Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>   I'm getting tired, so if I say anything completely stupid, please
>forgive me. Hopefully my overall intent will be clear, however.
>
>  
>
>>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 
>>    
>>
>
>  I guess it is if you don't believe in the value of them. If you feel
>they make sense, then they are not.
>  
>
What I meant to say was, I feel that the fact that some people practise 
these values is quite damaging to others who do not.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>  True.
>  
>
I'm glad we're agreed that there is some source for morality other than 
religion :).

>>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 do sympathize with what you are saying. Let me give one way you
>could look at this (while this is drawing off the Bible, it is not
>necessarily a view held by all Christians). 
>
>  
>
[...]

>     Now, with that in mind, let's consider your scenario. The Bible
>says God desires that no one be lost. So, if God knew the homosexual
>would find Him if he were not murdered, it would stand to reason that
>he'd probably stop the murder from happening. On the other hand, while
>God does not condone murder, he might not intervene if he already knows
>that the homosexual would not reverse course, but on the other hand, the
>murder incident might eventually lead to an inspirational transformation
>of the murderer who is *truly* sorry for what he did. This
>transformation may go on to reach out to the family of the murdered man
>and actually revives their faith (not so far fetched... it has
>happened). 
>  
>
OK, I accept your argument here.

>  The key here is that God does not condone the murder, however I think
>it stands to reason if we accept God intervenes, but at the same time
>has shown a preference to giving mankind freewill (such as in the Garden
>of Eden), that God won't interrupt sinful behavior unless it will
>prevent His ultimate goal of bringing as many people as possible to Him.
>  
>
I accept that these rules do not mean that God condones murder. Indeed, 
I understand and even admire his capacity for forgiveness in this regard.

What I do not accept is that the homosexual should ever have to repent 
at all. I do not accept the argument that God is just, because this is 
simply an extension of the usual 'I am bigger than you and therefore 
correct, irrespective of any absence of logic or consistency in what I 
say or do' argument.

>  Now I realize this is also a far fetched scenario, but I think it fits
>in well with your far fetched scenario. :-)
>  
>
It does :).

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>  No, not exactly. Okay, back to this lust == adultery statement. We can
>assume that most people have "attraction" one way or another, either
>other sex or same sex. That in itself doesn't equate to sin. Lust, or
>actually acting on lust, is what is sin.
>
I'm with you now, but I'm not sure I agree with your idea that 
attraction and lust are not equal, although tbh I am not quite sure I 
understand what lust is supposed to mean either.

Of course, I'm sure you realise that I'm never going to accept that 
anything that goes on inside your head is wrong. 1984 anyone? :).

>  Do I make more sense now? :-)
>  
>
Yes.

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.