Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:But that's the topic of a different thread. Here, I thought we were having a reasonable, intelligent discussion, but that might have just been because I'm ignoring Biccat.

Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.

Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.

Is he? I can imagine plenty of cases where he would be normally justified under the laws of that day, or at least no one would punish him. Perhaps a peasant spoke out of turn and in anger the knight struck and killed him. Personally the knight knows that he is in the wrong, but either he is pardoned by law or no authority is going to prosecute a noble for killing a peasant.

As for how you can know whether somehow has or hasn't truly reformed, you really can't unless they reoffend or refrain from r-offending for the rest of their lives. But a change in attitude and behavior does not equal atonement.

I can imagine plenty of cases where he would be normally justified under the laws of that day

And why should that matter?

Laws can be unjust, or require you to do unjust things, or require you to do immoral things.

Melissia wrote:

I can imagine plenty of cases where he would be normally justified under the laws of that day

And why should that matter?

Laws can be unjust, or require you to do unjust things, or require you to do immoral things.

I'm just pointing out that there wouldn't necessarily be consequences for his actions. Especially given the time period we're talking about.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm just pointing out that there wouldn't necessarily be consequences for his actions.

You're confusing consequences with legal consequences.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm just pointing out that there wouldn't necessarily be consequences for his actions.

You're confusing consequences with legal consequences.

If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.

Vulcan wrote:If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.

And yet, he's not facing up to the consequences of his actions.

He's escaping them. In that little cell, he doesn't have to face the widows of the men he killed, or the hungry children; he doesn't feel any obligation to help them rebuild their lives, or somehow repay them for what happened.

Where is the reformation here? Where is the proof that he is changed? He's just sitting there wallowing in his guilt.

Which itself is a sin under Christianity, I should note.

Did either of you guys watch Cadfael by any chance?

If we were an IRL group of friends, we could watch Cadfael together and we'd have a much more productive discussion.

Manchu wrote:Did either of you guys watch Cadfael by any chance?

If we were an IRL group of friends, we could watch Cadfael together and we'd have a much more productive discussion.

so whats Cadfael about? is that like CSI Medieval?

People don't like watching those shows with me, 1/2 way through the episode and I'm telling them who did it and why

Melissia wrote:

Vulcan wrote:If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.

He's escaping them. In that little cell, he doesn't have to face the widows of the men he killed, or the hungry children; he doesn't feel any obligation to help them rebuild their lives, or somehow repay them for what happened.

There may not be any widows left, or hungry children. Let's say he was one knight of many in an army that massacred a village. He didn't kill everyone himself, but he knew (at least afterwards) that what he'd taken part in was wrong.

Where is the reformation here? Where is the proof that he is changed? He's just sitting there wallowing in his guilt.

Which itself is a sin under Christianity, I should note.

As I've already told you, you can never have conclusive proof that someone really has changed their ways. Religious figures like Jesus may claim to know the hearts of men, but in the real present world there is no one that can definitely tell whether someone has reformed.

This is why reformation is different from redemption. The knight may truly have changed his ways, but he can only redeem himself by taking actions that go some way in repairing the damage done or which help others.

Whole thread:

That's kind of dumb.

Also, the Nietzschean vibe there was really weird.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible is full of ideas.

People pick the ones that fit their preference.

Yeah. I think the same page as that homophobic stuff also has kosher rules, yet Christians don't believe it..

I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.

That's also kind of dumb.

Racism and the "pseudo science" invented to rationalize has been and continues to be far, far more destructive than thinking that two blokes having at it is gross.

Manchu wrote:

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.

That's also kind of dumb.

Racism and the "pseudo science" invented to rationalize has been and continues to be far, far more destructive than thinking that two blokes having at it is gross.

Yeah, that's why I said almost. Racism definitely has caused way more suffering and violence than homophobes. There haven't been nearly as many anti gay lynchings or as many attempts to wipe out all gays as there has been with racism.

Manchu wrote:That's kind of dumb.

Also, the Nietzschean vibe there was really weird.

I like it because it places blame where it should be placed.

The account seems to be that God, who is some kind of ancient alien, arranged materials on the planet and from time to time told the inhabitants of the planet that they should do something (what is not dealt with). The alien is pleased by the resultant material progress but does not seem to understand the attendant problems of that development. Instead, the alien characterizes the weaker inhabitants as inventing worship of the alien to rise against the naturally legitimate leaders (the strong ones) in order to commit atrocities against one another and, far more worryingly, to exhaust some of the materials the alien had originally provided. Also, the alien makes a "media apology," emphatically implying it is not actually at fault for anything except bothering with humans in the first place.

Pretty damn dumb.

Well, God is an alien, no matter how you slice it; which makes sense of the rest.

Manchu wrote:The account seems to be that God, who is some kind of ancient alien, arranged materials on the planet and from time to time told the inhabitants of the planet that they should do something (what is not dealt with). The alien is pleased by the resultant material progress but does not seem to understand the attendant problems of that development. Instead, the alien characterizes the weaker inhabitants as inventing worship of the alien to rise against the naturally legitimate leaders (the strong ones) in order to commit atrocities against one another and, far more worryingly, to exhaust some of the materials the alien had originally provided. Also, the alien makes a "media apology," sarcastically implying it is not actually at fault for anything while simultaneously covering its ass.

Pretty damn dumb.

So according to the song God is a 12 year old playing a Civ clone?
Seems legit...

dogma wrote:Well, God is an alien, no matter how you slice it; which makes sense of the rest.

I suppose that depends on how you define alien. If someone builds a planet, are they alien to that planet?

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Well, God is an alien, no matter how you slice it; which makes sense of the rest.

I suppose that depends on how you define alien. If someone builds a planet, are they alien to that planet?

He's an alien to Man, just as wolf is.

You can be an alien and still live on young Terra.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Well, God is an alien, no matter how you slice it; which makes sense of the rest.

I suppose that depends on how you define alien. If someone builds a planet, are they alien to that planet?

He's an alien to Man, just as wolf is.

Considering people have argued that woman is alien to man, I think a bit more explanation is needed...

I don't know of any wolves who became men (outside of metaphor). That video makes a lot of sense, I'm sure, to people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful in a religious sense.

What about people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful in any sense.

I couldn't...

Melissia wrote:Considering people have argued that woman is alien to man, I think a bit more explanation is needed...

Women are alien to men. If your experience is distinct then you are alien.

I think that definition is overly specific, and perhaps a bit pointless. Because everyone is alien to everyone else by that definition.

The point is to eliminate "alien" as a useful term in practical reality.

I can tell.

Melissia wrote:What about people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful in any sense.

I think it is fair to say I find the same level of deeply alien, unknowable thought processes in God as I do in people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Melissia wrote:Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?

Retribution, redemption is something else entirely.

That's a rather sad opinion.

Reforming criminals is one off the more important aspects of the justice system.

Had much to do with the criminal justice process?

Reformation is given lip-service only. And a lot of the time it doesn't even get that.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.

Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.

Reformation, by definition, only deals with future events. A murderer who never re-offends is reformed, even if he continues to crow about the deaths of his victims until his dying day.

It is about changing your ways, not making amends.

On the contrary, if he never makes amends, then it's rather hard to argue he's reformed.