If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 317
    More: Obvious, faiths  
•       •       •

10476 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-22 12:05:17 PM

sxacho: umad: You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

Iron Man


I'd pick the Amazing Screw on Head, myself.
 
2013-01-22 12:05:37 PM

sxacho: umad: You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

Iron Man


Damn straight. Black Sabbath farking rocks!
 
2013-01-22 12:06:07 PM
Your looking at it the wrong way.
This study also proves that being an atheist doesn't make you a better person.
 
2013-01-22 12:06:10 PM

t3knomanser: sxacho: Iron Man

Batman's superpower is that he basically doesn't ever lose, even after you break his spine.


Well then, I'd classify that as (at least) two fights.
 
2013-01-22 12:07:37 PM

umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.


If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-22 12:08:00 PM

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.


To take a cue from your writing here, the fact the many of the pseudo-Christians believe openly that health care is "not a right" and are often openly fine with a person dying because they don't have money to pay a hospital answers your question here. There is nothing more anti-Christian or against the bible's teaching than being okay with the death of a person for want of money to pay a doctor. However this is what the loud "Christian" contingent believes and often says on a day-to-day basis.
 
2013-01-22 12:08:00 PM
the headline was MAKE you, Subby used HELP you. Either way a persons behavior is up to themself.
 
2013-01-22 12:08:45 PM
I'll add that one of the good things about my church is I meet and interact with a fairly diverse group of people on every end of the political spectrum that I wouldn't normally deal with. Almost none of them were in the same professional or social circles I was in.

Since I'm kinda forced to deal with them on a weekly basis, I think my tolerance and understanding of others has actually gone up.

I'm not going to call the study BS, because a sample size of 1 does not allow me to call BS, and I know there's religions out there that pretty much demand you cut off anyone who doesn't share your faith.
 
2013-01-22 12:09:10 PM
Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct
 
2013-01-22 12:10:43 PM
When "love thy neighbor" was written, your neighbor most likely looked, acted, and believed a lot like you.
 
2013-01-22 12:11:42 PM
Opening lines of TFA: "Religion does not make you love your neighbour - study ... It may promote messages such as "love thy neighbour" but religion does not make people more kind or trusting, a study has concluded.  Being religious only appears to make people more co-operative or unselfish when they are dealing with other people of the same faith, it suggested."


Well farking DUH.

Your problem stems from your failure to understand that "neighbor", in the Biblical / Torah context, meant exactly that: Other people of the same faith / race.

The original intent was to promote in-group altruism - preference to in-group members as opposed to out-group members. And yes, that INCLUDES Jeebus - who NEVER expressed ANY altruistic interest toward ANYONE other than his fellow JEWS.

Confused?

Here, let John Hartung explain it to you:

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality
 
2013-01-22 12:12:30 PM

skipjack: umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


People have been communicating effectively since people have existed. There is a saying that goes "You can lead a horse to water, but he may burn you at the stake for it", or something like that.

Religious people are actively choosing to believe in pure nonsense, without any regard to the facts. You even have a code word for when you are doing this. It is "faith".
 
2013-01-22 12:13:28 PM

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.


When the number of people who use their faith as an excuse to shiat on others FAR outweigh the number of people who are truly pious, religion has failed. You know why it failed and will continue to fail? Because religion is a human invention with extreme fallibility.
 
2013-01-22 12:15:54 PM

adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct


Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

www.bunnydesign.com
 
2013-01-22 12:16:26 PM

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: One of the purposes of religion is to distinguish an in group from out groups.

A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

This perspective makes certain moral contradictions go away. For example, if you can't kill then how can an in-group impose capital punishment on its members? Easy. Transgressions such as female adultery or disrespect of elders means that the transgressor no longer obeys the religious rules which makes them no longer part of the in group and thus ok to kill.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.

// and there are still various legal ways of killing people while still not violating the commandment


Ah, Jewish legalistic nit-picking and weighing of how serious sins are which basically boils down to it is ok to break in group laws against someone to a degree that their behavior doesn't follow the in group standards. I don't recall anywhere in the Old Testament where there was much worry about killing sinners or exterminating outsiders. All of the discussion if any was why they deserved it.
 
2013-01-22 12:17:10 PM

skipjack:

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.
 
2013-01-22 12:18:04 PM
Religion should be classified as a mental illness.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:29 PM
Q:Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"?

A: No, but it sure seems to help you love their kids, though.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:41 PM
Cutting edge research to determine that, yes, tribal identity is still a thing in 2013.

You'll see the same thing if you swap religion with race, or country of origin, or (un)shared common interests, etc.
This is why sales people try (and lie) to find common ground in small-talk. The more you think of them as similar to you, the more you like them, the more you'll let bullshiat go unchallenged, the more you'll be willing to stretch your decision-making to help out a tribe member, etc.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:42 PM
religion helps people justify anti-social behavior.
 
2013-01-22 12:19:55 PM

Farking Canuck: [csb]

When I was young and my family was trying to get out of our badly designed church parking lot, my dad would laugh and point out all the "parking lot rage" that was going in. These people had literally just been inside the church, shaking hands and saying "peace be with you" and now they were ready to kill each other over who is next to leave the parking lot.

I think my father pointing out this blatant hypocrisy set me on the path to atheism. Something I will always thank him for.

[/csb]


Had the exact same experience. That and the fact that the people who gave the most to the church (these lists were printed and distributed every six months) were customarily seated in the front rows at each service they attended. Not joking, this actually happened. I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school through 12th grade, but in religion class would often be sent to the principal's office for arguing with the nuns over religious dogma that I disagreed with.
Was probably just a smartass little prick that knew enough to really get them pissed, but the incongruities bothered me enough that I never went back to church, and never will.
Hypocrisy, cant abide by it, wont have it.
 
2013-01-22 12:21:31 PM
Being religious only appears to make people more co-operative or unselfish when they are dealing with other people of the same faith, it suggested.

/Ya think? Facepalms. It's not the single people who believe that i mistrust, its the whole of organized religion that scares me. Any religion that makes you such a bowing sheep that you pray to toast or stains on a wall caused by grease cant be good. Don't even get me started on the derp spewing fundies on both sides. And no, im not just talking about Islam, but whatever form fundies practice. When church teachings overcome common sense and things like tolerance and love, empathy, and acceptance of other faiths / peoples, that's when it becomes a problem.
 
2013-01-22 12:22:16 PM

david_gaithersburg: adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct

Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

[www.bunnydesign.com image 320x240]


20 million?

That is... shall we say... a conservative estimate?
 
2013-01-22 12:22:44 PM

Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.


So should liberalism but neither is going to happen
 
2013-01-22 12:22:48 PM

Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.


So much this. We already have brain scans that prove the brains of the religious are physically different.
 
2013-01-22 12:23:27 PM

Mugato: The irony is that the Jews who I know (and I work in film film so I know a lot) are the least judgmental and are least likely to try to convert you (frankly they don't want us)


That's one of the things I respect about Judaism...

/ actually, isn't that something you have to be born ( or marry) into?
// laying down my "summon Tatsuma" card
/// or anyone else knowledgeable about that stuff...
 
2013-01-22 12:23:31 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Deep Contact: Religion should be classified as a mental illness.

So much this. We already have brain scans that prove the brains of the religious are physically different.


Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
 
2013-01-22 12:23:31 PM

ArcadianRefugee: When "love thy neighbor" was written, your neighbor most likely looked, acted, and believed a lot like you.


I think that has something to do with it. Someone else already said it, but I don't think we have adapted to living in such huge communities and in such a large world as we do now. We evolved to live in tiny family communities, not cities, with people who were related to us. And for a lot of people, the world is crowded and gives a person a sense of being trespassed upon--so they need to defend their territory, whatever they perceive it to be. Then your "neighbor" is not like you, has nothing in common with you, and your instincts are already telling you that you're being encroached upon, so.....

The problem is only going to get worse. And then let's coat the whole thing with some illogical religious beliefs and some "rugged individualism" (a staple of our proud country), and it's like a food fight in the monkey-house.
 
2013-01-22 12:24:48 PM

david_gaithersburg: adrift1827: Does religion help you "Love Kill your neighbour"? NoYes, according to this study several thousands of years of human history

/also correct

Some famous religious leaders, the bastards killed 20,000,000 in recent history.

[www.bunnydesign.com image 320x240]


And how many has god killed? I think Satan has killed about 10 so far.
 
2013-01-22 12:25:56 PM

Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.


Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.
 
2013-01-22 12:29:52 PM

umad:
People have been communicating effectively since people have existed. There is a saying that goes "You can lead a horse to water, but he may burn you at the stake for it", or something like that.

Religious people are actively choosing to believe in pure nonsense, without any regard to the facts. You even have a code word for when you are doing this. It is "faith".


Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.

Faith isn't a code word, faith is something we all will engage in, just some aren't honest enough to admit it.
 
2013-01-22 12:29:56 PM

latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.


Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.
 
2013-01-22 12:30:18 PM

HairBolus: Ah, Jewish legalistic nit-picking and weighing of how serious sins are which basically boils down to it is ok to break in group laws against someone to a degree that their behavior doesn't follow the in group standards. I don't recall anywhere in the Old Testament where there was much worry about killing sinners or exterminating outsiders. All of the discussion if any was why they deserved it.


Uh, what? In every legal code, there are subsections, caveats and exceptions. "Thou shalt not murder" obviously does not include people found guilty of capital crimes, for example - some of those capital crimes (along with the specific mode of execution) being spelled out in the subsequent chapters.

I'm not sure what point you're making, other than calling Jews nit-picky about the laws.

Forbidden Doughnut: Mugato: The irony is that the Jews who I know (and I work in film film so I know a lot) are the least judgmental and are least likely to try to convert you (frankly they don't want us)

That's one of the things I respect about Judaism...

/ actually, isn't that something you have to be born ( or marry) into?
// laying down my "summon Tatsuma" card
/// or anyone else knowledgeable about that stuff...


Short answer: we don't recruit.
Longer answer: we don't actively recruit and will often attempt to convince would-be converts to stay with the god they've got (until we're convinced they know what they're doing, and then it's intense instruction until the day of your conversion). However, some sects of Jews have a hard-on for getting lapsed Jews back into the fold, so what looks like "recruiting" is really more like "recapturing".
 
2013-01-22 12:31:37 PM

I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin
 
2013-01-22 12:32:13 PM

fickenchucker: I've always taught my kids we're Catholic because that's how I was raised and I'm not really in the mood to learn a new set of rules. But if they want to go Lutheran or something else that's not an outright cult (like Scientology) they won't get any weird family fighting from me.


and what if they go outside Christianity alltogether? what if they decide that all religion is just variations of uneducated sheep herder mythology from various parts of world and that there is no god... will they get any 'weird family fighting' from you then?
 
2013-01-22 12:32:47 PM

enry: Smeggy Smurf: Wadded Beef: From what I see with Christianity it's sin Monday through Saturday, Ctrl-Z on Sunday. I'll pass.

My favorite bit is those that think they can "get saved" and then keep right on sinning like nothing changed.

"Oh look at me I took a bath and now all my sins are gone! WHOOHOO! Adultery here I come!"

Actually it's way more complicated (and worse) than that. Catholics think that you can be 'saved' by going to confession and through good works, the born again think it's by just saying it, and the more Calvinist think that what you do or say has nothing to do with you being saved or not. God just..picks at random?

/been a while since I actually studied it, so I might be wrong


My personal experiences include my neighbors ("good," Sunday-Church-goin-folk), who would tell me some right-wing BS such as Obama is horrible, how expanding health care is "awful" and how the Iraq War is more than justified despite the previous administration's outright lies to trick the public into supporting it -- almost making George Orwell shoot up from his grave shouting "NAILED IT!"

"Would Jesus espouse ANY of these views?" I would ask them. From there I got mealy-mouthed crap about how 'Merica needs protecting, Supply-Side-Jesus, etc. I didn't even want to KNOW their views on gay people.

Everyone's mileage may vary, but I'm pretty convinced that it's some flat-out hate, disguised as 'love thy neighbor', for society other than those who look/think like they do.
 
2013-01-22 12:33:18 PM

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.


Okay:

QUOTE:

Thou Shalt Not Kill Who?

Specific laws which follow from the love law can be better understood by keeping the ingroup definition of neighbor in mind. Consider the proto-legal portion of The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5:17-21; JPS '17 & KJV):

Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour
Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife and you shall not desire your neighbor's
house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that
is your neighbor's.


And add the realization that the scrolls from which these words were translated have no periods, no commas, and no first-word capitalization. Decisions about where sentences and paragraphs begin and end are courtesy of the translator. Accordingly, instead of being written as five separate paragraphs of one sentence each, without changing any of the words, Deuteronomy 5:17-21 could be translated:


Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.


Here the question, "Thou shalt not kill who?" is answered "Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor - the children of thy people, your countrymen" … your fellow in-group member.

How unconventional is this interpretation? Not very. The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite. Indeed, if an Israelite intended to kill a non-Israelite, but killed an Israelite by mistake, he was not guilty of murder. The law (Mishna) is explicit in this regard (Sanhedrin 79a):


If he intended killing an animal but slew a man, or a heathen and he killed an Israelite … he is not liable.


And the discussion (Gemara) of this law gives a clear example:


This excludes [from liability] the case of one who threw a stone into the midst of a company of Israelites and heathens. How is this? Shall we say that the company consisted of nine heathens and one Israelite? Then his non-liability can be inferred from the fact that the majority were heathens.


So if a defendant admits to having killed a fellow in-group member by throwing a stone, his plea of innocence should be accepted if there is reason to believe that he was aiming at an out-group member. In this regard, the rabbis of the Talmud, who are traditionally designated the Sages, took an extraordinarily lenient view of what would constitute evidence of intent, extending credibility to a perpetrator even if there was only one out-group member in the company of nine in-group members (Sanhedrin 79a, Baba Kamma 44b):


And even if half and half, when there is doubt in a capital charge, a lenient attitude must be taken! ... if there were nine Jews and one heathen ... still, since there was among them one heathen, he was an essential part of the group, and essential part is reckoned as equivalent to half, and where there is doubt in a criminal charge the accused has the benefit.


As one might expect, the law for inadvertent killing was not symmetrical. If an outgroup member accidentally killed an in-group member, he was guilty of Murder One. Maimonides, whose summarizations and condensations of the Torah and the Talmud are generally accepted as authoritative, put the point succinctly (Book of Torts 5:5:4):


If a resident alien slays an Israelite inadvertently, he must be put to death in spite of his inadvertence.


The Book of Judges (Maimonides, 5:9:4) confirms this:


A Noahide [non-Jew] who kills a person, even if he kills an embryo in the mother's womb, is put to death. So too, if he kills one suffering from a fatal disease ... he is put to death. In none of these cases is an Israelite put to death.


END QUOTE.

Much more fun at the above link.
 
2013-01-22 12:37:03 PM

punkhippie:
Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.


I've used ridicule many times, and I'll use it in the future, but doesn't make it right or effective and I've done more harm than good IMHO. It's those life lessons you learn, then forget and repeat. I
 
2013-01-22 12:37:40 PM

t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.


Or you could explain it all with simple in-group vs out-group dynamics. Similar religion is the in-group and were nice to them. In-groups have been artifucially created with leas defining attributes.

About society: humans were never meant to operate in groups larger than roughly 150.
 
2013-01-22 12:41:43 PM

OceanVortex: You mean Mormons in Illinois, not Missouri.


The sad thing, I wrote Illinois first and then changed it.  Which is why you always go with your first answer on the test.
 
2013-01-22 12:42:18 PM
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-01-22 12:42:33 PM
the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus


Song
 
2013-01-22 12:44:13 PM

The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.


You and t3knomanser may find this book interesting: The Moral Landscape. The author makes the argument that essentially, morality comes from biology and the fact that humans are social beings, and not religion. I'm not quite finished yet but it's a pretty interesting read and a position I haven't heard laid out often enough. I picked it up to further arm myself against those who tell me I have no moral compass and am a selfish, horrible person because I'm an atheist. Obviously, I know that isn't true but I like being able to argue my point beyond just pointing at myself. :-)
 
2013-01-22 12:44:47 PM

Almea Tarrant: latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.

Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.


How much health care a person needs has more to do with how sick the person is rather than the quality of the health care.

Also, I mentioned (B.) because all I see posted in regards to religion is (C.). But how much sense does it make to judge God based on the faults of His followers in the first place?
 
2013-01-22 12:47:22 PM

Amos Quito: The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite.


You're excluding so much context, it's almost unfair.

1. Intention is such a major part of capital crime. In order to be liable for capital murder, so many conditions have to be met that in any capital murder case we know that the accused intended to kill the victim. If anyone else was killed - Israelite or no - that person is generally not liable for the death penalty. Maybe life imprisonment, but not execution. Tractate Sanhedrin says that any court that carried out more than 1 death sentence in a generation was a bloody court.
2. We're talking about a situation where in-group and out-group crime were treated differently the world over. I don't know of any modern opinion that would support that interpretation being applied (though there are no batei din these days that would hear a capital case, so perhaps the point is moot), and there were many court systems that had separate rules for tiers of citizens. That doesn't make it right, but there's at least some context. The fact that Jews could not enforce any judgement against Roman citizens, for example (during the time the Talmud was beginning to be compiled), may have played a role in how they were seen by Jews.
3. There's also an idea that runs throughout Tractate Sanhedrin that "in-group" crimes are much more heinous than inter-group crime.

Plus, you know, the fact that Noahide law says murder is out as well, meaning NO ONE's allowed to kill ANYONE.

// no I'm not reading your link
// quote-mining a 2,000 year old tome is fun, but ultimately teaches you very little - hence my objection that context is missing
// did you know that the Talmud's "answer" is often at odds with how Jews practice today?
 
2013-01-22 12:47:53 PM

Dr Dreidel: HairBolus: A religious dictum such as thou shall not kill only applies to the in-group. Cheating or killing foreigners is fine.

[citation needed], as "thou shalt not murder" applies to everyone (in the eyes of Jews, at least). I'd agree that this is true of some rules in some faiths, but as a blanket statement, it's got more holes than Grandma's handmade afghan.

// and there are still various legal ways of killing people while still not violating the commandment


Deuteronomy 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
 
2013-01-22 12:49:38 PM

FeFiFoFark: I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin


Not as on point unless you site the entire quote:

"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."


/Still voted funny
 
2013-01-22 12:52:24 PM

SpaceBison: Deuteronomy 17:12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.


Which supports my point - that even though the text says "Don't kill", the rest of the text lists no fewer than 40 capital crimes.
 
2013-01-22 12:53:01 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Is alcoholism a religion?


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-22 12:53:19 PM
The article seems to indicate that your religion functions like, and has essentially the same effect on your behavior as, "team colors".
 
Displayed 50 of 317 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report