clarification to offer your opinion on likelihood? This was the question:

Yes, your right about that. However, since it's unlikely that Augustus was talking about me being intentionally punished by my culture, we can eliminate that possibility. Agree?

Isn't it obvious that that interpretation makes no sense in the context of this discussion?
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
The sweeping generalization fallacy is essentially jumping to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. In post #135, you made this sweeping generalization about my writing based on your reading of my use of two words:

No as I pointed out a specific namely influence.

You' re not reading carefully. Once again, from my earlier post:

You're taking the word (rebellion) out of context. My philosophy isn't a rebellion regardless of whether the rebellion is considered good or bad. Thus, that description of it would be a mistake.


No I gave two examples. One government and one culture to establish rebellion is not negative at all times. You were the one to use rebellion in relation to your idea not I. You didn't like a specific meaning of rebellion applied to your idea, not I.

Why do you need a clarification to offer your opinion on likelihood? This was the question:

Yes, your right about that. However, since it's unlikely that Augustus was talking about me being intentionally punished by my culture, we can eliminate that possibility. Agree?


I have not read a clarification from Augustus nor seen you ask for a clarification. As in I have not read any post from him to you or you to him at the time of my reply to you. Now you are asking me to speculation based only on your view not mine nor Augustus'. Hence why I declined to respond until you or Augustus clarified in the conversation between you two.

Ask Augustus not me.

Isn't it obvious that that interpretation makes no sense in the context of this discussion?

Again you are speculating rather than asking Augustus then asking me to agree on your speculation. Ask Augustus for clarification. That is what I told you one of my first posts to you.

Have you done so?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No as I pointed out a specific namely influence.



No I gave two examples. One government and one culture to establish rebellion is not negative at all times. You were the one to use rebellion in relation to your idea not I. You didn't like a specific meaning of rebellion applied to your idea, not I.



I have not read a clarification from Augustus nor seen you ask for a clarification. As in I have not read any post from him to you or you to him at the time of my reply to you. Now you are asking me to speculation based only on your view not mine nor Augustus'. Hence why I declined to respond until you or Augustus clarified in the conversation between you two.

Ask Augustus not me.



Again you are speculating rather than asking Augustus then asking me to agree on your speculation. Ask Augustus for clarification. That is what I told you one of my first posts to you.

Have you done so?
We're having trouble communicating. I think it's your fault. Obviously, you won't agree.

No, I haven't asked Augustus for a clarification. I don't need one. I made reasonable deductions from what he wrote to arrive at my conclusion.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
We're having trouble communicating. I think it's your fault. Obviously, you won't agree.

Actually my post was about that very issue. I brought the point up a number of post ago.

No, I haven't asked Augustus for a clarification. I don't need one. I made reasonable deductions from what he wrote to arrive at my conclusion.

Then our conversation is at an end.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Evolution is a fact; however IMO you have to be naive to accept some of the "science" based on it. For example, in the first chapter of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins admitted that the hypothesis he was promoting had a hole in it. It didn't explain the huge factor of altruism in human nature.

That sent up a red flag for me because any hypothesis, even the weakest, can be patched. A "reciprocity patch" was applied to the altruism hole but the patch wasn't big enough. At my last count, there were seven reciprocity patches applied to the selfish gene hypothesis..

In the OP, I gave you the factor that Dawkins and many others have probably overlooked: The pain and pleasure centers of our brain are effective in moving us away from purely selfish motives. I wrote:

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When acting in our selfish interests causes harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

At UC Berkely they're saying their research supports the survival of the kindest

UC Berkeley Press Release (2009)

You raise some interesting points. First of all, the inherent need in average people (the majority of us) is to want peace and security in our own country at least....but we would welcome such in all the world if it was possible. Why doesn't it seem possible? Too many people are, by and large, lazy and self-centered, and would see this kind of situation as someone else's job to benefit them.....but not for them to personally contribute any effort to it.

We all love human kindness and welcome it when it is given to us. Look what happens when there is a natural disaster and we see the human kindness expressed by many.....BUT then, look at those who use such a situation to take what does not belong to them. Looting is common, so how do you make those people unselfish?
People in close proximity in refuge centers can have differences which cause conflicts in a stressful situation. Human nature is what it is. How do you change people?

I believe that we are created with a need for peace and security in our lives.....but unless all are contributing voluntarily to that peace and security, the few who want to steel it from us, would need to be controlled. This is why we have laws, but they only apply once the law has been broken and damage has been done. The ultimate goal would be to educate people to be contributors to community peace and security.....to make unkindness or selfishness into something abhorrent. But how realistic is that, do you think?

The basic tenets of Christianity (and a few others) promote all those qualities that would make it possible to create a utopian world, but what do you do with those who do not subscribe to, or feel the need to demonstrate those attributes? You cannot have freedom AND the world you desire in the present circumstances. Which one would you sacrifice?

A "One World Government" under the auspices of the UN, has been mooted for many decades but not many would support what they see as a recipe for dictatorship and totalitarianism. In the present system, the only way to usher in what is needed is to take away freedom. If you can't control people by robbing them of their freedoms, how else can you 'enforce' peace? Humans prove every day that if you give them freedom, they will abuse it.

There is a vast difference between a "peacemaker" and a "peacekeeper". One is voluntary and guarantees peace...the other is enforced and guarantees nothing.

The Bible, on the other hand, has God testing all of mankind to see who would be a good citizen in such a world, and then eliminating the failures so that there would be no one to disturb the peace and security. That would ensure that all citizens, having qualified for life in that world, would contribute voluntarily to world peace. They would already want to be contributing citizens to ensure that it did not fall apart. Love of God and neighbor would dominate their thinking.....so that is the one I believe we should be looking at.

It was never God's intention for all humans to go to heaven (or hell). He created us to live here on earth as a global family of his worshippers, forever. Being 'made in his image' means that we have freedom of choice and he instructs us how to reflect the qualities with which he has endowed us, in the right way. Those who choose not to display them, will have no future with him.

That is the simple truth as I understand it, having studied the Bible extensively for many years.

What is more realistic in your view?
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You raise some interesting points. First of all, the inherent need in average people (the majority of us) is to want peace and security in our own country at least....but we would welcome such in all the world if it was possible. Why doesn't it seem possible? Too many people are, by and large, lazy and self-centered, and would see this kind of situation as someone else's job to benefit them.....but not for them to personally contribute any effort to it.

We all love human kindness and welcome it when it is given to us. Look what happens when there is a natural disaster and we see the human kindness expressed by many.....BUT then, look at those who use such a situation to take what does not belong to them. Looting is common, so how do you make those people unselfish?
People in close proximity in refuge centers can have differences which cause conflicts in a stressful situation. Human nature is what it is. How do you change people?

I believe that we are created with a need for peace and security in our lives.....but unless all are contributing voluntarily to that peace and security, the few who want to steel it from us, would need to be controlled. This is why we have laws, but they only apply once the law has been broken and damage has been done. The ultimate goal would be to educate people to be contributors to community peace and security.....to make unkindness or selfishness into something abhorrent. But how realistic is that, do you think?

The basic tenets of Christianity (and a few others) promote all those qualities that would make it possible to create a utopian world, but what do you do with those who do not subscribe to, or feel the need to demonstrate those attributes? You cannot have freedom AND the world you desire in the present circumstances. Which one would you sacrifice?

A "One World Government" under the auspices of the UN, has been mooted for many decades but not many would support what they see as a recipe for dictatorship and totalitarianism. In the present system, the only way to usher in what is needed is to take away freedom. If you can't control people by robbing them of their freedoms, how else can you 'enforce' peace? Humans prove every day that if you give them freedom, they will abuse it.

There is a vast difference between a "peacemaker" and a "peacekeeper". One is voluntary and guarantees peace...the other is enforced and guarantees nothing.

The Bible, on the other hand, has God testing all of mankind to see who would be a good citizen in such a world, and then eliminating the failures so that there would be no one to disturb the peace and security. That would ensure that all citizens, having qualified for life in that world, would contribute voluntarily to world peace. They would already want to be contributing citizens to ensure that it did not fall apart. Love of God and neighbor would dominate their thinking.....so that is the one I believe we should be looking at.

It was never God's intention for all humans to go to heaven (or hell). He created us to live here on earth as a global family of his worshippers, forever. Being 'made in his image' means that we have freedom of choice and he instructs us how to reflect the qualities with which he has endowed us, in the right way. Those who choose not to display them, will have no future with him.

That is the simple truth as I understand it, having studied the Bible extensively for many years.

What is more realistic in your view?
We see the same problems; we have the same hopes; but we're not going to agree on very much beyond that. That's okay with me, and I suspect it will be with you as well.

I regard the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions as evidence that humanity is making moral progress because the well-intentioned men who wrote them so long ago must have been citizens of morally immature cultures. They gave some terrible moral guidance and claimed it to be the words of God. The Torah, for example, has God ordering that disobedient children should be killed.

Jews don't kill their disobedient children, of course. But, how do they know that this command of God should be ignored? My explanation is that Jews are human and have the very same moral intuition (conscience) that you and I have.

There were some Christians in the forefront of the movement to abolish slavery. But they weren't moved by their Bible which condones slavery; they were moved by troubled consciences just like non-Christians.

Conscience offers moral guidance; it doesn't interfere with free will. We can choose to follow it or not. Obviously, there are countless reasons why people ignore their consciences.

I'm optimistic. I think we humans are making moral progress. We're treating each other better today that at any time in our history. Consequently, I don't lose sleep worrying about the problems in the world. My chief concern is my own moral progress. In that regard, your Bible has nothing to offer me; but it seems to be working for you. That's good.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I think the Bible is more about man's becoming than about God.
I think that's what it is to you and many others. It just doesn't work for someone like me, with a mind born to doubt. I have my doubts about Science as well, mainly because it relies on scientists who are biased humans like the rest of us.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I think that's what it is to you and many others. It just doesn't work for someone like me, with a mind born to doubt.

You're far from alone. St Therese of Lisieux has left admissions, "I am assailed by the worst temptations of atheism." Wherever is found anything to cling to in this sudden fall. Wherever one looks, only the bottomless abyss of nothingness can be seen. The Rabbi Martin Buber relates the story a vey learned man, who had heard of the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid him a visit In order to argue with him and to shatter his old fashioned roofs of the truth of his faith. The Rabbi deep in thought looked at the man and said "But perhaps it is true after all.'

I think we all share doubt and belief.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
We see the same problems; we have the same hopes; but we're not going to agree on very much beyond that. That's okay with me, and I suspect it will be with you as well.

We are all free agents....I believe that we choose our own destiny.

I regard the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions as evidence that humanity is making moral progress because the well-intentioned men who wrote them so long ago must have been citizens of morally immature cultures. They gave some terrible moral guidance and claimed it to be the words of God. The Torah, for example, has God ordering that disobedient children should be killed.

Times change....attitudes and culture shape who we are and what we become. Some can break an uncomfortable mould and establish a new 'norm' for themselves....others can never break free and remain 'prisoners' for the rest of their lives. There are so many unwitting slaves in the world......I don't think anyone has total freedom. Perceptions can be managed in so many different ways by very unscrupulous people.

The Law in Israel of which you spoke is in Deuteronomy 21.....

18 “If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."

This is not talking about a child. This is an adult who still lives in the home of his parents.
Are you aware that there were no prisons in Israel? Here we have a good for nothing adult son who has been given many opportunities to change his ways but continues to grieve his parents and has probably caused untold misery to others. Put into today's setting, it may seen harsh, but this drunken man may have been violent, putting the lives of others at risk, not to mention being a financial drain on his parents who had to keep him.
If the parents had no other redress, then what was the solution back then? Was their son's life more important than theirs or the lives of others? Would his conduct corrupt others?
His punishment would then serve as a warning to others.

I see the wisdom of that Law back then.

Jews don't kill their disobedient children, of course. But, how do they know that this command of God should be ignored? My explanation is that Jews are human and have the very same moral intuition (conscience) that you and I have.

Again, times change. As the Jews dispersed into other territories, the governments that ruled those regions had their own laws and punishments. They had prisons too. They then became subject to those laws.
Jesus himself suffered a Roman execution because the Jews, under Roman domination, had no right to execute anyone under the law of the land.

There were some Christians in the forefront of the movement to abolish slavery. But they weren't moved by their Bible which condones slavery; they were moved by troubled consciences just like non-Christians.

Misusing scripture to treat another human being with inhumanity, with no respect or dignity because of the colour of their skin is disgusting in God's sight. He created mankind as one race....the human race. (Acts 10:24-25)

Christendom has been responsible for a lot of misdeeds by interpreting scripture to justify their selfishness. The Bible says that God has kept an account of them. No one gets away with anything. Justice demands an accounting.

Conscience offers moral guidance; it doesn't interfere with free will. We can choose to follow it or not. Obviously, there are countless reasons why people ignore their consciences.

The selfish gene is excusable in unreasoning animals.....but not in humans. I like the way the Bible illustrates this ignoring of conscience.

1 Timothy 4:1-2...."However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron."

A branding iron renders the scar, insensitive. The more our conscience is ignored, the more insensitive it becomes.
Justification is the branding iron.

I'm optimistic. I think we humans are making moral progress. We're treating each other better today that at any time in our history. Consequently, I don't lose sleep worrying about the problems in the world. My chief concern is my own moral progress. In that regard, your Bible has nothing to offer me; but it seems to be working for you. That's good.

It would be nice, but I do not share your optimism that people in this present world will ever achieve what you suggest. The only peace and security that can ever be achieved by them is to take away all personal freedom. Imagine what that will mean....?

The 'enforcers' are already trained and ready for when this "New World Order" is established. Have you not noticed?
It will be offered as a global solution to world peace, but it will result in exactly the opposite.....this is all recorded in the scriptures. This is our future before God steps in to usher in the real "New World Order"....the Kingdom of God, which will succeed where all human efforts will fail.

This is what I look forward to....that is where my optimism lies.
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Every individual, and their individual choices. With Our flaws, and limitations, how can anyone conceive of utopia here on earth? With prosperity comes the motive of trying to make it better, and people desire the utmost quality to life.

And the motivation must be greater than to merely keep people in line with laws that serve civilization. But if nothing in life serves the individual's quality of life , what will they choose to become if there is no benefit for them in life. So many of us have to work just to survive another day. And we take esteem in not being the problem in society, but rather the helping hand.

Is life about managing LCD'S or GCF's ?
Because each new generation, has it's own battles, for well being, and each person has their unique choice to help, or hinder. It's hard to imagine any kind of utopia. Only I can imagine is what I can control in making life worthwhile for those I love. For I think the systems we live under only deal in LCD's, and self interests.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The Law in Israel of which you spoke is in Deuteronomy 21.....

18 “If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."
No, that's a different version of Deut 21:18-21. The version I read three years ago didn't specify the age of the child or the offense. I discussed it on a Jewish discussion board. In the Torah, God commanded death for these offenses:

Cursing one's father or mother (Lev 20:9)
Cheating on your husband (Lev 20:10)
Fornicating — if you’re female (Deut 22:21)
Homosexuality (Lev 20:13)
Blasphemy (Lev 24:16)
Insulting one’s parents (Exod 21:17)
Disobeying one’s parents (Deut 21:18-21)


The selfish gene is excusable in unreasoning animals.....but not in humans. I like the way the Bible illustrates this ignoring of conscience.
If we have conscience, why do we need scripture as moral guidance which can easily be misinterpreted?

It would be nice, but I do not share your optimism that people in this present world will ever achieve what you suggest. The only peace and security that can ever be achieved by them is to take away all personal freedom. Imagine what that will mean....?
I don't agree ; but that's a complicated discussion.

The 'enforcers' are already trained and ready for when this "New World Order" is established. Have you not noticed?
No, I don't agree with that either. Maybe, I'll post something on it and we can debate it.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Every individual, and their individual choices. With Our flaws, and limitations, how can anyone conceive of utopia here on earth? ....
I'll simplify this:

p = premise, C = Conclusion

p1 We humans have been making moral progress;

p2 There's no sign of backsliding; when we make moral gains, we hold them; for example it's unlikely that the nations of the world will someday condone slavery as they once did.

p3 We humans are at our best responding to crises; charitable donations rise during recessions

C1 Therefore, barring an unforeseeable calamity that kills off our species, global harmony, or a close approximation, is inevitable. It's only a matter of time.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No, that's a different version of Deut 21:18-21. The version I read three years ago didn't specify the age of the child or the offense.

Actually it states that the son is "a glutton and a drunkard".....hardly the traits of a young child. Gluttony would be controlled by parents of a younger child, being of an age to still require training and discipline.
A "drunkard" is not a young child either. This law applied to adult children....and only as a last resort.

In the Torah, God commanded death for these offenses:

Cursing one's father or mother (Lev 20:9) "For any man who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon himself."

Cheating on your husband (Lev 20:10) "And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Fornicating — if you’re female (Deut 22:21) "they shall take the girl out to the entrance of her father's house, and the men of her city shall pelt her with stones, and she shall die, for she did a disgraceful thing in Israel, to commit adultery [in] her father's house. So shall you clear away the evil from among you."

Homosexuality (Lev 20:13) "And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves."

Blasphemy (Lev 24:16) "And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death."

Insulting one’s parents (Exod 21:17) "And one who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

Disobeying one’s parents (Deut 21:18-21) "If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them,

19his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place.

20And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler."

21And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear"


(All quotes here are from the Complete Jewish Bible. Chabad.ORG)

OK....so do you have a problem with those laws? If so....why? These are Jewish laws but are no longer enforced, but the principles still apply.

All of these laws tell us how God feels about those things, so if we want to water down any of those laws to accommodate our own standards, then we better think again. God does not change.

If we have conscience, why do we need scripture as moral guidance which can easily be misinterpreted?

We need both just as we would need both a map and a compass if we were lost. The Bible is the map...the conscience is the compass. Consciences can be ignored.

I don't agree ; but that's a complicated discussion.

Not really. Have you ever investigated the Bible's prophesies on the end times? There is a reason why our police now look like combat soldiers.

images
images


No, I don't agree with that either. Maybe, I'll post something on it and we can debate it.

Up to you.....I believe that the Bible's predictions are all coming true. Its hard to refute.
 
Top