Hitchens argues in his new book that it was certainly not the Ten Commandments that helped the Jews to realize that to kill was immoral. It would be absurd to claim that prior to the event on Mount Sinai killing was acceptable.

The Jews maintained an “in-group” religion.  Killing of outsiders was acceptable when necessary because the ten commandments only applied to Jews.
“Thou shalt not kill” meant “Thou shalt not kill another Jew.”

Most people (not all) on this planet see a murder as a sin. And it has nothing to do with any ideology or bogus mythological stories.

I disagree and see this statement as inherently flawed.

Just inquire as to where the term “sin” comes from.

It seems that we have really just come to a wall of disagreement here, and further argument would probably prove speculative and fruitless.

I appreciate your thoughtful replies and your perspective, but I feel that this is as good a time as any to bow out.

We don’t see eye-to-eye and that is fine.
I wish you the best in your pursuits.

So long!

Hi Mr Obsidian,

Mr_Obsidian - 21 August 2007 02:32 PM

I’ve given reasons as to “why” Lex Talionis makes rational sense. 

OK, sorry, I’ll check into it, my post was only in reply to the post I read, I haven’t been through the whole thread and don’t know about Lex Talionis yet.

 
If you cannot discern for yourself the extent of Judeo-Christian moral influence on law and the pitfalls of moral legislation vs. formative, as well as how that embedded influence affects advocates of reason and science, then go read up on the subject.

I think maybe I can but you believe in retributive justice, which is the Judeo-Christian influence on the law! 
 

How inclusive is “all?”  So you literally mean “everyone”—including criminals, psychopaths, drug addicts, etc?

Absolutely, why not? What if it was your misfortune to be a drug addict for instance? Would you think, oh well it is my hard luck, it is right that the justice system isn’t fair on me?

Stephen

Absolutely, why not? What if it was your misfortune to be a drug addict for instance? Would you think, oh well it is my hard luck, it is right that the justice system isn’t fair on me?

This is exactly where we differ, and where my dismay of egalitarianism comes to the fore.

I don’t consider someone like a drug addict a hapless victim.

People make choices.  Engaging in detrimental behavior is a choice.

I have NO sympathy for drug addicts and other idiotic criminals.

I am certainly against any social welfare which takes my earnings to pay for the mistakes of suicidal idiots.

“Responsibility to the responsible.”
“Live and let die.”

Thank you for the replies Stephen, but as I told George, my time is better spent elsewhere.

All the best!

Mr_Obsidian - 21 August 2007 04:32 PM

Absolutely, why not? What if it was your misfortune to be a drug addict for instance? Would you think, oh well it is my hard luck, it is right that the justice system isn’t fair on me?

This is exactly where we differ, and where my dismay of egalitarianism comes to the fore.

I don’t consider someone like a drug addict a hapless victim.

People make choices.  Engaging in detrimental behavior is a choice.

I have NO sympathy for drug addicts and other idiotic criminals.

I am certainly against any social welfare which takes my earnings to pay for the mistakes of suicidal idiots.

“Responsibility to the responsible.”
“Live and let die.”

Thank you for the replies Stephen, but as I told George, my time is better spent elsewhere.

All the best!

Ok, I’ve looked up Lex Talionis and realise it is retributive justice, so feel a little foolish for not knowing that.

The thing is, this is very much a part of our Judeo Christian heritage and the belief is founded on the Judeo Christian concept of free choice.

You’ve dropped God but kept belief in the myth of free choice, which is why you think your belief in Lex Talionis is rational.

I think the existence of God is highly improbable, whilst the existence of free choice is much less likely than that!

So I think you need a reason to believe in it, or else your philosophy is at least as much a matter of faith as Judaism or Christianity.

Any how I understand if you wish to call it a day there but wanted to make that point.

Stephen

Mr_Obsidian - 21 August 2007 01:11 PM

I think that sometimes is just impossible to punish a criminal to the extent to suit his actions. I think in the most ugly criminals, those who torture their victims and enjoy with the suffering. What punishment could fit their crimes?

Yes, at a certain point one cannot establish precise “fit the crime” measures.

With particularly vile scum, it is best to remove them from the gene pool efficiently and quickly.

Well, but it is the real world and sometimes is hard to tell for sure if a suspected criminal is guilty.

Yes, sometimes.  That is an unfortunate aspect of any enforcement/judiciary system.
Still, the numbers are low and ability to prove guilt through forensic evidence is vastly improving.

Well, I guess we reach the root of our disagreement. I won’t swear that no criminal deserve to be executed no matter how terrible the crime was, but the posibility of a inocent sufering a punishment appears more scaring to me than to you(I am not making a moral statement, I just claiming that we see the things diferently, and it is likely to our diferents cultural backgrounds), and, because it is imposible to rollback a physical punishment, I prefer to outlaw them.

George - 21 August 2007 03:23 PM

Hitchens argues in his new book that it was certainly not the Ten Commandments that helped the Jews to realize that to kill was immoral. It would be absurd to claim that prior to the event on Mount Sinai killing was acceptable. Most people (not all) on this planet see a murder as a sin. And it has nothing to do with any ideology or bogus mythological stories. The same can be said about the resistance to legalize a gay marriage, prostitution, etc. We first decided what is moral or immoral (through thousands of years of evolution) and than we came up with the Ten Commandments (Jews), Judeo-Christian Morality (Mr. Obsidian), or the perfect proletarian society (Czechoslovakia).

George,

You mean the worker at McDonalds should be held responsible for serving too hot of coffee, and not Judeo-Christian morals? I mean, shouldnt we speculate and stereotype the workers as being poor people of color who are genetically dumber and were too busy praising Jesus to notice the coffee was too hot, rather than carelessness? Likewise, shouldnt we say that “justice” is pouring coffee on Jesus’ lap?

I don’t know, but I am still trying to understand how someone can claim they are for “personal responsibility” and then go and blame whole religions for moral problems.

Kevin:
To what extent is CoS only antipodal to faith-based religions?
What element does its aesthetics serve to persuade people to partake? To what extent is it purely celebratory? Who decides the rituals, the props, the vestments, etc.

I am an actor and I guess I am curious about the theatricality involved.

I don’t know how everyone else felt, but I found Gilmore’s arguments inconsistent. No disrespect to CoS intended, I promise everyone.

chazmena - 21 August 2007 09:10 PM

To what extent is CoS only antipodal to faith-based religions?

I’m not sure if I understand what exactly you are asking. “How much of the ‘doctrines’ and ‘practice’ of the Church of Satan is in opposition to theistic religions?” or “Where do the CoS and faith-based religions overlap?” Not trying to be difficult, I just don’t want to spend time answering the wrong question, and then have to clarify my points in yet another answer.

What element does its aesthetics serve to persuade people to partake?

Again, for sake of accuracy, I could interpret this a couple of ways.  Satanic Ritual is normally not done for an “audience”, though many performers have staged works that they considered to be public Satanic rituals, and in the early days of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey hosted a efw public rituals, and allowed them occasionally to be filmed or photographed (The documentaries “Satanis: The Devil’s Mass” and “Speak of the Devil: The Canon of Anton LaVey” both contain rituals led by Anton LaVey in the notorious “Black House” in San Francisco).

I don’t understand what you’re suggesting people may “partake” in, and who you’re referring to as “people” here. Since there is normally no “audience” for a Satanic Ritual, the “people” would be the participants, and hopefully they’ve crafted an aesthetically powerful ceremony to suit whatever goal they have.

To what extent is it purely celebratory?

I think that’s situational. Different rituals serve different purposes. Even a civil service “wedding” is part celebratory, part legal.

Who decides the rituals, the props, the vestments, etc.

“The format for our traditional ritual was created as a guideline that may be amended by Satanists to suit their own aesthetics and emotional needs. Thus, Satanic Ritual is not presented as dogma… You may celebrate the rites precisely as presented in the works of Dr. LaVey and in the following pages, since they are effectively dramatic in structure and content. However, you may find elements that detract from your deepest emotional arousal and so these may be altered to serve you best.”
“The answer is that you really don’t need any of the suggested implements, since the most important tool for ritual is your own imagination.”
“The texts themselves can also be altered to suit your particular sense of rhythm and imagery…”
- Quotes from an essay concerning Satanic Ritual from Peter H. Gilmore’s The Satanic Scriptures

For more information, you can pick up the above quoted book or The Satanic Rituals by Anton LaVey

For the Satanic High Mass of 6/6/06 that was performed at CFI West, the ceremony was designed as a theater piece, and this is unlike normal Satanic Ritual in that it takes an audience into consideration. I’ll quote Peter Gilmore again from The Satanic Scriptures: “There is no guarantee that ritual can do anything more than serve as a cathartic experience for the ones performing it. That is why we do not perform rituals for other people; if they are not performing it, they will not benefit from the experience.”

The set design was inspired in pat by the movie The Black Cat, using non-Euclidian shapes as stage design and the ceremony itself was a modified form of the “traditional” ceremony as outlined in The Satanic Bible.

The sources of inspiration for ritual are as varied as the individuals who partake in it. The ceremonies outlined in The Satanic Rituals itself reflect many Anton LaVey’s interests, from Moussorgsky to H.P. Lovecraft. The Satanic Scriptures features three rituals, a Satanic Wedding Ceremony, a Satanic Funeral, and the Rite of Ragnarök. Since Peter Gilmore is a composer, you’ll see suggested rhythms for drummers and words like “fortissimo” in his ceremonies.

On a personal note, my own wedding occurred while I was designing and typesetting The Satanic Scriptures, and I used a modified form of his wedding ceremony for my own. My wife and I talked about the language used, rearranged, added and subtracted, and even took some lines we liked from a Humanist wedding ceremony that we found inspiring.

Further reading of the sources is recommended for a full understanding.