Necrotemus
28-08-18, 02:06
Mai capitato di leggere e capire le intenzioni, arrivando quasi o del tutto ad essere convinto e subito dopo realizzare che le argomentazioni sono cazzate?
Ultima situatione che mi e' capitata, leggo questa frase
TIL that until 1965, the penalty in Ireland for attempted suicide was death by hanging. (https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9arv4i/til_that_until_1965_the_penalty_in_ireland_for/)
e alcuni commenti fra cui:
To understand this, you have to know Ireland as a devout Catholic nation was very opposed to the idea of suicide as it damned one's soul.
Executions give the sinner time to repent and have their soul be saved
All the people making jokes in this thread aren't really understanding the context here.To them, being those devout Catholics, they were doing the person attempting suicide a huge favor. They were acknowledging their want to die and helping them achieve that, while simultaneously considering their soul in the afterlife.
We can make fun of that all we want now, but in its context, it's actually quite a progressive and liberal thing to do.
First, if you commit murder, you can still ask for forgiveness and be accepted into heaven. If you commit suicide, you don't have the opportunity to do that. So you end up in hell.
Second, homicide isn't a sin, murder is. There's a difference.
Most commonly know of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". The actual commandment though, is "thou shall not murder". Which changes things dramatically.
Homicide is just "one human killing another", but murder is more than that. Murder is unjustly killing. And according to a religious government such as Ireland (or literally any other one you can think of), the law is as much a tool of God as it is a tool of man. In other words, if we condemn a man to die here for breaking our laws, then God holds that the same in heaven. This is derived from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." In other words, "If your authority holds it, then I will too".
So being condemned to death was never seen as anyone murdering anyone else. And similarly, we do the same thing today: The government doesn't consider capital punishment "murder" at all.
Are there logical holes to be seen here? Yes. But this is a practical reading of the logic of the time that they were using.
Tralascio gli altri commenti.
Il trip della giustificazione religiosa mi aveva quasi acchiappato, poi di colpo ho realizzato quanto fosse idiota la cosa.
Ultima situatione che mi e' capitata, leggo questa frase
TIL that until 1965, the penalty in Ireland for attempted suicide was death by hanging. (https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9arv4i/til_that_until_1965_the_penalty_in_ireland_for/)
e alcuni commenti fra cui:
To understand this, you have to know Ireland as a devout Catholic nation was very opposed to the idea of suicide as it damned one's soul.
Executions give the sinner time to repent and have their soul be saved
All the people making jokes in this thread aren't really understanding the context here.To them, being those devout Catholics, they were doing the person attempting suicide a huge favor. They were acknowledging their want to die and helping them achieve that, while simultaneously considering their soul in the afterlife.
We can make fun of that all we want now, but in its context, it's actually quite a progressive and liberal thing to do.
First, if you commit murder, you can still ask for forgiveness and be accepted into heaven. If you commit suicide, you don't have the opportunity to do that. So you end up in hell.
Second, homicide isn't a sin, murder is. There's a difference.
Most commonly know of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". The actual commandment though, is "thou shall not murder". Which changes things dramatically.
Homicide is just "one human killing another", but murder is more than that. Murder is unjustly killing. And according to a religious government such as Ireland (or literally any other one you can think of), the law is as much a tool of God as it is a tool of man. In other words, if we condemn a man to die here for breaking our laws, then God holds that the same in heaven. This is derived from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." In other words, "If your authority holds it, then I will too".
So being condemned to death was never seen as anyone murdering anyone else. And similarly, we do the same thing today: The government doesn't consider capital punishment "murder" at all.
Are there logical holes to be seen here? Yes. But this is a practical reading of the logic of the time that they were using.
Tralascio gli altri commenti.
Il trip della giustificazione religiosa mi aveva quasi acchiappato, poi di colpo ho realizzato quanto fosse idiota la cosa.