This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Value Collector said:
Can you quote me in a comment where I have attacked good people?

Because I think you must be either confusing me with someone else or exaggerating.
Click to expand...

Vid of child being punched, that thing about child being beaten to death etc. I could go back through your ilI informed posts but I shan't, I can't turn the other cheek like those lovely true Christians.
 

The idea of using [legal] interpretative tools is while an interesting one, is unlikely to move you much farther down the road of [truly] understanding.

Legal interpretation is designed, or employed, to gain a result, where no agreement exists. It is arbitrary and one party is always unhappy.

The 'rules' have many issues. Some examples:

(a) Words that are reasonably capable of only one meaning must be given that meaning whatever the result. This is called the literal rule.

Sirius International Insurance Co (Publ.) v FAI General Insurance Ltd [2004] (HL).

Lord Steyn:

"What is literalism? It will depend on context. But an example is given in the works of William Paley (1838 ed) Vol III p.60: the tyrant Temures promised the garrison of Sebastia that no blood would be shed if they surrendered. They surrendered. He shed no blood. He buried them all alive. This is literalism."

Essentially, the law dispensed with 'literalism' and moved to context. Context, as Wittgenstein wrote rejects any reductionist view that intentions can only be discerned from express intentions or linked to a state of mind at the precise point of utterance. It is, rather, suggestive of a large role for gap filling, whether through interpretation or the implication of terms.

(b) Ordinary words must be given their ordinary meanings and technical words their technical meanings, unless absurdity would result. This is the golden rule.

The language of [contract/law] is not directed at describing an experience but at controlling human behaviour. [I suppose it is arguable at which scripture is aiming]. The concern of the court is not with the truth of the language but with the expectation it raised in the parties.

Oliver Wendall Holmes:

"Thereupon we ask, not what is meant, but what these words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used."

This imports the test of 'objectivity'.

Lord Steyn [again]:

"The interpretation of a legal text must aim to assign to the text...a meaning derived from its nature and contents. It cannot aim to discover what the parties to a contract...subjectively intended. Such a subjective enquiry cannot be expected to yield realistic results."

Anyway, entire [legal] books have been written on the subject. There is currently extra-judicial argument between Lord Hoffmann and Lord Sumption re. contextual analysis. The two above examples are just the tiny tip of an immense iceberg.

jog on
duc
 
Victorian parliament to consider axing Lord’s Prayer

Daniel Andrews says a “multi-faith moment at the beginning of the parliamentary day” may offer a better reflection of modern, multicultural Victoria than the Lord’s Prayer, backing a move by his Special Minister of State to consider scrapping the century-old tradition or add prayers from other faiths alongside it.

Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings today referred the matter to an upper house committee of review, following calls from Reason Party leader Fiona Patten and the Greens to end a tradition Coalition MPs have defended as an important part of our Judaeo-Christian heritage and the Westminster system.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...r/news-story/c3b888d2507d608f5a471b3871f34094

The Lord's Prayer

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen

----

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/i-dislike-daniel-andrews-intensely.32824/page-11
 
Thanks Duc. I can't argue with someone who can rattle off precedents, Statutes and various quotes of esteemed Law makers off the top of their head. Retired Solicitor or Barrister I assume Welcome back
 
Darc Knight said:
Vid of child being punched, that thing about child being beaten to death etc. I could go back through your ilI informed posts but I shan't, I can't turn the other cheek like those lovely true Christians.
Click to expand...

How is that attacking “good people”?those things actually happened, and I simply showed it.

Do you think punching a child as hard as you can in the chest makes you a “good person”? If not how does me pointing it out mean I was attacking good people.

I know you will probably say that the pastor that did the punching isn’t a “true Christian” (even though he is running a church), but as I pointed out that is simply you editing who is and isn’t a Christian just to keep the concept pure in your mind, eg “no true Scotsman” fallacy
 
wayneL said:
Not really. It's an argument against the God man created, but God may be something else entirely, different in every way to the God of the Bible, Koran etc.

Who knows?
Click to expand...

Yeah, or it might not exist at all.

It’s probably best to refrain from believeing in it until we have evidence for it.
 
A distinction has to be drawn between people calling themselves Christians or Muslims and those who truly are. True Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the New Testament. I assume true Muslims conduct themselves in accordance with the Quran.
 

Well, there is the problem.

The Bible and Quran are large documents capable of being cherry picked to suit one's own internal beliefs.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.
 
SirRumpole said:
"Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.
Click to expand...

Yes, but from a perspective of Love, not anger, viscousness and brutality. Abusing anyone isn't Christian.

But also that's Old Testament.
 
Its the ideologies and separation of state that is the problem.
Then we have what you mentioned. Those that do follow the teachings and those that warp the message and gather followers. Its not just limited to religion though.
Those two things become a larger problem.
 
Value Collector said:
Yeah, or it might not exist at all.

It’s probably best to refrain from believeing in it until we have evidence for it.
Click to expand...
That could certainly be true too. I believe I have some soft evidence, certainly nothing I'm prepared to share though.

But, TBH, if something does exist, I don't think it actually cares whether we believe or not, that is merely a human precondition.

IMHO
 
Funny i typed this on Tuesday and he was in front page yesterday after his latest comments dangerous guy
But i agree he is using islam as a way to gain power.the trouble is it is much easier to slaughter your neighbours quoting the Coran than the Bible..but it can be done for both, or even in opposition to both
 

Since you accused me of attacking good people, can you please explain how me pointing out that a Christian pastor punched a child in the chest and then bragged about it to his flock could be seen as me “attacking good people”

Other wise can you provide some other examples, because you actually said I am continually attacking good people.

If you can’t provide examples to back up his claim I would like an apology or at least a retraction.

—————
As rumpole pointed out, the holy books get interpreted and cherry picked in many different ways.

If you want to limit the number of people we classify as Christians to those strictly following your interpretation and doing nothing wrong, then as I said before you would have to admit Christianity is not a major religion, and is quite small, because you would be deleting many of the brands and many individuals.
 
VC, I'm not going to sit here wasting my time while you pick apart everything, twist things to suit your agenda and vendetta.
It's been discussed ad nauseum.
 
SirRumpole said:
Well, there is the problem.

The Bible and Quran are large documents capable of being cherry picked to suit one's own internal beliefs.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.
Click to expand...



also even Jesus said things that seem like they could be interpreted in ways that condone violence, for example he said this

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me”

Now he said that in a story, but the story doesn’t seem to be saying it is wrong, it seems to be a positive telling.

He also says he came to not bring peace but to bring a sword, I have personally heard American soldiers quote these verses to justify war fighting in the name of Jesus.
 
Darc Knight said:
VC, I'm not going to sit here wasting my time while you pick apart everything, twist things to suit your agenda and vendetta.
It's been discussed ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Dude, I just wish you wouldn’t make bold claims saying I am continually attacking good people and then not back it up.

The truth is your feeling got hurt, and you exaggerated what I said in your mind.
 
Value Collector said:
Dude, I just wish you wouldn’t make bold claims saying I am continually attacking good people and then not back it up.

The truth is your feeling got hurt, and you exaggerated what I said in your mind.
Click to expand...

It was backed up, then you switch to something already discussed to pursue your agenda and vendetta again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...