lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (01/13/84)
[Because of the influx of net.religion article and my own busy schedule
(something called "working 50-60-oo hours a week), it will take me a
while just to catch up on the articles in just through today. The
current article deals with stuff at least two weeks old.]
[Continuation of discussion started by Pam Troy on "Life in a Judeo-
Christian state." I no longer have Pam's original reply, so will
paraphrase from memory. Other later articles I still have.]
On the subject of the courts reverting back from their clog-prone
adversary system back to a quest for truth, it was thought that I meant
"quest for THE truth" (i.e., Scriptural or whatever). Not so. A quest
for truth finds out the matter of the case: did the person do that which
he is charged with? I know this is a death knell for sue-happy America's
overabundance of lawyers, and will probably wipe out jobs for a lot of
appellate justices. But then, the idea of fewer muggers, murderers, and
rapists on the loose doesn't appeal to a lot of people. :-(
[Pam] "If I were browbeaten into adopting a 'Christian' lifestyle, would
that make me moral, even if my convictions about sex and religion remain
unaltered? If not, then what is the purpose of attempting to legislate
morality?"
I won't answer this until I get two straight answers:
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF "MORAL[ITY]"?
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF MORALITY?
Pam keeps trying to separate legal from moral ("Murder and theft are
immoral...Murder and theft are also illegal, not because they are
immoral..."). No answer to this question will satisfy unless and until
I am able to address your idea of "moral." Then we will see the real
question is "WHOSE morality is legislated?"
BTW, if your "convictions" are indeed convictions, they will get you
into hot water just as surely as Daniel was (under the decree of Darius).
Perhaps you need to see one of your own points in the mirror - "a
society which allowed such things to go unchecked would not function."
1. Where have you been since Mohammed's forces swept across the Middle
East and northern Africa? Those societies still function (according to
their definition :-) Also, I seem to remember something called the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution...
2. America is losing its ability to function. As I noted in my first
reply, this society is making contradictory demands of its leadership,
and the adage of the house divides against itself applies well. But
then, to those who have already made up their minds, the evidence of
decay means nothing.
More on "The power to do good is also the power to do evil" (perhaps
better phrasing than my original): if an individual or group in any kind
of authority has the ability to cause you benefit, it also has the
ability to do you harm - otherwise it has no authority, by nature.
Laura:"I think that love has the power to do me good but not evil..."
Ever hear "The love of money is the root of all evil"?
Laura: "Punishment is only useful when it acts as a deterrent."
"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed SPEEDILY, therefore
the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
Ecclesiastes 8:11
Larry: "Further, any right you have depends on someone to enforce it."
Laura: "Rights do not come from laws - laws come from rights."
1. How do you keep your rights from being violated?
2. What do you do to someone who does violate your rights?
Laura, on how a Judeo-Christian state would handle witches: "Perhaps
they are going to use the more modern techniques of electroshock and
brainwashing."
Smells like a cow pasture. "Sword evangelism" doesn't do it. I can't
compel you to believe inwardly the way I do (the Baptist vs. the
Lutherans and the Presbyterians would prove interesting :-), but
obedience to the law is another matter... (see above on legal vs. moral)
Laura: "I don't want to punish anyone...I would rather fix the people so
they would not murder or rape..."
"Fix"? With what? Lemme guess: "Electroshock and brainwashing." 8-)
Laura: "It sure seemed to me that the book of Judges was about the rules
of the various judges..."
Judges 2:11; 3:7,12; 4:1, 6:1 "And the children of Israel did evil
[again] in the sight of the LORD..." And when they did, God caused an
enemy to oppress them until they confessed their sin. THEN He sent the
judge to deliver Israel.
Ken Almquist: "...a proof of the existence of God would cause an
unpleasantly large change in my view of the world, because I have a
large body of ideas which assume that God does not exist and I would not
like to part with that investment. ...If I do see [a proof for God] I
will have to revise my beliefs, but not before taking a pretty careful
look at the evidence."
Very well stated, for the #1 reason why people refuse to accept Christ -
they feel they have to give up too much. They only see Christianity as a
set of restrictions, of what you "can't do." Life in Christ isn't a
refurbishing of the old; it's a new life, with new goals. But oft-times
God has to bring a person to his knees to get him to realize that what
God has to offer is better than anything the world-system could offer.
KA: ">If I proved that blacks were less intelligent that whites, would
you want your child to be held back in a racially integrated
classroom? <"
Wait a minute, Ken - you're assuming too much. First you have to prove
that my child would be "held back" in a classroom where all the students
were less intelligent (regardless of race). Then I might consider the
rest of your question.
Enough for this article.
The igloo of Larry Bickford,
{sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!lablaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/15/84)
A continuation in a series of articles with Larry Bickford: Laura:"I think that love has the power to do me good but not evil..." Larry: Ever hear "The love of money is the root of all evil"? Sorry Larry, but you lose. One of the things that Christianity *has* got is a pretty good definition of "love". As you are undoubtably kicking yourself about -- it is in Paul to the Corinthians I -- 13:4-8. Now, do you want to tell me that the "love of money" is that sort of love? The world may be full of Humpty Dumpties who go around saying "love" when they mean "want and greed and attatchment", but that was not what I meant. Laura: "Punishment is only useful when it acts as a deterrent." Larry: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed SPEEDILY, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11 Look, Larry, that won't do. My claim was that a Christian State would be a crummy place to live in, because all the righteous Christians would be doing awful things. "Awful", of course, is "awful according to my definition". if it is "awful according to their definition" then Christians go about doing what they believe is evil, and that is not what I want to say. (here. If the Bible is inconsistent on what is good then Christians can't help but be evil, but that is not the arguement I want to persue here.) Okay. What you have given me is a scripture reference to demonstrate why you do not think that what you are doing is evil. The problem is that my definitions of good and evil are not intimately connected with your source book, so you could as well quote from the Yellow Pages. If we are going to argue this one, you cannot make me adopt your premises -- and one of yours is that the Bible is literally TRUE. If I gave you that one, I would have lost the argument already, and I know that, so I am not going to do this. So what good would scripture references be? Well, you would use them to demonstrate that what you want to do is also not evil, and I would use them to show that the Bible is inconsistent. Then you would try to show that this isn't an inconsistency at all. We could go on at this for months -- I know, becaue I have tried this with someone else. 2 months from now, though Ed Pawlak, or somebody else will say that since I have accepted the scripture why don't I give up the morality debate. This one has happened before, so obviously I am going to lose the argument if it goes like a seige. The only one that I can hope to win (or at least stay even) is one where you separate your "good" from the Bible for the purpose of arguemnt and present them as secular definitions of "good". (by "good", in this context, i mean justification of punishment). Okay -- are you willing to play by these rules? If not, can you propose other ones where I have a fair shot? In the light of this, I should retract my scripture reference above, but I still think that that is a pretty good definition of love, even for secular purposes. Here is the bottom line as I see it -- righteousness and love are incompatible. This does not mean that love and unrighteousness go hand in hand -- just that the spiritual state you have to get yourself into whereby you can take joy in somebody else's suffering (ie the punishment of someone else) is not compatible with love. Love and forgiveness thus go together; while love and punishment do not. Larry: "Further, any right you have depends on someone to enforce it." Laura: "Rights do not come from laws - laws come from rights." 1. How do you keep your rights from being violated? You can't, in practice. They get violated all the time. You can make a big list of 'essential rights' and try to convince people that they are essential. but if somebosy really wants to kill me, there is no law that can stop them -- it just would give my family something to do with the person who killed me if they caught him. 2. What do you do to someone who does violate your rights? Mostly I talk to them. It is surprising how many right violations go on because they were not recognised as such by the right violater. If things get really hairy I leave the whole situation. Sometimes I discover that my rights really weren't violated at all, but it was just that I was in a bad mood or something which made me think that it was. Ideally, this whole situation should end up with me forgiving the right violator, (or getting forgiveness if I have leveled an injust accusation.) Some days it does not work out that well, but remember -- the punishment system has bugs as well. Laura, on how a Judeo-Christian state would handle witches: "Perhaps they are going to use the more modern techniques of electroshock and brainwashing." Smells like a cow pasture. "Sword evangelism" doesn't do it. I can't compel you to believe inwardly the way I do (the Baptist vs. the Lutherans and the Presbyterians would prove interesting :-), but obedience to the law is another matter... (see above on legal vs. moral) Yep. But why do you want me to obey your law? I thought that you were legislating morality, which was your claim. But my morality comes from those inward beliefs that I have -- the same ones that I cannot get you to share. they don't come from any particular piece of legislation. And no matter how much legislation you enact, my morality is still going to come from the same place -- my inward beliefs. Thus you cannot, by definition legislate my morality. (unless you have got the "thou shalt believe this" trick down pat. So far the only techniques I know for this are brainwashing and electroshock therapy. This is distinct from techniques which people can use if they want to change their beliefs, I must add.) Laura: "I don't want to punish anyone...I would rather fix the people so they would not murder or rape..." "Fix"? With what? Lemme guess: "Electroshock and brainwashing." 8-) NO WAY. ABSOLUTELY AND IRREVOCABLY NO. If anybody wants to be fixed, then I have got better ways to fix you than that, which don't infringe on your freedom any more than any action infringes upon your freedom (ie if you do this you can't do that at the same time.) If you do not want to change, then I am going to lock you up, not until a certain punishment is up, but until i can be sure that you aren't going to murder and rape. Of course, this means that I am not going to incarcerate you for any offense -- I won't send you to jail because you keep chickens in your yard. So far, the only thing that I want to send people to jail for is being likely to kill people. Murders, rapists, and assaulters fit into this category. So do terrorists. We could probably extend the list some, but most of the laws that we have are going to go -- or at least the punishment aspect has got to go. Drunk driving is a problem. Let's try to fix it. Punishing the drunk driver is probably a bad idea. How about equipping the cars with a random 8 digit code that changes all the time but which you have to type before your car will turn itself on. The scheme may need some work, but it sounds to me that we have fixed a serious problem without punishing anybody. I really like these sorts of solutions. Do you see what I am getting at? Punishment is a useless way to make moral people. To say that the problem is "a spiritual one withing the murderer" only begs the question. How come he has a spiritual problem? More importantly, given that he has one, what do we do now? Punish him? If we can swallow our compassion, that will give us a way to self-righteously vent our frustrations and angers, but that isn't going to solve his spiritual problem. brainwashing and electroshock treatments may solve his problem, but I will never do such radical damage to a person. (if they chose this for themselves, then I have severe doubts about their wisdom, but I would let them go ahead.) Demonstrating that there is a better way to behave so that they want to behave that way seems the only solution. I am very interested in any others that people might suggest. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura