Almost half of UK internet users 'harmed' online: regulation needed

[Nev_Dull]

I'm sure like everything else people will become desensitized to even hate speech. The same rationale applies and can be used to defend it. If nudity or inappropriate sexual contact makes one uncomfortable then it has been the social norm to increase exposure. In time the extent of depravity increases, and some will even get off on seeing not only another nude but also them sexually, physically, and verbally abused.

I think that is a real fear that children, especially, may become desensitized to hate speech and online abuse. That's why so much attention has come to this issue lately. The problem is figuring out what to do about it.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any sort of plan in the increase of nudity or sexuality in the media. I believe that's just the natural relaxation of the rather unnatural stigma that was created by the Victorians. Prior to that period, society was much more accepting of nudity and sexuality. The real problem is that different parts of world are moving in that direction at different rates. North America, and especially the US is quite a bit behind Europe in its comfort level around it all.
to be those who disagree with the accepted standard who complain about censorship.

a child's upbringing should be under the direction of parents. However, when there is a secular agenda to raise and indoctrinate our children with an idealogue that sets to destroy the family nucleus it is difficult to counter. Even TV programming has cashed into this cultural shift. Notice that back in the 50s the father and their roles were taken seriously and they were depicted as hard working, dedicated and committed to the family as well as a disciplinarian.

I don't think there's any sort of agenda at play. TV and film rarely try to set a social trend because it's too risky to their bottom line. They reflect society. The problem with those old programs (I loved Father Knows Best) is that even back then, they were a romantic ideal, not the reality. Viewers have become much too sceptical and jaded by their own experiences to accept that vision any more. The family life we see depicted today is closer to reality (though still often idealized). The popularity of such programs as This is Us shows that audiences still see much value in family.

 

[Shimei]

I think that is a real fear that children, especially, may become desensitized to hate speech and online abuse. That's why so much attention has come to this issue lately. The problem is figuring out what to do about it.

Again, by what standard is something hate speech? If I tell someone that they are wrong, and their thinking is depraved and immoral on the issues of sexual misconduct could that be construed as hate speech? In essence, will I be charged for hate speech when speaking truth because it hurts some little snowflakes feelings? Lemme push the envelope further, if I say taking the life of innocent people is murder and abortion is murder is that hateful? If someone says, are you calling me a murderer and I say if the shoe fits? Would I be charged for hate speech?

It is the standard of truth that is the common denominator of all these issues we are facing.

I don't think there's any sort of agenda at play. TV and film rarely try to set a social trend because it's too risky to their bottom line. They reflect society. The problem with those old programs (I loved Father Knows Best) is that even back then, they were a romantic ideal, not the reality. Viewers have become much too sceptical and jaded by their own experiences to accept that vision any more. The family life we see depicted today is closer to reality (though still often idealized). The popularity of such programs as This is Us shows that audiences still see much value in family.

Interesting that you can say that. Here's an example of how time and society has changed on a major social issue. Again, if all truth is defined by society then truth will change, shift, and sway in time according to society. Therefore, there is no absolute truth.What is true today may not be true tomorrow. What is true for you is not true for me.



Is this video hateful? And should it be removed. If so, according to what standard? And what is my legal penalty?

 

[Shimei]

For millenniums the following were not considered depraved by a certain set of religions, whose followers now complain about depravity:

Slavery, racism, capital punishment for religious offenses, torture and other physical abuse, poor treatment of women, men abandoning families for their religion, slave families broken up, widows and orphans of clergy who died being expelled from their home, forced marriages, beating of wives and children, children given over to the church in service, stripping people of their culture and religious beliefs under pain of death, mass mutilations in colonies (especially African) of indigenous people, castration of boys, those with handicaps such as being deaf, blind, retarded or crippled treated as outcasts afflicted by the devil, the right to rule over others and one's place in society was by inheritance considered the natural order of things by god, cruel treatment of animals acceptable (ever hear of bear and bull baiting?), little concern for conservation and the environment, and so on.

Depravity has been the issue since the very first book in Christianity - Genesis. It is an issue all people deal with. Christianity teaches all people are depraved. Therefore, if a secular critic suggests that these atrocities exists in our religion then why criticize them for acting like everyone else outside the church? Why oppose the church and their teaching if they like everyone outside the church acts the same? That is, unless you're holding them to a higher moral and truthful standard?

Lemme share something with you. The standard is set so high in Christianity nobody can reach it. This is the difference between a Holy God and a depraved man. This does not mean that we all do not have an obligation to strive towards this standard. It is our obligation and duty as Christians, but it is not the basis of our salvation which is by Grace through faith and not by works.

Exodus 21:16 Whoever kidnaps another man must be put to death, whether he sells him or the man is found in his possession.

On the issue of Slavery, the Christian scriptures condemn all forms of man stealing (forced slavery) and ownership of kidnapped persons. And there is more of problem now in Africa than in history. This is why Africa remains a primary target for Christians to reach out to with the Gospel message. Millions are being sold off as slaves and there are millions of slaves there now and sold off worldwide. There is no other place on the globe that surpasses South Africa. Warring tribes conquer other tribes and sell off conquered tribes to slave merchants. This slavery and man stealing was committed by Africans which sold to American slave merchants back then, and today, they are still selling to slave merchants. Mainly as sex slaves. America was the first country to abolish slavery. Africa hasn't. Raa Raa Raa! Tear down the Confederate flags because they are reminders of slavery, but don't be offended by African flags.

And I never made the case that all religions are equal. However, I did make an example of mainstream religions which all agree on a key moral social issue. Religion(s) only appear superficially the same for the lack of knowledge. They are very very different from one to another.

 

[PoetJC]

Wow.
A lot of what I've read in this thread is nothing but an overtly ridiculous excuse for using religion as a means of condemning people for being imperfect, as opposed to using the Word of God as a personal instructive for bettering one's OWN life. I would say that if we were back in the 1950s like has been suggested:

Notice that back in the 50s the father and their roles were taken seriously and they were depicted as hard working, dedicated and committed to the family as well as a disciplinarian. Today the father is either missing or displayed as a fool in his role of the family.

... that said poster would be treated like the minority he is and all the negatives that he has mentioned would affect him and his family, unless he and his family are light-skinned enough to pass as white.

Yet we're wanting to make the world great again by instilling similar policy as waaaaaay back when?! No... That ideology is about taking the world backward. Not moving the world forward. And for me personally - I feel that's a g*****n shame.

For millenniums the following were not considered depraved by a certain set of religions, whose followers now complain about depravity:

Slavery, racism, capital punishment for religious offenses, torture and other physical abuse, poor treatment of women, men abandoning families for their religion, slave families broken up, widows and orphans of clergy who died being expelled from their home, forced marriages, beating of wives and children, children given over to the church in service, stripping people of their culture and religious beliefs under pain of death, mass mutilations in colonies (especially African) of indigenous people, castration of boys, those with handicaps such as being deaf, blind, retarded or crippled treated as outcasts afflicted by the devil, the right to rule over others and one's place in society was by inheritance considered the natural order of things by god, cruel treatment of animals acceptable (ever hear of bear and bull baiting?), little concern for conservation and the environment, and so on.

Spot on.
This despicable display of inhumanity went on for 200+ years. Especially the breaking up of slave families: daddy put to work in the fields of Alabama, while mama put to work as a house ****** in Tennessee, used as a breeding machine to produce more incarcerated people into the work-force, the children sold to whomever and put to work where ever... It was sordid.

Yet we have the audacity to insinuate that 50 years "progress" as sufficient enough a time to undue 200+ years of terror??? We're saying the "missing father" is a fool - while trying to force a particular religious ideology on folks? Meh... Not a great way to inspire others to Christianity is what I've seen in this thread from one particular person anyway. And hmmm... Why is religion even part of the discussion I begin to wonder... It seems to me that religion or rather, the hate of others' religious beliefs seemingly has been the greatest catalyst of most every war since the beginning of time. I'd suggest getting in touch with one's spirituality, acting on love rather than fear/scare tactics:

Spirituality is based only on love and not fear
Dotted throughout religion there is lots of fear. Fear of the consequences of your actions, fear of what might happen after you die if you don’t live your life accordingly.

Well, with spirituality there is only Love, it encourages you to focus all of your energy only on the good, and to act only based on love.

This is a key point for me as any choice made out of fear will not be good for your soul. Whereas decisions made out of love will empower you, make you braver and feed your soul.

It shows you how to stand despite being afraid, how to move on doing what you feel is right despite the consequences that may come.

Source

Meanwhile... Today...

There are many kids running around (and I classify that from 20's downward) that honestly should never have been born as their parents didn't raise them. They just had them and then let them do as they wanted and then made excuses for them when they got in trouble.

..... then when mom & dad got home get a spanking from each of them. God forbid if you did that now. You'd get arrested and accused of child abuse and having scarred poor little Johnny for life.

Spare the rod - Spoil the child? LOL
Unfortunately - that's exactly how it is; that's reality in 2018 America anyway...
Wow. Interesting conversation.

J.

 

[mysiteguy]

Biblical slavery
Deuteronomy 15:12–15
Leviticus 25:44-46
Ephesians 6:5
1 Peter 2:18
Titus 2:9-10
1 Timothy 6:1
Exodus 21:4-11
Leviticus 25:46

The highest number of slaves per capita:
North Korea 10%
Eritrea 9.3%
Burundi 4%
Central African Republic 2.2%
Afghanistan 2.2%
Mauritania 2.1%
South Sudan 2%
Pakistan 1.7%
Cambodia 1.7%
Iran 1.6%

The total number of slaves by country (those over 1 million):
India 8 million
China 3.86 million
Pakistan 3.19 million
North Korea 2.64 million
Nigeria 1.39 million
Iran 1.29 million
Indonesia 1.22 million
The Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 million

Abolition of slavery:
1590 Japan
1706 - 1772 England
1723 Russia
1804 Haiti
1822 Greece, Haiti (French), Liberia
1823 Chile
1824 Republic of Central America
1824 - 1830 Mexico
1830 Uruguay
1831 Bolivia
1834 UK (entire)
1835 Serbia
1847 Saint Barthelemy
1848 Danish West Indies, France (in colonies)
1851 Taiping, Ecuador, New Granada
1853 Argentina
1854 Venezuela, Peru
1855 Moldavia
1856 Wallachia
1860 India under Britain
1861 Russia
1863 Netherlands
1864 Poland
1865 USA

 

[PoetJC]

Biblical slavery
Deuteronomy 15:12–15
Leviticus 25:44-46
Ephesians 6:5
1 Peter 2:18
Titus 2:9-10
1 Timothy 6:1
Exodus 21:4-11
Leviticus 25:46

The highest number of slaves per capita:
North Korea 10%
Eritrea 9.3%
Burundi 4%
Central African Republic 2.2%
Afghanistan 2.2%
Mauritania 2.1%
South Sudan 2%
Pakistan 1.7%
Cambodia 1.7%
Iran 1.6%

The total number of slaves by country (those over 1 million):
India 8 million
China 3.86 million
Pakistan 3.19 million
North Korea 2.64 million
Nigeria 1.39 million
Iran 1.29 million
Indonesia 1.22 million
The Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 million

Abolition of slavery:
1590 Japan
1706 - 1772 England
1723 Russia
1804 Haiti
1822 Greece, Haiti (French), Liberia
1823 Chile
1824 Republic of Central America
1824 - 1830 Mexico
1830 Uruguay
1831 Bolivia
1834 UK (entire)
1835 Serbia
1847 Saint Barthelemy
1848 Danish West Indies, France (in colonies)
1851 Taiping, Ecuador, New Granada
1853 Argentina
1854 Venezuela, Peru
1855 Moldavia
1856 Wallachia
1860 India under Britain
1861 Russia
1863 Netherlands
1864 Poland
1865 USA

Interesting. I'm curious to know the source of this info.
Thanks,

J.

 

[mysiteguy]

Slavery stats come from UN and Walk Free Foundation

Abolition of Slavery from here: (it's well sourced at the bottom)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

The belief that South Africans are the worst when it comes to slavery and the USA was the first country to abolish slavery demonstratively false!

 

[PoetJC]

Is this video hateful? And should it be removed. If so, according to what standard? And what is my legal penalty?

HELL YES this video is hateful. Period.
Should it be removed? Forcibly? I wouldn't think so.
But yes it is hateful. I mean ... Instead of the 'invisible, sick homosexual' imagine if the commercial targeted white people, or black people (which has similarly been done throughout American history btw). What if the commercial targeted Muslims as enemies of God....? Etc... Etc.... Etc......

Fortunately - I don't think many networks would run such an ad now-a-days. Not even Fox News LOL
Why? Because it's hateful and it's ridiculous. That's why.

J.

 

[Shimei]

Biblical slavery
Deuteronomy 15:12–15
Leviticus 25:44-46
Ephesians 6:5
1 Peter 2:18
Titus 2:9-10
1 Timothy 6:1
Exodus 21:4-11
Leviticus 25:46

The highest number of slaves per capita:
North Korea 10%
Eritrea 9.3%
Burundi 4%
Central African Republic 2.2%
Afghanistan 2.2%
Mauritania 2.1%
South Sudan 2%
Pakistan 1.7%
Cambodia 1.7%
Iran 1.6%

The total number of slaves by country (those over 1 million):
India 8 million
China 3.86 million
Pakistan 3.19 million
North Korea 2.64 million
Nigeria 1.39 million
Iran 1.29 million
Indonesia 1.22 million
The Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 million

Abolition of slavery:
1590 Japan
1706 - 1772 England
1723 Russia
1804 Haiti
1822 Greece, Haiti (French), Liberia
1823 Chile
1824 Republic of Central America
1824 - 1830 Mexico
1830 Uruguay
1831 Bolivia
1834 UK (entire)
1835 Serbia
1847 Saint Barthelemy
1848 Danish West Indies, France (in colonies)
1851 Taiping, Ecuador, New Granada
1853 Argentina
1854 Venezuela, Peru
1855 Moldavia
1856 Wallachia
1860 India under Britain
1861 Russia
1863 Netherlands
1864 Poland
1865 USA

Again, the issue here is superficial knowledge of the subject matter. There is a difference between man stealing (forced slavery which is sometimes based on race). And indentured slavery. The scriptures do not condemn indentured slavery, which is a way for someone to pay off debts and is not based on race etc. It is willful servitude. Basically, if you were to get over your head (instead of bankruptcy). As an example, you went and got a degree in feminism and couldn't find a job afterwords, you could sell yourself off to someone that would pay your student loans off for a certain term. Usually no longer than 7 years. The very Jews were enslaved by Egyptians. What is the date of the laws written in scripture (Exodus) that abolished slavery? Around 1000 or so BCE?

Curious, how many countries are in Africa? The statistics say in one country alone in Africa 1 in 25 are enslaved.

And you are right, I wrote America rather than clarifying Judaeo-Christians. Who made up the abolitionist movements around the world? Who were the opposing sides which largely to this day that make up a total of combined slavery? And what is slavery? A simple question because on that list of places that abolished slavery, till this day Christians cannot own property and must forfeit their citizenship or convert. This occurs in the list of countries which are said to have abolished slavery.

Even till this day incarcerated prisoners are considered slaves of the state, this is why I am asking for clarification. There are many Christians in North Korean prisons. Are they part of the slave equation being made in that statistic?

 

[Nev_Dull]

Again, by what standard is something hate speech?

That's an interesting question. As you point out, morality is relative. The only standard that can be applied equally is the standard of law. Many countries (including mine) are working to define hate speech legislation.

Again, if all truth is defined by society then truth will change, shift, and sway in time according to society. Therefore, there is no absolute truth.What is true today may not be true tomorrow. What is true for you is not true for me.

I think that's an accurate description. That's why the best standards will come from law rather than subjective morality. The law is most able to reflect the current standards of the society. That video is a perfect example. There is nothing hateful in it. However, with the advancements in neuroscience and psychology, we now know it is inaccurate. Homosexuals and pedophiles are not the same thing as many once believed. Pedophiles are still recognized as dangerous, whereas homosexuality is accepted as a normal part of current society. Change the video to specify child predators, and it still works.

 

[Shimei]

That's an interesting question. As you point out, morality is relative. The only standard that can be applied equally is the standard of law. Many countries (including mine) are working to define hate speech legislation.

Even Einstein was appalled when his theory of relativity was applied to morality.

God's moral laws are absolute (The Light of God is a Constant). Based on your rationale they are relative to a country, society or individual. Therefore if slavery for example is illegal in your country but not mine you should either respect our laws to legalize slavery or force your laws which is an attempt towards an absolute law derived from man. The difference then becomes a decision between God and man the source of an absolute moral law. Whose light will shine brighter? Does the phrase "the right to life, liberty and happiness endowed by our Creator" sound familiar? Obama conveniently left out endowed by our Creator numerous times when he quoted the Declaration of Independence. This action was done on purpose. Without endowed by our Creator then everything relative to a person becomes a right to his life, liberty, and happiness. However, endowed by his Creator puts those things in historical context and conveys the intent of the author's right endowed upon man (God). One does not have the right to murder for example because it makes them "happy". God would not approve of it.

Nazi Germany legalized the murder of Jews. It is this post modern relativism which you are stating that they contributed towards and helped develop to combat the Christian religion.

Just suggesting, Americans fled similar ideology in the past and fought in a World War against it. I'd have no problem enlisting once again in an armed militia to stop it. From an ideological perspective I am fine with rational discourse in an attempt to combat it, however when a country, society, or individual attempts to enforce such principals physically they are enforcing absolute laws. In other words I am fine with the ideological and combating it in that realm with rational discourse but will fight against it to prevent it from ever becoming a physical reality on U.S. soil. Man made laws will attempt to shine their own light against God's light. At that point lock and load, the 2nd amendment exists in order to defend the first amendment. There is no coincidence that the 1st amendment is a principal from the Declaration of Independence and protected by the 2nd. Hope I never see the day moral relativism attempts to be enforced on American soil.

Therefore, we are back on topic dealing with one moral issue or a variety of moral issues which stem from a political nature quite different from one sovereign nation to another. From where or who a person derives a sense of morality has a direct relation to this topic. If a royal family or political body points to themselves, I for one share similar views with Vice President Mike Pence. I am a Christian first and foremost and then an American with emphasis on that order. God and then country. Don't force a Christian's hand to decide between the two.

 

[Nev_Dull]

Even Einstein was appalled when his theory of relativity was applied to morality.

The Law of Relativity isn't quite the same as saying something like morality is relative. If you prefer, you can substitute "subjective" in my sentence. Either way, the law is still the best criteria on which to base a standard because it is objective and binding across the society.

Just FYI: Einstein also wasn't a Christian. He identified as a Pantheist and an admirer of Spinoza who was a staunch determinist, rejecting the idea of free will. This was likely the source for Einstein's reaction to relativity being used to describe morality. He believed we all acted according to our nature which can't be changed.

God's moral laws are absolute. Based on your rationale they are relative to a country, society or individual. Therefore if slavery for example is illegal in your country but not mine you should either respect our laws to legalize slavery or force your laws which is an attempt towards an absolute law.

Now you are straying into territory in which I have limited experience. I would describe myself as a secular humanist or an apatheist who has only studied Christian writings from a literary perspective. That said, your statement is essentially an accurate description of the world. We do have different laws in different countries, some of which are quite offensive to those in other countries. And we do often use mechanisms such as political and economic pressure in an attempt to make those countries conform to our standards. Failing that, we most often are forced to accept those differences.

When it comes to God being the final word in law, even that is subjective. Which god to we mean? Presumably, you are referring to the god of Christianity, but even there theologians don't all agree. Which text is the definitive? There are many different versions of the bible in current use by different Christian variants. Some reject entire sections of the text which don't fit their narrative. And the text itself has been copied, edited, translated, edited again, all by religious sects and organizations bent on furthering their own agenda. Some take the writings as literal, others figuratively. Theologians can't even agree whether the bible should be taken as a whole, or seen as an anthology of moral tales to be taken individually.

So, no, God can't be the final word in law, simply because God isn't an accepted universal concept, even within a single society.

 

[Shimei]

The Law of Relativity isn't quite the same as saying something like morality is relative. If you prefer, you can substitute "subjective" in my sentence. Either way, the law is still the best criteria on which to base a standard because it is objective and binding across the society.

Just FYI: Einstein also wasn't a Christian. He identified as a Pantheist and an admirer of Spinoza who was a staunch determinist, rejecting the idea of free will. This was likely the source for Einstein's reaction to relativity being used to describe morality. He believed we all acted according to our nature which can't be changed.

I am well aware that Einstein was not a Christian. However, there is a difference between relativity and relativism. Einstein's theory of relativity appalled him when others tried to apply it to morality. God is an absolute. If we were to use "light" as an analogy then it is a constant or absolute.

I would also like to pause here, and just express my sincere enjoyment dialoguing with you on this medium or website on this subject matter while in rational discourse. It is quite stimulating. I am as interested in your personal views as I am in conveying mine.

Continuing, 2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battle field of the revolutionary war were Calvinist, they too reject Free Will as do I. How we define free will is important. If you merely mean a choice a man is faced with then I have no problem with that. And will not contend against it. I will actually emphasize that all men have choice and they'll be held accountable and responsible for their decisions before our Creator. However, if you mean an autonomous or libertarian will then I am firmly against it. The doctrine of autonomous or libertarian will (free will) is directly from Eden which can be heard echoing from Genesis 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies being offered to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself.

Free will doesn't exists as I defined it. Lemme explain, I will give you a choice to either commit yourself in action or not to participate. I ask you to try to reach the heavens by flapping your arms like a bird. Now, you can either choose to try or not. However, you will be accountable and responsible as to whether you try or not. In other words, either way you will not succeed because you are a man in nature and not a bird. You are grounded in your human nature. Therefore, flap all you want but you'll never reach "holiness" in the heavens. Why, because we are grounded in our sin nature. We are unholy, and God is holy. That is what I meant by previous statements when I said the Standard is set so high in Christianity nobody can reach it. We are all depraved and grounded in our sin nature that nobody can reach heaven and a Holy Standard. God must save us by His grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone.

Now you are straying into territory in which I have limited experience. I would describe myself as a secular humanist or an apatheist who has only studied Christian writings from a literary perspective. That said, your statement is essentially an accurate description of the world. We do have different laws in different countries, some of which are quite offensive to those in other countries. And we do often use mechanisms such as political and economic pressure in an attempt to make those countries conform to our standards. Failing that, we most often are forced to accept those differences.

When it comes to God being the final word in law, even that is subjective. Which god to we mean? Presumably, you are referring to the god of Christianity, but even there theologians don't all agree. Which text is the definitive? There are many different versions of the bible in current use by different Christian variants. Some reject entire sections of the text which don't fit their narrative. And the text itself has been copied, edited, translated, edited again, all by religious sects and organizations bent on furthering their own agenda. Some take the writings as literal, others figuratively. Theologians can't even agree whether the bible should be taken as a whole, or seen as an anthology of moral tales to be taken individually.

So, no, God can't be the final word in law, simply because God isn't an accepted universal concept, even within a single society.

There is only one "True" God. This of course assumes that one believes there is absolute truth. Lemme encourage people to like or virtually vote for your post if they don't believe absolute truth exists. I'll come back to this. For now, to answer your question we need to define God. And how do we do that? We are finite creatures which cannot perceive or comprehend the infinite nature of God. Luckily, we are made in the image of God therefore, we have shared attributes like logic and reason, love, and a variety of other attributes which makes it possible for us to even relate to God. But all men are flawed after the fall of Adam, our image has become distorted and no longer clearly reflects God perfectly. As you see, we are now in the realm or area of "Theology". In short, God revealed Himself through Scriptures. In them we can know his attributes, character etc. In Christian Scripture for example, it says "God is love", but most often people mistaken that to mean "love is God". God is the standard bearer for not only Justice, morality etc but even love. Our human love is not God, we "ought" not project our sense of love on God thereby making a god into our image (an idol). And we can't make the mistake of only deciding to acknowledge God's love and not His Justice. God does not love at the expense of His justice. His attributes are multi faceted, a full range, from Justice and Wrath to Mercy and Grace.

As far as edited Bibles translated etc it is important not to fall into this trap. Hitler used this line of reasoning. He even created his own Bible and made himself God. Many copies circulated and if he was successful all other bibles would have been destroyed. However, to our benefit we have archaeology. If Hitler succeeded for example, and we unearth a copy which dated back to the 1st century then we'd know whether the more modern copy was a fake. This is exactly what has happened. We have "manuscripts" dating back to the first century in the original languages Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew OT was completed well before Jesus set his beloved feet upon this earth. It was already in circulation in a completed form hundreds of years beforehand. That just leaves us with the NT, however, we have 1st century Manuscripts. Matter of fact there are over 20 thousand manuscripts unearthed. There is more historical proof of Jesus' existence and the Gospel writings than any other historical figure such as Socrates, Plato, etc. Notice, there's a difference between a manuscript and a translation into a different language. This is why it is important for Christians to familiarize themselves with the original languages.

Last point to address. There is consistency and unity in the Christian faith. When we say all theologians do not agree and there are a variety of denominations etc we must break down what is essential and non essential to the Christian faith. For example, despite there being 40 thousand + denominations, all of them agree on central truths which are essential to the Christian faith. In other words we all agree to essential Christian truths which makes us Christian. The problem to an outsider or sincere seeker is when they discover some people that reject these truths and they label themselves Christian (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc). By this standard they are not Christian. Likewise,"Liberal" Theologians are destructive to the Christian faith. They too reject the essentials which actually rejects them from under the label of Christian. If I make a case and point and you want to make a case and point and you refer to Liberal Theologians in order to combat the truths in Scripture exactly who are Liberal Theologians siding with?

Liberalism destroys any source text, be it the Constitution or Scripture. It rejects the historical context, immediate context, and broad context which convey what the author had in mind. Therefore, they are not limited to what was meant but they isolate and use (twist and manipulate) the texts in order to convey what they want to convey rather than the author. This is the problem we have with Liberal Judges which do not follow the Constitution or letter of the law. They turn it into a breathing living document that...... we are now back to your previous post. A relative document depending on time, culture, society etc. Imagine a judge that rejects the rule of law because they want to interpret it anyway they want. Sound familiar? God's Law is not relative to a nation, society, or individual. And we or I hope that at least the principals of any law derived by man is based on God's Law. Good luck standing before an individual judge which considers the law relative. Multiply the number of judges to create a Supreme Court and the issue remains. And the problem continues towards a society or even nation.

Lastly, I'd just like to emphasize, I am Christian, and all Christians shouldn't care whether Christians are white, black, yellow, red, brown etc. We are bought in the blood of Christ therefore we are blood red in our "new" nature. Christianity is global, consisting of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. These people aren't my friends, they are my blood covenant brothers and sisters. However, like all families, we should care about the issues that affect us by ignorance which brings persecution to any members of our family. Seems to me that this model nation already exists, and its right under the noses of people that refuse to see it. This Nation is Sovereign and covers the entire earth. "God can't be the final word in law, simply because God isn't an accepted universal concept, even within a single society." Right everything from the smallest partical to the grandest galaxies follow Law but man thinks he is an autonomous creature. No doubt, there are a finite number of unbelievers for a finite of time. Christianity isn't trying to establish an earthly theocracy. However, I leave it in your hands as to whether one should reject truth on the basis of another person's rejection of truth. If we're looking towards others and their response to truth as the basis of truth than we commit the logical fallacy which appeals to popularity. Not to mention, unbelief in God is actually a sin.

Hope you find my response comprehensive enough to answer your questions from my point of view. I think this is still on topic because we are addressing moral issues and from who we derive them which creates, destroys, and influences others on how they interpret current legislature.

Remember I said and encouraged people to like your post if they don't believe absolute truth exists? Now my question to them, why would you essentially vote or take an opposing side of absolute truth if you didn't believe one was closer to a higher degree of truth?

 

[Nev_Dull]

I would also like to pause here, and just express my sincere enjoyment dialoguing with you on this medium or website on this subject matter while in rational discourse. It is quite stimulating. I am as interested in your personal views as I am in conveying mine.

I'm a firm believer that people can have constructive discussions on even the most sensitive topics, if they do so with thoughtfulness and respect.

There's lots here that I am unqualified to address in specifics and I don't want to change this to a discussion of religion. However, I still maintain that defining terror or hate speech in the proposed legislation based on the content of an ancient religious text isn't a good solution for a modern society. Similarly, I would never suggest basing a law on the text of Plato, Shakespeare, or Chaucer. Any legislation should come from the the people and the society it applies to. In most places, that means it is developed by those who are elected to represent them. That does not preclude religious faith (or lack) from influencing those writing the legislation.

They turn it into a breathing living document that...... we are now back to your previous post. A relative document depending on time, culture, society etc. Imagine a judge that rejects the rule of law because they want to interpret it anyway they want. Sound familiar? God's Law is not relative to a nation, society, or individual. And we or I hope that at least the principals of any law derived by man is based on God's Law. Good luck standing before an individual judge which considers the law relative. Multiply the number of judges to create a Supreme Court and the issue remains. And the problem continues towards a society or even nation.

I believe the law must be a living document that changes, not with the whims or trends of society, but based on the changing circumstances and needs of society. And while it doesn't make the law relative, it does make the application of the law more flexible, for good and ill. Language is an imperfect instrument of communication. Because of that, we have armies of lawyers getting wealthy arguing a particular interpretation of wording. However, the playing field remains fairly equal, with both sides of a case able to bring to light their own interpretation. This includes religious guides and writings. Even with something as basic as the ten commandments, we find a multitude of variations, interpretations, and even number --each with their champions claiming it as the correct version. Since the original authors are not around, we have nothing but the interpretations of imperfect language to work from.

 

[Shimei]

Similarly, I would never suggest basing a law on the text of Plato, Shakespeare, or Chaucer.

You may find this interesting and on topic. Same reasoning and the powers to be, what if they ban Shakespeare? And like a recent bill in CA make liable to any site owner which publishes questionable information according to "their standard" like his books online?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Arizona-schools-law-bans-ethnic-studies.html

I believe the law must be a living document that changes, not with the whims or trends of society, but based on the changing circumstances and needs of society. And while it doesn't make the law relative, it does make the application of the law more flexible, for good and ill. Language is an imperfect instrument of communication. Because of that, we have armies of lawyers getting wealthy arguing a particular interpretation of wording. However, the playing field remains fairly equal, with both sides of a case able to bring to light their own interpretation. This includes religious guides and writings. Even with something as basic as the ten commandments, we find a multitude of variations, interpretations, and even number --each with their champions claiming it as the correct version. Since the original authors are not around, we have nothing but the interpretations of imperfect language to work from.

Oh, the original author is still around. I do agree with you, though I support "application" from an ancient source text to modern times. The principals can be extracted and applied to modern society while retaining what the author(s) had in mind. However, on the topic of source text we should not be equating manuscripts with translations and now "interpretations". The best interpreter of a verse in Scripture are other verses. For example, one English translation may say You shall not kill. And another translation might say You shall not murder. Which is correct? The rest of Scripture or immediate and broad context actually answers the question. The act of killing can be justified but the act of murder is never justified. One would never know that unless they appealed to immediate and broad context. Therefore, the reader is faced with determining his/her authority in what they think rather than letting the author answer the question in respect to what the authors had in mind. What happens most often is people compare one translation to another see what they think is a contradiction in the English language and use it to discredit the source text. However, it is actually a discredit to the person in question, presuppositions they have, and ultimately their approach to the source text.

In the original languages and ancient manuscripts even copyist errors can be identified by the amount of manuscripts to compare with as ancient manuscripts were copied by human hand rather than a printing press. The issues which you're noting becomes evident in translation from one language to another because of sentence construction etc therefore requiring a dynamic equivalence which is thought for thought translation rather than word for word translation. Teams of people educated in languages attempt to convey what the author had in mind. That is the difference you're seeing. Not to mention modern language changes so different modern translations change which are written and translated from the ancient manuscripts which do not change. A real issue is when we compare an old translation such as the English 1611 King James to a more modern English translation ESV. The differences are not in the original language manuscripts but in our language.

Here's an example of the 1611 King James. Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters."

And here is the ESV. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Here is the original language from a given manuscript being translated into the English.



As you can see there are issues in sentence construction and a word for word has to be replaced to a degree with new construction. This is especially apparent when translating one idiom to another language:


Also

King James Bible
Thou shalt not kill.

English Standard Version
You shall not murder.

Often any issues a person may personally encounter in a translation can be known in the translation by using immediate and broad context. But is no better advantage than to have an understanding of the original languages and resources in which to help understand them. These issues that you're pointing out are only evident when a verse is taken in a translation word for word in a verse which is isolated from immediate and broad context. Therefore, these issues really are only apparent and lead to false interpretation when using the liberal "living, breathing" document approach. And this is why Liberalism should be rejected in Theology and even our (U.S.) Judicial system.

Enjoy, and have a great day,
Shim

 

[Paul M]

I think this thread has gone way way off topic.

Getting back to the original topic, in my experience this seems highly exaggerated.
I suspect a much low percentage of people have really been "harmed", certainly not half of the UK.

The research has been released shortly before Ofcom boss Sharon White gives a speech at the Royal Television Society conference in which she is expected to say the harms have arisen because of a lack of regulation.

What a coincidence eh ? Not at all suspicious.

 

[Shimei]

I think this thread has gone way way off topic.

Getting back to the original topic, in my experience this seems highly exaggerated.
I suspect a much low percentage of people have really been "harmed", certainly not half of the UK.

Question, and I hope you don't find my question harmful. Is asking someone to define what it means to be harmed off topic? Is what being conveyed as harmful subjective or objective? And by what standard is something deemed harmful? Who is the standard which we ought to follow? The individual, society (one nation to another), or a standard bearer greater than? That is, if we wish to voice our reasoning and to exercise our rights to influence policy rather than to follow them after the fact (which is an act that demonstrates ones source or standard that they think should make these decisions). Are our lawmakers representatives or a monarchy? In my previous posts I am actually trying to build a "bridge" and understand those that oppose what I personally believe. I am addressing the "why" people believe anything at all.

I'll stop if Staff suggests I am off topic. I'd hope that lawmakers care about why others have reservations or oppose said laws as well as support them. If the UK and EU or wherever else want to try to enforce their laws in the U.S. I'll try to raise enough signatures in petition to spread awareness to our lawmakers. Let's put a "diode" or "read only" in the internet lines from and to other continents or countries to make the internet only one way from the U.S. <sarcasm>

 

[Nev_Dull]

The discussion has strayed more into the philosophical arena, perhaps, but I have to agree with Shimei that it isn't completely off the topic.

I'll agree that article is a bit alarmist. However, I think what's behind it is important because it touches on something that is gaining traction and we as forum owners/managers should be discussing it. Governments all over are taking a serious look at the internet and that's something we should all want to be involved in.

 

[mysiteguy]

I think this thread has gone way way off topic.

Thank you. When it turns from a topic which might include a religious view into promoting their particular view ("one true god" blah, blah, blah) and how anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge, it becomes a broken record after a bit. It's like trying to talk with someone who constantly brings up their knitting hobby.

A. The other day I was reading some about...
B. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.
A. I wasn't taking about Jesus. Anyway, I was reading a press release from Nasa and...
B. Did you know the one true god made the stars and all the objects in the universe that Nasa is cataloging?
A. Um, I'm trying to talk about their press release. They've identified a planet in the habitable zone that...
B. Habitable? God formed the earth, populated it with plants, animals, and creatures of the sea, in the first book of his true revelation.
A. Great you believe that, but this has nothing to do with that. The interesting thing is this planet is in orbit around a star 16 light years away that happens to be where the planet Vulcan from Star Trek is supposed to be located.
B. If there's life on other planets its because the one true god created it there.
A. I'm outta here.

 

[Shimei]

Thank you. When it turns from a topic which might include a religious view into promoting their particular view ("one true god" blah, blah, blah) and how anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge, it becomes a broken record after a bit. It's like trying to talk with someone who constantly brings up their knitting hobby.

This leads to another point.

Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.... "

I think it is very important to see that the founding document by which America became a nation contains within an appeal to God. This totally debunks many myths (lies, so lets penalize all those that spread this myth because it is harmful <sarcasm>) that are repeated such as "Don't bring God into politics" "Let's not mention God in public places because it isn't proper - some people might be offended."

So here we face an apparent issue. Are the founding documents of our nation irrelevant, or do they only contain irrelevant information for anyone to decide selectively to omit?

A. The other day I was reading some about...
B. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.
A. I wasn't taking about Jesus. Anyway, I was reading a press release from Nasa and...
B. Did you know the one true god made the stars and all the objects in the universe that Nasa is cataloging?
A. Um, I'm trying to talk about their press release. They've identified a planet in the habitable zone that...
B. Habitable? God formed the earth, populated it with plants, animals, and creatures of the sea, in the first book of his true revelation.
A. Great you believe that, but this has nothing to do with that. The interesting thing is this planet is in orbit around a star 16 light years away that happens to be where the planet Vulcan from Star Trek is supposed to be located.
B. If there's life on other planets its because the one true god created it there.
A. I'm outta here.

Right! It seems that you're running into people in your example which take things from Scripture out of context and apply a new meaning to it anyway they want. Sound familiar?