Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 08:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(26-05-2016 08:30 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is a perfect example of the effects of religion on society. These ideas are a direct result of the teaching of the morality of sacrifice. In the first example mercy or leniency is given on the basis that the person is unable to pay, so the innocent (the car owner) are sacrificed for the good of the guilty. That's right out of Christianity. Jesus was the ideal man supposedly and what did they do, sacrificed the ideal for the non-ideal, the innocent for the guilty, the pure for the un-pure.

The reason that you cite for the judge to be lenient is the guilty party's need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This is again based on the premise that the person's lack of ability, to pay or to think or to get food places some obligation on the person who does not lack the ability to pay or think or produce the values needed to take care of himself. The fruit vendor is out the fruit which he worked for and earned no matter the circumstances of the one who stole it. Again it is sacrifice of the innocent for the good of the guilty, the able to the unable.

Let's take this idea that the judge should weigh all this when deciding punishment or restitution to its logical consequences. You are advocating unequal treatment before the law. The proper purpose of the law and government is to protect the rights of individuals. So under the kind of system of justice you advocate for here, the more retched and pathetic you are the more rights you have. This can only mean that the more able you are and good, the less rights you have. So if a person is able enough and good enough he becomes a rightless creature to be sacrificed and if you become retched enough you get away with murder. This is the kind of system we have today and people wonder why crime is on the rise. What's needed is a system which punishes evil for being evil not a system that rewards it and punishes the good for being the good. For the guilty to be given leniency the innocent must be wronged and denied justice.

This is why our world is the way it is, why there's so much war and violence and injustice because we sacrifice justice in the name of mercy. They are opposites. To say that mercy can be given in the "confines of justice" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying poison can be eaten within the confines of nourishment.

If you look at the world and are saddened by the state of it, look to the dominant moral ideas and you will see that they are all premised on the morality of sacrifice. What's needed is a new morality which celebrates, supports and rewards the good for being the good.
There is no morality in sacrifice.

Self sacrifice for a greater good maybe, but not just sacrifice as in someone or something being sacrificed for the pleasure or appeasement of another.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

If one gives up a value for a greater value it is not a sacrifice. That is selfish, But that's not what happens in the case of mercy. Mercy is the sacrifice of a great value, the innocent, the good, to a lesser value, the guilty, the depraved. For the guilty to receive mercy the innocent must be denied justice. It amounts to a sanction and reward of evil. Someone being sacrificed for the good and appeasement of others is the dominant moral idea today in the world. Why? Why is the good of others always more important than your own good and if it is wrong to create a value and keep it for yourself, why is it not wrong for those who have not created it to receive it? No rational answer to either question has ever been given. That is the system we live with every day.

As far as faith goes, it is the most immoral thing I can think of. It is the sacrifice of the mind to the mindless, reason to the irrational, facts to feelings and wishes, the real to the imaginary. It is the original sin in my opinion because it is at the root of all others. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not appeal to reason but to faith.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(01-06-2016 07:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(31-05-2016 08:29 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  There is no morality in sacrifice.

Self sacrifice for a greater good maybe, but not just sacrifice as in someone or something being sacrificed for the pleasure or appeasement of another.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

If one gives up a value for a greater value it is not a sacrifice. That is selfish, But that's not what happens in the case of mercy. Mercy is the sacrifice of a great value, the innocent, the good, to a lesser value, the guilty, the depraved. For the guilty to receive mercy the innocent must be denied justice. It amounts to a sanction and reward of evil. Someone being sacrificed for the good and appeasement of others is the dominant moral idea today in the world. Why? Why is the good of others always more important than your own good and if it is wrong to create a value and keep it for yourself, why is it not wrong for those who have not created it to receive it? No rational answer to either question has ever been given. That is the system we live with every day.

As far as faith goes, it is the most immoral thing I can think of. It is the sacrifice of the mind to the mindless, reason to the irrational, facts to feelings and wishes, the real to the imaginary. It is the original sin in my opinion because it is at the root of all others. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not appeal to reason but to faith.
They appealed to the hunger for power, not faith.

And as far as mercy is concerned; as stated, it is only right and fair and just for the victim to be merciful, no other in their stead can show mercy on their behalf. It is indeed injustice in such a case. And I agree with you in that particular case.

But for me to be wronged and take it upon myself to not act in vengeance is not injustice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 08:05 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(01-06-2016 07:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If one gives up a value for a greater value it is not a sacrifice. That is selfish, But that's not what happens in the case of mercy. Mercy is the sacrifice of a great value, the innocent, the good, to a lesser value, the guilty, the depraved. For the guilty to receive mercy the innocent must be denied justice. It amounts to a sanction and reward of evil. Someone being sacrificed for the good and appeasement of others is the dominant moral idea today in the world. Why? Why is the good of others always more important than your own good and if it is wrong to create a value and keep it for yourself, why is it not wrong for those who have not created it to receive it? No rational answer to either question has ever been given. That is the system we live with every day.

As far as faith goes, it is the most immoral thing I can think of. It is the sacrifice of the mind to the mindless, reason to the irrational, facts to feelings and wishes, the real to the imaginary. It is the original sin in my opinion because it is at the root of all others. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not appeal to reason but to faith.
They appealed to the hunger for power, not faith.

And as far as mercy is concerned; as stated, it is only right and fair and just for the victim to be merciful, no other in their stead can show mercy on their behalf. It is indeed injustice in such a case. And I agree with you in that particular case.

But for me to be wronged and take it upon myself to not act in vengeance is not injustice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Your certain knowledge you express of understanding moral queries this way comes from???

What elucidated this right and fair certainty?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(01-06-2016 08:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  They appealed to the hunger for power, not faith.

And as far as mercy is concerned; as stated, it is only right and fair and just for the victim to be merciful, no other in their stead can show mercy on their behalf. It is indeed injustice in such a case. And I agree with you in that particular case.

But for me to be wronged and take it upon myself to not act in vengeance is not injustice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Your certain knowledge you express of understanding moral queries this way comes from???

What elucidated this right and fair certainty?
Elucidated; learn something new every day.

Thank you.

I can't say for sure where it came from. When I think about it, it just seems like common knowledge.

Without being all Deepak Chopraesc; honest introspection, and the conscience. Inquiry of one's own motives.

That was a good question. I'm sorry I can't give a more definitive answer.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(01-06-2016 07:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  If one gives up a value for a greater value it is not a sacrifice. That is selfish, But that's not what happens in the case of mercy. Mercy is the sacrifice of a great value, the innocent, the good, to a lesser value, the guilty, the depraved. For the guilty to receive mercy the innocent must be denied justice. It amounts to a sanction and reward of evil. Someone being sacrificed for the good and appeasement of others is the dominant moral idea today in the world. Why? Why is the good of others always more important than your own good and if it is wrong to create a value and keep it for yourself, why is it not wrong for those who have not created it to receive it? No rational answer to either question has ever been given. That is the system we live with every day.

As far as faith goes, it is the most immoral thing I can think of. It is the sacrifice of the mind to the mindless, reason to the irrational, facts to feelings and wishes, the real to the imaginary. It is the original sin in my opinion because it is at the root of all others. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not appeal to reason but to faith.
They appealed to the hunger for power, not faith.

And as far as mercy is concerned; as stated, it is only right and fair and just for the victim to be merciful, no other in their stead can show mercy on their behalf. It is indeed injustice in such a case. And I agree with you in that particular case.

But for me to be wronged and take it upon myself to not act in vengeance is not injustice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


No they didn't. Hunger for power may have been their motivation. They didn't tell the people "do all this so that I can be the master over you and have all this power". They were explicitly anti-reason. They asked the people to have faith and heart. Both Stalin and Hitler explicitly asked the people to sacrifice for the good of the people, to put aside their selfish desires and plans in favor of the plan of the leaders who were the voice of the people. You see under a morality of selfless sacrifice there have to be those who collect the sacrifice. They could not have done what they did on the basis of reason and individualism. Only on the grounds of selflessness as a virtue. That is what religion teaches. The Nazi's just replaced one supernatural entity, God, for another, the Volk or the collective. It is all right there as plain as day in their writings.

I don't think it is right at all to forgive evil. Errors of knowledge should be forgiven if the person is willing to make amends but never deliberate acts of evil. That would be self immolation. That is what many religions call their followers to do.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(01-06-2016 10:58 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 07:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  They appealed to the hunger for power, not faith.

And as far as mercy is concerned; as stated, it is only right and fair and just for the victim to be merciful, no other in their stead can show mercy on their behalf. It is indeed injustice in such a case. And I agree with you in that particular case.

But for me to be wronged and take it upon myself to not act in vengeance is not injustice.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


No they didn't. Hunger for power may have been their motivation. They didn't tell the people "do all this so that I can be the master over you and have all this power". They were explicitly anti-reason. They asked the people to have faith and heart. Both Stalin and Hitler explicitly asked the people to sacrifice for the good of the people, to put aside their selfish desires and plans in favor of the plan of the leaders who were the voice of the people. You see under a morality of selfless sacrifice there have to be those who collect the sacrifice. They could not have done what they did on the basis of reason and individualism. Only on the grounds of selflessness as a virtue. That is what religion teaches. The Nazi's just replaced one supernatural entity, God, for another, the Volk or the collective. It is all right there as plain as day in their writings.

I don't think it is right at all to forgive evil. Errors of knowledge should be forgiven if the person is willing to make amends but never deliberate acts of evil. That would be self immolation. That is what many religions call their followers to do.
Mercy and self sacrifice for the greater good aren't the same. I agree that both can be used as tools of manipulation. I disagree that they are, in themselves themselves not virtuous and benefitial towards the betterment and or peaceable continued existence of all.

I do not deny that many principalities of an organized religious sort and otherwise indeed use virtuous things in wholly manipulative nagative ways.



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(31-05-2016 10:47 AM)LDS1 Wrote:  
(30-05-2016 10:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no evidence for any of those absurdities. Drinking Beverage

I hear the "There is no evidence" claim a lot. That simply is not the case.

Even law eye witness testimony is admissible on court. As are written docs.

Eyewitness testimony is proven to be unreliable. Besides - there is no eyewitness testimony, only hearsay.

Quote:Modern day prophets (and ancient) give testimony of having seen God.

All with no actual evidence, so they are worthless.

Quote:Writen works (scriptures), especially The Book of Mormon, are sufficient information and data for grounds of belief.

No, they aren't. Writing down a lie does not make it true.

Quote:What is more, and the greatest of all, is the witness from the Holy Ghost to a person it is true.

Someone's internal mental states are not evidence of anything external. There is no way to tell they are not simply delusion, hallucination, or indigestion.

Quote:Now if I see God or have a personal revelation by the Holy Ghost, is not that evidence, even proof to me, that it is true. Yes, I can't prove it to you, but my witness and testimonial is evidence.

No, it is not evidence. You do not understand what constitutes evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-06-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
Of course I know what evidence is. The dictionary agreed with me.

A key piece of evidence is The Book of Mormon. Translated in 90 days, it is nothing short of a miracle.

Evidence

noun

that which tends to prove or disprovesomething; ground for belief; proof.something that makes plain or clear; anindication or sign: His flushed look wasvisible evidence of his fever.Law. data presented to a court or jury inproof of the facts in issue and which mayinclude the testimony of witnesses,records, documents, or objects.

—verb (used with object), ev·i·denced,ev·i·denc·ing.

to make evident or clear; show clearly;manifest: He evidenced his approval bypromising his full support.to support by evidence: He evidenced hisaccusation with incriminating letters.

—Idioms

in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous:The first signs of spring are in evidence.

Origin: 1250–1300; Middle English (noun) < Middle French < Latin ēvidentia. See evident, -ence

—Related forms
coun·ter·ev·i·dence, noun 
pre·ev·i·dence, noun 
re·ev·i·dence, verb (used with object),re·ev·i·denced, re·ev·i·denc·ing.
su·per·ev·i·dence, noun 
un·ev·i·denced, adjective 
well-ev·i·denced, adjective 

—Synonyms
3. information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence,exhibit, testimony, proof refer to information furnished in a legal investigation to support a contention. Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source: Hearsay evidence is not admitted in a trial. An exhibit in law is a document or article that is presented in court as evidence: The signed contract is Exhibit A. Testimony is usually evidence given by witnesses under oath: The jury listened carefully to the testimony. Proof is evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt: proof of the innocence of the accused. 4. demonstrate




Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
J
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2016 08:47 AM by Chas.)
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
The Book of Mormon is demonstrably a fraud perpetrated by a con man.

Besides, you can't use the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-06-2016, 10:15 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(30-05-2016 10:07 PM)LDS1 Wrote:  I (Mormons) believe, and I think you might like the idea too, that the first law of heaven is freedom of choice.
"Heaven" is merely another figment of the theists' imaginations. As is "hell".

Quote:Satan wanted to destroy the agency of man (freedom to choose), which is why he got exiled from heaven.
Satan is a mythological entity created by man to scare little kids (and ignorant adult Christians!) into being good.

Quote:We believe that God the Father created our spirits and we lived with him in what is referred to as the pre-earth life.
Then you believe wrongly—and, more importantly, without any empirical evidence.

Quote:There God revealed to us (you included) the Plan of Salvation. We had a choice to accept or reject. Those that accepted were given the right to come to earth to receive bodies.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense, and again unsupported by any viable evidence.

Quote:In other words, you already voted for the plan and accepted it's terms and conditions in the pre-earth life.
How can you claim to know this? Are you privy to your god's plans? [sic]

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: