it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas

Or, of course, to priest-in-the-middle attacks.

Peter

Well, I guess that algorithm copes with this simple situation, but it doesn't scale to the general case because it can deadlock at stage 2 against another process that's been told the opposite by their god. It's also something of a security risk, as it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas.

Worse yet, many of these applications have proprietary extensions to the God superclass which suppsedly derive their behavior and attributes from God. Then, having no direct access to the God superclass, humans interact with these subclasses which sometimes have critical flaws, and give out the wrong advice, or lead them in ways that the original God class didn't intend.

No offense meant to the Reverend who inhabits the BBS, I'm sure his code is bug-free.

Or, of course, to priest-in-the-middle attacks.

Link for those who didn't get that one.

Well, I don't think that formula gets you out of the dillemma. I am not arguing that it wasn't "wrong". I am only arguing that (as long as others are not involuntarily harmed) it is between them and their conception of "God".

The question is what is the state's role in legislating and enforcing a particular moral code they feel has been revealed by their god. Does belief in a particular god and his revelations give anyone (including the state) the moral authority to impose those standards of behavior (forcefully) upon others? As long as no one else is involved, isn't the proper place for that discussion between them and their God?

If one sees their god as the *only* god, then one will probably answer yes, it is OK to forcefully compel others. That's the same intolerance that led to the inquisitions, 9/11, and many other acts of violent intolerance.

The revelation is clear regarding murder and the sanctity of human life.

Really?

Man, you go to lunch and all heaven breaks loose....(wink)
First of all it's very easy for everyone to jump all over Meatballman and claim we need to be understanding of other people's beliefs. But to do so is simply playing the crowd's sympathies and failing to address the issue. If you think you Superman and that you can jump of a building and fly away, then I am obligated to save you from yourself, if for no other reason than I would hope you do the same for me if someone slipped a mickey in my coke when I wasn't looking.

Second it doesn't matter if someone pretends to be a religious leader and isn't or they are but they're flawed (which is all of us by the way) it doesn't place God to blame for their actions. You are responsible for your beliefs. If I'm a sham and you choose me, that doesn't change or lessen the fact that you are wrong.

Third, the quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful. While it may seem unclear to us, it was perfectly clear to them. And becomes clear to us with historical study.

Now with all of that said, we all believe in absolutes, rightness and wrongness only mucks up the argument until we agree to that. The very computer your looking at would be impossible without certain assumptions on which to base equations.

...we all believe in absolutes...

Hmmm. I don't know what you mean here. I certainly believe in some absolutes, (1=1, c/d==pi, etc.), and, possibly even some morla absolutes, but certainly not many. In fact, it is my belief that, generally, belief in absolutes is what leads people to be extremists, unwilling to accept anyone else's beliefs, and killing them because of it. (See the Crusades, Northern Ireland, Al Qaeda, etc.)

Of course, maybe that's not what you mean.

[T]he quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful

I wasn't trying to imply its correctness, or lack thereof, but only show that the declaration that the Bible shows all life (we'll assume human) as sacred is wrong, as God ordered us to kill others.

Well, I guess that algorithm copes with this simple situation, but it doesn't scale to the general case because it can deadlock at stage 2 against another process that's been told the opposite by their god. It's also something of a security risk, as it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas.

Sounds like virus-like behavior to me. They're trying to bog down resources so that the one true process is lost in the mix of bad processes. Should be fixed when Norton Judgement™ comes out soon. They continue to insist that the release is imminent, but will not set a solid date.

Also, Reverend 1.6™ has been known to have the occasional memory leak and some problems with the interpreter from time to time. Should be fixed when Reverend Millenium Edition comes out.

I wasn't trying to imply its correctness, lack thereof, but only show that the declaration that the Bible shows all life (we'll assume human) as sacred is wrong, as God ordered us to kill others.

Although justice may require the taking of a life, it does not decrease the sanctity of life in any way. In fact, it is the only reason to take a life. But then again...you seem to be well read enough to know this...so I'm not sure why you posted that.

Sounds like virus-like behavior to me. They're trying to bog down resources so that the one true process is lost in the mix of bad processes.

Ah yes, a denial-of-services attack. It looks as if viruses of this type chew up so much CPU on some platforms that common sense is hardly getting to run at all.

Should be fixed when Norton Judgement? comes out soon. They continue to insist that the release is imminent, but will not set a solid date.

There's a word for projects like that: vapourware

Peter

There's a word for projects like that: vapourware

It's not...I assure you. I've seen the preview edtion, it's code-named Revelation™.

Although justice may require the taking of a life ...

A statement with which I do not agree

... it does not decrease the sanctity of life in any way

Again, I disagree.

Third, the quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful. While it may seem unclear to us, it was perfectly clear to them. And becomes clear to us with historical study.

I'm not sure what's "unclear" about Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death that would be clarified by more historical study on our part. Or are you saying that that is a bad rule -- in the sense that it would be bad for society if applied in the modern day -- and it's "unclear", becoming clearer later, why the ancient Palestinians had rules like that?

Peter

I've seen the preview edtion, it's code-named Revelation.

I think those screen-shots were done in Photoshop. (You can see the join where the seven eagles' heads have been composited onto the whore of Babylon.) It's hard to imagine anything like that actually happening in-game.

Peter

I'm just saying that many laws in the Old Testament seem odd until you think about the time and situations. Cities of refuge for manslaughterers seems odd. However going there was better than someone killing you and it wasn't easy because you were separated from family, you wealth(which was mostly land based), and your tribe, not to mention that manslaughter in that day and time was somewhat different without manufacturing (faulty products) and machines (vehicles and such).

I'm not sure that justice requires the taking of life.... however capital punishment does protect the sanctity of life by permanently rendering a known murder from practicing his trade.

I think those screen-shots were done in Photoshop. (You can see the join where the seven eagles' heads have been composited onto the whore of Babylon.) It's hard to imagine anything like that actually happening in-game.

ROFL...*whew*....I love this place....

Having a falling out with one's parents being cause for execution seems a little more than simply odd.

capital punishment does protect the sanctity of life by permanently rendering a known murder[er] from practicing his trade

Which implies that the murderer's life is not sacred, which implies that his life is worth less than that of others, which seems to directly contradict many Christian beliefs, but now I'm conflating pre-Christian Jewish law and Christian ethos, so ....

Not exactly.... sacred (within Christian traditions) doesn't mean untouchable. It means set apart for a purpose. The sacred bread in the temple, the sacred tools around the alter, even the Inner temple were not untouchable. So the murderers life is sacred but that doesn't mean indespensible. His sacred life is being taken as a direct protection of the sacred lives around him.

But your example is an excellent one.... cursing doesn't equate with a simple falling out. Its literal damning them to hell.

I'll admit that I can't read the original text, and I might be wrong about this, but....

I think we'll agree that the word ``curse'' is not very precise in this usage. However, Young's Literal Translation uses the word ``revile'' instead, and the English Standard Version lists ``revile'' and ``dishonor'' in its notes about the usage of ``curse''. So I'd guess that you're wrong in that statement. Unless you can provide me with a translation that is more accurate than YLT.

It seems to be Strong's word number 7043 (qalal), if you've got one of those concordances lying around. Online stuff I've found would seem to support my supposition.

Just to put my two cents in. . .

Just because we've gone and made a mess of things (i.e.: the revelation of God) doesn't give us license to ignore it completely. It’s true enough that there are unclear passages in the bible, and there are also other claimed holy texts that people say are the "Word of God". I feel, however, that to say because the answers aren't immediately clear that whole thing is hopeless and now we should just do whatever feels right and there are no real moral absolutes . . . that's a dangerous path to be on.

I feel, however, that to say because the answers aren't immediately clear that whole thing is hopeless and now we should just do whatever feels right and there are no real moral absolutes . . . that's a dangerous path to be on.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But for my money, it's not half as dangerous a path as saying that the "Word of God" isn't immediately clear but we should follow it anyway. Nine times out of ten, if something isn't written clearly it's because it wasn't thought through properly in the first place. Unless you're from one of those religions which claims that an infallible being dictated the whole holy book word-for-word, this is tantamount to saying that the human authors of these "Words of God" probably screwed up some bits.

Which they did, of course. It's non-coincidental, but meaningless, that popular religions have rules that (in the social situations where they were forged) strengthen societies. Of course the religions that have survived from those times do that: the religions that don't, of which there were plenty, haven't survived -- they were out-evolved by the social-cohesion religions.

It's unlikely that even Moses or Christ, or anyone else in those times, was a good enough sociologist or anthropologist to realise that that's what they were doing -- and so Judaism and Christianity didn't have to compete against any soundly anthropologically designed religions. Survival of the fittest doesn't imply survival of the perfect.

Peter

"But for my money, it's not half as dangerous a path as saying that the 'Word of God' isn't immediately clear but we should follow it anyway."

I'll agree here. There are way too many people who make very bad decisions base on their interpretation of the "Word of God." I think this is an awful thing and flings more mud on Jesus than anyone "on the outside" can do. Many people who follow the bible do not take to heart the awesome responsibility it takes to read the scriptures with humility and responsibility.

That being said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it. Nor does it mean we shouldn't investigate different religions on the basis of history, archeology, internal consistency, etc. in order to determine which, if any of them, might actually be true.

Nor does my above statement mean that there aren't some clear and plain statements that can be taken at face value and understood exactly as they were intended.

You're quite right. My statment was from memory, which should never be trusted when you have 14 bibles and countless resources sitting within 5 feet. I apologize.

Hey -- no apology needed. I suppose there would be fewer problems all around if bible translators had taken care to be less ambiguous.

I should find a print copy of YLT.

i gotta say folks... this is the first religous thread i've ever read on a BBS that was anywhere near coherent and worth reading. This place never ceases to amaze.