Judge bans suicide show

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: With no other experts to refute you (who I would still argue are more knowledgable than you),

One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.

Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net? What possible reason? Because experts are always "them" and never "us" How very strange. How small minded. My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.

What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us? Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.

[ 10-23-2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.

I'm referring to all the texts cited in the "bible contradictions" thread that you summarily dismissed because they were not the poster's original opinions.

Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net?

I'm not dismissing your position. I'm whining that you will dismiss mine if they are not based on my personal experience or knowledge but rather gained through secondary sources.

How small minded.

Thanks. I try.

My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.

I am not summarily dismissing your points, or Cerek's (I don't mess with barbarians ). I am just arguing that for me your opinion, or Cerek's, are opinions that I factor in with OTHER opinions from learned texts.

What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us?

I wasn't saying you were not an expert. As I mentioned in the bible contradiction thread, however, I probably won't give your opinion as much credence as a theologian's with letters like Ph.D. backing them up. Sorry, as a lawyer, I've found that letters behind a name make an opinion more "expert." No offense is intended. Surely you will recognize that SOMEONE out there knows more than you about the bible.

Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.

Again, I think you are reading things into what I'm saying that I do not mean. Your personal reading and knowledge is valuable, and I won't deny that.

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.

That's all well and good... for you. But if I or someone else cites your father or another expert to refute a statement you make, please don't come back at us saying since it's not our personal knowledge it means nothing.

All in all, I think you read an insult where I didn't mean one.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [QB] quote: Originally posted by Yorick: One more thing... what the heck is this? What "experts" are you talking about? Who are you speaking about? What are you calling "an expert". Name them and where they're disagreeing with me.

I'm referring to all the texts cited in the "bible contradictions" thread that you summarily dismissed because they were not the poster's original opinions.
[/QUOTE]You seem to forget that the "expert" who wrote those "contradictions" was a musician... like myself, who had less experience within christian music, bible colleges and the church than I have had. Why is this fellow considered by you an expert and I am not?

Secondly, they were not contradictions that Chewbacca had discovered himself or even read, Had he stumbled upon them naturally, he would have found no contradiction in 90% of them. In actual fact, all the contradictions were explained. I began by mowing through them before finding salf a dozen websites that refuted them.... saving my time. A couple of the "contradictions" were so brazenly odd, that no contradiction could be found to refute. The writer has ignored attempts to get him to elaborate on them.

quote: Besides, what has that got to do with anything? You're automatically dismissing my position because.... I'm here? Why? Because I'm talking to you on the net?

I'm not dismissing your position. I'm whining that you will dismiss mine if they are not based on my personal experience or knowledge but rather gained through secondary sources.[/QUOTE]If you're going to argue that a film sucks, make sure you watch it. It's not too much of a request. I will dismiss the opinion of someone who bags the bible when they haven't read it. It's a foolish thing to do pure and simple.

quote: How small minded.

Thanks. I try.[/QUOTE]It's the "them" mentality. That it's always someone else who is an expert or a sucess or big or effective or whatever, instead of us, me, you. That is small minded in that it is disempowering and limits potential. There is no reason why someone on this board couldn't change the world. That is larger mindedness. POSSIBILITY.

quote: My opinions co-align with Cereks who is one of the few on this board who's read the bible in depth. Why is it not possible that Cerek or myself are actually "experts" choosing to discuss online for example? You've automatically excluded that possibility whatsoever.

I am not summarily dismissing your points, or Cerek's (I don't mess with barbarians ). I am just arguing that for me your opinion, or Cerek's, are opinions that I factor in with OTHER opinions from learned texts.[/QUOTE]No you specifically said you regard these mysterious "other experts" as more knowledgable. That was what I took issue with.

quote: What possible reason do you have for dismissing my opinions as being any less knowledgeable than anyone elses? And why even throw that in in such snide fashion? Where does that get us?

I wasn't saying you were not an expert. As I mentioned in the bible contradiction thread, however, I probably won't give your opinion as much credence as a theologian's with letters like Ph.D. backing them up. Sorry, as a lawyer, I've found that letters behind a name make an opinion more "expert." No offense is intended. Surely you will recognize that SOMEONE out there knows more than you about the bible.[/QUOTE]Of course, and I named C.S.Lewis - who had no theology degree, yet who is arguably the most influencial Christian writer in the modern era.

Bear in mind I have TAUGHT at Bible colleges in three countries.

As a rule America seems to emphasise college education and letters after peoples names. Hence the internet colleges that sell meaningless degrees.

The letters mean nothing. What you do with them means everything.

I'm a self taught musician who didn't go to music college and yet have been more sucessful than 99% of musicians. Similarly, my first bible college was the family dinner table.

But this is not about me.... it is about the notion that for some reason, THEY, must be more knowledgeable than someone here. It's most odd.

quote: Well here's news!! I happily admit that someone like C.S.Lewis is a wiser man than I. I go to church to hear words from a wiser man than I. What does that prove? I still read the bible for myself if he says something I had no understanding of. I still read the source work for myself if a preacher more "expert" than myself quotes it in church.

Again, I think you are reading things into what I'm saying that I do not mean. Your personal reading and knowledge is valuable, and I won't deny that.

What you are advocating is lunacy. If I accepted your limitational viewpoint, I would still be in my fathers church, with all his intepretations, not my own, getting spoonfed all my beliefs. My father is an "expert" trained in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and with decades more bible reading, and teaching and preaching under his belt than I do. But I don't feel "inferior" or that my contrasting opinions are even wrong by simple virtue of his "expertise". I read the bible for myself, decide for myself, and have a personal ongoing relationship with God.

That's all well and good... for you. But if I or someone else cites your father or another expert to refute a statement you make, please don't come back at us saying since it's not our personal knowledge it means nothing.

All in all, I think you read an insult where I didn't mean one.[/QUOTE]I stand by what I've said.

i hope it's not too late to mention that there was a fascinating in depth feature in the september national geographic on slavery, and how it is alive and well in the world, including in europe and america.

and for the record, i support the right to die.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: I reached a conclusion about your understanding given the nature of your arguing. I could quite obviously be wrong, by I described what my criterea for assessing and reaching a conclusion was. What the "substance" was if you like.

Yorick, you are in effect stating that because I reached a different conclusion to you, I could not have studied the material involved - despite the fact that I have already stated that I had done.

Originally posted by Yorick: Even now, you are yet to post an alternate interpretation of the passages.

A proper answer would require not only the quotation of verses, but also the context, mainstream interpretations and historical perspectives.
But this is a public forum - not a bible or Qu'ran class and a 5,000 word hermeneutical answer would be interminable for the majority of readers.

Originally posted by Yorick: I have read the dissertations of those who advocate a solely spiritual interpretation, and I don't buy it when I then read the qu'ran. Obviously, neither do the Osama Bin Ladens or Yasser Arafats of the world. Nor the mothers of Hamas suicide bombers.

And now you have moved from disparaging my charactor to vituperating Islam.

Do the beliefs of the KKK represent the mainstream views of Christians? Go to their websites (I will *not* link racist material) and you will find that they justify their actions with bible verses. This man also believed that he was upholding Christian doctrine - and isn't short of a bible verse or two either. No-one with the slightest knowledge of Christian doctrine believes that they are acting according to the mainstream interpretation of their faith - to claim otherwise would be offensive to most Christians.

Perhaps you should consider how offensive your statement was towards Islam.

In any event, until you apologise for your unfounded vilification of Islam and for disparaging me, I see no reason to continue any further dialogue with you in this or other threads.

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Yorick LOL! If I thought everyone believed the same as me, I wouldn't be discussing!

You fail to grasp the point. Your argument is for making (keeping) suicide illegal. The basis of this argument is based upon your personal beliefs, and creating or enforcing a law that only takes into account your beliefs deprives another of their right to believe as they wish. You are in effect stating that your opinion weighs more than theirs.

Originally posted by Yorick O.k. so could you explain to me the state of existence in which any individual is seperated from their beliefs? Absolute objectivity?

I never stated that an individual is capable of absolute objectivity. However, I am saying that all people need to learn how to set aside their personal and religious beliefs when determining courses of action that have a direct effect upon society.

Originally posted by Yorick I'm only a human, and like you cannot seperate myself from my subjectivity. YOUR beliefs are all over your exaltation of empirical facts for example. Over your self defeating belief that one should seperate themselves from their beliefs when determining law.

You’re assuming that my opinions in this thread are directly related to my personal beliefs. In fact, my personal opinions on the effects of suicide drastically differ from those based upon empirical data. However, when determining a course of action that others must follow, I do not allow my beliefs to impede making a decision that takes into account the beliefs of others. So in this case, no, I am not like you.

Originally posted by Yorick Why don't you take a leaf out of your own book and realise not everyone believes the same as YOU. Not everyone believes in LAW. Every heard of ANARCHISM. Or crime or vigilanteism for that matter? A persons beliefs directly influence their approach to matters of law, even the concept of law itself. It cannot be any other way. We are subjective beings.

As I have stated, my opinion in this matter is not based upon my beliefs, instead I base my opinion knowing that others hold a different opinion than I do. You are right in saying that a person’s beliefs influence matters pertaining to laws. However, there are people who are able to understand the difference between an opinion based on their beliefs and an opinion that takes into account others beliefs.

Originally posted by Yorick As to "forcing will" you have totally ignored the concept of LAW your are exalting. Law is exactly some humans excercising their beliefs of right and wrong over others. By what right do we take away a persons freedom simply because they perform an action we other humans deem "unacceptable"? Police enforce the will of some over the will of others. People exerting will over others occurs every day. Influence, persuasion, force, coercion. Look around you.

You are making a grievous assumption here concerning my usage of the word Law. You seem to think laws are made to limit the actions of another individual. I, however, think laws are there to protect our personal freedoms. Politicians and religious leaders have taken the concept of law too far and corrupted laws in order to control a populace. Just because they use laws in this manner does not mean that I need to accept their methods.

When used in this way, laws do not force another’s will upon anyone, but they provide protection from having another person force their will upon you.

As to people using influence, persuasion, and coercion to force their will against you, ultimately, if physical force is removed from the equation, the choice is still yours to do as you please.

Originally posted by Yorick What reality are you living in that this simple fact has eluded you? You are not holding any moral highground here. You are doing exactly the same thing you are deriding me for doing.

I don’t remember claiming to be on any moral high ground. As point in fact, one has to believe in some structure of morals in order to do so and I am sure my morals do not match that of those around me in all cases. As such, it becomes counter intuitive to even mention morals in the discussion.

I can also state with absolute certainty that my argument does not compare to yours at all. Your argument on this topic is based upon your personal beliefs while my argument is not. This alone removes any possibility of comparison based on the composition of our arguments.

The simple fact is suicide does not infringe on anyone’s personal rights. In addition, a person committing suicide is in no way forcing their beliefs or will upon another.

In another posted you state that another person is small-minded. I leave you with a question:

Is the person who believes others should live and be controlled according to his views small minded, or the skeptical person who questions the validity of another through a medium that allows for supreme ambiguity?

[Yorick]

Sorry Maelakin, but you are being hypocritical in your arguement.

Your belief in what is right or wrong is determining your views on this matter. You believe it is wrong to bring in theology into a social question. Yet this is your belief, and directly influencing your ideas.

You cannot, we cannot, I cannot, seperate the self from belief. Even attempting objectivity itself is reliant on the belief that pursuing objectivity is of value!! It contradicts itself.

Doctor, heal thyself.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I reached a conclusion about your understanding given the nature of your arguing. I could quite obviously be wrong, by I described what my criterea for assessing and reaching a conclusion was. What the "substance" was if you like.

Yorick, you are in effect stating that because I reached a different conclusion to you, I could not have studied the material involved - despite the fact that I have already stated that I had done.

Originally posted by Yorick: Even now, you are yet to post an alternate interpretation of the passages.

A proper answer would require not only the quotation of verses, but also the context, mainstream interpretations and historical perspectives.
But this is a public forum - not a bible or Qu'ran class and a 5,000 word hermeneutical answer would be interminable for the majority of readers.

Originally posted by Yorick: I have read the dissertations of those who advocate a solely spiritual interpretation, and I don't buy it when I then read the qu'ran. Obviously, neither do the Osama Bin Ladens or Yasser Arafats of the world. Nor the mothers of Hamas suicide bombers.

And now you have moved from disparaging my charactor to vituperating Islam.

Do the beliefs of the KKK represent the mainstream views of Christians? Go to their websites (I will *not* link racist material) and you will find that they justify their actions with bible verses. This man also believed that he was upholding Christian doctrine - and isn't short of a bible verse or two either. No-one with the slightest knowledge of Christian doctrine believes that they are acting according to the mainstream interpretation of their faith - to claim otherwise would be offensive to most Christians.

Perhaps you should consider how offensive your statement was towards Islam.

In any event, until you apologise for your unfounded vilification of Islam and for disparaging me, I see no reason to continue any further dialogue with you in this or other threads. [/QUOTE]I have repeatedly stated that a person committing even self defense goes AGAINST Jesus example and teaching, and that a person commiting violence of the OFFENSE is following Muhammads life example, whether or not the teaching is limited to a spiritual context or not.

Comparing the action of the follower with the source material they claim to follow is the sure way to ascertain if they practice what they preach. Otherwise I could walk around calling myself a Buddhist... no really I am. I don't follow Buddha, don't believe in pantheism, nor reincarnation, nor Nirvana. I support war and achieving goals through violence. I don't advocate detatchment, in fact I advocate hedonism and hoarding possessions.

But I'm still Buddhist!!! Yeah!

Or... perhaps I am an atheist. But I believe in God.. that's right, a creator... but I'm an atheist!

Or maybe I am really a Muslim!! I follow Muhammad Ali, and believe that boxing is the key to salvation! Parkinsons disease is actually a higher state of conciousness! The Prophet David Koresh was Muhammad Ali in idiot form. I love them both because I am a good Muslim-Atheist-Buddhist!!

Chaos! Chaos! What are we to do?!!

***READ THE SOURCE THE PERSON CLAIMS TO FOLLOW.***

A Christian murdering in the name of Jesus is doing nothing of the sort.
A Muslim waging war in the manner Muhammad did, IS doing so.

[Timber Loftis]

I think we've all gotten really ivory tower here. Let's bring it down a notch. Seems to me we own *some* part of ourselves. I would bet the vast majority of posters on this board agree with that statement, and Yorick your belief that we do not own ourselves any at all is not only not mainstream, it's exceedingly rare from my experience.

I would also assert that if we own *some* part of ourselves, it is likely that we do own the OFF switch, because the ability to be dispossessed of ownership or destroy what you own is likely one of the most basic elements of ownership. It seems to me. I don't know that I would say this is mainstream, but I think it seems reasonable.

Then again, I guess it depends on the nature of your limited ownership of self. A shareholder owns part of a corporation, but it takes a super-majority of the special voting stock guys to close the thing down and end it. So, I realize there are arguments against this conclusion.

I think in the end we can come to at least two certainties. One, if you own yourself absolutely, you have a right to die. Two, if you own yourself in the majority then you should and probably do have a right to die.

Then again, seatbelts are required in 49 states.

[ 10-23-2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

But is there an "off switch" Timber? To commit suicide, you must directly interfere with the natural course of your life. We all die. Murder, manslaughter and suicide are those lives ending as a result of HUMAN INTERVENTION. That's not switching the "off-switch".

If there is an "off switch" it is losing the will to live. As I have said repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, humans who lose the will to live die. That is the off switch. Proactively terminating ones life is overwhelmingly a way of escaping accute pain.

If you really don't want to live, you will die. If you want to end pain under any circumstances, self destruction such as suicide (or chemical escapism) are behavioural paths often chosen by those unable to see alternatives.

[ 10-23-2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]