Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Can Run

magazine.atavist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: You Can Run

#61

Post by Exoristos »

password4321 wrote: post #57
Exoristos wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the writer in Ezekiel is proposing a new deal (in the voice of God) for his intended audience: basically, if at this point in the negotiations you forsake behavior A, various criminality and oppression; I will promise B, not to hold your relatives responsible, and C, to rescue those you've oppressed. (Also possibly D and E -- it's a long passage.)

Thank you for sharing your explanation. One point I was trying to make was that just as the concept of children not being responsible for their parent's choices is mentioned in the Bible, so is the concept of children being affected by their parent's choices. Whether or not I should take a random person on the internet's (OP's) word that a Bible verse should be interpreted as aspirational or your word that a concept…

Your post was quite relevant, as the Ezekiel writer is referring to and contrasting with that well-known passage of Mosaic law you quoted. As for your doubts about the discussion here, that's what makes study rewarding -- and the first and secondary sources invite you to start a study of your own.

Re: You Can Run

#62

Post by [deleted] »

delichon wrote: post #2

The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. -- Ezekiel 18:20 That was aspirational around 590 BC when written, and still is. To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family.

[deleted]

Re: You Can Run

#63

Post by em-bee »

Etheryte wrote: post #4
boothby wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite (dys|u)topian setting; universal child removal to robo-nurseries, gets closer to implementable every day.

They more or less did that during the bombing of London, children were evacuated to foster families in the countryside en masse. Luckily they came to terms with the fact that this was an insanely traumatic experience pretty quickly and reverted. It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents.

it seems that at least according to the german wikipedia page about the topic in germany they came to the opposite observation. children who were sent away apparently suffered less than those that stayed in the war zones.

Re: You Can Run

#64

Post by Kaliboy »

jibal wrote: post #35
Kaliboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's weird. I don't have this with the Bible. But maybe I haven't read those passages. Do you have some examples?

How is it possible to not be familiar with this common criticism? e.g., Leviticus prohibits wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and calls for killing adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, etc. etc. which millions of cherry pickers ignore while constantly referring to the bit about laying with a man as with a woman.

I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible, if you're interested in trying to understand it from a neutral viewpoint.

However I wasn't expecting this. I expected examples of contradictions.

God knows Christians these days are walking contradictions, so I understand your frustration and reaction, but I meant in the text.

Re: You Can Run

#65

Post by user_of_the_wek »

photochemsyn wrote: post #58

The moral of the story is that they should have followed in the footsteps of the Sackler Family and Purdue Pharma, who found a legal way to push opiates on people using shopping mall pain clinics and shady doctors as the sales and marketing team. Just as sociopathic, but they got to keep their billions, serve no prison time, all while doing far more social harm than a pair of low-life cocaine importers could have dre…

Reminds me of Brecht

> Was ist ein Einbruch in eine Bank gegen die Gründung einer Bank?

Re: You Can Run

#66

Post by jibal »

Kaliboy wrote: post #64
jibal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible to not be familiar with this common criticism? e.g., Leviticus prohibits wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and calls for killing adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, etc. etc. which millions of cherry pickers ignore while constantly referring to the bit about laying with a man as with a woman.

I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible, if you're interested in trying to understand it from a neutral viewpoint. However I wasn't expecting this. I expected examples of contradictions. God knows Christians these days are walking contradictions, so I understand your frustration and reaction, but I meant in the text.

The common criticism was

> Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want.

Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.

> I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible

Are you effing kidding me? No of course I don't want a discussion about that with some rando godbot.

Over and out ... I won't respond further.

Re: You Can Run

#67

Post by jibal »

kulahan wrote: post #47
jibal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible to not be familiar with this common criticism? e.g., Leviticus prohibits wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and calls for killing adulterers, anyone who curses their parents, etc. etc. which millions of cherry pickers ignore while constantly referring to the bit about laying with a man as with a woman.

I think it's extremely possible to be familiar with the criticism without ever having seen specific examples. I certainly haven't. I guess I assumed it was something to do with people misunderstanding the difference between new and old testament, or something to that effect. Your comment also does not seem to present any examples of this. You start talking about it, but then you move on to complaining about cherry-pi…

The common criticism was

> Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want.

Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.

Over and out ... I won't respond further.

Re: You Can Run

#68

Post by jibal »

password4321 wrote: post #55
jibal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course one can quote the statement that one agrees with and not the statement one doesn't agree with, unless the intent is to review the work that contains them, which it wasn't.

Quoting one statement from a source in support of one's perspective can be interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate that the source aligns with that perspective.

"can" != "necessarily does", but you said "can't", which is what I refuted. And I think your assertion here is even more baseless, frankly ... there's zero indication that they offered the quote to buff the bible, which was not previously the subject of discussion. And they didn't even quote it in support of their perspective, they said it was "aspirational" but then said "To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family".

I also pushed back at the bible thumpers who demanded contradictions in the bible from me when the whole context was you explicitly pointing one out.

I have far better things to do than discuss the absurdities of texts written by ignorant nomads and Roman propagandists thousands of years ago (and spun by agents of King James) so I won't respond further ... over and out.

Re: You Can Run

#69

Post by linohh »

muglug wrote: post #13
bee_rider wrote: post #6

Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up. It’s basically a story about conman/drug guy interwoven with biographical information and anecdotes about how this impacted his family. “You can run,” I guess maybe in the context of “You can run but you can’t hide” is not really touched upon too much. I mean it doesn’t have a particular connection to this story, any more than any other story about a fugitive.

Yeah — but includes a fun cameo from a famous 90s TV dad.

When I read your comment, I instantly knew which one.

Re: You Can Run

#70

Post by Kaliboy »

jibal wrote: post #66
Kaliboy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible, if you're interested in trying to understand it from a neutral viewpoint. However I wasn't expecting this. I expected examples of contradictions. God knows Christians these days are walking contradictions, so I understand your frustration and reaction, but I meant in the text.

The common criticism was > Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup. > I'm more than happy to respond to moral issues you may have with the Bible Are you effing kidding me? No of course I don't want a discussion about that…

I asked because you brought it up... Good thing I didn't assume you were.

And yes I did see password4321's response. Been going through them since yesterday.

Post reply on HN