Thread: The laws of men

If I hurt someone because I'm speeding, it's because of negligence on my part. Does it magically make it ok if I'm doing the speed limit? No, if I crash into someone, it's my fault no matter the speed. The immoral part of it would be driving beyond my abilities. If I couldn't safely conduct myself at that speed yet did so anyway, that's my fault. As such, I feel no shame in driving at least 80 MPH or above when driving on the interstate

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

If I hurt someone because I'm speeding, it's because of negligence on my part. Does it magically make it ok if I'm doing the speed limit? No, if I crash into someone, it's my fault no matter the speed. The immoral part of it would be driving beyond my abilities. If I couldn't safely conduct myself at that speed yet did so anyway, that's my fault. As such, I feel no shame in driving at least 80 MPH or above when driving on the interstate

My take is that the law is there to protect those without your ability.
ie: other driver does something stupid, you hit him through no fault of your own, your speeding he dies, your not speeding he lives.
I know its a very simplistic example but I'm sure you'll get my point.


As for the rest of this tread, I'd love to sit down for a few pints lads, but I can't be arsed typing all I have to say.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've been thinking about this for some time, and thought I'd share it.
I don't know the answers either...

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?
...

Often the only moral thing is to disobey flagrantly. Depends entirely on your own set of morals. Any law that you write for yourself is, after all, a law written by a man... Just as valid as one written for you by any other man...

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?
...

This assumes you have an afterlife and as long as you are obeying your own (morally just) laws, how could you be disobeying? More to the point, who's laws would you choose to disobey; your's or those invented by people you have never even met?

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?

Most religions say they are the only right one. It has been estimated (conservatively) that there are over 10,000 religious belief systems. This would mean that your particular religion has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of being the right one. Choose wisely...

YMMV

Originally Posted by Bruno

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?

1) Not in itself. Sometimes it's morally wrong to disobey the law but not because it's the law just because it's wrong anyway, sometimes it's morally wrong to do something the law allows. Whether something is moral or not is only loosely related to whether it's illegal.

2) There is no "afterlife" to affect.

3a) Morals are not dictated by religion (or Christians would believe it's OK to beat your slaves because the bible says so).

3b) No religion is right they're all nonsense.

Originally Posted by trewornan

1) Not in itself. Sometimes it's morally wrong to disobey the law but not because it's the law just because it's wrong anyway, sometimes it's morally wrong to do something the law allows. Whether something is moral or not is only loosely related to whether it's illegal.

2) There is no "afterlife" to affect.

3a) Morals are not dictated by religion (or Christians would believe it's OK to beat your slaves because the bible says so).

3b) No religion is right they're all nonsense.

That's just about the most offensive thing I've read all day.

Christians do NOT believe that it's ok to beat slaves. In fact most christians do not even believe it's ok to HAVE slaves.

Most Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and in doing so many things do not need to be lived anymore. (Such as animal sacrifice and your "ok of the beating of a slave")

Please put some nuance into what you declare as "nonsense". Obviously you have reason not to believe in anything beyond the grave. That's your call. But to call everything that people believe otherwise as Nonsense goes a bit far wouldn't you say? That's just being spitefull.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That's just about the most offensive thing I've read all day.

Christians do NOT believe that it's ok to beat slaves. In fact most christians do not even believe it's ok to HAVE slaves.

Most Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and in doing so many things do not need to be lived anymore. (Such as animal sacrifice and your "ok of the beating of a slave")

Please put some nuance into what you declare as "nonsense". Obviously you have reason not to believe in anything beyond the grave. That's your call. But to call everything that people believe otherwise as Nonsense goes a bit far wouldn't you say? That's just being spitefull.

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.

Originally Posted by trewornan

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.

No, I don't expect people to dance around on their tippytoes around religion. Any kind of religion for that matter. I simply expect the same kind of curtisy (damn...sp?) that I give to others when it comes to their core belief system and core of what makes up part of their personality.

I don't fault you for being an atheist. I may not agree but I certainly don't go around declaring that atheism is bullS**t. Nonsense is just a dressed up word for bulls**t.

I don't find your opinion offensive or spitefull at all. I found the way you expressed it spitefull and offensive.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Nonsense is just a dressed up word for bulls**t.

Yes that's true - hopefully a slightly more polite word but the meaning is essentially the same. But let me ask you a question: suppose I'd said that neo-Keynesianism was nonsense, would you have claimed that was spiteful?

Most people wouldn't, they might challenge me to justify it but they wouldn't find it offensive. The problem is the double standard believers expect others to respect.

I think the point LX is trying to make is that the two commandments given by Jesus in the New Testament (love God, love your neighbor) are viewed by many Christians as signaling an end to Levitical law. I mean, there are a lot of ridiculous rules in Leviticus that have been ignored for centuries by the vast majority of people who follow the Bible, eg: thou shalt not use a straight razor on thy sideburns, thou shalt not eat delicious shrimp cocktail, thou shalt not wear stylish 60/40 poly/cotton blend slacks, etc, etc.

I disagree with Christianity as much as anyone, but trying to point out some of the ridiculous stuff that Levitical law allows/forbids is kind of beating a dead horse, since most modern Christians think the sacrifice and resurrection invalidated or overrode it.

Additionally, "immune from criticism" is a little bit different from "taking offense at an obvious insult." I do not support Christianity in any way shape or form, but just showing up and calling it "nonsense" is not criticism, it is name-calling. If you want to offer a well-reasoned argument that is relevant and coherent, fine, but just saying it's "nonsense" is not the same thing at all. The slave thing was a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by trewornan

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.

Originally Posted by jockeys

trying to point out some of the ridiculous stuff that Levitical law allows/forbids is kind of beating a dead horse, since most modern Christians think the sacrifice and resurrection invalidated or overrode it.

Of course I'm aware of this but it's just another example of how most Christians in fact pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe. After all in the New Testament Jesus himself says all the rules of the Old Testament still apply.

E.g.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law