Look @SirWarriant, @TheDivineInfidel obvioulsy didn´t read my crap, but he came to the same question as I did. Probably we are both off the rails in the same direction here…
1 Like
damn right i didnt read it 
to be fair i dont think ive ever actually read a long reply on this forum , i just skim read .
1 Like
Busy will respond in a bit.
1 Like
keep making up those burritos boy 
1 Like
An unlawful killing would be one that goes against God’s law. Simple. The Courts of Man we have today are (supposed to be) modeled after Christian Law, but they are still two different things. If one party in a murder case successfully frames someone and they are hanged, God will give a different ruling and instead the false witness will be damned and the hanged man will not be guilty of murder, and the judge and executioner will also not be guilty as they thought they were killing the right guy. God is omniscient, and will know the right ruling, but men can only do their best . This doesn’t negate that Western tradition is still based on Christian law, or that Traditional Western Germanic governance and familial structure is based on Heavenly Hierarchy.
No, God does not need our courts, his Judgement is separate, but his law his still laid out for our benefit.
No, the guy that hired a hitman would not go to hell for murder if there was proof of guilt for the hit target. That would only show the illegitimacy of the court.
No, it would not be wrong to stop the man trying to kill your wife, as there had been to due process attempted for warrant more direct means. Also, breaking and entering with a firearm is grounds for self defense by lethal means, both by the Word of Christ and the Law of Florida.
Lastly, here is a hot take: The Nuremberg Trails were illegitimate, and many involved are hellbound. Much of the evidence has been found to be fabricated, and even Patton called it a “sham.” It was more about spiteful revenge and removing any possible political threats to the occupation of Germany than actual Justice. The Allies had no grounds to sentence anyone for anything considering that they were also guilty of War Crimes, such as firebombing civilian populations, executing POWs (SS, Wehrmact, and Volkssturm), mass sanctioned rapes, and massive open-air concentration camps where military and civilians were kept packed like sardines with little/no shelter and rations. It is ironic, that the Nazis are famous for the propaganda and gullible citizens, but no one ever stops to consider if the same applied to us. Talk about hubris.
1 Like
Also, about the earlier “huur thou shant use the lords name is vain wtf is this even mean lmao”. Please do your research. A better translation is “Do not carry the Lords name in vain”, it means do not claim to be a Christian if you are not. Simple.
Things become a lot easier if you study the whole Bible in context, instead of just a few snippets from a flawed translation out of context.
1 Like
I don’t make burritos, i just cook everything.
That would explain why your counter arguments are always shit.
2 Likes
I never claimed to be Christian (even if this is my name).
What you said goes contrary to @SirWarriant´s idea about moral. He claimed the execution of the Nazis just, but I can understand that under your circumstances this falls under the point, that he didn´t had enough information about it.
Also, you say the problem if somebody enters your house and shoots your wife, the problem in the eyes of god isn´t that he shot your wife, but that he entered your bedroom, even with a gun, no matter if he wanted to kill somebody or not. If he kills your wife, it was justified before god, because your wife was a murderer, and if you kill him, as he is an innocent, it will be justified too, because you didn´t know.
Yes, most logical answer is this case.
That would mean, that moral needs knowledge, if you don´t know about circumstances, every decision you make, can go contrary to the objective moral of god, but it still can be justfied, because you didn´t know, because god is forgiving, and he doesn´t punished you if you didn´t followed his moral, because you didn´t know better.
There is a problem with that, every human behaves in the best interest of his knowledge to do good.
The objective moral of good can be studied in the bible, but there is always a layer of things you don´t know. You have to assume, that your moral behaviour is missguided by circumstances you don´t know, and the best way to come gods moral als close as possible, is to interpret his words as literal as possible. That must be the consequence if you want to proof to god that you follow his moral. You need to become a fundamentalist, and if you do this, there are other, new points to critisice, as the moral vanishes behind a layer of transcendence.
That means, the death penalty for example is right and wrong at the same time, depending you you interpret the bible, to what conclusion you come. Only god knows the truth, if he sees that you tried to come to the right conclusion, you will not go to hell, because you didn´t know better.
It means, you need to have two kind of information, what does the moral of god say what is good and bad, and you need to have enough information about the situation in which you are to compare it with your knowledge about moral to decide. For this, the bible offers both, moral, and a view on how the world works, to make it possible to understand what is going on, and then decide if it is moraly good or bad.
Interesting.
This make the Bible a moral guidline, but objective moral decoupled from reality.
This might be the best and a working representation of what we can see in the world from a christian perspective. Moral is objectified but not validatable, or at least only through the bible, which in this case it he only vehicle to get a glimbse behind the transcendence curtain.
I don’t know enough about the Nuremberg trails to comment. I assumed it was mainly the camp operators, and units who had been implicated in massacring civilians.
But the principle remains the same. I believe mass murders should receive the death penalty.
I’ll be able to respond to your other posts soon.
By the way, @SirWarriant, I forgot to mention it, you are completely right about Hitler and Islam.
He especially liked Islam because the christians were not willing to fight against the Jews with the passion of the muslims. It is an irony, that the Nazis of today in Germany fight against the islamic threat instead of beeing happy about it. They share a lot of interests.
I just stay with my opinion that one person alone isn´t the cause of the tragety of the second world war.
Germans put him in power because they believed in him.
According to Skoruligr perspective of moral, they did this in a justified way, because they didn´t know better.
Reasons for executions are covered in old testament.
Actually i didn’t even say that (though that is what i believe).
I cannot say if they would go to hell or not, but Vengeance is considered sinful in Christianity.
Because helmut did it out of hatred and revenge for the person he hired a hit on, which would make it murder.
Again you’re making an anarchist argument. How am i wrong for locking someone in a cage for not obeying me, when the government is allowed to do so? -Your logic.
If the court sentencing a man to death for murder, is the same as a man killing someone in revenge for murdering his family, then you must also think that kidnapping someone for not listening to you, is the same as police arresting someone for not obeying their law.
Courts do not sentence people to death out of revenge, since most the people who carried out the sentence were not affected by the criminals actions.
I don’t think it’s only the nazis who are upset about the current immigration system employed in Germany. Really anyone with half a brain should be.
I never said one person alone was responsible for ww2. And yes i do not believe the majority of Germans wanted to mass murder jews even if they didn’t like them much. Most people don’t have bad intentions behind their actions, but that does not mean their actions aren’t evil.
And you’re barking up the wrong tree here. I think the amount of shaming leveled against Germans is absurd, especially given 99% of those responsible for the atrocities are buried in the ground.
1 Like
No I am just showing the consequeses of your logic. Yes, what you say makes sences from the perspective as a society, because we have to make sure the society is under control and people don´t do crimial acts because they think it is legit. But from gods perspective, he knows what is true or not, he don´t need evidence to come to an conclusion.
In my logic (which we never talked here about in detail), law is important for the society, that may be the case for your system too, but you are linking this to the objective law of god in both ways, and then it gets very confusing.
The perspective of @Skoruligr seems to be much more consistent and doesn´t have this odd plotholes.
I was kind of impressed of his explanation and I understand a bit better now why the Bible is such a powerfull book and why people in fact can believe it.
At the same time, he didn´t agreed with you on the examples. Cases where you said, they are a clear murder, he said, God might see a kill in them, while society missinterpret them as murder because of the lack of information and the other way around.
From his perspective, there is an objective moral, but you never know exactly if you follow it rightly.
You could missinterpret the objective moral, or you could miss some important information, and a former behaviour which was moral can be actually amoral and the other way around.
That doesn´t mean that moral is random, there are indicators on what is moral, and what is not in his perpective, but there is a grayzone inbetween black and white where you as a human lack of information to determinate.
This works quite well as an explanation of the world. If we look at this perpective, and then look out in the world… yes… it could be the trues, the world behaves accordingly.
I would disagree on this theory, but it is consistent, I can´t deny that.
I am not sure about that.
To say something about my moral codex, it is a form of theoretical reciprocity.
I don´t want to be killed, so I don´t kill.
I don´t want to be cheated on, so I don´t cheat.
If I have an accident, and I need blood from the bloodbank, there must be somebody who donated it. So I donate blood.
I am a Volunteer firefighter because I think I want to live in a contributing society, so I need to contribute too.
If I see how somebody gets beaten up in the street, I call the police, because I would want that somebody would call the police if I would get beaten up.
If @Skoruligr posts some shit in the trollcave, and I want to ban him, because I am afraid of the reputation of warhorse, but you say I should not, I at least listen to you, because if I would be in this position, I would also want that somebody would listen to me and come to a reasonable conclusion.
If I do a crime, and get punished, I must agree that I also would like a criminal gets punished if somebody does a crime to me.
If I get my worldview questioned in a rude way, I don´t like it. Who does? But I can stand it, I don´t need a safespace. Would I like to get censored if I said something offensive? No. So I need to stand if somebody questions my worldview in an offensive way.
That the trollcave must stay hidden is against my personal moral believes, but I understand that there are people out there, who want to blame Warhorse for the evil in the world.
I don´t mean, if somebody break my bones I need to break his bones. It would not help me if we break his bones. What I really want if somebody breaks my bones, that he regrets and I get help.
So if I break somebodies bones, do something that I regret it and get the poor guy some help.
Not ten commandments, just two words: theoretical reciprocity
There are some points where I say it is difficult to distinguish between good and bad. Sometimes because the world is complex and I don´t know the truth, sometimes because it is a moral dilemma.
And here starts the point of Ideology. A simplification of the construction of the world and at the same time a guidline to transform it into a better place by claiming the fight against the evil.
A filter in perception of what is happening in the world and why, a tool to understand the complexity of the world and to give your live a purpose, something you can believe in. A goal to fill in the undefined variable of meaning to act with sense.
This variable is strong enough to overwrite theoretical reciprocity in our society to some degree.
It is necesarry there to give people a purpose in their social behaviour.
Every religion is an ideology, and you can believe in more then one on different layers.
Capitalism, Communism, National Socialism, Feminism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Hedonism.
My personal believe is a social form of Luhmannism because I think it is the best representation of our society as a whole. You even can integrate capitalism, into it as it is. Or better, you even have to. So I am a capitalist at the same time?
I say capitalism is true, but an oversimplified view of our society with a lot of blind spots.
If you want to explain the society from a capitalist perspective, you are like a blind man touching the tail of an elephant, and trying to explain the whole animal from this perspective. What you say is true but limited and you even come to wrong conclusions.
Moral works as an immune reaction on problems in the society, it simplifies by making an distinction between good and evil, reduces the complexity of the world to one or a few topics which has to be important for the morality, and on doing this, it generates supporters to fight for the common goal.
It shifts away from the cause of the deeper problem to a personal layer.
The problem itself it too complex for an easy solution, so the fight focuses on the human proxys of the problem. You can´t fight the abstract concept of poverty, so you attack the one you claim is guilty to create poverty. Businessmans.
You can´t fight the abstract concept of a high crimerate, so you attack the one you claim is guilty to create the high crimerate. Mexicans.
If you combine theoretical reciprocity and ideology, you can create rules and start to write it into a law.
Does christianity as an ideology influences our moral system and our law?
Yes, sure it does.
Is christianity the only influence of our moral system and our law?
No, there are a lot of laws which you can´t explain with christian values, and there are a lot of christian values, which are not written into law.
Is our moral system and law based on christian values?
No, it is just influenced by it, as it is also influenced by other ideologies, too. The Amercan law even says, that the state can´t establish a religion. God, Jesus or the Bible is nowhere mentioned in the constituion in the country that claims to be one nation under god.
Is christianity important to create a fair and just law?
Absolutely not. Could be completely pushed out of it and the society would still not collapse.
never read them please source them
Link is above, been posted twice now.
Death penalty of murder is in there. Unfortunately Christianity removed the death penalty for bestiality, and homosexuality, something those Hebrews had right.
1 Like
post again i aint got time to scroll
American doing everything for a lazy a Brit, 1940s all over again. 
Roughly translates to you’re my bitch and will bloody well do as you’re told
1 Like
Rip America- 1776-2017
And to think there are actual morons in the comment sections calling him a “libtard” for expecting the president to follow through with his number one campaign promise.