Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't see the relevance to what I posted. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.If that's the case, then you atheists who want a legal priviso to hold Christians at bay might want to start quoting Revelation 22:11 more often.
I was brought up as a Christian. Anglican. The good ol' C of E. I probably went to church a lot more than most people in this forum. Then as a young teenager it all fell apart (I was going to confirmation classes which would enable me to take communion, and there was a gradual realisation that everyone was actually taking everything seriously).What is Christianity but the people of which it consists? That's a rhetorical question. I believe there's more to it, but I don't expect you do. I would expect you think it is no more than the creation of people. As such, Christianity IS the beliefs of those who call themselves Christian.
I'll just point out that you were the one that said he was pushing utilitarianism. I just pointed out that the law is nothing but utilitarian.He was arguing objectivism in utilitarian clothing. In essence, arguing he had found a way round the 'Who decides?' dilemma when in fact he hadn't.
It's obviously not exactly the same as Islam or Hinduism or Judaism. How long a list do you want?I think this means your answer is, no, you don't believe Christianity to be wholly derivative. What, then, would you say was unique about it?
I'll be back...Why wait for another thread? You have the floor, and I'd like you to fully state your case.
A derivative is always inferior to its integral, right? Absent the latter, the former does not exist.
Legal positivism is the theory that if it's the law then it is moral. The philosophy renders conceptions of morality to a derivative status.
Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.
The Nazis used legal positivism as their defense at Nuremberg. The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.
Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country, ie., the natural moral law.
I don't see the relevance to what I posted. But then, I haven't had my coffee yet.
So my moral outlook isn't any different than it would be if I was still going to church.
I just pointed out that the law is nothing but utilitarian.
It's obviously not exactly the same as Islam or Hinduism or Judaism. How long a list do you want?
If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then I personally don't see that you need to register this commitment with anyone other than the person to whom you're making it. As far as I am concerned, the moment my wife said yes to the question 'Will you marry me', that was it. We were committed.Why wait for another thread? You have the floor, and I'd like you to fully state your case.
If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then...
We are all influenced in some way by what we know. That there is a commonality between groups is a given. And that's the only point I'm making. If you could find some obscure society in the Amazon that I know nothing about then there's be more that we agree on than we would disagree.Your anecdote doesn't prove the supposed rule. We'd need a control group - say atheists who have never known theism, if that's possible. Or maybe atheists who've only known Hinduism. Whatever it might be.
OK, I'll say that that's what it's meant to be.That's what you want it to be. That's not what it is. The law is whatever the political power of the group in question says it is.
Actually, all the things that come to mind are shared in some fashion by some other religions. There are differences. But they're not unique. A father and son. A trinity. A virgin birth. A resurrection. Heaven and hell. Creation, floods and an evil devil figure. What might be interesting is if I asked you what sets Christianity apart from all other religions and we can investigate if any other at some time has had a common concept.I can't say for sure, but it doesn't need to be overly long - just long enough for us to find an agreeable talking point.
C: This commitment doesn't need to captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.Multiple choice question:
- A. This commitment should be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.
- B. This commitment should not be captured by a public covenant or contract where the community witnesses the vow.
Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.Is it odd that the most significant promises of human life would establish duties and responsibilities of all kinds, including legal-societal responsibilities and duties?
Tell that to Jeff Bezos.I personally could care less if 'the community' witnesses it or not. It changes nothing whatsoever.
Right, but who cares about children? Better that dad can abandon the family without any consequences than that a lifelong vow of social beings would implicate the social community. Heaven forbid we would think about someone other than the two individuals having sex.Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.
From here: Myth of a Common-Law Spouse: Clearing up legal misconceptions | Lamb BrooksTell that to Jeff Bezos.
Right, but who cares about children? Better that dad can abandon the family without any consequences...
At this point I think you've sufficiently undermined your own position with all the gish gallop. Thanks for that.
Your anecdote doesn't prove the supposed rule. We'd need a control group - say atheists who have never known theism, if that's possible.
That's what you want it to be. That's not what it is. The law is whatever the political power of the group in question says it is.
Is it odd that the most significant promises of human life would establish duties and responsibilities of all kinds, including legal-societal responsibilities and duties?
Yes, it is. I'll just note that you need a license to own a dog but you don't need one to have children.
Not overlap ... rather precedence. Justice is a moral virtue. We have had unjust or immoral laws. We have not had moral virtues that are unlawful.I didn't realize you were suggesting one was derived from the other...merely thought you were claiming some overlap.
So, we can put you down as a "maybe" as to the OP's question?Gotcha...I'm not big on legal philosophy as it seems like quite possibly the most pointless philosophical endeavor possible.
Nope. Like all subjective moral systems, it fell down like a stick-built house in a wildfire.Pretty good argument...from a purely legal perspective. Did it work?
Not so much "when" but "how" do we discern which laws are just or unjust. Starting with agreeing on the basic human needs that translate into moral rights in order to live well works for me ... you know "don't murder me", "don't take my stuff", "don't lie to me" ...Which is pretty wild right? When exactly are we all supposed to decide which laws are immoral and whom to rebel against lest we face punishment from a conquering nation?
Thanks. I guess I sort of understand. I do agree that words yank us around by the brain.When you say it sounds backwards...I agree.
I think you mean "intuitively wrong".
It is intuitively wrong....we expect whatever result we see upon opening the box to have existed prior to opening the box. Cat dead or cat alive.
It's the absurd nature of the thought experiment itself which conveys an understanding of the difficulty in understanding quantum physics.
Right. Logic has its limits though. Non-contradiction arises out of the limits of words to describe reality. Inside and outside are polar opposites....can't be both inside and outside at the same time.....
Until you're inside a Gazebo outside somewhere. We could probably endlessly debate whether that's someone truly inside somewhere or actually outside somewhere because it's not entirely obvious what exactly delineates the two. We all agree the cat is in the box....but exactly how much box needs to be there before the cat is outside is....a tougher question.
You're welcome to contribute your thoughts on if and how Christianity influenced English Common Law.If you mean "were never indoctrinated into a set of religious beliefs"....
I'd be one. Yes, we're annoying to other atheists as well.
Fascinating. I've never studied the legal arguments from Nuremberg.The Nazis used legal positivism as their defense at Nuremberg. The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.
This is a common argument. If you'll note from my previous posts, I was willing to concede your relationship as perfect. The reason for the questions that followed was to ask, "OK, for the purposes of this conversation your relationship is fine. But do all relationships last?" I believe you've conceded that not all relationships last, and further that when they end, it causes harm. So, we're starting from that point.If you are committed enough to another person that you actually ask them to spend the rest of your lives together, to live with each other, maybe raise kids, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others etc then I personally don't see that you need to register this commitment with anyone other than the person to whom you're making it. As far as I am concerned, the moment my wife said yes to the question 'Will you marry me', that was it. We were committed.
Yes, we did go through a legal ceremony. No friends, no family, just myself and my wife and two witnesses, one who was all but dragged in off the street for a few minutes to help out. And yes, we ended up with a legal document. And I'm not even sure where that document is right now - although I'm sure my wife has it squirrelled away somewhere, just in case there are some legal ramifications at some point re wills or something equally mundane.
But it has nothing to do with our commitment to each other. I can't see how it could.
OK. It's a fair question, so I'm willing to entertain it. But I've never really thought about it before. It doesn't matter to me if Christianity has a unique morality. Maybe that's the conclusion it's coming to - that it doesn't matter to either of us.Actually, all the things that come to mind are shared in some fashion by some other religions. There are differences. But they're not unique. A father and son. A trinity. A virgin birth. A resurrection. Heaven and hell. Creation, floods and an evil devil figure. What might be interesting is if I asked you what sets Christianity apart from all other religions and we can investigate if any other at some time has had a common concept.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?