Reps and Religion?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So, why again does the government NEED to enforce Christian morals when humanist ethics control the immediate danger to society?
[/quote]
OK - not Christianity, but Biblicism, to make this easier to debate - Christianity was the wrong word, but it's the current manifestation of Biblicism, and true, the written Bible wasn't always around, but the events in it start at the very beginning of the universe.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Let the angry comments begin...

I'll let you have your ... opinion on the others, but saying Christianity is the only right religion is a stupid comment. It's because of closed-up people like you that I'm agnostic now.

OK - I know it's my very opinionated belief, but just like there's a debate on global warming - not everybody's right - truth isn't relevant, it's absolute.

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

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

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

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

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

It's just applied Bible.  God judged Cain because Cain should've known that Cain shouldn't have killed Abel.  This is called a conscience - it's not written wit that quoted, but that's the interpretation.  God relied on love for Adam and Eve to obey him when they were still perfect (thus the dispensation of innocense), but they chose to obey their flesh.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Okay, but what's the point of saying so?  Does it make you feel better about yourself, or do you honestly think other people will be convinced by your saying that you're right?

It's not that I feel better - it's that I'm saying the truth - just like saying 2+2=4 to a group of people who are claiming it's 5.

[Alcon]

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

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

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

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

[Ebowed]

Tell me, why is murder illegal?

Because it hurts other people, and any functioning government has the obligation to respect and protect basic rights.

Nothing to do with the Bible.

And where do these "basic rights" stem from?

Common sense, my dear Inks, common sense.

A society can't function if people can kill or rape or steal from each other.

[Hash]

Hey Inks, how about freedom of belief and religion?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

Tell me, why is murder illegal?

Because it hurts other people, and any functioning government has the obligation to respect and protect basic rights.

Nothing to do with the Bible.

And where do these "basic rights" stem from?

Common sense, my dear Inks, common sense.

A society can't function if people can kill or rape or steal from each other.

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

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Don't use personal attacks as your point - just stick to the issue.

[Alcon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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