A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[qb]

[qb]Do you know what forms the basis of the Civil laws of this country? [/qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition. [/qb]

Ah... Fledgist, that is the best-worded, most succint, yet most complete, answer I've ever seen. BRAVO!!! [/qb]

Merci.

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

Reason and experience.

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tuff Gong:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

One thing I know is…not only is Fledge an invaluable resource in terms of his knowledge, his research and his willingness to impart such knowledge but he has singly handedly changed the way most respondents reply to questions. I say imitation is the best form of flattery.

Now back to the question do you know definitively what the Roman Legal Tradition is based on? I have never really considered it much recently but I do have the references, however I would like to know what is your thinking or your understanding ( I do have my suspicion based upon historical trends in this forum). [/qb]

Waiting for Fledgist to respond. [/qb]

I have to do your thinking for you? I'll have to charge premium rates for that.

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

Reason and experience. [/qb]

Fledgist,

Isn't that a little obscure. I am sure you well know the extent to which the laws of western civilization owes it moral coding to The Judeo-christian Bible. Latin is the language and culture of the the Vulgate and English law.
English law while based on precedence takes its moral underpinnings in all best latin from the judeo christian tennants of the bible.

The U.S constitution does not mention God but the preamble does "embuded by their creator, with life liberty and the persuit of happiness".

Straight from the biblical reference "I would that you would have life and that more abundantly", which is as mideaval as King James unauthorised.

Better yet persuit of freedom, who the son sets free is free indeed.

Even Neitzhie treatsie on morals quotes Mathew in where your heart is so are your treasures also, he admits everything morals in the metaphysical.

You answer just endorses the christian moral standards as foundational to the constitutional language, for while the founders were determined not to superimpose a particular doctrine of God in the constitution their writings all ascribe to the reality of God in the making and keeping of this nation.

Again where can you find any culture where the morals are not based on the foundational religious leanings of the people making up that culture?

P.S
By the way Fleg. I know how hard it is not to believe, tried to do it once myself but the love of God constrained me.

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
Very interesting question yuh pose...

One side would argue that one can't sin if one isn't 'aware' [of God's wishes]. The other might argue that it's sin/ing regardless of any individual's knowledge.

The real issue at hand, in this discussion, I suppose, is if sin/sinning involves any awareness [of the sinner] of his/her action/s being sinful. ie: If the act of sinning is dependant upon the [alleged] sinner understanding that [his/her] act is [actions are] wrong.

Personally, I don't know. It's hard for me to reconcile a loving and fatherly God with a God who will punish each individual regardless of their respective of their capacities [to understand]. That's akin to saying that even if a person incapable of anything mental beyond that of a two-year-old - even if chronologically a 23-yr-old and an adult - who takes a candy bar in a pharmacy and eats it without payig for it SHOULD be punished by jail time for the crime s/he committed: shoplifting/theft. (Perhaps the person's adult companion, whose job it was to watch the this person, and who clearly wasn't doing their job, should rightfully be punished -- via docking them pay or something similar... but to punish the 'nurse' with jail time (the rightful sentence for the crime) is rather ridiculous.)

In essence, I tend to lean towards the school of thought that it's only sinning if the 'sinner' is aware that the action is wrong.

Now, how does that relate to such people who KNOW right from wrong but do not believe in God? In the ase of such actions that are criminal, it doesn't matter what the perpetrator's religious/spiritual beleifs are... But, in the case of "sinful" actions that are NOT criminal... and/or do not injure anybody else? I'd say that in such an instance, an act is NOT sinful. Others may (and will, I'm quite sure) say differently.

What's your take on this, CEW?

From the Christian point of view, that someone chooses to not believe there is a God does not excuse his/her actions. Of course such a person may do things that reflects his/her convictions, but this is not unlike the fact that if an anarchist chooses to believe certain laws does not exist, he/she is still held accountable if they break those laws. Belief in God is a matter of choice. In my opinion, that someone chooses to not believe does not change what is.

Regarding your example of the person with the intelligence of a two year old, that person is not a moral agent capable of rational choices. To be consequenced for one's behavior implies the capacity to make rational - sane, moral - choices, and the capacity to understand the repercussions of those choices. [/qb]

Well said CEW,

Elsewhere in this forum a case is being made by Mutty et al that God was a vengefull God of the old testament.

In the command to destroy other nations, what mutty and others fail to accept is that in the absense of Grace, Sin is unrestrained.

There is a level of depravity and evil which grace stems in this world since Jesus died for sin. Sin now have an enemy the Holy Spirit in this world. This was not the case in the predeluvial or even post deluvial world untill the law was given. The Law exposed sin but it did not provide a way to conquer sin.

The presence of law made sin more rampant.

Many will deny the depravity to which man unrestrained can sink. The demons however know the depths of evil their can enact through man and they did.

Gods command to destroy these possessed nations lie in his knowledge that while man can be redeemed there is a point at which there remains no sacrifice for sin.

Man at this point gives over himself fully to evil, he is totally at one with it no remorse no guilt no mercy a heart of stone.

We shudder when we see the men who society describes as serial murderers, just imagine a society where everyone is of this mindset, everyone.

There remains only one answer, clean up the gene pool. It may seem insentitive and harsh but societies like these existed that presented only one course - removal.

Gradually the world will return to this level of sensitivity, except today our potential for destruction is so much greater.

You see there is no good in any of us per se goodness comes from God and the civility we enjoy today is a result of that grace and goodness.

The devil is a wounded lion. thats why today we can take sin for granted, for where sin abounds grace much more abounds.

We are all protected by grace.

Its so easy to take that protected status for granted, so easy to see evil as benigh, so from our vantage point God appears an angry God to punish sin.

Oh, How we take it all for granted!!!!

[Mutty]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
Very interesting question yuh pose...

One side would argue that one can't sin if one isn't 'aware' [of God's wishes]. The other might argue that it's sin/ing regardless of any individual's knowledge.

The real issue at hand, in this discussion, I suppose, is if sin/sinning involves any awareness [of the sinner] of his/her action/s being sinful. ie: If the act of sinning is dependant upon the [alleged] sinner understanding that [his/her] act is [actions are] wrong.

Personally, I don't know. It's hard for me to reconcile a loving and fatherly God with a God who will punish each individual regardless of their respective of their capacities [to understand]. That's akin to saying that even if a person incapable of anything mental beyond that of a two-year-old - even if chronologically a 23-yr-old and an adult - who takes a candy bar in a pharmacy and eats it without payig for it SHOULD be punished by jail time for the crime s/he committed: shoplifting/theft. (Perhaps the person's adult companion, whose job it was to watch the this person, and who clearly wasn't doing their job, should rightfully be punished -- via docking them pay or something similar... but to punish the 'nurse' with jail time (the rightful sentence for the crime) is rather ridiculous.)

In essence, I tend to lean towards the school of thought that it's only sinning if the 'sinner' is aware that the action is wrong.

Now, how does that relate to such people who KNOW right from wrong but do not believe in God? In the ase of such actions that are criminal, it doesn't matter what the perpetrator's religious/spiritual beleifs are... But, in the case of "sinful" actions that are NOT criminal... and/or do not injure anybody else? I'd say that in such an instance, an act is NOT sinful. Others may (and will, I'm quite sure) say differently.

What's your take on this, CEW?

From the Christian point of view, that someone chooses to not believe there is a God does not excuse his/her actions. Of course such a person may do things that reflects his/her convictions, but this is not unlike the fact that if an anarchist chooses to believe certain laws does not exist, he/she is still held accountable if they break those laws. Belief in God is a matter of choice. In my opinion, that someone chooses to not believe does not change what is.

Regarding your example of the person with the intelligence of a two year old, that person is not a moral agent capable of rational choices. To be consequenced for one's behavior implies the capacity to make rational - sane, moral - choices, and the capacity to understand the repercussions of those choices. [/qb]

Well said CEW,

Elsewhere in this forum a case is being made by Mutty et al that God was a vengefull God of the old testament.

In the command to destroy other nations, what mutty and others fail to accept is that in the absense of Grace, Sin is unrestrained.

There is a level of depravity and evil which grace stems in this world since Jesus died for sin. Sin now have an enemy the Holy Spirit in this world. This was not the case in the predeluvial or even post deluvial world untill the law was given. The Law exposed sin but it did not provide a way to conquer sin.

The presence of law made sin more rampant.

Many will deny the depravity to which man unrestrained can sink. The demons however know the depths of evil their can enact through man and they did.

Gods command to destroy these possessed nations lie in his knowledge that while man can be redeemed there is a point at which there remains no sacrifice for sin.

Man at this point gives over himself fully to evil, he is totally at one with it no remorse no guilt no mercy a heart of stone.

We shudder when we see the men who society describes as serial murderers, just imagine a society where everyone is of this mindset, everyone.

There remains only one answer, clean up the gene pool. It may seem insentitive and harsh but societies like these existed that presented only one course - removal.

Gradually the world will return to this level of sensitivity, except today our potential for destruction is so much greater.

You see there is no good in any of us per se goodness comes from God and the civility we enjoy today is a result of that grace and goodness.

The devil is a wounded lion. thats why today we can take sin for granted, for where sin abounds grace much more abounds.

We are all protected by grace.

Its so easy to take that protected status for granted, so easy to see evil as benigh, so from our vantage point God appears an angry God to punish sin.

Oh, How we take it all for granted!!!! [/qb]

Accepted, you mentioned my name and I will ask one simple question. Could God have handled it a better way?

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Accepted, you mentioned my name and I will ask one simple question. Could God have handled it a better way? [/qb]

Like CEW said to our understanding, we cannot know because we don't know all the pieces in play.

Question?
Jesus death for our sins, could God have handled it another way???

I once heard this story.....

In a Siberian village there ruled a King who was the strongest and biggest man in his tribe.

His rule was kind but the punishment of any crime was swift and harsh.

It so happened that his clan complained to him of a theif in their midst, daily they set traps for the theif but the theif always was found to be one step ahead of the traps.

Eventually the theif was traced to the King's own household, his mother.

Justice demanded punishment and the tribesmen gathered to see whether the King's justice would be harsh and swift.

His mother was bought before the tribe to be beaten a beating that would surely cause her death.

The King gave the order but before the whip could descend he bounded to his mother and bared his back for the strokes. He took the full punishment of his law and bore the brunt of his justice.

Could it have been done any other way, God said No and I believe him "twice" because like this King he did not excuse himself from his law or his Justice.

[msgoody2shoes]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Accepted, you mentioned my name and I will ask one simple question. Could God have handled it a better way? [/qb]

Like CEW said to our understanding, we cannot know because we don't know all the pieces in play.

Question?
Jesus death for our sins, could God have handled it another way???

I once heard this story.....

In a Siberian village there ruled a King who was the strongest and biggest man in his tribe.

His rule was kind but the punishment of any crime was swift and harsh.

It so happened that his clan complained to him of a theif in their midst, daily they set traps for the theif but the theif always was found to be one step ahead of the traps.

Eventually the theif was traced to the King's own household, his mother.

Justice demanded punishment and the tribesmen gathered to see whether the King's justice would be harsh and swift.

His mother was bought before the tribe to be beaten a beating that would surely cause her death.

The King gave the order but before the whip could descend he bounded to his mother and bared his back for the strokes. He took the full punishment of his law and bore the brunt of his justice.

Could it have been done any other way, God said No and I believe him "twice" because like this King he did not excuse himself from his law or his Justice. [/qb]

Hello Accepted. This was beautiful! Reminds me of the discussion I had with my Bible study teacher today about threads in this forum. As he said, it is not for us to question the way God chooses to operate, it is for us to believe it. This is hard to do for an unbeliever or a person who has become disenchanted with Christianity. The ways of the Lord are past finding out. Hence the saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".It is really not given to us as believers to answer for what God chooses to do and why/how. After all, God created us. We answer to Him, He does not answer to us.

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tuff Gong:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

One thing I know is…not only is Fledge an invaluable resource in terms of his knowledge, his research and his willingness to impart such knowledge but he has singly handedly changed the way most respondents reply to questions. I say imitation is the best form of flattery.

Now back to the question do you know definitively what the Roman Legal Tradition is based on? I have never really considered it much recently but I do have the references, however I would like to know what is your thinking or your understanding ( I do have my suspicion based upon historical trends in this forum). [/qb]

Waiting for Fledgist to respond. [/qb]

I have to do your thinking for you? I'll have to charge premium rates for that. [/qb]

You should be flattered

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Awright mek me put dis in plain langwige-

In the absence of belief in Jesus Christ, or let say Jesus never even lived would jealousy, anger, wrath, malice, gluttony, greed, lust be acceptable? [/qb]

What, pray tell, is the difference between anger and wrath?

Jedi: Obviously both speak of displeasure, but anger does not necessarily denote wrath as wrath is a higher degree of anger more akin to rage. Anger leads to wrath so that if a person would avoid being angry (or at least take control of it) he/she is less likely to become enraged or wrathful .


{Fledgist: 'Wrath' and 'anger' are synonyms. For example, consider these lines by William Blake:

I was angry with my friend,
I told my wrath, my wrath did end;
I was angry with my foe,
I hid my wrath, my wrath did grow.}

Morality is founded on reason. My reason tells me that certain behaviours are not acceptable if I wish to live in a human community.

Jedi: and pray tell from whence comes your reason?

[/qb]

It comes from me. BTW, 'whence' means 'from where'. [/qb]

So?


And which part of you is ME....or did you mean your conscience? [/qb]

My self, that part of me which is aware of the world and capable of judging. [/qb]

Your conscience

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

Reason and experience. [/qb]

Oh sure! The reason and experience gained from the wisdom of God but I didn't expect you to admit that.

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[/qb]

Accepted, you mentioned my name and I will ask one simple question. Could God have handled it a better way? [/qb]

Hmmm! this is provocative, Mutty thinks that God may have made a mistake!
Say mutsy...you seem to think He could have handled things differently can you elaborate on that.

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

Reason and experience. [/qb]

Fledgist,

Isn't that a little obscure. I am sure you well know the extent to which the laws of western civilization owes it moral coding to The Judeo-christian Bible. Latin is the language and culture of the the Vulgate and English law.
English law while based on precedence takes its moral underpinnings in all best latin from the judeo christian tennants of the bible.

{Fledgist: The reality is that the legal systems of Western civilisation developed from two sources: customary law and Roman law. English Common Law, as it developed over the centuries, began with judges applying custom and setting precedents on that basis -- which means that some practices enshrined in law today date back to the legal practices of the Germanic tribes. The Roman civil code system is itself simply the codification of a legal tradition going back to the establishment of Rome, with possible roots in Etruscan legal practice. Roman influence is notable in another respect, namely that the profession of law originated in the Roman Republic.

All of this either predates Christianity, or developed independently from it. The only significant relationship is that Roman legal practice and the Latin language were preserved as organisational tools by the Roman Catholic Church, which, as Thomas Hobbes said, 'is but the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting crowned on the grave thereof.'}

The U.S constitution does not mention God but the preamble does "embuded by their creator, with life liberty and the persuit of happiness".


{Fledgist: That is not the case. The phrase which you misquote comes from the Declaration of Independence.}
Straight from the biblical reference "I would that you would have life and that more abundantly", which is as mideaval as King James unauthorised.

{Fledgist: Could we have this in English, please?}

Better yet persuit of freedom, who the son sets free is free indeed.

{Fledgist: Ad verecundiam argument. If you wish me to start citing biblical passages commanding slaves to obedience, I will.}

Even Neitzhie treatsie on morals quotes Mathew in where your heart is so are your treasures also, he admits everything morals in the metaphysical.


{Fledgist: Might we have a citation please? Presuming, of course, that you are referring to the Genealogy of Morals?}

You answer just endorses the christian moral standards as foundational to the constitutional language, for while the founders were determined not to superimpose a particular doctrine of God in the constitution their writings all ascribe to the reality of God in the making and keeping of this nation.


{Fledgist: Assertion without proof.}

Again where can you find any culture where the morals are not based on the foundational religious leanings of the people making up that culture?


{Fledgist: China.}

P.S
By the way Fleg. I know how hard it is not to believe, tried to do it once myself but the love of God constrained me. [/qb]

From thinking?

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Tuff Gong:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

One thing I know is…not only is Fledge an invaluable resource in terms of his knowledge, his research and his willingness to impart such knowledge but he has singly handedly changed the way most respondents reply to questions. I say imitation is the best form of flattery.

Now back to the question do you know definitively what the Roman Legal Tradition is based on? I have never really considered it much recently but I do have the references, however I would like to know what is your thinking or your understanding ( I do have my suspicion based upon historical trends in this forum). [/qb]

Waiting for Fledgist to respond. [/qb]

I have to do your thinking for you? I'll have to charge premium rates for that. [/qb]

You should be flattered [/qb]

Why?

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] The United States Constitution, which is based on principles of classical republicanism drawn from Titus Livy and Polybius, inter alia; the principles of common law and equity which developed in mediæval England; civil code law, based on the Roman legal tradition.



Which is based on what? [/qb]

Reason and experience. [/qb]

Oh sure! The reason and experience gained from the wisdom of God but I didn't expect you to admit that. [/qb]

Why is it that you hate human beings so much that you refuse to admit that we can think and experience the world for ourselves?