Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Judgments
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 259 (175971)
01-11-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by mike the wiz
01-11-2005 5:07 PM


Messiah Criteria.
Mike, in Message 116 you say: " ... but in reality - there simply isn't any other Messiah candidate."
By "candidate" do we assume you mean a person who may someday become Messiah, or do you mean someone who already has fullfilled all requirements at this time?
Although I am not Jewish either, for a Jewish perspective on criteria for messiahship, may I take the liberty of pasting the following:
Messiah Criteria
1) He must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15
2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." Genesis 49:10)
3) He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
4) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
5) He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
6) He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
7) He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
8) He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28:
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/...neral-messiah-criteria.html
I understand that many have claimed to be Messiah, and that many have claimed that someone has already fullfilled all the criteria for a messiah; however, there you have it.
Regards, Abshalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by mike the wiz, posted 01-11-2005 5:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by mike the wiz, posted 01-11-2005 8:25 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 122 of 259 (175989)
01-11-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Abshalom
01-11-2005 7:04 PM


mike grows offended, and unleashes a river of words
I'm sick and tired and offended of people quoting the bible, which they don't believe. You forget the premise that the Jewish also say there'd be a Messiah - you say there isn't and never has been - and don't believe in prophecy or Spirit or God or a Messiah.
John 5:39; Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you , that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my fathers name and ye receive me not. If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. [EvC]--> How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?.
I could trace every last scripture that mentions Christ. And like you, I could take quotes that serve my cause. But why? I've done it before - and you didn't hear me then. Will you hear me now? Have you changed from yesterday? Can I prove something? I think if I could, you wouldn't need to believe. So here is some of my own investigative bible searches. Despite believing - I very rarely abuse the bible by quoting it. But now I grow tired of people saying Jesus is not the Messiah all the time. So I'll prove nothing - and simply show why I believe this;
Isaiah 6: 9; Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me.
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
.......Isaiah 6:10: (Lest people be converted and healed by hearing). Converted?
Isaiah 11:10 (The Gentiles will seek a route of Jesse). Do you know of this person?
Isaiah 7:14: (Born of a virgin, Immanuel ) Do you know of any Jew who was born of a virgin in scripture?
Isaiah 53; ( The sufferings of Christ foretold) It includes the person being wounded for our transgressions, with his stripes - us being healed, having done no violence, ) - Why would we be healed by someone's stripes? Doesn't the law require that we are the ones punished for our transgressions?
But that's not mentioning him being a light unto the Gentiles. What Jew was a light for Gentiles? Nor Jeremiah, "He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS"........And the NT says, "We are the righteousness of God in Christ" - which I believe was ignored in my other post, as with everything else. Tell me - why would the Lord be our righteousness? Don't we have to be righteouss via the law of Moses?
And so - who do you think the Jewish Messiah was then? I trust you have an answer? You must know of someone else that qualified.
4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Proverbs 30
17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Matthew 3
Isaiah 53 4-6
He was wounded and crushed because of our sins;
by taking our punishment
he made us completely well
All of us were like sheep that had wandered off
We had each gone our own way
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deserved
Genesis 49:9-12:
"You are a lion's cub Oh Judah:
you return from the prey my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness - who dares to rouse him?
The sceptre will not depart from Judah
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of nations is his
He will tether his donkey to a vine
His colt to the choicest branch
but he will wash his garments in wine
His robes in the blood of grapes
His eyes will be darker than wine
His teeth whiter than milk."
Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.
for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God
Judges 13:5
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene
Matthew 2:23
Zech 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Mark 11:7-11
When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
"Hosanna!"
Zech 11:12 Btrayed for thirty pieces of silver Matt 26:13 - 14.
Isaiah 53:7 Remained silent before His accusers Mark 15:4-5.
Psalm 22:17-18 cast lots for His clothing Matt 27:35-36.
Psalm 34:20 No bones broken John 19:32-36.
And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. --Who then can understand? You - a none-believer in prophecy or Spirit?
Abshalom quoting bible writes:
) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
Yes - after the Holocaust, the Jews returned. You mention what we consider the second coming events, that preced the Messiah.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-11-2005 20:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Abshalom, posted 01-11-2005 7:04 PM Abshalom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 1:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 179 by Rrhain, posted 01-13-2005 1:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 259 (176069)
01-12-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Lizard Breath
01-11-2005 10:04 AM


Re: Moral Wrongs?
Hello Lizardbreath:
You have made some very interesting points and none that I could respond to briefly, so I apologise for the length of this post as to fully explain my position required addressing all the points you made. I shall break your post up and address each point individually (and hopefully make sense) to show the premise behind my statement; that it is wrong to impose mores.
The point made:
Shaz writes:
Imposing our sense of morality, on another culture I think is wrong, but I also think that it is wrong to sit by and watch people be subjected to horrific acts
Lizardbreath writes:
The whole concept of wrong is somewhat bizzare to me. To try to say what is morally wrong is about as straight forward as saying that something is "good".
I never used the term 'morally wrong', in fact I said imposing morals on another was wrong. Which is why I personalised my comment with the, I perspective. The term wrong I use as being applicable to, ‘the violation of rights of another’. The basic premise of rights I hold for all of mankind, is that of equal value. My statement is not meant to imply an imposition of my mores on anyone; nor judge their actions based on my mores. I merely try to live and act by the code; that we as human beings are of equal value and subsequently of equal rights.
The basic premise of my belief I draw from this conclusion:
Throughout our individual lives we learn, we grow, we experience, we develop knowledge and mores. No two set of mores can ever be totally alike, subsequently one set of mores could never be held as the standard. Though we develop over time, we all start from the basic precept of having life. If we do not hold to the basic precept that life forms should have rights and be protected, then we must acknowledge that every single thing on this planet has no value. If anyone can say that they place meaning/value in one single life form, even if only their own, then value of life is a reality. Life is also the only single common denonimater we all share from the first breath, when we are vulnerable. So I base my premise on that concept, that the basic sanctuary of life, should be respected and given value.
‘Wrong’ - Re: beheading example.
To see a man or a group of men cut off a woman's head , was it wrong for them to do that to me? - No.
This example you use is implying that one set of mores is of higher value than the rights of another. If the beheaded woman knowingly volunteered, then one could say that no matter how repugnant I find the act, there is no wrongness with the act in itself. If on the other hand, the woman was not a willing participant, then by taking her life, that is placing the mores of the perpetrator above the rights of the victim.
No matter what justification one place’s on the beheading act though, in relation to the universe or her biological elements, the taking of her life without her consent is a violation of the basic rights. If her right is to be equally valued, then that includes the right to self determination (that is not to say that determinatin and choice cannot be biased, or be at a disequilibrium). This is not based on any religious precept; it is merely a statement in relation to existence. On the other hand one could dispute whether she was of equal value, but again to do so would be applying ones own individual value/more system, and would be an act of supremacy. Taking this into account and my basic premise of equal value and rights; is why I hold the view that imposing mores on another is wrong.
Your point in relation to mores and brain activity, I will post seperately in case the admin wish to move them to another thread.
Shaz
This message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 16:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Lizard Breath, posted 01-11-2005 10:04 AM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Shaz, posted 01-12-2005 1:46 AM Shaz has not replied
 Message 248 by Lizard Breath, posted 01-17-2005 7:52 AM Shaz has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 259 (176070)
01-12-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
01-11-2005 6:22 PM


holmes writes:
quote:
Homosexuality has been and still is linked statistically to greater psychological/physical/social problems. They are nearly the exact same kind and effect that children which have been abused exhibit.
The way you're presenting your case makes it seem as though you're acting as Tal's champion. As you say, I am gay and I fight for gay rights. But unlike the persona you wish to assign to me I didn't just start doing it yesterday. I've seen lots of studies like this and they're usually about as reliable as Answers in Genesis. Maybe yours is better. Let's see it.
Oh and by the way, I'm particularly interested in seeing the part about physical harm.
quote:
If you successfully argue that we must view harm within what the society may cause based on its beliefs, then you are paving a road right back into homosexuality being a problem and good reason to be criminalized.
I am doing nothing of the sort, and how the hell did we get here from my challenge to Tal (which btw continues to go ignored). We don't even know if Tal is deep enough to contemplate your line of reasoning.
Furthermore, I resent the implication that the only harm suffered by victims of child rape is societal. Get a grip for chrissake!

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 01-11-2005 6:22 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Silent H, posted 01-12-2005 5:12 AM berberry has replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 259 (176072)
01-12-2005 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Shaz
01-12-2005 1:33 AM


Re: Moral Wrongs?
Following on from previous thread.
Mores and brain activity.
Lizardbreath writes:
Her biological elements will be recycled back, the energy from her corpse will be recovered by the same system. So from a quantitative measurement, no wrong was done The same as when a star goes into a super nova state and explodes, but the actions themselves are meaninglessTo me, when you look at the relevance of events like that on a grand scale and see the irrelevance of it with respect to the universe, then scaling it down to our own human level puts perspective on things. To subject a human or group of humans to supposedly "horrific" circumstances might qualify as a moral wrong in one person’s inner universe of their brain's electro/chemical activity and the associated emotional byproduct phenomena. But on a qualitative scale compared to if our own Sun were to explode and our planet destroyed, there is no wrong.
Using the sun and an exploding comparison; is indeed relevant to the beheading scenario you pose. What I use my energy for, or how I wish it to be used in future, is my right to determine, and anyone taking that would be subjecting me to their value/mores system. The sun acting within its own energy base is very different, to one choosing to blow up the sun. If all matter is energy, then each component has its role. Though there may be interaction, cause and affect, consciously and forcibly attempting to alter the equilibrium of life, proposes judgement. In relation to mores and rights, a conflictual situation arises.
Lizardbreath writes:
In fact, the elements producing the electro/chemical activity that is driving the observed behaviour to behead someone is just as natural as the same type of electro/chemical activity compelling a person to drop a dollar into a Salvation Army Kettle.
You are also right in your comparison of beheading, and putting a dollar into a Salvation Army tin. Though in the giving of charity, you are not determining the affect on a specific individual, whereas with beheading you are. If you are the distributor of that charity though, then reasonably the same principle should apply, that all people are of equal value and rights. Anything less, is imposing ones individual value/mores on them, implying judgement and supremacy.
Reason and method.
Lizardbreath writes:
the world from a purely natural perspective, certain observed actions by humans are going to result in electro/chemical reactions, byproduct of which is thought and emotion. But to assign morality to any of my own electo/chemical activity in my brain would mean that there is a reason or method to my thinking.
IMHO, mores directly stem from the process of brain activity in relation to the cause and affect principle, which leads to intellectual reasoning. No two brains are wired in precisely the same manner, or have the exact same chemical composition. It is through knowledge and reasoning that one develops their set of mores, i.e. your nerves are wired to the physiological process of tactile stimuli. Example: You touch a hot plate, subsequently you avoid future episodes, then you get burnt by the sun, or stand too close to a heater, you may then begin to apply the same principle to all sources of heat or their like. However individual perception is a combination of other stimuli, cause and effect, much like your pebble example, it affects those in the vicinity, but it also is a component of the whole view.
In the case of beheading, applying that to conscious thinking, the victim may have prior knowledge/experience of pain, fear of the unknown, fear of disempowerment or a myriad of other things, or equally none. Each emotion is connected to experiences, which make the collective consciousness of the individual. To say that there is no reason to our brain process, is like stating that the person’s experiences have not been real, and implies that the feeling or experience should be weighted according to a particular scale. Therefore attempting to apply any one set of mores to another being, is illogical, but a basic premise of rights is applicable to all.
To test this, I could ask you to turn on a hot plate and tell a toddler with no prior experience of burn to put their hand on it. If I was to ask this though, it would be a confliction of rights and mores, i.e. demonstrating by example - knowingly inflicting harm to one who has no concept of the likely ramifications - my more: to harm a child is wrong - your more may equally be that the idea of harming a child is repugnant. If we reversed our mores though, to have no regard for the rights of the child, and tested the proposed idea, then we would be exerting our mores over the rights of the child, and subsequently we would be wrong. However if I turned on the hotplate and put my own hand on it, there is nothing right or wrong, it just is, albeit possibly stupid.
Brain activity as a chance event.
Lizardbreath writes:
In reality, since the whole existance of my brain is simply a chance event and a culmination of many related and non-related accidents in our universe, then any phenomena such as intellectual perceptions would only be byproducts of brain activity, All are just natural events driven by chance though.
I disagree that the existence of the brain is merely a chance event, it ‘may’ be predetermined, but that is a different debate. Chance however implies to me, that we have no control over our existence, or what we come to learn or know. Knowledge and/or information, is a pivotal cornerstone in cause and affect.
Example: I may choose to sunbake, being unaware of the suns radiation, I read about skin cancer, and that may then affect my attitude to sunbaking in future. Had I been given biased information, or influenced by someone I care about, that further adds to the weight of the information I receive.
Equally if I was to watch a video of a beheading, and be repulsed, am I going to be the next time? Could I be repulsed today, and in two years find it provocative? Could I be the perpetrator today, and tomorrow decide I don’t wish to be that type of person, or vice versa? All these are possible, and all may be a product of our brain activity as you say. To imply though that these are chance, takes all onus of responsibility of me completely and places my perspective along the lines of either ignorance or supremacy thinking. It also implies that I; am without any concept of foresight, which may lead me to desire gaining knowledge and information. It also implies that I am unable to train my brain along a particular path, or that I may not influence its activity and neuron functioning. Basic chemical restraint, Neuro linguistic programming, hypnosis, speech pathology, sensory integration therapy, and many other therapies would not be successful if such was the case. Subsequently chance is only restricted by what I have access to, and my individual desire.
Therefore I conclude, that wrong is indeed a component of our existance, but that it is merely a basis for placing value on life, because it is the common denominator we all share, have shared, and will share. Wrong is not a judgement, it is about the reality of upholding the right and the basic premise of equal value in life to all. Of course this is my perception and my mores, but as I said before I believe that it is entirely feasible that everyone places value in some life form, even if only themselves.
Okay that is all, now you can shoot me down.
Shaz
Apologies for the length of this post.
This message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 17:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Shaz, posted 01-12-2005 1:33 AM Shaz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Lizard Breath, posted 01-17-2005 8:31 AM Shaz has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 259 (176073)
01-12-2005 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by mike the wiz
01-11-2005 8:25 PM


Re: mike grows offended, and unleashes a river of words
mike the wiz declares:
quote:
I'm sick and tired and offended of people quoting the bible, which they don't believe.
What about when the point is to show why?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by mike the wiz, posted 01-11-2005 8:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 259 (176080)
01-12-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Silent H
01-11-2005 2:01 PM


Re: Higher Laws
holmes writes me:
quote:
I would point out that challenging him to defend his belief is outside of the scope of this thread.
Well, then, you would be wrong! He made a bigoted comment about homosexuality and I challenged him on it. Why do I not have the right to do so? And how is my challenge off-topic in a thread about moral judgements?
I'm all for keeping threads on-topic, but when bigoted remarks are made they have to be challenged. I don't read through every post in every thread, but when I see such stupidity I call people on it unless someone else beats me to it.
What's more, although this might seem somewhat OT from the original proposition of the OP, in light of the thread originator's P6 which clarified and expanded the OP I don't think we're off-topic at all. My challenge to Tal is directly related to a comparison of his blanket condemnation of homosexuality with the near universal condemnation of child rape within our common societal value system.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Silent H, posted 01-11-2005 2:01 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 2:31 AM berberry has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 128 of 259 (176084)
01-12-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by berberry
01-12-2005 2:11 AM


Re: Higher Laws
He made a bigoted comment about homosexuality and I challenged him on it.
Actually you asked me if homosexuality was wrong, and I answered.
And why does my statement offend you if you believe homosexuality is not wrong?
If you came up to me and told me that heterosexuality is as wrong as a boy kissing a girl, I'd laugh at you and say have a nice life. It wouldn't concern me in the least and I certainly wouldn't be offended by it or consider it bigoted.
Now my point with going from homosexuality to pedophilia to polygamy is this:
You tell me I have no evidence to support homosexuality being morally wrong. I tell you that you have no evidence to draw the line and tell me that pedophilia or polygamy is wrong. But if you tell me that you draw a line before pedophilia, how can you draw that line but I can't draw it before homosexuality?
My question to you is this: Who draws the line? Where is the line drawn?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 2:11 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 2:51 AM Tal has replied
 Message 130 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 2:56 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 138 by Shaz, posted 01-12-2005 4:13 AM Tal has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 259 (176091)
01-12-2005 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tal
01-12-2005 2:31 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Tal asks:
quote:
Who draws the line?
The one who wins the case based on the evidence.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 2:31 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 3:13 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 259 (176092)
01-12-2005 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tal
01-12-2005 2:31 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Tal also wrote:
quote:
Actually you asked me if homosexuality was wrong, and I answered.
I'm not the one who asked you. I picked up when you answered that person (I think it was schraf) by challenging you to show an evidentiary basis for your moral condemnation of boy kissing boy.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 2:31 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 131 of 259 (176093)
01-12-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by berberry
01-12-2005 2:51 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Tal asks: Who draws the line
quote:
The one who wins the case based on the evidence.
What, here in this form? In court?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 2:51 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 3:22 AM Tal has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 259 (176094)
01-12-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tal
01-12-2005 3:13 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Tal asks:
quote:
What, here in this form? In court?
Court is just another debating forum, albeit a pretty important one. This little forum is insignificant by comparison, but yes evidence does generally rule the day here.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 3:13 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 3:41 AM berberry has replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 259 (176095)
01-12-2005 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
01-11-2005 6:22 PM


Holmes:
Excuse me for jumping in here, but we might need to butt heads again.
After reading over the previous posts a couple of comments you made that I would like to see addressed.
Post 74 writes:
However, and this is also beyond dispute, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that sexual activity (in general) is harmful to anyone at any age even when engaged in by anyone else of any other age.
Really Holmes? I would like to see your support for that statement. Making an assertion that this is beyond dispute, does not gel with my knowledge of the social science industry.
post 74 writes:
Outside cases of overt rape and coercion, harm from sexual "abuse" stems from social expectations enforced on those who have been through a sexual encounter which is beyond the "norm". This does not minimize the harm that has been done, but does change the direction from which it is coming.
I am sorry Holmes, but again I need to ask for your supporting evidence of your comments: to seperate the level of harm in relation to rape, coercion, and sexual abuse. Having worked in the child protection industry, I have a different understanding than what you have stated. I am also interested in seeing your definitions to seperate, sexual abuse from coercion, and/or rape, and/or harm.
Therefore Holmes could you please, either support your claims, rephrase them, or retract them.
Shaz
edit ~ typo
This message has been edited by Shaz, 12 January 2005 18:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 01-11-2005 6:22 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 134 of 259 (176096)
01-12-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by berberry
01-12-2005 3:22 AM


Re: Higher Laws
This little forum is insignificant by comparison, but yes evidence does generally rule the day here.
What can I use as evidence for a sexual act being wrong?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 3:22 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by berberry, posted 01-12-2005 3:45 AM Tal has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 259 (176097)
01-12-2005 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Tal
01-12-2005 3:41 AM


Re: Higher Laws
Tal asks:
quote:
What can I use as evidence for a sexual act being wrong?
Anything empirical that would lead to the logical conclusion that the sexual act in question is wrong.

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 3:41 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tal, posted 01-12-2005 4:00 AM berberry has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024