Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
...Rian says go for it- how about you???

Oh come, GrayMouser - that's intellectually dishonest, as well as a bit mean (like I have no feelings in the matter - "sure, go ahead and skewer them! No problem! ). Please don't put words into my mouth that I never said. You may quote any of my posts, but don't make things up and say I said them. At the very least, you could have said "it looks like RÃ*an thinks .....".

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
5. Hmm. I'll call this 5a. A bit of nit-picky stuff first: Are you putting words in my mouth--er, post? Because I don't think I said the word "good."

No, I wasn't - I wouldn't do that *looks at GrayMouser with a sad/mad expression* - I was drawing a conclusion (with which you may agree or disagree! ) I probably could have worded that a little more clearly, but I thought the "because" made it clear that it was a conclusion that I was making, based upon what you had said about laws and society.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Okay, on to the rest of (5)...
If the child was not murdered, but left alive, that could be quite harmful...if not even more harmful...to society than murdering said child. Because if left alive, as I said before, the experience will have a strong negative impact on the child's mental and emotional health. This could cause much leftover trauma later in life, and there are many ways this child's case could go from there: For one, if this child was brought up in a generally abusive environment, he/she could grow up to visit the same horrors upon other children, because this is how the child learned to act. Alternately, the child could grow up with some serious trauma that could affect the way he/she lives his/her life in many other ways. The point is, it's not just murder that harms society. It is still not "healthy" for the society as a whole for such things to happen. Thus I can say it is "for the good of society," though I'd prefer to use a word other than good

Yes, you're right, IMO, that a child that has been abused will probably contribute to society in un-"healthy" ways, and that is NOT good (whoops), umm, NOT healthy for society. (BTW, it's hard to avoid using "good", isn't it? Perhaps there is a very good reason why?.... Think about it You can try to hide it several layers down, through creative wording, but it always seems to pop up!)

But I think you didn't address my point (or perhaps I just missed it?) of WHY the child gets traumatized in the first place! It's because what happened to the child is BAD and WRONG. As you said, "Nobody deserves that kind of abuse." *another sad look at GrayMouser - see, I quoted exactly what she said!!*

Or to put it another way - let's see, how about this idea? I would think that you would agree that the less children that get abused, the better. Would you? OK, how about picking ONE little boy and ONE little girl and putting them on an island somewhere, with good medical care and plenty of food and good shelter and top-of-the-line Nintendo equipment for fun. Then put all the pedophiles on the island with those children, and let them abuse the kids all they want (well, w/in reason; let's at least give them 8 hrs sleep and an hour of playtime - don't want to let the Nintendo go to waste!) (I picked both a boy and a girl because after all, some pedophiles like abusing boys, and some like abusing girls - we want to be sure the pedophiles stay happy!) That way, society would GREATLY benefit - there would be WAAAY fewer children getting molested, and all the pedophiles would be locked away on a desert island. Society would be happy, the pedophiles would be happy, and since there is no meaning to the word "bad" apart from the context of society, then nothing bad is happening to the children, so they must be happy too!

Sound good?

[Rían]

GrayMouser - one more thing -

A while back, you tried to get me to answer a yes/no question. You said it was simple, and I had to either answer yes or no.

Well, it's my opinion that some questions are not properly yes/no questions! Here's an example:

GrayMouser, did you finally decide to stop beating your wife? Yes or No.

Well, it's a simple yes/no question - what's your answer?

(IOW, it may be a yes/no question syntactically, but a yes or no answer will NOT reflect the truth of the situation. And I'm interested in TRUTH, not clever word arrangements.)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Or to put it another way - let's see, how about this idea? I would think that you would agree that the less children that get abused, the better. Would you? OK, how about picking ONE little boy and ONE little girl and putting them on an island somewhere, with good medical care and plenty of food and good shelter and top-of-the-line Nintendo equipment for fun. Then put all the pedophiles on the island with those children, and let them abuse the kids all they want (well, w/in reason; let's at least give them 8 hrs sleep and an hour of playtime - don't want to let the Nintendo go to waste!) (I picked both a boy and a girl because after all, some pedophiles like abusing boys, and some like abusing girls - we want to be sure the pedophiles stay happy!) That way, society would GREATLY benefit - there would be WAAAY fewer children getting molested, and all the pedophiles would be locked away on a desert island. Society would be happy, the pedophiles would be happy, and since there is no meaning to the word "bad" apart from the context of society, then nothing bad is happening to the children, so they must be happy too!

Sound good?

Sounds awful! First, how do you round up all the pedophiles? But that's irrelevant, of course.

I guess this does lead back to morals again. How dissapointing, I was hoping to avoid them
Well, I'm going to use Locke again, because he's nice and convenient. Although I don't think our rights are god-given...hmm. Oh dear, I might have to contradict myself. This is all a bit difficult.
Your example reminds me of a story about a Utopia that I read a while ago--I think my 4th grade teacher read it to us. Wow, 10 years ago! I don't remember what it was called or who wrote it, but in the story there was a perfect city, where everyone was happy. And everything worked so nicely because in this city, hidden away from everyone, was a tiny cell and in this cell was a child. This child sat alone in the room and could not leave, and was fed tiny meals that were hardly sufficient, and there were rats and whatnot crawling over the child, etc. And this child was a sort of sacrifice, and took on all the suffering that would otherwise be spread out among the rest of the population--though of course the child didn't know any of this.
There are other stories, and even archealogical evidence, of children being sacrificied for the "good of the community."
So you could take what I've said before and come to the conclusion that perhaps I think that if it benefits society as a whole, then small things like sacrificing one person for the sake of the whole is beneficial. However, I do not think this. Now here is where I need to figure something out that I haven't quite worked out yet. If it benefits society, how is it still "wrong" to treat one or two people badly?
Here's where I again depend on Locke's bit about everyone having the right to life, liberty and property. Because, IMO, not only is society as a whole important, individual rights must be considered. Each individual is special in their own way (wow does that sound cheesy) and they each contribute to society. (Thank you, Ralph Waldo Emerson! ) So perhaps this child that was sacrificed to child molesters could have made some great invention? That's something society has lost then. Not to mention that individual's life becomes a living hell. And why should this one child be made to suffer while everyone else has opportunity? Perhaps it would be best to work for the kind of fairness and justice that we can never truly achieve but always make progress toward.
This is all pretty big stuff. I suppose I don't have a clear answer yet, because there's so much more, but I think I've made a start. I hope.
Furthermore, I mentioned before that it is important, IMO, for the pedophiles to learn what they have done wrong and be made to consider that. That is punishment, ne? So on this island they would never learn better. Would it not be better for society for them to be taken to some sort of place where it could be attempted to teach them the kind of horror they inflict and why this is "wrong?" There are places like this, actually. Hmm. Right. Anyway, I think that's enough for now, it's lunch time!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Situational ethics: you are a warrior of Israel; you confront a Midianite mother holding her baby boy to her breast.

You kill the mother, who brings contamination to Israel; you pick up the baby.

What do you do? C'mon, no dodging the choice: this time, according to your God , you should splatter his brains against the rocks.

Rian says go for it- how about you???

At first I admit I was quite angry with you when I read this, as I had just recently read on here about someone mentioning this very thing. But then I remembered it was when I was poring over the Archives for a while yesterday (), and I sincerely apologise for my completely unwarranted ill feeling toward you. I'm not going to address the whole issue you brought up, as Rian does that MUCH better than I could ever do, but I will quote what someone said in that topic about this verse:

Oops, my mistake, I was looking at Psalms 136, 137 does indeed say that, but you must understand that is in not god saying go bash your babys against rocks, This psalm is David telling about what he felt when he was beside the rivers of Babylon as a prisoner thinking of Jerusalem. David was pouring out his fealings before God, his anger towards his captors and his craving for revenge. It is obevious that God does not want christians to go aroung killing babys, for he says thou shalt not kill.

I would appreciate it if any deep reply waited until such a time as the discussion gets around to this.

[Rían]

*hopes EG posts her joke about hell here!*

I'm too tired from the all-day field trip to post here tonight - Oy, the field trip from helck!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I found this joke today...here it is, Rian

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Quickly God was faced with a class action suit for failure to file and environmental impact statement. God was granted a temporary permit for the project, but was stymied with the cease and desist order for the earthly part.

Then God said, "Let there be light!"

Immediately the officials demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from a large ball of fire. God was granted provisional permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire, and that he would obtain a building permit; and to conserve energy, would have the light out half the time.

God agreed and offered to call the light "Day" and the darkness "Night."

The officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plant yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit."

The EPA agreed, so long as only native seed was used.

Then God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth."

The officials pointed out that this would require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was OK 'till God said the project would be completed in six days.

The officials said it would take at least two hundred days to review the applications and the impact statement. After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be ten to twelve months before...

At this point God created Hell.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
At first I admit I was quite angry with you when I read this, as I had just recently read on here about someone mentioning this very thing. But then I remembered it was when I was poring over the Archives for a while yesterday (), and I sincerely apologise for my completely unwarranted ill feeling toward you. I'm not going to address the whole issue you brought up, as Rian does that MUCH better than I could ever do, but I will quote what someone said in that topic about this verse:


I would appreciate it if any deep reply waited until such a time as the discussion gets around to this.

I have to offer my apologies on this too. I posted in anger and on a personal level things that I should have done in a much more reasonable manner- as Rian immediately spotted, the abortion comments were deliberate flame-bait; for that, among others ( i.e. I certainly do not believe Rian or any other posters here sanction mass murder) , I am truly sorry.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Your example reminds me of a story about a Utopia that I read a while ago--I think my 4th grade teacher read it to us. Wow, 10 years ago! I don't remember what it was called or who wrote it, but in the story there was a perfect city, where everyone was happy. And everything worked so nicely because in this city, hidden away from everyone, was a tiny cell and in this cell was a child. This child sat alone in the room and could not leave, and was fed tiny meals that were hardly sufficient, and there were rats and whatnot crawling over the child, etc. And this child was a sort of sacrifice, and took on all the suffering that would otherwise be spread out among the rest of the population--though of course the child didn't know any of this.

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" : Ursula K. LeGuin

[Rían]

Thank you for your gracious apology, GrayMouser - I really respect people that can sincerely apologize.

I think those that can't apologize are more interested in their self-image than in truth, or at least trying to find truth. I hope you can join into the discussion here, or I'll PM you when we get to your topic, if you would like.

And thanks for the book info - I think I may have read that many years ago - I know that I've definitely read LeGuin before.

[GrayMouser]

OTOH, if you do believe in the literal truth of ALL the Bible, you still have to answer the question.

It is not a logical quandary such as the wife-beating question (or the Cretan liar); it is one of those moral questions beloved of ethicists( "You are at a railway switch with a locomotive bearing down; on one track is a schoolbus full of mentally handicapped children; on the other is a 78-year-old biochemist with a 60% chance of finding a cure for cancer if he lives...)

To me, Judaeo-Christian ethics are something that have simply outgrown their origins- and a good thing too, as I believe a major part of our western liberal democratic values owe their existence to the Bible in its final form- after you throw in Isaiah and the Prophets and Ruth and Psalms and Ecclesiastes and Job.

(Also, Rian, I should have made my apology more personal- it is mostly to you.)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" : Ursula K. LeGuin

Thank you! Now I can find it again! I think that was 10 years ago I heard that story. Wow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
OTOH, if you do believe in the literal truth of ALL the Bible, you still have to answer the question.

What does OTOH mean? I'm not up on all the abbreviations yet.

I would like to discuss the topic, either after the hell discussion is finished, or I think there was another topic next in line, I'll have to check. And it's clear that we'll have to define terms, too, such as "literal truth of ALL the Bible" (does this mean that when Jesus says He is the vine and we are the branches, that I should look for leaves growing out of my arms? )

(Also, Rian, I should have made my apology more personal- it is mostly to you.)

(ok - thanks )

[Agalayth]

Replying to the original question...

What religion am I? Well, I'm born a Jew and I believe in the Jewish ethics, but I don't take the Bible (or Tanakh) literally. One thing that I really like about the Jewish religion is that you can be constantly questioning your religion and challenging many of the points brought up in the Tanakh. My rabbi does all the time, and she admitted that she doesn't believe everything in the Tanakh.

What is my family background? Well, I can trace back to six different countries: England, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Lithuania and Israel. I still have family in Israel (mostly in Haifa) and I hope to visit them some day, when all the violence has stopped (if it ever does... ).

[HOBBIT]

first time ive seen the torah called the tanakh......

i looked it up and its an acronym for all hebrew scriptures including the torah - huh - you learn something new every day :P

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Does that include the Talmud? I think it's considered scriptural by some, right?

I take it you weren't ever a very religious Jew, eh, HOBBIT?

[Agalayth]

Well, the scroll with the first five books is called the Torah. A book with the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings is the Tanakh. I got one for my Bar Mitzvah, and it has the Hebrew on one side and the English on the other side. Very useful.

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Does that include the Talmud? I think it's considered scriptural by some, right?

I take it you weren't ever a very religious Jew, eh, HOBBIT?

eh,i could take offense at that, but i won't since i'm so cool and I really am not a religious jew.

Maybe i just don't remember - but i have NEVER heard the term tanakh. I always thought that the torah was the bible equivalent just without the new testament... oh well.

I've been to hebrew school too and some services at other temples, never heard it.

site i found: http://amerisoftinc.com/tanak1.htm

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
eh,i could take offense at that, but i won't since i'm so cool and I really am not a religious jew.

Sorry, didn't think you'd take offense, considering the less-than-positive way you talk of theism. I apologise.