Bill Maher Gets a Little Edgy..

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
The norwegian translation of the ten commandments says you can’t desire anothers wife. I hope the english are getting a better deal.
G-d should have made a norwegian version of the bible from the get go, so it wouldn’t be misunderstood.[/quote]

The word is “chamad.”

“Desire” is not exactly correct; nor is “lust after;” nor even “covet,” although “covet” is the closest.

And it’s not just someone else’s wife – it’s their stuff – car, house, etc. Or even their accomplishments.

It’s basically an admonition against setting your heart to things that are forbidden because it such desire makes you spiritually sick and envious.

Such unhealthy desire leads to envy, unhappiness, unfulfulment with life, and even theft and murder.

+++++

It’s not, “hey my wife’s neighbor is hot.”

It’s obssessing over her beauty in an unhealthy way, such that you neglect your wife (or wish your wife was her) or resent your neighbor.[/quote]

Yep.

142

[quote]espenl wrote:
Don’t be an envious bastard is a lot better than “you shall not desire your neighbours wife”. With your translation it went from a silly rule to something people should do regardless of religion. [/quote]

It’s certainly a more poetic way of putting it. And correct, religious truths are just truths. They are correct whether with in the scope or religion or not.

143

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
It just tickles me that an entire group of people think they are always right and everyone else is wrong. Like I learned “it is no morally possible to actually go out into the world and say to devout, intelligent, fellow human beings: 'we are saved and you are damned or we believe that we know god and we are right; you believe that you know god and you are totally wrong.”[/quote]
It seems both christians and muslim do exactly this.[/quote]

No they don’t.

And atheists tend to have the largest demographic of know-it-all’s. Further, they are the most murderous demographic in the history of the world. No terrorist Muslim could perpetrate such evils on the world in their wildest 72 virgin wet dreams.

Keep some perspective.[/quote]

Yes, they do. All religions profess to have the “one truth” and more often than not condemn the non-believers to hell or worse. And the religious have the majority of know-it-alls, let’s not pretend atheists walk from door to door in droves preaching the way of Dawkins or Dennett or Hitchens etc.
[/quote]
I don’t see what condoms have to do with it. And no, religion does corner the market on know-it-all’s. Most Christians don’t go door to door Bible thumping. Very few do that. And let’s not pretend that atheists don’t advertise. They take out billboards, magazine ad’s, and various other methodologies to get the word out. They are interested in converts. You might not be, but there are plenty out there who are.

The religious are rank armatures compared to their atheist counterparts.

I wish I could disagree. I hope we’re both wrong.

[quote]
But see, it’s about the amount of extremists within each demographic that we have to worry about - bugger all atheists that would push that button. Same with Christians. And Buddhists. And Hindus.

Islam, on the other hand…

Let’s not kid ourselves, not all religious beliefs are equal. Some are vastly more dangerous than others. So with that in mind, let’s get back to the original point.[/quote]
Good point.

144

[quote]Karado wrote:
What’s interesting is that Jesus didn’t specifically address Homosexuality while on Earth…There MUST have been
a number of them who were living in the area, and likely even in the attendance at the great Sermon on the Mount,
the perfect opportunity to address a subject he must have known about because it was quite commonly practiced
and allegedly not a big deal to practice homosexuality during the Roman Empire, yet ‘goose egg’…nothing on that…very interesting.

[/quote]

The act of homosexual relations is condemned cover to cover in the Good Book. There is no way around that one.

145

[quote]espenl wrote:
not considering they {the Jews} also pretty much control the US).[/quote]

Do you really think Jewish people control the USA? Where does this stuff come from? Halldis Neegaard Ã?stbye?

146

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)

147

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
not considering they {the Jews} also pretty much control the US).[/quote]

Do you really think Jewish people control the USA? Where does this stuff come from? Halldis Neegaard Ã??stbye?[/quote]

He is from Norway, so he really does not know. Move along nothing to see here.

148

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I simply do not have the time to go hunting around the Torah–which is why I framed my post to you as a question–can thoughts in and of themselves be sins?

With regard to Exodus 20, the pliable definition of “covet” notwithstanding, the prohibitions against adultery and theft–prohibitions of actions–seem to me to prove that the commandment against covetousness is indeed a commandment against thought. Now, maybe “covet” is stronger than “lust” as we understand the latter term today, but it’s certainly a mental state and not an action. Which means that God has prohibited a mental state. Which renders a particular mental state verboten–which is the definition of thoughtcrime, regardless of whether or not a punishment for it is explicitly prescribed.

Put another way: can thoughts in and of themselves be sins? Well, covetousness is clearly a mental state, and God commands his people not to covet. Which means that to covet is to violate the will of God. Which means that to covet is to sin. Which means that thoughts can be sins. Which is thoughtcrime.

150

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I simply do not have the time to go hunting around the Torah–which is why I framed my post to you as a question–can thoughts in and of themselves be sins?

With regard to Exodus 20, the pliable definition of “covet” notwithstanding, the prohibitions against adultery and theft–prohibitions of actions–seem to me to prove that the commandment against covetousness is indeed a commandment against thought. Now, maybe “covet” is stronger than “lust” as we understand the latter term today, but it’s certainly a mental state and not an action. Which means that God has prohibited a mental state. Which renders a particular mental state verboten–which is the definition of thoughtcrime, regardless of whether or not a punishment for it is explicitly prescribed.

Put another way: can thoughts in and of themselves be sins? Well, covetousness is clearly a mental state, and God commands his people not to covet. Which means that to covet is to violate the will of God. Which means that to covet is to sin. Which means that thoughts can be sins. Which is thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So what exactly is your beef: that there is a prohibition, or that there must be a punishment somewhere for violating a prohibition?

You ask for a simple answer. Here is mine: The commandment is a warning against premeditation and action, since there is no contingent punishment executed by divine intervention.

Now if for you that constitutes a “thoughtcrime,” in 20th Century parlance, might I suggest that you consider broadening your resources just a bit? Why restrict by Orwell’s mid-century paranoia what might have been a enduring commentary on human nature?
(Please: No insult intended.)

151

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I simply do not have the time to go hunting around the Torah–which is why I framed my post to you as a question–can thoughts in and of themselves be sins?

With regard to Exodus 20, the pliable definition of “covet” notwithstanding, the prohibitions against adultery and theft–prohibitions of actions–seem to me to prove that the commandment against covetousness is indeed a commandment against thought. Now, maybe “covet” is stronger than “lust” as we understand the latter term today, but it’s certainly a mental state and not an action. Which means that God has prohibited a mental state. Which renders a particular mental state verboten–which is the definition of thoughtcrime, regardless of whether or not a punishment for it is explicitly prescribed.

Put another way: can thoughts in and of themselves be sins? Well, covetousness is clearly a mental state, and God commands his people not to covet. Which means that to covet is to violate the will of God. Which means that to covet is to sin. Which means that thoughts can be sins. Which is thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So what exactly is your beef: that there is a prohibition, or that there must be a punishment somewhere for violating a prohibition?

You ask for a simple answer. Here is mine: The commandment is a warning against premeditation and action, since there is no contingent punishment executed by divine intervention.

Now if for you that constitutes a “thoughtcrime,” in 20th Century parlance, might I suggest that you consider broadening your resources just a bit? Why restrict by Orwell’s mid-century paranoia what might have been a enduring commentary on human nature?
(Please: No insult intended.)[/quote]

No insult taken at all.

Regarding the first part: God punishes sin, does he not? If it’s your view that here a thought is described as sinful and yet commission of that sin for some reason invariably goes unpunished by God (which is the implication that I draw from your repeated use of the word “warning”), then I suppose my opinion on the matter is neutral. But if, on the other hand, covetousness–as a state of mind divorced from action–is a sin and can therefore get one into “hot water,” then that is a repulsive notion to me (and this has nothing to do with Orwell–I brought him up as an aside, not because I think his opinion on the matter is any more valid than any other).

As with you, no offense is intended.

152

Did anybody answer my question the other day as exactly how we got all the different races
and colors from just Adam and Eve?
That’s a tough one.

153

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I simply do not have the time to go hunting around the Torah–which is why I framed my post to you as a question–can thoughts in and of themselves be sins?

With regard to Exodus 20, the pliable definition of “covet” notwithstanding, the prohibitions against adultery and theft–prohibitions of actions–seem to me to prove that the commandment against covetousness is indeed a commandment against thought. Now, maybe “covet” is stronger than “lust” as we understand the latter term today, but it’s certainly a mental state and not an action. Which means that God has prohibited a mental state. Which renders a particular mental state verboten–which is the definition of thoughtcrime, regardless of whether or not a punishment for it is explicitly prescribed.

Put another way: can thoughts in and of themselves be sins? Well, covetousness is clearly a mental state, and God commands his people not to covet. Which means that to covet is to violate the will of God. Which means that to covet is to sin. Which means that thoughts can be sins. Which is thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So what exactly is your beef: that there is a prohibition, or that there must be a punishment somewhere for violating a prohibition?

You ask for a simple answer. Here is mine: The commandment is a warning against premeditation and action, since there is no contingent punishment executed by divine intervention.

Now if for you that constitutes a “thoughtcrime,” in 20th Century parlance, might I suggest that you consider broadening your resources just a bit? Why restrict by Orwell’s mid-century paranoia what might have been a enduring commentary on human nature?
(Please: No insult intended.)[/quote]

No insult taken at all.

Regarding the first part: God punishes sin, does he not? If it’s your view that here a thought is described as sinful and yet commission of that sin for some reason invariably goes unpunished by God (which is the implication that I draw from your repeated use of the word “warning”), then I suppose my opinion on the matter is neutral. But if, on the other hand, covetousness–as a state of mind divorced from action–is a sin and can therefore get one into “hot water,” then that is a repulsive notion to me (and this has nothing to do with Orwell–I brought him up as an aside, not because I think his opinion on the matter is any more valid than any other).

As with you, no offense is intended.[/quote]

In my former agnostic/atheist days, I too would get all caught up with the concept of God’s wrath and punishment. As I got a little older and a little more open minded, it began to occur to me that God simply separates himself from sin. In that lonely vacuum, the sinner punishes himself.
But remember, I am that bread of Christian that does not believe that every story in the Bible is to be taken in an absolutely literal sense.

And this will probably frustrate my friend Tiribulus.

154

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is no “thoughtcrime” because one has free will and one knows ones own thoughts only, almost exclusively.
[/quote]

Surely God knows one’s thoughts. It was by God that I meant “should he be punished,” not by man.

In other words, are there any thoughts that, in and of themselves and divorced from any action that might arise from them, make a man a sinner in God’s eyes?

Edit: a sinner with regard to that particular thought.[/quote]

Hence my invitation to investigate the original text, rather than relying on some pre-ordered notions. Show me in the original text where God–Himself–describes an individual’s punishment for impure thoughts, or specifically for “coveting.” (Hint: There are some counter-examples in Exodus 20 and after.)
[/quote]

To be honest with you, I simply do not have the time to go hunting around the Torah–which is why I framed my post to you as a question–can thoughts in and of themselves be sins?

With regard to Exodus 20, the pliable definition of “covet” notwithstanding, the prohibitions against adultery and theft–prohibitions of actions–seem to me to prove that the commandment against covetousness is indeed a commandment against thought. Now, maybe “covet” is stronger than “lust” as we understand the latter term today, but it’s certainly a mental state and not an action. Which means that God has prohibited a mental state. Which renders a particular mental state verboten–which is the definition of thoughtcrime, regardless of whether or not a punishment for it is explicitly prescribed.

Put another way: can thoughts in and of themselves be sins? Well, covetousness is clearly a mental state, and God commands his people not to covet. Which means that to covet is to violate the will of God. Which means that to covet is to sin. Which means that thoughts can be sins. Which is thoughtcrime.[/quote]

So what exactly is your beef: that there is a prohibition, or that there must be a punishment somewhere for violating a prohibition?

You ask for a simple answer. Here is mine: The commandment is a warning against premeditation and action, since there is no contingent punishment executed by divine intervention.

Now if for you that constitutes a “thoughtcrime,” in 20th Century parlance, might I suggest that you consider broadening your resources just a bit? Why restrict by Orwell’s mid-century paranoia what might have been a enduring commentary on human nature?
(Please: No insult intended.)[/quote]

No insult taken at all.

Regarding the first part: God punishes sin, does he not? If it’s your view that here a thought is described as sinful and yet commission of that sin for some reason invariably goes unpunished by God (which is the implication that I draw from your repeated use of the word “warning”), then I suppose my opinion on the matter is neutral. But if, on the other hand, covetousness–as a state of mind divorced from action–is a sin and can therefore get one into “hot water,” then that is a repulsive notion to me (and this has nothing to do with Orwell–I brought him up as an aside, not because I think his opinion on the matter is any more valid than any other).

As with you, no offense is intended.[/quote]

You insist on using this word, “sin.” Whatever your personal beliefs–atheist or not–this is a Christian view of the prohibitions and commandments; i.e. God commands and God provides punishment directly and individually. Your further thoughts then become trapped in the “sin/retribution” duet, inseparably. Lets leave this all behind, shall we?

So, for example, Ex 20:12 “honor thy father…” is the culmination of the first 5 commandments, and the reward (no punishment mentioned here) is “…that your days will be long.”

In your restricted definition, then, dishonoring one’s father is a “thoughtcrime,” yes? But the “sin” of private thought is not punished (here), but adherence to God’s admonition is rewarded by long life to the entire nation . If one acts, and dishonors (or strikes) one’s father, then, yes, there is individual punishment after trial, witnesses, etc. etc. Punishment is a civil action, unless God otherwise specifies or infers specific punishments and rewards.

Stay with me a moment more. Are each of the commandments intended to warn, and to define and to separate the holy from the mundane? Following ibn Ezra, the commandments define those things which are beyond the reach of men to defile: the unity of Divinity, God’s singular name, the sanctity of the Sabbath, the place of parents in society, the sanctity of life, the marriage union, and the legitimacy of others’ rights and property.

Nowhere does God enforce the “thoughtcrime.” It is hard to find–I would dare say it never occurs–that God asks us to believe positively some abstraction. (Cosmology is of no importance, for example.) He asks us to know or to obey–yes, sometimes arbitrarily, but usually to the benefit of human life, Creation’s crowning achievement.

(And I will anticipate your next objection: If you choose not to obey–because of some liberalized notion of freedom of thought and action–it is your choice, but to whose benefit is the act of disobedience?)

156

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

You insist on using this word, “sin.” Whatever your personal beliefs–atheist or not–this is a Christian view of the prohibitions and commandments; i.e. God commands and God provides punishment directly and individually. Your further thoughts then become trapped in the “sin/retribution” duet, inseparably. Lets leave this all behind, shall we?

So, for example, Ex 20:12 “honor thy father…” is the culmination of the first 5 commandments, and the reward (no punishment mentioned here) is “…that your days will be long.”

In your restricted definition, then, dishonoring one’s father is a “thoughtcrime,” yes? But the “sin” of private thought is not punished (here), but adherence to God’s admonition is rewarded by long life to the entire nation . If one acts, and dishonors (or strikes) one’s father, then, yes, there is individual punishment after trial, witnesses, etc. etc. Punishment is a civil action, unless God otherwise specifies or infers specific punishments and rewards.

Stay with me a moment more. Are each of the commandments intended to warn, and to define and to separate the holy from the mundane? Following ibn Ezra, the commandments define those things which are beyond the reach of men to defile: the unity of Divinity, God’s singular name, the sanctity of the Sabbath, the place of parents in society, the sanctity of life, the marriage union, and the legitimacy of others’ rights and property.

Nowhere does God enforce the “thoughtcrime.” It is hard to find–I would dare say it never occurs–that God asks us to believe positively some abstraction. (Cosmology is of no importance, for example.) He asks us to know or to obey–yes, sometimes arbitrarily, but usually to the benefit of human life, Creation’s crowning achievement.

(And I will anticipate your next objection: If you choose not to obey–because of some liberalized notion of freedom of thought and action–it is your choice, but to whose benefit is the act of disobedience?)

[/quote]

If I wrote a response tonight, it probably wouldn’t make sense (long day). I will respond to this tomorrow.

157

So…

This thread is NOT about Bill Maher trying to get some of Edgy…

158

The very nature of coveting is limited to the mind.

Coveting is a sin, therefore it is a thought sin.

Carrying out coveting, say someone’s wife would be adultery…

Plain and simple. Though sin exists, it was taught to me during catechism that it is a sin.

160

[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t see what condoms have to do with it.[/quote]
What?

What?

Many orders of magnitude less. The reason you notice it more is precisely because it is so comparatively rare. An atheist billboard makes the news, a religious one is par for the course.

Another thread, another day.

So do I.