If God gave us free will, why do his followers try to take it away?

[haughty]

I have been reading a lot about the new Pope and it seems we actually agree.

He thinks that his religion should not change to mollify "Cafeteria Catholics" and I agree. He also thinks that if you don't follow his religion then you are not following the true religion. I disagree with his believe, but I respect his devotion to it.

Seems to me he is saying get on board with us as we are or get out. I am for that, though I will be on the out. So, since the new pope seems promotes free will, and I am entrenched in free will - be can be bros.

Ok, that said, here is my dilemma:

The way I understand it, god gave us free will so that we could choose to follow him. Based on that, when laws are enacted that force people to follow his doctrines, does that not violate his initial intention?

[DrunkCajun]

I certainly think so. While there are some things that I certainly feel should be law for reasons of protecting the rights of others (ie, following the basic idea that as long as my actions don't infringe upon your rights or freedoms, they're okay), there are many that I think have no place in the laws of our earthly governments (laws restricting homosexual marriage, for example).

As far as I'm concerned, the arguments I hear coming out of groups trying to push religious beliefs into law regarding this issue boil down to "yes, but some people don't know any better and need the law to prevent them from sinning, so those of us who do know better are protecting them." I hate to call it arrogance, but from where I'm standing it looks a lot like it.

I'm definetly open to hear the other side, though.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I believe what's at stake here is not a removal of will for all people, but rather a truth value statement regarding said doctrine. No human being can be forced to assent to a particular creed, as you mentioned (the "out"). However, By putting the doctrine in clearly defined terms, as it is in scripture, one is making that choice clear. So in essence, he affirms freedom of will, rather than suffocates it.

[Daedric]

Most of what I was going to say was already stated by AoA, in more words, lol. :happy34:
That said, I am going to comment on this:
I certainly think so. While there are some things that I certainly feel should be law for reasons of protecting the rights of others (ie, following the basic idea that as long as my actions don't infringe upon your rights or freedoms, they're okay), there are many that I think have no place in the laws of our earthly governments (laws restricting homosexual marriage, for example).
Even ignoring religion, homosexual marriages whould not be allowed for several reasons, these two among ones I have off the top of my head:
1. It changes the definition of marriage, and lowers the standard/reputation of being married.
2. Homosexual marriages do not benefit society in general.

Marriage is between a man and a women, or in some areas of the world, between a man and multiple women and vice-versa. In most western societies however, the former is usually the case. By changing marriage to include homosexual people, the bar is set to a new level. Because two homosexual people love each other doesn't mean they need to be married. Love is not what makes marriage necessary. If love is all that is necessary for marriage, then what is to prevent other people with psychological problems getting married to say, a dog? Other animals, children, inanimate objects? This is why two people that love each other shouldn't necessarily be able to marry each other. Setting as fact that love--->marriage opens up a pandora's box of new, awkward possibilities that just aren't right.

It is known that often times governments 'favor' married people by giving tax benefits/breaks to them. Why is this? The government feels that nuclear families contribute to society. They bring children into the world, participate in the neighborhood with other families and their children, send them to school, and heck, they even have to invest money on them through various products such as clothing, etc and thus help out the local businesses and economy. But homosexual couples do not nearly bring the same level of contribution to society as heterosexual ones do, and neither would a man married to a parrot, cardboard box, on and on...

You can look at humanity as a whole on this, and take for example the animal kingdom. How does a homosexual squirrel contribute to the species' population, let alone its own genetic line? Or any animal?

I am not saying that homosexual people do not contribute at all to society, and should not exist, but rather that society should not have to bend its values and way of life towards the psychologically impaired.

[haughty]

breathe...breathe...breathe

[Daedric]

lol...if you insist.. :rolleyes:

[DrunkCajun]

Most of what I was going to say was already stated by AoA, in more words, lol. :happy34:
That said, I am going to comment on this:

Even ignoring religion, homosexual marriages whould not be allowed for several reasons, these two among ones I have off the top of my head:
1. It changes the definition of marriage, and lowers the standard/reputation of being married.
2. Homosexual marriages do not benefit society in general.

Marriage is between a man and a women, or in some areas of the world, between a man and multiple women and vice-versa. In most western societies however, the former is usually the case. By changing marriage to include homosexual people, the bar is set to a new level. Because two homosexual people love each other doesn't mean they need to be married. Love is not what makes marriage necessary. If love is all that is necessary for marriage, then what is to prevent other people with psychological problems getting married to say, a dog? Other animals, children, inanimate objects? This is why two people that love each other shouldn't necessarily be able to marry each other. Setting as fact that love--->marriage opens up a pandora's box of new, awkward possibilities that just aren't right.

It is known that often times governments 'favor' married people by giving tax benefits/breaks to them. Why is this? The government feels that nuclear families contribute to society. They bring children into the world, participate in the neighborhood with other families and their children, send them to school, and heck, they even have to invest money on them through various products such as clothing, etc and thus help out the local businesses and economy. But homosexual couples do not nearly bring the same level of contribution to society as heterosexual ones do, and neither would a man married to a parrot, cardboard box, on and on...

You can look at humanity as a whole on this, and take for example the animal kingdom. How does a homosexual squirrel contribute to the species' population, let alone its own genetic line? Or any animal?

I am not saying that homosexual people do not contribute at all to society, and should not exist, but rather that society should not have to bend its values and way of life towards the psychologically impaired.

I'm not going to turn this into a debate on homosexual marriage, because that's not what it was meant to be, but I want to reply to a few things before moving on.

Inter-racial marriages also changed the standard Western definition of marriage. People of color were until recently considered a sub-species of humans and as such it was "unnatural" and "wrong" and "lacking contribution to society" for a white person to wed with a person of color. That argument lacks any traction.

Just because a government "favors" something for a reason does not make it an authoritative judgement on the matter. The government "favors" those with more money depending on how you look at the income tax system.

Re: the fact that "normal" married couples contribute to society in ways that homosexual couples, as you allege, cannot. By your logic, then, someone who cannot reproduce because of a birth defect, injury sustained during their life, or simply choose not to should not marry either because they aren't contributing to society. How about a drunk, unemployed uneducated man who beats his wife and children and forces his wife to strip or prostitute to keep him with a steady supply of booze and his cable turned on. What does that marriage contribute to society? Merely being able to reproduce is not the defining factor for marriage unless you live in Swaziland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3630800.stm)

Squirrels? We're not squirrels. Again, by your logic someone who chooses never to get married serves no purpose to the race, becaues a squirrel that doesn't reproduce "fails" at its life goal. So by that logic a religious leader such as the pope is equally lacking in societal contribution. I'm sure you'll agree that reproduction is not the only way people can contribute to society, and as such, your squirrel comparison is flawed.

The funny thing about the society bending its ways argument is that society is made up by everyone. Believe it or not, that includes homosexuals. Society does in fact bend all the time, and changes over time as people and humanity changes.


At any rate, to give a different example to try and get this back on track. How about we take up one of the commandments and apply it to law. How bout that one about bearing false witness? Shall we make not telling the truth against the law? And I'm not talking about in front of a judge and jury, or while being interrogated by the authorities. I mean in daily life, like, if I tell my fiancee I'm stepping outside to grab the mail and in reality my motivation to get the mail is so I can sneak a cigarette in and I'm caught, should that be punishable by law? It's a sin to lie, but is it realistic to want it to be a law as well? How about when your child asks you about how she got there at the age of 4?

See where I'm going with this? There is a place for religion and a place for law, and it's not the same place.

Moreover, who's religion do you apply? Which one do you choose to enforce? What happens to those that believe differently? Not to mention the idea of separation of church and state...

[haughty]

How about a drunk, unemployed uneducated man who beats his wife and children and forces his wife to strip or prostitute to keep him with a steady supply of booze and his cable turned on.

Daddy!!! :happy65:

[haughty]

I will not respond to the homosexual marriage topic. I am working hard to remember that "I don't agree" != "stupid and wrong"

That is exactly what I dig about this topic. Me and the Pope are totally different and yet, I am a-ok with him and his followers living life as they see fit. And it sounds like he is ok with me doing the same. Sure, I won't get into heaven, but that is my CHOICE. I love choice.

While the ragin' cajun has a given a good example, I was thinking on much more basic terms. I had to wait till noon to get a beer on Sunday. Ghastly little law that is. Made me think of liquor laws, which led to drugs, which inevitably led to prostitution. Finally, I stopped at the anti-sodomy law here in Texas.

God says sodomy is wrong (I guess), and god says I need to choose him through free will. But his followers felt it necessary to take it to legislation. Why? Was his decree not enough? Was denial of heaven insufficient?

[neosonichdghg]

"The government "favors" those with more money depending on how you look at the income tax system."

I knew it! I said years ago that someone would eventually say this and no one believed me. I said "someday this will all be really ridiculous and someone will complain about discrimination against poor people". And no one listened. Ah hah!

Well, that just makes my day. I'm done now.

[Daedric]

I'm not going to turn this into a debate on homosexual marriage, because that's not what it was meant to be, but I want to reply to a few things before moving on.
Sounds good, but I get my rebuttal.

Inter-racial marriages also changed the standard Western definition of marriage. People of color were until recently considered a sub-species of humans and as such it was "unnatural" and "wrong" and "lacking contribution to society" for a white person to wed with a person of color. That argument lacks any traction.
That example lacks any traction, unless, of course, you still believe that. We are all still considered human beings regardless of color. And amazingly enough, bearing offspring with someone of color still yields a human being.
By your logic, then, someone who cannot reproduce because of a birth defect, injury sustained during their life, or simply choose not to should not marry either because they aren't contributing to society. How about a drunk, unemployed uneducated man who beats his wife and children and forces his wife to strip or prostitute to keep him with a steady supply of booze and his cable turned on. What does that marriage contribute to society? Merely being able to reproduce is not the defining factor for marriage unless you live in Swaziland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3630800.stm)
Sure, but taking the extremes of any case can be a counter to anything. Of course heterosexual marriages can lack contribution and can even be bad for family members. Marriages aren't 'perfect', and shouldn't be expected to be either. Marriages aren't all equal, either, so not all will have equal amounts of contribution to society. Now, you tried to find a basis for where heterosexual marriages can not contribute, but what you didn’t do was show an example where homosexual ones contribute in any way, shape or form. Now, for another extreme scenario, let’s take this for example. Suddenly everyone on the planet decides that homosexuality is the way to go. What will this bring to the human race? On the other hand, say everyone decides to be heterosexual. On defining what is good situation and what is a bad one, which of these cases is a good one for the human race? Which is bad? This shows the ultimate, important contribution to the world by two people – the bringing of another person into this world. It’s how humanity lives on through countless generations.
I'm sure you'll agree that reproduction is not the only way people can contribute to society, and as such, your squirrel comparison is flawed.
Obviously it isn’t the only way. I don’t deny that. But what does the union of two homosexual people do for society (in general, not specific cases)? It isn’t as outreaching to society as that of a nuclear family(in general), doesn’t contribute towards the family tree(because it’s the end of the line), and isn’t as involved in the community relative to all the branches of people a nuclear family’s is. It tends to be a more private and closed relationship, and therefore less contributing.
The funny thing about the society bending its ways argument is that society is made up by everyone. Believe it or not, that includes homosexuals. Society does in fact bend all the time, and changes over time as people and humanity changes.
Agreed, but a vast majority of people shouldn’t have to give in to a tiny majority who want something changed purely to benefit themselves, not others.

At any rate, to give a different example to try and get this back on track. How about we take up one of the commandments and apply it to law. How bout that one about bearing false witness? Shall we make not telling the truth against the law? And I'm not talking about in front of a judge and jury, or while being interrogated by the authorities. I mean in daily life, like, if I tell my fiancee I'm stepping outside to grab the mail and in reality my motivation to get the mail is so I can sneak a cigarette in and I'm caught, should that be punishable by law? It's a sin to lie, but is it realistic to want it to be a law as well? How about when your child asks you about how she got there at the age of 4?
Lying should not be punishable law, unless under oath or to a police officer of course, simply because there is no possible way it could be enforced. First of all, there is no true way to observe a lie. Sure, we can see facial expressions and other body language that imply lying, but that does not necessarily mean they are(beyond reasonable doubt) lying. Even lie-detector machines aren’t 100% accurate because they are simply based upon how the person reacts to a question. There’s no way every human being is going to walk around with a lie detector on, and even then, people will find a way to beat the system. Also, there’s this thing (in America anyway) called “innocent until proven guilty.” You can’t bring someone to a courtroom and have material evidence proving they lied, and expect a jury to decide guilty/innocent. And last, the sheer amount of lies that go on in a given day would have court date waiting lists of decades from when you committed the crime. Not to had to figure that one out.

And for the age 4 thing, it’s hard to call that lying, simply because the average 4-year old would have no way of understanding/grasping the concept of sex. Their attention span would probably fade pretty quickly through your explanation, anyway.

[DrunkCajun]

Okay, just gonna touch on a few things to at least tell you where I stand, and I swear we're done with the issue. I'll try to make them comments that don't need rebuttal, and I'm really not trying to get the last word.

Now, you tried to find a basis for where heterosexual marriages can not contribute, but what you didn’t do was show an example where homosexual ones contribute in any way, shape or form.

We'd have to define societal contribution. Homosexuals work productive jobs, pay taxes, and spend money just like everyone else. So from an economic standpoint, they contribute just as much as anyone else. Being a couple or not has nothing to do with it, and shouldn't. Married people don't necessarily contribute more to society than non-married people. To sound right-wing for a moment, what does a family of 8 living off of welfare contribute to society besides dragging it down and turning out 6 kids far more likely to get into drugs and crime than kids from productive families of 4? Another extreme example, but my point is that merely having children does not suddenly make you a hero to humanity. Being able to raise and educate and care for children properly comes closer to that, and as of yet in my life I haven't seen anything to convince me that two gay men or two gay women can't do that just as well as a straight man and a straight woman. Considering how many orphans are out there in need of a safe household capable of loving them and raising them, I can see plenty of benefits from couples that don't have children of their own.

Now, for another extreme scenario, let’s take this for example. Suddenly everyone on the planet decides that homosexuality is the way to go. What will this bring to the human race? On the other hand, say everyone decides to be heterosexual. On defining what is good situation and what is a bad one, which of these cases is a good one for the human race? Which is bad? This shows the ultimate, important contribution to the world by two people – the bringing of another person into this world. It’s how humanity lives on through countless generations.

This depends what you think the point of humanity being here is. Remember that not everyone is religious and believes whatever it is a particular religion states we're here for. As far as a lot of people are concerned, we're here by accident and there's no reason to feel that the human race dying off will mean time grinds to a halt. Races have come and gone on this planet, and presumably will continue to. Moreover, if racial extinction were such a concern, we'd be a lot more aggressively trying to disarm those nukes that are sitting all over the place. Besides, if we're making decisions now based on what's good or not for the human race, we'd have banned smoking globally, banned drinking, ensured that wars never happened, have been working harder at a cure to AIDS, not be opposed to teaching people to use condoms for HIV prevention, etc. etc. etc. I'm not convinced that everything governments and people do is to further the good of humanity, so until that day comes, I'm afraid I can't really take this point as valid for this debate.

Anyway, if there are so many religious people out there who would never do it, what are you worried about? The non-religious people would die off, and those of you who followed your religion would thrive.

Agreed, but a vast majority of people shouldn’t have to give in to a tiny majority who want something changed purely to benefit themselves, not others.

You make it sound like the only people who are in support of this idea are homosexuals, and moreover homosexuals are a tiny fraction of our population. I'm sure that the former isn't true, and I don't really know about the latter, but I'm not sure it's safe to assume either way.

By the way, I'm straight as can be and engaged to be married to a lovely young girl. I'm also completely in support of gay marriage. It doesn't really have any impact on me, does it? How does it harm me? How does it infringe upon my rights as a citizen of this country? Those are the fundamental questions I have to ask myself with issues like this, and I can't really come up with an answer for either that holds water. Is there any reason based on the Constitution and legal precedents of our country that shows how gay marriage somehow infringes upon the rights of others?

Lying should not be punishable law, unless under oath or to a police officer of course, simply because there is no possible way it could be enforced.

There's no possbile way to completely obliterate the drug trade, either, but the US government tries and I don't see a majority of people calling that a fallacy. For that matter, there's no way to completely enforce anything, but that doesn't stop us from outlawing things and trying to enforce those laws.

You can’t bring someone to a courtroom and have material evidence proving they lied, and expect a jury to decide guilty/innocent. And last, the sheer amount of lies that go on in a given day would have court date waiting lists of decades from when you committed the crime. Not to had to figure that one out.

There was also, at least until recently (like the last 50 years, lets say), to prove that a woman was forced to engage in sexual relations with a man reliably in court, but that didn't mean that it was left out of the laws of our country and that we didn't try to enforce it. We may have failed to enforce it effectively, but the country still tried.

And for the age 4 thing, it’s hard to call that lying, simply because the average 4-year old would have no way of understanding/grasping the concept of sex. Their attention span would probably fade pretty quickly through your explanation, anyway.

Regardless, I don't see anywhere in the 10 commandments that makes an exception for people who might not understand. Thou shalt not bear false witness seems pretty clear to me. I probably shouldn't falsely state that my kid was delivered on a stork, even if it is the only real explanation they're going to accept and understand at the time, because at the end of the day it isn't true.

That's a major problem with legislating religion. There are so many ways to interpret religion and religious writings that it's impossible to find the appropriate interpretation to make everyone happy. Look at how many different religions are out there based just on the Bible and Jesus Christ! Hundreds. And each has its own set of interpretations of God's word, the Bible, and how we should treat it. Which do you legislate? Doesn't that automatically set you up for failure because you're going to infringe upon someone's beliefs or interpretation of the Bible? While most religions are going to understand that telling a 4 year old a white lie about something isn't going to send you to hell, you might find some extremist interpretations that do.

[Daedric]

Being able to raise and educate and care for children properly comes closer to that, and as of yet in my life I haven't seen anything to convince me that two gay men or two gay women can't do that just as well as a straight man and a straight woman.
Two lesbians raising a young male causes the problem of the boy not having a proper "father figure" and won't necessarily know how to act as a male. Likewise, a young female being raised by two males won't have a "mother figure" as a role model to guide her. Even children being raised by parents the same sex as them have the problem of not having an opposite sex "role model" while growing up, and may have problems seeing that the opposite sex behaves much differently than they do.
This depends what you think the point of humanity being here is. Remember that not everyone is religious and believes whatever it is a particular religion states we're here for.
I wouldn't say that the human race largely dying off within several generations due to a hypothetical widespread homeosexuality craze necessarily requires a religion to decide whether it's a good or bad thing.
Is there any reason based on the Constitution and legal precedents of our country that shows how gay marriage somehow infringes upon the rights of others?
Not that I know of, but I don't believe that an individual doing drugs necessarily always hurts the rights of others, either, but I wouldn't use that a basis for saying it's "ok."
There's no possbile way to completely obliterate the drug trade, either, but the US government tries and I don't see a majority of people calling that a fallacy. For that matter, there's no way to completely enforce anything, but that doesn't stop us from outlawing things and trying to enforce those laws.
Obviously not, but the drug trade isn't abused anywhere on the same level. I doubt we have billions of people trafficking(sp?) drugs often times more than once a day per person. Also, how can you prevent a lie from coming out of somebody's mouth? You can't, for instance, put border patrols up, do cavity searches, and have dogs sniff people for lies. Try to be realistic. To prevent a lie you need to first be able to prevent them from talking what is on their mind. So, everyone needs to take truth serum (Kill Bill Vol. 2) and be on drugs 24/7. Moreoever, arresting liars would mean that the prison has to be as large as Earth itself (or the punishment very minimal), because everyone lies at some time or another. And still, there is no way to 100% detect a lie, let alone have detectors on every single person, and be able to respond effectively to the crime. So even if a lie was punishable, and therefore detectable, it couldn't be enforced.
There was also, at least until recently (like the last 50 years, lets say), to prove that a woman was forced to engage in sexual relations with a man reliably in court, but that didn't mean that it was left out of the laws of our country and that we didn't try to enforce it. We may have failed to enforce it effectively, but the country still tried.
Unfortunately, semen and blood samples cannot prove a lie. Neither can any kind of DNA, or even brain cells 100%. Some people lie so much they believe themselves. And analying brain tissue or having an MRI to decide whether they were lying or not seems like a pretty big deal.
That's a major problem with legislating religion.
I don't think it should be. Neither do most people, even among Christians such as me.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

God says sodomy is wrong (I guess), and god says I need to choose him through free will. But his followers felt it necessary to take it to legislation. Why? Was his decree not enough? Was denial of heaven insufficient?

What kind of legislation do you refer to? Do you have some text I can look at, I may be able to offer a better reply.

[DrunkCajun]

Alright, for the record I'm going to drop the gay marriage part so we can move on with the debate--we're not going to change anyone's minds there.

Not that I know of, but I don't believe that an individual doing drugs necessarily always hurts the rights of others, either, but I wouldn't use that a basis for saying it's "ok."

Alright, so we've moved a step away from the you don't infringe upon my rights and it's kosher stance. Can you try and verbalize to me why you feel, then, that drugs should be outlawed? There are some convincing arguments out there that say legalization would eliminate the violence associated with the drug trade, and regulation of the substances by the government would reduce the number of overdoses. So why make it illegal?

Obviously not, but the drug trade isn't abused anywhere on the same level. I doubt we have billions of people trafficking(sp?) drugs often times more than once a day per person.

Regardless, that's not justification for letting something slide if it is truly considered something that should be outlawed. Look at it from a legal perspective. You can't enforce one thing using the justification that "we're enforcing all religious values as law" and turn around and say "except that one because we don't like it". You either enforce them all or undermine the credibility of those you choose to enforce.

Also, how can you prevent a lie from coming out of somebody's mouth? You can't, for instance, put border patrols up, do cavity searches, and have dogs sniff people for lies. Try to be realistic. To prevent a lie you need to first be able to prevent them from talking what is on their mind. So, everyone needs to take truth serum (Kill Bill Vol. 2) and be on drugs 24/7. Moreoever, arresting liars would mean that the prison has to be as large as Earth itself (or the punishment very minimal), because everyone lies at some time or another. And still, there is no way to 100% detect a lie, let alone have detectors on every single person, and be able to respond effectively to the crime. So even if a lie was punishable, and therefore detectable, it couldn't be enforced.

Again, does not mean that you shouldn't make it against the law. There are any number of things that can be done in this day and age over the internet that are nearly impossible to stop or trace, and yet we still try to enforce them and outlaw them.

Unfortunately, semen and blood samples cannot prove a lie. Neither can any kind of DNA, or even brain cells 100%. Some people lie so much they believe themselves. And analying brain tissue or having an MRI to decide whether they were lying or not seems like a pretty big deal.

I was making the comparison to forcible sex trials, say, in 1880. You didn't have access to any of that technology or science back then, but forcing a woman to have sexual relations with you was not legal in 1880 because the legislators threw up their hands and declared that there was no way to prove with 100% certainty that it happened one way or the other.

I don't think it should be. Neither do most people, even among Christians such as me.

Alright, well for one thing you'd have to do it elsewhere. Religious law and the US government as we know it don't mesh too well.

So then, say you've set yourself up an island somewhere in the south Pacific where all the religious people gather and want religious rule. You say it wouldn't matter which religion gets to run things? So if Osama bin Laden decides he wants his particular brand of psycho-Islamism enforced on the island, you'd be cool with that? What if Jehova's witnesses wanted their brand of religious law? Mormons? Buddhists?

There's no one-size-fits-all set of religious laws that apply evenly to everyone, unfortunately. Trying to legislate from your holy books, then, is guaranteed to stomp all over someone else's religious beliefs, persecute someone, and generally subject them to intolerance, which, paradoxically, my particular interpretation of Jesus Christ's words and teachings is very much against. So how do we reconcile that? What will be your source of laws?

[Raistlin Majere]

Even ignoring religion, homosexual marriages whould not be allowed for several reasons, these two among ones I have off the top of my head:
1. It changes the definition of marriage, and lowers the standard/reputation of being married.
2. Homosexual marriages do not benefit society in general.

My counter:

1. This could be a good reason. but reputation does not seem the issue alot of people care about.
2. It benifits the population by lowering the birthrate.

[Maullus]

What kind of legislation do you refer to? Do you have some text I can look at, I may be able to offer a better reply.

I'm not getting involved in this discussion. I'm not arguing for or against anything. But information was requested and I'd be remiss if I didn't attempt to oblige.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

That's an interesting site I just found with a great deal of information about sodomy laws in America, as well as around the globe. If you scroll down on that link I provided it has a list of the states that have laws that apply to Heterosexuals and Homosexuals, as well as states that have laws that only apply to Homosexuals.

Anyway, unless I am mistaken that's whay you're referring to.

Damn Sodomites! Feel my Rain of Fire! *sacrifices his Voidwalker* :happy34:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, I wasn't referring to sodomy. Haughty first brought up the notion of "the one religion" idea, and free will. I'll let her speak for herself.

[SpiritWalker]

Hm.. DrunkCajun seems to have explained the hypocracy in religion very well, I will rest myself from this thread as I have found a suitable replacement for myself to represent me here ;)

:happy34:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

SW's replacement?

:uhhuh:



In answer to the "why legislation" aspect.. A law cannot change what is in a person's heart. For instance, if a person is a "thief", no law against thievery can change that person's internal disposition, much like a sodomizer for instance. However, rules are enacted for the good of the people. What we do not only affects ourselves, but also affects others. Sometimes to do the right thing, we need help from external influences and authorities to give us added incentive to do the right and good where our own natures are lacking. In that sense, the help of legislation is a very good thing.

A question you may want to ask yourself Haughty (and those who can relate to her point), is "What is the purpose of laws"?

[Glurin]

I just have a comment concerning the original topic. Several years ago, my sister had a freind who was very devoted to her religion, or at least tried to be. One day, she brought over these tapes of hymes to listen to while doing homework with my sister. I have long since forgoten what the conversation was about, but somewhere along the line I made the comment that I didn't care much for that kind of music.

It wasn't that I hated religious music or something, it was just a comment about my taste in music. Her response was "Well thats too bad because this is the only music you can listen too in heaven." At this point, I simply said that it doesn't sound like heaven if you only get to listen to one kind of music which you may not even like. Her response to this was even better...

"When you get to heaven, God will make you like this kind of music."

I simply asked "Doesn't this negate the free will God wishes to give us?" :whistle:

She had no answer.

[DrunkCajun]

In answer to the "why legislation" aspect.. A law cannot change what is in a person's heart. For instance, if a person is a "thief", no law against thievery can change that person's internal disposition, much like a sodomizer for instance. However, rules are enacted for the good of the people.

For the most part, yes, laws are enacted for the good of the people. Can you explain to me, though, why engaging in sexual relations with my fiancee in one position or another can vary from legal to illegal depending on the state? How is that helping anyone? Is it bad for "the people" if we, as consenting adults and very much in love with one another choose to do something a certain way in our own bedrooms that neither harms anyone else nor ourselves? It may be defined as sodomy by one religion or another, but that may vary depending on who's interpretation of belief you subscribe to. So why is it an enforceable law (or was, in my state, until a few months ago)?

What we do not only affects ourselves, but also affects others. Sometimes to do the right thing, we need help from external influences and authorities to give us added incentive to do the right and good where our own natures are lacking. In that sense, the help of legislation is a very good thing.

So you're basically falling back on the argument I first outlined. We're not mature enough and intelligent enough beings to be able to do what is right on our own, and so another equally flawed human being has to make that decision for us and furthermore enforce it? So you're telling me that someone we elect in the general elections "knows better" than I or you do as far as what is right and what decisions I should make in the bedroom with my fiancee, and is protecting me? If God wanted me to be protected from those choices, he wouldn't have given me free will to begin with. Instead he gave us intellect and his Word to follow and interpret, and we are left to decide on our own how to interpret that Word and worship him. I reject the notion that I need Bill Frist to make those choices for me, sorry.

Moreover, that's the same argument that the Iranian government applies to it's methods, as well as the former Afghani government, the infamous Taliban. Is that really the model of government that we should be following?

A question you may want to ask yourself Haughty (and those who can relate to her point), is "What is the purpose of laws"?

Agreed, it is a good question, and one I asked of those insisting that laws should be there to ensure that no one violates religious beliefs. What do those laws exist for if not to protect our freedom and lives? As far as I'm concerned, that's what they're there for, not to tell me how to live my life and declare to me what is moral/legal and what is immoral/illegal. I can judge well enough what is immoral and moral based on my conscious and consultations with God and my religious leaders. The government and legal authorities exist to ensure some degree of order and freedom in my daily life, and to protect me from bodily harm. They are there to protect my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, within reason.

[haughty]

Wow, a few hours away and so much happens....

Daedric, thanks for letting homo marriage drop so the thread can continue on its original purpose.

AoA - I was referring to the Sodomy Law that Mallous (?) provided. And yes, I am thinking of the purpose of the law. That is precisely what I am considering. How is outlawing sodomy good for society? The only purpose behind this law that I can conceive of is to enforce religious beliefs. A lot of religions seem to be set on one man, one woman and missionary style. You know, sex for procreation only.

But I am not arguing the law, I have no doubt about what I believe on that particular law. I am just using it as an example. In America, the "moral majority" won the last presidential election based on promises to legislate morality. Since the majority of people that consider themselves part of the "moral majority" are christians, I want to know how they reconcile the difference between thier actions and what god's will.

Cajun - everything you say is right on the mark in my opinion. Still, I am waiting for someone who does not see this as a dichotomy. I know they exist, the proof is in the oval office.

[Daedric]

Can you try and verbalize to me why you feel, then, that drugs should be outlawed?
Because drugs are known to have negative effects on society as well as themselves. Drug addicts affect society negatively in somewhat the same way that I was saying earlier for homosexuals, in the fact that they contribute less to society. Having to go on rehabilitation using taxpayer money, recieve welfare because they cannot be hired, go to prison, etc, all because they "want to have a good time" is why it's made illegal. Addicts often just take from society, and don't give "anything" back.
Regardless, that's not justification for letting something slide if it is truly considered something that should be outlawed. Look at it from a legal perspective. You can't enforce one thing using the justification that "we're enforcing all religious values as law" and turn around and say "except that one because we don't like it". You either enforce them all or undermine the credibility of those you choose to enforce.
No, because you STILL aren't recognizing the impossibility of enforcing action against lying. Sure, you could get in trouble by fibbing around a person who is (unknown to you) recording everything you say, and there you would have evidence, but face it, trying to punish not telling the truth for the entire population is next to impossible. I agree that lying should be discouraged, and it is already frowned upon by almost all people, and it goes without saying that everyone knows lying is unfavorable unless there is some psychological disorder. Basically, telling the truth is an unwritten rule in society.
Again, does not mean that you shouldn't make it against the law. There are any number of things that can be done in this day and age over the internet that are nearly impossible to stop or trace, and yet we still try to enforce them and outlaw them.
Still, nothing is on the level of proving a lie, or trying to prevent them from doing so. For a person, say a witness to the crime of lying would have to be able to read the person's mind and testify to that. But then of course we run into the problem: Is the mind-reader biased and lying? Or the physicians who did tests on the person might be lying. It's an endless chain.
So if Osama bin Laden decides he wants his particular brand of psycho-Islamism enforced on the island, you'd be cool with that? What if Jehova's witnesses wanted their brand of religious law? Mormons? Buddhists?
No...because I already stated that I wouldn't want a religion-run governent neither do most other people. You seem to have some bias that leads you into thinking that religious people want their governments run that way.
Trying to legislate from your holy books, then, is guaranteed to stomp all over someone else's religious beliefs, persecute someone, and generally subject them to intolerance, which, paradoxically, my particular interpretation of Jesus Christ's words and teachings is very much against. So how do we reconcile that? What will be your source of laws?
Jesus never said that government should be run by the Church; in fact, there never even was a Church at His time. The Bible itself says to keep religion and government separate; I'll have to find the passage, but it's there. And source of laws? Most of the western world has patterned their laws after those of the Ten Commandments, so it's really not that far from what you're asking.

2. It benifits the population by lowering the birthrate.
Excuse me, but how does that benefit the population unless you have overpopulation? Using this logic, it would be good for China or India to have high percentages of homosexuals.

[DrunkCajun]

Because drugs are known to have negative effects on society as well as themselves. Drug addicts affect society negatively in somewhat the same way that I was saying earlier for homosexuals, in the fact that they contribute less to society. Having to go on rehabilitation using taxpayer money, recieve welfare because they cannot be hired, go to prison, etc, all because they "want to have a good time" is why it's made illegal. Addicts often just take from society, and don't give "anything" back.

Just for the record, I'm playing devil's advocate with some of this for the sake of the argument, so nothing personal at all.

We're back to the not contributing to society argument again. To me this is as much a straw man as the making lying illegal is on my part, because there is no quantifiable way to measure someone's "contribution" to society. It's also an extremely subjective thing--what one person feels is a contribution to society may not be regarded as such by another. While we can assume that 99% of everyone will agree that a drug addict does not contribute to society as much as an elementary school teacher, we still have no way of quantifying this. Alcoholics often fall into the same categories as you're describing for drug addicts, and yet alcohol and drinking is still legal, and in fact alcohol is distributed in small quantities at Catholic mass.

At any rate, if you can define a way in which we can acceptably quantify someone's contribution to society, I'll accept that argument. Until then, it doesn't really hold water in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that I've never seen it written anywhere in our laws that there's a required societal contribution we all have to meet. The way I understand it, if I want to quit my job and become a wandering nomad, so long as I don't break any laws in the process, I can not contribute to society all day long.

No, because you STILL aren't recognizing the impossibility of enforcing action against lying. Sure, you could get in trouble by fibbing around a person who is (unknown to you) recording everything you say, and there you would have evidence, but face it, trying to punish not telling the truth for the entire population is next to impossible. I agree that lying should be discouraged, and it is already frowned upon by almost all people, and it goes without saying that everyone knows lying is unfavorable unless there is some psychological disorder. Basically, telling the truth is an unwritten rule in society.

Oh, I very much recognize that it is nearly impossible to enforce. That said, we do manage to enforce purjury laws--Martha Stewart just learned that one the hard way. So in fact it is possible in some cases to enforce laws against lying, and as such it's not impossible to enforce. It's impossible to catch every speeder on the highway, and in fact often a police office will have to choose one car out of several that are speeding to pull over, but you don't see the government resigning to removing all speed limits from our road because they police can only catch a small fraction of speeders.

Still, nothing is on the level of proving a lie, or trying to prevent them from doing so. For a person, say a witness to the crime of lying would have to be able to read the person's mind and testify to that. But then of course we run into the problem: Is the mind-reader biased and lying? Or the physicians who did tests on the person might be lying. It's an endless chain.

Regardless, that doesn't make it okay in the Bible. If the debate here is about taking religious beliefs and making a legal system out of them, we couldn't very well leave one tenth of the commandments out because we couldn't figure out how to enforce it all the time. Impossible to enforce or not, it's still a sin.

No...because I already stated that I wouldn't want a religion-run governent neither do most other people. You seem to have some bias that leads you into thinking that religious people want their governments run that way.

Alright, well this may be where my assumption is getting the better of me, but I assumed that I was arguing against converting religious beliefs into law based on the argument presented at the beginning of this thread. I don't necessarily think that all religious people want their governments to be religious governments, but there certainly are any number of them out there (and even among those who are currently running the US government). I don't know where you stand on the issue, but it seems you don't feel that way--that's fine, in that case we agree. I don't feel that we should make religious beliefs into laws, period. Laws exist to serve a different purpose than religion, and mixing the two has dangerous possibilities.

At any rate, I think the idea of the thread was to debate whether or not we should allow religion to dominate government, so that's what I'm debating.

Jesus never said that government should be run by the Church; in fact, there never even was a Church at His time. The Bible itself says to keep religion and government separate; I'll have to find the passage, but it's there. And source of laws? Most of the western world has patterned their laws after those of the Ten Commandments, so it's really not that far from what you're asking.

Patterning laws after a general set of morals which are inevitably going to be influenced by the major religions is different from justifying a law because "the Bible says it's wrong so it should be illegal." I agree that most religions have influenced our cultural moral systems, although it's also arguable that the morals present in most major religions were present before those religions came about--they are all strikingly similar in nature, after all. Either way, influence and direct translation are very different.

And as far as passages are concerned, I think we can start with "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God things that are God's."


Excuse me, but how does that benefit the population unless you have overpopulation? Using this logic, it would be good for China or India to have high percentages of homosexuals.

Well here's another issue where I don't think we're going to make any headway, because some people (not sure where you stand, but based on your statement I'm making a guess), generally religious ones, believe that "the more the merrier" when it comes to procreation is the way to go. This is generally because of the Christian teaching that more children means more worshippers of God, so this is considered to be a good thing.

These days, however, with overpopulation reaching problematic levels in some places and threatening to become so in others, it is certainly arguable that a diminished reproduction rate would not be a terrible thing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

For the most part, yes, laws are enacted for the good of the people. Can you explain to me, though, why engaging in sexual relations with my fiancee in one position or another can vary from legal to illegal depending on the state?


THis point strays too far from our original topic.


So you're basically falling back on the argument I first outlined. We're not mature enough and intelligent enough beings to be able to do what is right on our own, and so another equally flawed human being has to make that decision for us and furthermore enforce it?


Legislation could only come if there was an a priori basis for the law. An authentic law could not come arbitrarily.


So you're telling me that someone we elect in the general elections "knows better" than I or you do as far as what is right and what decisions I should make in the bedroom with my fiancee, and is protecting me?


Again, "the good" is not subject to personal opinion, which is the cornerstone of your problematic.


If God wanted me to be protected from those choices, he wouldn't have given me free will to begin with.


None of us are totally free.


Instead he gave us intellect and his Word to follow and interpret, and we are left to decide on our own how to interpret that Word and worship him.


This is also inaccurate. The word of God is not to be interpreted on the basis of one's subjective reading, but through the Church. St. Peter writes, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.". (2Peter 1:20) Essentially, if you choose to favor yourself as the chief arbiter of scripture (as thousands of offshoot religions have done), you are creating truth, rather than discovering it. How will you know the "right interpretation"? By its fruits. If you are living in the power of the spirit, and in obedience to the Godhead, you're getting somewhere.


I reject the notion that I need Bill Frist to make those choices for me, sorry.


You shouldn't need one, nor should anyone. There is no such "bill" in canada, nor will there ever be. It doesn't affect me, since I take myself with me whever I go. However, I am saddened by the fact that children are being sucked into a black-hole culture thanks to a lack of truth perpetuated in culture. Laws will in turn be based around this (as they are in canada already), and I will be forced to live in a country of lies. It's a catch 22.


Moreover, that's the same argument that the Iranian government applies to it's methods, as well as the former Afghani government, the infamous Taliban. Is that really the model of government that we should be following?


Again, you take great liberty in your "argument" :p. Laws enacted, while for the good of the people, also agree with public consensus as to what is perceived to be the good. Within our system, rules change as general consensus changes. In this case, there could never be a system in place that would "outlaw" a given activity if the general populace found said activity to be agreeable. Laws will reflect the heart of a people.


Agreed, it is a good question, and one I asked of those insisting that laws should be there to ensure that no one violates religious beliefs. What do those laws exist for if not to protect our freedom and lives? As far as I'm concerned, that's what they're there for, not to tell me how to live my life and declare to me what is moral/legal and what is immoral/illegal.


What is it that teaches you how to live your life?


I can judge well enough what is immoral and moral based on my conscious and consultations with God and my religious leaders.


Wait now... we have a dichotomy... :ash: So first off (in continuation from my last question), we have the ability to discern objective moral platforms from one's "conscience". Then, we have that same ability coming from "consultations" with religious leaders lol.. What is a "consultation" with a religious leader? "Hmmm mr. Buddah, that seems to be reasonable, I guess I'll give that a go and see how I feel afterward". ^^. It may occur to you that you should rephrase that last sentance. Conscience is mutable. You can never decide what is truly moral and "right" based on using the self as a sole arbiter. Also, I'd be interested in hearing what you've learned from your "consultations with God".


The government and legal authorities exist to ensure some degree of order and freedom in my daily life, and to protect me from bodily harm. They are there to protect my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, within reason.

These concepts highlighted are doctrinal issues. Laws will be enacted to allow for the pursuit of these, but the foundations for said things will be the basis for those laws.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA - I was referring to the Sodomy Law that Mallous (?) provided. And yes, I am thinking of the purpose of the law. That is precisely what I am considering. How is outlawing sodomy good for society?


I did not come to argue for or against a specific law or laws, but rather point out to cajun some of the underpinnings for having laws. I suppose a law pertaining to sodomy in this day and age would be irrelevant. In a culture that embraced divine revelation and natural law however, such laws would only serve to reinforce what's been accepted.


A lot of religions seem to be set on one man, one woman and missionary style. You know, sex for procreation only.


As someone who is religious, I disagree with that statement. Sex is not for procreation only, nor are couples limited to just one boring position. I'd say that's an old cultural stereotyle. Sex is for unitive as well as procreative purposes - which is why its so damn good! Anyway, I'm sure that if we all rose above the platitudes and got to what's at stake in these issues, we'd be better off.

[DrunkCajun]

Woohoo! Now we have a debate fired up! *cracks knuckles*

I've been waiting for you to weigh in! :happy34:

THis point strays too far from our original topic.

Does it though? The original topic, as far as I understand it, boils down to whether or not we should legislate based on religious belief. Since someone's religious belief led them to believe that doggy-style (pardon my crudeness) was not morally sound, they outlawed it in my state (at least until a few months ago). Who does that protect?


Legislation could only come if there was an a priori basis for the law. An authentic law could not come arbitrarily.

Argh, latin. You're making me clear cobwebs out from my summer course on the Bill of Rights like 4 years ago. From what I recall, there is both a legal application for this and a philosophical one. Which are you referring to, the a priori referring to God's law, or referring to precedents set in, for instance, the US legal system?



Again, "the good" is not subject to personal opinion, which is the cornerstone of your problematic.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that the general collective good of society is not subject to personal opinion, which for the most part I agree with. However, it does not stop laws from passing that not everyone agrees with, or even that a majority of a society disagrees with. Politicians play a balancing game and have learned how to pass unpopular legislation without facing repercussions by flying it under the radar or packaging it in such a way as to distort its true intention.



None of us are totally free.

Agreed, but I don't see why I should let a government tell me how much of the free will that the Lord gave me I should be able to apply.



This is also inaccurate. The word of God is not to be interpreted on the basis of one's subjective reading, but through the Church. St. Peter writes, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.". (2Peter 1:20) Essentially, if you choose to favor yourself as the chief arbiter of scripture (as thousands of offshoot religions have done), you are creating truth, rather than discovering it. How will you know the "right interpretation"? By its fruits. If you are living in the power of the spirit, and in obedience to the Godhead, you're getting somewhere.

According to the Catholic interpretation. Ask a Protestant how they feel about this, AoA, and you'll get a very different answer. Again, this is part of the problem. One version of belief interprets something one way, and another interprets it a different way. If we are to all live together in relative harmony, we cannot expect to force one particular brand or another on everyone.

You shouldn't need one, nor should anyone. There is no such "bill" in canada, nor will there ever be. It doesn't affect me, since I take myself with me whever I go. However, I am saddened by the fact that children are being sucked into a black-hole culture thanks to a lack of truth perpetuated in culture. Laws will in turn be based around this (as they are in canada already), and I will be forced to live in a country of lies. It's a catch 22.

Define "truth". I can't let that one slide by, because if you're saying that your particular version of belief in God is "truth," you're going to be arguing with yourself, because I'm again looking at this from a societal perspective. Not everyone subscribes to the same brand of belief, and if we are going to cater to that fact, we can't all settle on the same thing. It may be sad and unfortunate that we can't make a lot of things that you find dangerous to the truth illegal, but as you said, you can take yourself with you whereever you go. If you feel like the children are being negatively impacted, work to do something about it. Canada is a democracy, and you are an intelligent person, surely you can get involved and try to spread the word and your beliefs just like anyone else can.

Again, you take great liberty in your "argument" :p. Laws enacted, while for the good of the people, also agree with public consensus as to what is perceived to be the good. Within our system, rules change as general consensus changes. In this case, there could never be a system in place that would "outlaw" a given activity if the general populace found said activity to be agreeable. Laws will reflect the heart of a people.

For the most part, AoA, they do agree with public consensus, but not all the time. Unfortunately we don't put every law up for referendum in this country or any other that I'm aware of, and as such we elect people who we them place trust in to create laws that we will be able to accept. That does not always happen.

What is it that teaches you how to live your life?

I don't see the relevance of that to this discussion.

Wait now... we have a dichotomy... :ash: So first off (in continuation from my last question), we have the ability to discern objective moral platforms from one's "conscience". Then, we have that same ability coming from "consultations" with religious leaders lol.. What is a "consultation" with a religious leader? "Hmmm mr. Buddah, that seems to be reasonable, I guess I'll give that a go and see how I feel afterward". ^^. It may occur to you that you should rephrase that last sentance. Conscience is mutable. You can never decide what is truly moral and "right" based on using the self as a sole arbiter. Also, I'd be interested in hearing what you've learned from your "consultations with God".

Again, I don't see the relevance of my personal beliefs to this discussion. Perhaps I should have worded my example differently. My point was that no one with a religious education (yourself, for example--you seem to be educated in the Catholic faith) needs the law to tell them how to act. You seem to know the Bible AoA. Do you need the law to interpret it for you?

These concepts highlighted are doctrinal issues. Laws will be enacted to allow for the pursuit of these, but the foundations for said things will be the basis for those laws.

Maybe I'm dense--I woke up late this morning and never really recovered. Explain to me a bit further how this is relevant to the fact that I don't feel like any religion should be written into law.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Woohoo! Now we have a debate fired up! *cracks knuckles*

I've been waiting for you to weigh in! :happy34:


I'm not sure that sits well with me.. I don't come here for the sheer joy of engaging in argument, or to "fire up a debate", and I'm not going to waste my words on someone who wishes to simply get their rocks off slugging it out in the intellectual arena. I would hope a person could treat of these things with some sincerity.


Does it though? The original topic, as far as I understand it, boils down to whether or not we should legislate based on religious belief. Since someone's religious belief led them to believe that doggy-style (pardon my crudeness) was not morally sound, they outlawed it in my state (at least until a few months ago). Who does that protect?


I believe that laws should be created by reference to critical reason.


Argh, latin. You're making me clear cobwebs out from my summer course on the Bill of Rights like 4 years ago. From what I recall, there is both a legal application for this and a philosophical one. Which are you referring to, the a priori referring to God's law, or referring to precedents set in, for instance, the US legal system?


Philosophical. I speak more of "natural law" rather than "God's law" for your sake, for I fear you may separate the two.


Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that the general collective good of society is not subject to personal opinion, which for the most part I agree with. However, it does not stop laws from passing that not everyone agrees with, or even that a majority of a society disagrees with. Politicians play a balancing game and have learned how to pass unpopular legislation without facing repercussions by flying it under the radar or packaging it in such a way as to distort its true intention.


We need only agree with the first part there. We don't live in a perfect society, but we should *strive* as individuals to do so by means of a push toward legislation based on truth, moreso than popularity.


Agreed, but I don't see why I should let a government tell me how much of the free will that the Lord gave me I should be able to apply.


There's always the option of moving.. You would think that if you were in agreement with the good, and if the good were "reinforced" through legislation, you would see it as a benefit, not a detraction from personal freedom.


According to the Catholic interpretation. Ask a Protestant how they feel about this, AoA, and you'll get a very different answer. Again, this is part of the problem. One version of belief interprets something one way, and another interprets it a different way. If we are to all live together in relative harmony, we cannot expect to force one particular brand or another on everyone.


Keep in mind that protestantism was not created by means of a correction of doctrine, but one of disobedience to the church, and willful arbitration. Scripture does not lend itself to multiple interpretation on the part of the practised intellectual and spirit filled person, but rather the opposite.


Define "truth". I can't let that one slide by, because if you're saying that your particular version of belief in God is "truth," you're going to be arguing with yourself, because I'm again looking at this from a societal perspective. Not everyone subscribes to the same brand of belief, and if we are going to cater to that fact, we can't all settle on the same thing.


I'm afraid I don't share your scepticism. I have mentioned earlier that truth is something which all can arrive at over time, and that this goal should be taken up by all people. Instead, we have thrown that idea out, and are our own ends now.


It may be sad and unfortunate that we can't make a lot of things that you find dangerous to the truth illegal, but as you said, you can take yourself with you whereever you go. If you feel like the children are being negatively impacted, work to do something about it. Canada is a democracy, and you are an intelligent person, surely you can get involved and try to spread the word and your beliefs just like anyone else can.


Canada is not a democracy, its a nigh totalitarianism under the guise of democracy. You can be as intelligent as you want, but culture here is very well entrenched. After all, I've been here over a year, and who has changed?


I don't see the relevance of that to this discussion.


I asked that because you were upset that legislation should teach you how to live. I offered that legislation does not teach you (or should not, rather), but culture and experience.


Again, I don't see the relevance of my personal beliefs to this discussion. Perhaps I should have worded my example differently. My point was that no one with a religious education (yourself, for example--you seem to be educated in the Catholic faith) needs the law to tell them how to act. You seem to know the Bible AoA. Do you need the law to interpret it for you?


Yes, I do need scripture to be interpreted for me, for the most part, by the Church. This does not detract from the personal reading I take from it, but rather that there are guidelines established that prevent an overtly unbalanced and subjective interpretation from taking hold. In terms of being "told how to act", you're told how to act since day one, but whatever influences surround you. There will always be influences and powers over you, but which ones? You're not free, ultimately. Who do you serve? All you can do is align yourself with the truth, or its opposite.


Maybe I'm dense--I woke up late this morning and never really recovered. Explain to me a bit further how this is relevant to the fact that I don't feel like any religion should be written into law.

Well as I mentioned earlier, I believe the best method would be the one Kant takes on it, whereas the philosopher would give power to the magistrates to enact laws based on reason. Ironically, religion does enter into this picture, provided it is the authentic religion, which can only agree and be promulgated by reason. Still, it would be enough to have laws based on reason alone.

[DrunkCajun]

I'm not sure that sits well with me.. I don't come here for the sheer joy of engaging in argument, or to "fire up a debate", and I'm not going to waste my words on someone who wishes to simply get their rocks off slugging it out in the intellectual arena. I would hope a person could treat of these things with some sincerity.

Well I find it unfortunate that you don't enjoy discussing issues with the intention of sharing the way you see something with me. Perhaps the reason you've not changed Canada in a year is your aversion to listening to others and then responding with your own opinions? In my experience the only way to help share your point of view with someone is by listening to them and then sharing your take on it with them. Which often leads to debate.

And if you're not going to waste your words on someone who wants to debate, then what are you doing here? You sure said a lot in that post.



I believe that laws should be created by reference to critical reason.

Philosophical. I speak more of "natural law" rather than "God's law" for your sake, for I fear you may separate the two.

We need only agree with the first part there. We don't live in a perfect society, but we should *strive* as individuals to do so by means of a push toward legislation based on truth, moreso than popularity.

There's always the option of moving.. You would think that if you were in agreement with the good, and if the good were "reinforced" through legislation, you would see it as a benefit, not a detraction from personal freedom.

Keep in mind that protestantism was not created by means of a correction of doctrine, but one of disobedience to the church, and willful arbitration. Scripture does not lend itself to multiple interpretation on the part of the practised intellectual and spirit filled person, but rather the opposite.

I'm afraid I don't share your scepticism. I have mentioned earlier that truth is something which all can arrive at over time, and that this goal should be taken up by all people. Instead, we have thrown that idea out, and are our own ends now.

Soooo, basically the way you see it, anything that doesn't mesh with the Catholic faith is against the truth, and as such should be ignored or outlawed. Sounds like a truly tolerant perspective, huh? Last I checked the word "Catholic" meant universal. Has that changed?

At any rate, you really don't have a place in the debate if your position is so immutable that you're going to sit there and say any position that isn't yours is wrong in so many words. We're then reduced to beating our heads against a brick wall for several dozen pages of the thread until we lose interest with it, and in the process don't manage to ever discuss the issue at hand, which is not a referendum on religion but whether or not governments should be secular or not.

Canada is not a democracy, its a nigh totalitarianism under the guise of democracy. You can be as intelligent as you want, but culture here is very well entrenched. After all, I've been here over a year, and who has changed?

:rolleyes: Yeah. Totalitarianism. The government represses ideas, speech, expression, contrary viewpoints, rigs the votes, rules by decree...well, you get the point. If Canada's a totalitarian government, perhaps all the joking we do down here about invading to make it the 51st state should be taken more seriously. After all, we should free our oppressed neighbors.

I asked that because you were upset that legislation should teach you how to live. I offered that legislation does not teach you (or should not, rather), but culture and experience.

I agree that culture and experience should teach me. Both can exist independent of the law, believe it or not.

Yes, I do need scripture to be interpreted for me, for the most part, by the Church. This does not detract from the personal reading I take from it, but rather that there are guidelines established that prevent an overtly unbalanced and subjective interpretation from taking hold.

So how would you feel if an overzealous Catholic managed to get legislation passed that required the Church in your country to interpret scripture a certain way in order to prevent those "wrong" Protestants from continuing to spread their heathen messages? Any other interpretations would be outlawed and punishable by law because someone decided to legislate based on religion.

In terms of being "told how to act", you're told how to act since day one, but whatever influences surround you. There will always be influences and powers over you, but which ones? You're not free, ultimately. Who do you serve? All you can do is align yourself with the truth, or its opposite.

Oookay. So you're saying that it's a good thing to go ahead and add to that list since there are already influences out there? Seems like an "I don't think my parish and parents should have to do the work of helping me to learn by experience, I want the government to just do it for me" attitude. So for you the government isn't there to protect you, it's there to tell you what to do it seems. Moreover, where does the line between government and Church get drawn? Or do we start attending masses in federally-sponsored buildings and read Bibles printed on federal dime? Doesn't that scare you just a little, AoA? If it does not, you have way too much faith in governments and the people who run them.

Let me add another point. If we start allowing the government to make law based on religion and interpretations of religion, we open up a very dangerous Pandora's box. Even if you believe, as seem to (correct me if I'm misunderstanding), that Catholicism is the only way and all other religions should be banned anyway because they aren't the "truth", why would you trust an authority other than the Vatican to start ruling by decree? You're going to take power away from the Church eventually, as those men and women (or would it be just men?) ruling would eventually begin to slip their own mistaken or slightly different interpretations of the scripture into law, and suddenly we're going to have the government dictating religion to us rather than us having the freedom to worship the way our Church teaches us to.

Before you come back at me with the argument that all Catholic interpretations should be indentical, let me note that I've been to Catholic mass in several different parts of this country, as well as in other countries, and have heard very different interpretations of the scripture. I've had one priest preach fire and brimstone and eternal torture and a vengeful God and another preach about a forgiving God and merciful God. Both were Catholic priests, both had different perspectives on it. So if it's happening within the Church, it's bound to happen with legislators.

PS--have you ever read The Handmaiden's Tale (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038549081X/qid=1115408229/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-0471321-1447328?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well I find it unfortunate that you don't enjoy discussing issues with the intention of sharing the way you see something with me. Perhaps the reason you've not changed Canada in a year is your aversion to listening to others and then responding with your own opinions? In my experience the only way to help share your point of view with someone is by listening to them and then sharing your take on it with them. Which often leads to debate.

And if you're not going to waste your words on someone who wants to debate, then what are you doing here? You sure said a lot in that post.


I enjoy debate, but when the parties involved are debating towards a goal, not simply for the sake of getting into an argument, as your initial post suggested.


Soooo, basically the way you see it, anything that doesn't mesh with the Catholic faith is against the truth, and as such should be ignored or outlawed. Sounds like a truly tolerant perspective, huh? Last I checked the word "Catholic" meant universal. Has that changed?


That's quite a leaping assertion, and is not a position that I hold. As you recall, I posited the notion that laws should come by means of reason alone. Assertions like these stem from someone wishing to provoke debate for its own sake.


At any rate, you really don't have a place in the debate if your position is so immutable that you're going to sit there and say any position that isn't yours is wrong in so many words. We're then reduced to beating our heads against a brick wall for several dozen pages of the thread until we lose interest with it, and in the process don't manage to ever discuss the issue at hand, which is not a referendum on religion but whether or not governments should be secular or not.


Nobody mentioned immutibility.


:rolleyes: Yeah. Totalitarianism. The government represses ideas, speech, expression, contrary viewpoints, rigs the votes, rules by decree...well, you get the point. If Canada's a totalitarian government, perhaps all the joking we do down here about invading to make it the 51st state should be taken more seriously. After all, we should free our oppressed neighbors.


I live in a nation where the government does indeed repres certain ideas. In fact, during the recent cabinet vote on same sex marriage, opposition backbenchers were told to "take a walk" that day. Please don't treat my posts with sarcasm, or I will simply avoid you in the future.


I agree that culture and experience should teach me. Both can exist independent of the law, believe it or not.


Not as independent as you'd like to believe I'm afraid. Rules shape culture by defining boundaries and instilling psychological norms. They shape culture.


So how would you feel if an overzealous Catholic managed to get legislation passed that required the Church in your country to interpret scripture a certain way in order to prevent those "wrong" Protestants from continuing to spread their heathen messages? Any other interpretations would be outlawed and punishable by law because someone decided to legislate based on religion.


I make no argument against the separation of church and state, and in fact, I posted that in reply to Haughty. So, before you go "cracking your knuckles", acquire a target first. BTW, protestants and catholics are very similar on most things, and the same on fundamental tenets.


I've had one priest preach fire and brimstone and eternal torture and a vengeful God and another preach about a forgiving God and merciful God. Both were Catholic priests, both had different perspectives on it.


Yes, and some priests are pedophiles. That does not change the tenets of the Church.

[MixedVariety]

That does not change the tenets of the Church.

No? Those tenets are interpreted for the individual by these representatives of the Church, are they not? Or did you not really mean that you need the assistance of the Church in interpreting the scripture? Because in DC's examples, you would get extremely opposing tenets; one promising mercy and salvation, another vengeance and punishment for human weakness.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No? Those tenets are interpreted for the individual by these representatives of the Church, are they not? Or did you not really mean that you need the assistance of the Church in interpreting the scripture? Because in DC's examples, you would get extremely opposing tenets; one promising mercy and salvation, another vengeance and punishment for human weakness.


The tenets of the church are maintained by the "magisterium" of the church. It is the "hope" of the magisterium that the fundamental and immutible tenets would be promulgated through the priests and bishops. Having said that, it is good to cross reference the teachings of priests with what comes strait from the vatican. In any case, there is certainly no shortage of texts outlining these tenets from the official teaching office of the Church. Having said all that, it is also up to the individual to take initiatives on his or her own part to seek the truth, which does involve becoming familiar with these channels, but stops at an arbitary interpretation of Scripture.

[MixedVariety]

Interestingly, although ambiguously, put. The individuals must seek out the truth in the proper places--indeed, are responsible for doing so--but must fall short of actually interpreting this truth themselves once they locate it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Interestingly, although ambiguously, put. The individuals must seek out the truth in the proper places--indeed, are responsible for doing so--but must fall short of actually interpreting this truth themselves once they locate it.

If they do locate it, the interpretation would have been made by the individual.

[haughty]

I put my questions out here so that I can get an intelligent answer from people that feel differently about things than myself. I realize that not everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and I am really trying to understand the reasons for the beliefs people have. No one here ever really gets there though. Posts are so often hijaaked by humor, hatred or extreme intellectual articulation. <sigh>

Hmmm... well the closest I came to an answer was from AoA who said that the laws "reinforce" god's rules. I can see how reasonable intelligent people would want to reinforce their beliefs by making the laws of their country reflect those beliefs.

Problem is, it is my country too...

[MixedVariety]

I put my questions out here so that I can get an intelligent answer from people that feel differently about things than myself. I realize that not everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and I am really trying to understand the reasons for the beliefs people have. No one here ever really gets there though. Posts are so often hijaaked by humor, hatred or extreme intellectual articulation. <sigh>


Perhaps, then, the next time you start a thread, you can inform us ahead of time as to your desired answer or preferred method of debate, so we can deliver it to you in a nice, neat package.

Honestly, your original question is interesting, but I have no answer for you. If there is a God, I am certainly not privy to His innermost intentions. I cannot, a mere human, presume to judge Him.

It does seem, though, as if some laws nullify the concept of free will, yes?

[Daedric]

We're back to the not contributing to society argument again. To me this is as much a straw man as the making lying illegal is on my part, because there is no quantifiable way to measure someone's "contribution" to society. It's also an extremely subjective thing--what one person feels is a contribution to society may not be regarded as such by another. While we can assume that 99% of everyone will agree that a drug addict does not contribute to society as much as an elementary school teacher, we still have no way of quantifying this. Alcoholics often fall into the same categories as you're describing for drug addicts, and yet alcohol and drinking is still legal, and in fact alcohol is distributed in small quantities at Catholic mass.

At any rate, if you can define a way in which we can acceptably quantify someone's contribution to society, I'll accept that argument.

Well, I'm sure you've heard of community service, which can in fact, be measured in the number of hours done by a person. From this it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that someone who has done 100 hours of community service over X time has made more of a contribution to the community than someone who has done 4 hours over the same X time interval.

Also, alcohol isn't illegal because it can be a drink for special occasions, and simply drinking a few glasses probably won't put you over the legal limit or even get you drunk. On the other hand, a relatively small amount of drugs can easily "incapacitate" someone. Also, people can easily overdose and kill themselves if they don't know what they're doing. Basically, drugs are so much more dangerous than alcohol is.

And linking drunks and drinking to the Church is a terrible thing to compare. People in Church aren't there for communion to get drunk (or at least I hope not :uhhuh: ). It's only to people above legal age (kids get grape juice), served in very small quantities, and it's not vodka.

[DrunkCajun]

Well, I'm sure you've heard of community service, which can in fact, be measured in the number of hours done by a person. From this it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that someone who has done 100 hours of community service over X time has made more of a contribution to the community than someone who has done 4 hours over the same X time interval.

Perhaps, but I'd argue it's still subjective. How do you quantify the impact of someone's contribution who spends 100 hours educating children about parental abuse and what to do in those situations versus someone who picks up trash for 100 hours?


Also, alcohol isn't illegal because it can be a drink for special occasions, and simply drinking a few glasses probably won't put you over the legal limit or even get you drunk. On the other hand, a relatively small amount of drugs can easily "incapacitate" someone. Also, people can easily overdose and kill themselves if they don't know what they're doing. Basically, drugs are so much more dangerous than alcohol is.

You clearly know very little about this topic. I challenge you to find me a single case of someone overdosing from marijuana ingestion.

Having experimented personally with a laundry list of drugs in various quantities, mixtures, and circumstances, you're going to need to come at me with some numbers and scientific data. Sorry, but I've had several years of extensive personal experience with a number of substances, so I'm not talking out of my rear end. You can easily overdose and kill yourself with alcohol just as much as you can on drugs. The difference is that drugs are more dangerous because they're not regulated by the government and so there is no way to know what you are really ingesting.

And linking drunks and drinking to the Church is a terrible thing to compare. People in Church aren't there for communion to get drunk (or at least I hope not :uhhuh: ). It's only to people above legal age (kids get grape juice), served in very small quantities, and it's not vodka.

By the way, I got wine at communion when I was under age. Not sure where you got the grape juice thing. I also served as an altar boy, and don't remember ever filling a separate chalice with grape juice for kids.

[haughty]

Perhaps, then, the next time you start a thread, you can inform us ahead of time as to your desired answer or preferred method of debate, so we can deliver it to you in a nice, neat package.
Perhaps it is unfair of me to expect a certain mode of debate, but I actually try to formulate my questions in a way that keeps the topic on course to what I want to know. That is why I post after all.

You see, I am not interested in hearing the same recycled opinions. There is no shortage of people willing to spout opinions, myself included.

I am trying to slice deeper than that. I can only be truly tolerant when I understand why intelligent people maintain certain beliefs that are wholly alien to me. Since the forum has a lot of intelligent posters, it makes sense to me to ask here.

The response has strayed away from my intent, and I am indeed trying to turn it back. No apologies for that.


It does seem, though, as if some laws nullify the concept of free will, yes?
This is not under dispute. Certainly laws infringe upon free will. Whether people feel that is good or bad is of no interest to me, I already know that some approve and some disapprove.

I want to know WHY people who believe in god, AND believe he gave us free will, feel comfortable limiting that will.

[DrunkCajun]

haughty, if you have a problem with the way in which we are attempting to get to some answers to your question, you'd be well-served to read Plato's Republic. Sometimes it takes hundreds of pages of tangents to get back to what one would assume is a series of simple conclusions and answers.

[haughty]

haughty, if you have a problem with the way in which we are attempting to get to some answers to your question, you'd be well-served to read Plato's Republic. Sometimes it takes hundreds of pages of tangents to get back to what one would assume is a series of simple conclusions and answers.

I understand what your saying Cajun, and you are right of course. Deep questions require deep thought.

I have no "problem" with the way in which you are debating, I simply do not prefer it. Again, just because I don't like something does not mean it is wrong.

I know AoA is working on a masters in philosophy, which is very impressive. But as a result he spends more time than the average person entrenched in books and thought. He is brilliant, and you clearly are as well. But I cannot always follow your conversation as it is too intellectual. Your fault? Not at all. A weakness on my part to be certain, but one that is not going to change.

[Sage the Mage]

I want to know WHY people who believe in god, AND believe he gave us free will, feel comfortable limiting that will.
Because free will enables evil. God cannot prevent evil, else there wouldn't be free will, so in reality its only humans that can do it.

[haughty]

Because free will enables evil. God cannot prevent evil, else there wouldn't be free will, so in reality its only humans that can do it.

What I understand you to say is that God did not really want to give us free will, but he could not prevent doing so. Am I getting that right? Is that a common religious interpretation of free will?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yeesh.. free will is probably the "final frontier" of all problematics. At this stage I can't speak with authority on it as I do many other things since I haven't got it figured out yet (but that's not to say that it couldn't be figured out). We don't have a radical free will. That is to say, we are limited as our beings in themselves, and in time and space. We are lower on the "being hierarchy" than God or greater beings, like angels for instance. We are greater than animals and plants however. Freedom comes with the nature of being. However, there is a degree of freedom within that context I believe, but even that freedom is guided by something. For instance, all seek happiness - why? We are enslaved to seeking fulfillment and happiness. We want to "return to our creator", to speak figuratively. Anyway, I'm still thinking about that one, and hope to someday have some concrete answers.

[neosonichdghg]

Seems to me that God gave us free will to do with whatever we like. We have collectively used that free will to construct a system where (ideally) no one infringes on certain agreed-upon rights. It's not that we want to suppress free will, we're just altogether making the decision (which we can do because we have free will) to protect the majority of people the majority of the time.

If I'm wrong, say so. If I'm right...I don't know...just don't flame me.

And if you think I'm completely stupid, just ignore me and move on.

If you're AoA and you think I'm completely stupid...Well, relatively I probably am.

[haughty]

That is a pretty sharp answer neosonichdghg.

To take it a step further, god provided free-will so that we could decide to choose him as our savior and lord. He did not offer an opinion on free-will in terms of behavior as such, but rather removed free-will regarding specific behavior by laying tenents against those behaviors.

That would mean my original definition of free-will was too broad. Do other christians here agree with this spin?


If you're AoA and you think I'm completely stupid...Well, relatively I probably am.
Relative to AoA, we are all undereducated, though I do not believe that any of us are stupid. :surprise:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

For the record, nobody called anyone "stupid" lol.. Also, an education doesn't always necessarily indicate high intelligence, but rather knowledge (but of course it does indicate *some* intelligence lol).


but rather removed free-will regarding specific behavior by laying tenents against those behaviors.


Hmm.. not sure where you're going with this. A person "can" do whatever their humanity allows, but most of all, what their character will allow them to do. Anyway, you'd have to present a position on free will in point form - too much confusion for us to take it any further here.

[MixedVariety]

Relative to AoA, we are all undereducated, though I do not believe that any of us are stupid. :surprise:

That, I must say, is a hasty, and potentially offensive, unconsidered opinion. There are those of us here who have completed our educations, obtained degrees, and actually done some amazing thinking and accomplished some real goals in our lives so far. You judge people you do not really know, harshly, by elevating someone else you also do not really know, above them.

Do not confuse verbosity and deliberate obfuscation with intelligence, for your own sake.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That, I must say, is a hasty, and potentially offensive, unconsidered opinion. There are those of us here who have completed our educations, obtained degrees, and actually done some amazing thinking and accomplished some real goals in our lives so far. You judge people you do not really know, harshly, by elevating someone else you also do not really know, above them.

Do not confuse verbosity and deliberate obfuscation with intelligence, for your own sake.

Your first point had merit, but I sincerely hope that last sentance of yours was not a jab at me. You're in no position to accuse me of deliberate obfuscation.

[Sage the Mage]

What I understand you to say is that God did not really want to give us free will, but he could not prevent doing so. Am I getting that right? Is that a common religious interpretation of free will?
Ye old theory is that free will is a greater good than anything, so its better than not free will. I'm just reiterating stuff I learned years ago, obviously.

Your first point had merit, but I sincerely hope that last sentance of yours was not a jab at me. You're in no position to accuse me of deliberate obfuscation.
I am! But its more of a "that's how all philsophers talk" thing. I'd guess to make everything have more weight. However, you have improved over the year or so.

[MixedVariety]

Your first point had merit, but I sincerely hope that last sentance of yours was not a jab at me. You're in no position to accuse me of deliberate obfuscation.

I named no names, and perhaps the word 'deliberate' was too strong. At any rate, what I was trying to do was warn haughty not to make hasty assessments -- especially about people -- until he is sure of his facts. It was not intended as a jab.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I am! But its more of a "that's how all philsophers talk" thing. I'd guess to make everything have more weight. However, you have improved over the year or so.

Hehe, a philosopher tries to get away from rhetorical twists, letting the content of his words provide the weight.

I named no names, and perhaps the word 'deliberate' was too strong. It was not intended as a jab.

*clutches wound* :whistle:

[haughty]

hasty assesments?? I am a woman, not a man.... :D

[Fast Eddy]

I have been reading a lot about the new Pope and it seems we actually agree.

He thinks that his religion should not change to mollify "Cafeteria Catholics" and I agree. He also thinks that if you don't follow his religion then you are not following the true religion. I disagree with his believe, but I respect his devotion to it.

Seems to me he is saying get on board with us as we are or get out. I am for that, though I will be on the out. So, since the new pope seems promotes free will, and I am entrenched in free will - be can be bros.

Ok, that said, here is my dilemma:

The way I understand it, god gave us free will so that we could choose to follow him. Based on that, when laws are enacted that force people to follow his doctrines, does that not violate his initial intention?

What laws are you referring to?

Generally speaking, laws do not compel a person to do anything. They simply impose some sort of punishment for the illegal action. If you consider Jesus' life, he wasn't very concerned with the punishment. His message was clearly that one should do as he (and/or God) says, not as the "law" says.

When you combine that message with some of the other strange things suggested in the bible, it's clear why religious finatics are kind of scary sometimes.

[Eiger]

Okay, just gonna touch on a few things to at least tell you where I stand, and I swear we're done with the issue. I'll try to make them comments that don't need rebuttal, and I'm really not trying to get the last word.



Hehe - you really thought that he wasn't going to reply? Just pokin fun. (sometimes I wish mods would just delete such obnoxious hijacks - we've seen this one argued how many times? Ooh also the evolution one is another one - far more entertaining in its idiocy though) :happy34:

[MixedVariety]

hasty assesments?? I am a woman, not a man.... :D

My wife is a woman, too. I'm not sure I know what you mean.

[PlagueBearer]

What laws are you referring to?

Generally speaking, laws do not compel a person to do anything. They simply impose some sort of punishment for the illegal action. If you consider Jesus' life, he wasn't very concerned with the punishment. His message was clearly that one should do as he (and/or God) says, not as the "law" says.


Nope. Better read it slower, Fast Eddy; the laws of Moses still apply, just with two qualifications: first love God, then love thy neighbor, THEN follow the law. And when you do it, make sure only one hand does it at a time.

And don't throw rocks unless you're sinless, which you're not, so don't.

But the upshot of all that is that you still have to follow the law of Moses.


To the original question: laws don't strip anyone of free will. You can always CHOOSE not to follow them. And then deal with the consequences. As Fast Eddy stated.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Nope. Better read it slower, Fast Eddy; the laws of Moses still apply, just with two qualifications: first love God, then love thy neighbor, THEN follow the law. And when you do it, make sure only one hand does it at a time.


In addition, scripture also says that all the commandments are fulfilled in the new law as PB stated. Incidentally, if you love God fully, you'll end up doing (and will have the capacity to do) all the other stuff anyway.

[haughty]

My wife is a woman, too. I'm not sure I know what you mean.

I was referring to your hasty assessment that I was a man. You referred to me in the masculine while accusing me of making hasty assessments of the others in the forum when I don't really know them.

[haughty]

To the original question: laws don't strip anyone of free will. You can always CHOOSE not to follow them. And then deal with the consequences. As Fast Eddy stated.

Certain laws, such as making it illegal to purchase beer on sunday, do strip me of my free-will as I am unable to purchase beer on sunday in Texas whether I want to follow the law or not.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Certain laws, such as making it illegal to purchase beer on sunday, do strip me of my free-will as I am unable to purchase beer on sunday in Texas whether I want to follow the law or not.

Go to the store on saturday.. O.o

[DrunkCajun]

Go to the store on saturday.. O.o

That's not the point. The point is that the law does strip someone of free will in this case. If I wake up on Sunday and get a call from the office saying work's cancelled Monday, and decide I want to enjoy a beer or 3 with my dinner that night, I'm SoL if I don't have a stock of beer already on hand.

And blue laws were put in place for religious reasons. To prevent immoral behavior on religious days. From wikipedia:

A blue law, in the United States and Canada, is a law restricting activities or sales of goods on Sunday, which had its roots in accommodating Christian Sunday worship...

PS AoA, sorry about the misunderstanding earlier on--I think I misread one of your posts and combined with a bad day I took it the wrong way. My apologies.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's not the point. The point is that the law does strip someone of free will in this case. If I wake up on Sunday and get a call from the office saying work's cancelled Monday, and decide I want to enjoy a beer or 3 with my dinner that night, I'm SoL if I don't have a stock of beer already on hand.


Lol, thanks for pointing that out Einstein! :bigclap: :p. The thing is, she had no free will to begin with. A person can harp about the fact that their will is limited in not being able to go to the booze store at 4 am, or harp about the fact that their will to fly is limited by the absense of having wings. We're not entirely free. Nobody can ever do what they want, or will what they want. THat's where Nietzsche goofed up - you can will to power all you want, but you're just creating an illusion. Not being able to go to the store on sunday has nothing to do with free will, or a lack thereof. It's not will, but rather one's available options.


And blue laws were put in place for religious reasons. To prevent immoral behavior on religious days. From wikipedia:


Now for the technical part. The law was never "To prevent immoral behavior on religious days" lol.. No law can ever do that haha. The law was to help remind people to be mindful of "the sabbath". Those who recognize God usually recognize a "sabbath" day, in which one can take time from other temporal affairs to be refreshed in the presence of God more fully. Since we live in a culture of practical atheism now, its natural that prayer is replaced with "fleshy" activities (and no, fleshy doesn't just mean sex, it can be any activity that's not done in the spirit). Of course, a law that is ordered to *regulate* culture in helping them to know God better would be frowned upon by an atheist or agnostic. That law is already gone in Candada (at least ontario). And now since those laws are gone, the reversal takes place, whereas people of budding faith are subject to the pull of a lesser means of fulfillment. There will always be laws to regulate culture - it's just a matter of what kind of culture is to be promoted.


PS AoA, sorry about the misunderstanding earlier on--I think I misread one of your posts and combined with a bad day I took it the wrong way. My apologies.

Buh? :scratch:

[Sage the Mage]

And now since those laws are gone, the reversal takes place, whereas people of budding faith are subject to the pull of a lesser means of fulfillment.
So there's a 1 drink minimum in Canada on Sundays?

[haughty]

Go to the store on saturday.. O.o

I do go on saturday, but i need to go AGAIN on Sunday ;)

No, seriously what Cajun said....

[Mastgrr]

Blue laws exist in Sweden. Heck, I'd say it's even more common here than in the US, but with a difference I explain below. Sunday's here basically everything is closed except food markets, even the government run (monopoly) drug stores! Why is this? Sweden was founded as a christian country (just look at the flag (http://www.roofingbynyberg.com/images/se-flag-01-vert.gif)) and we have strong christian traditions in our way of life. First and last day of school is in church. The state and church didn't separate until very recently, in 1999. All of our swear words and curses are synonyms of the word "devil" and "hell".

Difference here is that there is no law prohibiting anything to be open. There is no government regulation on this practice. In other words, it's all common practice by society. If you believe that your store should be open on a Sunday, let it be that way. If you are traditional and don't want it to be open on a Sunday, let it be that way. Despite this, most store owners have their stores closed on that day.

There are very few social conservatives in Sweden, which is the reason I suspect that these things are not established by law. My personal opinion is that I think that is great. If the people like the tradition, they keep it. If not, they discard it and progress. There's no reason to slap it in to a law and force everyone to believe in it. It'll only upset people who see no moral obligation for it.

[Blackmoon]

Blue laws exist in Sweden. Heck, I'd say it's even more common here than in the US, but with a difference I explain below. Sunday's here basically everything is closed except food markets, even the government run (monopoly) drug stores! Why is this? Sweden was founded as a christian country (just look at the flag (http://www.roofingbynyberg.com/images/se-flag-01-vert.gif)) and we have strong christian traditions in our way of life. First and last day of school is in church. The state and church didn't separate until very recently, in 1999. All of our swear words and curses are synonyms of the word "devil" and "hell".

Difference here is that there is no law prohibiting anything to be open. There is no government regulation on this practice. In other words, it's all common practice by society. If you believe that your store should be open on a Sunday, let it be that way. If you are traditional and don't want it to be open on a Sunday, let it be that way. Despite this, most store owners have their stores closed on that day.

There are very few social conservatives in Sweden, which is the reason I suspect that these things are not established by law. My personal opinion is that I think that is great. If the people like the tradition, they keep it. If not, they discard it and progress. There's no reason to slap it in to a law and force everyone to believe in it. It'll only upset people who see no moral obligation for it.
Hitting the nail on the head with this one. I live in the neightbor country (Finland) and it's pretty much the same here. To be honest, often while reading this thread I've thought "what's all the fuzz about?". This country has been christian for hundreds of years (850 to be exact if we use the commonly acknowledged date of the first crusade as start up) that these things seem normal to me. Stores are closed and sunday. Nothing amazing in that.

But.... I'm not a christian. I was raised as one though, so it might bias my views abit, but still... I do not believe in christian teachings. Still I don't feel that my "freedom of will is being stripped" from me or that my "beliefs are being offended". Sure, there's a church twice a school year in every, normal school around here, but I -for example- don't need to take part in that as a non-christian. Sure, public funded schools teach religion, but I wouldn't need to take part in that either. Instead I'd receive some philosophical teaching. I did take part in the religion lessons though, for pure interrest. Teaching was highly objective and more along the lines "christians believe in this and that" instead of "as christians we must believe in this and that". Not brainwashing, but educating.

The funny part of all this is that a bit over 80% of the Finns belong to lutherian church. Still 90% christians I've met and talked with (a rough estimate without any statistical backing) are more along lines of atheism and agnosticism than their religion. So even though christian habits are common, they don't mean much to people. Stores are closed on sundays. To most people it's not because bible or church says so, but it's because it has been so for 850 years. Just like Mastgrr said.

Now that I look at this post, I have no idea what's it about and what's the point of it. I suppose I just wanted to bring in a view on the issue from another culture encouraged by Mastgrr. I suppose I wanted to say that as a nature-loving heathen/pagan/wiccan/whatever who lives among a religion that in many ways is total opposite, I don't feel very offended

... umm... I'll be quiet now. :scared:

[MixedVariety]

I was referring to your hasty assessment that I was a man. You referred to me in the masculine while accusing me of making hasty assessments of the others in the forum when I don't really know them.

I re-read my post and it seemed pretty genderless to me, but whatever... you are correct in that I had thought of you as being a male. For two reasons: most of the people who post in the OTF forums, to date, are males; and I recalled some post or another of yours in which you referred to 'your girl', which, with my intolerant background (I stress intolerant background, not intolerant outlook), made me think of you as male.

My apologies for an unintentional (and pretty unimportant, really) gaffe.

Edit: Sorry for the hijack, so to my own remarks about free will:

Free will is bound by the interactions of people as a social animal. You are free to decide on any number of things that don't affect anyone else adversely. You are also free to commit any number of unsocial behaviours, but you must expect repercussions from those you have offended.

As far as God's followers taking free will away from us, well...I suspect that if their religion is a true one, and that is really what they are doing, they will have a nasty surprise awaiting them at the end when their souls are assessed for eternity.

If blue laws are affecting your free will in some way, you also have the free will to decide to move elsewhere, to a place without such laws.

[DrunkCajun]

If blue laws are affecting your free will in some way, you also have the free will to decide to move elsewhere, to a place without such laws.

I think this misses the point, as does AoA's post. Mastergrr said it quite well--it's fine and dandy if that's what society wants to do, and in the case of Sweden, as he claims, stores voluntarily follow this practice. That's awesome. That's freedom. That's the government not imposing religion on the people, but letting the people decide for themselves what set of morals to follow. Saying I have the free will to move elsewhere is accepting the idea that government should hamper our free will.

What I'm getting at with that example is that it's a needless law. For those who wish to honor the sabbath, don't open your liquor stores, don't go buy booze! :happy34: Why should an atheist liquor store owner be forced to honor the sabbath because the Christians who wrote the laws feel that he or she should? That doesn't really make sense to me.

Let me say this--I'm not one of those people who thinks that schoolkids shouldn't be allowed to talk about Christmas in December. That's a bunch of hogwash. I think they should learn about Christmas, the Jewish holiday that falls in the same time period which I'd rather not try and butcher the spelling of, Kwanzaa, and whichever other religious holidays I'm forgetting because the Christian-influenced public school systems in Texas that taught me in my youth didn't acknowledge.

What I don't agree with is the notion that those who don't believe should be forced to honor things they don't believe in. I don't believe that they should be legally bound to a set of beliefs to which they do not subscribe, because this is not a religious state.

Let society choose. Let Christians exercise their free will and decide not to open their stores on Sunday. Hell, you might even find people more willing to listen to your beliefs if you're tolerant of theirs. The last thing people want is to have beliefs shoved down their throat, and least of all by the law.

Meh. Got a little soap-boxy there. It's a Monday morning.

And AoA, I was referring to my misperception that I had offended you earlier in either this thread or the other one bouncing around here. Can't remember which since both have taken a similar direction. At any rate, yeah. No biggie.

PS--I think I've said it before, but I want to say it again. To me, sin exists almost as a test. Temptation exists, but we are, in theory, strong enough to find our way around it. For times that we fail in our humanity and stumble, we may confess our sins and be forgiven. I don't know, maybe this is me taking Christianity the wrong way, but if I show up at St. Peter's gates and have a list of sins to account for, but can say that while I struggled and sinned in my lifetime, I can see the error of my ways and have repented and sought the mercy and forgiveness of my savior, Jesus Christ, I'm going to feel like I'm in a better position that if I go up there knocking with a clean sheet because I was chained to a bed and fed through a tube all my life while having the Bible read to me. What temptation did I overcome if I was never exposed to it? Where do we draw the line in insulating ourselves from the potential to sin?

[Valas Azuviir]

Let me say this--I'm not one of those people who thinks that schoolkids shouldn't be allowed to talk about Christmas in December. That's a bunch of hogwash. I think they should learn about Christmas, the Jewish holiday that falls in the same time period which I'd rather not try and butcher the spelling of, Kwanzaa, and whichever other religious holidays I'm forgetting because the Christian-influenced public school systems in Texas that taught me in my youth didn't acknowledge.



Hannukkah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah) is one of the acceptable spellings. There are multiple versions though. ;)

Other feasts are Yule/Winter Solstice and Ramadam (latter is variable due to the Islamic calender, which is lunar based as opposed to solar based as is its western counterpart.)

[Fast Eddy]

Nope. Better read it slower, Fast Eddy; the laws of Moses still apply, just with two qualifications: first love God, then love thy neighbor, THEN follow the law. And when you do it, make sure only one hand does it at a time.

And don't throw rocks unless you're sinless, which you're not, so don't.

But the upshot of all that is that you still have to follow the law of Moses.


To the original question: laws don't strip anyone of free will. You can always CHOOSE not to follow them. And then deal with the consequences. As Fast Eddy stated.

There's clearly some confusion in this thread as to which "laws" are being referred to. That's why I began my post with, "which laws are you referring to?"

Also, you can still choose to disobey God's wishes, there's just punishment awaiting you if you do. Unless of course, you choose to ask for forgiveness. What a wonderful system!

I have no idea what you mean by: "And don't throw rocks unless you're sinless, which you're not, so don't."

If you don't think there are some strange and contradictory things written in either old or new testament, you're not reading it very closely.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

PS--I think I've said it before, but I want to say it again. To me, sin exists almost as a test. Temptation exists, but we are, in theory, strong enough to find our way around it.


What are humans that they can resist what comes natural to them? Sin isn't a test, it's a state. In addition, one cannot earn their way to their place in eternity.

[DrunkCajun]

What are humans that they can resist what comes natural to them? Sin isn't a test, it's a state. In addition, one cannot earn their way to their place in eternity.

Murdering people does not come natural to me. Perhaps it does to you.

I'm not sure I follow your second and third statements. Sins are acts people carry out. If you reject the act when faced with the temptation, walk away in the face of it, to me you have done the right thing.

Perhaps you should explain your last statement to me before we try to discuss it. For some reason your statement reads to me as something leaning towards predetermination and Calvinism, but I don't think that's what you meant by it.

Perhaps one cannot earn their way into heaven, but I certainly think one can earn their way into hell.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Murdering people does not come natural to me. Perhaps it does to you.


It would if the fundamental aspects of your life were threatened. Lord of the flies is a good example of human nature. #1 always comes first.


I'm not sure I follow your second and third statements. Sins are acts people carry out. If you reject the act when faced with the temptation, walk away in the face of it, to me you have done the right thing.


There are "sins" and then there is "sin". "Sins" are what follow from a heart in "sin". Being in sin is the state of not relying on God and his grace to fill your heart. Sins are the only actions capable of a person in that position.


Perhaps you should explain your last statement to me before we try to discuss it. For some reason your statement reads to me as something leaning towards predetermination and Calvinism, but I don't think that's what you meant by it.

Perhaps one cannot earn their way into heaven, but I certainly think one can earn their way into hell.

Jesus entered humanity to bring it to a new state of being - to erase "sin". Before that, humanity's collective state was that of sin. Due to its nature, hell was the only destination possible. Try to think of this in terms of "being".

[MixedVariety]

I think this misses the point, as does AoA's post.

I don't think so.
Definition, as I understand it: Free will is the doctrine that the conduct of a human being expresses personal choice rather than being predetermined or ordained by some outside source such as fate, divinity or Herman Munster.

Free will has nothing to do with laws. It is basically your will that is free; you are free to think what you want, and free to make every decision on your own. God provides you with the ability to choose for yourself, (with the added implicit warning that you would do well to choose wisely). They can be bad choices or good choices, but they are your choices.

Free will is not a promise that all is possible and all desires will be provided for. Liquor stores being closed on a particular day do not affect your free will.
Just because you feel one day that you should be able to fly like Superman, but can't, doesn't mean your free will is being suppressed.

Apples and oranges. There is nothing that mankind has done, as far as I'm concerned, to affect or suppress my free will. That I, and I alone, am the master of. I make all my own choices. If I can't buy alcohol on a particular day, all that means is my alcohol supply is being suppressed, not my free will.

[DrunkCajun]

AoA, thanks for clarifying that point. It makes more sense to me now.

I think killing in one's personal defense is a different matter, but then we get into translations of the Bible and whether or not the commandments mean "murder" or "kill". I still don't think killing comes natural to me on a daily basis. Perhaps if my life my loved ones were in danger, I'd be driven to that point, but in that case I would not walk away feeling as though I'd committed a mortal sin. If I walked out of my house tomorrow and killed the woman walking her dog, I'd define that as sin.

Regarding both of those points, then, it seems that we're arguing apples and oranges. MV, you do a good job of highlighting hte difference there.

While I still hold (very strongly) that legislation should not be based on religion, I will concede on the point that legislation does not infringe upon free will as the OP implies.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think killing in one's personal defense is a different matter, but then we get into translations of the Bible and whether or not the commandments mean "murder" or "kill". I still don't think killing comes natural to me on a daily basis. Perhaps if my life my loved ones were in danger, I'd be driven to that point, but in that case I would not walk away feeling as though I'd committed a mortal sin. If I walked out of my house tomorrow and killed the woman walking her dog, I'd define that as sin.


Yes there are degrees of severity. There can't always be peace, but we can do the best we can. The closer one comes to God, the less propensity one has to deal with life in terms of pragmatism. Your example of two types of killing is a good one though.

[Fast Eddy]

By definition, a written law is something that one can choose to break. Otherwise, why would there need to be a law to deter the act in the first place.

I've studied law in conjunction with philosophy, political science, religion, and science extensively. Part of the confusion over laws, and there's a ton, is because natural laws are so different in definition than written laws. A natural law is something that supposedly can not be broken. Or something to which there is no exception. Some good examples are the laws of motion, law of gravity, law of thermodynamics (? if I remember correctly). When the temperature of a gas rises, the pressure will also always rise. You can not raise the temperature without a corresponding rise in the pressure. It is physically impossible. That's the idea of a natural law, whether or not you agree with my example.

[DrunkCajun]

By definition, a written law is something that one can choose to break. Otherwise, why would there need to be a law to deter the act in the first place.

What about cases where the law has clamped down so effectively as to prevent one from having that choice? Is there still the free will to choose to do something if one can no longer do that thing anymore? Or when due to certain laws being in place there is no avenue through which someone can break said law?

Take a totalitarian state, for instance. It is illegal, say, in Cuba, to broadcast pro-democracy messages. Moreover, the government has absolute control over all broadcasts. How can you argue that it is merely a choice to break the law standing between a citizen and their ability to broadcast pro-democratic messages?

Perhaps this is a poor example--I'm on a deadline at work and not thinking entirely clearly, but I think that saying that outlawing something merely attaches a penalty to something rather than making it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out, is a fallacy.

If the government bans publication, distribution, and reading of the Muslim holy book, and all copies are hunted down and destroyed, how is one to make the free will decision to read it? I can no longer go out and purchase a copy, or go to my local Mosque and ask to learn about it. I no longer have the avenue via which to pursue my interest in the Muslim faith because the law has made it nearly impossible for me to find out about.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm all over the place. Too little sleep+too much caffeine+stress=a not-all-there DrunkCajun.

[MixedVariety]

I think you're in that apples/oranges area again, DC.

Free will is the ability to wish something for yourself, to plan something for yourself, and take action to the best of your ability, with no preordainment or pre-written script that dictates you do so.

It is not a guarantee that you will be able to do whatever you wish. Only that you can try if you like.

In Cuba, for instance, you have the free will to attempt to broadcast pro-democracy messages. You will probably get nowhere, and be swarmed over by storm troopers and killed, but you do have the choice to try if you like. They can't take that away from you.

Slaves had the free will to try to escape from their masters if they wished. They would probably be shot while escaping, or recaptured and be hung for it, but nothing inhibited their will to try.

Nothing inhibits a Muslim's free will to wish to read his holy book.

Free will is the individual's ability to make choices for him/herself, it is not a guarantee of success.

[DrunkCajun]

MV, I think I meant this as a tangent from the original debate on free will. I think I conceded the main point of the thread.

I was merely disputing FE's definition of a law being something that one can choose to break, or there would be no need for the law in the first place. If something has been obliterated from existence by a law, the law may still exist banning the use of said object, but if said object no longer exists, it does not mean that the law against using it no longer exists because there is no longer an available choice to use it.

[Fast Eddy]

What about cases where the law has clamped down so effectively as to prevent one from having that choice? Is there still the free will to choose to do something if one can no longer do that thing anymore? Or when due to certain laws being in place there is no avenue through which someone can break said law?

Take a totalitarian state, for instance. It is illegal, say, in Cuba, to broadcast pro-democracy messages. Moreover, the government has absolute control over all broadcasts. How can you argue that it is merely a choice to break the law standing between a citizen and their ability to broadcast pro-democratic messages?

Perhaps this is a poor example--I'm on a deadline at work and not thinking entirely clearly, but I think that saying that outlawing something merely attaches a penalty to something rather than making it significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out, is a fallacy.

If the government bans publication, distribution, and reading of the Muslim holy book, and all copies are hunted down and destroyed, how is one to make the free will decision to read it? I can no longer go out and purchase a copy, or go to my local Mosque and ask to learn about it. I no longer have the avenue via which to pursue my interest in the Muslim faith because the law has made it nearly impossible for me to find out about.

Does that make sense? Sorry if I'm all over the place. Too little sleep+too much caffeine+stress=a not-all-there DrunkCajun.

Your trying to put too fine a point in it, but I can appreciate that. If one can not violate a written law because of physical restraints, it is the physical restraints preventing one from violating the written law, not the law itself. I guess you could respond, well, let's just make a law prohibiting something that is physically impossible. But, such law would be hollow and useless. It is, in essence, prohibiting something that is prohibited by other factors already. The physics prohibit the action, not the law itself.

The original question concerns gods laws. These are laws we can either choose to obey or not, or at least that's the way the argument goes from the side of Christianity. I'm just saying, that is the generally accepted response to the question asked and I believe it makes sense.

[Arianamarie]

The important thing to remember is not all religions stress free will. A lot believe in predestination and that kind of stuff. Personally I say what ever the person chooses to do with his/her own life is fine by me. After all let he be without sin cast the first stone and do not judge least ye be judged

[Booms]

Wow, I so don't miss these threads.

But, umm, hi to everyone that was here when I was around, and have fun debating the same things over and over again. :happy34:

Oh, and I guess I'll say something so this post isn't completely off-topic (even though it's in the off-topic forume, hehe). Keep your religion out of everyone else's law. When it comes down to it, no one can prove that Christianity or any other religion is actually truth (despite what AoA might say), so no one has the right to attempt to impose their religion upon other people. Seperation of church and state ftw!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Now here's a face I haven't seen in a while.. Too many bleary-eyed nights in WoW I guess :p. For the sake of nostalgia...


Keep your religion out of everyone else's law.


While I don't argue for the merging of religion and state, I will say that religion, in whatever form, is entwined with any and all forms of governance, as its an aspect of the life of a culture.


When it comes down to it, no one can prove that Christianity or any other religion is actually truth (despite what AoA might say)


Hehe u should have taken heed grasshoppah! We can't prove God, but we can demonstrate the foundations for a suitable religion based on reason, and reference to a given revelation.


so no one has the right to attempt to impose their religion upon other people. Seperation of church and state ftw!

Well, as glurin and a few others have mentioned, there will always be an infulenced "imposed upon" a culture, be it religion or secular influences (in this day, its almost entirely secular humanism). But anyway, we tend to pay attention to what we want to..

[Galron Kincaid]

Hehe u should have taken heed grasshoppah! We can't prove God, but we can demonstrate the foundations for a suitable religion based on reason, and reference to a given revelation.




The same "reason" that gave place to amenities like the crusades and the inquisition?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The same "reason" that gave place to amenities like the crusades and the inquisition?

While reason iteself is immutible, there is no guarantee that its tenets are followed exclusively. In addition, those amenities you mentioned are not part of the creed of the faith.