American executions and Scott Peterson case

[freddie]

I thought it was kind of a given that man wrote the Bible, just like every other religious work out there. I mean... there's no proof of God, while there is circumstantial historic proof that man did write it. We're walking on touchy ground here with deeply religious people, but even most of them these days aren't blind enough to say that the Bible is literaly the "word of God". And it is true as well, what you said about translations: it was translated from hebrew to greek, then from greek to latin and from latin to other languages. Every new edition had it's added and/or misinterpreted parts. You lost HUGE amount of information (and meaning) with only one translation, let alone 3. Most people who're well familiar with the bible would be surprised how different the translations coming DIRECTLY from hebrew are. Because the official version is still latin one - which was altered through 2 translations already.

Think of it like this: We had Friends (the Sit-Com), on Slovene TV. Most people who don't understand english just didn't get it, despite the subtitles. You have to know a langauge not just grammatically, but also have a deep social understanding of it. Many puns and jokes faded away, or sounded not quite right, once you read the slovene subtitle. Were I only to understand Slovene and relly on the subtitles only, I'd think the show SUCKED. And we're talking about a country that isn't removied in time from us, and we pretty much have the same/similar habits and social behaviours... and such a simple thing as a Sit-Com is almost impossible to translate to another language. Now imagine trying to translate a religious text, that was written by some other culture, using another language, following different social paterns and behaviours and even hundreds of years removed in time from the country of the texts origin... and you'd pretty much get the situation of the Bible first "alteration" when it was translated from hebrew to greek. And mind you that another alteration like that followed, with it's translation to latin. A completely different culture again, and again removed in time, It's surprising anything at all stayed like it was in the original.

About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people.

[forre]

Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Arameic.
New Testament was written in Greek.

I agree on the translations' issue and I'd like to add that according to the research, the story was written down many years after Jesus' death. It simply was passed from mouth to mouth.

Existence of multiple religions speaks against existence of God in itself. If God really wanted to pass a message to people, it would simply make everyone heard, I mean - every single person living that time. God is enough powerful, I suppose, to perform that trick. So what's all farce about the Bible, Koran and other scripts? It was the tool of getting power over people and since that time the idea of different gods and different super powers was popular and well accepted, it was the easiest way for any leader to use this idea to establish its power.

What about all miracles and healers and wonders in this life? Hmmm .. what about electicity, heart transplantation, black holes and a man walking on the Moon? Show that to anyone 1000 years ago and be their new god. What do I want to say by this? We learned and discovered many interesting things during the centuries and we will continue our research because we will always want a goddamn good explanation. That's in our nature, isn't it?

If to measure in centuries, religion is singing its last song. It simply won't be able to correspond to the modern societies so sooner or later any religion will loose any sense at all. We are evolving intellectually too and our morality doesn't necessarilly need to be based on religious teachings. We can be good, kind and helping not because God said this and that and we are afraid to be punished by it, but because that's the only way to experience the joy of life. Positive emotions are very good natural stimulators. I know, I didn't say anything new. People have known that for centuries.

Adds:
Sorry, forgot about the initial subject. Execution is a one-way road. It can't be undone. If by a mistake a person who didn't do THAT gets executed, we can hardly speak about any justice at all. It's another murder in the name of justice and God and whatever.

It's a huge dilemma for many juridical structures - how do deal with mentally retarted people and psycho cases.

[coolasfcuk]

Interesting subject you've started here .... I will not say much right now ... but I am currently reading Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" .. very interesting, and well fitting in your discussion .... maybe when i feel a bit 'smarter' about the subject after reading it, i will come and discuss

[madeldoe]

Originally Posted by freddie

About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people.

i couldnt agree more!

[ypsidan04]

Originally Posted by Bitty2002

This is something that totally and completely irks me. Christians today primarily use the old testament to also denounce homosexuals- since 99% of the quotes against "homosexuality" (male prostitution) are in the OLD testament.

Right. They reject the Old Testament, and follow the New Testament. EXCEPT when following the Old Testament suits their needs. Like "Man shall not lie with Man. God hates that." in Leviticus, I think. These religious types will ignore the parts that are too obsurd to follow in 2005, but refuse to stop referencing the parts that will further their goals. They need to make up their minds. Either start preaching that a couple cannot sleep in the same bed while the wife is having her period (that's just scratching the surface), or stop using the scripture to justify your discrimination of homosexuals, among other issues. If you want to be heterosexist (a better term for homophobia), then fine, but, to quote what a former teacher of mine would say when someone took the lord's name in vain, "don't bring him into this".

Originally Posted by freddie

About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people.

Thank you.

[bpro50]

Originally Posted by forre

Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Arameic.
New Testament was written in Greek.


Existence of multiple religions speaks against existence of God in itself. If God really wanted to pass a message to people, it would simply make everyone heard, I mean - every single person living that time. God is enough powerful, I suppose, to perform that trick. So what's all farce about the Bible, Koran and other scripts? It was the tool of getting power over people and since that time the idea of different gods and different super powers was popular and well accepted, it was the easiest way for any leader to use this idea to establish its power.

Wrong account of history. Throughout the ages and from one kingdom to another, religion has been the undoing of despots. The easiest way for leaders to exhibit power was not religion but fear and tyranny. True religion offers love, forgiveness, kindness and freedom. Concepts quite foreign to those that want power over others. Many leaders have embraced a form of religion, even Hitler tried to manipulate religious leaders to his own end. But, in the end they revealed themselves as nothing more than tyrants and history reveals them for what they were - beasts. True religion empowers, it is not a tool for someone to manipulate others. There is nothing harder than trying to be a political leader and doing under the guise of religion. I believe that is one reason why many modern day political movements sought to do away with religion altogether. If religion were an easy tool to manipulate a society you can bet modern day communist would have employed it.

[forre]

bpro50, I said it was. The things have changed now. Religions have been adapted to serve the goals of politicians through those years and that hardly can be called "wrong account of history".

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

What about all miracles and healers and wonders in this life? Hmmm .. what about electicity, heart transplantation, black holes and a man walking on the Moon? Show that to anyone 1000 years ago and be their new god. What do I want to say by this? We learned and discovered many interesting things during the centuries and we will continue our research because we will always want a goddamn good explanation. That's in our nature, isn't it?

So? How does this disprove religion? Discovery of black holes does not change our perception of what is right and what is wrong. Heart surgery does not lessen out fear of death. Electricity does not tell us what happens to us after we die.

Originally Posted by forre

If to measure in centuries, religion is singing its last song.

And on what do you base this assumption? Rise of religious right in US? Rise of islamic movements in muslim countries? Strenghtening of radical jewish parties in Israel?

Soviets and Chinese predicted removal of religion. Didn't quite happen.

Originally Posted by forre

It simply won't be able to correspond to the modern societies so sooner or later any religion will loose any sense at all. We are evolving intellectually too and our morality doesn't necessarilly need to be based on religious teachings.

Maybe not in the future but right now it does. And we woun't change morals. Murder will be considered wrong in the future as well. And it will be considered wrong because we consider it wrong now. And we consider it wrong because it was considered wrong before. And like it or not, it was consider wrong because of religion.

Originally Posted by forre

We can be good, kind and helping not because God said this and that and we are afraid to be punished by it, but because that's the only way to experience the joy of life. Positive emotions are very good natural stimulators. I know, I didn't say anything new. People have known that for centuries.

And what joys of life would that be?

[forre]

Originally Posted by luxxi

So? How does this disprove religion? Discovery of black holes does not change our perception of what is right and what is wrong. Heart surgery does not lessen out fear of death. Electricity does not tell us what happens to us after we die.

To be able to know what is right and what is wrong you don't need a religion generally. I was speaking about disoveries as an example. We reached not very far and there's plenty of things to discover which will sooner or later give explanations to parapsychotic fenomenas and may answer the question what lies beyond the life. We'll see. Even if a few people witnessed the rise of Jesus, it doesn't mean that God exists. There's no proof of it whatsoever. We have the stories those were compiled into books like Bible and that's all.

Originally Posted by luxxi

And on what do you base this assumption? Rise of religious right in US? Rise of islamic movements in muslim countries? Strenghtening of radical jewish parties in Israel?

On the fact that church plays a minor role in people's life. On the fact that church disgraced itself so many times. There's no rise or islamic movements. There's an export of the religion as people move around the world but the number of believers isn't increasing. Russia and China face a different development as religions have been forbidden in those countries for many years. Not entirely forbidden but showing up in a church could damage your carreer.

Originally Posted by luxxi

Maybe not in the future but right now it does. And we woun't change morals. Murder will be considered wrong in the future as well. And it will be considered wrong because we consider it wrong now. And we consider it wrong because it was considered wrong before. And like it or not, it was consider wrong because of religion.

Oh really? What about Jahad?

Originally Posted by luxxi

Soviets and Chinese predicted removal of religion. Didn't quite happen.

Too soon. The removal won't happen but instead the church will die out as a dino.

Originally Posted by luxxi

And what joys of life would that be?

It depends on what makes you happy. Do you need religion for that?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

To be able to know what is right and what is wrong you don't need a religion generally. I was speaking about disoveries as an example. We reached not very far and there's plenty of things to discover which will sooner or later give explanations to parapsychotic fenomenas and may answer the question what lies beyond the life. We'll see. Even if a few people witnessed the rise of Jesus, it doesn't mean that God exists. There's no proof of it whatsoever. We have the stories those were compiled into books like Bible and that's all.

No, but morals are inherited from previous geneations. And they based them on religion.

Just because people aren't religious anymore doesn't mean they'll stop believing murder is wrong. And that murder is wrong is based on religion.

Originally Posted by forre

On the fact that church plays a minor role in people's life. On the fact that church disgraced itself so many times.

Once again, what do you base this on? Religion is on the rise in US, islamic world, Israel, Russia, China....

Originally Posted by forre

There's no rise or islamic movements.

No? Who brought 500.000 people to beirut to demonstrate for Syrian presence in Lebanon? Hezbollah, islamic movement. Who were biggest winners in Iraq? United Iraqi Alliance, shi'ia based group. And SCIRI. Supreme council for ISlamic revolution in Iraq. Who were biggest winners in saudia? Islamists.

Open your eyes. Anytime you have something aproaching fair elections in muslim world islamic parties win.

Originally Posted by forre

There's an export of the religion as people move around the world but the number of believers isn't increasing. Russia and China face a different development as religions have been forbidden in those countries for many years. Not entirely forbidden but showing up in a church could damage your carreer.

No? You have any data to back this up?

Originally Posted by forre

Oh really? What about Jahad?

Who?

Originally Posted by forre

Too soon. The removal won't happen but instead the church will die out as a dino.

How many times this was predicted. Didn't happen yet.

Originally Posted by forre

It depends on what makes you happy. Do you need religion for that?

Religion no. Morals yes. And morals are religion based.

[forre]

Originally Posted by luxxi

No, but morals are inherited from previous geneations. And they based them on religion.
Just because people aren't religious anymore doesn't mean they'll stop believing murder is wrong. And that murder is wrong is based on religion.

This statement is as conclusive as mine. You can't proove that the values are based on religion as I can't proove the opposite. Religion adopted values those existed before. The history of mankind didn't begin some 3 000 years ago.

Originally Posted by luxxi

Once again, what do you base this on? Religion is on the rise in US, islamic world, Israel, Russia, China....

On its fall in Europe.

Originally Posted by luxxi

No? You have any data to back this up?

To back up wich of 2 statements?

Originally Posted by forre

Who?

Jihad, I meant. Sorry, spelling.

Originally Posted by luxxi

How many times this was predicted. Didn't happen yet.

And how many?

Originally Posted by luxxi

Religion no. Morals yes. And morals are religion based.

As said under the first quote in this post - a conclusive statement. We can't know.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

This statement is as conclusive as mine. You can't proove that the values are based on religion as I can't proove the opposite. Religion adopted values those existed before.

I disagree. Morals developed when civilisations developed. and when civilisations developed so did religion. When our ancestors lived in caves there were no morals. It was rule of the strongest.

Originally Posted by forre

The history of mankind didn't begin some 3 000 years ago.

Neither did religion.

Originally Posted by forre

On its fall in Europe.

It's on the rise elsewhere. And Europe is only small part of the world.

Originally Posted by forre

To back up wich of 2 statements?

That religion is on the decline.

Originally Posted by forre

Jihad, I meant. Sorry, spelling.

Well, first we must clarify which jihad we are talking about. Greater or smaller. But let's assume we are talking about lesser one. In rules on fighting jihad murder is prohibited. As are attacks on civilians, religious buildings etc.

If the term is hijacked and abused it doesn't change it's meaning.

Originally Posted by forre

And how many?

Well, communist nations tried. they failed. germans tried to destroy jewish faith 8together with Jews). They failed. They tried to do away with christianity. they failed.

History of attempts to destroy a religion is history of failures. Only way to destroy religion is to kill everybody who is believer. This, however, worked several times.

Originally Posted by forre

As said under the first quote in this post - a conclusive statement. We can't know.

Civilisation, religion and morals went hand in hand. I'd say that is pretty good evidence.

Besides Western culture is called judeo-christian. I wonder why, if our morals aren't based on religion.

[forre]

Okay, the discussion here is narrowed down to two issues.
1. Moral is formed by religion.
2. Religion is on the rise/fall.

1. Religion didn't create any morality. Morality is a constantly changing category. Religion applies its morality to serve its goals. Jihad is turned into murder, catholic church has burnt thousands of people just because they didn't believe in God, holy crusades were done in the name of God. So, religion is a tool to excersice the power.

2. It is in Europe and Europe is a big part of the world. It's the most advanced too (along with the Satates, Australia and Japan). Russia was more religious before its revolution than now and statistically the religion is simply restoring itself there. It was gone for a century - artificially. It depends on how you look at the statistics.

Now, back to the executions. How could it happen that USA, Asia and Middle East are more religious than Europe and can't come to the point to abolish executions while Europe could do it? Where is logic?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

Okay, the discussion here is narrowed down to two issues.
1. Moral is formed by religion.
2. Religion is on the rise/fall.

More or less.

Originally Posted by forre

1. Religion didn't create any morality. Morality is a constantly changing category.

Basics remain the same. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Marriage. All these are based on religion.

Originally Posted by forre

Religion applies its morality to serve its goals.

People use religion to achieve their goals.

Originally Posted by forre

Jihad is turned into murder, catholic church has burnt thousands of people just because they didn't believe in God, holy crusades were done in the name of God. So, religion is a tool to excersice the power.

Religion is hijacked to achieve temporal goals.

Originally Posted by forre

2. It is in Europe and Europe is a big part of the world. It's the most advanced too (along with the Satates, Australia and Japan).

It's small part of the world. And you are lumping together countries that are different. What is Jepan doing here?

Religion is on the rise in US. It may be in decline in Europe. Don't know about Japan and Australia. It's on the rise in muslim countries. It's on the rise in Africa.

Originally Posted by forre

Russia was more religious before its revolution than now and statistically the religion is simply restoring itself there. It was gone for a century - artificially. It depends on how you look at the statistics.

So it isn't on the decline as you claimed before?

Originally Posted by forre

Now, back to the executions. How could it happen that USA, Asia and Middle East are more religious than Europe and can't come to the point to abolish executions while Europe could do it? Where is logic?

Most religions have "eye for an eye concept". It stems from there.

[forre]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Basics remain the same. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Marriage. All these are based on religion.

And where from did religion get these values? Is it possible that people just realised that killing, stealing and cheating can't unify people?

Russia and China has a different story I said. The religion isn't on the rise there if to take a 300 years span. If you take a 100 years span - it is on the rise but not really on the rise - sooner on resurrection, i.e. back from the dead. Africa has always been extremely religious and it's the least developed region of the world too. What do you want from people those think that having a sexual intercourse with a child can heal AIDS? As for the States? A phenomena for sure.

"Eye for an eye concept" - shouldn't even be there. Murder is a murder, that's it. You don't need to apply religion to realise that.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

And where from did religion get these values? Is it possible that people just realised that killing, stealing and cheating can't unify people?

Or amybe they invented religion and passed these morals from it because they knew that if they speak for God people will listen more than if they speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by forre

Russia and China has a different story I said. The religion isn't on the rise there if to take a 300 years span.

If you tkae 300 year span then religion isn't on decline in europe as well.

Originally Posted by forre

If you take a 100 years span - it is on the rise but not really on the rise - sooner on resurrection, i.e. back from the dead.

So if you take short span it's ont he rise. If you take longer span it's more or less same. So why do you claim it's on the decline?

Originally Posted by forre

Africa has always been extremely religious and it's the least developed region of the world too. What do you want from people those think that having a sexual intercourse with a child can heal AIDS?

So why are you saying religion is on the decline?

Originally Posted by forre

As for the States? A phenomena for sure.

So in US religion isn't on the decline as well?

Originally Posted by forre

"Eye for an eye concept" - shouldn't even be there. Murder is a murder, that's it. You don't need to apply religion to realise that.

Hmmmmm, people who bashed other people over the head with rocks to take over their caves didn't think so.

As for murder being murder. True. It remains open what punishment should there be. Why are people saying state is murdering people with death penalty but they don't say state kidnaps them when they are put in prison?

[forre]

Why do I say that? Because if to take a 300 time span - religion was prevailing in all countries of the world. Now we have a different picture. I don't speak about Christian or Islamic trends, I speak about different religions.

So a man uses religion to achieve its goals? Who did create religion and for what?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

Why do I say that? Because if to take a 300 time span - religion was prevailing in all countries of the world. Now we have a different picture. I don't speak about Christian or Islamic trends, I speak about different religions.

And of those 300 years decline is present in past 50 or so. And even that in small aprt of the world.

Want to say religion is in decline in Europe recently? Fine, that's true?
Want to say religion is in decline overall? That's not true.

Originally Posted by forre

So a man uses religion to achieve its goals?

If your goal is salvation then yes. Anything wrong with that?

Originally Posted by forre

Who did create religion and for what?

I don't know, I never studied culture. I'd say to explain world around him. Sun rises? Must be a god that travells around the sky? Rivers flood? Must be god living in river that is angry.

[forre]

Originally Posted by luxxi

If your goal is salvation then yes.

And if your goal is the opposite? I don't even want to take any examples. A man wanted power. You can't become powerful only by destroying or killing, first you need to give. The one who gives has the power. After you can kill using this power.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by forre

And if your goal is the opposite?

Why would anybody deliberatly damn his soul?

Originally Posted by forre

I don't even want to take any examples. A man wanted power. You can't become powerful only by destroying or killing, first you need to give. The one who gives has the power. After you can kill using this power.

Only if you ahve soemthing people want and you are willing to give.