|
Now if you mean, what if the OMM abuses his position? Well ideally the OMM would be a non-sentient program that did it automantically without human 'interfereance' but with human observation.
So, if I understand correctly, you are advocating turning over the control of what people are allowed to think and speak with other people about to a machine? There's no way that could possibly come back and bite us in the rear.
|
|
If you believe Franklin is correct, would you break a quarantine to allow those within to go and be with their families?
With all due respect, you are comparing a pandemic disease with people thinking and talking about ideas that you disagree with. I don't believe that is either an apt or fair comparison. The minute that we start down that road, we are heading for a destination that ultimately nobody wants to go to. Despite the examples you gave earlier, a thought has never harmed anyone. Acting on that thought has, and we have laws to regulate how people act. Policing and punishing people based on how they think is another can of worms entirely.
More and more we find ourselves in society proposing "solutions" to things we see as problems without stopping to think beyond step one. It's like when they removed a population of feral cats from an island in Australia, to protect endanged seabirds, they ended up making the problem worse. The reason was that the cats were eating a small number of birds, but they were also keeping the rabbit population under control. With the cats gone, the rabbit population exploded, eat the grass that the birds nest in, and caused an even more rapid decline of the seabird population.
Why then would you wish anything less than an academic elite to be the people working on profound moral issues?
Because the academic elite don't always know what is best. Three years ago the elite of the financial industry told us our economy was sound an that the recession we are in now couldn't happen. Forty years ago, the academic elite believed that eugenics was a good idea. One hundred years ago the academic elite believed that colonialism and imperialism were good memes that would benefit everyone, and that the Anglo-Europeans were the peak of human evolution. One thousand years ago the academic elite believed that the Earth was a flat dish floating in a bowl of water, with a dome above our heads that made up the sky.
Edit: More importantly, how do we decide who are the academic elite? I would hazard a guess that we would likely have different views on that subject if we sat down and discussed that topic.
Where have i claimed they are perfect? I haven't but if you take a multi-disiplinary academic panel and a lay panel and set them to solving a complex problem, your more likely to get a successful result from the academic panel. Academics also has the advantage of usually being more resistant to dogma then say Religion or Politics. Academics is self correcting, it advances and changes with time.
So, if I understand correctly, you are advocating turning over the control of what people are allowed to think and speak with other people about to a machine? There's no way that could possibly come back and bite us in the rear.Now if you mean, what if the OMM abuses his position? Well ideally the OMM would be a non-sentient program that did it automantically without human 'interfereance' but with human observation.
Which is of course why there have been absolutely no science fiction books/movies/tv series/comic books about why that's a bad idea. Nope. Not a single one.;)
Let's run with the computer approach. You're talking about a pretty sophisticated decision support system, basically. That system would have to function, however, around parameters built into the code that controls the system. Someone has to write that code, and that someone is going to have to make assumptions in the process. The person, or group, would have to break down cultural components into "appropriate" small, discrete chunks, meaning they have to determine what is small enough, discrete enough, to be a meme. They would have to build a system of values around these data points, and those values would have to come from assumptions.
Computers can't run themselves or build systems of this sophistication with no human interaction--at least not yet. If we get to a point where they can, I hope we've still got those folks sitting around with their guns to stop the robot cleansing of all our imperfections.
Academics also has the advantage of usually being more resistant to dogma then say Religion or Politics.
A dangerous assumption--humans are creatures of bias from an instinctual level on up. Academics are no more immune to this bias than anyone else, they are simply perceived by some as more immune. Your approach, for instance, hints at a scientific bias that excludes non-scientific approaches as less valid.
The most beautiful aspect of free speech is it's ugliest warts. If the warts disappear, worry.
This is why I practically worship Larry Flint...even though I do not care for his publication one bit.
|
|
Academics also has the advantage of usually being more resistant to dogma then say Religion or Politics. Academics is self correcting, it advances and changes with time.
However, as a teacher, I would point out that academics has it's own dogma and it's own harmful memes. It could easily be argued that academics are the least best option for deciding moral issues because they are so insular and prone to experimentation.
|
|
Which is of course why there have been absolutely no science fiction books/movies/tv series/comic books about why that's a bad idea. Nope. Not a single one.;)So, if I understand correctly, you are advocating turning over the control of what people are allowed to think and speak with other people about to a machine? There's no way that could possibly come back and bite us in the rear.Now if you mean, what if the OMM abuses his position? Well ideally the OMM would be a non-sentient program that did it automantically without human 'interfereance' but with human observation.
I bow to the superiority of our Cylon masters. In the original BSG as concieved by Glenn Larson, the cyborg Cylons were originally built to be peacekeepers. However, they decided that the only way to keep peace was to exterminate any race that showed the ability or the inclination to wage war, starting with the biological Cylon race. Therefore a series of machines built to propogate a "good" meme, that war is bad, became the genocidal enemy of humankind.
Memes which cause deaths:
Prayer alone: Children and young adults die every year thanks to the removal of parental consent for treatment on religious grounds.
holy war, jihad and martyrdom:
I noticed an important distinction in the referenced harmful memes and wanted to clarify...You listed martyrdom as one such meme that is harmful and should be controlled. However, I think you specifically mean one who becomes a martyr through holy war/jihad. This would thus be more appropriately placed simply under the holy war meme. Martyrdom in itself does indeed cause death, but it's the death of the individual. I would disagree strongly if you are saying people do not have the right to die for their faith so long as that death is not causing harm to others. There are very specific distinctions between Islamic martyrdom versus Christianity versus other religions et. al. You'd have to be very specific in this classification for me to agree that it is "dangerous" and worthy of control.
|
|
Another problem with isolating memes is that how exactly do you identify a meme? Many anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists dispute the very existence of memes. Scott Atran, Dan Sperber, Pascal Boyer, John Tooby, Dieter Lohmar and others point out that the wide array of interpetations of ideas thought to be memes, even among people who hold to a certain meme, proves that reducing such ideas to an abstraction overlooks the complex thought involved in the creation and transmission of those ideas. Once we reduce something to simply being a meme means that we stop looking for the deeper meaning of those ideas.
Who the f&*# is Alex Jones? Please truncate your answers. I have a short attention span.
A loony talk radio host whos only good point was that he was in a scanner darkly for about 20 seconds. He is a conspracy theorist who believes the NWO is out to get up.
On the plus side he has started borrowing material from Mage: The Ascention so he is atleast more interesting now.
|
Who the f&*# is Alex Jones? Please truncate your answers. I have a short attention span.A loony talk radio host whos only good point was that he was in a scanner darkly for about 20 seconds. He is a conspracy theorist who believes the NWO is out to get up.
On the plus side he has started borrowing material from Mage: The Ascention so he is atleast more interesting now.
Huh. Interesting.
Question: If this guy's such a loony, why don't people just turn off the radio?
Who the f&*# is Alex Jones? Please truncate your answers. I have a short attention span.A loony talk radio host whos only good point was that he was in a scanner darkly for about 20 seconds. He is a conspracy theorist who believes the NWO is out to get up.
On the plus side he has started borrowing material from Mage: The Ascention so he is atleast more interesting now.
I find it rather interesting that if you even mention certain topics or ideas, you can easily and readily be put in the "nutjob conspiracy theorist" camp....
If you ask me, it is a bit of the herd mentality...
Who the f&*# is Alex Jones? Please truncate your answers. I have a short attention span.A loony talk radio host whos only good point was that he was in a scanner darkly for about 20 seconds. He is a conspracy theorist who believes the NWO is out to get up.
On the plus side he has started borrowing material from Mage: The Ascention so he is atleast more interesting now.
Huh. Interesting.
Question: If this guy's such a loony, why don't people just turn off the radio?
because he is despite his views a very powerful orator and some people are just susceptible the ideas which he spreads.
because he is despite his views a very powerful orator and some people are just susceptible the ideas which he spreads.
"susceptible" ?
Actually, his delivery is pretty aggressive and sometimes he goes a bit far, but he has been spot on on a number of local issues.
Hey Daigle...watch it...Zombieneighbor is fitting you now for a tin-foil hat!!!!
He's a CONSPIRACY THEORIST and therefore EVERYTHING he says is suspect!!!!
Actually, as someone who lived within three miles of the Pentagon on 9/11, I question the official theory of a passenger airplane hitting the Pentagon.
Fit me for one of those hats too, Zombie...because apparently I am infect with, and therefore was susceptible to, an accursed MEME...
|
|
Actually, his delivery is pretty aggressive and sometimes he goes a bit far, but he has been spot on on a number of local issues.Hey Daigle...watch it...Zombieneighbor is fitting you now for a tin-foil hat!!!!
He's a CONSPIRACY THEORIST and therefore EVERYTHING he says is suspect!!!!
It's a CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY!
It's a CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY!
Consider yourself meme infected...and a carrier...Mr. Shiny....
Who the f&*# is Alex Jones? Please truncate your answers. I have a short attention span.A loony talk radio host whos only good point was that he was in a scanner darkly for about 20 seconds. He is a conspracy theorist who believes the NWO is out to get up.
On the plus side he has started borrowing material from Mage: The Ascention so he is atleast more interesting now.
I find it rather interesting that if you even mention certain topics or ideas, you can easily and readily be put in the "nutjob conspiracy theorist" camp....
If you ask me, it is a bit of the herd mentality...
hey i have no problem with conspiracy theory as a whole. I am a reasonable person with an open mind who lives in the real world. I am willing to accept that powerful figures would be willing to abuse their powers to achieve greater power and wealth. The problem comes from the way in which Alex Jones operates. The number of people he accuses of being in on the conspiracy is staggering. If the conspiracy really existed, it would be so utterly comprimised by leaks that it couldn't operate. Its the fact that he rant that he's risking his life to get the info out, yet nothing ever happens to him. It's just thing after thing that moves him from the realms of open minded person who wants to discuss the possiblity or has evidence that might suggest the truth of the topic into the realms of Demogogue loon.
The most gauling thing about his version of the NWO is how utterly incompitant it must actually be. Serious, if i had control of the world largest companies, private and national security service ect all, i'd have disappeared the guy as a trouble maker before he ever got a major following or let him develope and use him as an organ of disinfomation be letting him find out 'the gastle truth' their be discreaditing any such throught even further.
Serious, i am in danger of breaking terms of service if i continue talking about him.
hey i have no problem with conspiracy theory as a whole.
The point I was looking to make was the way someone with a differing viewpoint can be so readily dumped into a bucket as being a quack, an oddball...etc...If you think about it, it's such a dismissive thing to do to call someone a conspiracy theorist...Which even you refer to as "conspiracy theory" as opposed to "viewpoints that differ from the official story".
Earlier I eluded to living very close to the Pentagon on 9/11. Two days following, I drove past the pentagon on 395 on the side that was hit. There was no damage to grass save maybe ten feet out from the building. The impact didn't really look like it would have been made as the accident was described. Frankly, look at photos of various airliner crash sites, and you'll see a strewn field of debris leading up to the crash site..such as the Lockerbie crash...this was not at all what I saw, first hand.
A few other facts...
That wing of the Pentagon was closed for renovations with only a skeleton crew working...
No cars were thrown due to the wind of an airliner flying so low to the highways...
No lamp posts were damaged...
There are a few other points I could bring up...but don't want to drag this much further...
Now, am I a "conspiracy theorist"? Am I guilty of perpetuating a meme? You'll find strikingly similar information at the website of the broadcaster you mentioned...how does that play into your view on things?
Serious, i am in danger of breaking terms of service if i continue talking...
Well, didn't realize that was a TOS violation..interesting...
|
Actually it is scientific fact. You cannot be a young earth creationist and accept the evidence found in nature. They are mutually exclusive to one another. If you understand and accept the evidence, you can't believe the world was created 6,000 years ago in seven days, because the evidence contradicts that. More historians claim the holocaust didn't happen than qualified biologists that claim to disagree with evolution by natural selection.
What if my view of Creationism isn't shackled to the exact wording of a several thousand year old text? I believe that the 'seven days' mentioned are possibly just a term used by people that couldn't conceive of the idea of eons. What may have been seven days to God or a god may look more like seven million, seventy million, seven hundred million or some number that is hard to grasp, conceptually, for me. A god's sense of time would probably be very different from our own and something may have been lost in the translation.
Perhaps the entire cosmos is nothing more than God's genetic/chemestry/alchemy/whatever project that he is using and used to achieve all that is existing now and will exist in the future. How could that be disproved? Perhaps God is the ultimate scientist, we were made in his image, but he took his time to shape us with evolutionary science. I certainly like that concept much more than the 'alien ant farm', 'descended from aliens', 'there is no higher power', or 'freak accident' theories.
In brief, I'm with erian_7. This is the sort of thinking that leads to totalitarian governments and death camps.
As much as I want to get into this, I don't have the time, so I'll just have to settle for making a hit-and-run commentary and be content to simply read the outcome. So I'll just say these three things:
Zombieneighbours, your statements regarding Christian beliefs tend to discredit the rest of your argument. Your understanding of Christian beliefs as stated in your posts is analagous to a parent in the 1980s who believed that D&D was Satanic and would indoctrinate their children into a cult. The characterizations you've given (i.e. "Dominionists want to stone adulterers") bear little resemblance to the actual Christian schools of thought you're referencing (any Dominionist could tell you that Jesus *specifically* condemned that sort of thing). It is possible that you're only referring to those aberrant beliefs that one sometimes finds amongst fringe groups who call themselves Christians (for example, the KKK), but your choice of labels and general tone suggests otherwise.
(You've stated that you're not a religious expert, but your argument makes that a moot point: if Friend Computer decides that belief in the existence of God is irrational, arguing over the character of God is like switching deck chairs on the Titanic.)
Academics also has the advantage of usually being more resistant to dogma then say Religion or Politics. Academics is self correcting, it advances and changes with time.
A) Academics has shown itself to be every bit as dogmatic as any other realm; people are protective toward their station, their reputation, their thesis, their funding, etc., and for these reasons will show resistance to the new, just like any other segment of society. Your suggestion that academia are somehow above this human trait seems to me naive. B) Politics and Religion both demonstrate self-correction; we in the US live in a liberal democracy rather than an absolute monarchy, we no longer keep slaves, we demonstrate gender equality, etc. I daresay Religion shows some of the same traits. While I have no interest in defending all religions, I will say that the way in which Christianity is practiced has changed over time; even though the core tenets and doctrines remain the same, there are non-salvific issues which have altered to suit the sensibilities of their age.
The underlying problem with your premise is that it is inherently materialistic. Your memetic approach to beliefs assumes that nothing exists beyond the flesh and blood; that there is no soul, no Deity, no metaphysical universe beyond what we perceive with our physical senses, and therefore, all religious belief is delusion. Science, by definition, is not equipped to deal with or recognize the metaphysical, and yet you would attempt to apply it to all realms of human experience. That is irrational. It isn't Science, it's Scientism.
The most gauling thing about his version of the NWO is how utterly incompitant it must actually be. Serious, if i had control of the world largest companies, private and national security service ect all, i'd have disappeared the guy as a trouble maker before he ever got a major following or let him develope and use him as an organ of disinfomation be letting him find out 'the gastle truth' their be discreaditing any such throught even further.
I understand your point on this. One thing I'd like to throw into the ring for consideration is the following...
Having lived in the DC area for over twenty years...I knew people from all walks of life that most would have thought only existed in a Bourne movie. I knew FBI and CIA agents...personnel from the NSA (Hell, I personally setup the system that accepts and parses out resumes (into their database) received over the internet for them)..not to mention high ranking military and state personnel. I also personally bartended a christmas party for the Mexican Embassy back in the early nineties. You run into people from all levels and end up in strange circles without meaning to in the DC area.
One thing I can vouch to is the method that is used to keep secrecy with regards to project / work efforts. They keep individuals, groups, departments, etc in the dark with regards to what others are doing or with regards as to how their own work fits with that of others. Often, the purpose of their work is not even explained. Simply said, you are told to do it and you do it. Also, secrecy is a culture in the DC area. You simply do not start casually drilling into what a person does for a living the way you do in most casual conversations elsewhere in the US.
Now, am I saying that I feel there is an active NWO that is pulling strings? No, I am not. However, I think you might want to look at a bigger picture regarding your thoughts about keeping activities and efforts secret.
EDIT: Ooops...I coulda swore you had stated that you felt this kind of information wouldn't be able to be kept secret by people working for the NWO...perhaps it was a flashback to drugs...who knows. However, I still feel it's a good point I made above, and one you and others might find interesting to hear. Also, with regards to disappearing someone...why? Just let him start screaming to the top of his lungs and be another "tin-foil hat wearer" that the s0-called NWO can point at as a complete loon. I think he could possibly serve someone better in the role of a loon than that of a martyr.
We're right in the middle of a f+@&ing reptile zoo! And somebody's giving booze to these g&!@$+n things!
What if my view of Creationism isn't shackled to the exact wording of a several thousand year old text? I believe that the 'seven days' mentioned are possibly just a term used by people that couldn't conceive of the idea of eons. What may have been seven days to God or a god may look more like seven million, seventy million, seven hundred million or some number that is hard to grasp, conceptually, for me. A god's sense of time would probably be very different from our own and something may have been lost in the translation.
Perhaps the entire cosmos is nothing more than God's genetic/chemestry/alchemy/whatever project that he is using and used to achieve all that is existing now and will exist in the future. How could that be disproved? Perhaps God is the ultimate scientist, we were made in his image, but he took his time to shape us with evolutionary science. I certainly like that concept much more than the 'alien ant farm', 'descended from aliens', 'there is no higher power', or 'freak accident' theories.
Well by the Marriam-webster definition of Creationism, you are probably not a Creationist. If you are, it is in only the most loose-fitting sense, and is not really irrational. Most people who share your standpoint avoid the label of creationism at all cost thanks to the damage do to the terms credibility by people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and others. I have no problem with you holding that view.
While the god you describe currently cannot be disproved, he is all but redundant as he plays not active part in the world that we can in anyway measure. You might seriously consider looking into Deism as, if the views stated here are you real ones you would likely find the philosophical standpoint very interesting and be in excellent company, namely many of the founding fathers. Your entitled to prefer it, and i am glad that it gives you Joy but I personally find much greater beauty and wonder in the godless universe. I like being star stuff.
We're right in the middle of a f%%#ing reptile zoo! And somebody's giving booze to these g$&%@$n things!
Damn straight, homey.
|
|
Also I really have no desire to have any scientific authority regulating morality.
Currently roughly 2% of the population has a certain genetic predisposition to certain chemicals, like mercury and formaldehyde. Science has decided that mercury, formaldehyde and other poisons make a great preservative for vaccination shots. Two teaspoons of any of them is enough to do serious damage to a full grown human if not outright kill them. Yet if a child misses a round of shots they just get doubled up on. Meanwhile autism and mental and nervous system disorder rates have increased by somewhere around 8 fold. Science hand waves the people voicing concern because there hasn't been enough research done on the issue, even though a bunch of small companies have provided testing. And who's bright idea was it to put mercury into white tooth filling? They release mercury into the mouth of a person every time the surface of the tooth is manipulated for the life of the filling, such as when chewing, brushing your teeth, etc..
Gee, I wonder why the numbers of neurological disorders in children has grown exponentially over just a few years.
Scientists can control my morality when they can stop making stupid-assed decisions like putting poison into an infant's immunizations then requiring every infant in the country to take it. Until then, I would suggest that they stop acting like everyone else is too stupid to possibly live without their severely educated, nigh-infallible and unassailable viewpoint because the "stupid non-scientists" can't produce an equal amount of proof in a matter that the CDC has decided to ignore, sidestep and flat-out lie about.
Rant off.
...I am a reasonable person with an open mind who lives in the real world...
How can you say you have an ‘open mind’ when you’re not even willing to consider God as an alternative to the big bang theory and evolution?
Although my views are quite different than yours, I admire your zeal and how you stand by what you believe. But zeal on its own isn’t enough; it must be directed in appropriate ways.
I ask you to please reconsider, with a truly open mind, the many arguments for God and creation.
...I am a reasonable person with an open mind who lives in the real world...How can you say you have an ‘open mind’ when you’re not even willing to consider God as an alternative to the big bang theory and evolution?
Although my views are quite different than yours, I admire your zeal and how you stand by what you believe. But zeal on its own isn’t enough; it must be directed in appropriate ways.
I ask you to please reconsider, with a truly open mind, the many arguments for God and creation.
I consider him a possibblity, but the balance of evidence leads me to consider him highly unlikely.
The arguements for God are in my experience weak arguments with little to no logical grounding. More over, if divine entities exist, an are anything like the god depicted in the bible, i would consider it my moral duty to fight tooth an claw against him. A creature that orders Rape, endorses slavery, and causes Genocides is not a moral being and those are just some of his lesser crimes.
A deistic 10th dimentional observer who watchs observes and lets us learn, is possible, but is all but irrelivant and could be considered uncaring.
If the Olymipian or Norse panthreans are real, well they might be aweful to one another, but atleast they dont have the gaul to call themselves all loving and all good while creating an eternal and unimaginably evil torture chamber to send people who do not love him enough.
I have never said the god is an impossiblity, just a profoundly unlikely thing that i have seen no evidence off and heard no reasonable arguement fore.
|
|
More over, if divine entities exist, an are anything like the god depicted in the bible, i would consider it my moral duty to fight tooth an claw against him. A creature that orders Rape, endorses slavery, and causes Genocides is not a moral being and those are just some of his lesser crimes.
Where, where, and where?
|
|
What a really interesting discussion. Very intersting to hear peoples idea on this topic.
As a counter point to controlling what are apparently dangerous memes.
Galileo Gallile was locked in his house by the reigning religous leaders of his country because of his dangerous ideas that the earth was round. If people started listening to his ideas, they would start questioning the teachings of the church at the time. Of course this would also lead to the questioning of God since the church was apparently the voice of god at the time this was all occurring.
The spanish inquisistion is an interesting place to look when you want to see what happens when people start controlling what other people can say or think. (I know this one's extreme, but history bears the scars of the same mistakes being made over and over again, so maybe we should learn from that one).
While I agree that some ideas are fundamentally dangerous to society as a whole, I believe the answer has already been suggested. We need to innoculate against the spread of memes that are so far fetched as to be dangerous. Build a world of people willing to question the things others teach them, or at least able to tell the fallacies from the facts from the possibles and many of these "dangerous memes" won't get past the door.
Unfortunately, many people are happy being led rather than thinking for themselves. There is comfort in believeing others know better. This is a pretty big barrier to overcome if you want to build a discerning public.
As a side note to some of the earlier concpets, science and faith are two separate things. Science has not to my knowledge come anywhere near disproving the presence of a divine being. Science hasn't found any evidence to prove it either. That's what makes the belief in a God "faith" (belief without fact). Science has done lots to disprove many of the tachings of religious bodies through time however, but I believe that's because many of those teachings were about maintaining power and wealth rather than faith (my opinion only on that last one).
Hope my points have been relevent.I started to ramble towards the end there.
Cheers
More over, if divine entities exist, an are anything like the god depicted in the bible, i would consider it my moral duty to fight tooth an claw against him. A creature that orders Rape, endorses slavery, and causes Genocides is not a moral being and those are just some of his lesser crimes.Where, where, and where?
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Religious laws allegedly from god
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Judges 5:30 NAB
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.
Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.
just a few quotes pertaining to divinely sanctioned slavery, rape and acts of genocide.
As for Yehowah getting his hand dirty himself, does sodom and gomorrah sound familiur?
By any objective scale of morality, i suspect any person on this board is more moral than the abrahmic god.
Zombieneighbours, your statements regarding Christian beliefs tend to discredit the rest of your argument. Your understanding of Christian beliefs as stated in your posts is analagous to a parent in the 1980s who believed that D&D was Satanic and would indoctrinate their children into a cult. The characterizations you've given (i.e. "Dominionists want to stone adulterers") bear little resemblance to the actual Christian schools of thought you're referencing (any Dominionist could tell you that Jesus *specifically* condemned that sort of thing).
"Christianity and Democracy are inevitably enemies." - R.J. Rushdoony.
R.J. Rushdoony is arguably the founder of modern dominion theologyThe belief that DnD was satanic, holds many of the characteristics of a moral panic. I do not believe the same could be said for my statements about certain elements of the Christian population and elements of their faith. Christianity does have many entirely distasteful elements, which are provable. Scriptual literalism for instance. It is entirely accurate to say that scripture has passages that condemn adulterers and juvenile delinquents to death by stoning. There are large Christian congregations, which have been actively attempt gain political power. That is the very point of dominionism.
It is a provable fact that Christens and Christian groups who have taken office have attempted to act in an unconstitutional manner, such as the introduction of Intelligent Design into classrooms.
Leaders of this movement have themselves in their writings advocated the death penalty for Homosexuality, anyone involved in the provision of Abortion, Blasphemers, Adulterers and disobedient children.
While not all dominionist are as extreme as Christian deconstructionists it is not out of character for Dominionist in general to work towards the general Christianization of the State, which is of cause unconstitutional in the united states.
It was exactly this sort of faith driven politics, which was a direct cause of the birth of modern organized crime, see prohibition.
Simply put, you are wrong on this subject.
It is possible that you're only referring to those aberrant beliefs that one sometimes finds amongst fringe groups who call themselves Christians (for example, the KKK), but your choice of labels and general tone suggests otherwise.
Jerry Falwell, Marvin Olasky (who i shudder to put next to Falwell, because he is at least a decent human being), Reverent Tim Lahaye and the Christian coalition of America, all too some degree or another are involved with Dominionism. Hardly on the same lines as K.K.K.
A) Academics has shown itself to be every bit as dogmatic as any other realm; people are protective toward their station, their reputation, their thesis, their funding, etc., and for these reasons will show resistance to the new, just like any other segment of society. Your suggestion that academia are somehow above this human trait seems to me naive. B) Politics and Religion both demonstrate self-correction; we in the US live in a liberal democracy rather than an absolute monarchy, we no longer keep slaves, we demonstrate gender equality, etc. I daresay Religion shows some of the same traits. While I have no interest in defending all religions, I will say that the way in which Christianity is practiced has changed over time; even though the core tenets and doctrines remain the same, there are non-salvific issues which have altered to suit the sensibilities of their age.
I did not claim that science was immune, only more resistant. Direct comparisons are tricky to say the least, but one might compare reactions between biologists and politicians on the subject of Endosymbiotic Theory and Socialism respectively. Ask an American politician about socialism, or a biologist about Endosymbiotic Theory, in 1980. The answer you would get are roughly equivalent. Negative, possibly with a rant attatched.
Fast-forwards to 2009, Endosymbiotic Theory is widely accepted and in the textbooks despite a fierce fight. Ask an americium politician about socialism and you'll get basically the same argument you did three decades ago, this despite the large amounts of data relating to health, wealth and happiness of national populations that put the social democracies of northern Europe among the happiest, healthiest, best educated and least religious counties on earth. Let me give you a clue, America isn't in the top ten...Hell, even us limies come higher than you guys. Let me tell you, Endosymbiotic Theory was not a popular idea when it was first proposed and it had to fight like stick to get recognised, but even so, science changed, politics has not.
The underlying problem with your premise is that it is inherently materialistic. Your memetic approach to beliefs assumes that nothing exists beyond the flesh and blood; that there is no soul, no Deity, no metaphysical universe beyond what we perceive with our physical senses, and therefore, all religious belief is delusion. Science, by definition, is not equipped to deal with or recognize the metaphysical, and yet you would attempt to apply it to all realms of human experience. That is irrational. It isn't Science, it's Scientism.
What evidence do you have that souls, deities or metaphysics are real? If you have no evidence, why should i believe in there existence? By any rational measure, your beliefs are indistinguishable from a delusion. Ask your self this, if the meta-physical is immeasurable, what practical benefit is it? We know for instance that Prayer has no statistical impact on events.
We know from sociological data that religion does not result in a more moral life by objective measures. Crime rates and teenaged pregnancy rates are both higher amongst theists than among atheists for instance.To counter, what is so bad about a world that does not include god?
|
|
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
So not genocide, not rape, not slavery.
You might also note how and why this came about, being the acts and decisions of people and not by divine command.Judges 21:25 NLT
In those days there was no king in Israel. What was right in his own eyes was what each one was accustomed to do.
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Ignoring of course that the Midianites started the conflict.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Completely ignoring the command to seek peace first and only respond with total war to an attack that is so intense that a siege of the city becomes required.
And which in no way constitutes genocideDeuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
Which does not order rape.
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
A punishment on a Jewish King for arranging the murder of an ally.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
Which says that female captives may be servants but they must not be raped.
Judges 5:30 NAB
Specifying that prisoners may be taken.
Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB
Which is what happened to Israel, not what Israel did to others.
just a few quotes pertaining to divinely sanctioned slavery, rape and acts of genocide.
Actually those are more like divine limitations on how slaves may be treated, how rape is to be prohibited or punished, and how to prevent enemies from trying to kill you time and again.
As for Yehowah getting his hand dirty himself, does sodom and gomorrah sound familiur?
Which was neither slavery, rape, nor genocide.
By any objective scale of morality, i suspect any person on this board is more moral than the abrahmic god.
Well, except for the fact that what you have are weak arguments demonstrating a poor comprehension of the specific passages. That hardly constitutes a reasoned argument.
So by your own standards you have little to nothing to support your position making your suspicions highly suspect.
Samuel Weiss:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Putting an entire city to the sword is a profund act of genocide.
The biblicial account of he israelites march to the promised land is a series of god sanction and ordained genocides.
You clearly are profoundly ignorant of the nature of Bronze age warfare, but those 'servant' are slaves and raped or forced into marrage and raped.
Your attempts to denigh this aspect of the bible something i find offencive. Your entitles to your opinion, but i don't know a historian, biblicial scholar or even a parish priest who would agree with your reading.
|
|
I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about the Bible or Bronze Age warfare. However, I'm a military historian and have a pretty good grap of Bronze Age warfare. I think you are currently operateing under the meme that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be attacking you.
|
|
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Putting an entire city to the sword is a profund act of genocide.
Except it is not an entire city, it is only the military population.
Killing enemy soldiers is not genocide.The biblicial account of he israelites march to the promised land is a series of god sanction and ordained genocides.
Except it is not.
It is a series of sanctioned migrations, with resistance to attempts at genocide.You clearly are profoundly ignorant of the nature of Bronze age warfare, but those 'servant' are slaves and raped or forced into marrage and raped.
If you think putting the entire military population of a captured city is genocide then it is you who are utterly ignorant of the nature of Bronze Age warfare.
As for those slaves, your claim is directly contradicted by what you posted. They may not be raped. If someone wanted to have sex with them they had to give them a full month to mourn, then marry them. I suppose if you assume all sex in marriage is rape you can make such a blanket statement, otherwise you will need a lot more to meet your own standards of evidence.Your attempts to denigh this aspect of the bible something i find offencive. Your entitles to your opinion, but i don't know a historian, biblicial scholar or even a parish priest who would agree with your reading.
Then you do not know very many educated people, and I find your attempts to indict the bible based on your poor understanding of the specific passages you quote to be highly offensive.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about the Bible or Bronze Age warfare. However, I'm a military historian and have a pretty good grap of Bronze Age warfare. I think you are currently operateing under the meme that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be attacking you.
Sorry, it wasn't aimed at you. i hit the wrong button somewhere :)
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Putting an entire city to the sword is a profound act of genocide.
Except it is not an entire city, it is only the military population.
Killing enemy soldiers is not genocide.
"Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."
"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder." Later they kill all the non-virgin
Article 2 of United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a Nation, Ethnicity, Race (classification of human beings)or Religion group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Both of those acts are genocide, and your attempts to denigh it are far more offencive to that my alledged misunderstaning of the text.
The biblicial account of he israelites march to the promised land is a series of god sanction and ordained genocides.Except it is not.
It is a series of sanctioned migrations, with resistance to attempts at genocide.
If the queen and parliament sanction that I may migrate along with the entire population of Essex to the United States, in contravention of your national sovereignty, settle your land without paying tax or asking permission? We both know what the response would be, war. As you so neatly point out, war in the iron and bonze ages tended to be bloody affairs. God sanctions the migration, in fact commanded it. God knew what the Midianite response would be and 'gave' victory to the israelites. Yet you are claiming he is not responsible for genocide in this case. Your apologetics(aka lousy attempt to avoid logic) are weak.
You clearly are profoundly ignorant of the nature of Bronze age warfare, but those 'servant' are slaves and raped or forced into marrage and raped.If you think putting the entire military population of a captured city is genocide then it is you who are utterly ignorant of the nature of Bronze Age warfare.
As for those slaves, your claim is directly contradicted by what you posted. They may not be raped. If someone wanted to have sex with them they had to give them a full month to mourn, then marry them. I suppose if you assume all sex in marriage is rape you can make such a blanket statement, otherwise you will need a lot more to meet your own standards of evidence.
Killing the military population of a captured city is genocide, when the entire military population is every single man. Why? It impairs the populations ability to breed their by wiping out their population in the long term. I accept that this is the way bronze age and do actually understand that. I have never made a claim that this was even outside the cultural norms of the time. However, I also make no claim as to the instigator (god) of these actions being moral. I am not trying to claim he doesn't order or engage in genocide.
Rape is any non-consensual sex. Since these women are under duress, they are after all prisoners of war and slavers, sex within these marriages are likely rape in a great many cases.
Your attempts to denigh this aspect of the bible something i find offencive. Your entitles to your opinion, but i don't know a historian, biblicial scholar or even a parish priest who would agree with your reading.Then you do not know very many educated people, and I find your attempts to indict the bible based on your poor understanding of the specific passages you quote to be highly offensive.
I know a great many thank you. My mothers a lawyer, my father trained as a chemist, of my current close friendship circle there are three archaeologists and a historian and I have a number acquaintance that fall between philosophers and priests.
If we are going to make claims of offence, I consider your denial of rape, genocide and slavery to be far, far more offensive than you could possibly find my 'poor understanding.'
|
|
. . .
Article 2 of United Nations Convention . . .
. . .Both of those acts are genocide, and your attempts to denigh it are far more offencive to that my alledged misunderstaning of the text.
Funny, I do not recall that UN Convention being in force at the time. Rather odd given you made such a point about knowledge of Bronze Age warfare.
That being said, yet again, you seem to want to overlook that Balaam son of Beor went out to curse Israel during their migration, and that the women of Midian attempted to destroy the faith of Israel, also acts that would qualify as genocide.If the queen and parliament sanction that I may migrate along with the entire population of Essex to the United States, in contravention of your national sovereignty, settle your land without paying tax or asking permission? We both know what the response would be, war. As you so neatly point out, war in the iron and bonze ages tended to be bloody affairs. God sanctions the migration, in fact commanded it. God knew what the Midianite response would be and 'gave' victory to the israelites. Yet you are claiming he is not responsible for genocide in this case. Your apologetics(aka lousy attempt to avoid logic) are weak.
Ignoring of course that national sovereignty in the sense you are asserting it did not exist at the time, that land taxes did not exist at the time, and that the passage you quoted specifically mentions asking permission, you seem to be short a logical case.
You also deliberately ignore that the response of any specific group was not foretold, as it is very much implied by the passage, and bourne out by history, that multiple groups did not hinder the passage, either by genocidal warfare (such as the Midianites), or by non-genocidal warfare (such as the Elamites).Killing the military population of a captured city is genocide, when the entire military population is every single man. Why? It impairs the populations ability to breed their by wiping out their population in the long term. I accept that this is the way bronze age and do actually understand that. I have never made a claim that this was even outside the cultural norms of the time. However, I also make no claim as to the instigator (god) of these actions being moral. I am not trying to claim he doesn't order or engage in genocide.
Then in context, it is in no way genocide, but simply migration.
If you wish to use that standard, then every religion and every philosophy is guilty of sanctioning genocide, and none are ever to be tolerated. Your own reductio ad absurdum indicts you.Rape is any non-consensual sex. Since these women are under duress, they are after all prisoners of war and slavers, sex within these marriages are likely rape in a great many cases.
And you know this as a proven fact because you have interviewed a reasonable sample of the people involved?
That after a month of mourning the emotions involved might change does not occur to you?That an unpleasant situation does not automatically indicate a lack of consent is irrelevant to you?
I know a great many thank you. My mothers a lawyer, my father trained as a chemist, of my current close friendship circle there are three archaeologists and a historian and I have a number acquaintance that fall between philosophers and priests.
I know just as many well-educated and highly trained people, and they do not agree with your assessment. By the same logical conclusions that you assert, that means you do not in fact know enough.
If we are going to make claims of offence, I consider your denial of rape, genocide and slavery to be far, far more offensive than you could possibly find my 'poor understanding.'
And I see your presumption of offense and hyperbole to express it and raise:
I consider your poorly supported assertion of rape, genocide, and slavery to be overwhelmingly more offensive than you could ever conceive my 'denial' to be.
Wow...we have reached intellectual masturbation/orgasm between the two of you.
And you managed to stay high, morally clean...and of civil tongue.
I applaud you, truly *smirk*, I do...
Whoa.
Backs out.
Scraps some of the sticky parts of the thread off his shoe as he does so.