3 edits
AThousandYoung,
==================================
They force their religious rules on others...kind of the Christian version of Sharia. No homosexuality, no drugs, no prostitution, no this, no that...
====================================
I agree. I think they would learn a lot of tolerance and leniency from you.
After all under your name tag and goat picture on the left you have written "OBEY ISRAEL OR DIE!"
Now that is much more accomodating, more considerate of other's opinions. No forcing your opinion on anyone there. Right?
No shoving your beliefs down anyone's throat with that saying. Its just bubbling over with a "live and let live" attitude.
Why don't you go teach those religious types a thing or two about your brand of tolerance?
Originally posted by whodeyStart by breaking out the Plato. You'll have to stab yourself in the eye to get through it, but, its a good place to start.
I have to agree with you on one point. As human beings we have a tendency to adopt the morals of those that we percieve as being in authority over us. It is simply the way we are wired. For example, before slavery was outlawed by in large the majority of people endorsed it as "OK". However, now that it has been outlawed for a very long time the thought of ...[text shortened]... so that we can be free? That sounds more like just talk than something that is real to me.
Originally posted by jaywillI agree. I think they would learn a lot of tolerance and leniency from you.
AThousandYoung,
[b]==================================
They force their religious rules on others...kind of the Christian version of Sharia. No homosexuality, no drugs, no prostitution, no this, no that...
====================================
I agree. I think they would learn a lot of tolerance and leniency from you.
After all under yo ...[text shortened]... hy don't you go teach those religious types a thing or two about your brand of tolerance?[/b]
Yep. They'd be verbally obnoxious but wouldn't legislate their rules on the rest of society.
After all under your name tag and goat picture on the left you have written "OBEY ISRAEL OR DIE!"
That's from the CHRISTIAN BIBLE, IDIOT!
Originally posted by whodeyHow then would those who are religious not speak out against legislating prositution, drug abuse ect?
As a society we are free to have a voice in how our government inacts legislation. To do otherwise would be negligent. How then would those who are religious not speak out against legislating prositution, drug abuse ect? However, it is far different than adopting the Ten Commandments or the Bible or sharia law to live by. For example, our laws already ...[text shortened]... a society that allows its morals to be dictated to through the state via a particular religion.
They would not speak out because they respected free will...which is a Christian concept that the political Christians don't seem to like very much. They seem to be into telling people what to do and forgiving anyone for anything as long as they say the magic words..."Christ has forgiven me...why can't you?"
It's a message that we as individuals are NOT capable of making our own decisions, but that rather a religious government must do it for us. It's a message that we cannot refrain from sinning, but must ask an all seeing Big Brother sort of authority figure to make it all better. It's a message that as long as you bow down to the authority of this Jewish sect called Christianity you can get away with anything.
However, I must emphasize - political Christians are FAR better than political Muslims. Political Jews are even better. I still don't like any of them having much influence, but if the People want them to have influence then that's how it should be.
Originally posted by darthmixOver the years one becomes cynical and must lash out at the stupid people to keep one's sanity.
So cheap shots and personal attacks, however well-deserved you think they are, only serve to distract from and derail an otherwise meaningful discussion, and you should knock them off. So that.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you think that jaywill struck close to home when he pointed out my reference to Israel in my Title?
Now, now, there is no need to make this thread into a shouting match. I have been called worse and treated far worse than this, trust me. I understand that he is phobic in terms of religion in general and when the thought of those in authority over him might be religious or swayed by them the thought of it is to much to endure.
Having said that, he does ...[text shortened]... er insults such as his I get the impression that I may be hitting to close to home, so to speak.
No, he was just so completely clueless about why I wrote that, and has shown himself to be so unwilling to discuss things intelligently (NOT something I accuse you of), that sometimes you one just feels like lashing out. It's not like logic or reason is going to work with jaywill and the like.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you see a difference between torturing babies and homosexuality?
Yes.
As far as I can tell, the two are equivalent in Christianity. In my opinion, one should be legislated, the other not...and the Constitution agrees with me according to the Supreme Court.
Thus political Christianity and political Americanism seem inconsistent.
Originally posted by whodeyI think the problem is that the unborn should be viewed as an asset instead of a liability. Really if we lived a couple of hundred years ago, having children would be viewed as a vital means for survival.
This is a point I would like to tackle. Namely, are my reasons for my beliefs soley because it is in the Bible? The answer to this is no. For example, where is abortion written about in the Bible? The answer is no where that I am aware of yet those on the Christian right oppose it dogmatically. Why? Is it merely a "religous issue"? I would say no. It ...[text shortened]... might even call you stupid and ignorant in order to achieve this percieved superiority. 😉
And in the past Christianity was useful. But it doesn't change; more people are always better in Christianity. Evolutionary theory has demonstrated that populations continue to increase exponentially until there is some sort of culling...
Oooh...creepy...Christians actually LOOK FORWARD to a disasterous culling of the human population, don't they? It's part of your prophecies or something right?
Originally posted by whodeyIs having a moral stance while performing an act what makes an act moral or not, no matter what that stance is?
These laws were introduced with the moral stance that homosexual relations were morally "wrong". Why else would they have made these laws in the first place? Are you suggesting that these laws were made devoid of morality? I am looking for laws that are devoid of morality but have, as yet, not been provided with any.
Originally posted by whodeyThe only other way to attack such unions would be to show evidence as to how it "harms" society.
You raise a good point in that for one to object to homosexual unions, one is probably doing so based soley upon the Bible and/or other religious documents. The only other way to attack such unions would be to show evidence as to how it "harms" society. Again, laws that are on the books in secular governments tend to refect the moral ideal of doing unto oth ...[text shortened]... traditionally ment over the years and at the same time not violate the rights of homosexuals.
This isn't the USSR. Society is subordinate to the individual.
Originally posted by whodeyThe morality taught by a school should be based on agreement between the school and the parents of the students who attend it.
Let me ask you kirksey, what morals, if any, should be taught to children in school? Should no morals be taught since not everyone may agree or should the majority rule? If morality should not be taught, are you not making a moral statement by not trying to make one? By actively not taking a moral stance are you not taking a moral stance?
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo are you an anarchist? Do you think the world would be a better place without laws?
They would not speak out because they respected free will...which is a Christian concept that the political Christians don't seem to like very much. They seem to be into telling people what to do and forgiving anyone for anything as long as they say the magic words..."Christ has forgiven me...why can't you?"
There is a difference between trying to allow people free will and then allowing them to impeede your own free will in the process or those around you. I am sure you would agree. For example, if I came into your home and shot you dead and stole all your money, should I be allowed to do so freely? Should there not be any laws protecting your right to live in your home in safety?
Also there is the issue of people harming themselves. Should people be allowed to harm themselves freely? Should they be allowed to prostitute themselves and take illicit drugs that will destroy them or even kill themselves without society stepping in and having a say? To be honest, whether these things are legal or not is of no consequence to many who do them anyway. However, at least the state does not endorse such behavoir today which would probably empower more to harm theselves by engaging in such activities.
I suppose in the end, we all have the power to harm ourselves or those within society no matter the laws on the books. However, as a society we must choose as to whether we endorse such activity or disdain such harmful activity. Then once society has chosen a particular moral stance on such behavoirs they will then be passed down to subsequent generations that will be effected as well. Really our laws are a moral tradition that is passed down to future generations. Do we want morals that embrace or are indifferent about harmful activities that people engage in? As a society, should we care that others are harming themselves or others around us?
Originally posted by whodeyIsn't this a lot of effort simply to clarify terminology? I don't see this kind of passion for linguistic clarity when I talk with evangelicals and creationists about things like Proof, Theories, Evolution, Logic and Logical Fallacies, "you people", etc.
The right to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman would be infringed upon because it would no longer mean this particular union. In fact, I could marry my car if I so desired. I think it is merely a right to have terms have meaning and clarity rather than ambiguity