Anti-socialists, gather 'round

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So homosexuality isn't a sin anymore then.

Both the New and Old Testament talk about homosexuality being a sin. Technically, the Old Testament just hates gay men, while the New Testament hates all of the gays equally.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So homosexuality isn't a sin anymore then.

New Testament speaks against homosexuality.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

I never said the OT was useless. It's VERY useful - as an example, history of God's love for His people, prophecies concerning Christ, the Law, etc, etc. I never said we need to get rid of the OT. I just said we don't live under the OT and that it's rules, regulations, etc do not apply to us.

If you're going to advocate that government needs to legislate morality because of Christianity, then you'll need to prove that with New Testament Christian Scripture.

Again, Jesus calls us to win souls through various means and methods - none of which includes enforcing christian values through government.

If you want to look at what happens when Christians force Christianity upon subjects because of government look at what happened with Constantine and the Holy Roman Catholic Empire.

I've never advocated forcing Christians doctrines or morals on a government. The Bible is explicitely clear on the differences between man's law and God's law.

However, in a situation in which you have a choice, a Christian is supposed to make his choice based on the moral law of God. In this situation, our choice happens to be the ability to choose our country's leaders. We should be aware that making our choice, even with our country's leaders, should still be in accordance to God's moral law.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I've never advocated forcing Christians doctrines or morals on a government. The Bible is explicitely clear on the differences between man's law and God's law.

However, in a situation in which you have a choice, a Christian is supposed to make his choice based on the moral law of God. In this situation, our choice happens to be the ability to choose our country's leaders. We should be aware that making our choice, even with our country's leaders, should still be in accordance to God's moral law.

If this is true, then you can't be a christian and a supporter of liberty at the same time. By choosing leaders who will force 'gods law' on the rest of society, you deprive the population of their liberty to make life choices which fall outside it.

It's one thing to make the choice for yourself.. it's another to make it for everyone else as well.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

If this is true, then you can't be a christian and a supporter of liberty at the same time. By choosing leaders who will force 'gods law' on the rest of society, you deprive the population of their liberty to make life choices which fall outside it.

It's one thing to make the choice for yourself.. it's another to make it for everyone else as well.

Nobody has to 'force' anything. But it's good that we ourselves make moral choices, and it's nice to know our leaders do too.

Perhaps your ideas of 'moral' are skewed?

[Kytro]

The problem I have: personal morality shouldn't be made into law.

If someone has a religious-based morality it shouldn't include caring about what others do. Cannot you just govern yourself?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The problem I have: personal morality shouldn't be made into law.

If someone has a religious-based morality it shouldn't include caring about what others do. Cannot you just govern yourself?

Let's get one thing straight here: not all morality is subjective.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Nobody has to 'force' anything. But it's good that we ourselves make moral choices, and it's nice to know our leaders do too.

Perhaps your ideas of 'moral' are skewed?

Well forcing is exactly what they are doing. If christians elect leaders who intend to enforce biblical morality on society, they are effectively limiting the liberties of those who don't feel the need for the restrictions without much objective, fact-based justification. I've yet to see a politician running on the platform who has not intended to do this. Anyway, these restrictions are unneeded because no one is stopping christian sects from limiting themselves in any way they wish.

A free nation is one where individuals can choose to live the lifestyles they want so long as they don't tread on others', but this requires tolerance of these differing choices. Having the government act as "morality police for the views of the politically well-connected" is counterproductive to this. Leaders should respect your RIGHT to your views equally with everyone else's, ensuring that everyone has their space. They should not be your personal morality brigade.

My morals are irrelevant as they only apply to me. I don't dictate them to anyone else. It's too bad evangelicals (and others as well) don't see it that way. Maybe deep down they're realizing their beliefs have trouble standing up to the reality around them and they feel the only way to reinforce it internally is to enforce it EXternally.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well forcing is exactly what they are doing. If christians elect leaders who intend to enforce biblical morality on society, they are effectively limiting the liberties of those who don't feel the need for the restrictions without much objective, fact-based justification. I've yet to see a politician running on the platform who has not intended to do this. Anyway, these restrictions are unneeded because no one is stopping christian sects from limiting themselves in any way they wish.

A free nation is one where individuals can choose to live the lifestyles they want so long as they don't tread on others', but this requires tolerance of these differing choices. Having the government act as "morality police for the views of the politically well-connected" is counterproductive to this. Leaders should respect your RIGHT to your views equally with everyone else's, ensuring that everyone has their space. They should not be your personal morality brigade.

My morals are irrelevant as they only apply to me. I don't dictate them to anyone else. It's too bad evangelicals (and others as well) don't see it that way. Maybe deep down they're realizing their beliefs have trouble standing up to the reality around them and they feel the only way to reinforce it internally is to enforce it EXternally.

Freedom is fundamentally a Christian belief


Why the use of the word 'sect' to describe Christianity?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Let's get one thing straight here: not all morality is subjective.

No it isn't. But religious based morality is. It may coincide with an objective viewpoint though.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

No it isn't. But religious based morality is. It may coincide with an objective viewpoint though.

How can you say that when so much of it overlaps?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Freedom is fundamentally a Christian belief

They claim it, sure. Their behavior makes me wonder though. The communists claimed their system would bring 'freedom' to their society. The anarcho-capitalists who post on this forum also claim it for theirs. Whether any of them actually do is quite debatable. The fact we're having this discussion proves that. If you believe in the tenets of the religion, then yes, freedom came from God like everything else. if you don't, then it didn't. Since God is not an objectively provable concept, using the construct as justification for enforcing a philosophy is weak. One can justify almost ANY philosophy that way, limited only by the highly differing views of what 'god' is or is not. Since I don't believe any existing 'proof' of supernatural beings and I still grasp the concept of freedom, I'd argue they're independent. I'll leave the actual historical account of the philosophy's beginnings to the history buffs.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why the use of the word 'sect' to describe Christianity?

As you know there are plenty of offshoots that each claim to be the real deal. Some support governmental policing based on their values and others do not. I was trying to make the distinction to show I'm not painting them all with broad strokes.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

How can you say that when so much of it overlaps?

Because religious doctrine isn't all reasoned. There is a fair bit of social standards in there which may or may not be relevant.

What I am saying is that while some law needs to be based on morality, it should be from a well reasoned argument not from how someone feels due to faith.

Faith is essentially abdication of thought and that isn't a good basis for deciding what is right and wrong.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

They claim it, sure.

Who claims it? It doesn't matter what people claim. What matters is what's Biblical, and what Christianity really is.

Who cares who claims what.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Because religious doctrine isn't all reasoned. There is a fair bit of social standards in there which may or may not be relevant.

What I am saying is that while some law needs to be based on morality, it should be from a well reasoned argument not from how someone feels due to faith.

Faith is essentially abdication of thought and that isn't a good basis for deciding what is right and wrong.

You're trying too hard to keep absolute morality separate from the idea of God, when in reality you're failing to ask yourself...where did that absolute morality come from?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You're trying too hard to keep absolute morality separate from the idea of God, when in reality you're failing to ask yourself...where did that absolute morality come from?

I don't think it is absolute as something that exists. I think that many of the concepts are almost universal due to human nature.

I am not in a position where I can claim to understand the morality and will of a god and I don't believe anyone else is either, despite what they may believe.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Who claims it? It doesn't matter what people claim. What matters is what's Biblical, and what Christianity really is.

Who cares who claims what.

Well, what is biblical? Does it matter? Not really, since each groups' beliefs are based on mere assumption. None have any objective proof on the matter one way or another, so why should we rush into enforcing behavior based on any of it? If they want to behave in a certain way, let them.. No one else should have to though. The 'freedom to be like me' is not freedom at all.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

many of the concepts are almost universal due to human nature.

I believe that 'human nature' you speak of comes from somewhere.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well, what is biblical? Does it matter?

In Christianity, it's the only thing that matters.