Christianity and the law (not a flame war)

[Necroplant]

A while back, I read a long article written by a U.S Army Chaplain - this is a U.S soldier who never carries a weapon, and main purpose with a unit is to pray for their safety in battle - no joke lol. Oh don't worry, they cover this insanity with a Chaplain's Assistant (starting to sound like WH40K!), a real soldier who's job is to protect the life of the Chaplain. The Chaplain, if captured by the enemy, has an obligation to try to escape - without killing anyone or carrying a weapon.

Most Western armies can't equip their Chaplains with weapons if they wanted to, because international law states that Chaplains should be non-combatants, in a sense.



But what I read today, something that I've been curious about - is whether priests have to report things in confessional that people report, that they should go to jail for. The answer is NO!

Yep, one exception to the secularity of countries is that Catholic priests, by religious law (this one the legal system recognizes), cannot report a crime that someone told them about in confessional. "I raped the girl and threw her into the drain..." "I killed my mother..."

You're forgiven!

[Necroplant]

WTF someone changed my signature!!! Was I hacked, or did a mod override me?

[creedkingsx]

WTF someone changed my signature!!! Was I hacked, or did a mod override me?

That happened a couple days ago.. lol

[Blazer]

That happened a couple days ago.. lol

Doesn't deny he changed it.

[SirBlayzalot]

leave your pedofile sig's for nambla necro... no one wants to know you touch little kids...

[Ash]

Lol @ catholics.

but those religious laws are pretty dumb, i mean wtf. no comment.

[kyle1234513]

im pretty sure all religious groups opose war in general so i highly doubt they would allow their members to participate in the war itself. the best case cenario theyre just allowed to pray for a safe return much less be on the battlefield. just being there says you support this war.

[creedkingsx]

Doesn't deny he changed it.

I can't edit signatures lol

[Blazer]

I can't edit signatures lol

ssshhh they don't know that ^^

[FrostByte]

im pretty sure all religious groups opose war in general so i highly doubt they would allow their members to participate in the war itself. the best case cenario theyre just allowed to pray for a safe return much less be on the battlefield. just being there says you support this war.

lol troll confirmed.

No, seriously, you can't honestly think that religious groups are against war. Look at history. Look at the Catholic church... look at all the wars which happened in every religious text ever.

[-Navor-]

I read your post and my question to be honest is; What exactly are you arguing against? You don't seem to be questioning or suggesting anything.

[JSaint]

It's the therapist debate. Should the therapist keep all information of a patient in confidence, or should he divulge it if a patient or someone ele's life is in danger?

[Nick]

lol troll confirmed.

No, seriously, you can't honestly think that religious groups are against war. Look at history. Look at the Catholic church... look at all the wars which happened in every religious text ever.

What FrostByte said.

And if you think history is history, I can even quote recent and current wars with "religious approval".

[JSaint]

There are always people that will abuse religion and take advantage of dumb people.

Much like how people will always shout:

I AM THE SHERIFF!

to take advantage of sheep town.

[Nick]

It's the therapist debate. Should the therapist keep all information of a patient in confidence, or should he divulge it if a patient or someone ele's life is in danger?

But by law therapist NEED to report it.

[JSaint]

Morals are a very interesting topic.

Have you read this? I read it in a leadership module once

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenc...al_development

Post conventional Morals dictate, for example regarding stealing a drug for your wife to cure her of a terminal illness, that both saying yes and no have valid reasons.

No - Because the Pharmacist put in research and money, and possibly from stealing it, you might be denying the drug from someone else that needs it.

Yes - Because you won't be able to live with your conscience if you watch your wife die as you do nothing.

[Nick]

There are always people that will abuse religion and take advantage of dumb people.

Much like how people will always shout:

I AM THE SHERIFF!

to take advantage of sheep town.

Conclusion: You can be religious but don't profess to any religion and don't follow any religious groups.

[JSaint]

The main problem with being religious but not following any religious groups is that most religions are about people. Like Christianity for example. How can one serve people and interact with them without being in a group? The whole premise of this fails as a result. Some religions CANNOT be practiced without interaction with people. While the religion looks good on paper, the same way plans always look perfect when you start. The moment you deal with people, things get alot more complicated. There are agendas, biases etc. And no one's perfect.

I've wrestled with these questions for a loooong time, and I don't have an easy answer.

[Nick]

Morals are a very interesting topic.

Have you read this? I read it in a leadership module once

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Post conventional Morals dictate, for example regarding stealing a drug for your wife to cure her of a terminal illness, that both saying yes and no have valid reasons.

No - Because the Pharmacist put in research and money, and possibly from stealing it, you might be denying the drug from someone else that needs it.

Yes - Because you won't be able to live with your conscience if you watch your wife die as you do nothing.

My opinion?

Highest stage can only be reached if you transcend humanity.
For us lowly beings, instead of highest stage, I think it is actually a loop.

[JSaint]

In essence what you are saying is that you need to be smarter than a human to understand these things.

Rather than seeing it as a loop, I see it as a branch. Both branches are equally valid possibilities. The problem is that we spend too much time trying to thing about which branch is the best one or the only one. And the problem is that when a branch violates our set of values we were raised with or taught with, it causes a form of irritation and distress.

Unfortunately, these things are not like programming algorithms, where the benefits of each branch can be proven mathematically. The benefits of choosing each branch in this case are subjective, and the negatives are also dependent on how much value a person puts on these things. Fussy logic if you'd have it, much like interaction with humans.

[Nick]

In essence what you are saying is that you need to be smarter than a human to understand these things.

Not really. It's just that you need to stop doing what humans normally do. Ultimately either hope for heaven or hope that there is no hell.

Rather than seeing it as a loop, I see it as a branch. Both branches are equally valid possibilities. The problem is that we spend too much time trying to thing about which branch is the best one or the only one. And the problem is that when a branch violates our set of values we were raised with or taught with, it causes a form of irritation and distress.

Unfortunately, these things are not like programming algorithms, where the benefits of each branch can be proven mathematically. The benefits of choosing each branch in this case are subjective, and the negatives are also dependent on how much value a person puts on these things. Fussy logic if you'd have it, much like interaction with humans.

I don't really agree looking it as individual morality. I see it as individual interest. Either empathize more with the society or your wife. Both ways you are grouping yourself with another. Steal from Peter to pay Paul. Supporters of war are no different.

Apologies to Necroplant for derailing your thread.

[JSaint]

In the end, the drug can only save one person. What difference does it make if it saves your wife or the other person?

Why should it be that only the rich are allowed to access the drug? There is no relevance to society in the debate.

Anyway, morality is much like a set of principles and guidelines. Kind of like when you play chess. They are "rules of thumb" or good practices in general, but there are moments and situations where we find that breaking these practices will make perfect sense. It's a complex topic because people will use it as excuses to break rules etc. But I think you get the point.

I think I'm being silly by debating you. It's like we're Freedom and Destiny trying to shoot each other as we dodge and fly around in circles.

[Nick]

I think I'm being silly by debating you. It's like we're Freedom and Destiny trying to shoot each other as we dodge and fly around in circles.

Fully agree.

And too often, people debating on the same issue but talking about different scenarios. Example: You are referring to rich drug dealers, I'm talking about poor drug dealers. Much like liberals and conservatives I guess. In the end, a stalemate and yet a solution in sight.