[Seekers] Punishment
Michael W. Fisher mwfisher@cts.com
Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:39:41 -0800 (00888802781, 34F9B97D.957A669E@cts.com)
Ward Fenley wrote:
> Linda wrote:
> >
> > My Dear Friends,
> >
> > Why does it seem that in the "church world" everything must be
> > "absolute"... black and white... right and wrong. We all know in the REAL
> > world there is good and bad in everyone. There is some truth in many things
> > and some falsehood in all things.
>
> Ok, without the Bible, prove to me that anyone's definition of "right"
> and "wrong" is absolute.
>
> Linda, if I walk over and kill Chuck in cold blood, try to prove to me
> without the Bible that it's wrong. You can't, cause without the Bible
> you have no absolutes.
>
> Linda, for so long you have believed in preterism, but you cannot tell
> me its the truth with your view. At least be consistent. Don't pull a
> Davey and pick and choose what you believe is the word of God.
>
> >
> > Many would assert that the Bible is ABSOLUTE truth yet its very own pages
> > nullify that assertion. They illustrate damnation and salvation but the
> > stories portray the guilty as being delivered (David and Uriah) and the
> > innocent and best... punished and persecuted (Christ).
>
> Again, without the Bible, who are you to tell me its wrong to steal?
> Because society says so?????? Absurd. Some societies teach it is very
> proper to eat your babies. So then now it's a cultural ISSUE????? Right!
>
Okay Ward, maybe you can solve the following quiz. I've given it to almost a
dozen different professing Christians on assorted different lists. So fat none
have succeeded. Maybe, since you're so sure of yourself, you can succeed where
they have failed to so much as make an attempt:
1.) Define, via the bible, "murder".
2.) Define, via the bible, "stealing".
3.) Define, via the bible, "rape".
What you should be able to do is find the applicable passages and demonstrate
that it is unnecessary to already know what "murder" "stealing" or "rape" are in
order to infer that each is prohibited. Another way to put it is that you should
be able to go through the Bible, replace any instance of any of the above words
or
their cognates, and demonstrate that the Bible defines such terms contextually
such that it is possible to know exactly what it is that is prohibited, even if
that particular word was otherwise unknown for some reason.
Bonus question: Is it wrong, as in immoral (a sin?) for you to lose property
which someone else has entrusted to your care, and which you have voluntarily
agreed to safe guard? In legal speak, you agree to act as the bailor of the
bailees property, thus creating a bailment. At law, the bailor is liable for any
loss or damage to the bailees property once the bailment is created. That's the
law. Thus the question in effect asks: Is the law moral?
If you cannot come up with satisfactory answers for at least the first three
above, using the bible and strict deductive logic, then what that tells us is
that
the Bible, rather than being "gods holy word" and a SOURCE of "absolute morals"
actually -presupposes- that the reader already HAS a moral code, and thus thus
the bible merely supplies Gods backing for the priestly punishments for
violations
of the presupposed moral code by putting the sentences in Gods mouth. But note,
that adds nothing to the arena of moral discourse.
************
Good luck.
Ciao.
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student
>>NEW->http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/lioaca.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994
* * *
". . . a very LONG discussion is one of the most
effective veils of Fallacy: . . . A Fallacy which
when stated barely . . . would not deceive a child,
may deceive half the world if diluted in a quarto
volume"
Richard Whately, "Elements of Logic", p. 151