(I'm stealing this from the Abortion thread, so we can keep things nicely sorted).

The basic premise of the discussion is whether people are morally required to follow the laws of governments, and under what circumstances.











...

1) As has been pointed out, a CEO rarely knows everything that is going on in his company. That isn't because he doesn't want to, it's because he physically can't. Assumedly, a CEO would never tolerate abuse within his company, and if he did, he could be legally liable for it. He might not manage every decision, but he steps in when it's clear a decision is a bad one.

2)


I'm not sure, concretely, what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that I should follow the rules of bad governments because I know my being assassinated in the streets is all paltry compared to issues like eternal salvation?




Wait... but... Farmer Egyptian is just a regular guy who maybe believed in God even if he wasn't Jewish, and he suffered boils and frogs and his first son dying because his government was whack - but because God MADE his government whack. If God comes down and made Obama start throwing random people in jail, I wouldn't really feel like God is dependable in this case (and do note, I'm referring to, specifically, how it says in the bible, "God hardened the pharoah's heart". This isn't "God let the pharoah be a dummy and make bad decisions". God intentionally TURNED the government, then pooped on a bunch of innocent people.)



Back to the initial seed - TitL and dgolden have both implied you don't break laws, even under bad governments. So are you saying that George Washington and Mahatma Ghandi were both sinful, and what they did was absolutely, morally wrong?

One thing I'm interested in is Truth's claim that people suffering under bad government have more faith in god than those who aren't. I'd like to see some proof of that, and it does have some disturbing implications if it is, indeed, true.

As far as Moses and the Egyptians are concerned, I'd be inclined to say the Pharoah's reaction was mistranslated.  After all, Moses was there as God's representative, telling the Pharoah to let the Israelites go.  It wouldn't make sense for God to have Pharoah say 'No.', if His representative is asking for freedom.

I think TitL was basing this off the fact that many denominations are growing faster in africa while declining in the US and europe.  Not quite the same as saying those under oppressive governments have more faith than those in the west, but it's perhaps not a huge leap.  What do you see as the disturbing implications if it is true?

While I agree that it doesn't make sense, I wouldn't guess that that means its a mistranslation.  I think to the jews of the time, that would have made plenty of sense.  They didn't think God cared about the Egyptians, so would see no problem with God punishing farmer Egyptian for things he didn't do.  Also, "God did it" was a much more common explanation for things (both good and bad) in the OT than in the NT, so using it to answer "why didn't Pharoah just let the jews go?" probably wouldn't have seemed odd to them.  I'd say it also "doesn't make sense" that God would order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but I don't think that's a mistranslation.  Rather, I think some things in the OT stories really just don't make sense, even without mistranslations.

From what I have stated, I don't feel there are any negative qualities about God. I think they are positive. In the end, I am assuming whatever happens will be for Good.

I wouldn't think very well of the person either.

Clearly though, a person does not see the end result, the ramifications of those actions, while God can clearly see the end result, and see what would help the person the most.

So imagine if God, an all knowing, all powerful and all loving God were in control, or imagine Tycho was in control. Certainly you can understand that most likely I can guess just about everyone in the world, except for Tycho, would want the all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God in control.

The interest thing here is that you've created a circle.  If you've already defined "good" as essentially, whatever God does or permits, then assuming omnipotence it logically follows that whatever happens, it's good, it's a simple tautology.

But this means that "good", in this system, is only an arbitrary choice.  If there is no other criterion for Good beyond "it's what god wants- and gets" then the term ceases to have meaning.

Just imagine, for a moment- the exact same set of assumptions and observations could be used to demonstrate the Evilness of god.

It troubles me that when a Human justifies something bad by saying "but it's for the greater good..." well, you know.

Is it?

You can follow the laws of bad governments, unless those rules counter God's. Next point, God is dependable, even if your government is good or bad.


People are judged correctly, even if they feel they didn't deserve that treatment while on Earth.

I'm stating that the Egyptians, whether unfair or fair, served as example for everyone so that millions and billions of people could be saved. In the end, God allowed/encouraged this so that people would be helped. I would say that it must have helped, as millions and billions of people clearly trust God.



I think you can break the laws. For example, if I were in Germany, and they wanted jews brought out, I hope I would have had the courage to defy the german government.

On the other hand, I do agree that Washington and Ghandi were sinners. Just like all other people.

So if a government directly supported, through legal protections and the dedication of public funds, an activity which violates God's laws, you can act to specifically stop that behavior?



Okay, these two paragraphs seem completely at odds with each other. Let me ask though, are you saying that what happened on Earth wasn't judging? That perhaps they got 'extra credit' because they were collateral damage on Earth?




You know what I'm saying. Were their specific acts of revolution against lawful governments sinful, or were their acts of rebellion acceptable in the eyes of God?

Sorry to interject here...


Yes, if you have exhausted legal, lawful means to do so.


You're neglecting to consider that Egyptian Farmer Joe, in this case, if he believed in the Hebrew God he was not have been included in the collective 'the Egyptians.'

No believers were targeted because the Egyptians, by definition, were unbelievers. The plauges were designed as a systematic defamation of the main Egyptian Gods of the time; to subject egyptian-heritaged hebrews to them is nonsensical.

I won't begin to mention the effects of interbreeding unless you want me to.


DUnno about Ghandi, but Washington's was. They had exhausted legal methods for a peaceful redress of grievances, and were therefore justified in the use of force.

Even though his specific grievances were things like taxation (rend unto Caesar...) and political representation (of which I'm not aware of any of God's rules being applicable)? I'm not aware of any of 'God's rules' the British violated, which would have justified revolution, if we accept TitL's definition.

I'm stating that the Egyptians, whether unfair or fair, served as example for everyone so that millions and billions of people could be saved. In the end, God allowed/encouraged this so that people would be helped. I would say that it must have helped, as millions and billions of people clearly trust God.

Wow. That's possibly one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. And you expect me to worship this vicious, murderous tyrant of a god? I'd say that our duty, if what you is true, is to destroy this beast, not glorify it.

I missed TitL's definition. What is it?

If we look at the Declaration of Independence, we see that they at least justified it to themselves. The government was removing what they saw as God-given rights, giving them the moral justification and obligation to overthrow that government. If we allow that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are indeed God given rights, I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn.


He's omniscient, omnipotent, and has been around since before the universe. He created you, and everything around you. To assume you could touch the Judeo-Christian God is patently ridiculous.

I think the former is a direct consequence of the latter.  You don't feel there are any negative qualities about God, because you assume that no matter what He does, it's a good thing.  Once you assume that whatever happens will be for the good, you've effectively stopped looking at the evidence (you might still see it, but it won't affect your conclusion in anyway).  That seems like entirely the wrong order of things, in my mind.  You should based your opinion of God on His actions, not your opinion of His actions based on your beliefs about Him.  The former way has the nice property of being able to correct yourself if you start out with the wrong beliefs, whereas the latter doesn't.


But, just for the record, do you consider the CEO responsibly for actions he allows to be taken by his employees?  Also, you say "God's purpose is different than ours."  You say He doesn't want to avoid hardship or struggles (and, by implication, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, etc.).  But, at the same time, you do think there are in fact things He does want to avoid, right?  People following other Gods, for example?  And yet, He intentionally allows governments to enforce state religions that don't follow Him, right?  It seems to follow that if God intentionally allows a country's government to impose Islam as a state religion, then God wants that country to have Islam as a state religion, right?  Doesn't that seem rather odd to you?



I wouldn't say that's the only difference (the consequences for the killer not killing in each case is a bigger difference, one could argue), but yes, intent does matter.  This, though, is sort of my point.  A human that intends for others to suffer is usually considered evil.  But when God intends for people to suffer, you believe it's good.  This is what I'm saying about the implications of your position.  The implications about the intents of God aren't very flattering to Him, if what you're saying is true.



Except the trouble here is that you're assuming God is all loving, and just trusting that everything He does is an act of love because of that assumption.  I'm looking at the actions, and saying "hmm...that doesn't look very loving to me.  In fact, it looks sadistic, cruel, and evil."  By assuming that everything God does is good, you're creating a possibility in which God could commit horrible atrocities and you'd still cheer Him on for it, even as evil was being committed right before your eyes.  What you're describing is pretty much the definition of "blind" faith: believing what you believe regardless of what you see.  If you believe God is good no matter what He does, that's blind faith, in the blindest sense of the word.  And it's not just faith in God, it's faith in your own initial judgment about Him.  You're not just trusting that God is good, you're trying TitL is correct to assume that He is good, because you've given up the option of letting evidence change your mind.  Someone who lets God's proposed actions guide his views on God can have his mind changed either way.  He could end up saying "hmm, I thought God wasn't so great, but now that I've seen X, I think He is," or he could say "hmm, I though God was great, but since I've seen Y, I'm not so sure."  He could even change his mind back and forth many times.  Once a person decides "everything God does is good, no matter what it is," though, no further evidence can every change their mind.  Likewise if you decide everything God does is wrong, though, I don't know of anyone who believes in God, but thinks He's completely evil.

Yes, we're only human, and can't see everything.  But that doesn't mean, I would argue, that we should ignore what we can see.  It's not perfect, but it's all we've got to go on, as fallible humans.  I think knowing that we're imperfect, we should be all the more hesitant to take positions that preclude changing our minds when we get new information.

You say the whole world would want God in control instead of Tycho, but you set it up by describing God as "all knowing, all loving, all powerful, yada yada yada."  But if we set it up as "God who wanted the holocaust to happen, God who wants oppressive governments in power, God who wants the innocent to suffer so that they depend on Him more," I think you might get a different answer.  And again, that's what it comes down to: do you judge God by His actions, or His actions by the fact that He's God?  Is His goodness, omnipotence, and all-lovingness assumptions, or conclusions?  If the former, you could just as well assume them about Tycho, or katisara, or TitL or Falkus, or anyone.

He's omniscient, omnipotent, and has been around since before the universe. He created you, and everything around you. To assume you could touch the Judeo-Christian God is patently ridiculous.

So you're suggesting that we ignore the crimes of this being?
This message was last edited by the player at 10:14, Wed 17 June 2009.

Well, the implication is that religious faith is a result of hardship. Which implies that it's unnecessary in a modern, developed nation.

In short, that we are obliged to follow the laws of the country we live in, unless they directly contradict God's laws.

One could argue that God gave us a right to freedom, etc., but that isn't the same as saying there's a divine law protecting freedom. I've never seen one in the bible, or in any theology discussion. And since, at the time of Jesus's life, the question of the Jews being free from Rome was a pretty big deal, I can't imagine this never came up. That Jesus never touched on the issue suggests three things;

1) Jesus sold out to the man (i.e. avoided teaching critical topics) to avoid trouble
2) The bible is not perfect because Jesus DID say God has a law protecting freedom, and it was excised at some point
3) God really doesn't think there's a divine law protecting freedom, and one's freedoms being curtailed is not grounds to overthrow earthly authority




Funny, I saw the opposite implication, along the lines of what Vexen suggested in the abortion thread. If hardship, suffering, genocide, etc. increased one's faith in God, a godly leader would make sure his people suffer more of it. Genocide would be akin to a giant conversion and guaranteed heaven campaign (after all, martyrs are almost guaranteed a spot in heaven. What better way to save souls, permanently, than kill them because of their faith?)

I'm not sure that necessarily follows.  I would probably imply that it was less common in a modern, developed nation, or perhaps even absent from a utopia, but whether it was necessary or not is a different issue.  What produces faith, and what it's produced for are slightly different issues.  It could be that faith is necessary for some reason (such as getting into heaven), but that people in a modern, developed nation are less likely to have it.  There are places where food is hard to get, but that doesn't mean food isn't necessary for people in those places.

You mean, God made Arrakis to train the faithful?

If you want to put God on trial, I'll be happy to play defense advocate.

In another thread.

That's too good an offer to pass up!
link to a message in this game

Since I seem to have killed off all the serious discussion going on, I'll try to keep forum from falling back into a long sleep with a more amusing issue:

This article is about the application by a NY-based temple of satan to put up a statue of satan outside the Oklahoma state capital.  A 10-commandments monument was erected some years back, and was the subject of a good deal of law suits.  The people putting up the 10-commandments monument said that this wasn't a 1st amendment violation, since it was put up by private donors rather than the government (though, the main private donor was a state representative), and other religions were free to put up monuments as well.  Well, as you might have expected, that's prompted other groups to apply to put up monuments, including the church of the flying spaghetti monster, and this temple of satan.  And some people are less amused by the idea than others.

What do you guys think?  Is what's good for the goose also good for the gander, or are monuments to Satan a freedom too far?

I have no objection to the satan monument, on first amendment grounds. Plus, if you look at the group's website, you'll see they aren't promoting worship of satan. They are based on a positive set of principles.

The only difficulty here is: should a NY group have the right to set up a monument on OK state property? Or is that a right only for registered OK residents?

I read that article as well and I don't see any reason why it should be blocked aside from the concern hakootoko said (which I don't know the laws on).

However it's Oklahoma, so I assume it will be prevented, regardless of silly things like laws and rights.

It's most definitely the former (what's good for the goose...).  To try to fight it would be hypocrisy in the extreme.  They can't expect to force their beliefs to be seen by others and not expect the same from people of other opinions.  Especially because they went so far as to use "other religions are free to put up their monuments" as part of their argument for why they should be allowed to.  That's exactly what's happening.

But what I think is more important is the meaning behind the monuments.  While any moral, secular human being would agree that a few of the 10 commandments are good guidelines to follow, there are certain ones that many of us consider unnecessary at best and offensive at worst.  Those being, of course 1-5 (5 because some parents are so bad that they do not deserve respect).

So fully half of the monument is nothing more than an advertisement for their religion.  And so it should be expected that if they are going to advertise their religion on an important site such as the capital, then those who don't share their beliefs are going to counter-advertise.  And they should also expect satire (in the form of the satanic monument) because they had the presumptuousness to build it in the first place and claim "well others can do it to".  And of course, when someone takes them at their word, the double standards come out.

A basic rule of advertising:  If you put up an advertisement, you can expect the competitors to put up two.  People can believe what they want to believe, but when you start using political space to spread propaganda, then you have no right to complain when those who disagree want to speak their mind about it as well.  Citing the same laws you did when you put it up.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:04, Fri 28 Mar 2014.

In reply to Pyrrho (msg # 26):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp531Jg2rio

That was possibly the worst 'Downfall' video I have ever seen.

Also, how does that have anything to do with Pyrrho's post?

It wasn't an answer to Pyrrho's post.
It's just pointing out that Christianity doesn't need to be divorced from Government.

I'm not sure how that video demonstrates that to be honest.

It encroaches on the idea through a round about way.

Nazis were not Christian, they were Progandized to be Christian.

Keep going.  I'm interested in how that means religion should be a part of government.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 32):

It's not necessarily that any single religion should be a part of government, but more to the point, religious individuals should be able to be free and vote, work and excercize their principles whether it comes from faith principles or not.

If a Muslim wants to be President he's free too, even if he upholds Constitutional principles the Quran would agree with. (Or that he thinks the Quran agrees with).

A Christian Or Jew wants to be President he's free too, even if he upholds Old Testament ideas like hospitality (Give us your huddled masses), New Testament principles.

But it shouldn't be a requirement either.

Right. :D

what did I just watch??

Fair enough.

That's not really what was being discussed, but I can get on board with that.  Ultimately everyone has a certain set of beliefs that will influence their decisions - regardless of their faith or non-faith.

If people want to practice their beliefs in the quietness of their homes then go for it.  That's a whole other ball game then erecting a statue/monument that advertises your belief system though.  Would you agree?

I think that someone who says "I am doing this because God wants it."
Or even "Allah". Fine.

If that counts as advertising I don't care. It's their faith, and if they want to share it's beauty, then it's up to them. Not anyone else. Not the Supreme Court's decision to tamper into something it doesn't understand.

Kathulos,

Okay, that part I am unsure of and would have to think about.

However, again that's not specifically what was being discussed.  The discussion was about an actual monument that was erected, that was based on a specific religion, and whether it should A) Be allowed and B) If Allowed, mean Open season for anyone else to erect anything else they want, based on any of their own religious beliefs.

I'm for the general allowing of monuments, but at some point the number gets ridiculous.

How does that work in practice then?  So you allow ... X number of monuments?  Who decides which ones make the cut?

Well, looks like the guy is back in the news....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...?utm_hp_ref=politics

Huffington Post isn't even close to an unbiased news site, so feel free to take their slant with a grain of salt.  Still, it looks like the quote is genuine, and this is exactly the sort of thing that got him removed in the first place.

That guy should not be given any power at all.  Terrifying.

Actually I'd allow X number of monuments where X = the number of monuments that can reasonably be seen in that area. That might result in a self-policing situation. If it didn't then I'd just cancel the practice altogether. Equal representation.

If you have limited space, then don't allow permanent monuments. Let people place theirs in rotation and remove them for the next group. Use the rotation to achieve a balance between the various groups and the sizes of their respective memberships. (Clearly, this isn't going to allow for huge monuments, but a plague of the ten commandments doesn't need to be very large).

I'm reminded of places in California that had public spaces available for Christmas scenes. It wasn't fair to exclude the atheist groups, but then when they allowed them to apply, so many did that they squeezed out the religious groups. A balance needs to be found that represents the population.

It kinda sounds like that's what happened.

Which is why they should just not have them there.  People can practice their religion at home and leave it out of the public.

No. Religion is a public activity. People have a right to practice their religion in public.

I have to agree.  People have the right to unobtrusively practice their religion.  And if there's a proper place for it, they can even make a spectacle out of it.  For example, if a church choir wants to put on a public performance, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.  If the public stage allows for anyone to perform, then anyone can perform.

Look at it this way.  Doulos, I assume you're some variety of atheist?  Well, suppose someone tried to enforce a rule that said you could only practice your atheism at home.  What would that end up looking like?

I understand that the tract-wavers and soapbox preachers can get really annoying.  They're shoving their religion in your face as obtrusively as possible.  But there are also lots of believers who practice proper religion, and don't try to rub your face in it.  Those ones have the right to practice in public, since they're not making a nuisance of themselves.

Yeah, you're right.  I'm just very concerned about the abuse that happens.  Us humans are real pieces of work.

No, we want to let people be annoying, to a certain point.  Otherwise we're really going to be trampling all over free speech.

For instance, people don't like a president.  We want to let them go out with signs and express their view.  They can't block traffic, they can't keep standing in your way and block your ability walk past, but that's a valid thing.

If someone is standing on a soap box and yelling, well you're free to walk past, or go to the other side of a street, or not even go down that street at all.  If they're outside a business and the business doesn't like it, then they may have to relocate away from businesses, but we don't want to prevent someone from standing on a soap box.  Remember the Russian protest area during the Olympics?  We don't want the US society to become this: http://www.thegailygrind.com/2...ussian-police-sochi/

If someone owns the sidewalk, then a person may have to go to the other side of the street to protest, and as long as they aren't impeding someone from going about their business, they're free to protest.  If there are enough protesters, and the protesters are possibly crazy enough, then you have the potential for a riot and you may end up moving the protest area farther away, or only letting a few people protest at a time.  Still, though, you don't want to crack down "too" hard on protesting, or expressing their viewpoint, no matter what it is.

Yeah, annoying people are annoying, but we don't want to try to legislate all annoyance out of existence.

Look, you want to stop the Westboro Baptist protesters?  Set up a band right in front of them.  They're free to line up outside a graveyard, the band lines up inside, right in front, and starts playing.  After a few minutes of trumpets right in front of their faces, they'll move.  "But funerals are supposed to be quiet."  Look, do you want to hear hateful speech or some quiet classical music (presuming a funeral is held away in the middle of a graveyard)?  10 years from now, people might start talking about how you can't have a funeral without a jazz band.

I agree.  I was wrong.

I'm glad I'm not the one that has to deal with the absurd circus of monuments but allowing it is a necessity.