| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Amangi Machque" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2006 05:35:09 PM |
| Object: |
Violent? |
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5491/870/1600/95910275_633623cfeb.jpg
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 09:03:33 PM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5491/870/1600/95910275_633623cfeb.jpg
I don't open email attachments, and I dont click on unknown picture
links. If you have something to say, spit it out in text.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 09:10:16 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: I don't open email attachments, and I dont click on unknown picture
: links.
Not a problem.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
10 Mar 2006 06:52:02 PM |
|
|
The foundation of all Christian and Jewish religions is based on the Bibles.
There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated to
impress and control their flock.
There are NO original copies of the Bibles. They are all ALTERED hand copies
of copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands
of years. There is no
Accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or historical
accuracy.
The Bibles obviously contain a plentitude of myths, fables, legends and
totally
impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written during Jesus' 'claimed'
life time.
Time and distance was required to allow the creation of fictional stories
and the embellishment of history.
There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the ones
that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
yet only four
made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
"This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church leaders
to support their personal motives and ambitions..
The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which books
were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words, the
only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires and
motives of the church leadership at the time
This means that the fundamental religion is not based on the Bible, as they
claim so fervently... it means the Bibles were selected and embellished to
support the claims of the church leadership at the time.
It is also interesting that, even though the Biblical canon was purposely
chosen to include only books that met the church leaders opinions at the
time, there is so much inconsistency and contradictions in the Bibles. And
it is even more interesting that so many fundamentalists proclaim that there
are no contradictions in the Bible! If that were true, then why are there so
many different sects of Christianity and different Bible versions?
For example, Christianity is basically divided into three main sects: the
Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants. And the
Protestant branch alone is divided into numerous different sects: the
Adventists, the Amish, the Anglican Church, the Apostolic Faith, the
Assemblies of God, the Baptists, the Brethren, the Christian Church, the
Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints (the Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Congregational
Christian Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Congregational
Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the
Mennonites, the Methodists, the Pentecostal Churches, the Presbyterians, the
Salvation Army, the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and at least 66
other sects!
And that does not count the different sub-sects of these sects! For example,
the Baptists are further divided into: the American Baptist Convention, the
Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Association, the Baptist
General Conference, the Bethel Baptist Assembly, the Christian Unity Baptist
Association, the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Baptist
Church of Christ, the Free Will Baptists... and at least 19 other sub-sects.
And there are no "minor differences" between these sub-sects. For example,
the Southern Baptist Association was formed in 1845 in large part
because of disagreements with other Baptists concerning slavery.
The other Protestant sects are also broken up into various sub-sects. For
example, the Methodists have 23, the Mennonites 15; the Presbyterians 9; the
Mormons 3; etc.
And yet (especially for the more right-wing sects), these numerous sects and
sub-sects claim to possess the truth of the Bible in its purest form... and
each one are able to quote verses from the Bible to prove it! The Bibles are
so loaded with vague stories and unsubstantiated claims that one can find
texts to support almost ANYTHING. So much for the "harmony" of the Bible.
Anyone that reads the Bibles objectively can see that they are books of
fables, myths, legends and totally impossible tales. They are certainly not
the word of any god unless he was an absolute idiot.
Believing in the Bibles is not much better than believing in Alice in
Wonderland, Harry Potter or Aesop's Fables. At least the latter are good
literature.
"Amangi Machque" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:yvSdnZ4mAqOykI_ZRVn-uw@comcast.com...
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5491/870/1600/95910275_633623cfeb.jpg
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
10 Mar 2006 07:08:26 PM |
|
|
"Bill" wrote
: The foundation of all Christian and Jewish religions is based on the
Bibles.
:
: There is NO - NADA _evidence the Bibles are the word of any Gods. They are
: no more than the words of hundreds of errant religious leaders motivated
to
: impress and control their flock.
:
: There are NO original copies of the Bibles. They are all ALTERED hand
copies
: of copies of copies etc. by hundreds of scribes over a period of thousands
: of years. There is no
:
: Accurate objective way to determine their authenticity or historical
: accuracy.
:
: The Bibles obviously contain a plentitude of myths, fables, legends and
: totally
:
: impossible tales. NONE of the Bibles were written during Jesus' 'claimed'
: life time.
:
: Time and distance was required to allow the creation of fictional stories
: and the embellishment of history.
:
: There is also the matter of the Biblical canon itself. After all, ancient
: Israel and the early church knew of many more religious books than the
ones
: that now constitute the Bible. For example, there were 50 gospels in
: circulation at the time the New Testaments were chosen by church leaders,
: yet only four
: made it into the New Testament. Who decided which of the books would
: become part of the Christian scriptures, and again, "Why?" Who decided,
: "This book belongs... this book doesn't..."? What were their reasons?
: What were their motives? How do we know if ANY of them were authentic?
: In addition there is evidence that the Bibles were altered by church
leaders
: to support their personal motives and ambitions..
:
: The fact is, there are no clear records available which document the
: church's process of determining which books were acceptable and which
books
: were unacceptable and why. The general consensus of opinion among scholars
: is that the decision was based on whether or not the book agreed with the
: prevailing theological thought and motives at the time. In other words,
the
: only books accepted were the ones that agreed with the opinions, desires
and
: motives of the church leadership at the time
:
: This means that the fundamental religion is not based on the Bible, as
they
: claim so fervently... it means the Bibles were selected and embellished to
: support the claims of the church leadership at the time.
:
: It is also interesting that, even though the Biblical canon was purposely
: chosen to include only books that met the church leaders opinions at the
: time, there is so much inconsistency and contradictions in the Bibles. And
: it is even more interesting that so many fundamentalists proclaim that
there
: are no contradictions in the Bible! If that were true, then why are there
so
: many different sects of Christianity and different Bible versions?
:
: For example, Christianity is basically divided into three main sects: the
: Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants. And the
: Protestant branch alone is divided into numerous different sects: the
: Adventists, the Amish, the Anglican Church, the Apostolic Faith, the
: Assemblies of God, the Baptists, the Brethren, the Christian Church, the
: Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
: Day Saints (the Mormons), the Church of the Nazarene, the Congregational
: Christian Churches, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Congregational
: Church, the Friends (Quakers), the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Lutherans, the
: Mennonites, the Methodists, the Pentecostal Churches, the Presbyterians,
the
: Salvation Army, the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and at least
66
: other sects!
:
:
: And that does not count the different sub-sects of these sects! For
example,
: the Baptists are further divided into: the American Baptist Convention,
the
: Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Association, the Baptist
: General Conference, the Bethel Baptist Assembly, the Christian Unity
Baptist
: Association, the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Baptist
: Church of Christ, the Free Will Baptists... and at least 19 other
sub-sects.
: And there are no "minor differences" between these sub-sects. For example,
: the Southern Baptist Association was formed in 1845 in large part
: because of disagreements with other Baptists concerning slavery.
:
: The other Protestant sects are also broken up into various sub-sects. For
: example, the Methodists have 23, the Mennonites 15; the Presbyterians 9;
the
: Mormons 3; etc.
:
: And yet (especially for the more right-wing sects), these numerous sects
and
: sub-sects claim to possess the truth of the Bible in its purest form...
and
: each one are able to quote verses from the Bible to prove it! The Bibles
are
: so loaded with vague stories and unsubstantiated claims that one can find
: texts to support almost ANYTHING. So much for the "harmony" of the Bible.
:
: Anyone that reads the Bibles objectively can see that they are books of
: fables, myths, legends and totally impossible tales. They are certainly
not
: the word of any god unless he was an absolute idiot.
:
: Believing in the Bibles is not much better than believing in Alice in
: Wonderland, Harry Potter or Aesop's Fables. At least the latter are good
: literature.
You said it brother.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
11 Mar 2006 02:01:03 AM |
|
|
at the root of all law is the threat of violence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
11 Mar 2006 02:11:24 AM |
|
|
"Ha SATAN" wrote
:
: at the root of all law is the threat of violence
I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
11 Mar 2006 03:00:36 AM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Ha SATAN" wrote
:
: at the root of all law is the threat of violence
I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
religion necessarily proposes a dharma
"law"
deviation from such presumes punishment
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 06:54:52 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Ha SATAN" wrote
:
: at the root of all law is the threat of violence
I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
religion necessarily proposes a dharma
"law"
deviation from such presumes punishment
What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 06:57:27 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > > :
: > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > >
: > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: >
: > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: >
: > "law"
: >
: > deviation from such presumes punishment
:
: What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation of
the points he made.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 08:46:16 PM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > > :
: > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > >
: > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: >
: > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: >
: > "law"
: >
: > deviation from such presumes punishment
:
: What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation of
the points he made.
"Please?" You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Punishment is the most crude of all disciplinary concepts. It comes
from the bronze age. Our president is always out the "punishing" some
nation or other for their imagined injuries to America - as though we
never injured anyone and should not be ourselves "punished" for our
national crimes.
Do you think American citizens should be "punished" for Truman's
decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
When a boy steals a loaf of bread, the policeman arrests the boy and
cuts off his hand, or puts him in prison, or flogs him in the public
square. All of those are punishment.
The baker loses a loaf, the boy loses his hand or a year out of his
life. The policeman takes his wages from the public till. Everybody
loses except the policeman and the executioner. And the village dogs
who eat the hand.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 08:55:00 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Amangi Machque wrote:
: > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > : Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > : > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > : > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > : > > :
: > : > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > : > >
: > : > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: > : >
: > : > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: > : >
: > : > "law"
: > : >
: > : > deviation from such presumes punishment
: > :
: > : What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
: >
: > Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation
of
: > the points he made.
:
: "Please?"
Yes, please show how your reply was an intelligent refutation of the points
he made.
Ex. 1:
How does asserting that what he wrote crude really refute the points he
made.
Ex. 2:
Please show how asserting that it was no wonder that he left the stone age
refute the points he made
: You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Honest, verifiable examples please.
(avoidance of above question snipped)
Please pay attention to what I asked you.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 09:16:41 PM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Amangi Machque wrote:
: > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > : Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > : > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > : > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > : > > :
: > : > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > : > >
: > : > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: > : >
: > : > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: > : >
: > : > "law"
: > : >
: > : > deviation from such presumes punishment
: > :
: > : What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
: >
: > Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation
of
: > the points he made.
:
: "Please?"
Yes, please show how your reply was an intelligent refutation of the points
he made.
Ex. 1:
How does asserting that what he wrote crude really refute the points he
made.
Ex. 2:
Please show how asserting that it was no wonder that he left the stone age
refute the points he made
: You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Honest, verifiable examples please.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/browse_frm/thread/22e0267cc13ff5fd/7513c2727b904b80#7513c2727b904b80
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 09:21:46 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Amangi Machque wrote:
: > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > : Amangi Machque wrote:
: > : > "Terry Cross" wrote
: > : > : Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > : > : > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > : > : > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > : > : > > :
: > : > : > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > : > : > >
: > : > : > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "law"
: > : > : >
: > : > : > deviation from such presumes punishment
: > : > :
: > : > : What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
: > : >
: > : > Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent
refutation
: > of
: > : > the points he made.
: > :
: > : "Please?"
: >
: > Yes, please show how your reply was an intelligent refutation of the
points
: > he made.
: >
: > Ex. 1:
: >
: > How does asserting that what he wrote crude really refute the points he
: > made.
: >
: > Ex. 2:
: >
: > Please show how asserting that it was no wonder that he left the stone
age
: > refute the points he made
: >
: > : You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
: >
: > Honest, verifiable examples please.
:
:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/browse_frm/thread/22e0267cc13ff5fd/7513c2727b904b80#7513c2727b904b80
This merely shows that I was attempting to get as many facts as possible
before responding with any kind of rebuttal.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." Shawnee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
15 Mar 2006 12:52:58 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > > :
: > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > >
: > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: >
: > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: >
: > "law"
: >
: > deviation from such presumes punishment
:
: What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation of
the points he made.
"Please?" You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Punishment is the most crude of all disciplinary concepts. It comes
from the bronze age. Our president is always out the "punishing" some
nation or other for their imagined injuries to America - as though we
never injured anyone and should not be ourselves "punished" for our
national crimes.
Do you think American citizens should be "punished" for Truman's
decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
When a boy steals a loaf of bread, the policeman arrests the boy and
cuts off his hand, or puts him in prison, or flogs him in the public
square. All of those are punishment.
The baker loses a loaf, the boy loses his hand or a year out of his
life. The policeman takes his wages from the public till. Everybody
loses except the policeman and the executioner. And the village dogs
who eat the hand.
TCross
these are examples of severity --gradations of punishment.
no applications were proposed.
what was stated was that there is at the root of all law the
implication of an authority that imposes a will via the power to kill.
the same applies to all religions and thus all cultures.
your confusion lies in misinterpreting particular applications in
particular circumstances.
since you seem to have problems with abstract thought i suppose you
need an example.
there is no death penalty for refusal to pay taxes in certain
countries.
but in cases where the individual defies the authority, the authority
pays such person a visit and begins imposing punishments in GRADATIONS.
at each level of punishment if the individual refuses compliance,
the punishment is increased, and so on.
in some cases this leads to armed authorities surrounding a dwelling
and the armed individual barricaded inside his home in continued
defiance of the law.
in the end the individual surrenders or is killed.
if death were not the ultimate threat of the law there would be no
compliance in the first place.
all the gradations and increasing punishments if unsuccessful in
effecting compliance at the last end in the ultimate punishment, no
idle threat, death.
that some cultures use 'banishment' for certain laws merely indicates a
gradation once removed from actual death (symbolic death). but if the
individual concerned refused to comply with the banishment sentence and
resisted then this too would end in death.
without the threat of death there can be no 'law'
it would have no power
and thus no authority
even a parking ticket has at its root the threat of death for non
compliance.
this eludes most only because most people wisely comply when the
penalties have been imposed and they are trying to get a bank loan or
some such.
if they insisted on non-compliance the punishments would ever increase
to the point of no return.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
15 Mar 2006 02:29:04 PM |
|
|
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > > :
: > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > >
: > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: >
: > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: >
: > "law"
: >
: > deviation from such presumes punishment
:
: What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation of
the points he made.
"Please?" You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Punishment is the most crude of all disciplinary concepts. It comes
from the bronze age. Our president is always out the "punishing" some
nation or other for their imagined injuries to America - as though we
never injured anyone and should not be ourselves "punished" for our
national crimes.
Do you think American citizens should be "punished" for Truman's
decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
When a boy steals a loaf of bread, the policeman arrests the boy and
cuts off his hand, or puts him in prison, or flogs him in the public
square. All of those are punishment.
The baker loses a loaf, the boy loses his hand or a year out of his
life. The policeman takes his wages from the public till. Everybody
loses except the policeman and the executioner. And the village dogs
who eat the hand.
TCross
these are examples of severity --gradations of punishment.
no applications were proposed.
what was stated was that there is at the root of all law the
implication of an authority that imposes a will via the power to kill.
Thus you show your limited understanding of law through history.
Icelandic law in the 10th Century had no central authority to enforce
punishment, nor any criminal proceedings. Irish law prior to
Christianity had no "penitential" element. All law was aimed toward
finding the truth and making reparations to the victim of crime.
There have been other societies that
The blood lust for "punishment" - inflicting pain commensurate to
outrage - is neither required nor optimal. It is utterly inappropriate
in raising children and running society.
Do you think your wife would be more dutiful and loving if you had her
flogged when she failed to clean the house or burned a meal? Do you
think you would stop smoking if you were tortured in some way every
time you lit your pipe?
the same applies to all religions and thus all cultures.
And you are wrong.
your confusion lies in misinterpreting particular applications in
particular circumstances.
My "confusion" lies in knowing that you are mistaken.
since you seem to have problems with abstract thought ...
If you wish to address me, use civility.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
16 Mar 2006 01:54:21 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Terry Cross" wrote
: Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
: > Amangi Machque wrote:
: > > "Ha SATAN" wrote
: > > :
: > > : at the root of all law is the threat of violence
: > >
: > > I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
: >
: > religion necessarily proposes a dharma
: >
: > "law"
: >
: > deviation from such presumes punishment
:
: What a crude concept. No wonder you never left the stone age.
Please explain how this should be considered an intelligent refutation of
the points he made.
"Please?" You yourself do not use intelligent refutation.
Punishment is the most crude of all disciplinary concepts. It comes
from the bronze age. Our president is always out the "punishing" some
nation or other for their imagined injuries to America - as though we
never injured anyone and should not be ourselves "punished" for our
national crimes.
Do you think American citizens should be "punished" for Truman's
decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima?
When a boy steals a loaf of bread, the policeman arrests the boy and
cuts off his hand, or puts him in prison, or flogs him in the public
square. All of those are punishment.
The baker loses a loaf, the boy loses his hand or a year out of his
life. The policeman takes his wages from the public till. Everybody
loses except the policeman and the executioner. And the village dogs
who eat the hand.
TCross
these are examples of severity --gradations of punishment.
no applications were proposed.
what was stated was that there is at the root of all law the
implication of an authority that imposes a will via the power to kill.
Icelandic law in the 10th Century had no central authority to enforce
punishment, nor any criminal proceedings.
False ; another myth belying your ignorance
eg.,in 982 CE Erik was banished from Iceland for murder
Irish law prior to
Christianity had no "penitential" element.
False ; i find your ignorance truly amazing
eg.,pre-Christian kings in Ireland were stabbed to death if they could
no longer sire offspring
cf. brehon law etc for "penitential" aspect
All law was aimed toward
finding the truth and making reparations to the victim of crime.
this is where once again you amaze me by your failure to understand
that the "aims" of the law, whether good or bad in your opinion, are
IRRELEVANT.
the "power" of the law is in the power over human bodies and to inflict
pain and death.
now you deleted the examples i gave you and that now is your problem.
The blood lust for "punishment" - inflicting pain commensurate to
outrage - is neither required nor optimal. It is utterly inappropriate
in raising children and running society.
it has nothing to do with "outrage" and so you miss the point.
there is no law which can operate without a threat of penalties in
gradation ultimately founded on the power to take the life of the
non-compliant.
Do you think your wife would be more dutiful and loving if you had her
flogged when she failed to clean the house or burned a meal? Do you
think you would stop smoking if you were tortured in some way every
time you lit your pipe?
shows how your mind works.
all which you describe above is irrelevant.
the society ultimately must "remove" those who will not comply.
they can banish such persons as a symbolic death but in the end if the
person barricades himself in his home and will not leave and offers
armed resistance then death is the ultimate end
the same applies to all religions and thus all cultures.
And you are wrong.
you either misunderstand or simply suffer a psychological or emotional
difficulty with the truth
your confusion lies in misinterpreting particular applications in
particular circumstances.
My "confusion" lies in knowing that you are mistaken.
rubbish
since you seem to have problems with abstract thought ...
If you wish to address me, use civility.
TCross
"you started it" as they say and now there is no turning back.
if you are truly ignorant of the reason you are treated with contempt
(not only by myself but by others) i will tell you that the reason is
simple:
disagreement on a particular issue is fine,
your offenses are 1. that you presume people's motives for what they
write
2. that you engage in irrelevant ad hominem to change the subject
3. that you do not accept correction when you have completely
misinterpreted someone's words
4. you do not care about precise terminology and regularly misinterpret
(back to #1 which leads to #2)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Linda Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
15 Mar 2006 08:07:22 PM |
|
|
Terry,
Ignore any demands for intelligent refutation from mangie. He almost
always simply replies to me with false cries of " Liar !!! "
Linda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Amangi Machque" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
15 Mar 2006 08:34:35 PM |
|
|
"Linda Lee" wrote
: Terry,
:
: Ignore any demands for intelligent refutation from mangie. He almost
: always simply replies to me with false cries of " Liar !!! "
You never stop do you? You were shown to be a liar in the cases where I
called you a liar! Which means that you weren't called a liar falsely and
that you lied in this post.
--
Machque
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the
future." -Lumbee
"The one who tells the stories rules the world." -Hopi
"Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." -Shawnee
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? the essence of Law |
16 Mar 2006 01:57:19 AM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Linda Lee" wrote
: Terry,
:
: Ignore any demands for intelligent refutation from mangie. He almost
: always simply replies to me with false cries of " Liar !!! "
You never stop do you? You were shown to be a liar in the cases where I
called you a liar! Which means that you weren't called a liar falsely and
that you lied in this post.
telling lies tells us all we need to know about them
as i often say to Braughler, "mass education" will not fix the problem
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many
regrets." -Arthur C. Clarke
nice way of putting it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 06:46:57 PM |
|
|
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Ha SATAN" wrote
:
: at the root of all law is the threat of violence
I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
The simplest reading of the koran should convince you
otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
14 Mar 2006 08:07:25 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Amangi Machque wrote:
"Ha SATAN" wrote
:
: at the root of all law is the threat of violence
I didn't see any implication of law on the placard.
The simplest reading of the koran should convince you otherwise.
....or the Bible.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Violent? |
11 Mar 2006 07:05:57 AM |
|
|
at the root of all law is the threat of violence
It gets worse: Law is at the root of all lawyers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
