Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
If God gave us free will, why do his followers try to take it away?
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?
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.
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
"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!
Linear Mode
