Banning/criminalizing

Crow: Which bible is the true one?
The only one that exists. The "Catholic Bible" is not the Bible.


I'll give you three.

Masturbation
Stealing
Rape
Do you want answers or do you want questions?

Krazy: The only one that exists. The "Catholic Bible" is not the Bible.

The Catholic bile has every book of the protestant bible. Both have a complete new testament.

Most protestant bibles (not all) have around 40 books. If you wanted to customize a complete bible including all possible books, you could get upwards of 400 books.

What is the true bible, and who made you the authority on what books are legitimate and what books are not?

Do you want answers or do you want questions?

Obviously I want answers, don't be stupid. What would Jesus do?

Crow: Obviously I want answers, don't be stupid
No you don't. You want questions. You asked 18 questions, nearly all in a row. And most of your posts have been purely question after question with little substance to back your own position. I don't mind answering genuine questions (and there's nothing wrong with rhetorical ones) but throughout this thread so far you haven't really taken a position; just interrogating somebody else's. You want questions, not answers.

What would Jesus do?
It says in His Word that a fine, beating, or execution were in place. So it would be wise to apply that to our society. He never used prison as a system for Israel. As for your three arbitrary examples: masturbation- not a crime. Stealing- pay back four fold of what you stolen. Rape- death.

There's only one Bible. We already had this argument before in a different thread and you were given a very reasonable answer to how the Bible got here. And you have a history of using lies to support your arguments so I'm not arguing this any further.

Krazy: No you don't. You want questions. You asked 18 questions, nearly all in a row. And most of your posts have been purely question after question with little substance to back your own position.

I asked questions to get answers, don't be stupid. I am not going to establish a position until I know the extent of your argument.

Stop acting like a weasel and answer the questions.

It says in His Word that a fine, beating, or execution were in place.

His word? Where does Jesus say this?

So it would be wise to apply that to our society.
Because mindlessly obeying everything you are told by an authority figure is a good thing? Think for yourself, or at least explain why you think the Jewish priestdom should speak on your behalf.

Rape- death.

Oh, so you believe that Jesus feels a death sentence is worthy of rape? Considering he is known as a patron of asceticism, pacifism, and forgiveness...

There's only one Bible.

Verifiably false. There are many bibles.

If you believe that only one bible should be used for reading, then justify why you should be considered an authority figure on legitimate gospel.

We already had this argument before in a different thread and you were given a very reasonable answer to how the Bible got here.

It was hardly an argument. You were just being stubborn, and I kept bringing it back in your face to maybe make you aware of that. Usually the basis of any debate I do is to expose outright foolishness.

And you have a history of using lies to support your arguments so I'm not arguing this any further.

God is definitely ashamed by your lack of backbone, Face it, everything you believe is unsupported, because you haven't the fainest idea of how to support it.

Crow: I am not going to establish a position until I know the extent of your argument.
If you don't have a position, then we're done.

Crow: Because it is. That is a fact.
No, its not. It is your biased opinion.
Would you like to make an argument about how Saudi Arabians are not fanatical and worked up, or would you like to continue psychoanalyzing me?
There is no need. The population being fanatical and worked up depends on what you consider fanatical and worked up. By what your saying, I would guess your definition would apply to everyone in the world being that way.

Krazy: You don't really understand how this whole discussion thing is supposed to work.

No, its not. It is your biased opinion.

Still waiting for you to prove it. This is just conjecture.

By what your saying, I would guess your definition would apply to everyone in the world being that way.

People get different kinds of emotional sometimes.

In Saudi Arabia, they have a system that maintains a culture of fanaticism and emptiness. Most of it stems from their incredibly harsh state oppression, state promoted religious tension between shiites and shia, and a state promoted hate of Western ideals.

Crow: Still waiting for you to prove it. This is just conjecture.
Like I said, there is no need because it is all a matter of perspective, you can define a fanatical and worked up society in different ways. I would say as long as a society is happy and peaceful, it wouldn't be fanatical and worked up. One way to define it is a mentally ill person. You just don't like the culture, so you call it fanatical and worked up.

Bi0Hazard: would say as long as a society is happy and peaceful, it wouldn't be fanatical and worked up.

Oh really?

So you do not think the nazis were fanatical and worked up prior to 1939, with their promotion of killing Jews and oppressing communists? What about the North Koreans, who are taught in school that America is the devil and that Kim Jung Un is a god?

Saudi Arabia is a nation which is the epitome of blind religious devotion, with a violent tinge. The government just keeps fanning the flame. I think this meets near anybody's definition for fanatical and worked up.

I'll indulge you though, what is your definition?

Crow: So you do not think the nazis were fanatical and worked up prior to 1939, with their promotion of killing Jews and oppressing communists? What about the North Koreans, who are taught in school that America is the devil and that Kim Jung Un is a god?
Nope, I would say some of these nations are doing immoral things like murdering Jews, but I wouldn't call them fanatical.
I'll indulge you though, what is your definition?
My definition would be mentally unstable. I also said happy and peaceful, which is desirable. Defining people as fanatical based on their beliefs would make almost everyone fanatical since there are some who think belief in any God is as crazy as believing Kim Jung Un is a God.

Bi0Hazard: Nope, I would say some of these nations are doing immoral things like murdering Jews, but I wouldn't call them fanatical.

M8, do you even understand the definition of fanatical?

filled with excessive and single-minded zeal.

The nazis were pretty goddamn fanatical.

My definition would be mentally unstable.

That definition doesn't even closely resemble any other definition. Words can only be defined by how they are used, and that is not how people use the word fanatical.

Saudi Arabia is not a loony bin (NK is), but they are certainly fanatical and misguided.

Crow: Yeah, your right on the definition, but I say mentally unstable people since you said this:
Saudi Arabia also has an empty, scared, fanatical, and worked up population.
By empty, scared, fanatical, and worked up I would think you meant they had a crazy population. I disagree with them being all scared and empty and worked up.
A far as fanatical, let's see.
filled with excessive and single-minded zeal.
Zeal definition- great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.
filled with excessive and single-minded great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective.
Alright then, Hitler and the Nazis would be fanatical. As far as the Saudi population, can you point to me the cause they are all trying to pursuit?

So, what should be banned or what shouldn't be banned?

Bi0Hazard: So, what should be banned
Evil.

what shouldn't be banned?
Good

Bi0Hazard: My opinion is nothing. At least not officially, there are clearly some activities that should not be tolerated.

You are absolutely correct. Bans are counter-productive in most cases. The bans that work, only do so because they are excessively enforced.

I oppose bans on murder more on the basis of establishing principal than I do effectivity. That is one of the challenges in anarchism, properly containing excessive violence within society without jail. The other options tend to be less effective at preventing further violence, or too excessive, such as execution.

It's very simple really.

Just ban what's evil. Such as murder, rape, stealing, homosexuality/pedophilia/zoophilia, adultery, lying, drunkenness, etc.

Krazy: God...

no words exist

Krazy: However, there is disagreement on what is right and wrong. Many believe homosexuality is not immoral, also, there is disagreement on whether euthanasia is wrong. You seem to be advocating a society's laws based on biblical principles. Which would make blasphemy a crime as well.

Bi0Hazard: He thinks anything that is not an ASV translation protestant bible is blasphemy.

Which cuts out the majority of religious texts on the Abrahamic religion.