Jesus Camp closed

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wrong. You made the claim that there were "better" ways for an omnipotent (and, though unstated, morally perfect) being to do something. I pointed out that our own limited intellectual capabilities makes it impossible for you to justify such a claim.

This is a different matter from understanding (or at least getting a general sense of) why a ...[text shortened]... ht be the best (or not good -- as the case may be).

No one's trying to have it both ways.

So, if I can imagine a particular course of action which in my opinion would be considerably better than my current method of parenting but requires a few God-like powers to carry out then although I am able to understand it I cannot justify it. Is that what you are saying?

I disagree that your two statements are compatible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Since acting in an adult film is not a crime and has no analytical bearing on the teacher's fulfillment of her professional role, while child molestation is a terrible crime directly antithetical to the role of a priest, I expect the priest was the one who was immediately terminated.

That was a very easy question. Pretty much a no brainer.

How can someone as smart as you get it wrong? That poor teacher who never layed a hand on a child and yet tries to give them the learning skills to compete in life cannot get her job back. There is no statute of limitations on some sins apparently.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, there are several problems here.

First, the idea that 'He tried but it didn't work:' This is like the dubious claim that God made
humankind perfect, yet it still fell in literalist readings of the Creation story. If you are going to
make claims about the whole of salvation history (with the implications that God understood all
the future implic forgiveness,
repentance, generosity, and compassion of which Jesus spoke.

Nemesio

There are a couple of ambiguous (equivocal?) terms here. For instance, what does "substandard" mean? If you mean something like "not the best of all possible results", then I'd agree because it isn't simply in God's hands -- humans have their role to play as well and, if they do not cooperate with the right use of their freedom, a globally suboptimal result will obtain. OTOH, given the choices we make, I would not call the result substandard.

(Likewise with the Creation of Man).

This was more an answer to your 2nd question. To go back to the "He tried but it didn't work" bit; with the Sinai covenant specifically, I believe the intention was to make the "end game" of the Levitical laws clear -- which is where Jesus returns to once they've run their course.

EDIT: I don't see how morally non-culpable actions necessarily imply COG. You're using the assumption that God is some all-powerful fairy who can just wave his magic wand and make all bad things disappear; I hold that there are constraints that human freedom and his own nature put on God's actions -- that if we're determined to muck things up the best God can do is try and minimise the long-term loss.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Idolatry is a serious sin like murder?

Are the masses of people who gather around the Pope as he is paraded by them in his popemobile engaging in idolatry?

On the scale of seriousness that you reference, is idolatry more or less serious than child molestation?

Yes.
No.
I don't know. I know they're both pretty serious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, if I can imagine a particular course of action which in my opinion would be considerably better than my current method of parenting but requires a few God-like powers to carry out then although I am able to understand it I cannot justify it. Is that what you are saying?

I didn't say you can [completely] understand it -- I said you can get a sense of it/a vague understanding. You cannot back up the claim that there are better ways due to our limitations -- the best you can do is to work out by analogy that there might be better ways. The same with me -- I cannot justify that that a particular course of action is definitely the best way but I can understand/work out by analogy that it probably is.

Originally posted by kirksey957
How can someone as smart as you get it wrong? That poor teacher who never layed a hand on a child and yet tries to give them the learning skills to compete in life cannot get her job back. There is no statute of limitations on some sins apparently.

Um, are you sure? Why wouldn't the priest have been terminated immediately?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Another question: Can you guess which one lost their job and can't get it back while the other was transfered to another job?

If the priest is Catholic, his is not a job.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the priest is Catholic, his is not a job.

Oh, that explains it. It was a trick question.

Of course a child molester would be allowed to continue his duties if it weren't a job.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Oh, that explains it. It was a trick question.

Of course a child molester would be allowed to continue his duties if it weren't a job.

If those duties do not involve contact with children, facilitation of crimes against children and the person has been punished by law, I don't see why not.

Should a released child molester be prevented from working in accounting, for instance?

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Should a released child molester be prevented from working in accounting, for instance?

False analogy. Accounting is a job.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
False analogy. Accounting is a job.

Okay. Should a released child molester be prevented from carrying out his responsibilities as a nephew, for instance? Or a son?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Okay. Should a released child molester be prevented from carrying out his responsibilities as a nephew, for instance? Or a son?

I don't acknowledge that person has any duties in virtue of being a nephew or a son that he doesn't have in virtue of being a person.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't acknowledge that person has any duties in virtue of being a nephew or a son that he doesn't have in virtue of being a person.

Ah, yes. I forgot I was talking to the "all rights, no responsibilities" crowd.

EDIT: Well, most of humanity thinks we do actually have responsibilities (and privileges) as family members.

Do you think a person has any privileges/rights (inheritance, perhaps? visitation rights?) in virtue of being a nephew or a son that he doesn't have merely by virtue of being a person?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Do you think a person has any privileges/rights (inheritance, perhaps? visitation rights?) in virtue of being a nephew or a son that he doesn't have merely by virtue of being a person?

No, aside from a small child who can't care for himself having the right to be cared for by his parents.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, aside from a small child who can't care for himself having the right to be cared for by his parents.

Does the small child have responsibilities as well (say, to obey his/her parents' wishes where they are reasonable)? Or is the only responsibility anybody has in your world that of not violating the rights of others?

What about elderly, senile parents being cared for by their children?