Crime

[Nimos]

Okay, so please show me how religion has not accomplished anything done according to what the verses said - where all shared because each person was viewed equally as a family member, in God's household, under God.

Not a 100% sure what you mean, but even today Christians do not share as the verse say. So im not really sure what there is to show. The catholic church is filthy rich, yet Christians are starving. People preaching Christian religions makes or can make a lot of money on it, yet they do not seem willing to really share it, more than the average person.

Also, please provide the mechanism that works by human intelligence, technology and science.

I don't understand what you refer to with this?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Always has existed? From when? Can you give a specific crime, and when it occurred?

*Blinks*

I'm talking historically, not Biblically.
Feel free to pick your epoch and region.

Are you suggesting crime was 'invented' at some point?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still don't understand how education relates to ending crime from your viewpoint.

It helps open opportunities for people that aren't crime related.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What do you mean?

Scripture and science doesn't compliment each other. If you're bringing scientific theories, etc, scripture (information before the common era) is irrelevant to what we know today (21st century).

To many, it's not... including scientists.

Theories aren't facts.

Why. Not how.
Scientists are trying to understand why we die, and how the process might be reversed.

Trying and theories are scientists attempting to reverse the aging process. Unless they have studies and implement those studies that it actually works, it's just a theory.

God does.

You're not god. If people live forever-who exactly lives on when the body dies?

Yes, evidently you do not understand.
If the body dies, and it's not understood what causes it, it's reasonable to conclude that if we can find out what causes it, then we may be able to prevent the body dying... if we get to the cause.

The cause however, is mentioned in scripture, and will not be able to be reversed by man.
However, God will remove the cause, and reverse death, as promised in scripture.

That's a fallacy. Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean the laws of physics change. Science doesn't change the laws of physics and all but uses what it already knows to develop more theories and find and conclude new facts after being tested without bias.

If it's reversed by god, why give scientific theories to support your claim?

If it's not reversed by man, what is the video and expert for?

God is irrelevant when talking about science.

 

[nPeace]

Not a 100% sure what you mean, but even today Christians do not share as the verse say. So im not really sure what there is to show. The catholic church is filthy rich, yet Christians are starving. People preaching Christian religions makes or can make a lot of money on it, yet they do not seem willing to really share it, more than the average person.

I referred to a scripture where religious people shared all things in common, and no one among them lacked anything. You said "No, religion wouldn't accomplish anything if it were done this way."
So I asked you to show me how religion has not accomplished anything done this way.
Also, is there a reason why when someone uses the word religion, some people start to name a particular religion they can attribute particular unrelated issues to, or lump all religion into one?

I don't understand what you refer to with this?

You said "Human intelligence, technology and science would"
I'm asking you to explain what mechanism would allow those - Human intelligence, technology and science - to work. In other words what do you have in mind that you can say they will work.
I expect you would know what you meant, by your statement.

 

[Heyo]

That's not what I have been hearing all my life from school days.
I have been hearing that most people with higher education usually are mad, and it seems that is not a myth.
A widespread problem
College students today increasingly suffer from mental health issues and face many barriers to accessing the care they need. Disordered eating and sleeping are on the rise among college students, and over one-third of college students report having trouble functioning over the past year due to depression. In surveys, almost a third of students reports feeling frequently overwhelmed. And these health access problems don’t account for the financial burdens imposed on students that may negatively affect their well-being.

higher education and mental health

And what has that to do with crime rates?

We know that you don't like higher education and we know why.
But the statistics are pretty significant about the correlation between incarceration and education. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf

You have found this to be true?
I don't think this is a documented fact.

You may be right. I only found articles like this Why Do We Obey the Law? which isn't exactly what I am saying. I may have reasoned from myself to others. (And I know I shouldn't do that. I'm a rational person and most others are not.)

I would completely agree with education that involves raising young ones with morals. That's why I believe divine education is the best education. It avoids double standards so common in worldly education.
It's not therefore a case, of what applies to Jane, does not apply to Betty.

What are those double standards you see in secular moral education? And how common are they?
I don't think religious moral education is practical. Not only because it isn't free of double standards but because of the bronze age morals.
But the double standards are there as well. It is telling that you said that "what applies to Jane, does not apply to Betty" when what applies to Jane, does not apply to John in your morals.

 

[nPeace]

Scripture and science doesn't compliment each other. If you're bringing scientific theories, etc, scripture (information before the common era) is irrelevant to what we know today (21st century).



Theories aren't facts.



Trying and theories are scientists attempting to reverse the aging process. Unless they have studies and implement those studies that it actually works, it's just a theory.



You're not god. If people live forever-who exactly lives on when the body dies?



That's a fallacy. Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean the laws of physics change. Science doesn't change the laws of physics and all but uses what it already knows to develop more theories and find and conclude new facts after being tested without bias.

If it's reversed by god, why give scientific theories to support your claim?

If it's not reversed by man, what is the video and expert for?

God is irrelevant when talking about science.

I don't think you understand anything I have said.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think you understand anything I have said.

I start from top to bottom and comment individually rather than taking the post as a whole. What were you trying to say?

 

[nPeace]

And what has that to do with crime rates?

We know that you don't like higher education and we know why.
But the statistics are pretty significant about the correlation between incarceration and education. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf

What does this have to do with those who commit crimes that land them in prison, and those who were mentally ill at the time?

You may be right. I only found articles like this Why Do We Obey the Law? which isn't exactly what I am saying. I may have reasoned from myself to others. (And I know I shouldn't do that. I'm a rational person and most others are not.)

Many a mentally ill person has said the same.

What are those double standards you see in secular moral education? And how common are they?

One example. They seem quite common, as that's not all I was thinking of.

I don't think religious moral education is practical. Not only because it isn't free of double standards but because of the bronze age morals.

What bronze age morals are you talking about, and since when did the first century Christian congregation fall into the bronze age?

But the double standards are there as well. It is telling that you said that "what applies to Jane, does not apply to Betty" when what applies to Jane, does not apply to John in your morals.

What double standards are you referring to?

 

[nPeace]

I start from top to bottom and comment individually rather than taking the post as a whole. What were you trying to say?

First. I don't understand why you keep taking everything I say, as a mixing of science with religion.

 

[nPeace]

*Blinks*

I'm talking historically, not Biblically.
Feel free to pick your epoch and region.

Are you suggesting crime was 'invented' at some point?

Exactly. Historically. What do you think I am asking you?
I asked you from when did crime exist? Can you give a specific crime, and when it occurred? In history.

 

[Heyo]

What does this have to do with those who commit crimes that land them in prison, and those who were mentally ill at the time?

Nothing. That's my point.

Many a mentally ill person has said the same.

Depending on your definition of mental illness, it is possible to be a mentally ill, rational person as well as it is possible to be a mentally sane, irrational person.

One example. They seem quite common, as that's not all I was thinking of.

I'll come back to that.

What bronze age morals are you talking about, and since when did the first century Christian congregation fall into the bronze age?

The first century is iron age but the morals (OT) stem from the bronze age.

What double standards are you referring to?

Incidentally the same you were referring to above. The difference is that modern, secular education tries to eliminate sexual double standards while you are promoting them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Exactly. Historically. What do you think I am asking you?
I asked you from when did crime exist? Can you give a specific crime, and when it occurred? In history.

From the time the first law was put in place.
Else what would be the point of laws in the first place??

Some of the earlier examples of such laws includes the Laws of Hammurabli, but it would be pretty ridiculous to believe that nothing predated this in terms of 'laws' and 'crimes'.
I'm Australian, and there are plenty of cultural laws within Aboriginal communities, as well as evidence that sacred spaces and certain rituals were restricted.

I'm a little confused why you want a 'specific crime' to be identified, though. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to the difference you believe that makes?

 

[nPeace]

Nothing. That's my point.

?
I don't understand. Your link refers to inmates getting an education. My link refers to people with an education having mental problems before any crime or prison sentence, which is exactly what we were talking about.

Depending on your definition of mental illness, it is possible to be a mentally ill, rational person as well as it is possible to be a mentally sane, irrational person.

I'll come back to that.

The first century is iron age but the morals (OT) stem from the bronze age.

Incidentally the same you were referring to above. The difference is that modern, secular education tries to eliminate sexual double standards while you are promoting them.

Important - the first century at the end of the iron age.
You've not said what morals you are talking about.
There are no double standards relating to sexual activity being acceptable to males and not females.
Can you quote a scriptural passage?

 

[nPeace]

From the time the first law was put in place.
Else what would be the point of laws in the first place??

Some of the earlier examples of such laws includes the Laws of Hammurabli, but it would be pretty ridiculous to believe that nothing predated this in terms of 'laws' and 'crimes'.
I'm Australian, and there are plenty of cultural laws within Aboriginal communities, as well as evidence that sacred spaces and certain rituals were restricted.

I'm a little confused why you want a 'specific crime' to be identified, though. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to the difference you believe that makes?

If I make a bold claim, and someone asked me to support my claim, I would not have a hard time understanding what that meant.
You said, "Crime exists everywhere, and always has..."
I expect that for you to make such a claim, you must have the data to confirm that claim.
Evidently you don't.
So basically, you made a baseless claim.
Hence, you don't know when crime started, and whether it always existed or not.
The Bible says - before Babylon it has not always existed, so that being true, would mean that how it originated can be identified as a root cause.
Knowing the root cause is an indication that it can be removed.

 

[Heyo]

My link refers to people with an education having mental problems

Exactly. That's off topic. We are talking about crime.
I connected crime to education. On topic.
You might connect crime to mental illness. On topic.
Connecting mental illness to education - off topic.

Important - the first century at the end of the iron age.
You've not said what morals you are talking about.
There are no double standards relating to sexual activity being acceptable to males and not females.
Can you quote a scriptural passage?

Biblically polygyny was apparently permissible, polyandry not.
Male homosexuality is prohibited, female homosexuality not.
I don't know enough about your version of theism to say if you support different standards in sexual behaviour but at least you promote different standards in gender roles, which is equally outdated.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What you are saying sounds quite reasonable.
So we can agree that the kind of education given matters? It must be education that effects every aspect of human life, and must deal with what's absolute rather than just merely relative.

Not sure anything has to be absolute to be effective in reducing crime. I don't know what goes on in schools these days - the normal ones rather than any faith-oriented ones - but I would think that relationships, morality, acceptable behaviour, and such are discussed via various subjects and which wasn't the case when I was at school from what I remember. Also, children tend to have more support via schools, from what I have gleaned from the few TV programmes I've seen and news articles. Support might be lacking later on in life though, if our Health Services are underfunded, which I believe is the case.

 

[Secret Chief]

That would not end crime. It would be a crime itself, and leads to more crime

Haha good one!
I said decriminalise everything. That means everything, i.e. everything. The statute book is in the bin.
Perhaps you meant morally or ethically wrong? Which of course is something entirely different.

 

[Nimos]

I referred to a scripture where religious people shared all things in common, and no one among them lacked anything. You said "No, religion wouldn't accomplish anything if it were done this way."
So I asked you to show me how religion has not accomplished anything done this way.
Also, is there a reason why when someone uses the word religion, some people start to name a particular religion they can attribute particular unrelated issues to, or lump all religion into one?

Because im talking on a global scale not just among a small group of people. Surely sharing within a small group is fine, especially if they are closely attached to each other. But when they ain't and there is a scarcity then people which are not closely related tend to not want to share.

Religions doesn't seem to change this, even though people share the same religion, they are still not close enough attached to each other for sharing to work.

You said "Human intelligence, technology and science would"
I'm asking you to explain what mechanism would allow those - Human intelligence, technology and science - to work. In other words what do you have in mind that you can say they will work.
I expect you would know what you meant, by your statement.

Well because if an "Atomic replicator" should ever be created as i imagine it, it would require science and technology to figure out how to do it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

First. I don't understand why you keep taking everything I say, as a mixing of science with religion.

You quoted and linked a science-reference on aging. You've also added scripture-I guess to support the point you were making about the theory of age reversal.

I get that scientists are studying age reversal. I listened to other videos on it and the purpose was to slow down and prevent the death of our organs. This won't let us live forever just prolong our lifespan. I don't believe we will live forever whether the theory turns to fact and we can prolong our life or we die a natural 110 age life and hopefully die peacefully.

I get people want to live forever. I just don't find that realistic.