Greensboring.com | Greensboro, NC

[floatr][/floatr]
Is it a sin to break the speed limit?

We all admit the speed limit is a law, correct? Yet the soccer mom driving, speeding mini-vans with little Jesus fishes flying by me, trying to kill me, on a daily basis while I carefully drive in my little Taurus fighter jet makes want to press the secret red button that says "attack mode" on the dash, and begin implementing the pit-maneuver on them. Yes, I do speed. My rule is 5 MPH, just to keep from being ran over from the rest of you who adhere to the "9 you're fine, 10 you're mine" cop rule. However, I don't need to justify my driving since I don't adhere to the popular belief structure of the area: Christianity. According to this religion's own book of laws it states:

Romans 13:1-7 - “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

So wouldn't this mean that all those little Jesus fish speeders are sinning, dooming themselves to Hell everytime they hop behind the wheel? Is it hypocritical to ignore "a minor infraction (and we're all sinners anyways)"? I googled to find out more:

Some say that, by speeding, they get home faster and have more time to spend with their family.

I do think it is a sin to speed, we are to obey the laws of the land. Yet I do speed
However, we all sin and fall short

Since when is everything legal also moral and everything illegal immoral?
Go and visit the bunny ranch is OK?

My prof has a theory about “principles of acceptable deviance.” Basically, the difference between the letter of the law, and what is socially acceptable. Generally, at least in a democracy, the former is always catching up to the latter.

Personally I say Christians should get a pass on this. After all, who wants to take the Bible too seriously, huh? And, besides... it's not like Jesus had issues with authorities over his Hemi V8 camel? Let's just continue to ignore the problem, as Jesus did... because otherwise the 13th Commandment would have read "Thy shall drive like Hell, but swift like an Angel into thy arms of daily labor or a crash barrier."

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

But I agree. Why should they start following their own rules now?

Jesus was not above a little Grand Theft Equine, even according to some disciples riding an extravagant 2 horsepower (or ass power) stretched ass

Yes, speeding is a sin.

Yes, until you can explain the root of your relativistic moral standards you have no right to question others.

We have and we do. You however have not been able to explain how your moral standards conveniently change over time - always a generation or two late. The Bible didn't change but Christian morals do - continuously.

A Person wrote:Jesus was not above a little Grand Theft Equine, even according to some disciples riding an extravagant 2 horsepower (or ass power) stretched ass

Jesus was above the law, and so had no use personally for morality.

We can easily see the imperative for speeding laws. There is nothing intrinsically evil about going above a particular speed, but speeding can cause danger to other people when done in particular circumstances - like crowded roads - and even then the 'safe' speed is a relative thing, determined using reason, mathematics and engineering.

In other words speeding laws are a man made construct, developed using reason, dependent on the situation and for the purpose of minimising danger. The reasons are clear and need no appeal to a God.

The Bible however is quite positive about speeding. Genesis 24:12 " I pray thee, send me good speed this day" , 1 Sam 20:38 "Make speed, haste, stay not", 2 Sam 15:14 "make speed to depart, lest he overtake us", Isaiah 5:26 "behold, they shall come with speed swiftly", Acts 17:15 "a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.", Matthew 28:7 'go quickly'

I'd say there is a good secular case for speeding laws and no Biblical ones.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Yes, speeding is a sin.

So would that Ford F150 Lightning Bug be a machine of sin?

A Person wrote:We have and we do. You however have not been able to explain how your moral standards conveniently change over time - always a generation or two late. The Bible didn't change but Christian morals do - continuously.

I don't have to explain my moral standards until you can explain relativistic standards. It would be hypocritical for you to question somebody else's moral standards if you decide for yourself what your morals are to be.

Liv wrote:

BecauseHeLives wrote:Yes, speeding is a sin.

So would that Ford F150 Lightning Bug be a machine of sin?

It is sinful. That's why it is red.

BecauseHeLives wrote:

A Person wrote:We have and we do. You however have not been able to explain how your moral standards conveniently change over time - always a generation or two late. The Bible didn't change but Christian morals do - continuously.

I don't have to explain my moral standards until you can explain relativistic standards. It would be hypocritical for you to question somebody else's moral standards if you decide for yourself what your morals are to be.

I have gone through this before but to repeat: Always act to minimize both actual and potential harm and suffering; always act to maximize both actual and potential well being.

As to the why - because we live in a society and evolved as societal animals. Our happiness and well being is dependent on the happiness and well being of others.

As such I can challenge the moral standards of a rapist who puts his happiness above that of his victim's or the fundamentalist who puts his book of mythology above the well being of others. Especially when he changes his interpretation of his book frequently but only after society decides it's rules are primitive and immoral.

I don't expect you to explain your changing moral standards, you never have before

A Person wrote:

BecauseHeLives wrote:

A Person wrote:We have and we do. You however have not been able to explain how your moral standards conveniently change over time - always a generation or two late. The Bible didn't change but Christian morals do - continuously.

I don't have to explain my moral standards until you can explain relativistic standards. It would be hypocritical for you to question somebody else's moral standards if you decide for yourself what your morals are to be.

I have gone through this before but to repeat: Always act to minimize both actual and potential harm and suffering; always act to maximize both actual and potential well being.

You're just playing a game with BHL. He has no idea how to respond to the facts that his ideas about morality (their content and history) are easily proven wrong, so he pretends to think no one else has any better ideas. Trying to force you to explain the same thing over and over allows him to pretend that you haven't given any answer at all. Who believes his pathetic pretense is beyond me. I don't think even HE believes it himself.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I don't think even HE believes it himself.

There's a psychological truth.... I've yet to meet one person who when completely honest doesn't (or didn't) have doubts about religion even though they often feel compelled to act otherwise.

A Person wrote:

BecauseHeLives wrote:

A Person wrote:We have and we do. You however have not been able to explain how your moral standards conveniently change over time - always a generation or two late. The Bible didn't change but Christian morals do - continuously.

I don't have to explain my moral standards until you can explain relativistic standards. It would be hypocritical for you to question somebody else's moral standards if you decide for yourself what your morals are to be.

I have gone through this before but to repeat: Always act to minimize both actual and potential harm and suffering; always act to maximize both actual and potential well being.

As to the why - because we live in a society and evolved as societal animals. Our happiness and well being is dependent on the happiness and well being of others.

As such I can challenge the moral standards of a rapist who puts his happiness above that of his victim's or the fundamentalist who puts his book of mythology above the well being of others. Especially when he changes his interpretation of his book frequently but only after society decides it's rules are primitive and immoral.

I don't expect you to explain your changing moral standards, you never have before

This is still relativistic morality AP. What you define as happiness for yourself may be defined differently for other people (and likely is). What is suffering? What is "well being"? How can you criticize another person that has different definitions for those terms than you do? Given that, what gives you any right to question biblical morality?

You can't - at least not unhypocritically.

BecauseHeLives wrote:This is still relativistic morality AP. What you define as happiness for yourself may be defined differently for other people (and likely is). What is suffering? What is "well being"? How can you criticize another person that has different definitions for those terms than you do? Given that, what gives you any right to question biblical morality?

You can't - at least not unhypocritically.

I really hope we can have a serious discussion about this, it's a topic I find interesting.

What is suffering? What is "well being"?

I agree it may be difficult to determine in all situations what the moral action should be - in many cases we lack sufficient information to make an informed decision - but we can (or should be able to agree in principle) that the goal of reducing suffering is a valid foundation for a system of morals. Strict Utilitarianism has challenges, but experiments show that once religion is removed from the equation there is a surprising agreement between differing cultures on what moral actions should be. Far from being relativistic a system of morality based on minimising suffering and maximising well being, is universal. It may change as our knowledge improves but that is not a failing but a benefit.

Scriptural morality is relativistic morality. Not least because there are many scriptures but because for each of them there are a plethora of interpretations.

The problem is with the justification of morality. Scriptural morality is predicated on deciding what 'god' wants through interpreting scripture. Thus any directive issued by god through scripture or revelation must be moral - even if it causes suffering. We can easily determine that stoning or burning a woman to death is a method of execution specifically designed to maximize her suffering. Is this right or moral? Was it ever right or moral? Is it right for Jews and Muslims but not Christians? For one thousand eight hundred years Christians considered slavery to be sanctioned by God and perfectly moral.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America wrote:(Slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts

Rev. Alexander Campbell wrote:There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.

Rev. R. Furman wrote:The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

Was it? Was it moral 2000 years ago and suddenly stop being moral? Was it never moral, but the Bible was written so obtusely that no theologian noticed?

There are plenty of other practices that seem to have been accepted as normal and moral in the Bible like genocide, torturing, raping girls seized in war, forcing raped girls to marry their rapists, exterminating religious minorities, burning prostitutes alive, stoning disobedient children etc. etc.

When the precept is "Whatever God instructs must be moral, no matter how evil it may appear" then evil things are done

Adolph Hitler wrote:Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

So for those reasons I can question Biblical morality without being in any way hypocritical. Christians have advanced their morality but only by selectively ignoring parts of their scripture and by using the same precept that I do (reduction of suffering) as their measure.

However - is it hypocritical for you to question Hitler's moral standards (I assume you do?) when he used the same means as you do to decide what your morals are to be?

A Person wrote:I really hope we can have a serious discussion about this, it's a topic I find interesting.

I guess not.

A Person wrote:

A Person wrote:I really hope we can have a serious discussion about this, it's a topic I find interesting.

I guess not.

I tried it in the past and got the same response. Why you expected something different, I can't imagine.

I got an idea....

A race against good and evil...

His Lightning against my Taurus... Good versus evil... in a race against sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liv wrote:I got an idea....

A race against good and evil...

His Lightning against my Taurus... Good versus evil... in a race against sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the race itself would be a sin to him wouldn't it?

Sanjuro wrote:

Liv wrote:I got an idea....

A race against good and evil...

His Lightning against my Taurus... Good versus evil... in a race against sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the race itself would be a sin to him wouldn't it?

Not sure... I mean we can all go on grudge night... so it could be legal... but is sin like sex, chocolate, and fatty foods... is it an indulgence... a sin too????????????????????

Sanjuro wrote:But the race itself would be a sin to him wouldn't it?

Not if he won.

If a prostitute can lie and be honoured with salvation, surely BHL crushing the infidel with his mighty horsepower would be rewarded with an advance ticket for the rapture.

Sanjuro wrote:

Liv wrote:I got an idea....

A race against good and evil...

His Lightning against my Taurus... Good versus evil... in a race against sin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the race itself would be a sin to him wouldn't it?

Depends on the venue. Wait -- that's "relativism," right? Darn!

A Person wrote:surely BHL crushing the infidel with his mighty horsepower

...and the worse traction set-up in the world....

I could never win in a 1/4 mile, but in our little 1/8th mile track here.... I'm betting it would be a lot closer than he thinks....

You mean the course would have atheistic, Marxist bends?

How - European

I'm afraid my money would still be on the raw horsepower and youthful engine even if it's in a wheelbarrow.

Liv wrote:

A Person wrote:surely BHL crushing the infidel with his mighty horsepower

...and the worse traction set-up in the world....

I could never win in a 1/4 mile, but in our little 1/8th mile track here.... I'm betting it would be a lot closer than he thinks....

Actually my redneck Ferrari has fantastic traction out of the box. I can beat just about any corvette in the 1/8 because of that. 1/4 my truck runs very low 13s. I've seen otehr lightnings with just a few mods run a solid 12.5 on the 1/4.