# Can you legislate morality?



## jmharris23 (Apr 7, 2009)

Just wondering what you guys think about legislating morality. Lets hear your thoughts.


----------



## Banjo (Apr 7, 2009)

Every time a law is passed, SOMEBODY's morality is legislated.  Neutrality is a myth....


----------



## Jim Thompson (Apr 7, 2009)

boy I hope not

never know who will be in charge and what their views will be.  it really dont matter how moral you are or how moral you are not, sooner or later someone will be in office that will be on the far end of the spectrum from you

have a basic set of laws that protect folks' right to life, property and freedoms and then TEACH morality in homes and churches


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just wondering what you guys think about legislating morality. Lets hear your thoughts.



I think you would have to first "define" your morals.  Some people think it is immoral to shoot a spike deer, others say drinking a beer, some say pre-marital sex, some say dancing, some say short dresses, some say cussing, etc.  

The morality spectrum is quite diverse, so I would say: No.  Not without imposing your morality onto someone who sees nothing wrong with it OR without offending others who think more should be added.  We frown on Saudi Arabia's morality laws and treatment of women, but those are their religion's (morality) rules, not necessarily "ours."  We are a melting pot of cultures, so we would have to pick which to pull from....


----------



## Free Willie (Apr 7, 2009)

No.

I think it would be best to start by teaching proper morals and conduct at home and at church. I know few Christians who practice our faith properly. How can we legislate something that we ourselves aren't prepared to practice? 

Why legislate? Just DO the right thing.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 7, 2009)

Then do you agree or disagree that it is necessary for churches to spend much time standing up against liquor, abortion, drugs, the lottery, etc. ?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 7, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Every time a law is passed, SOMEBODY's morality is legislated.  Neutrality is a myth....



You are dead on the mark, young lady.

Every law ever passed has the specific purpose of establishing limits of behavior and appropriate punishment for violating those limits. The morals and morays of the community, the cultural standards, are reflected in the laws adopted by the various levels of our governments. It is first and foremost done to establish and protect rights. It can only do so, if it also establishes "wrongs". When mankind has a clear concept of rights and wrongs, he can then adopt personal behaviors that have the greatest possibility for bringing about peace, prosperity, and fulfillment. 

You, I, and others on this forum understand that the desire to not only attain for ourselves these things, but also to secure them for others, is from God. 
But that is another subject for another thread.

Grace and peace to you and yours.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Then do you agree or disagree that it is necessary for churches to spend much time standing up against liquor, abortion, drugs, the lottery, etc. ?



The problem is that the church (from my experience, mostly the southern baptist convention) has decided to legislate morality within the church.  It is called legalism.  Some of the things on your list are not sin...but can become sin if done in excess.

Rather than focusing on what one can and can't do, the church should be preaching the Word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to convict and guide.

For example, you shouldn't have a dress code at church.  If women want to wear pants...that is fine.  If men want to wear jeans...that is fine.  What needs to be taught is that Church is a place where we come to worship God.  As such, our outward appearance should reflect an attitude of worship.

Or for example...the lottery.  Is that a sin?  No.  But the church should preach the word of God and show that we are to be wise stewards of our money.  

Is drinking a sin?  No.  But the church should preach the word of God that being Drunk is a sin.

Are Drugs a sin?  No....we take them every time we get sick.  What needs to be taught in the Church is that we are never to be under the influence of something other than the Holy Spirit....and addicted to nothing other than the Word of God.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Then do you agree or disagree that it is necessary for churches to spend much time standing up against liquor, abortion, drugs, the lottery, etc. ?



Absolutely agree. While it should not be the primary focus of the churches, it is obvious that those things that destroy the fabric of society or even put an undue burden on the people collectively should be opposed, to this end: that they be limited to reduce the negative impact on society or eliminate them altogether. I would go so far as to say that those things that negatively impact the family, the building blocks of society, should be examined and dealt with by churches, for the greater good of society. I would offer divorce as an example. There are many ways to effect these changes; education with scriptural support is probably the most significant method.

Peace.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just wondering what you guys think about legislating morality. Lets hear your thoughts.



I much prefer my morality to be legislated by God - through His Word.   For some strange reason,I don't trust them "other" legislators.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 7, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I think you would have to first "define" your morals.  Some people think it is immoral to shoot a spike deer, others say drinking a beer, some say pre-marital sex, some say dancing, some say short dresses, some say cussing, etc.
> 
> The morality spectrum is quite diverse, so I would say: No.  Not without imposing your morality onto someone who sees nothing wrong with it OR without offending others who think more should be added.  We frown on Saudi Arabia's morality laws and treatment of women, but those are their religion's (morality) rules, not necessarily "ours."  We are a melting pot of cultures, so we would have to pick which to pull from....



Fine point,made in an intelligent and polite way. May I salute you Mr. Dawg?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 7, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> The problem is that the church (from my experience, mostly the southern baptist convention) has decided to legislate morality within the church.  It is called legalism.  Some of the things on your list are not sin...but can become sin if done in excess.
> 
> Rather than focusing on what one can and can't do, the church should be preaching the Word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to convict and guide.
> 
> ...



Two things:

1) The SBC is not the authority over those churches that affiliate with the Convention. Each locally constituted church body is autonomous from the Convention, with Jesus as its head.

2) If love for the Lord is the motivation for our obedience to the Word of God, our adherence to godly principles is not legalism.

Peace.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Then do you agree or disagree that it is necessary for churches to spend much time standing up against liquor, abortion, drugs, the lottery, etc. ?



WARNING: POSSIBLE CAN OF WORMS!

I agree with Mr.Dawg on this. I would sure love it if EVERYBODY'S  morality standards came from the Bible.I challenge anybody to directly quote  - WITH context  - anything in there that is not good for us.Denomination/race/age/nationality -  it don't matter.Our Bible has been around longer than any "legislator" that ever lived and has not once caused anyone to do something bad to themself or to their neighbor.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 7, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Fine point,made in an intelligent and polite way. May I salute you Mr. Dawg?



Sure, I had a rare moment of sanity


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

If there was some way to only legislate Christian morals then I would be all for it.  But there isn't!

That being said the Church should have NEVER quit standing up against immoral things.  But most churches have made a deal with the Devil so they can't.


----------



## GoHogging (Apr 7, 2009)

only God can legislate morality... He created morality...  which He did in the OT... the moral laws are found in the OT... men are trying to re-legislate morality to allow all the evils that oppose God's moral laws from the OT... i.e. homo's, child sacrifice (abortion), etc. men will be judged most harshly for their evils...  i'm taking my family and...   


Hogger


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Our Bible has been around longer than any "legislator" that ever lived and has not once caused anyone to do something bad to themself or to their neighbor.




Wrong.  Humans co-exisited without the Bible for thousands of years.  Even when Jesus walked the earth it was very few who could read in their native tongue.

Morality is much older than any religious belief system.

Religion/Politics were both created by man to control man.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 7, 2009)

GoHogging said:


> only God can legislate morality... He created morality...  which He did in the OT... the moral laws are found in the OT... men are trying to re-legislate morality to allow all the evils that oppose God's moral laws from the OT... i.e. homo's, child sacrifice (abortion), etc. men will be judged most harshly for their evils...  i'm taking my family and...
> 
> 
> Hogger



I agree witcha,Hogger.  Except for the part about the moral laws only in the O.T.   Jesus taught a few new ones in the N.T.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Apr 7, 2009)

*...*

Sorry for the  



dawg2 said:


> Sure, I had a rare moment of sanity


 
YOU...sanity?!? ...nah...you were just momentarily blissful and serene and still doing the happy dance because you birded out with your boys with you yesterday...


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> If there was some way to only legislate Christian morals then I would be all for it.  But there isn't!
> 
> That being said the Church should have NEVER quit standing up against immoral things.  But most churches have made a deal with the Devil so they can't.



Yes there is. This country was founded by people who were legislating the morals of God. Never perfectly but none the less...

If a law of any kind is contrary to the law of God that country/ society will pay a price for it.

For instance...

Abortion-if we hadn't aborted all those babies we would still have a lack of housing

Gold standard- Yeah doing away with this sure did us a world of good didn't it... Full faith and credit of the US gov't... Wow... I would rather be owed money by a heroin addict.


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yes there is. This country was founded by people who were legislating the morals of God. Never perfectly but none the less....



Not really but kind of.  As I said if there was a way to guarantee only christian morals would be the legilated morals then I would be for it.  The problem comes when people who are not Christians get in control then they legilate their morals.

While our country started off on the right foot, it has move way left!


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> Not really but kind of.  As I said if there was a way to guarantee only christian morals would be the legilated morals then I would be for it.  The problem comes when people who are not Christians get in control then they legilate their morals.
> 
> While our country started off on the right foot, it has move way left!



Look back at the laws originally passed. Look at our constitution.

Now read Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers, and Judges. 

Then go look at our current laws.

Whose are more loving and moral? God's laws. 

The problem starts when we allow people who hold no truths at all to hold offices. And the Church fails to teach it's people. That is what has happened here for over 100 yrs.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Absolutely agree. While it should not be the primary focus of the churches, it is obvious that those things that destroy the fabric of society or even put an undue burden on the people collectively should be opposed, to this end: that they be limited to reduce the negative impact on society or eliminate them altogether. I would go so far as to say that those things that negatively impact the family, the building blocks of society, should be examined and dealt with by churches, for the greater good of society. I would offer divorce as an example. There are many ways to effect these changes; education with scriptural support is probably the most significant method.
> 
> Peace.




Yep.


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> The problem starts when we allow people who hold no truths at all to hold offices. And the Church fails to teach it's people. That is what has happened here for over 100 yrs.



You make my point.  There is no way to guarantee who will be in power to enforce what morals.  That is why it is dangerous to legislate them.


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 7, 2009)

Religion should be removed from the conversation. I know alot of people who never set foot in church, who have very high morals. Conversely, I know alot of christians( I being one of them) who have different standards of morality. As long as ones morals don't affect anothers beliefs, I don't question what they do. Therein lies the problem. Laws that attempt to control others' actions are wrong in my book. I am not talking about murder, rape, etc., but laws that attempt to control what one does to him/herself. The very lawmakers themselves could not all agree on a set of standard behaviour in a million years.


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> You make my point.  There is no way to guarantee who will be in power to enforce what morals.  That is why it is dangerous to legislate them.



No. That's not what I am saying. EVERY law is an attempt at legislating morality. Ga's blue laws, speed limits, dui, fishing limits, building codes.

There is a way to ensure who is in power.


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

Havana Dude said:


> Religion should be removed from the conversation. I know alot of people who never set foot in church, who have very high morals. Conversely, I know alot of christians( I being one of them) who have different standards of morality. As long as ones morals don't affect anothers beliefs, I don't question what they do. Therein lies the problem. Laws that attempt to control others' actions are wrong in my book. I am not talking about murder, rape, etc., but laws that attempt to control what one does to him/herself. The very lawmakers themselves could not all agree on a set of standard behaviour in a million years.



They are inseparable.

Those "moral" people with no faith are the ones who got us here in the first place.


----------



## GoHogging (Apr 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Wrong.  Humans co-exisited without the Bible for thousands of years.  Even when Jesus walked the earth it was very few who could read in their native tongue.
> 
> Morality is much older than any religious belief system.
> 
> Religion/Politics were both created by man to control man.



you're partly wrong and partly right, wtm... but mostly wrong.

the Word of God has always existed, just not in written form, but always been here. that means the Word has been here far longer than people. read John 1:1.

saying there was few who could read in the time of Jesus is a cop out. Scripture is first mentioned in Daniel which was a good 600 years prior to Jesus' time.  why would God write the 10 commandments on tablets if nobody could read???  

true, morality is older than religion. morality began with adam and eve which was prior that religion. adam and eve were not religious.

religion was started by satan. he said that he would be like the Most High meaning he wanted the worship due to God. he tricks people into worshiping him by filling the earth with error and lies. yes, religion does control people... its a form of bondage. Christianity is not religion. its the only "religion" (as the world sees it) that is not a religion...

the only Ruler and King that was meant to be was God... but the God's people did not want to be led by God... they wanted an earthly king, so thats what God gave them... kings that were evil for the most part. God got fed up with His people for not trusting Him and wanting to follow Him so He gave them evil kings... i.e. Nebuchanezzar, Herod, Ceasar, W, Obama... etc... 

God gave His people an earthly King... Jesus but He has been rejected as well (for the most part) by the Jews and gentiles.

Hogger


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> Not really but kind of.  As I said if there was a way to guarantee only christian morals would be the legilated morals then I would be for it.  The problem comes when people who are not Christians get in control then they legilate their morals.
> 
> While our country started off on the right foot, it has move way left!



Randy, what about the vast difference in christian morals? I mean, we are talking about what laws man deems necessary to attain a moral fabric in society right? Some christians believe in tongues, footwashing, snake handling, baptism vs sprinkling etc. . Others don't. Where do you draw the line, and how in the world does a society propose to enforce these moral laws? I see morals as the responsibility of the individual, whether taught them by parents or conciously making an effort on their own. I don't need a law to tell me to do the right thing. Am I perfect? Absolutely not, but one of my main objectives is to abstain from negatively affecting anyone elses life. Thoughts?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

Havana Dude said:


> Religion should be removed from the conversation. I know alot of people who never set foot in church, who have very high morals. Conversely, I know alot of christians( I being one of them) who have different standards of morality. As long as ones morals don't affect anothers beliefs, I don't question what they do. Therein lies the problem. Laws that attempt to control others' actions are wrong in my book. I am not talking about murder, rape, etc., but laws that attempt to control what one does to him/herself. The very lawmakers themselves could not all agree on a set of standard behaviour in a million years.




Very good point.
Also, history reveals that morals have evolved and changed as man has changed.  Mostly for the better.

The king/prince/leader does not get first rights of copulation with any bride in his kingdom anymore.  Forced copulation with animals is not a requirement for servitude to the king.  Human sacrifice is not necessary for redemption.
What do they have in common?  Those were once government legislated rules.

A society with an electorate determines what rules they are willing to live by.  It's not the legislators that control that variable, it is the electorate.


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 7, 2009)

So how do we propose "policing" the people to see that they are all moral?


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> A society with an electorate determines what rules they are willing to live by.  It's not the legislators that control that variable, it is the electorate.



Excellent point. It is a shame however that there are not good Christian men in office who turn to God for guidance. Our politicians in this system though care more for their advancement than they do for their job and constituents. Something is wrong there.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

GoHogging said:


> you're partly wrong and partly right, wtm... but mostly wrong.
> 
> the Word of God has always existed, just not in written form, but always been here. that means the Word has been here far longer than people. read John 1:1.
> 
> saying there was few who could read in the time of Jesus is a cop out. Scripture is first mentioned in Daniel which was a good 600 years prior to Jesus' time.  why would God write the 10 commandments on tablets if nobody could read???



You are sorely lacking in the knowledge of history.  I never said "nobody could read."  I said VERY FEW could read.

"The Word of God has always existed, just not in written form, but always been here."  What?  8-track?  Vinyl?  VHS?

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."
Bet you did not think I knew that one by memory.  Well, it explains a lot.  Don't question the word, it is God.  Simple.

Someone (man) wrote the words down.  The dates of the manuscripts are evident by the languages used, the style and methods of writing and are easily determined.  We KNOW when it was edited and re-written each time, and we know what was left out just as we know what was included.

We (mankind) are probably due for another re-writing and editing soon.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Our politicians in this system though care more for their advancement than they do for their job and constituents. Something is wrong there.



Those who are elected who perform in such a matter should be voted out of office.  It matters not if they are Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant.....

They should vote and operate based on what their constituency tells them to do.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Those who are elected who perform in such a matter should be voted out of office.  It matters not if they are Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant.....
> 
> They should vote and operate based on what their constituency tells them to do.



I agree 100%. However, I also take the "wish" a step further and hope/pray that this nation is also comprised of a majority of Christians who would want to see this nation align itself more with the views of Christianity.


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

Havana Dude said:


> Randy, what about the vast difference in christian morals? I mean, we are talking about what laws man deems necessary to attain a moral fabric in society right? Some christians believe in tongues, footwashing, snake handling, baptism vs sprinkling etc. . Others don't. Where do you draw the line, and how in the world does a society propose to enforce these moral laws? I see morals as the responsibility of the individual, whether taught them by parents or conciously making an effort on their own. I don't need a law to tell me to do the right thing. Am I perfect? Absolutely not, but one of my main objectives is to abstain from negatively affecting anyone elses life. Thoughts?



Right that is a whole nother subject.  First we decideon legislating christina morals, then we decided which ones.  All the more reason to say we can not legislate morals.

Celtic brings up another issue.  Yes some laws are kind of based on morals and IMO should be removed.  Like selling alcohol on Sunday.  And as soon as I say that, I will also say that the church should stand up against it.

IMO laws should be based on the health of a society, morals should be taught by the Church.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> I agree 100%. However, I also take the "wish" a step further and hope/pray that this nation is also comprised of a majority of Christians who would want to see this nation align itself more with the views of Christianity.



Ugh oh.  Which version?  Who's interpretations?  What denimination?


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Ugh oh.  Which version?  Who's interpretations?  What denimination?



Just the simple ones: No abortion, no gay marriage. Stuff like that.

I realize that there are "differences" between Christians. However, I also believe that the one thing that makes them all the same (Christ) can guid us all to the proper place if we let Him. I know that is contrary to what we see even on this forum, but I believe it none-the-less.


----------



## footjunior (Apr 7, 2009)

I agree with Banjo.

I also understand that for some Christians, separating their Christianity from politics and voting is impossible. I really don't have a problem with Christians voting for people who have the same morals as they do. It's a perfectly good reason to vote for someone. In fact, I do the same thing. We all do, for the most part. Some of us just claim to be neutral while some do not. True neutrality is a myth, however I think one can purposely try to be more neutral and not let personal biases have such an effect. But claiming that you are perfectly neutral to an issue would be an outrageous claim.

Now as far as the whole "forcing my morals upon you" or what not. That indirectly happens no matter if you're a Christian or not. It also depends on what you mean by "forcing my morals on you."

If I'm pro-choice and vote for a pro-choice politician, am I forcing my morals on you? To a small degree, I think I am. I say it's a small degree because no one is forcing you to get an abortion and no one is preventing you from getting an abortion. However, I'm still saying that it's ok for a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Is that forcing my morals on you? Depends on who you ask I guess.

On the other hand, if I'm pro-life and I vote for a pro-life politician, am I forcing my morals on you? I say to a much higher degree yes. I say it's a higher degree because I am literally preventing (assuming pro-life laws get passed) you from having an abortion (legally). I am taking away your choice.

So in short, Banjo is right. Every time a law is passed, someone's morality is legislated to a certain degree.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

That's why subjects like that should not even be within the preview of the .gov.

They are individual lifestyle decisions.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 7, 2009)

Just another question for all: Do you think if you set into motion laws to make immoral activities such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, it would somehow make people more moral?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Just the simple ones: No abortion, no gay marriage. Stuff like that.
> 
> I realize that there are "differences" between Christians. However, I also believe that the one thing that makes them all the same (Christ) can guid us all to the proper place if we let Him. I know that is contrary to what we see even on this forum, but I believe it none-the-less.



Simple ones?  HA! 

I know, I know.  Just kiddin!

Your freedom to believe as you wish is granted here in America by the Constitution.  That is a good thing, and I am in full agreement with those freedoms.

But, knowing all too well the exclusivity of Christianity, will a .gov dominated by Christianity (whatever flavor or denomination) allow those same rights and privileges to its citizens who are Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Athiest, Agnostic, Wiccan, etc?


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just another question for all: Do you think if you set into motion laws to make immoral activities such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, it would somehow make people more moral?



I happen to believe those two issues are not moral but are necessary for a healthy society.

That being said, making immoral things against the law has never stopped immoral people from doing them.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> I happen to believe those two issues are not moral but are necessary for a healthy society.
> 
> That being said, making immoral things against the law has never stopped immoral people from doing them.



What he said.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Simple ones?  HA!
> 
> I know, I know.  Just kiddin!
> 
> ...



You kow the answer to that question. If a government influenced enough by Christianity decides that Abortion is 100% murder and against the law, and then passes said law, then Abortion is illegal for everyone at that point regardless of religiois persuasion.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just another question for all: Do you think if you set into motion laws to make immoral activities such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, it would somehow make people more moral?



You are aware that not only are people judged by God, but nations are also. He looks at our individual actions and then also our actions corporately. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah as the prime example. He removed the righteous ones and then condemed the entire cities to destruction. That can happen with nations as well.

So, yes, I actively vote for and pursue candidates who will help stop the moral decay this country has slipped into. I aslo pursue personal and immediate contacts around me to influence them as well (namely through witnessing).


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just another question for all: Do you think if you set into motion laws to make immoral activities such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, it would somehow make people more moral?



Just a question.

Whose moral code are we discussing? Where do we get the laws that should be enforced?

Seems like we are dancing around stuff but not asking the important question here.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> You are aware that not only are people judged by God, but nations are also. He looks at our individual actions and then also our actions corporately. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah as the prime example. He removed the righteous ones and then condemed the entire cities to destruction. That can happen with nations as well.
> 
> So, yes, I actively vote for and pursue candidates who will help stop the moral decay this country has slipped into. I aslo pursue personal and immediate contacts around me to influence them as well (namely through witnessing).



I am aware and agree with you. Just trying to spur some discussion topics!


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 7, 2009)

*Ya'll are way too smart for me*

God gave us free will to do as we wish. No gov't can take that away. What we do with it is another story. In the whole scheme of things, man does not have dominion over other mens actions. Just watch the news one day. We have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc., and they have not stopped any of these activities. Look at prohibition, what did that accomplish? Whether you are for it or against it, what did it accomplish? Well, I guess we got NASCAR out of it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Just a question.
> 
> Whose moral code are we discussing? Where do we get the laws that should be enforced?
> 
> Seems like we are dancing around stuff but not asking the important question here.



No dancing here, just trying to spur discussion. The only moral code I know of is a biblical one. My sense of right and wrong comes only from there and from God's Holy Spirit. The laws then would come from Him.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Just the simple ones: No abortion, no gay marriage. Stuff like that.
> 
> I realize that there are "differences" between Christians. However, I also believe that the one thing that makes them all the same (Christ) can guid us all to the proper place if we let Him. I know that is contrary to what we see even on this forum, but I believe it none-the-less.



How about divorce?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 7, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> How about divorce?



If it is a Biblical divorce, then it would be okay.  All others, would be illegal.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> You kow the answer to that question. If a government influenced enough by Christianity decides that Abortion is 100% murder and against the law, and then passes said law, then Abortion is illegal for everyone at that point regardless of religiois persuasion.



Let's not get stuck on one issue only.  And, the .gov should be influenced by its citizenry, not its elected.

Where would it stop?  Big picture time.

The Preamble to the Constitution states the limitations of .gov very well.


----------



## Banjo (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just another question for all: Do you think if you set into motion laws to make immoral activities such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, it would somehow make people more moral?



Nope...but inasmuch as we are faithful to God's Law, He will bless our nation.  

There are blessings and cursings that come about as a result of keeping or not keeping God's Laws....Guess where we are in America right now?


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 7, 2009)

Morality is legislated by God in the 10 Commandments, No Human Government can ever legislate that.
Even in Israel where a Theocracy was supposed to rule, it was impossible because you have the sin factor.
And those who say do as I say and don't do.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 7, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> If it is a Biblical divorce, then it would be okay.  All others, would be illegal.



What biblical divorce?


----------



## earl (Apr 7, 2009)

Randy said:


> I happen to believe those two issues are not moral but are necessary for a healthy society.
> 
> That being said, making immoral things against the law has never stopped immoral people from doing them.



You really weren't trying to say that abortion and gay marriage ''are necessary for a healthy society'' were you ?


----------



## Randy (Apr 7, 2009)

earl said:


> You really weren't trying to say that abortion and gay marriage ''are necessary for a healthy society'' were you ?


Just the opposite.


----------



## earl (Apr 7, 2009)

I know . I forgot to add just kidding.


----------



## GoHogging (Apr 7, 2009)

PWalls said:


> You are aware that not only are people judged by God, but nations are also. He looks at our individual actions and then also our actions corporately. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah as the prime example. He removed the righteous ones and then condemed the entire cities to destruction. That can happen with nations as well.
> 
> So, yes, I actively vote for and pursue candidates who will help stop the moral decay this country has slipped into. I aslo pursue personal and immediate contacts around me to influence them as well (namely through witnessing).



pwalls, i dont mean to be a downer.... but there are no "candidates" who pursue anything that is Godly.... Ron Paul was/is probably the last.... and even he is questionable.... the moral decay is what it is and there is nobody to vote for that can help it... even if you found 1 or 2... it takes a majority. whenever a true Christian gets into the "house"... they get run out or muzzled... it stinks but that is the way it is.... if you disagree, lets talk again in 2 or 5 years and see where the Christian "candidates" have gotten us...  we should all put our faith in God alone... not men in the white house...  just my h.o...  i pray that i am wrong. i pray that this country can be turned around... but if it can... it can by God only. not men...


Hogger


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 7, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> What biblical divorce?



Sexual immorality or the abandonment by an unbeliever.

See Matthew 5:32 

"but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mattew 19:9 

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 

I Cor 7:15

"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

But remember God hates divorce. 

Malachi 2:16a

"For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel.


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Nope...but inasmuch as we are faithful to God's Law, He will bless our nation.
> 
> There are blessings and cursings that come about as a result of keeping or not keeping God's Laws....Guess where we are in America right now?



Yep...

BTW- Is that the goat that y'all helped deliver?


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 7, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> No dancing here, just trying to spur discussion. The only moral code I know of is a biblical one. My sense of right and wrong comes only from there and from God's Holy Spirit. The laws then would come from Him.



Once upon a time that was how we did things. Unfortunately the vast majority of Christians don't even know what that is. Much less what it means. 

I personally am all for it. Why shouldn't we pass laws that undo everything that is contrary to the law of God.

It would affect everything from the gold standard to who is able to represent us. Be nice IMO.


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 7, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Once upon a time that was how we did things. Unfortunately the vast majority of Christians don't even know what that is. Much less what it means.
> 
> I personally am all for it. Why shouldn't we pass laws that undo everything that is contrary to the law of God.
> 
> It would affect everything from the gold standard to who is able to represent us. Be nice IMO.



I have to say that I agree with your idea. However, no one has answered the question of how are we to police what people choose as moral?


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> How about divorce?



Seems Jesus was pretty specific about that one also. Only one legitimate reason.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 7, 2009)

GoHogging said:


> pwalls, i dont mean to be a downer.... but there are no "candidates" who pursue anything that is Godly.... Ron Paul was/is probably the last.... and even he is questionable.... the moral decay is what it is and there is nobody to vote for that can help it... even if you found 1 or 2... it takes a majority. whenever a true Christian gets into the "house"... they get run out or muzzled... it stinks but that is the way it is.... if you disagree, lets talk again in 2 or 5 years and see where the Christian "candidates" have gotten us...  we should all put our faith in God alone... not men in the white house...  just my h.o...  i pray that i am wrong. i pray that this country can be turned around... but if it can... it can by God only. not men...
> 
> 
> 
> Hogger




I agree that God is the answer. However, Christians who cast their vote based on God's priciples are also part of that equation. If Christians do not vote for Christians then we are robbing God of the opportunity to work in our government through His people.


----------



## Banjo (Apr 8, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yep...
> 
> BTW- Is that the goat that y'all helped deliver?



That's the one....I didn't deliver it...just pulled up a chair and watched, all the while offering encouragement.  My niece and eldest daughter were the midwives.

It's cute, and the bug has bitten my oldest.  She wants goats....but is saving her money for the fainting ones....


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 8, 2009)

PWalls said:


> I agree that God is the answer. However, Christians who cast their vote based on God's priciples are also part of that equation. If Christians do not vote for Christians then we are robbing God of the opportunity to work in our government through His people.



I agree - problem is,though,Christian candidates such as Huckabee don't have enough money 'cause they're not thieves! Therefore,they'll never be elected.


----------



## Randy (Apr 8, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> I agree - problem is,though,Christian candidates such as Huckabee don't have enough money 'cause they're not thieves! Therefore,they'll never be elected.


That depends on the Christian.  I know lots of Pastors that have lots of money.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 8, 2009)

Randy said:


> That depends on the Christian.  I know lots of Pastors that have lots of money.



And that fact to me is immoral.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Apr 8, 2009)

Banjo said:


> That's the one....I didn't deliver it...just pulled up a chair and watched, all the while offering encouragement.  My niece and eldest daughter were the midwives.
> 
> It's cute, and the bug has bitten my oldest.  She wants goats....but is saving her money for the fainting ones....



Goats?!

Having grown up on a sheep farm I just can't imagine anyone wanting to raise goats.

Especially reformed minded people.


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 8, 2009)

Banjo said:


> That's the one....I didn't deliver it...just pulled up a chair and watched, all the while offering encouragement.  My niece and eldest daughter were the midwives.
> 
> It's cute, and the bug has bitten my oldest.  She wants goats....but is saving her money for the fainting ones....



Oh man dem faintin goats again...


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 8, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Oh man dem faintin goats again...



It's kinda fun to chase 'em and make 'em faint.


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 8, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> It's kinda fun to chase 'em and make 'em faint.



Yeah I can't wait till Banjo and them get some. One of her daughters I know will end up giving them a heart attack... Course one of mine will be right there helping...


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 8, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yeah I can't wait till Banjo and them get some. One of her daughters I know will end up giving them a heart attack... Course one of mine will be right there helping...



   Just don't let P.E.T.A. ketch yawl doin' that - you'll be in a HEAP o' trouble!


----------



## celticfisherman (Apr 8, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Just don't let P.E.T.A. ketch yawl doin' that - you'll be in a HEAP o' trouble!



We can make dem faint too...

Did you see the report that over 90% of the animals "rescued" by PETA last year were euthanized? Yep.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 8, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Wrong.  Humans co-exisited without the Bible for thousands of years.  Even when Jesus walked the earth it was very few who could read in their native tongue.
> 
> Morality is much older than any religious belief system.
> 
> Religion/Politics were both created by man to control man.




Wrong? How in your worldview of willy nilly are these views wrong? You may not like them but wrong, absurd.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 8, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Wrong? How in your worldview of willy nilly are these views wrong? You may not like them but wrong, absurd.



I did not say the views expressed in the Bible themselves were wrong.  I was answering crackerdave's remark that "Our Bible has been around longer than any "legislator" that ever lived."  That's what is wrong.

Morals have been a part of human nature longer than any holy writings.

Sorry if it was not expressed correctly in writing by me so as to be understood.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 8, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> And that fact to me is immoral.



Please elaborate. How much is too much?


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 8, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Please elaborate. How much is too much?



I'd say when the preacher drives a brand new 40,000 dollar vehicle, and got people in the church that can't afford a ride so they can get to church. Oh, and a 1/2 million dollar crib, etc etc., .....just sayin.


----------



## Banjo (Apr 8, 2009)

addictedtodeer said:


> Goats?!
> 
> Having grown up on a sheep farm I just can't imagine anyone wanting to raise goats.
> 
> Especially reformed minded people.





Oh....she would like sheep too...but for the time being goats have caught her eye...Perhaps I should let her read Spurgeon's "Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats...."


----------



## Banjo (Apr 8, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> Just don't let P.E.T.A. ketch yawl doin' that - you'll be in a HEAP o' trouble!



Why would People Eating Tasty Animals have a problem with this?


----------



## earl (Apr 8, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Please elaborate. How much is too much?



How about one that is paid a percentage of the churches take ? Mega million church I may add.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 8, 2009)

The Bible says for us to take care of our preacher.It doesn't say how well.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 8, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I did not say the views expressed in the Bible themselves were wrong.  I was answering crackerdave's remark that "Our Bible has been around longer than any "legislator" that ever lived."  That's what is wrong.
> 
> Morals have been a part of human nature longer than any holy writings.
> 
> Sorry if it was not expressed correctly in writing by me so as to be understood.



No, I understood you correctly. For the Christian point of view man has always law! Direction from God on how to live. Man didn't invent God or law or liberty or peace or right or wrong. They originate in God. 

Maybe you were refering to the written portion of what God had already revealed was not as old as man?? But I doubt it.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 8, 2009)

crackerdave said:


> The Bible says for us to take care of our preacher.It doesn't say how well.





For as long as I can remember a particular joke about paying the preacher went like this, "Lord you keep him humble and we'll keep him broke." 

I never thought it was funny.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 8, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> We can make dem faint too...
> 
> Did you see the report that over 90% of the animals "rescued" by PETA last year were euthanized? Yep.



Never saw the report. Whatever happened to all those chickens they were trying to rescue from Col. Sanders?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 8, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> For as long as I can remember a particular joke about paying the preacher went like this, "Lord you keep him humble and we'll keep him broke."
> 
> I never thought it was funny.




Me either! 

I know this is off topic but I will say that I have known and know a LOT of preachers, none of them are what I would consider wealthy. 

Just wondering where the line is for a pastor who makes too much money? How much salary should a pastor make? 

25,000? 50,000? 100,000? chickens and goats? bi-vocational only?


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 8, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Me either!
> 
> I know this is off topic but I will say that I have known and know a LOT of preachers, none of them are what I would consider wealthy.
> 
> ...





I think it depends. Some denominations regulates the Pastor's salary like a corporation might do. The more talents and gifts, the years in the ministry.............etc. 

Other Churches like to play the "our pastor game." Our pastor makes more than yours kind of thing, so it becomes more about we are more spiritual and more wealthy than you. I have heard of a Church giving the whole offering to the Pastor, he had a couple of houses and several cars. This was a non-denomination church. I asked the fellow who was one of the "leaders" in that church if he was ok with that and he said "no problem." Looking back, all my questioned proved was most Christians are very generous. Some even to personal hurt. 

What is the deciding factor? Well, the pastor should be able to live in the community where he is ministering as well as the average Church member does. Because the minister is expected to become a part of that community and this will require an average cost of living. Some places will be higher than others and some congregations will have higher salary averages than others. Like those who serve in the hills of W.V. vs. those in Atlanta etc. 

I will say I know many ministers who labor diligently for a fraction and live below the poverty level. They do it out of love for the gospel of Christ and those people they serve. Its a shame and their Churches should be ashamed if they are able to do more and don't. Nothing spiritual about it. 


Probably didn't answer your question but I tried to help.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 8, 2009)

Obama will take care of the overpayment problems.  He had to get those pesky capitalist CEO's first.














I'm only joking, folks.
I'm a total capitalist.  Make all you can make!


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 9, 2009)

Where to start, where to start . . . oh, okay – let us try this – Since written law, which contributes most decisively to separating the sphere of law from other aspects of human existence, did not make an appearance in most of the Greek world much before the seventh century B.C.  (about nine thousand years ago), and in Athens not verifiably before Draco, the concepts of ‘themis’ and ‘dike’, which dominate throughout the early archaic period what we would call ‘legal’ thinking, denote concepts of law considerably wider and more comprehensive than any later terms.  For this reason it is incorrect to apply our notions of ‘unwritten’ law to them, since where the written law has not yet been conceived of, its opposite cannot have been conceived of either.  Did anybody understand even a word of that?  I didn’t think so.  

Let’s start over – all of the American legal system is based on the older concept of Common Law.  Common law is a relative notion, with no constant content and no fixed referent.  (I can readily see that many of you wish the Bible to be the go-to referent, but it just has so very many hazards in it, in a legal context . . . )   The various parts of any legal system can only be constructed historically.  In the terminology of Roman Law (about 2,000 B.C.), which has been more influential than any other historical legal system, the expression of ‘ius commune’ lies principally in two contrasts – that between a society using laws and customs peculiar to themselves and that same society using laws and customs they believe to be common to all mankind.  The former is called a Civil Law (‘ius civile’), and the latter is called the law of nations (‘ius gentium’).  So, really, one needs to decide just which sort of ‘legislating’ one desires.  Law, or ‘legislating’, far predated Christianity.

 The modern legal concept of freedom did not prevent the (Christian) early Romans from holding other human beings as slaves, and even early Christian philosophy did not condemn slavery, or for that matter condemn authoritarian government. For them, the future ‘equality’ of souls in heaven did not call for social disruption in order to achieve equality of bodies on Earth.  So it was that ‘Saint’ Paul urged a fugitive slave to return to his Master (Epistle to Philemon).  ‘Saint’ Augustine sought to explain slavery as a form of collective retribution for original sin.  So much for ‘legislating’ morality . . . We can do without these sorts of interpretations . . .  

If we were to ‘legislate’ in strict accordance with the Good Book, so to say, slavery would be with us still, and stoning ‘sinners’ would be public policy, among dozens of similar absurdities.  Thankfully, an enlightened society has progressed beyond a single ancient source of ‘wisdom,’ and has decided to make law based on the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of which books they have failed to read properly . . .


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

> Thankfully, an enlightened society has progressed beyond a single ancient source of ‘wisdom,’ and has decided to make law based on the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of which books they have failed to read properly . . .




I am so sure 50 million aborted infants are thankful for such an enlightened society.........


----------



## jason4445 (Apr 9, 2009)

At least there were 50 millions children that did not have to suffer under abusive and neglectful parents that did not want them in the first place.


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 9, 2009)

"I am so sure 50 million aborted infants are thankful for such an enlightened society......... "    

My goodness.  50 million aborted infants?  Can you provide a credible cite for that statistic?  I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the topic at hand was whether a society can legislate morality, not whether or not you can play another hyperbolic bit of invented nonsense into yet another attempt to focus all attention on to only your own opinions  . . .


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> Even when Jesus walked the earth it was very few who could read in their native tongue....WTM45



WTM,

You have put forth this argument in a couple of threads and it is a paper tiger. 

Literacy has nothing to do with the Word of God or peoples understanding of it.  The Law was read to the people at various times and they understood it well.

Verbal tradition was practiced and taken very seriously.

8  So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
9    And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.  Ne. 8:8-9

Put that tired old argument away, it is irrelevant.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> At least there were 50 millions children that did not have to suffer under abusive and neglectful parents that did not want them in the first place. ... jason



Those 50 million babies would have been abused and neglected?  

 What a ridiculous supposition!   If possible neglect is the reason for aborting babies then by that logic we should get all of those children that are being abused and neglected and kill them in order to save them from that life.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> They should vote and operate based on what their constituency tells them to do. ...WTM



We live in a representative republic.  We vote for representatives that most closely reflect our views.  If they do just "what their constituency tells them to do" they are nothing but liberal puppets with their wetted fingers held up in the wind.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> If we were to ‘legislate’ in strict accordance with the Good Book, so to say, slavery would be with us still, and stoning ‘sinners’ would be public policy, among dozens of similar absurdities. Thankfully, an enlightened society has progressed beyond a single ancient source of ‘wisdom,’ and has decided to make law based on the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of which books they have failed to read properly . . . Doogenes



It is thanks to Christianity that we do not have slavery in most of the christian world and do not stone disobedient children or murder unfaithful wives.  

The only reason we are incensed by such acts is because we have lived under Christian ideals for 2000 years.  If any of us had lived BC the thought of slavery would not get a second look.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Seems Jesus was pretty specific about that one also. Only one legitimate reason.



Jesus and Paul didn't contradict each other, if they did throw the bible away and walk away from this forum. Both were in keeping with the divorce laws of the OT.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> At least there were 50 millions children that did not have to suffer under abusive and neglectful parents that did not want them in the first place.




Proverbs 12:10  But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 9, 2009)

Brothers and Sisters on this foram, You cannot pass a law in a land and change the heart of  a single human being. We don't need more laws passed we need to have a change of heart among men, When that happens we won't need laws passed to keep our morality in check. IN DI VIG U AL IS M     I can't change you and you can't change me all we can do is influance.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> "I am so sure 50 million aborted infants are thankful for such an enlightened society......... "
> 
> My goodness.  50 million aborted infants?  Can you provide a credible cite for that statistic?  I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the topic at hand was whether a society can legislate morality, not whether or not you can play another hyperbolic bit of invented nonsense into yet another attempt to focus all attention on to only your own opinions  . . .




I was being conservative. 

http://crossingnineveh.blogspot.com/2008/10/ask-for-intercession-of-50-million.html

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/how.html


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_abortions_in_US_since_1982


Not wanting to jump to conclusions Diogenes but are you for the right of a mother to murder her unborn child? A simple yes or no will suffix.

Any society that can murder the most vulnerable and helpless of its members flunks the compassionate test and is relegated to pile of vile hypocrites, worthy of God's judgment. Which is proof that a society that lives contrary to God's law will suffer and will be reduced to absurdity, like ours.  This is happening now. 

We are so convinced of our own goodness and compassion that we will kill thousands of our own people to secure this safe and prosperous way of life for these "backwards" countries who "obviously" need our help since we have it all together. I mean, we have the corner market on love, right????

This verse is worthy of reposting. 

Proverbs 12:10   But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel. 


And I say thanks but no thanks for this kind of compassion!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the topic at hand was whether a society can legislate morality...Diogenes



Almost every law on the books has a moral imperative, not that it makes any difference.  Morality can be legislated and laws can be passed but will mankind abide by them?

That is a different question.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 9, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Jesus and Paul didn't contradict each other, if they did throw the bible away and walk away from this forum. Both were in keeping with the divorce laws of the OT.



I have never said that Paul and Jesus contradicted each other. Not sure where you are going with this as it relates to what I posted. 

According to what I read in the NT, Jesus indicates that "fornication" is the only legitimate reason for divorce.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

PWalls said:


> I have never said that Paul and Jesus contradicted each other. Not sure where you are going with this as it relates to what I posted.
> 
> According to what I read in the NT, Jesus indicates that "fornication" is the only legitimate reason for divorce.



That seems to be the implication when Paul has a broader acceptance for divorce then Jesus, which isn't true at all. Maybe I have misunderstood your point. If thats the case please know it wasn't intentional on my part, ok? 

The context of Jesus teaching of divorce is key to understanding his answer.


----------



## earl (Apr 9, 2009)

rp ,if abortion were a simple yes or no question ,it would not be the issue that it is. IMHO


----------



## footjunior (Apr 9, 2009)

earl said:


> rp ,if abortion were a simple yes or no question ,it would not be the issue that it is. IMHO


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 9, 2009)

earl said:


> rp ,if abortion were a simple yes or no question ,it would not be the issue that it is. IMHO



Men do have the tendency to make things harder than need be. Is is is.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> rp ,if abortion were a simple yes or no question ,it would not be the issue that it is. IMHO



It is a Y or N question.  Are saying our ethics should be situationally based?


----------



## earl (Apr 9, 2009)

Please do a search on the abortion threads so we don't have to go over too much old ground. I will give you one example to digest however . Your 2 month old unborn child is going to be born malformed and brain dead. It's birth will kill your wife. There are no other alternatives.  Oh yeah, You have no insurance or savings to give your wife any other medical treatment .She is in incredible pain. Enjoy the next 7 months. 
A wise person once said ''Never say never ''.


----------



## ToLog (Apr 9, 2009)

if we could legislate morality, we would, wouldn't we? 

of course we would. but, if we just had a simple King, he could run things by edict. it'd simplify gov't a lot. of course we might disagree with the King's edict, but that wouldn't matter so much.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> WTM,
> 
> You have put forth this argument in a couple of threads and it is a paper tiger.
> 
> Literacy has nothing to do with the Word of God or peoples understanding of it.  The Law was read to the people at various times and they understood it well.



That's in the top ten of crazy things I've seen posted here. 
OK.  Follow what others tell you from the mountain.  Don't confirm anything.  That's your right to do.
Go ahead.
Question nothing.   So many before have done the same.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> We live in a representative republic.  We vote for representatives that most closely reflect our views.  If they do just "what their constituency tells them to do" they are nothing but liberal puppets with their wetted fingers held up in the wind.



That is exactly their jobs.  To do what their consitiuency tells them they want them to do.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> That is exactly their jobs. To do what their consitiuency tells them they want them to do.



Can't fathom a representative republic can you?  they were voted into office to do what the campaigned to do.  Statesmen are worried about the next generation, politicians are worried about the next election.  you want politicians with their finger in the wind I want a statesman.

You got that in Obama.  congradulations.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> Can't fathom a representative republic can you?  they were voted into office to do what the campaigned to do.  Statesmen are worried about the next generation, politicians are worried about the next election.  you want politicians with their finger in the wind I want a statesman.
> 
> You got that in Obama.  congradulations.




I am getting what the majority voted for.  I am not in that majority.
But even in what you think a representative republic is, it is nothing but candidates who seek votes.  They get those votes based on their promises.  They make promises based on what the people who vote want.  If they do not deliver, they do not get re-elected.


----------



## Havana Dude (Apr 9, 2009)

Madman said:


> Those 50 million babies would have been abused and neglected?
> 
> What a ridiculous supposition!   If possible neglect is the reason for aborting babies then by that logic we should get all of those children that are being abused and neglected and kill them in order to save them from that life.



Ridiculous? Really? They are willing to kill their unborn child, yet would never abuse same child? Get real.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> That's in the top ten of crazy things I've seen posted here.



Give me the other nine.
Then put the entire post in context.  I case you forgot, Christians believe the Word of God is perfect, it is what verifies everything else.

By your last post I guess I hit a nerve.  Didn't intend to be insulting
but I am mad you know, sometimes crazy sometimes ticked off.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

Havanna Dude, 

There was a part two to the question.  Did you run out of logic?


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> Please do a search on the abortion threads so we don't have to go over too much old ground....earl



How do I get there?



> Your 2 month old unborn child is going to be born malformed and brain dead.



Too young to detect



> It's birth will kill your wife.



Abortion is ALWAYS more dangerous than Birth.

Difficult precidents make bad law.  Never passed a law based on the exception.  So I suppose by your answer you do have situational ethics.

Be very careful.


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

Havana Dude said:


> Ridiculous? Really? They are willing to kill their unborn child, yet would never abuse same child? Get real.



All 50 million?  Yes it is rediculous.  by the way 70+% of the women who submit to abortion are taken by a significant man in their life.

yes REDICULOUS


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 9, 2009)

Reformedpastor says: "Not wanting to jump to conclusions Diogenes but are you for the right of a mother to murder her unborn child? A simple yes or no will suffix (sic).

Any society that can murder the most vulnerable and helpless of its members flunks the compassionate test and is relegated to (a) pile of vile hypocrites, worthy of God's judgment."

Exodus:
The mass murder of innocent children by God (see 12:29-30) was simply premeditated.  God was pretty bigoted against the Egyptians, it seems:  

11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:   
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.  
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.  
11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Well . . . I guess.   Probably the LORD just decided that He didn’t like those pesky Egyptians that he had created in His infinite wisdom and mercy . . . or even their pets and livestock . . .   So, reformedpastor, let me ask a question -- If a society that can ‘murder’ the most vulnerable and helpless causes you despair, then how exactly can you support a 'God' who did just that, repeatedly?  Wouldn't this make you a 'vile hypocrite'?  Morality like that is what you espouse, if you support this doctrine that was handed to you by your 'God'-- so tell us about it . . . We continue to enjoy desperate rationalizations by you fellas . . .

Madman says: "Christians believe the Word of God is perfect, it is what verifies everything else."  Madman -- see the point in the above paragraph . . . If you feel that the mass slaughter of innocents by your ‘God’ is a perfect act then you might need to reevaluate your priorities. 

And here I thought the topic was legislating morality, which is simple to prove has always been done in one way or another.  A few thousand years before there was a Bible, folks took the collective morals of their society and wrote them down into things called ‘laws’ – such as:   Don’t kill without cause, Don’t steal, Don’t rape, and stuff like that . . . The orderly progress of any society of men depended on a standard and accepted set of rules, and all of those rules (‘Laws,’ in this context), consisted of the simple codification of the collective morality as it existed at the time.  ‘Morality’ changes over time and is by no means a set and graven idyll that simply exists independently of human society.  Thus, laws have changed and evolved over time, as one might expect.  

So, to answer the OP – yes, not only can morality be legislated, but it is the only reason that the human act of legislation started – to make rules of behavior that any and all could see clearly.  Oddly enough, folks started doing this thousands of years before the Bible arrived to try to tell them how to do it properly . . .  Go figure . . . pesky history . . .


----------



## connorreid (Apr 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Reformedpastor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 9, 2009)

Connorreid -- are you stalking me, or are you just impaired?  I may have mentioned that I will not engage idiots, so give your typing thumb a rest, eh?


----------



## connorreid (Apr 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Connorreid -- are you stalking me, or are you just impaired?  I may have mentioned that I will not engage idiots, so give your typing thumb a rest, eh?


You aren't too truthful......you're still talking.  

I think you're just scared b/c you don't have the answers....


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 9, 2009)

Thank goodness that you do . . . killing thread after thread with the same tired nonsense . . .


----------



## Madman (Apr 9, 2009)

> Since God is the Creator, perfect and sinless, and will always to right, then He can do as He chooses to His creatures (since they rebelled against him and are sinful).
> Man killing man - different story. We don't have the right to kill, God does. ..Conner



You said it. Spot on.

DG doesn't want to engage.


----------



## earl (Apr 10, 2009)

I wouldn't call it situational ethics or morals. Others more computer literate than I can direct you in the search function. I have always been of the opinion that a man has little if any right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. I do believe there are instances where abortion may be the only option. By changing the criteria in my example you voided it . Use only the facts as given. There will be no other humane option. Change the months if you care to. I did not say abortion was not dangerous. It is the only OPTION to save her life. I don't think I mentioned any thing about laws. I will say that if it were my decision to make and my wifes life hung in the balance ,a law would never enter my mind. That might make me a conditional lawbreaker.
I fail to understand your last bit of advice.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Thank goodness that you do . . . killing thread after thread with the same tired nonsense . . .


If people debated the way you do it wouldn't be called debate.  You should have started your own blog.  I came on here to discuss with others and to refute foolishness.  So, when you post your foolishness, I'll refute it.  We all know and can see clearly that you can't live consistently with your worldview.  It is senseless.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> If you feel that the mass slaughter of innocents by your ‘God’ is a perfect act then you might need to reevaluate your priorities. ...Dioagenes



You judge the God that you do not know nor do you care to know.

That is hill-arious!!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

connorreid said:


> Since God is the Creator, perfect and sinless, and will always to right, then He can do as He chooses to His creatures (since they rebelled against him and are sinful)...
> 
> Again, our loving God can dispose of His sinful creatures as He chooses.



How convenient.
Anything can happen, and it can be explained later as the work of a "perfect, sinless and loving" deity.

Don't forget to mention, this deity even uses OTHER HUMANS to do that dirty work for him.  Right?  (Think Jim Jones.)
And it's OK, because they were following HIS ORDERS!


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> I have always been of the opinion that a man has little if any right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.



No one is telling her what she can do with her body.  Just that she can't murder another human being.



> There will be no other humane option.



Murder is humane? I somehow do not think you believe that,  some friends of ours had a son that was severly injured in car accident.  He was not on life support but he could not communicate, feed himself, etc.  By your logic the humane thing to have done would have been to kill him?  As I said, I don't think you really believe that.



> It is the only OPTION to save her life.



This has NEVER been the case.  You set up a strawman, I torched it.



> I fail to understand your last bit of advice.



Was not very clear.  Enjoy life,  Pet the dog, eat the fish,  go fishing.


----------



## earl (Apr 10, 2009)

Madman ,you have skirted the issue . Is your stance that there is never ever a case where abortion is the only option short of death ?


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 10, 2009)

Man.yawl are a MILE    and not being very nice,either.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> Don't forget to mention, this deity even uses OTHER HUMANS to do that dirty work for him. Right? (Think Jim Jones.)
> And it's OK, because they were following HIS ORDERS!



Show me where God told J. Jones to do what he did.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> Madman ,you have skirted the issue . Is your stance that there is never ever a case where abortion is the only option short of death ?



The claim is that there has never been one documented.  One thing is certain.  In an abortion there is always a murder.  

Situational ethics earl.  
Tough road for a moral man to follow.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> Show me where God told J. Jones to do what he did.
> (EDITED by PWalls)



Mr. Jones thought he was doing the "Will of God."  He "talked" to God frequently.  We would have to ask him.
I think the man was delusional and held multiple personalities.

The Bible does tell of Joshua and the siege of and subsequent murder of the inhabitants (including women and children) of Jericho, doing the dirty work in the name of God.

Thanks for editing the namecalling, PWalls.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How convenient.
> Anything can happen, and it can be explained later as the work of a "perfect, sinless and loving" deity.
> 
> Don't forget to mention, this deity even uses OTHER HUMANS to do that dirty work for him.  Right?  (Think Jim Jones.)
> And it's OK, because they were following HIS ORDERS!


I told you I have a system of belief and I stick to it.  To answer your question - YES.  God is perfect and everything He does is perfect.  God has ordained a means to an end. He uses sinful men to judge other sinful men. The sinful men killed b/c they were sinful and meant it for bad, while God used it for good.

From an atheistic standpoint, why would men killing other men matter?


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 10, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Reformedpastor says: "Not wanting to jump to conclusions Diogenes but are you for the right of a mother to murder her unborn child? A simple yes or no will suffix (sic).
> 
> Any society that can murder the most vulnerable and helpless of its members flunks the compassionate test and is relegated to (a) pile of vile hypocrites, worthy of God's judgment."
> 
> ...



I have been called out.............interesting post, but, one that I am not surprised to see. I thought WTMB said atheism is emotionless??? This is charged with emotion, guess I struck a nerve, if I were Joel Osteen or Rick Warren I would be very intimidated by this question, but I'm not, so I will answer though surely not to your satisfaction. 

But first things first, did you answer my question pertaining to abortion? Are you opposed to or for the right of a women to murder her unborn child? Once again, no book needed just yes or no. Thanks.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I thought WTMB said atheism is emotionless???



Show me where I said anything involving humanity was emotionless?

We are a little off topic.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Show me where I said anything involving humanity was emotionless?
> 
> WTMB? =  DUMB?  Is that what you meant?
> Reformedpastor, I'm really tiring of the innuendo you use when typing other's names or sign on ID's.  Please show some maturity and type them accurately.  It is childish and petty.  I do show you respect, you should do the same.
> You do it on purpose, you know you do, and it is childish behavior.  It lessens your stance and weakens your arguments.



Why do I get the feeling that this will be like catching a greased pig? 

Post 834 "Is atheism intellectual" 

WTMB wrote-Take away the emotional component, replace it with a requirement for proofs or evidence and the result is a rejection of religious belief systems.

Thus religion is stimulated and maintained by emotions. Your words not mine. 

Where did I say you were dumb? Where have I implied such? 

I have wrote, implied, expressed what I see as rebellion or refusal to see the obvious. But, sir thats completely different than dumb. Oh, I also suggested perhaps you and ambush might need some critical reading skills, due to the leaps made at my posts. That's all. 

I mean aren't you calling me childish and immature? Hey, I don't mind I can take it and get along. You never read me complaining on here about name calling, though I have had a tendency to be direct and firm, I know some take that as hardness but I assure you thats not true.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Why do I get the feeling that this will be like catching a greased pig?
> 
> Post 834 "Is atheism intellectual"
> 
> ...



Some studied theologians understand what I was referring to as the emotional component.  Faith.  It is usually Catholics that do not see faith as emotional.
We are off topic.


I AM WTM45.  NOT WTMB.  

Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Why do I get the feeling that this will be like catching a greased pig?
> 
> Post 834 "Is atheism intellectual"
> 
> ...


RP:
Have you noticed that these atheists and others like them seem only to argue on emotion?  It's funny b/c they're emotions take over then they get mad and quit.  And who is childish?  They get back into a corner then start slinging mud.  It's great that all of this is in writing so other people can see what happens when the atheists are pressed.  They peel out of the debate on their emotions.........

It seems to me that I remember arguments from around the 3rd or 4th grade that ended with "I'm just going to ignore you!!"


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

If I am showing any emotion, it is sadness.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> If I am showing any emotion, it is sadness.
> Seeing where the "mud-slinging," namecalling and insult has been coming from lately, and then for believers to laugh about it is a shame.
> It proves much to be true about today's Christianity that just should not be so.
> 
> Where is the witness?  Where is the concern?  Where is the love?


We are on a debate forum and arguing against your beliefs.  People can go back and read for themselves and see the common traits of the unbelievers arguments.  The unbeliever is pressed, then commits to anger, emotion and mud slinging, then comes back and tries to manipulate the whole situation and start pointing the fingers at Christians saying such things as you have.  

The concern and love is right here in refuting your unbelief in the Triune God.  You consider us harsh b/c we don't agree with you and WILL NOT agree with you.  We consider you harsh b/c you blaspheme God and don't care.  Where is your love, compassion, concern?? Only wrapped up in yourself.  Very sad.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

connorreid said:


> We are on a debate forum and arguing against your beliefs.



No, WE are not.  WE should be addressing posts regarding legislating morality, which is the subject of this thread.
Only I know what I believe or reject.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 10, 2009)

Tone people. Please debate the topic without the innuendos and sarcasm and such. Childishness is not considered good form in a debate. It just drags down an otherwise good topic and discussion.

Thanks


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Some studied theologians understand what I was referring to as the emotional component.  Faith.  It is usually Catholics that do not see faith as emotional.
> 
> 
> AND,
> ...




Hey, I was going off the top of head from memory, nothing meant by it and didn't even know I did that until you brought it out. But I did laugh, if that hurt your feelings buddy I'm sorry. Just a simple mistake.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 10, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Tone people. Please debate the topic without the innuendos and sarcasm and such. Childishness is not considered good form in a debate. It just drags down an otherwise good topic and discussion.
> 
> Thanks



If you are addressing me let me know where I have done this and I will correct it. Thanks moderator.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Tone people. Please debate the topic without the innuendos and sarcasm and such. Childishness is not considered good form in a debate. It just drags down an otherwise good topic and discussion.
> 
> Thanks


I agree with RP.  Let me know if I have done wrong and I will correct.  Thanks and have a great weekend!!


----------



## connorreid (Apr 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, you are not.  You should be addressing posts regarding legislating morality, which is the subject of this thread.
> You do not know what I believe or reject.


Since we don't know what you believe or reject (I think we know more about you than you realize) then can you please tell us your thoughts on legislating morality which is the subject of this thread?  Thanks.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

We do not live in a theocracy, therefore the .gov should not legislate morality.
The .gov should address civil issues with laws.  The constituency should be communicating with the electorate on what concerns them.  The electorate should be listening.
Yep, currently there is a breakdown IMO.


Mr. Reid, you know very little about what I truly believe, my friend.
Most of my posts of late could be likened to an attorney who is representing a client charged with murder, and believes that client is probably guilty.  But, has a job to do.
And it has stimulated some interesting discussion.  I've seen some embarassing things as well.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> Thanks for editing the namecalling, PWalls.



You're right, thanks PWalls as soon as I pushed the post I wanted it back.  I apologize WTM.  

I should have said.  What Jim Jones did in no way was aligned with the Scriptures and to say that it was is nothing more than a slanderous statement about the character of God.  

To say that God spoke to him means nothing, a German Shepard told Son of Sam to do his killings.  Voices are not proof.

From your statements about God's comand to kill certain people, even children, it is evident you do know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  

You've read the books but you clearly do not know the characters, nor the character of the characters.

But you know that and He does not need me to defend Him.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> I apologize WTM.



Accepted.
We move forward.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> it is evident you do NOT know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.



Edit from previous.


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> Should I prepare myself for more insults?



WTM45 known as WTMB sometimes by RF.  (By accident)
Surely your skin is not that thin to think that was an insult.  

but you are correct.  Let's get back on topic.  Can you legislate morality?

I have said yes.  You can pass laws or legislate anything you desire, but will the population follow them.  Therein lies the question.

I submit that the vast majority of the laws we have a moral foundation.  

Back on topic.  I think


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> WTM45 known as WTMB sometimes by RF.  (By accident)
> Surely your skin is not that thin to think that was an insult.



Why is that any of your concern?


----------



## Madman (Apr 10, 2009)

> Why is that any of your concern?



The opening, addressing you by your alias and rf's mistake, was an attempt at humor.  I see it fell on deaf ears, or blind eyes since this is being read and not heard.  Hence the "Poke"

The thin skin remark was in response to a post you apparently removed.  You can see the quote in my post. 10:18 PM


Since you didn't respond to the post only the "poke" is your input on the topic complete?

Thought you would be lighter about this then you are.  Sorry for assuming such.  I will not make the same mistake again.  Don't want to be banned.


----------



## Israel (Apr 11, 2009)

You cannot legislate morality. 
You may legislate according to a form of morality.
The best man can do is legislate punishment for certain acts of behavior deemed punishable. You may be able to discern the morality of a society by observing what it allows for, (or more correctly prohibits) and likewise the zeal with which it prosecutes such. 
There is nothing "legislated" (by man) which says simply "you cannot steal".
There are laws, however, that have been made that outline punishment for that behavior if caught doing it according to its myriad permutations...with/without a gun, with/without a threat of bodily harm, over/under an arbitrary amount...etc.
Society generally (today) can and does define the limits of behavior that are unacceptable, as said, with it's considered appropriate punishments. 
But society cannot and actually never has passed a law that says "You must be honest".
I know that to some it may appear a matter of semantics, but it is far from it.
God's law was misinterpreted to mean observable (by man) behavior...and so a whole structure evolved of men devoted to making a fair show of what they did.
But the law is spiritual, and cannot be rightly discerned by the carnal man, so it becomes his undoing.
Christ is the end, and the end of the law.
He is what the law was to bring us to, and who conformation according to the law demonstrated.
To have Christ within is the fulfillment of the law, but what God didn't do through the law he did through the person of his son.

Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 11, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> We do not live in a theocracy, therefore the .gov should not legislate morality.
> The .gov should address civil issues with laws.  The constituency should be communicating with the electorate on what concerns them.  The electorate should be listening.
> Yep, currently there is a breakdown IMO.
> 
> ...


If we all take up your line of thinking on here, then you don't know anybody either.  Fact is, the more comments you make, the more we know about you whehter you like it or not.

Also, not living in a theocracy has nothing to do with legislating morality.  Don't laws deal with morality? Illegal to murder, steal, etc.  Don't you have laws now is a government that's not a theocracy?  

When I speak of legislating morality I'm talking of the civil government upholding and protecting the laws (in particular, God's laws).  The civil government can't control your thoughts and intents but they can deter you from preventing certain actions.  We see this everyday.

Since God rules over everything and this is His earth, I rely on His word for direction.  According to His word,from what I've read,  God has ordained church government and He has ordained civil government.  They are separate but all are accountable to Him. The civil magistrate has the duty to uphold God's laws.  The church has been given the "keys" of the kingdom and civil government has been given the "sword".

Gary Demar said:  "Too often, however, people decide who they want to be their authority rather than acknowledge the absolute authority of God."  

As RJ Rushdoony has made clear:  "No man can escape the problem of authority.  Every man will consciously or unconsciously appeal to some authority as basic and ultimate to life.  

Go back and look at the origins of this country (1620 - The Mayflower Compact, The Fundamental Order in 1639, and all other documents leading up to the constitution), and it is obviously a nation built on a belief in the Triune God of the Bible.  

Looks like to me, in our current system, morality is definitely being legislated today.  How can it not be in a world created by GOD?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 11, 2009)

Mr. Reid, you DON'T know me or how I think OR believe.  That's a fact.
And, I don't know you and how you believe.  I do not care.  It is your business.
But I bet we could fish all day long and have a good time chatting away!


Morality is best when it is individual, personal, and done completely by  choice.  Voluntarily, not by penalty of law.
Think about it.

Using religious arguments to try to legislate morality is a failing endeavor.  And is found in a theocracy.  Religion should be focused on the people directly, and be voluntary, not through .gov legislation.  Understand root causes and effect.
The .gov should only focus on the civil and criminal, not the spiritual.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 11, 2009)

Madman said:


> The opening, addressing you by your alias and rf's mistake, was an attempt at humor.  I see it fell on deaf ears, or blind eyes since this is being read and not heard.  Hence the "Poke"
> 
> More veiled insults?  I read, hear and comprehend just fine.  Thankfully, I am not at all disabled.
> 
> ...



As I said to Reformedpastor, I try to communicate here as if we were face to face.  I make all attempts to be respectful of others.  Let me know if I do not do just that.


----------



## Madman (Apr 11, 2009)

> Using religious arguments to try to legislate morality is a failing endeavor..... WTM45



Since atheism is subjective the only way to "legislate morality" would be by using a religious standard.  Thank God we live in a Christian nation and our founding fathers believed God was the arbiture of morality.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 11, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> > Mr. Reid, you DON'T know me or how I think OR believe.  That's a fact.
> > And, I don't know you and how you believe.  I do not care.  It is your business.
> > But I bet we could fish all day long and have a good time chatting away!
> 
> ...


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 11, 2009)

To the original post. 

Is there ever a law created that doesn't reflect a moral position? 

How about this perspective? Man should never legislate morality, because  wouldn't this would make him God determining for himself good and evil? We have read those words before!  Since God alone has the right and authority to make law man should leave that to God and accept and apply His law as the only good standard of morality.


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 11, 2009)

Reformedpastor writes: "But first things first, did you answer my question pertaining to abortion? Are you opposed to or for the right of a women to murder her unborn child? Once again, no book needed just yes or no. Thanks"

Yes, Sir, first things first – your question is not in any way relevant to the concept of the legislation of morality, and my personal position on the question of abortion will not change the question nor the answers.  Asking questions which add nothing to the discussion except to provide fuel for the on-going ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments is counter-productive at best, and deliberately provocative at worst.  If folks do not wish to address the topic, but rather attack the people they disagree with personally, then I suppose that the basis of the current legal system is well proven by that tactic alone.

And, yes, Sir, books are needed if one is to understand the question before turning it into a personal and one-viewpoint diatribe.  I’ll try to keep this somewhat compact, so let us begin by observing that, historically, legal rules in primitive societies were often not sharply distinguished from religious prescriptions and proscriptions and the dictates of societal morality or convention.  Skipping over a few dozen centuries of intellectual development and debate, it is fair to say that the pattern of discourse about the concept of law in modern legal philosophy emerged in the nineteenth century in the works of the English jurist, John Austen.  Austen described law as a set of commands, some quite general and whimsical in nature, issuing from a sovereign.  He defined a sovereign as a determinate human superior who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of society, but is not himself beholden to any superior.   This position, still often debated today, is known as analytical positivism.  (Sounds a bit familiar, as a logical argument, if you boil it to down to parts  . . . and if you substitute a few terms . . . well, then it sounds a bit more familiar . . .  ).  

From Austen to Kelsen to H.L.A. Hart, we move to the concept of acceptance by society of those dictates, and later the Austrian jurist, Eugen Ehrlich insisted that if out interest and inquiry are into the forms of social control then we have no choice but to acknowledge that formal law plays only a part, and sometimes no part at all, even in areas where it purports to regulate.  As was observed somewhere above – I think by Israel – the making of a rule by no means creates obedience.  The positivist position, in a nutshell, assumes a higher enlightenment by the law-giver, and has no practical application short of creating a dictatorship, since the concepts of ‘perfection’ and ‘perfectibility’ are so flawed as to be without any real application.

Though Fontanelle had earlier rejected the idea of moral progress, even Diderot, though among the Encyclopedists,  restricted the idea of development to the individual, recognizing that existing societies had rules and institutions so contrary to reason that they could only be explained by assuming them to have arisen out of superstition, blind arrogance, and the lust for power.  Even Reclus, quoting another, says,” morality, the last acquired faculty of man, is the first which he is liable to lose.”  Even in arguing for positivism so as not to be executed by a sovereign, they saw the flaws in the idea quite clearly. 

So, to get anywhere, we first have to distinguish between morality in the sense of conscientiousness – that is, acting according to a sense of duty, and morality in the sense of the body of rules and obligations binding on the individual.  This isn’t so easy to do, but since morals have progressed and changed over time, quite clearly and easily demonstrably, and since it is apparent than men are not born now with better moral equipment than in earlier times, then certain things become clear – 

The first is that those who would deny the reality of moral progress have marginalized themselves, and must be ready to write-off the whole history of reflections on human nature and the possibilities of humans as of no significance.  The position that ‘morality admits of no new discoveries’ can hardly be justified by reality.  There have been at least four new discoveries that are of huge importance, and figure into even the most primitivistic of moral interpretations in the modern world – the first is the establishment of the impartial rule, the simple foundation of common sense morality.  The second is the intellectual establishment of the concept of universalism, which is the entire basis of religious idealism.  Third and fourth are the concept of the social personality, and the idea of freedom as the basis of personal development which emerges here time and again in the modern construct of ethico-religious idealism.  All of these are relatively new ideas, intellectually and philosophically, and did not exist in any expressed form in the ancient world.  That is to say, arguing from any of those four intellectual platforms, which is done time and again in different forms, is a de facto admission of moral progress.  By humans.    

So, in order to properly draw a line between morality and legislation, there are a few sets of problems urgently in need of clarification.  One concerns the ethical aspects of technological progress, and in particular the social responsibilities of scientists.  The other relates to the moral elements in the ‘ideologies’ now dividing both our own society and those of the balance of the world.  It is not at all clear that leaders who speak in ‘moral’ terms have the same, or different conceptions of life, the order of the importance of such conceptions, or of the types of institutions and ‘laws’ needed to attain them.    The confusion of moral assertions with factual assertions requires quite a lot more investigation before society is willing to accept that the question is settled by only the imposition of a single set of opinions which are held to be Divine by only one faction.  We’ve seen that sort of absolute before . . .    

But it is equally clear that the lines between morality and law are blurred in many ways, and while a clear divide between the two may be desirable to the formation of one argument or another, even on the legal side things are not so easy.  Without going on and on, Law, and ideas concerning the proper application of same, similarly developed over time, and from Machiavelli and Hobbes to Locke and Rousseau the idea of what can and ought to be codified into law has changed.  In 1748 the Baron de Montesquieu said that the secret to freedom lies in vesting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government in separate bodies.  Clearly our Founders picked up this idea and ran with it.  

But moral and legal overlaps abound, from the establishment of monogamy to discriminatory racial laws, and some hold that even private behavior might undermine the moral fabric of a society, and so we have debates and legislation over Sunday Blue Laws , stem cell research, homosexuality, and dozens of other things that some hold to be the purview of Law, and others hold to be the exclusive territory of Morality.  The function of a government is open to free debate, but it is a founding principle of our own that we are a representative democracy, with each representative responsible for defending and upholding the interests of his entire district, not just the noisiest members, thus the principle – majority rule, with respect for the minority.

No clear answer is yet in sight for thinking people, and thus the debate is ongoing.  But, to go back to the OP, since it is quite clear that morality has been legislated, perhaps a better restatement of the question might be not so much ‘can morality be legislated?’ but rather – ‘should morality be legislated?’


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 11, 2009)

Does the representative represent his constituents, meaning their interests, or the law of the land, the constitution he swore to uphold?


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 11, 2009)

Both, we are led to hope . . .


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 11, 2009)

How can both by right in a dispute. Who wins? The law or people?


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 11, 2009)

Historically, it has been a toss up . . . mostly the law wins, by the sword, but revolutions abound when the freedoms of the people are too sorely tested.  The problem is that neither is 'right' by any objective standard.  I do not say that this is solvable, only that the debate, and the struggle between governance and the freedom to think and do as one sees fit is pretty clearly an on-going pursuit . . .


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2009)

diogenes said:


> reformedpastor writes: "but first things first, did you answer my question pertaining to abortion? Are you opposed to or for the right of a women to murder her unborn child? Once again, no book needed just yes or no. Thanks"
> 
> yes, sir, first things first – your question is not in any way relevant to the concept of the legislation of morality, and my personal position on the question of abortion will not change the question nor the answers.  Asking questions which add nothing to the discussion except to provide fuel for the on-going ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments is counter-productive at best, and deliberately provocative at worst.  If folks do not wish to address the topic, but rather attack the people they disagree with personally, then i suppose that the basis of the current legal system is well proven by that tactic alone.
> 
> ...



:d:d:d


----------



## Diogenes (Apr 12, 2009)

Thank you for reposting that, Sir.  Do you have a point to make that is germane to the topic?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 12, 2009)

That's about as compact as you can make such a deeply important issue.  Very informative post, Diogenes.

"Sounds great, but would never work. One person might like to shoot people and others may not. Morality would be subjective."
-connorreid

Be careful here, Mr. Reid.  Some religious belief systems allow for physical assault and murder.  Even promoting it.  So, which belief system is best for establishing morality?  The Bible?
I hope we do not have to be involved in stoning to death a rebellious teenager at the town line.



"You have revealed much about yourself on here so I know a little about your thoughts." -connorreid

Unfortunately, you have missed some pretty important statements made by me in various posts.  You know little of my thoughts, only of what I have posted.  That could be purely the opinions of others which I have read and studied, and only reflective of their beliefs.  You do not know.

I can assume the same from you.  You might be the biggest Christian fake ever to hit this discussion board.  I do not know, and I do not care.  So let's get past the personal and stay on topic.

Think what you wish.  I have no idea what that is.  But it is great we were born into a region of the planet where we can do just that.  That is, talk about something outside of a forced theology system without fear of incarceration, or penalty of death.


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's about as compact as you can make such a deeply important issue.  Very informative post, Diogenes.
> 
> "Sounds great, but would never work. One person might like to shoot people and others may not. Morality would be subjective."
> -connorreid
> ...




I am not sure where I should come down in consideration of a society that stones rebellious youth to death. If it were to be retroactive, my opinion would not matter anyway, as I would not be typing right now. 
My remains'd be layin' in the dirt somewhere with a well earned fractured skull. 

Besides, cutting off the legacy of rebelliousness is not, in itself a bad thing. 
But the preference is living in the fear of the Lord, and delighting in it, instead of trying to throw a rock high enough and then maneuvering yourself under it with the precision necessary to make sure it does its work.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 12, 2009)

Israel said:


> I am not sure where I should come down in consideration of a society that stones rebellious youth to death. If it were to be retroactive, my opinion would not matter anyway, as I would not be typing right now.
> My remains'd be layin' in the dirt somewhere with a well earned fractured skull.
> 
> Besides, cutting off the legacy of rebelliousness is not, in itself a bad thing.
> But the preference is living in the fear of the Lord, and delighting in it, instead of trying to throw a rock high enough and then maneuvering yourself under it with the precision necessary to make sure it does its work.




I'm pretty sure how I feel right now about the subject, Israel.  But like you, I probably would not have lived to voting age for it to make a difference!

But, a little rebelliousness has proven to be a good thing throughout history, a catalyst for positive change in many cases.

Good points, Israel!  I like how you think!


----------



## CRAWDADDY (Apr 12, 2009)

*Should have*



jason4445 said:


> At least there were 50 millions children that did not have to suffer under abusive and neglectful parents that did not want them in the first place.



Should have been 50 million + 1.


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 12, 2009)

Where in the bible does it say "stone rebellious youth?" This is one of those things that gets tossed out there with no explanation. So could the one who mentioned it as an example explain why they used this?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Where in the bible does it say "stone rebellious youth?" This is one of those things that gets tossed out there with no explanation. So could the one who mentioned it as an example explain why they used this?



Deuteronomy 21:18-21.  I will not pretend or attempt to explain it.

While we are at it, here are a few more verses that if taken literally, would we want THAT as legislated morality?

Exodus 21:15
Exodus 21:17
Proverbs 30:17
Genesis 22:2 & 10
Exodus 12:29-30
II Kings 2:23-24

Some real scary ones.....imagine a religious zealot pushing this as morality to be legislated.

Leviticus 26:29
Deuteronomy 28:53
Jeremiah 19:9
Psalm 137:9


----------



## Madman (Apr 13, 2009)

QUOTE]Some real scary ones.....imagine a religious zealot pushing this as morality to be legislated....WTM45
[/QUOTE]

Were those commands made because they were what we consider, right or wrong action, or because they were right or wrong according to God?

Was His command to kill those that "we as individuals" believe should die or those that He says should die?


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 13, 2009)

Well we have seem what the zeal of atheism has accounted for, scary! It seems that if these biblical laws were so tyrannical the nation would never have thrived. But this is not the case at all, it was when they ceased keeping these moral objective standards that they slipped into irrationality and irrelevance. Much like today in this nation. I have to laugh when atheist claim a high level of compassion, totally hypocritical, that is why I always ask the abortion question. If they support abortion while at the same time claiming to be concerned about unjust taking of life their words fall on deaf ears with me. 

From a christian worldview God is the one who defines justice. He can do this since one of His many perfections is justness. Man is has fallen nature which will lead him to call evil good and good evil. Look around and this is exactly what is happening here in this country. Abortion= compassion as well as serving a life in prison where you are subjected to the  horrifying abominations that take places there= compassion. Objective standards cannot be avoided and when they are serious consequences arise. The question will always be "who's" objective standard will be followed. Law must come first to have a peaceful and just society. The whims of the people wax an wan and this is true and christian as much as it is true of all the rest, the rule of law must win the day. One of the must popular books sold when this country was founded was one written by a Presbyterian Elder named Samuel Rutherford titled "LEX REX." meaning "law is king. He was combating the idea the the King is under authority and not above the law. Sound familiar?????? 


If the atheist that have posted on here are correct in their interpretation of history and law then there is no hope. We will only change one dictator for another dictator who may or may not be as bad as the other. Nevertheless, still a dictator. 

God's law rightly understood is the answer. It is just and good. It promotes a moral and safe society, unless your an outlaw, with a solid economic base. Our future will not be secured with stimulus packages or charismatic presidents but through a just and moral society that respects the rule of law which everyone falls under no exceptions. 


These verses posted by some are supposed to be evidence that God is irrational, unjust and the supreme tyrant. But, theres is an element that needs addressing here, as the Israelites were entering the land they were to have these laws as their rule of social practice and justice, what can be said of the one who knowing violates these laws? If you knew that adultery carried with it the death penalty shouldn't that deter you? But is that didn't stop you from committing adultery then what does that say of him or her willing to accept the risk??? 

I didn't grow up in a christian home but it was a home that promoted consequences, "you reap what you sow." The liberals call this cruel and try to eliminate the consequences, this is why they argue for the rights of a child molester and rapist. The bible commands the death penalty for these crimes. It will deter the next fellow who is thinking about it as well as make certain the one committed the crime will never do it again. 

We do reap what we sow whether we like it or not.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I didn't grow up in a christian home but it was a home that promoted consequences, "you reap what you sow."



It can be possible.  Morals and rules without using a Bible or a Quran.

Remember, the death penalty has never been an effective deterrent to crimes so punishable.  It is simply about making those who are convicted of such crimes dead.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> God's law rightly understood is the answer.



Who understands it "rightly" (correctly?)?  You?  Benny Hinn?  Banjo?  Lowjack?  Pat Robertson?


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 13, 2009)

It seems from this chart that the public has an opinion that is not shared by their representatives. 

What now?


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 13, 2009)

I beg to differ with those who state the death penalty does not work. 

http://www.heritage.org/research/crime/tst082807a.cfm


*The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty*​ 
Federal, state, and local officials need to recognize that the death penalty saves lives. How capital punishment affects murder rates can be explained through general deterrence theory, which supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker's seminal 1968 study of the economics of crime assumed that individuals respond to the costs and benefits of committing crime.

According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals "rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere." Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents.

*Early Research
*​The rigorous examination of the deterrent effect of capital punishment began with research in the 1970s by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics. Professor Ehrlich's research found that the death penalty had a strong deterrent effect. While his research was debated by other scholars, additional research by Professor Ehrlich reconfirmed his original findings. In addition, research by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro strongly reconfirmed Ehrlich's previous findings.

*Recent Research *​
Numerous studies published over the past few years, using panel data sets and sophisticated social science techniques, are demonstrating that the death penalty saves lives. Panel studies observe multiple units over several periods. The addition of multiple data collection points gives the results of capital punishment panel studies substantially more credibility than the results of studies that have only single before-and-after intervention measures. Further, the longitudinal nature of the panel data allows researchers to analyze the impact of the death penalty over time that cross-sectional data sets cannot address.

Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.

Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings.

First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates.

Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African–Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African–Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder. For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work, Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders. Zimmerman's second study, using similar data, found that executions conducted by electrocution are the most effective at providing deterrence.

Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder. They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates.

In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African–Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African–Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder.

The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case. In particular, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago has commented:

If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged.

*Conclusion*​ 
Americans support capital punishment for two good reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that minorities are treated unfairly. Second, capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives.



Interesting!!!!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor (Apr 13, 2009)

Here is a contrary point of view about the death penalty. 



FACT SHEET: THE DEATH PENALTY DOES NOT DETER CRIME

The Death Penalty Has No Beneficial Effect On Murder Rates

“I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that
the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that
would substantiate that point.”– Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, January 21, 2000

• The death penalty does not make communities safer. Wisconsin, which has not had the death penalty for 150 years, has a murder rate that is half that of states like Texas and Florida that use the death penalty frequently.

• The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. (Amnesty International)

• A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty. (Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, “Absence of Executions,” New York Times, September 22, 2000)

Those Who Commit Murder Do Not Consider the Consequences Of Their Actions

“I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime.” – Willie L. Williams, Police Chief, Los Angeles, CA

• Most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act.

Authorities Recognize That Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Crime

“Take it from someone who has spent a career in federal and state law enforcement, enacting the death penalty…would be a grave mistake. Prosecutors must reveal the dirty little secret they too often share only among themselves: The death penalty actually hinders the fight against crime.” – Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, Manhattan, NY

• 84% of current and former presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies reject the notion that research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty. (Michael L. Radelet, Ronald L. Akers, Northern Illinois University)

• 2 out of every 3 law enforcement officers do not believe that capital punishment decreases the rate
of homicides. (Death Penalty Information Center)


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 13, 2009)

The death penalty does one thing well.  It is a 100% positive impact on recidivism rates.
I am pro death penalty for murder.


----------



## connorreid (Apr 13, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Well we have seem what the zeal of atheism has accounted for, scary! It seems that if these biblical laws were so tyrannical the nation would never have thrived. But this is not the case at all, it was when they ceased keeping these moral objective standards that they slipped into irrationality and irrelevance. Much like today in this nation. I have to laugh when atheist claim a high level of compassion, totally hypocritical, that is why I always ask the abortion question. If they support abortion while at the same time claiming to be concerned about unjust taking of life their words fall on deaf ears with me.
> 
> From a christian worldview God is the one who defines justice. He can do this since one of His many perfections is justness. Man is has fallen nature which will lead him to call evil good and good evil. Look around and this is exactly what is happening here in this country. Abortion= compassion as well as serving a life in prison where you are subjected to the  horrifying abominations that take places there= compassion. Objective standards cannot be avoided and when they are serious consequences arise. The question will always be "who's" objective standard will be followed. Law must come first to have a peaceful and just society. The whims of the people wax an wan and this is true and christian as much as it is true of all the rest, the rule of law must win the day. One of the must popular books sold when this country was founded was one written by a Presbyterian Elder named Samuel Rutherford titled "LEX REX." meaning "law is king. He was combating the idea the the King is under authority and not above the law. Sound familiar??????
> 
> ...


RP:  From the atheists perspective, like ambush, foot junior, and others, I find it amusing they would write such lengthy posts trying to explain things when they claim one can't possibly be absolutely 100% certain about anything.  They sure seem to be.  Don't you think? That's the foolishness of their system.  What they propose about life is exactly the opposite of how they live.  Amazing at the blindness....


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 14, 2009)

connorreid said:


> If we all take up your line of thinking on here, then you don't know anybody either.  Fact is, the more comments you make, the more we know about you whehter you like it or not.
> 
> Also, not living in a theocracy has nothing to do with legislating morality.  Don't laws deal with morality? Illegal to murder, steal, etc.  Don't you have laws now is a government that's not a theocracy?
> 
> ...



Excellent post!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 14, 2009)

connorreid said:


> RP:  From the atheists perspective, like ambush, foot junior, and others, I find it amusing they would write such lengthy posts trying to explain things when they claim one can't possibly be absolutely 100% certain about anything.  They sure seem to be.  Don't you think? That's the foolishness of their system.  What they propose about life is exactly the opposite of how they live.  Amazing at the blindness....



I have never written a post over a hundred words.  You don't have to be 100% certain about something to apply it operationally.


----------



## footjunior (Apr 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You don't have to be 100% certain about something to apply it operationally.


----------



## thedeacon (Apr 16, 2009)

Israel said:


> I am not sure where I should come down in consideration of a society that stones rebellious youth to death. If it were to be retroactive, my opinion would not matter anyway, as I would not be typing right now.
> My remains'd be layin' in the dirt somewhere with a well earned fractured skull.
> 
> Besides, cutting off the legacy of rebelliousness is not, in itself a bad thing.
> But the preference is living in the fear of the Lord, and delighting in it, instead of trying to throw a rock high enough and then maneuvering yourself under it with the precision necessary to make sure it does its work.




When I grow up I want to think just like you. 

Thanks for your very wise post.


----------

