Reps and Religion?

[Alcon]

Because Christianity is the only right religion - and God commanded us to have some simple morals be applied to the government, so it's the government's job to push those morals on you.  Republicans believe those morals more often than Dems., so liberals get angry.

Let the angry comments begin...

Where does God say that you must force others to follow your moral code?  To convert them?  Even if acting moral is illegal, that does not mean you will make those people believe and save their souls.

And how would you feel if Christianity was the minority religion, and the majority was persecuting you because practicing Christianity is "immoral"?

[Alcon]

Not all my moral codes - but basic ones - a good government is one that follows God's code - it says that.  No murder (abortion), gay marriage - but tithing is not a government regulated authority.

That's not really a basic moral code.  That's actually a series of very specific interpretations of old codes, that weren't basic to begin with.  Are you making a religious argument against taxation in your last sentence?

Even if Christianity were the minority religion, it's still the only right religion.

But you wouldn't object, because they are in the majority, and that entitles them to force their religion on you?

[Alcon]

STRAWMAN!

What there's a strawman?  I just argued with you about the baseness of the codes.  Then I asked you a question.  I don't see where there was a strawman.

Jesus himself told his disciples that it was Caeser's right to tax the people (and really duty, so that the gov't can function).

OK.

I'd object because I'm right and they're wrong.  But I may not be able to physically stop them.

Fair enough.  I disagree, and find your beliefs a dangerous intrusion on my own, but that's rational.

[Alcon]

It's a strawman b/c you tried to take a command to tithe to mean that the gov't should make you pay taxes.

I wasn't arguing that...

I was actually asking a question.  I don't really know what a "command to tithe" is, in the Biblical sense.  My Biblical knowledge is deeply lacking.

I couldn't defend, or oppose, taxes (or anything) based on Biblical knowledge if my life depended on it.  And why would I?  I'm not a Christian, after all...

[Alcon]

My apologies - I just figured somebody as smart as you was somewhat versed Biblically - (I know that sounds mean and sarcastic, but it's not meant to be - I'm just trying to explain what happened in my mind - so again, my apologies for the misunderstanding).

No, no.  I know it's shameful (thanks, btw ).  I really should know more, but I don't.  Few people I know do, but still...it's shameful.

[Alcon]

My point about murder is, where did it stem from as being wrong?  It stemmed Biblically from Cain and Abel - so all of humanity thinks it's wrong (other than VERY rare sectors) - so even though the USSR was atheistic, it stemmed from Christianity, because Chrsitianity stemmed from Judaism in the Old Testament.

The idea of killing innocents being wrong is not a Christian invention.  And, by your logic, if it transfers from Judaism to Christianity, it also stems from secular humanism.  And doesn't that mean we should be enforcing all of the moral centers of Judaism?  Are you keeping kosher?

Not that it matters.  Christianity did not invent anything in the murder realm.  Murder was considered wrong before Christianity; it's still wrong.  Human sacrifice may have not been wrong in some areas, but its elimination has no more to do with Christianity than other religions.

And for the story about pushing Christianity - that does anger me - we shouldn't convert you.  I'm talking about basic rights - life, no gay marriage, but if you want to be gay in your house - I'm fine w/ it.  Kinky sex - fine w/ it.  Getting drunk in your house - fine w/ it (as long as you don't harm others).  It's only when it applies to others or it's protecting you should the gov't get involved.  We shouldn't have Christianity as a national religion either.

Wait, wait a moment here.  Homosexual sex in private is fine, but not gay marriage, even though the Bible only speaks out against homosexual sex?  It doesn't speak against homosexual marriage.

And where do these "basic rights" stem from?

Even in pre-Biblical times, killing was considered to be wrong.  Do you think people were just killing each other randomly, and then getting away with it?  What exactly did the Christians or Jews invent here that was new, and justifies enforcing their morality universally?

[Alcon]

No - Judaism started w/ Adam and Eve - 1st humans, but now we'll get into an origins debate.

We might...if I had any idea what that had to do with the topic.

It's still wrong and a sin, but the gov't has no place in the private home - if it's in public, it's wrong.  But I wouldn't fight it if they made gay sex illegal.

Why does the government have right to enforce morality in marriage, but not in the private home?  Why is Biblical morality excluded from the home?

No - nothing existed in pre-Biblical times.

Sorry, I meant the time of Jesus.  C'mon, you know what I meant.

No - they weren't, but before written law, God operated using the conscience to convey right and wrong.

What is so horrible about thinking about morality logically?  You make it sound like it's a primitive form of thought.  You may disagree with it, but that's not the point.

And if your point was (seemingly), we have to enforce Biblical morality, because without it, murder would be considered moral.  You just conceded that, that isn't true.  So...what's up with that?

[Alcon]

Because the gov't job is to control public social things, not private things.

So, then you support abolishing government control of marriage and letting people decide privately?  And support legalizing drugs?  You have a rather high social score there for that belief.

My point was that all morality stems from God, not necessarily the Law, but from the dispensation of innocence, to conscience, increased during law and human gov't, and now the church, ultimately to the Kingdom, when there will be no sin.

But murder being unethical is an idea that has been around since before the Bible was around.  Your claim was that the government needs to enforce Christianity because otherwise  there would be no sense of morality.  My point is, humanist ethics serve as morality just fine, and did before the Bible and Christianity were around.  That defeats your point -- there is no societal crisis when Christian morality is gone.

So, why again does the government NEED to enforce Christian morals when humanist ethics control the immediate danger to society?

[Alcon]

That's my whole point - people believe different things, but only the Christians are the ones believing the right thing.

You can believe that without believing that you should enforce your moral sense on everyone.  This nation is hypermajority Christian.  Clearly, not all of them feel as you do.

And this stuff is Biblical, it's just not quoted.  Just like people claim that Jesus wasn't God becuase he never said "I am God" - but he said other things that mean exactly the same thing.

Then quote the equivalent passages or just say you made it up...

I think we'd rather not get into a Bible war here, but I think Gabu was questioning whether the spirit of what you said is even in the Bible at all.

[Alcon]

No, b/c those are social/public things/thigns that affect others.

How does someone smoking pot in their own home effect others?  How is sex not "social"?

OK - not Christianity, but Biblicism, to make this easier to debate - Christianity was the wrong word, but it's the current manifestation of Biblicism, and true, the written Bible wasn't always around, but the events in it start at the very beginning of the universe.

That doesn't make any sense.  Christianity can't "claim" things that just happened to happen during its evolution.  And it still has nothing to do with the point that ethics would do fine without Biblicism, as you put it.

[Alcon]

Because it greatly reduces their judgment, so they may harm themselves or others.  Sex between 2 consenting adults isn't publically social.

People are much more likely to harm others while drinking, but I get the point.  If you are trying to protect people from harming themselves in their own homes, though, wouldn't stopping them from sinning (having homosexual sex) be within bounds?

It's all rooted in the book of Genesis - so we have a record from the 1st second God started the universe - so it is part of Christianity/Biblicism.

You are still ignoring my point that ethics are fine without Biblical morals, which is the more important, less semantic part.

So, what falls under common sense?  Is it common sense to everybody when somebody cuts you off on the road?

When a girl says "no" does she really mean yes?

What happens when there is a moral point not covered in the Bible, then?  The Bible doesn't say anything about hacking your computer and deleting everything, as far as I'm aware, but I still know that this is wrong.  I'm an agnostic, and I do not struggle with any of these questions.  Harming another person in a major way, or in a way severely disproportionate to your own end results, is wrong.  That's a moral credo that the vast majority of people, religious or not, believe in.  It's one instinctual to the human race and human society.  The majority of people I know are not Christians.  None of them them want murder to be legal, and it's not because the Bible says so.

Your original argument was that morality (like killing is wrong) could not exist without Biblical morality, and therefore the government must enforce Christianity.  Now your argument is that all ethics are Biblical, because they happened during time, and the Bible talks about all time.  But these ethics existed before Christianity.  Do you see how little sense that makes in context of your original point?