Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>  My illustration was to suggest the following... no matter what in
>manslaughter or murder, someone died. Whether I intended to do it or not
>isn't going to change that fact. Thus, beyond the physical harm, there
>is something more taken into account. If only "measurable harm" was
>gaged, there wouldn't be a "manslaughter" classification.
>  
>
But we don't judge upon harm alone simply because otherwise you or I 
could be punished for something that was not our fault, or for which we 
were only partially responsible for (it would be unfair to punish 
excessively for a very minor crime just because some very unusual set of 
circumstances resulted in a death, especially if that death could never 
have been anticipated by the culprit).

Taking into account a person's intentions and responsibility in the 
circumstances is not at all the same as judging them based upon some 
arbitrary set of rules the validity of which is disputed by the vast 
majority of the world.

>  Likewise, Jesus is essentially saying that there is something other
>than physically hurting someone or damaging society that should be taken
>into account. 
>  
>
It seems to me that Jesus couldn't care less(1) about actual measurable 
damage to society, *or* the intent of the individual *or* their level of 
responsibility for any outcome taking the circumstances into 
consideration, only whether or not they did something forbidden by the 
Bible. Boolean value. To me, following a set of values like that seems 
very damaging. Murder is bad not because someone told you so but because 
it is directly damaging to society; if murder were legal we would live 
in constant fear for our lives, would be forced to defend ourselves with 
force and could not expect any social progress. Manslaughter isn't quite 
so bad because at least there was no actual intent to kill; we are 
willing to be a bit more forgiving to those for whom the act was 
accidental. If someone commits manslaughter, there's a much better 
chance they can return to society and not kill again.

Christianity, OTOH, tells us that you can go out and kill a man, and as 
long as you are truly sorry about it, that's fine. The man you have 
killed might have been a homosexual, who didn't harm or intend to harm 
anyone, but he burns in hell for his 'sins'. Worse, he might later have 
'found God', and 'repented', were it not for his premature death. And 
you rely on this to provide a framework of morality for your life. (I 
realise that this example is a bit ridiculous and ignores the fact that 
you can't really go out and kill someone with intent to be generally 
sorry about it afterwards, but I hope you see my point).

I apologise for going off-topic, but your comparison of sin in 
Christianity and modern justice systems really bothered me, even if it 
was only to illustrate a minor point. I also apologise for repeatedly 
bringing up your religion in completely irrelevant arguments, I just 
find it interesting to hear your view on various things :).

(1) At least not when deciding if a particular action is sinful.

>  But anyway, my main point in all of this was not to argue about
>morality, but rather simply to note that Christians -- at least if they
>follow Christian theology -- shouldn't suggest that someone with
>same-sex attraction is sinful right off the bat... it is what they chose
>to do with that inclination or temptation that decides whether it is
>sinful or not. Same goes for everyone else too.
>  
>
That doesn't seem to relate to your example at all :P

I mean, what you are basically saying here is that in Christianity 
actions are more important than thoughts (or intent?). Which seems to be 
the opposite of what you were saying earlier, with your justice system 
examples.

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.