Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Says RIAA Hearing Can't Be Streamed
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a lower court order permitting webcast of an oral argument in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. As one commentator put it, the decision gives the RIAA permission to 'cower behind the same legal system they're using to pillory innocent people.' Ironically, the appeals court's own hearing had been webcast, via an mp3 file. The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a 'prerogative writ' of 'mandamus,' but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of 'advisory mandamus.' The opinion came as a bit of a surprise to me because the judges appeared, during the oral argument, to have a handle on the issues. The decision gave me no such impression. From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them: (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything — our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions."
What a load of BS. If it was John Q. Public trying to allow censorship of his case they would have laughed, but I guess the RIAA can do as they please. One would hope that simply the fact they were trying to ban the stream would show their tactics are shady as can be. The irony of the webcast is classic as well.
The court admitted that this was not an appropriate case for a 'prerogative writ' of 'mandamus,' but claimed to have authority to issue a writ of 'advisory mandamus.'
And wtf does that mean if legalese is not my native language?
Since this decision does seem to be bogus, can Tenenbaum appeal?
*In this life there is no justice, only law. In the afterlife there is justice.*
Don't remember who said it, and I probably mangled up bad enough to make it unrecognizable.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Is there another court to appeal to before the next hearing?
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
I think I stumbled on Groklaw or something.
Wait for the bootleg, it'll be on all the torrents in no time
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
If you are a Democrat, blame Bush. If you are a Republican, blame Obama. And if you are neither, blame Bill Gates. Personally, I blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodley appendages have a way of getting into everything.
A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
Obviously. I mean, come on, it's a prerogative writs and stuff.
How we know is more important than what we know.
is an "advisory mandamus"???
Would not that constitute a court remanding a case, then advising how to rule?
Is there such thing as Amicus Curiae after the fact?
i'm sorry but as a fellow attorney (NY too!) i have to correct NYCLs analysis.
Advisory mandamus has its roots in the Supreme Court's reference to mandamus review of "basic, undecided question[s]." Schlagenhauf v. Holer, 379 U.S 104, 110 (1964); see Horn, 29 F.3d at 769; see also 16 Wright et al., supra, 3934. It is appropriately invoked when the action or inaction of the district court presents an issue of great importance and novelty, and one the resolution of which will likely aid other jurists, parties, and lawyers. See Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70 (citing In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1982), and In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 247 (1st Cir. 1989)).
To summarize : They are allowed to issue advisory mandamus in cases such as these.
I'll just download a pirated copy of the video. :D
/* No Comment */
From where I sit, the decision was wrong in a number of respects, among them: (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything -- our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions.
So, in the words of my favorite attorney Lionell Hutz (sorry, but he's the only one I know that uses words I know), they made a bad court thingie?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't want to sound like a dick or nothing, but my ruling would have to be that the court was 'tarded . . . they shouldn't worry though, plenty of 'tards out there are living really kick-ass lives.
Brought to you by Carls Jr. Fuck you . . . I'm eating!
In the after life there's no justice either, unless the atheists are right.
If they are, you're just dead, just like the rest of everyone who died, and everyone is equally dead. That's maybe the lowest form of justice, making everyone the same, but it's at least some.
If they are not, you will be judged by an arbitrary set of rules that you (most likely) did not adhere unless you just happened to guess the right religion. In other words, you will be judged by laws that you did not know you are to uphold, probably laws you did not even know about and had no way of knowing. That's justice?
Even our legal system is superior to that scam.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do we keep trusting a dishonest Justice system.
We haven't found an achievable alternative. But let's keep looking.
Don't harsh my high, man. Please permit me my Shakespearean romantic fantasies.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
I hate to go against the /. groupthink, but after listening to the MP3 of the hearing and reading the opinion myself, I have to agree with the appeals court's decision. Admittedly I can't speak to the advisory mandamus issue (I'll leave that to another poster), but a common-sense reading of rule 83.3 would suggest that the court's authority to allow broadcast is indeed limited; otherwise I would expect 83.3(c) to have been written something like "A party may petition the court to permit..." or just "It is permitted to...". Given that, and since Tenenbaum's side didn't argue any higher authority (except the right to a public trial, and as the judges stated, that's not being infringed any more than in any other trial), I have to agree that the decision is fair and reasonable.
Now, I certainly don't think this is a desirable outcome. But the purpose of the courts is to enforce the rules, and if they can't enforce their own rules, that doesn't give them much moral authority to enforce others, does it? What really ought to happen--as Judge Lipez says in his (her?) concurring opinion at the end of the PDF--is for the rule to be reexamined in light of Internet technology so this sort of problem doesn't reoccur.
There is no incentive to trust a system where lawyers get more and more control of the government despite civil society no desiring such an outcome. The lawyers "make law" in courtrooms. Civil elections don't mean a thing. Most Congress men and Senators are lawyers.
The law is written by layers for lawyers everyone else be damned. Win or lose the lawyer profit. "Justice" is rigged to advantage the lawyers the rest of society be damned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Public_trial
I would love to know what "higher values" are served by closing this trial like this, other than avoiding the irony of an RIAA incident getting spread across the Internet like a frickin' virus.
It seems like the precedent described in the link above is very clear on when you do and do not have a right to a pubic trial. This example of closure posted on /. seems to overstep these limits, I think.
A defendant under US law has a right to a public trial...except for when he suddenly doesn't!
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
I'm an atheist personally, but I can imagine an afterlife that serves justice. It means every religion is wrong, but that's actually easier for me to deal with than the idea that any of them are right.
And now back to the topic. Although it would be nice to have the antics of these people up on display, I don't see if, or how, this decision directly impacts the issues of the case. Is it just the implication that it is being presided over by people not well-versed in the law?
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
The reason why the RIAA is so strongly opposing the broadcast of the trial is, IMO, that the whole thing would instantly lose all its FUD quality. First, they just might lose, and the chances are not SO bad. Now imagine this getting out. The message: Don't get cowed down, their accusations are phony anyway, stand up in court and win.
Even if they win, a lot of lawyers are decent people (NYCL being an example) who would immediately identify their tactics, blog about it, comment the video/audio recordings and would instantly show that the emperor has no clothes, or rather, that they won just because the judge doesn't even understand what they're presiding over. Not good for the judge, but even worse for the whole judical system, which would be shown as unable to sensibly judge cases where copyright touches online distribution of content. And while this would probably be a good thing for us all, we just might get more judges that know their stuff, I doubt the judges would like to trade their cushy chairs for the hard ones associated with studying.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the Christian system, nobody is judged until everyone has heard the laws... So I find it interested you would make this point. =)
Equality != justice, unless everyone deserves the same. Otherwise why not punish the innocent along with the guilty?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is no such thing as "the Christian system" and moreover there is no widespread faction of Christianity that actually has this as a pivotal part of their theology. And even if they did, they still allow for people to be judged afterwards anyway. So hair splitting aside, GP was substantially right.
And then there are all those other factions. Mormons, Muslims, Jews, all of myriads of denominations. They can't all be right. Most people are going to hell. You might as well accept that you're going to roast, and enjoy your mortal life while you can.
...and everyone is equally dead. That's maybe the lowest form of justice, making everyone the same, but it's at least some.
The lowest? one could equally argue that it is the highest form. Dead is dead, regardless of whether one is a cockroach or a monarch among men, and that's just fine by me.
Doubt he's a lawyer, I know I'm not. But I agree with him, step up or step out.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Where does it say that? And in any case, such a restrospective law is itself grossly unjust. Better no law at all.
Ok, I'm actually a huge mafiaa hater but could you point to studies/stats showing normal every day citizens being thrown in jail for copyright/IP infringement? The guy who makes bootleg movies and sells them being thrown in jail I have nothing against, commercial exploitation of someone elses copyrights should be illegal. But the individual citizen freely trading without profit as a motive being chucked in jail is new for me. May have happened once or twice but every case I remember here on /. has been about people being sued for stupid levels of money, not becoming Bubba's new cellmate.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Then punishing people who do not have this "conscience" is unfair because they don't know the rules.
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
If my understanding is correct, it still is a public trial. Get on a plane and fly out and you can sit in, if they have room for you. They just blocked the mp3 streams because current law doesn't really allow it. The judge made the point that the law should be reexamined in light of new technology, but until then it is what it is.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
I dunno if I want to spend eternity with people beliving in a religion that rewards ignorance.
umeboshi@bard:~$ bible 1cor10:1
1 Corinthians 10
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
Christianity doesn't reward ignorance.
There really is no excuse for not streaming and electronically archiving every court proceeding in this country. It's certainly less expensive than the method of archival used now and has the added benefit of making the information available to the masses. This is an issue that, to me, goes to the very heart of transparency in government.
Is there even a coherent argument against making courtroom activity available to the public so it can be freely observed? When an appellate court can step in and forbid the dissemination of the proceedings at the behest of a wealthy and powerful lobby group, how far away are we from secret trials and off-the-books detention and punishment?
the precedent described in the link above is very clear on when you do and do not have a right to a pubic trial.
Hopefully only when it's a trial about a sex offence. You shouldn't need to go into that much detail for anything else.
I shall not be ignorant, yet I must not question the Lord's abilities (Matt 4:7, Deut 6:16, or 1 Cor 10:9 if you prefer that one)? How am I supposed to learn if I cannot try?
Before you say it's not relevant and out of context, so is yours. Cor 10 preaches to people who already heard the word and is supposed to keep them from forgetting it. And again it tells the listeners that they should have faith and not test the Lord.
It's not a long way from blind faith to ignorance.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do we keep trusting a dishonest Justice system. The system is rigged. There is no Justice in the Legal system none.
There is the smell of prime grade ham in every Slashdot performance.
It is scarcely a secret that the federal courts have always been hostile to broadcasting their proceedings - and for precisely that reason.
I would love to know what "higher values" are served by closing this trial like this
The trial isn't closed. There is still a record, the courtroom is still open to members of the public, and both the trial and the result are covered by the media.
A closed proceeding is one in which access is restricted, no record is made or the record is entirely sealed, and the media has no access to any information on the matter. None of that is true here.
You vastly overstate the situation and egregiously misunderstand both the mechanics and the impact of this decision. We don't generally broadcast trials and never have. There are many reasons why we shouldn't. It is not as though all trials conducted in the past have been closed because no one has ever broadcast the entirety of the trial. I mean, really now. The very fact that you are reading and commenting on this story is proof that a public trial is ongoing.
Guess the right religion? I thought it was already well known that the Mormons were right all along.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
(To the tune of a Prohibited Song)
We don't need Advisory Decisions;
We don't need no FUD Control;
No dark sarcasm in the courtrooms
Hey - Lawyers! Leave those kids alone!
All in all it's just another crack in the Law;
All in all you're just another target for Law.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Then they'd know who to pillory with mods.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Did they pay for the rights to the music they were so proud of playing 24 hours a day at high volume? "Public Performance!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
They couldn't hear all of the arguments because they had their iPods on ... ;)
Bark less. Wag more.
Issue rulings "just for this case". Heaven forbid it should ever establish a precedent.
I miss rule of law as a general principle.
I wouldn't say that it's not relevant, or out of context, and I didn't think that mine was out of context either. The fact that Cor10 preaches to people who have already heard the word is exactly the reason I chose it, as I felt it was a good response to your post, as it demonstrates that once you hear the word, you should know that you shouldn't turn back to ignorance, which is pretty much what you just said in this post. Of the three verses you referred to, they are stating that you shouldn't tempt the Lord, not test the Lord. I'm aware that you can test by using temptation, but you don't have to. From these verses, I can't determine how you come to the conclusion "How am I supposed to learn if I cannot try?". I agree with the sense of that question, but I'm not able to figure out how you interpreted where it was wrong to try and learn, or that an attempt to learn would be frowned upon.
It's not a long way from blind faith to ignorance.
I believe that they only differ by an infinitesimal amount. In fact, it's probably true that blind faith is a common and possibly the most observable symptom of ignorance.
Anyway, In my original post, I was merely trying to point out that if you can spot ignorance in a group of church-going Christians, it's likely that they have lost or forgotten one of the more important lessons. At least I consider the gaining of knowledge and wisdom to be one of the most important activities in a person's life, and I was only trying to demonstrate that the attempt to gather wisdom shouldn't be frowned upon by a group of people who are ignorant and willing to reward each other for the maintenance of the collective ignorance, and that there is support for this view in the scripture that is most likely being ignored by the people you were talking about.
BTW, I wasn't really trying to "thump the bible" at you, but trying to trying to give you an effective tool that can be used when having to deal with people of the mentality that you were admonishing. I don't know if you got the wrong impression or not by my terse response, so I'm trying to be a bit more verbose about it now.
Sorry, maybe my choice of words in the underlying statement was incorrect.
What I wanted to express is that someone who has never heard the word of the Lord cannot sin, if I understood the person I originally responded to correctly. Thus, closing your ears and not wanting to hear anything (IMO one of the best ways to display not only ignorance but also deliberate ignorance) would be rewarded.
My problem with "testing and trying" God stems from the original problem scientific research has with "divine" explanations: You cannot test them. You can't tell God to create another Earth to prove his ability, and no scientist can repeat his actions. "The bible says so" is no explanation for a scientist, because the root of scientific proof is repeatability. Show me how you did it, document it and if I can repeat it using the same tools, you're right. Even if I don't have the tools to recreate your findings you still can be right if you can explain how the tools you used enable you to do what you claim you did. Since "heavenly powers" are something even the US patent office would throw back as "too vague", I guess we'll have to wait for a long time to have the scientific community repeat (and thus accept as truth) divine actions.
The "test and try" part comes in when you tell the biblophiles that seeing is believing. "You can't expect God to perform the miracle for you again". Why not? You want me to believe something, then show me that it's real.
Different subject, I agree. Basically that's one of the reasons why I started reading the bible. It makes discussions with some people fairly easy when you contradict them with their own material.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Brother, that's one of the most beautiful, insightful things I've ever read, anywhere.
I don't know if you did that on purpose, it doesn't matter, but I'm impressed. You just made a friend for life.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ignorantia juris non excusat; ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sounds like the leagal system is exactly like the afterlife you describe
The executive, legislative and now the judiciary branches are just making up new rules as they go along. No longer are they even attempting to "interpret" law and procedure. They are just ignoring law and are not being held to account for it. How can it be that we are unable to hold them to account for ignoring the law?
Federal judges serve for life and basically have no check or balance on their power, save a higher court, or a Constitutional amendment.
When a judge leaves the court it's usually because they can't or aren't going to be moving up. IE: district judge to appeals court to supreme court. At some point they cash in for their years of "service" and it's almost ALWAYS to go into the corporate world. The entertainment industry, both music and video, employ a shit ton of lawyers. It wouldn't surprise me if this judge ends up going to work for one of those in the not too distant future and didn't want to burn bridges.
The RIAA clearly feels they have something to hide here hence their fierce protest of the public being able to see the hearing.
Corporatism != Free Market
I'd like to think that, in the event of an omnipotent and omniscient deity, such a being could distinguish from genuine and intentional ignorance and act appropriately... If I close my ears and eyes to the world and learn nothing I am a fool, but if I try and fail to learn everything I am mortal.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
If they are not, you will be judged by an arbitrary set of rules that you (most likely) did not adhere unless you just happened to guess the right religion. In other words, you will be judged by laws that you did not know you are to uphold, probably laws you did not even know about and had no way of knowing. That's justice?
Well, there's other options you know. Such as Deism.
It may be that there is a mind far surpassing our own that will understand what it is we've done and why we've done it - a perfect Judge. I'd like that. Frank Herbert wrote, "Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time." I heartily agree with him.
The afterlife might be just that, if we're really lucky.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Your definition of "justice" seems to be "everyone is treated the same regardless of their previous actions."
That does not comport with my sense of justice.
give us donation links to fight this shit.
and in addition, why arent you still running an organization to fight this thing ? or are you working for eff or any others ?
Read radical news here
So then, regarding the many tribes that have no qualms about cannibalism: are they not human? Or is it possible that you're full of crap, and that there's nothing 'written on our hearts' and certainly no 'soul' to be embedding things in?
There's at least one instance in the Bible that I can recall where God actively dissuaded his curiosity-imbued creations from learning - The Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden... Supposedly man was at his peak when he knew nothing, and when his reach exceeding his grasp, he was cast from paradise. A more salient example, I don't think you'll find.
Regardless, even if this weren't true, Christians are encouraged every day to avoid questioning things, and to rely on faith. Well, that's not entirely fair, really, since that seems to be a basic tenet of all religions save for Buddhism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Mousey Tongue was right - Religion *is* poison.
If it's music and poetry you're after, then:
I am the very model of a modern-day solicitor,
The type that you'd display to an enquiring Martian visitor.
In all the courts of judicature I delight to play and sing
And I know everything there is to know about conveyancing.
In wills and probate I am versed, 'cos death is where the future lies,
And everything that humans do I'll presently computerize;
In that respect my hopes and dreams will scarcely need enlarging, for
There'll be no limit to the items I can then be charging for.
I rip you off and lose your deeds and spend your cash and lie to you
And if you write in to complain I doubt if I'll reply to you.
The simple I make complex till there's nothing clear and plain in it.
I write you yards of gibberish, then charge you for explaining it.
And though you sit in silence and observe your savings dwindle, you
Still give me full discretion both to fleece you and to swindle you.
And nervous children point at me and ask their mothers "Is it a
Foul monster from the Black Lagoon?" "No, dear, it's a solicitor"
But while our legal system's still a cesspit and a mockery
And England's not a garden but a weed-infested rockery;
And while we hold each problem must contain a germ of fault in it
And while we seek to heal a wound by rubbing loads of salt in it;
And while we're bound by precedents (that's cock-ups folk have made before)
And while the courts are all for sale and there's no justice, only law,
And while the graft and cheating in the system are implicit - ah!
There'll always be a living for the modern-day solicitor.
For trouble is my business; so, however things may run with you,
You know that they'll be ten times worse when finally I'm done with you.
Although you'd rather take your chances with the Grand Inquisitor,
You know that you're in trouble when you go to a solicitor.
Credit goes here
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
Christians should swim in the ocean on cloudy days?
There's at least one instance in the Bible that I can recall where God actively dissuaded his curiosity-imbued creations from learning - The Tree of Knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden...
TFTFY. So, no, basically what it means is that from this point on, because man now had "knowledge of good and evil" he was now responsible for his actions and out of God's protection.
As for being encouraged to avoid questions, I can't speak for other people, but those around me and I are encouraged just the opposite way. And despite having asked all the hard questions, I am still a Christian. My faith is not blind. It is based on God's faithfulness to me. If God did not come through for me, I would have no reason to trust Him would I? I guess at this point you will call me delusional, or looking for a pattern where there is none (yes, I've heard all the arguments), but from my perspective (and I am a critical thinker) that is not sufficient to explain the circumstances in which I find myself, nor the experiences I have had.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Nonsense. There's Chuck Norris. I wonder if he'll fix this...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I'm sorry but just by assuming the claim that Christians go to heaven when they die, shows your lack of understanding about what the bible actually says... Or perhaps you've been taught otherwise, either way you should go back and reread the bible. Better yet take some Greek classes and then go find the original Greek translations of the bible, there are many nuances lost in translation to English.
And I'm not saying Christianity is right or anything of the sort, I'm just telling you that from what I've read of the bible it seems like a moderately just religion, as religions go.
Revelation 20:12 and 13. States at what time the Judgement will occur.
Sorry, maybe my choice of words in the underlying statement was incorrect.
That's ok, there are many people who don't bother to distinguish between test and tempt, and it's one of the things I'm used to pointing out.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on what you mean by trying and testing and how that relates to divine explanations. Believing in God is a matter of faith, but that doesn't include believing in all the dogma surrounding it.
"The bible says so" is no explanation for a scientist, because the root of scientific proof is repeatability.
Agreed, it's not even a good explanation of a critical thinking scholar, scientist or not. This is the point where many, otherwise intelligent people, stop thinking and wondering about stuff, and it is here that cattle is made of men.
Different subject, I agree. Basically that's one of the reasons why I started reading the bible. It makes discussions with some people fairly easy when you contradict them with their own material.
I live smack in the heart of the bible belt. I found that being well versed in the bible helps me to interact with a lot of people here. This is the main reason that I told you that I wasn't trying to "thump the bible" on you, but to give you a tool to be used wisely. I can see that you have already learned this. :)
(yes, I've heard all the arguments)
I've heard them, too. I hope your experiences were better than mine.
BTW, that was a good response. :)
Based upon a quick preliminary review of the law:
1. There is no US Supreme Court decision authorizing "advisory mandamus".
2. The Schlagenhauf case does not authorize "advisory mandamus".
3. There is no statute authorizing "advisory mandamus".
4. The First Circuit appears to be the 'hotbed' of "advisory mandamus".
If anyone has any information to the contrary I would love to see it.
This is kind of academic, since obviously the court would have been empowered to consider the order on a duly certified interlocutory appeal, but the RIAA trolls think I'm wrong, so they should be able to prove that I'm wrong.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I would just like to remove the term "RIAA trolls" from the previous comment. I had drafted the comment for my own blog, where an RIAA troll had been attacking my legal reasoning. I then copied and pasted it here. I realize that the term "RIAA trolls" was inappropriate here because I recognize that the Slashdotters who have been taking issue with me here are not of that ilk, they are lawyers who were presenting a contrary point of view.
I sincerely apologize for the inclusion of that term here; it was truly not intended.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ah, you are correct - I wasn't aware of the 'good and evil' extension to that. That problem is, as I see it, that God created a species of being who are by their (and by extension, His) very nature curious, easily tempted, and without reasoning. Then, He put those people in a tempting situation whose outcome was utterly clear from the outset, since, if you use the Bible's definition of God's abilities, He is infallible and omni-present. But regardless of what His intentions would be, even if the tree was 'Knowledge of Good and Evil', that's purely semantic - knowledge is knowledge. The point of the story is the same, that 'some things man just wasn't meant to know'.
I didn't mean to paint everyone with the same accusatory brush, and I apologise for coming across that way, but I'm not going to lie; I do think that belief in religion requires either a) simplicity of cognition, or b) some impressive mental gymnastics. I think you fall into the latter camp, and I know you think that I probably lack empathy and you feel sorry for my soul, which is sure to be damned by my life full of blasphemy, but I don't for a second think that you're less of a person than I (just as I know you don't think that of others like me). Whatever gets you through the day, hey... Go with it. I believe in chewing gum that lasts for hours, that Roger Moore was a shit James Bond, and that the 1998 Volkswagen Passat has the most uncomfortable seats of any car ever made.
What it all really comes down to, though, is that if you believe the WORD of the Bible, literally, then you are a religious whacko, and are doing your religion a disservice. If, however, you believe that it's a flawed human interpretation of actual events, then you are a reasonable human being, and doing your race a favour.
lol nice find! I'm usually pretty good about typos. >_
I guess it's not surprising that that one slipped through.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
It has never been an acceptable trait, for example, to be a traitor against your own country / society / tribe.
Well, except in the case of civil war or widespread revolution, when men in good conscience may disagree and act on their beliefs. So, yeah. There are very, very few universal beliefs, bordering on "none at all."
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Ignorantia juris non excusat; ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sounds like the leagal system is exactly like the afterlife you describe
Except that in our legal systems, ignorance is sometimes an acceptable excuse. See ignorantia juris non excusat .
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
I shall not be ignorant, yet I must not question the Lord's abilities (Matt 4:7, Deut 6:16, or 1 Cor 10:9 if you prefer that one)?
There is a substantial difference between "not being ignorant" and "testing the lord" (as written in that last passage, 1cor10:9).
How am I supposed to learn if I cannot try?
Id imagine by reading the book youre quoting from.
I wouldn't go quite as far as to say knowledge is knowledge. For example, I don't believe man was meant to know how to kill and maim his fellow man. The idea of doing so simply should not occur. The fact that man was so easily tempted springs from his naivety and free will. And because of free will, God would not interfere with such temptation, even knowing its consequences.
Nah, I don't presume to judge your soul. And I don't think you lack empathy. I also have respect for your position, it is internally logical and self consistent. I have a good friend who takes approximately your position(the difference is he doesn't see a problem with any religion). I just don't happen to believe it is correct.
I actually somewhat suspect that if the religious wackos took the New Testament literally, they would stop being wackos... YMMV. You might think me a wacko for believing a literal resurrection for example. And, yes, not everything that is taken literally was meant to be. But I do believe the Bible contains a fairly accurate account of events in the history of the Jews, early Christians and events surrounding the life and death of Christ. On that point we will most likely have to agree to disagree.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I had the luck(if you believe in such) of growing up around reasonable, rational and intelligent people who were capable of respecting other people's positions and happy to debate them. Once I learned that it was not God's plan for people to be argued or bullied into church, I actually started to enjoy the debates... Though the "delusional" argument when used would be more of a personal attack than reasonable argument.
Thanks. :)
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.