Pure gray area

We have a thread for pure goodness and pure evil, so I guess this thread covers the rest. 😕

So let's have it, what are your gray areas?

I think everyone recognizes the gray area revolving around free will and the damage that it can inflict as well as stripping our freedoms and making us all slaves. Those who are religious and those who are not are fully intent on limiting free will to the best of their ability in order to keep everyone safe, or to save mother earth etc. At the same time, both become irrate if they perceive their own freedoms to wane.

With every law, a freedom dies. At the same time, without laws people are free to take away your freedom. So the issue always becomes, where should we drawn the lines?

Originally posted by whodey

With every law, a freedom dies.

I know where you are coming from but this is a cynical and
perhaps pessimistic outlook. One could also argue that
"With every law, a freedom is born". For instance a law against murder.
It takes away your freedom to kill me but gives me the freedom of safety.

In extremis every law, every moral is grey.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I know where you are coming from but this is a cynical and
perhaps pessimistic outlook. One could also argue that
"With every law, a freedom is born". For instance a law against murder.
It takes away your freedom to kill me but gives me the freedom of safety.

In extremis every law, every moral is grey.

There are two aspects: The total amount of freedom in the world, and its distribution. Science and technology can affect the former (example, freedom from pain via anesthesia, freedom from starvation via agriculture) and politics can affect the latter, including politics by other means (war).

My beard's getting pretty gray 🙁

Originally posted by whodey
We have a thread for pure goodness and pure evil, so I guess this thread covers the rest. 😕

So let's have it, what are your gray areas?

I think everyone recognizes the gray area revolving around free will and the damage that it can inflict as well as stripping our freedoms and making us all slaves. Those who are religious and those who are not are fu ...[text shortened]... e free to take away your freedom. So the issue always becomes, where should we drawn the lines?

With every law, a freedom dies

it could be argued that with every law a freedom is also created. for example making murder illegal was freedom lost for those wanting to murder but a freedom gained for those not wanting to be murdered.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]With every law, a freedom dies

it could be argued that with every law a freedom is also created. for example making murder illegal was freedom lost for those wanting to murder but a freedom gained for those not wanting to be murdered.[/b]

I agree with your point - although on a historical note, murder was never actually made illegal, at least in English Law. It's so obviously against the law that it was never directly legislated against.

In a parallel in classical logic if does not have to be particularly relevant. "If I am a giraffe then Mars is Green", is logically perfectly sound, as one cannot draw an incorrect conclusion from it. I'm not a giraffe, so one can't draw any conclusions about Mars. Mars is not green so you can correctly conclude that I am not a giraffe. They introduced a relevant if, in which the two have to be connected. This represents a restriction on Classical logic and makes it more expressive.

The same effect happens with law, sane legislation allows society and the people in it to operate. There is a balance though, if it's too restrictive it's cloying and but if it doesn't restrict enough people can't operate through fear of loss, patent laws are a good example of this.

Originally posted by whodey
So let's have it, what are your gray areas?

Decisions to declare parents unfit or that they pose a danger to their children and the subsequent taking of those children into care ~ it's an issue fraught with grey areas in my estimation.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]With every law, a freedom dies

it could be argued that with every law a freedom is also created. for example making murder illegal was freedom lost for those wanting to murder but a freedom gained for those not wanting to be murdered.[/b]

As I stated in the opening OP, making murder illegal is an attempt to limit a persons freedom that would limit your freedom.

With such a law, freedom is not created, it is merely maintained by limiting someone elses freedom.

Again, all laws limit freedom.

Originally posted by whodey
As I stated in the opening OP, making murder illegal is an attempt to limit a persons freedom that would limit your freedom.

With such a law, freedom is not created, it is merely maintained by limiting someone elses freedom.

Again, all laws limit freedom.

Does that include religious laws?

Originally posted by whodey
We have a thread for pure goodness and pure evil, so I guess this thread covers the rest. 😕

So let's have it, what are your gray areas?

I think everyone recognizes the gray area revolving around free will and the damage that it can inflict as well as stripping our freedoms and making us all slaves. Those who are religious and those who are not are fu ...[text shortened]... e free to take away your freedom. So the issue always becomes, where should we drawn the lines?

Interesting page: http://www.discipleshipdefined.com/resources/gray-areas

What Are Some Examples of Gray Areas?
Drinking, dating, kissing, gambling, smoking, clothing, music, movies, television, birth control, dancing, spending your money, home schooling, working moms, driving over the speed limit, etc.

Every one of the topics mentioned above are either never discussed in Scripture or are discussed only in brief. Scripture does not teach that any of these things are categorically sinful.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Interesting page: http://www.discipleshipdefined.com/resources/gray-areas

What Are Some Examples of Gray Areas?
Drinking, dating, kissing, gambling, smoking, clothing, music, movies, television, birth control, dancing, spending your money, home schooling, working moms, driving over the speed limit, etc.

Every one of the topics mentioned above are eith ...[text shortened]... ssed only in brief. Scripture does not teach that any of these things are categorically sinful.

I think all the aforementioned are answered in scripture.
Col 3:17
And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
NKJV

1 Cor 10:31-32

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
NKJV

In other words, if it does not glorify God, don't do it. Then there is the popular cliche, WWJD?

Originally posted by checkbaiter

In other words, if it does not glorify God, don't do it. Then there is the popular cliche, WWJD?

How do you determine what "glorifies god" ???

Originally posted by wolfgang59
How do you determine what "glorifies god" ???

sonship on another current thread: "The saved will glorify God with their endless happiness. But the lost will glorify Him with their endless woe. They will be hung out in chains of punishment as an example to deter other worlds."

Originally posted by Lundos
Does that include religious laws?

Laws are only as good as those willing to enforce them

Therefore, religious laws only apply in a theocracy, or in the next life to come.

Originally posted by whodey
Laws are only as good as those willing to enforce them

Nonsense. Providing laws are sensible and just there is no need for
enforcement. For instance not parking in disabled bays, not dropping
litter, picking up your dog's poop. These are things we do as part of our
"debt" to society not because we fear getting caught by "The Enforcer".