Messages

[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.]

I started to read a little in the bible.

I the first few lines I found the first mistake:

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.


Jesus Christ son of David. hihi it makes me laughing again.

I fail to see the mistake ... help?

Yes you know that the bible tells that Maria gave birth to Jesus and the father was not Joseph it was god. that is why she is worshiped as the virgin mary. and here it is proved that Joseph is a descendant of david.

HUH?  David was God?  Or was he God's dad?  Grandfather?

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

1. Would you be willing to conceed that there are situations in which you'd kill innocent people for what you believed to be the service of the greater good? If not, I think you're not being completely honest. If so, how do you differentiate that from what the nazis did they also believed that they were serving the greater good? (Hint: there is no good answer to that question - if there was, morality wouldn't be so interesting to talk about.)

2. I think they're monsters, you think they're monsters. That doesn't give us the right to treat them as monsters though. After all they thought the Jews were monsters and we don't think that their say-so was good enough so why should ours be?

1.  Thankfully, I have never been put in that situation, but yes, it is conceivable.

2.  No, we have an OBLIGATION to treat them as monsters, IMO.

Should people run away from me just because I gave them nightmares?

so you're the s.o.b. who is responsible for my nightmares?

uh no
thats me acutally

Yeah. She is right. If I was responsible for your nightmares, you would not have to ask me about it.

I PITY THE FOOL WHO GIVES ME NIGHTMARES!  BELLA, CAN I SQUASH HIM?
\

You wanna squash my tequila drinking buddy?
Nope, sorry.

PS: If you're really in squashing mood, however, I have a few ideas for ya.

Okay.

Should people run away from me just because I gave them nightmares?

so you're the s.o.b. who is responsible for my nightmares?

uh no
thats me acutally

Yeah. She is right. If I was responsible for your nightmares, you would not have to ask me about it.

I PITY THE FOOL WHO GIVES ME NIGHTMARES!  BELLA, CAN I SQUASH HIM?
\

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

1. Okay - sorry 'bout that. If you'll forgive the tweak - you only believe that blowing the bridge will save the day (but you do believe this with all your heart). Now there is doubt. Does that change anything? If not, why shoudl I pick your word over theirs? You each only have well-held beliefs.

2. Yes, this is just a thought experiment (although we have gone down some strange trails since we started). My personal belief is that there are special places reserved in Hell for many of those fuckers.

Edit: I'll be away for a couple of hours; work is about to get in the way. I'll be back...

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

See ya when you get back.

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.
The Nazis had no such justification.

According to them, they did: the protection of the purity of the human race (and hence its continued survival).

Now, given that you are a moral relativist, how do you base a claim that I should take your word over theirs?

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

About the point that you said you'll kill non-combatants under some circumstances, provided it server the greater good. So, what is that greater good that their deaths served?

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.

The Nazis had no such justification.

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Then what?

I may surprise you to know that not everyone is a relativist, no, not even a little bit. They argue that there should be one universal set of moral standards for everyone. In that case, they say that you see it as ethnic harted on the part of others vs. no choice on your part and that makes some killing okay and some killing bad. However, it is a pretty safe bet that the Nazis (in this case) rationalise the whole thing rather differently. In fact it is conceivable (although I really don't know for sure) that they see that it is them who have no choice and you could have simply called airstrikes on the tanks after they crossed the bridge without needles loss of life.

Both you and they have a certain moral compass in these situations but how are the rest of use supposed to evaluated your choices? How do we determine that your values are right and their values are wrong? How do we figure out that you are worthy of our approbation and they should be charged with war crimes? Or should it be the other way around?

Originally you were claiming an objective moral standard. The question now is - what is the objective moral standard under which we can all (yes, even the Nazis) evaluate our actions? (the first one you gave about not killing non-combatants under any circumstances seems to have been ruled out).

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Dude - hate to break it to you but you, like just about everyone, are a moral relativist. I put it to you that you can imagine blowing up a bridge and killing innocent people for what you percieve to be a higher cause but claim that the Nazis (who thought they had a perfect moral, higher cause) were certainly evil. That's moral relativinsm right there. Nothing wrong with it - it can be empowering. Thing about moral relativism is that it requires you to examine every choice you make, not just make one and blindly follow the same behaviour ever after. I think that's a good thing.

I think Trollax had a lot of good stuff in there about the personal relationship that each of us has with 'the Beast within' and the idea that morality isn't always an easy thing to hold.

I don't think that the existance Nazi death camps take anything away from this and I don't think Trollax being a moral relativist takes anything away form that either.

My two cents.


And now I'd better jump off and get some work done before I have to work late to catch up....

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well if you say you want to destroy the monster would you push Bush in?
What if said rabid fundamentalist pushed you in?

Yes.

I'd drag him in with me.

Wasteland,
Never said he was a nice guy.

Let's pick this up tomorrow.  I'm beat.

Good night.

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Depends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  

True, but I clarified that later, by stating that, beyobnd a certain point, there are absolutes.  I DID make a point out of denying Ayn Rand's brand of moral absolutism, which is what I believe you are accusing me of.

Actually I was accusing you of being a relativist.

Everyone is, to SOME degree.  I think your original post carried it too far, though.

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

1.  Murder involves direct intent or motive to do harm to the person.  Manslaughter means that you know it's wrong, and intend no harm, but you do not feel you can avoid the situation.

2.  That's the weirdest death rattle I've ever heard.  Bill the Cat?  Is that YOU?

3.  Depends?  What's the backstory?

1. Okay - if the Auschwitz guards knew what they were doing was wrong but didn't feel that they could avoid the situation, does that make what they did morally justifyable as manslaughter? Or why not?

2. Not cats here. Noone but us chickens.

3. No backstory - pure numbers game.

1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.