[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

What does it protect you from?

It would protect myself and my family from non-Christian influence.

And why do I even have to have a reason for wanting it? I want it, and if I can find a way to have it enacted it is, by you definition, right and just.

[JerryLove]

I fail to understand how that can be intuitivly viewed as protection...

"Just" has not been mentioned or used.

"It's your right" if you can take it as your right, or are given it by someone who can... of course, that assumes it passes the basic definition of potential rights (again, I refer you to the intuitive definition of what might potentally be a right)

Similarly, you would claim anything God told you to do was right and just. You use the same standard.

[joelsdad]

I see a distinction between a law founded on moral groudns, and a law founded on (say) practical grounds.

But once again it is an imnposition based on moral grounds. Who in your society decides what is moral and what is not? What standard is used.


And 1962 is hardly a good year in the American judicial archives.

To some, and to others it was a fine year so that is a relative opinion.



That said, and granting your premise (that the Bible does not prohibit sexual acts between concenting spouses), that just means that the Christian view is not Biblically justified... not that it's not held by many Christians as a Chrsitian view.


No Jerry the Christian view is biblicaloly justified, but some brands of Christians have replaced the bible with their own opinion on what connotes good and bad sex between husband and wife.


Well, that really takes the wind out of the "cause it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality... unnatural sex is OK?

Jerry you and I would define unnatural sex from differentr world views so we would of neccessity have differing definitions. I do not apologize for letting Gods Word determione what is considered unnatural sex .


It depends on your use of the word "wrong". It is disallowed because it is deemed desierable (indeed, the point of forming communities) to protect the collective "me".

So in your utopian society if society deemed it OK to murder (say to help wean over population or whatever reason) then you would say murder is OK?


I claimed it was a bad law. but more importantly, it simply makes my case about imposing your morals on others (you do remember the topic right?)


But according to all societies (or at leastr the super abundant majority) all laws are an enactment of morals. Even the NAMBLA and the APA going before congress and asking to decriminalize pedophilia is an attempt to impose a set of morals upon society. Christians just wish a christian set of moral values become law, while atheists seek to enact their own set of morals upon which society is built. You just disagree withour worldview as we disagree with yours.

[JerryLove]

But once again it is an imnposition based on moral grounds. Who in your society decides what is moral and what is not? What standard is used.

Do you honestly find it difficult to tell them apart?

To some, and to others it was a fine year so that is a relative opinion.

Relative to the comment that we are censoring more, 1952 shows an opposing trend...

No Jerry the Christian view is biblicaloly justified, but some brands of Christians have replaced the bible with their own opinion on what connotes good and bad sex between husband and wife.

Every Christian is using his own view... though every one believes it to be the Biblical view (and in some cases, they may be right about that).

Jerry you and I would define unnatural sex from differentr world views so we would of neccessity have differing definitions. I do not apologize for letting Gods Word determione what is considered unnatural sex .

God has not declared "unnatural" AFAIK

So in your utopian society if society deemed it OK to murder (say to help wean over population or whatever reason) then you would say murder is OK?

1. I don't have a utopian society.
2. If it were not disallowed, hen it would not be wrong on the context that it was disallowed. As I said then, it depends on your definition of wrong. (BTW, it would also no longer be murder... simply homicide).

But according to all societies (or at leastr the super abundant majority) all laws are an enactment of morals.

Cite.

Even the NAMBLA and the APA going before congress and asking to decriminalize pedophilia is an attempt to impose a set of morals upon society.

But it is clearly not. Age of concent is based on a reasonable expectation of cognative ability; and child protection laws exist to protect rights that can be given up by adults (such as the right of privacy).

Christians just wish a christian set of moral values become law, while atheists seek to enact their own set of morals upon which society is built. You just disagree withour worldview as we disagree with yours.

That's not a worldview, that's a set of desires. I disagree with both.

[joelsdad]

But it is clearly not. Age of concent is based on a reasonable expectation of cognative ability; and child protection laws exist to protect rights that can be given up by adults (such as the right of privacy).


For now Jerry, but when a society rejects an absolute set of values for a relative set of values then we may see this enacted. Once again when people no longer hold to absolutes then anything can and usually does go.


Relative to the comment that we are censoring more, 1952 shows an opposing trend...


And the furhter back in time we go would show greater trends against censoring Christian thought. Remember even until the turn of this century, many cities and towns (Boston being one of them) still paid churches to educate children as the public shcool systems were still being consolidating and growing.


Morals are simply a set of values or value. If a society deems human life worthy enough to protect with a set of laws then even though it is a protective law it is still basaed on a moral value system. Why do you have a hard time seeing that.


God has not declared "unnatural" AFAIK

What is AFAIK???

[joelsdad]

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


BTW this is a dictionary definition of morals. As you can seeclearly it is a determination of right and wrong which is exactly what laws are-a set of values that determine right from wrong in a society. Speeding is deemed wrong and hence punishable by a fine--it is a law that is also a moral as are all laws.

[JerryLove]

For now Jerry, but when a society rejects an absolute set of values for a relative set of values then we may see this enacted. Once again when people no longer hold to absolutes then anything can and usually does go.

And the situation is no different for those who do see absolutes... Jim Jones, Sum Young Moon, David Korresh, The Salem witch trials (or indeed, any witch trials), the Spanish inquasition, Al Quida, Hamas, the KKK, and most every other religious organization acting badly.

And the furhter back in time we go would show greater trends against censoring Christian thought. Remember even until the turn of this century, many cities and towns (Boston being one of them) still paid churches to educate children as the public shcool systems were still being consolidating and growing.

I see you ignored your "It was a fine year" comment... I'd be shocked if you stood and defended anything you said rather than moving on to other things you cannot defend.

Morals are simply a set of values or value. If a society deems human life worthy enough to protect with a set of laws then even though it is a protective law it is still basaed on a moral value system. Why do you have a hard time seeing that.

Why do you have a hard time seeing it as convention, or intent of purpose. If the government decides to change the national oil reserve from it's current levels, was that a moral decision? Or do we agree that there can be laws which have nothing to do with morality?

What is AFAIK???

As Far As I Know.

[joelsdad]

I see you ignored your "It was a fine year" comment... I'd be shocked if you stood and defended anything you said rather than moving on to other things you cannot defend.

Well lets look at what I said: "To some, and to others it was a fine year so that is a relative opinion."

I defend that remark by just simply saying that to some '62 was a good judicial year and to others it was not. What needs to be defended?? I have given no opinion here merely cited common truth-some liked it others didn't.


nd the situation is no different for those who do see absolutes... Jim Jones, Sum Young Moon, David Korresh, The Salem witch trials (or indeed, any witch trials), the Spanish inquasition, Al Quida, Hamas, the KKK, and most every other religious organization acting badly

And let us not forget the socialists, communists, nazis and fascists and other non religious groups who acted very badly as well.



Why do you have a hard time seeing it as convention, or intent of purpose. If the government decides to change the national oil reserve from it's current levels, was that a moral decision? Or do we agree that there can be laws which have nothing to do with morality?

I can easily agree that there are many laws passed which are only very faintly based on morals(though even changing oil reserve levels has a moral basis to it--it is done to insure supplies for when needed by the people which is a moral considerastion) if you will agree that many laws passed by secularists are based on a set of moral values.


God has not declared "unnatural" AFAIK

Could you be a l;ittle specific here? What sex acts are you reffering to when you say God did not call them immoral.

[JerryLove]

I defend that remark by just simply saying that to some '62 was a good judicial year and to others it was not. What needs to be defended?? I have given no opinion here merely cited common truth-some liked it others didn't.

The fact that it was non-responsive... You've clearly illustrated that you have no trouble with censorship... you seem to prefer it... as long as it censors everyon else's ideas.

Is your religion so fragile that it cannot stand up to a little scrutiny or competition?

And let us not forget the socialists, communists, nazis and fascists and other non religious groups who acted very badly as well.

Which is why I said:
"and the situation is no different for those who do see absolutes"

With whom did you assume I was saying it was no different than?

So, back to your statement:

Once again when people no longer hold to absolutes then anything can and usually does go.

This statement implies a cause (the non-holding of absolutes) for an action (bad behavior). This is an untrue implication as people who do hold absolute moral values behave just as badly.

I can easily agree that there are many laws passed which are only very faintly based on morals(though even changing oil reserve levels has a moral basis to it--it is done to insure supplies for when needed by the people which is a moral considerastion) if you will agree that many laws passed by secularists are based on a set of moral values.

No, I don't see that secular laws are moral laws... as to what secular people pass, it's not terribly important.

Could you be a l;ittle specific here? What sex acts are you reffering to when you say God did not call them immoral.

I believe that God has only used a word translating as "unnatural" in one instance... and the act involved is unspecified, but implied as interest, not act.

So, again, please cite which sexual act is "unnatural" and support.

[joelsdad]

No, I don't see that secular laws are moral laws... as to what secular people pass, it's not terribly important.

well you rs is a minority opinion and I disagree with it.


No I fear not a little or alot of competition. But why would you seek to censor Christianity from public life( as well as all other religious thought) What are you afraid of. Is your beleif system so insecure that the only way you feel you can protect society from Christianity is to censor it from the public life of America?

, again, please cite which sexual act is "unnatural" and support.

Homosexuality and lesbianism--Romans 1:26-27


This statement implies a cause (the non-holding of absolutes) for an action (bad behavior). This is an untrue implication as people who do hold absolute moral values behave just as badly.


The fact that it was non-responsive... You've clearly illustrated that you have no trouble with censorship... you seem to prefer it... as long as it censors everyon else's ideas.

Well I cannot apologize for wishing everyione were a bible beleiving christian--The world would be a much better place of rit. The fact that I was nonresponsive was just simply to show that you ropinion was relative as mine would have been bassed on our worldviews. Hey if yiou don't think the world would be a much better place if people were like minded (not intellectual cloens just like minded) then maybe you should find a new value system.


Yes it is truew that some religious groups who accpet absolutes behave very badly. But name me one Christian group that has behaved as wickedly as the KKK, the INquisition, Al-quida, the Wahabbi ans shia Muslims.

[JerryLove]

well you rs is a minority opinion and I disagree with it.

You start with the appeal to popularity.

No I fear not a little or alot of competition. But why would you seek to censor Christianity from public life( as well as all other religious thought)

Move to a straw-man argument.

What are you afraid of.

And close with an ad-hominim

Homosexuality and lesbianism--Romans 1:26-27

That's not an act.

Well I cannot apologize for wishing everyione were a bible beleiving christian--The world would be a much better place of rit.

Well, your opinion is in the minorty aqnd I disagree with it.

The fact that I was nonresponsive was just simply to show that you ropinion was relative as mine would have been bassed on our worldviews. Hey if yiou don't think the world would be a much better place if people were like minded (not intellectual cloens just like minded) then maybe you should find a new value system.

If everyone were beautiful, we would simply invent ever more specific definitions of beauty - Fredrick Netche

Yes it is truew that some religious groups who accpet absolutes behave very badly. But name me one Christian group that has behaved as wickedly as the KKK, the Inquisition, Al-quida, the Wahabbi ans shia Muslims.

You just named a couple... feel free to add Aryan Nation, The Jesuits in Japan, the Spanish in central America, the Puritan and other Christian settlers in North America, the Christians in Chechnia, the Crusaders, etc. etc.

[joelsdad]

[QUOTE]d the situation is no different for those who do see absolutes... Jim Jones, Sum Young Moon, David Korresh, The Salem witch trials (or indeed, any witch trials), the Spanish inquasition, Al Quida, Hamas, the KKK, and most every other religious organization acting badly


Jerry the situation though is different for all the groups you named here. first all these groups are even self declared splinter groups from their traditional roots(Christianity, Islam as for Moon ??) Second-they did not adhere to the absolutes of thier religion with the exception of Hamas and Al quida where you are rewarded supposedly for killing Jews

Well, your opinion is in the minorty aqnd I disagree with it.

As is yor right, and a right I would defend.

That's not an act.

Well we know what ther act s and that is what the passage is referring to : "Therefore, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged the natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abasndoned natural relations with women and were inflam,ed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." NIV

You just named a couple... feel free to add Aryan Nation, The Jesuits in Japan, the Spanish in central America, the Puritan and other Christian settlers in North America, the Christians in Chechnia, the Crusaders, etc. etc.

You are great at listing nominal Christians or christian cults or going into 3-4 century old history when the reformation was still bringing the light of scripture out of the dungeon oif the dartk ages, but fail to show real Christian groups. Aryan NAtion is no more Christian than an atheist. Just because they name the name of Christ does not make it so. But it does make it convenient for th enemies of Christ to parade their name about and say" See this is what Christians are about.


"

Move to a straw-man argument.

No I answered your false charge and then countered with a charge of my own. You have explicitly stated often that you feel the religion has no place in the public life of America(laws, school govt. ) Well knowing that our country was founded on a heritage of Judeo Christian ethics (don't repepat the sins of the nation from several pagfes ago we all know about them), and seeing how a minority has removed what was once oipen talk of Christ from our sociewty- I still say why do you fear having open forum in schools and govt. about the advantages/disadvantages of basing our legal and judical and legislative systemsd on bbiblical ethics?

[JerryLove]

You are great at listing nominal Christians or christian cults or going into 3-4 century old history when the reformation was still bringing the light of scripture out of the dungeon oif the dartk ages, but fail to show real Christian groups.

But do you deny that thy follow an absolute set of values? Because that was your original complaint.

Besides, I know people who wouldn't consider you a "real Christian" (TM), and I don't think I've met anyone on this board who places what teh Bible says over what they think it says, so it's a moot argument.

Aryan NAtion is no more Christian than an atheist. Just because they name the name of Christ does not make it so. But it does make it convenient for th enemies of Christ to parade their name about and say" See this is what Christians are about.

You can cast yourself as the poor victim all day, but you are still proping up a straw-man. That's not what is at issue.

No I answered your false charge and then countered with a charge of my own. You have explicitly stated often that you feel the religion has no place in the public life of America(laws, school govt. )

No I have not... I've stated it has no place in government. Your assertion otherwise is the straw-man I mentioned.

Well knowing that our country was founded on a heritage of Judeo Christian ethics (don't repepat the sins of the nation from several pagfes ago we all know about them)

Then we know where Judeo-Christian ethics lead.

and seeing how a minority has removed what was once oipen talk of Christ from our sociewty-

I see the assertion, but not the support.

I still say why do you fear having open forum in schools and govt. about the advantages/disadvantages of basing our legal and judical and legislative systemsd on bbiblical ethics?

There are plenty of "open forums" on it in school; and the Bible doesn't have ethics, it has motals and laws... and I've already stated why I oppose the use of religious morals as the foundation of law.

Not to mention a general distaste fro Biblical law. I don't think the women who are raped should be forced to marry their rapists. I don't think the women who don't have a hymen when they marry should be killed, nor that they should carry the burden of proof to establish they did. I don't think we should stone to death people who work on Saturday. I don't think we should allow Jews to convert others, but stone others who attempt to convert you (particularly considering how many people you consider non-Christian). I don't think we should kill children for cursing their parents, I don't think we should forbid women from having jobs with authority, and I don't think we should stone homosexuals, psycics, mediums, and people with statues.

Though the thought that you might want these does make stoning you seem like a good idea.

[joelsdad]

But do you deny that thy follow an absolute set of values? Because that was your original complaint.

Yes I do for they all follow the whims and ephemeral wishes of their leaders.

You can cast yourself as the poor victim all day, but you are still proping up a straw-man. That's not what is at issue.

Nope, won't bite at that piece of falderol. I am just trying to make sure that your inaccurate concept of Christianity is not even implicitly accepted in this argument.

No I have not... I've stated it has no place in government. Your assertion otherwise is the straw-man I mentioned.

Well public sahcools are government run and you are against religion by the staff of schools

Then we know where Judeo-Christian ethics lead.

Yeah it led America to greatness until secularism took over and has destroyed the very heart and soul of this once great society. Yeah we had alot of imperfections but no other country has been able to share in the grandeur and greatness of America. If America were so lousy why did (and still do though that number is declining) people flock to this nation in numbersa far greater than any other nation. If the Judeo Christian ethic were so lousy why is america a nation of immigrants. Why didn't people flock out of here instead of other places. It wasn't just the moneyu-but the freedom to be and do what you wanted to be which comes part and parcel with Judeo Christianity.

Not to mention a general distaste fro Biblical law. I don't think the women who are raped should be forced to marry their rapists. I don't think the women who don't have a hymen when they marry should be killed, nor that they should carry the burden of proof to establish they did. I don't think we should stone to death people who work on Saturday. I don't think we should allow Jews to convert others, but stone others who attempt to convert you (particularly considering how many people you consider non-Christian). I don't think we should kill children for cursing their parents, I don't think we should forbid women from having jobs with authority, and I don't think we should stone homosexuals, psycics, mediums, and people with statues.

Well then Jerry , why don't you leave the Old Testament and the rules God handed down for the theocracy of Israel while they were in the land and come over to the New Testament and look at the laws God has required for His people to live under and see if they don't make for a greatr society.

Though the thought that you might want these does make stoning you seem like a good idea.

Presumption based on your false stereotypes is sad.

[JerryLove]

Yes I do for they all follow the whims and ephemeral wishes of their leaders.

Discrimintory language from someone who does the same. Their base book is the Bible, just like yours... and they then listen to others interprete it, just like you have.

Nope, won't bite at that piece of falderol. I am just trying to make sure that your inaccurate concept of Christianity is not even implicitly accepted in this argument.

Straw-man, I don't have the concept you ascribe to me. What is at issue is your claim the people with subjective values behave more poorly than those with objective values. A claim you have only even attempted to support anticdotally.

Well public sahcools are government run and you are against religion by the staff of schools

In their roll as government employess yes, I am opposed (as I *just* said) to religion in government. I am not (as you falsely claimed) opposed to religion in public.

Yeah it led America to greatness until secularism took over and has destroyed the very heart and soul of this once great society.

We stopped committing genocide on the indians, invading mexico, and warring upon ourselves? Damn secularists.

If America were so lousy why did (and still do though that number is declining) people flock to this nation in numbersa far greater than any other nation.

What are you babbleing about? Who said America was lousy.. are you just trying to red-herring the argument again?

It wasn't just the moneyu-but the freedom to be and do what you wanted to be which comes part and parcel with Judeo Christianity.

Wow, I'd love to see you tie those two together; considering how your position is the imposition of Christian morality. Tell me how much freedom people who get execudted if they work on Saturday will have?

Well then Jerry , why don't you leave the Old Testament and the rules God handed down for the theocracy of Israel while they were in the land and come over to the New Testament and look at the laws God has required for His people to live under and see if they don't make for a greatr society.

Because I have one Christian after another here puhing OT, but OK.. NT rules for government...

Oh, there are no rules for government in the NT... just rules for Christians. I guess the bible agrees with me then.

Presumption based on your false stereotypes is sad.

Which presumption is that? That I can read the Bible successfully? Your enire attempt at redirect is simply pathetic.