"Ok, a lot of people made some...well, they typed a lot of words, and put them together in ways that looked like they were saying something."
In other words, you didn't understand what I posted. I posted in clear English, too. Your responses below clearly illustrate your lack of understanding of what I said.
But you resort to the scoundrel tactic of insult and condescension. Nothing new.
But frankly, I am getting tired of your un-Christlike hubris and arrogance. Don't be surprised when it bites you in the ass. And it will. I am not claiming any moral superiority over you, I try to be humble like Christ teaches, always able to learn something from others--something it seems to me you have a VERY hard time doing.
So keep sitting on your pinnacle of Immaculate Wisdom, just don't b*tch when your ass starts hurting....
Anyway.
"*SIGH*"
The Great Mouthpiece of God sighs.... All ye, repent!
A Moral History? (get it?)
"Never said people were more inclined to do good 'back then'. I said that there were more social stigmata against, and therefore a stronger tendency to avoid, certain evil acts."
Yeah, the ones YOU are obsessed with.... Slavery, racism, child labor, witch "trials" with people bearing false witness? We can conveniently ignore the fact that there were no real stigmata against THESE then, whereas there are such stigmata now.
So in many areas, morality has progressed (stigmata increased), whereas in some areas it has declined (stigmata decreased). Net result? No moral decline. Man I hate explaining things THREE times....
"Some of these social stigmata were so strong, that we had laws on the books to recognise their basic decency and validity."
Again, there is a difference between people having opinions, and people enforcing those opinions through the barrel of a gun. Such wanton use of force is itself immoral, and whether you realize it or not actually UNDERMINES the moral authority of the original law, in the eyes of many people. Jesus was all about CHOOSING to do right, not being FORCED to. Please read your Bible--I shouldn't even have to point such a thing out to you. Pay particular attention to things he said to people called Pharisees.
"Enter the hair-splitting lawyers, with their axes to grind, in the name of personal liberty at any cost, even basic human decency."
Minimizing use of force to bare necessity IS basic human decency. Hasn't enough blood been shed, especially by Jesus Himself?
"Regrettably, no one listened to William Shakespeare, and they were allowed to live and breathe. How sad."
"Let's kill all the lawyers" was a line spoken by thugs in one of his plays, if I recall--Shakespeare was satirizing such a dimwitted view. Please allude accurately--I'm tired of people using that quote out of context.
I take it you would rather not have courts of law, but just let anybody be judge, jury, and executioner? Fronteeer justice--sounds damn shore fine tuh me, hyeh hyeh....
Thanks once again for shedding more light on the fundamentalist mentality....
"Instant self-gratification, rationalizing away guilt, and sheer perverseness are not adequate justifications for deliberately weakening moral standards. If you actually believe that these are good reasons to take away whole sections of human morality, then I fear we cannot have a rational discourse, as you and I are so alien to each other in thought process as to render conversation pointless."
No, what I am saying is that people have different views of morality. I have seen homosexuals who have lived their lives monogomously devoted to their one partner, who obviously love each other beyond the mere act of sex. Who am *I* to judge them? I don't, it's none of my damned business, and I'm not inclined to be a busybody anyway.
Of course, YOU know the ONLY TRUE MORAL PATH for EVERYONE, and you have all the answers.... Yeah, famous last words of people about to fall on their faces.
I refuse to argue with anyone who is 100% convinced they are right, and know everything. Productive arguments are in fact impossible with such people. So if you want an argument, LISTEN, don't just talk, dammit! Arrogance will only turn people away--is that what Christ's example taught you to do?
"I happen to believe that people should pay for their own mistakes, and accept responsibility for their actions, rather than legislating away their duty to do so."
I believe that people should face whatever natural consequences their actions may bring to them--I do NOT believe we should create artificial consequences through laws (use of force) unless such laws are absolutely necessary to protect the life, liberty, and property of others. I explained this all before, and you haven't even tried to tackle this philosophically. Because you CAN'T.
Again, if it is a crime only against God, and not against other people, then let GOD deal with the person, on earth or in the afterlife. I still don't think you have enough faith to leave such cases to God, do you.
"Marriage and secular contracts.
"According to the earliest available written historical records, God invented marriage for Adam and Eve. Marriage is a religious, specifically Judeo-Christian, ceremony and status. Numerous other faiths have chosen to copy it, for whatever reason, many of them for fiscal concerns that y'all have mentioned. Many governments have done the same. Calling these faithless fiscal bonds marriage is an act of plagiarism at best, outright blasphemy the rest of the time. If people want to acknowledge these things as secular contracts, and quit calling them marriages, then I will have no objection to anyone who wants to pair-bond doing so with anyone or anything they want to. I'm just sick of hearing people call what amounts to an unholy union a marriage, when it clearly is against the laws of the being who created marriage."
Man, you sure have issues if you must rant over semantics like this. Get a life....
Was "marriage" the original Hebrew word Moses used when he wrote the story of Adam and Eve? Or by the time the English language formed, was it already being practiced by religious and secular alike, with the basic legal dimension already in place?
"The Fundamentalist Christian Nation of America
"Honestly? No. Governments run by humans just don't work."
Which is EXACTLY why that, given that they are a necessary evil, they should only be allowed to use the most minimal force necessary to ensure the protection of life, liberty, and property endowed to individuals by their creator.
This does not include the wanton and frivolous use of force to counter people who do things in their bedroom, put things in their noses, etc. that YOU don't like.
"Do you people honestly think that Uncle Sam tossing some money on the collection plate is going to bring about the downfall of democracy? I mean come on!"
It's not charity if it's using other peoples' (taxpayers') money. I actually believe we should abolish the income tax, btw--THAT'S how small government should ideally be.
"and yes, it is always bad to engage in homosexuality. Why? Because it turns the reproductive act into a recreational one, and that attitude towards sex infects others like a virus (oh yes it does!). As that attitude towards sex as just another fun thing to do on Friday night spreads, so do social problems like teen pregnancy, single parenting, AIDS and other social diseases, and even less noticeable problems, like depression, self-image issues, and eating disorders."
Sex wasn't intended just for reproductive purposes. Even the Bible (particularly the Song of Solomon) acknowledges this, plus it is self-evident in the way we were created.
Besides, in that other thread about "the most beautiful woman in TV/movies", I seem to recall you rhapsodizing about a certain model you knew from Victoria's Secret catalogs. Hmmm... interesting. (BTW I quit those catalogs when I was 14, myself--but I understand....
).
As for the problems you mentioned, teen pregnancy, etc., these aren't consequences of having a realistic view of sex, but rather consequences of not having enough self-discipline to take precautions, like screening your partners (AIDS and VD), using contraception or abstaining when too young to handle a baby(teen pregnancy). And self-image issues can spring from ANYTHING, not necessarily sex. And eating disorders are a psychological disease not necessarily caused by sex, and certainly not suffered from by the majority of those sexually active.
"There's a reason for every rule, and it's a darn good one. But go ahead and tell me and the rest that evil is good, and good is evil. But I won't believe you."
You believe what you want to believe. Like I said, my reckoning of what is evil may differ slightly from yours. We can go back and forth saying "I'm right!" "No, I'M right!" all day, and get nowhere, or we can agree to disagree, and agree that since neither of us is morally perfect and all-knowing of such things, that laws shouldn't favor one of us over the other, and should be kept to a necessary minimum in any case. Sound reasonable to you?
"In this country, the Founding Fathers recognized the likelihood of an unjust law making its way through both halves of Congress and across a president's desk. That is why we have a Supreme Court. Because even with that many people looking at the issue, sometimes men make mistakes. Our rules that we create for ourselves are not always good rules, nor are they always just. Clearly, one cannot argue successfully that legality supplies morality to an act. Since the three-branch system of legislation is clearly a highly evolved form of governance, all lesser forms of legislation must suffer by comparision. Therefore public opinion, IE mob rule, is also a failed argument for the morality of an action."
Exactly. I agree with that 100%. I never once said otherwise. Ultimately, mob rule itself is wrong--most things should be left to individuals, "the mob" or the government only getting involved when individual acts impinge on other individuals' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, that is what our Constitution for the most part intended, and the Supremes have been ignoring that for years, ruling on precedent instead.
"I realise that my opinions are unpopular, as they would require one to hold one's-self responsible for one's own actions, but I honestly feel that personal preference is not a deciding factor in morality either. If a large group of people can't make perfect decisions to guide their lives with, the individual can hardly be expected to succeed either."
But if individuals make mistakes, they can face the natural consequences. It is not for others to forcibly "guide" individuals or "save them from themselves"--individuals must sink or swim on their own.
"We already have an internal moral compass, our conscience. This inborn sense of direction, when listened to, can lead us down a difficult, but ultimately correct, path. Sadly, it picks very rugged terrain, and few heed its directions. Sadder still, those lonely folk are often beset upon by the rest of us (note that I'm down here on the paved road with the rest of you heathens )."
Funny how some peoples' consciences direct them not to fight in a war (they become conscienscious objectors, maybe serve as medics or something), while others' consciences direct them to pick up a gun in said war. I hold that both of these courses can be equally valid, and equally a product of a developed conscience. Therefore there is no ONE path for everyone. I.e. while some things are universal, other things are "between a man and his God" so to speak.
"We are the Christians, resistance is futile."
I'll resist if I damned well please, b*tch. Especially if you threaten me with force--count on getting dropped REAL quick in that case....
"All Christians DO think alike. They show love to their neighbors, they avoid doing what is bad, they try to do what is right. They follow in the footsteps of their lord, and preach the word of God to the ends of the inhabited earth. Such is the duty and defintion of Christianity."
No I KNOW Christians who are different from each other as people can be. SOME--the ones I respect--lead by EXAMPLE, and don't "preach". You seem to have a hard time leading by example--you condescend, put on airs of superiority, carry on like a Pharisee, and basically take on an attitude that is not anything like the Christ I've read about, recounted through the words of the Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So you can preach all you want, but if you don't walk it like you talk it then you are basically a failure in the ministry department. Not that that makes you any less of a Christian
....
"Sorry to those of you whom I assaulted with foul language, but as mentioned earlier, someone here is pretty good at pushing my buttons."
If you're talking about me, I'd say I'm very good at bringing up some issues you'd rather avoid. Call it "pushing buttons" or whatever, I can say that you're being a fundy pushes one BIG button for me, but that doesn't mean I don't directly respond to your points of argument. Which you don't completely return me the favor, do you.
"You'd think someone who had to type his reply would have time to cool off, but manfully enduring willful ignorance has never been a strong point of mine."
Translation: "manfully enduring reasoned disagreements with my opinion has never been a strong point of mine." Well, until you can do that, you will get NOWHERE with the likes of me. Or with anyone who has half an independent mind....
Come on now, you ain't catchin' any FISH....
