Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don’t disagree. If it seemed as though I meant something else then i was not expressing myself accurately. Religious texts try, inadequately to express what is not expressible with mere words.
Except the many texts that are literally clear in many places. Religious texts are often to the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Spirituality is intuitive, inferred.
Which is open to misinterpreting texts to pretend they say what you want them to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Those within the religion, and culture, learn to extract from the texts what is important and what is not. Not perfectly, but then who is perfect? Reading the same from outside the religion, and using it to damn all those who are within it, is where malicious bamboozling lies.
No, this is just the usual bamboozle to avoid the fact that many religious and spiritual people intuit and infer what they want the text to say, and to pretend outsiders do not know what they are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
The Golden Rule is not so golden precisely because it is open to interpretation, just as the rapist did.
Nowhere does the golden rule condone rape for a normal person with empathy, that is why it is one of the most important moral axioms we have ever invented. That is why we see it in almost every culture (and religion) throughout history, because it is that important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
It is best instead to follow Do No Harm. We all understand what harm is.
The example rapist certainly appears to have not understand what harm is. And Kant's critique of the golden rule is even more of a problem for the 'do no harm' rule.
I don’t disagree. If it seemed as though I meant something else then i was not expressing myself accurately. Religious texts try, inadequately to express what is not expressible with mere words. Spirituality is intuitive, inferred.
Those within the religion, and culture, learn to extract from the texts what is important and what is not. Not perfectly, but then who is perfect? Reading the same from outside the religion, and using it to damn all those who are within it, is where malicious bamboozling lies.
The Golden Rule is not so golden precisely because it is open to interpretation, just as the rapist did. It is best instead to follow Do No Harm. We all understand what harm is.
Yeah. The rapist didn't think HE was "doing any 'harm'" either. After all, who is 'harmed' by sex? Good for ALL. Right?
In the case of the rapist, he was 'doing harm' by FORCING someone to do something she did not want to do. Now, does that mean that ALL people in ALL cases should not be forced to do what they don't want to do?
No one wants to go to prison. Should we not send people to prison because WE wouldn't want to go to prison (even if we did something horrible)?
Yeah. The rapist didn't think HE was "doing any 'harm'" either. After all, who is 'harmed' by sex? Good for ALL. Right?
In the case of the rapist, he was 'doing harm' by FORCING someone to do something she did not want to do. Now, does that mean that ALL people in ALL cases should not be forced to do what they don't want to do?
No one wants to go to prison. Should we not send people to prison because WE wouldn't want to go to prison (even if we did something horrible)?
See what I mean about interpretation?
Rape is crime. No need for any golden rule.
There is a whole thread on why the Golden Rule is faulty and you may want to read it. no point discussing it all over again.
Except the many texts that are literally clear in many places. Religious texts are often to the point.
This caused me to think about something.
Religious texts about often about "do THIS; DON'T do THAT."
Secular laws -- at least in the US -- don't tell us NOT to murder (for example). They define murder, subject , and what the penalties would be if found stepping outside of the definition. They propose annotations to help clarify the law.
But at no time do those secular laws say DON'T.
Interesting contrast.
Quote:
Which is open to misinterpreting texts to pretend they say what you want them to say.
No, this is just the usual bamboozle to avoid the fact that many religious and spiritual people intuit and infer what they want the text to say, and to pretend outsiders do not know what they are talking about.
Nowhere does the golden rule condone rape for a normal person with empathy, that is why it is one of the most important moral axioms we have ever invented. That is why we see it in almost every culture (and religion) throughout history, because it is that important.
The example rapist certainly appears to have not understand what harm is. And Kant's critique of the golden rule is even more of a problem for the 'do no harm' rule.
Rape is crime. No need for any golden rule.
There is a whole thread on why the Golden Rule is faulty and you may want to read it. no point discussing it all over again.
This is not about rape being a crime or the Golden Rule.
It's about how religious texts can be interpreted.
And how their interpretation can lead to crimes such as rape.
No religious text is black or white. No secular law is black or white. ALL is subject to interpretation.
Interpreting any text that can lead to rape as some kind of logic is not a problem of interpretation. something else.
You're missing the point.
ANY text can be misinterpreted, whether the text from 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, 20 years ago, or 2 minutes ago, whether it's secular or non-secular.
Rape is crime. No need for any golden rule.
There is a whole thread on why the Golden Rule is faulty and you may want to read it. no point discussing it all over again.
I disagree.
There is a difference between:
not doing something because you have a moral code
vs
not doing something because you are afraid you will go to jail.
If you're only not doing something because of fear of legal restraints, then you'll still do it if you're pretty sure you won't get caught.
ANY text can be misinterpreted, whether the text from 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, 20 years ago, or 2 minutes ago, whether it's secular or non-secular.
We are talking about religious texts, which is about spiritual matters that are not always expressible completely in words. It is bound in culture, intuition, and inference.
Compared to “No Smoking.” Not sure how that can be misinterpreted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
