Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

If you admit that he did not uphold the Mosaic Law with respect to adultery, then you have no reason to suppose he would do so with respect to murder, especially as his argument for not stoning the adulteress would apply equally against stoning a murderer. Either that or the reason why you so often find yourself in disagreement with brilliant people is that they think more clearly than you do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Leaving aside the other ethical questions which this raises, one might simply point out that the state is an abstraction, and that it is pretty much impossible for the state to treat an individual cruelly without individuals treating that individual cruelly. Some particular person had to sentence Jesus, another had to flog him, another to nail him to the cross. Can the entire moral guilt be placed upon that abstraction, "the Roman Empire", or should we say that those particular individuals were doing something that they ought not to have done?

Look, I'm the one who gets held responsible for these long off-topic chains. I'd take it to another thread but I doubt there's that much impetus to keep up an entire thread. But you could do it if you think there is.The moral guilt is ALWAYS placed upon the highest commander in the chain of command. That is NOT an "abstraction." However, Pilate washed his hands of the guilt. The main guilt therefore fell on the Jewish leaders who insisted on Jesus being executed against Pilate's sense that He was innocent, and partly because they did vaguely recognize Him as the Messiah, whereas the Romans had no clue whom they were executing.Jesus forgave all His enemies from the cross.Christian theology teaches that we are ALL guilty of the blood of Jesus, but the Jews specifically took His guilt upon themselves when they willingly said that was their wish to Pilate, choosing the release of the criminal Barabbas and the execution of Jesus.So that's how the wrong execution of an innocent man should be understood. But the topic here is the guilty. The highest commander has the moral responsibility in that case too, but he has no guilt when judging an offender.Anything else you'd like to know? Please take it to another thread.

Interesting. Do you think they should have been executed. Does anything in the story suggest that? I am on topic. I am discussing a very recent speech by the leading Republican candidate and why I think it is evidence that Trump would be a bad president. I am not dealing with the definition of PC or dealing out insults.The story dealt with executing prisoners captured in a battle. They should not have been executed, and I am not aware of any policy to kill 49 out of 50 prisoners and to send the last one home to tell what happened. You accepted those details and jumped on the secondary issue of dipping the bullets in pigs blood and missed the rest of the gore.In any event, according to the article I read, the audience for Trump's speech did not miss the details of killing people.

quote:

---

"And he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those 50 people, and he said to the 50th, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened -- and in 25 years there wasn't a problem," Trump said to the audience, which grew quiet as he told the story.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Romans had determined Jesus to be blameless, and carried out his execution in order to keep down the level of unrest among Jews. Surely that leaves plenty of blame to for each party.In other contexts, the bookkeepers at Nazi death camps find themselves on trial. I wonder why none of these guys ever successfully defend themselves by blaming things on the commander of the camp or on Hitler.

OK, if we're on topic I'm good with that.I addressed the situation of enemies being rightfully executed. If they were wrongfully executed that's another subject and perhaps you need to find out how Trump understood the situation before you pass judgment.But that change of subject makes the incident of the pig's blood utterly irrelevant. Another case of leftist-induced confusion.

Unbelievers can't get anything right about the Bible. Has nothing to do with intelligence, it's about spiritual discernment. It does show up as a failure of intelligence nevertheless since so many of these things are not that difficult to sort.If He didn't specifically rescind the death penalty for murder we have no reason to assume He would have. Another case of failure of discrimination between categories.

Do you find that it is okay to execute POWs? You are suggesting that there is some doubt regarding the answer to that question. You can conceive of a situation where it is okay for the commander to execute 49 of 50 prisoners and to then send the 50th prisoner back home to tell the story? In that context, what is the implication of the pig's blood? Why even do that?I submit that there is no reason to ask Trump these questions. The answers are quite obvious to me.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi, Faith. Wrong? I don't know about that, but they're almost certainly wired differently from "rightist" brains. Here is a site that lists some recent research on the interface of politics and brain physiology. Take a quick look: that site highlights 16 recent studies that discuss some interesting patterns. And, it's pretty neutral: it's not pro-leftist propaganda, or anything like that.I am reminded of my debate with Bolder-dash a few years ago about whether or not apes had beards.I imagine that the frustration you're feeling right now is lot like what I was feeling then: "how the hell are we looking at the same @#$&! photographs, and yet somehow seeing two very different things? One of us must be crazy, or at least irreconcilably wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's not me. But, am I really sure?"I think the same thing is happening here with the Donald Trump comments and PC discussion. I don't think anybody participating on this thread is crazy, stupid or blatantly dishonest (and that includes you, Faith): you're all just looking at the same thing, but seeing something different.That's why we have democracy: because when two parties become deadlocked in spite of all the evidence, unfortunately the only way to decided who is wrong is to gather more opinions. In my mind, voting should be one of the simplest things we do as a society, but instead we have this drawn-out system of primaries and caucuses and delegate formulas. But, that's the process we have, so that's what we'll rely on.I have to say that I find it distressing to know that so many people are rallying behind Trump. That's a huge chunk of the people in my own country whose brains are apparently wired very different from mine. Naturally, that makes me uncomfortable; but what is to be done about it?

I don't have the slightest interest in "research" into brain physiology presented on a Leftist website designed to make the Right wrong. I mean really.You know what's really interesting about this thread? Has anybody brought up the email scandal Hillary is guilty of? Or anything else about her life that shows her to be not just wrong about, say, some of her political positions but actual behavior that puts her over the line personally into criminality? (How about her defense of her husband's sexual predation against his victims?) Of course not, because this is a Leftist site and you don't do that to leftist candidates. You do it to anybody on the Right with whatever you can dig up -- or invent -- about them. There are plenty on the Right who think she should be in prison rather than running for President. Trump has a long record of personal sin (worse than Bill Clinton's sexual predation?), he does not have a record of criminal betrayal of the nation.There are also plenty on the Right who think that socialism is anti-American by definition but right-wingers aren't posting to this thread, at least not right-wingers who have real knowledge of this stuff, which I don't claim to have.I was making a sardonic joke about braindead leftists, I refuse to make it into more than that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi, Faith. I was trying to be supportive, Faith. I know it was just a silly joke, but you were actually right: liberal brains are "wired wrong"; at least from your perspective. I was hoping you would see it as me throwing you a bone and trying to find some common ground that we could laugh about and start a productive discussion.Just check it out: it's not propaganda, it's just a list of scientific studies. Some of it is pretty favorable to conservatives, in fact: #16, for example, says liberals tend to sleep poorly and have weird dreams.Come on, I read the article about Marxist PC that you linked to. If you wanted to start a thread about political correctness, I'd be interested in joining you there.----- I believe that Hillary was stupidly irresponsible with her email, and willfully disregarded rules that were supposed to protect sensitive information. The mean little vigilante in my head (which I normally suppress) is pulling for her to be indicted for it. But, I'd still rather elect her than Donald Trump.There, I brought it up. But, I don't particularly want to debate it, because I don't like fighting with people who understand the topic better than I do. I refer you to source #15 on the list for one possible explanation for my cowardly behavior.

OK, Blue Jay, I apparently misunderstood you and I'm sorry. I do have a flash negative reaction to claims that physiology can explain psychology, that goes way way back in my life before becoming a Christian. I hated behaviorism because it made that claim, I hate all attempts to reduce the mental to the physical, except of course where physical deterioration obviously takes a toll.At least this one gives some support to right-wingers, according to you, but that isn't going to be any more convincing to me in the end than the other way around because I object to the whole equation.Earlier in the thread I considered starting a new one to explore Political Correctness but I'm afraid I'm pretty worn out on it by now. Perhaps if you started such a thread giving your own take on the essay about PC as Cultural Marxism you'd revive me enough to participate.Meanwhile I need a break and my collection of Downton Abbey beckons. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, not usually. The Nuremberg trials, for example, did not consist of a whole bunch of Nazis saying "I'm not Hitler" and being told in return "Oh, in that case you have no moral guilt and are free to go." Faith. Surely it is not your opinion that that actually works.

Yes we do, namely his attitude towards the death penalty for adultery. That's not chopped liver, Faith.Suppose you see a Jewish man eating prawns and lobster. You are asked how he would react if he was offered a bacon sandwich. You reply "He would reject it because it isn't kosher".Now, while it is not completely clear that he would eat the sandwich, it is clear that the reason you've given why he wouldn't does not stand up to scrutiny.The parallel is fairly exact, I think.

Hey Thanks! I'd never heard of this series before, but the description of the series on Wikipedia made it sound fantastic. I'm going to locate a series or so of this for my own viewing.