Kicking the money lenders out wasn't punishment. Removing the money lenders from his Father's House was his right. It isn't punishment to remove an unlawful gain or to stop the possibility of making unlawful gains.

This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording:

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. — Corinthians 6:7-8

Moreover, you were washed, sanctified and justified is short prose for the fact that God can remove your sins, set you apart from the world and be declared "just" before God (note, that's a couple of grades up from "not guilty" of sin). Even fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, the covetous, the drunks, the revilers and the extortioners can be saved.

Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin.

Of course, all this if you believe in fairy tales.

Alright. I'm going to weigh in with my Catholic upbringing now since it's starting to get embarassing. First off, Jesus came down to Earth for a specific reason. And it wasn't about establishing manners and mores - we can read about that shit in Martha Stewart Living's August issue.

Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. Not to punish them. Death and sickness are a result of sin existing. Jesus' miracles were not the breaking of natural laws but restoring the underlying order of a world without sin as it was before the fall of man. The paraplegic wasn't told to "get up and walk" he was forgiven his sins first and foremost.

So it is for this reason that Canon Law tells us that the innocent spouse may stop conjugal living with the adulterer for a maximum of 6 months. He should petition the Church for a divorce within that time but the law urges the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer.

All this if you believe in fairy tales that is.

With regard to the money-changer story. Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence

June, 2018

Digging holes can slow global warming.

In search of water in Kenya (Dutch article)

I like the simplicity of the idea even though there's quite a bit of (Dutch) agricultural knowledge behind it. Also, it isn't a prohibition for a change.

Fuckity fuck you fucking fuck. I'm almost at a native level of speaking English. It took me a while to realise you actually need a smaller vocabulary. Ugh... I meant "less words".

Hell hath no fury like an Agustino scorned apparently, with him wanting everybody else to pay.

I've never said sunny. But 26 days is a minimum I have 31. I also have a 36 hour work week on paper. By working 40, I get compensation hours. About 200 a year, which is another 25 days. How's that for wealth?

Move to the Netherlands and get affordable healthcare.

The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action. — Apologetics Press

13 At this the Pharisees said to him, 'You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not true.'

14 Jesus replied: Even though I am testifying on my own behalf, my testimony is still true, because I know where I have come from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. — The bible

It seems Jesus could perfectly testify alone since he wasn't alone.

That's of course if you believe in fairy tales.

The assumption that Trump is not impeachable because of a Republican majority is tenuous IMO. — Rank Amateur

Why? I think that case is quite strong due to political identity being a rather strong part of Americans' overall identity. I've got 20 political parties to choose from. Sidling a bit to the left of right to the next party isn't a thing that impinges on my personality. It's different in the states.

Through most of history, humans were socially separated into two classes; ruling class and a peasant class. — wellwisher

Uh no. Through most of history we were organised in tribes.

Most directly related to tariffs, there are good reasons to foreclose domestic markets. Sometimes a protected industry is necessary to ensure national security, such as defense manufacturing. Domestic production of basic foodstuffs is often pursued as well to ensure independent subsistence for a nation.

A country can bar products outright as well of course, such as guns or certain drugs. To reach full free trade you'll also need very far reaching standardisation on product quality as well and harmonisation of trade law and tort.

A stupid bet to make. The tariffs are going to be charged to customers which ostensibly increases GDP as prices go up.

Here's some Adam Smith to hopefully cure the misconception that tariffs are a good idea :

If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. […] The value of [a country’s] annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce [by trade policies]. […] The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation. — Adam Smith

And

When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. — Adam Smith

In Smith's time his work led to the gradual repeal of tariffs. But I'm sure it has its populist appeal, the idea that you're punishing those evil foreigners.

True but possibly immoral.

those going from part time to full time would sky rocket — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Full Time is an arbitrary concept. It used to be 60 hours. Thanks to progress that went down. As far as I am concerned 2 hours per day would be perfect.

Monogamy is as natural as polygamy.

I think these types of reactions are reflexive not reflective. There's so many ways to play this other than how they did : "It's clear Michael is under a lot of stress and he is now lying under duress about things that never happened just to satisfy Mueller's and his 13 angry Democrats' agenda. Sad!"

E.g., Trump's team are tools.

90 What about Giuliani's history makes you think he can think two moves ahead?

cool. I wasn't aware of those campaign financing rules.

also, you do know I'd be happy if he'd be successfully impeached right? I'm just trying to be realistic here.

So that requires proof Trump knew they were going to hack the DNC beforehand. It's not even certain this was discussed.

Good luck with that one since everyone present would be criminally liable as well so they won't talk unless they make a deal. Making a deal makes you an untrustworthy witness as you could say anything to get a free pass on an unrelated parking ticket or tax claim. You'll need to flip quite a few people that aren't family to get anywhere near establishing a case for this.

more witnesses. Placing everyone at the scene of the meeting Cohen references (the one where they discuss the Trump tower meeting to take place) without them being able to establish alibis. That sort of thing.

and more generally:

What if Mark Zuckerberg had walked up to Trump and said "I've got dirt on Clinton, do you want it?" and Trump had said yes, what crime had been committed?

Then Mark says "oh, and by the way, I can use targeted advertisements to influence Americans. How many ads would you like Donald?"

To which Trump replies, "I'll take a 150,000 in cash."

What crime would be committed?

Just replacing Mark with the Russians doesn't make it a crime. It's only when Trump directed or knew about the DNC hacks that I start to see something of a case but I'm not sure nor reporting a crime is a crime itself in the USA. It's certainly not the case in the Netherlands.

Not without corroborating evidence which we haven't seen at this point.

Remind me though, did Trump jr. originally lie about the existence of that meeting?

BTW, there's one progressive that I think could beat Trump in a landslide, but there's zero chance she will run: Michelle Obama. Nevertheless, she's my dream candidate. — Relativist

While I really like her, as a European I'm baffled at these political family dynasties. The Kennedys, clintons, bushes, Obamas (if Michelle would run) and then possibly the Trumps. Smells too much like aristocracy.

Condoleezza Rice ?? — Rank Amateur

Great pianist. Uncritically supported the Iraqi war?

:vomit:

Maybe it is too much to ask for, but we need a moral leader to emerge in the GOP, someone who has a deep concern for our democratic process, and will take on the task of holding Trump accountable. — Rank Amateur

You mean an actual Conservative that holds truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in high regard? Not a chance.

It's tribalism. Kind of like looking at a meeting between Afghan warlords.

Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. — Agustino

Nice. Real nice.

You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite. — Agustino

There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like

If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. — Agustino

But I will let you know that that personally disgusts me as one of the more immoral statements I've read on this site.

Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? — Agustino

The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. Also, as with rape and incest, the disapproval, shock and horror expressed by people's surroundings actually worsens how victims can cope with it. The same holds true for most emotional harms. I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with.

The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. Here's some more reading material:

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369

Thank you for not replying to my arguments and just giving me more opinion. Let's leave it at that shall we?

Yeah, and we should believe something Trump says because a) he's well informed and b) never lies. :rofl:

It's a fact prior intel of his proved to be reliable. Should we all add the following disclaimer: "Prior results are not a guarantee for future performance"?

How does impeachment of the President work? Impeachment is basically a trial of any civil official, including the president, without a judge, a jury or a prosecutor. The judicial branch has nothing to do with it. It all happens on Capitol Hill.

That fact makes all this deep state bullshit just that... bullshit. Senate hears the case and decides on it. So if the "ruling class" really wanted to oust Trump, they would've done so almost immediately on something flimsy like lying. There isn't an "incredibly" high bar, the bar is enough Senators wanting to get rid of him.

The problem is people react to outlier events by clinging even harder to what they know. So my vote is for more same old same old.

If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all. — Agustino

I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. You shouldn't project your view of universality on me. You can disagree of course but that's neither here nor there in my moral system. More importantly though, and you don't address it, is that any set of morals are time and place dependent and therefore fluid.

Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society. — Agustino

Unsophisticated Rousseaun contract theory. First off, insert all arguments against Rousseau. I'm a fan of Rawls though but his contract theory is time and place dependent, non-universal and reflective.

Second, the social contract, whatever it is, is not legally enforced either - only laws are.

You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example. — Agustino

This is a silly argument. Hands were cut off for thievery as well. Times change, morals change. You're being really selective with which culture and which time you select. Your bare assertion how terrible the consequences of adultery are, is not borne out by reality. YOU think it's very important and therefore assume considerable damages. The rest of the civilised world shrugs it off. Take France for instance since forever. Or English rakes etc. during a time the death penalty for adultery existed. All this contrary to local religious mores no less.

Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat. — Agustino

Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian.

If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place. — Agustino

Why do you think people invented pre-nups? You seem to replace your personal notion of what marriage should be with what's going on in the real world. I'm married and my wife and I regularly state "assuming we're still together then, it would be great...". We understand that there are plenty of reasons people might divorce or even end up committing adultery. With respect to the latter, we have an agreement that the person who commits adultery has to decide whether he/she wants to continue in the marriage or not. If they want to continue they need to hold that secret and carry that weight on their own. We think it's totally unfair to ask the other person for forgiveness and put the burden of the decision of a divorce on the other who didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

And don't get me wrong. Despite these practicalities I am a romantic and I have every intention of being with my wife until I die and so does she. We surprise each other with small hand-made gifts, special dates every month and such. We go to a therapist twice a year, not because we have problems, but because we want to avoid getting into the type of problems that cause people to divorce. And in doing that I suspect we're a lot more serious about our relationship than many people who say and think that marriage is for ever and there's that one special someone out there.

I get you feel very strongly about what marriage should be, what a relationship should look like and I think that's laudable and I wish you good luck with finding someone who shares that outlook or maintaining a relationship with that person if you're already in one. The hard part is putting what you believe into practice and making it work every day.

Just don't start about legislating this sort of stuff. Your view on sexuality is not shared by the majority and requires a lot of people to subscribe to (religious) assumptions that most of us have rejected in one way or another. It really comes across as tyranous.

On a fundamental level I agree with you, since morality cannot be enforced. If you do the right thing because you are forced to, then there is no merit in doing it. It must be freely chosen.

At the same time, I see that promiscuity has social costs in drawing others to this kind of behaviour and influencing our culture. The fact that it harms others (instead of merely oneself) suggests to me that we must do something to minimise it, just like we do something to minimise theft (or prevent others from being affected by it) for example (which also harms others). Take the clear case of adultery - adultery clearly harms other people, in quite significant ways, in ways that are more significant, in fact, than if you were to steal their car for example. So why is it that we use FORCE to stop theft, but we don't use force to stop adultery, given that the consequences of the latter are more serious on the individuals involved than the consequences of theft? — Agustino

First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. It's precisely because I'm aware of the cultural basis of my view that I'd refuse to legislate on this. Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. This is simply dependent on time and place.

Second, it's not a given short term relationships aren't meaningful to begin with. This is not mutually exclusive.

You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances.

So when one spouse cheats on the other at the most that's a contractual breach and not a criminal issue.The aggrieved party can chose to forgive or to divorce. It's my understanding that in some States in the USA it is relevant who caused a divorce and that damages can be awarded. I suspect this leads to very messy and harmful divorces for everyone involved because the more dirt you throw at your ex the better off you'll be financially. And this is the main problem right there ; whose fault is it? The wife that cheated? The emotionally absent husband? The external pressures of jobs, rebelling kids, family death, illnesses etc.? Explicit and implicit expectations could be reason to divorce but were they obligations to begin with? The obligations of a marriage are not defined or set in stone and subject to continual negotiation and cooperation as the needs of those involved continually change. It is difficult to navigate the muddy waters of a marriage and love alone isn't enough.

Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. It's not the end of the world or you can choose not to get involved in the first place. Nobody is forcing anyone to be in any relationship.

Lying to congress, and abuse of public function. — Agustino

According to republicans resulting from the Page hearing, right? Don't you think it's curious though that they are avoiding saying what the texts really mean according to Page. I suspect they are latching on an ambiguous statement, which is why the Democrats are denying it.

for which crime?

You asked for evidence, I cannot provide evidence of internal, subjective matters, since I do not know them. — Agustino

Then you should say so instead of obfuscating your position especially if I highlight an issue that we would agree on. There's s lot we can philosophise about without having data. Your position was that promiscuity caused people to get married later. It's not understandable why you say this, with your level of English, instead of, for instance, promiscuity causes people to get into meaningful relationships at a later age.

I think promiscuity is a personal choice and choices only exist because of opportunity. I think depriving people from opportunities would be terrible and it's much more worthwhile people chose a meaningful relationship from all opportunities than have the choice enforced due to circumstances.

Finally, many people choose to live together instead of getting married and it's not a given those relationships are any less stable than marriages.
— Benkei
Sure, I don't have any stats, but I have some doubts :) — Agustino

You do realise this was an excellent opportunity to clarify your idea but you didn't say "I consider that the same as marriage"? I suppose I shouldn't complain about you starting to make some sense but to claim there's consistency between the start of this thread and what you're saying now is silly especially if you're referring to legal marriage stats that are irrelevant to your apparent position.