Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Olivianus, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A fundamental question in the current homosexual marriage issue is:

    Is it the right of the state to enforce morality onto people? which is an offspring of the real question: Can force be used to create true morality?

    The answer is a most hearty yes! The Bible says this many times, especially in the book of Proverbs:

    Prov 20:30 Stripes that wound scour away evil, And strokes reach the innermost parts.

    Prov 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.Pro 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

    Prov 18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

    Prov 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ***, and a rod for the fool's back.

    Those of you who think that the state should not have the right to enforce christian ideas of marriage onto people need to come out and admit that you do not believe the bible.
     
  2. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think "forceful coercion" are rather strong words. But I do think it's naive to believe that society can sustain itself without a certain level of decency being upheld by law.
     
  3. Diuretic

    Diuretic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,481
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Bible is an interesting read - in its many versions. It's an authoritative text for believers but its strictures should not affect non-believers of any stripe.

    As for "belief" in it. I don't have a "belief" in it. One reason is that for me it's not even authoritative when it comes to representing the teachings of Yeshuah who became Jesus Christ as a result of the Christian Church. The New Testament in particular is riddled with errors due to its being compiled from many disparate sources and having been reinterpreted over a couple of thousand years. Even today it has different forms.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Like Sharia does?
     
  4. Tommy Palven

    Tommy Palven Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,560
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Good point. It's a reminder that all the various Judeo-Christi-Islamic sects were originally based on the Old Testament of the Bible and have embraced coercion and discrimination such as the Catholics against Protestants in Ireland and eslewhere, and Shia vs Sunni in the Mid-East.
     
  5. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state should only enforce morality to the extent that common human morality informs the laws and equal rights.

    I do not believe in a 2,000 year old book originally written by profoundly ignorant individuals and edited and revised more than a few times since.

    So does that make me immoral? Nope.
    I don't need the fear of god and eternal damnation to believe in the golden rule.
    I don't need the bible to tell me stealing and murdering is wrong.

    I most certainly do not need meddling christians/muslims/jews/hindi/buddahist/etc to tell me who deserves "condemnation" for not following some religious text.

    here's why:

    [​IMG]
     
  6. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some may interpret the bible differently then you or your church does. It doesn't mean they don't believe in the bible.
     
  7. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have yet to come across a version that teaches different doctrines than the others.

    By affect are you suggesting that Christian countries could only enforce their laws on fellow Christians? That would be genocidal.

    This is an issue I have given years of attention to. The Fundamentals answer all of the higher criticism that I have come across and these two men have devoted their lives to answering all of the thousands of attempts to show errors in the bible.

    http://www.tektonics.org/

    http://christianthinktank.com/
     
  8. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There has been none more murderous, genocidal, rapist and coercive than the coercion and discrimination in the atheist Yankee Capitalist vs. Jesuit Communist, Hegelian dialectic of the 20th Century. The religious wars between Protestants and catholics, mostly defensive on the part of protestants, are a tame duck compared to the 100 million + slaughter by the Communists

    http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...of-blood-a-short-history-of-atheist-democide/

    and of course the Yankee Capitalists who funded WWI and WWII chalked up almost 100 million as well.

    Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy

    Anthony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

    So please spare me the bs ok?
     
  9. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,588
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By the time of paul we hae gone from Stoning gays to merely casting them out of the church...
     
  10. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That was already tried with Communism in the 20th Century. Not only did it not work, it was full scale democide. See post 8.

    Actually most of that book is far older than 2, 000 years. This lets me know just how credible your criticisms of it are. Secondly, I have already shown the massive failure of secular philosophy to produce a single iota of knowledge: http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...r-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/

    So complaining that they were ignorant is merely wishful thinking.

    Yes and more than that, bereft of any theory whatsoever; especially morality.

    Well of course but that is innate. But sorry for you, secular philosophy has yet to justify the existence of innate forms. Back to the drawing board.

    So then please tell me by what then do you justify the existence and essence of a single object of knowledge?

    As for your sign, it is cute for people who have not spent their entire youth studying the history of human philosophy. Your assertion of millions of gods is ridiculous. I dare you to show me a single one of these millions of gods that does not terminate on a Babylonian Monad.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Speculation. Ambiguity. Assertion.
     
  11. Olivianus

    Olivianus Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Paul was under the Roman Empire. Taking such a matter into his hands was illegal. The Jews nor anyone else in the Mediterranean world had the civil right to perform such an action.
     
  12. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,588
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The command in the Old Testament came with the advisory that such things were not to be permitted in Israel. They weren't commanded to eradicate such things from other cultures only their own and since Israel of the Old Testament was a type of the modern church it is simple logic to conclude that our job isn't to purify the world but to keep the church holy before the Lord her God. I would argue we are having enoguh trouble managing that without trying to cleanse the world whichGod has already informed us we cannot do.

    One should recall that the ultimate truth of the Bible is that Hell is earned but Heaven is a gift.
     
  13. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your attempt to equate communism with morality or a lack thereof is spurious.
    Communism didn't work because it was counter to human nature and was structured to cover arses and limit accountability and liablity of the commisariat.

    And as for your reference in post 8. A protestant anti-catholic scree with the requisite conspiracy theories thrown in. I thought the reformation happened five hundred years ago or so.


    I m fully aware of the development of the bible. I was referring to the christian bible which is close enough for government work a 2,000 year old book. Your response informs me of how petty you can be.

    No it is precise thinking. ALL of the writers and the subsequent editors of the ible were profoundly ignorant of the world around them and the cause and effect of nature. Storms, floods, earthquakes and eclipses were messages from God? They were profoundly ignorant of what lies beyond, thinking that the heavens could be reached by a tower, let alone know that the earth was a sphere and there were 4 continents and 5 oceans they had no clue existed. Of course the spreading of diseases was either god's wrath or satan's mischief.

    Morality isn't a theory. I am not sure what you mean by theory? I believe in any number of them.
    I do not believe in any religion, but religions are not theories, they are beliefs absent of evidence.

     
  14. monty1

    monty1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good! Laws are enacted by government and so government interference in the lives of people is necessary. The bible not so much because it will follow morality as dictated by society. Eventually it will be discarded as being redundant but mostly because it teaches equally as much evil lies as it teaches positive reinforcement of good.

    I'm impressed, as I didn't expect that to come from somebody who is still stuck with the question of whether or not it should be against the law to hurt people. Duhhhhhhh!
     
  15. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the truth.
     
  16. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wish I could say I didn't see that one coming. Sadly, it was quite predictable.

    Not all religions are the same. If you can't determine the difference between decency and oppression, this says more about you than it does about any religion.
     
  17. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where exactly are any of those quotes talking about the State?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Because you have a right to not be offended written into the Constitution, right?
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Decency is entirely subjective. It should have no place in the law.

    Why is it so difficult for you statist fascists to leave people alone unless they are causing someone real objective harm?
     
  19. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. Because a society with no standards of decency inevitably degenerates into this:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/law-j...osa-because-he-criticized-their-behavior.html


    You don't even believe this. If you really want to go down this path, I'll prove it to you. But why don't you just save us both some time and admit that you're wrong here.
     
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said anything about society not having any standards?

    Society is free to have whatever standards it wants. It however has no right for the government to force those standards on others. The government's job is to protect people from harm. If someone's actions cause no harm to themselves or others (or their property) against their will, then the government has zero right to interfere with that person.

    Morals and standards for society exist in the marketplace of ideas. Like any good marketplace, the best ideas will win out over the worst ones. Are you ideas and standards so weak that they require a socialist government bailout in order to survive? Let me guess, they are "too big to fail" right?

    Go ahead and try.
     
  21. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, this is interesting. Why is that? Because these are your standards? Did you not just contradict yourself here?



    I've got more, but I think you just gave me a little help here I wasn't even expecting.
     
  22. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Objectively demonstrable harm, whether physical or psychological, is objectively wrong. It is the only universal standard.
     
  23. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? According to what?
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality. Hence "objective".
     
  25. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry. You're going to have to do better than that. Right now, you're doing this:

    [​IMG]

    I told you that you believed in legislating a standard of decency. You should have listened when I said you could have saved us some time. ;)
     

Share This Page