So, knowing God is real you would reject Him if there was something you didn't like.
You clearly have no connection the Lord of Heaven and Earth.
toldailytopic: What opinion do you hold that would surprise others?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
You clearly have no connection the Lord of Heaven and Earth.
My opinion that would shock others:
I refuse to publicly protest homosexuality.
Since the Bible says God gave up on homosexuals (Rom. 1:26-28), and since I am supposed to think God's thoughts after Him having the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), why would I want to put myself in harms way by protesting 1,000 faggots at a "gay" "pride" event?
Now, I do confront homosexuals individually and tell them how vile God thinks they are. But not when they are in a pack with a pack mentality. Call it unloving if you want. Call it apathetic, but that's my view.
I refuse to publicly protest homosexuality.
Since the Bible says God gave up on homosexuals (Rom. 1:26-28), and since I am supposed to think God's thoughts after Him having the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5), why would I want to put myself in harms way by protesting 1,000 faggots at a "gay" "pride" event?
Now, I do confront homosexuals individually and tell them how vile God thinks they are. But not when they are in a pack with a pack mentality. Call it unloving if you want. Call it apathetic, but that's my view.
Son of Jack
New member
Son of Jack
New member
I don't think that is what he was after LH. I think it had more to do with the fact that they seem angry about it.
Y'know, it's when I'm answering these kinds of posts that I am rather thankful that I've taken a philosophy of law course, and consequently have some idea of what I'm talking about. Alright, since it's come up, I'll go ahead and make some distinctions. I think that there's two which we should make in this case:
1. Moral v. Legal
2. Criminal v. Civil
Something is moral iff (if and only if) it is consistent with the dictates of the Moral Law. That is, it is moral iff it does not contradict some principle of morality (whether it be the dictates of God, the Categorical Imperative, or whatever). Inversely, something is immoral iff it contradicts some principle of morality.
Given the above, it's possible to commit an immoral act even if there's no social interaction. Sloth, for example, doesn't require social interaction. It's still contrary to the Moral Law. If you are guilty of sloth, then you have committed a moral wrong.
Something is legal (at least, ought to be) iff it does not entail an infringement of rights. That is, something is legal (or ought to be) if it does not involve one person infringing the life, liberty, or property of another person. Inversely, something is illegal (or ought to be) iff it entails an infringement of rights. That is, something ought to be illegal if it means that one person is infringing against the life, liberty, or property of another person.
Given the above, it's impossible to commit an illegal act if there's no social interaction, since an infringement of rights must involve at least two people. Theft, for example, involves two people. A is infringing against the property rights of B. Conversely, masturbation simpliciter ought never to be made illegal, since there's only one person involved.
That's the first distinction. Ok. Now let's talk about things about which the law ought to be concerned. The law rightly can be divided into two categories, that is, criminal law and civil law.
Criminal law involves the punishment of someone who intentionally infringes the rights of another person. That is, criminal law is designed to exact a fine from, put in jail, or put to death a person who intentionally infringes against the life, liberty, or property of another person. So, if I steal your car, then I am infringing against your right to property, and in so doing, I forfeit (at least some of) my own rights. Consequently, the law therefore rightly steps in and either takes away some of my property, puts me in jail, or both.
Note in the above that criminal law ought not to concern itself with accidents. If I am driving a car and, due to poor environmental conditions (through not fault of my own), hit your car, then yes, you have lost property in at least some sense (even if its in terms of property value). However, I ought not to be put in jail or fined, since the offense was unintentional. I didn't intend to harm your property. Therefore, I haven't forfeited my right to property, liberty, or life.
Civil law, on the other hand, deals (or ought to deal) strictly in terms of recovery. That is to say, if A causes B some monetary loss, then the civil law (ought to) apply in such a way that B is able to exact from A what A caused B to lose. So, I'm driving along and the weather conditions are really bad. I accidentally run into your car. I haven't committed a crime. However, I have caused you a monetary loss. The civil law therefore applies and I am rightly made to pay for the damages to your car.
Note in the above that for civil law to apply, there must be some loss which can be measured in a monetary quantity. That is to say, if there is no monetary loss, then civil law can't apply. A plaintiff in a civil case ought not to be made better off than he was before the event about which his case is concerned occurred.
So, if I punch you in the stomach, then I indeed perhaps should go to jail (I have infringed against some right of yours). However, presupposing you don't incur any loss on account of it (like doctor bills), then you have no claim in a civil case. You didn't lose anything. Any monetary quantity you would get in a civil case would make you better off than you were before I punched you.
So, given the above, for any action, we must ask ourselves the following questions:
1. Does it contradict the moral law?
2. Does it infringe a right?
3. Was there a loss?
If it contradicts the moral law but there is no infringement of rights, then the action, though immoral, ought not to be illegal.
If it infringes a right, then the law applies, and if the infringement was intentional, then it's a matter of criminal law.
If it infringes a right and there was a loss incurred, then it's a matter of civil law.
Note that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive.
So, with all of that in mind, I'll answer your points:
Nonetheless, there was no interaction between the viewer of the video and the person represented in the video. That is, if A is using the internet to watch a video of B getting raped, there is still nonetheless no interaction between A and B. Consequently, there necessarily is no infringement of rights. Consequently, it ought not to be illegal.
In such a case, I'm not viewing her body. I'm viewing an image of her body. Her body isn't physically present to me. I conceivably could watch such a video on a desert island (of which I am the only inhabitant).
No. That's why I think that it's very important to track the progression through which all of this occurs. Let's construct a scenario.
A rapes B. C videotapes A raping B. D distributes the videotapes of A raping B. E watches the videotape of A raping B.
When A rapes B, A is using B's body without her consent. There is an infringement of a right. B is physically present to A. There is a social interaction. This constitutes a crime.
When C videotapes A raping B, C is using B's body without her consent. There is an infringement of a right. B is physically present to C. There is a social interaction. This constitutes a crime.
The next one is trickier. There is social interaction involved, but not necessarily between D and B. D is currently dealing, not with B's body, but with an image of B's body. Nonetheless, you rightly point out, in some sense there is a real loss here, in the sense that B loses the right over her image in how it's being used and handled. I'm not sure that this should be illegal in the criminal sense. Yet, it's pretty clear that this should be actionable at least in the civil sense.
The last one is simple enough. There is no social interaction involved between E and B. E is dealing, not with B, but with an image of B. In fact, there's no social interaction involved at all. E is dealing exclusively with an image. He's not interacting with any other person. He is alone. Consequently, this ought not to be illegal in any sense.
In the above case, if E pays for the video, then it becomes a social matter. That is, there's an exchange. In a very real sense, he's contributing to the actions of the person he's paying. He becomes an associate to that person's actions. If the action is a criminal action, then he becomes an associate to a crime. If the action is a civilly actionable action, then he becomes an associate to that action.
See?
But if he doesn't pay, then there's no social interaction, and therefore the law can't possibly apply (or at least, it ought not to).
At the one Gay Pride parade I attended, not only were to protesters not harmed, but they marched in at the end.
You are always full of surprises and unique adventures.
nicholsmom
New member
I have found people who dress outrageously and have multiple piercings and/or tattoos tend to be exceedingly friendly and kind. So I like them right off.
Keep in mind, I've never met a violent person... So I'm probably horribly naive
Keep in mind, I've never met a violent person... So I'm probably horribly naive
Tyrathca
New member
Actually my atheism is an opinion I hold which would (and has) surprised others. It's not that I keep it secret it's just that I tend not to volunteer such opinions unless asked and my conversations with friends rarely stray into individual religious views. So often people just assume I'm Christian until it happens to come up in a very rare conversation or they finally ask.
It can be quite amusing actually when those who assumed what I am find out what I really am, I like to think it shocks a few stereotypes out of their system.
It can be quite amusing actually when those who assumed what I am find out what I really am, I like to think it shocks a few stereotypes out of their system.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I have found people who dress outrageously and have multiple piercings and/or tattoos tend to be exceedingly friendly and kind. So I like them right off.
Keep in mind, I've never met a violent person... So I'm probably horribly naive
Same here. I used to attend a monthly alternative music night and you had more chance in getting aggravation from the *regular* punters than those who "dressed up". FTR it wasn't a "gay" night Nick M in case you stumble on this and it doesn't compute otherwise....
Hi Aimiel,
You are not surprised that God had an image for his own use - officially named The LORD - the LORD God when he used it to manifest his presence among men, BUT would you be shocked to know that I believe that God manifested his ONE image in identical multiples ... and simultaneously, and that there are at least two examples of where he did this?
You are not surprised that God had an image for his own use - officially named The LORD - the LORD God when he used it to manifest his presence among men, BUT would you be shocked to know that I believe that God manifested his ONE image in identical multiples ... and simultaneously, and that there are at least two examples of where he did this?
The Graphite
New member
Indeed! Because, after all, we live in a cellular democracy. The more cells you are composed of, the more votes you have to outvote people with fewer cells. If I'm bigger than you, I can exercise my cellular authority to take your life.
:dizzy:
The Graphite
New member
Aimiel
Well-known member
Not at all. There's nothing impossible for God. The Holy Spirit, Who lives in believers, is God; and He doesn't have any problem being able to speak, directly, to each and every single one of us, all at the same time, if the need arises.
Krsto
Well-known member
The term murder applies when we are talking about a person.
- Status