The Forum > Article Comments > To limit choice is to limit life > Comments
To limit choice is to limit life : Comments
By Emily Maguire, published 6/7/2006Without the right to be reckless, passionate, brave, unconventional or even plain stupid - all other choices are meaningless.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 7 July 2006 3:20:09 PM
| |
Boaz, you sink to new depths of depravity when you claim that the god you worship commanded his so-called chosen people to massacre every man, woman, child and baby of those races which allegedly didn't come up to his expectations.
As for your apparent fascination for bestiality and incest, well the mind boggles! Do you still expect us to take you seriously on anything? Posted by Rex, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:10:47 PM
| |
Boazo, not only did you fall well short of answering my questions, but you also exposed some of the large holes in your whole position. You who are always preaching about how Islam is a religion that embraces violence and intolerance, in this thread you bring to light a passage of the Bible that demonstrates that Christianity is open to the same charge.
If the lesson of how the destruction of the 'immoral' Canaanites is exhorted is irrelevant to how modern examples of perceived immorality are to be treated, why did you raise it at all in this thread? Probably because in your eagerness to litter OLO with biblical quotes, you became careless. I think this carelessness was also exposed by Narcissist in a response to you in today's other article about choice. You seem to think choice should be limited to following Christianity and attempting to achieve salvation from that path. Yet, you did not answer my earlier question about the fate of those who do not realistically have that choice. Yours is a religion for the world's lucky, the world's elite. Posted by PK, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:21:50 PM
| |
I feel, in a way, I owe broughom an apology- although broughom's arguments seemed incomplete, at least they were arguments...
Perhaps the true face of the religious right's crusade against our rights to make so called "immoral" choices has surfaced… I don't expect any of those posters to alter their stance one iota, given that no shred of reasonable argument can be found in their posts, but hopefully those who read these posts starting from a somewhat neutral perspective, can now see the sorts of things that religious and sexual minorities are up against in Australia (especially now with religious fundamentalism having so much influence in parliament at the moment). Abednego tells us "choice is the absence of knowledge", and Emily an "anti-society-thought-robot..."-good to see Abednego avoids the egocentric, intellectual peddling she/he so despises by avoiding any intellectual rigor in her/his "arguments"...at least in Abednego's defence, by not actually making any points (other than attacking Emily and choice) her/his post can not be construed as supporting the sort of nonsense that follows in Boaz_David's posts... Trying to extract some sort of argument from Boaz_David's posts (quoting scripture does not, of itself, make any point), I believe that Boaz_David believes- -"Choice without boundaries is moral anarchy " -we "worship" sensuality and open sexual permisiveness - this "worship" goes beyond the boundaries (hence "social damage"?) -this post is in response to Emily's article, and Boaz_David lists the point "-Same sex marraiges." shortly after confusingly talking about "crunch"ing people; I interpret this as an attempt to show choosing same sex marriage partners, is harmful, or "crunch"ing. I also think Boaz_David is trying to construct a "slippery slope" argument, whereby the choices from either Emily's article or from the points about "crunch"ed people lead to group orgies, cult prostitution, baby sacrifice et al. Boaz_David -can you enlighten me if I have completely misinterpreted your points? Otherwise, can you string them together with some premises (what determines boundaries of behaviour? How do the choices from this article cross the boundaries? What is the harm from this?) and construct an argument for us to disagree on? Posted by wibble, Saturday, 8 July 2006 1:45:06 PM
| |
Great article, Emily!
I also have serious problems with laws requiring us to where bicycle helmets and seat belts (although I would still choose, myself, to wear seatbelts most of the time, regardless). A few years ago I recall a cover on the ironically named "Choice" magazine advocating making it compulsory for skateboarders to wear helmets. Glad that one never got off the ground. Posted by daggett, Monday, 10 July 2006 11:19:26 AM
| |
PK
I do not believe that the judgement on the Canaanites (a time specific historical event, commanded by God) can be used to justify us destroying immoral or unbelieving people today "in Gods name". Clear ? Rex, I hope you take me seriously on all things that are mean't seriously. WIBBLES.. you understand me correctly. "Slippery Slope" is probably a very good description of how I view 'un-anchored' society. It may be that you or others regard child sacrifice, fertility rituals with cult prostitutes as an 'ok' thing, but while 'we' don't engage in child sacrifice today...OOOPS..wait.... don't we ? hmmmmm *thinks*... how about the unborn and in some cases NEARLY born children we sacrifice on the alter of 'convenience' to our deity of 'me'.? How about Peter Singer and his 'lets cull them' approach to the handicapped. Not only is it a slippery slope, it's also 'frog in a beaker of gradually warmed water' (u know that one) Perhaps the reason u don't notice it is that ur that frog ? Cast your eyes 'back'....look at the social conditions prior to the major evangelical awakenings. http://dylee.keel.econ.ship.edu/UBF/leaders/whitfild.htm [The effect, (of the GIN craze) according to the Bishop of London, was that gin made the English people what they never were before, cruel and inhuman. In those days, the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. Street children and the insane were cruelly treated, the London Mafia thrived, gambling was everywhere, and stage productions were obscene even by today's standards. ] Do you note those last words.. ? "by todays standards" THEN.....National Repentance. The voice of John Whitefield was soon joined by John and Charles Wesley, and many others. Starting with Whitefield, a tremendous chorus of praise and preaching rang throughout the land, and was sustained for at least fifty years. The revival changed the entire temper of English society. The church was restored to life and activity. The people had a fresh zeal which purified their literature and their manners. A new social philosophy was born, whereby prisons were reformed and education became available to all people. HALELUJAH. Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 8:14:24 AM
|
The most important aspect of the judgement of the Canaanites was its divine origin.
Equally important, the Israelites were instructed to offer peace to Cities of their enemies which were not part of surrounding nations. But not those of the Canaanites who were to be an inheritance to Israel under the covenant promise to Abraham ....
Deuteronomy 20
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.
Clearly, the command to destroy and anihilate was specific to the Canaanites of that particular geographical region and time. We cannot generalize it to turn it into a modern justification to eliminate "In Gods name" those who disagree with us on morality.
Rather, the solution to our moral and spiritual waywardness is nothing other than national and individual repentance.
A turning back to our Creator in humility and reliance as per our constitution preamble "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God"
Yes, and when we do turn, we will also turn from those debilitating values which are currently destroying and wrecking our social fabric and personal standing.