why do christians really wonder why they aren't liked?

But it doesn't. My point is that the temptation is still there, their free will is unimpaired regardless of the law.

It is not the action, nor the possible result, that I am refering to. They are largely irrelevant. It is the intention of those Christians who campaign on Christian moral grounds that contradicts Christian theology, because they INTEND to eliminate such immoral actions.
 
I am not saying the Christians attempts to take choices away WORKS. Just that they are stupid enough to think it will work and that they do try and remove choices.

Exactly, their intentions run contrary to their ideology....
 
I think you have their motive incorrect. They attempt to remove the unofficial sanction of the action that keeping the action legal seems to provide.

It is only their interpretation that if something isn't banned it is sanctioned. Smoking isn't (completely) banned, does that mean that the government sanctions it? How about drinking?

What they attempt to do is to make it taboo, and modern taboo involves banning it...
 
This is once again an oversimplification of the motives of another in an attempt to make a bumper sticker slogan.

I don't do bumper stickers. This is a genuine point.....

Christian theology states an individual must 'freely' chose 'god's morality'.

Attempting to eliminate immorality in effect is an attempt to eliminate that 'free choice'.

Ergo Christians shouldn't campaign to eliminate 'immorality' as it is contrary to their theology.

 
It is an attempt to assign an evil motive to those who have no such ideation.

Not making a moral judgement on them Damo, just pointing out a contradiction between their ideology and their actions...
 
When seeking "evil" motivation people tend to ignore the parts that clearly indicate a different direction to solidify their own opinion.

This is moving off to a tangent and attacking an argument not being made...

I am not attributing 'evil motivation' to anybody, as above, I am not making a moral judgement.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
But it doesn't. My point is that the temptation is still there, their free will is unimpaired regardless of the law.

It is not the action, nor the possible result, that I am refering to. They are largely irrelevant. It is the intention of those Christians who campaign on Christian moral grounds that contradicts Christian theology, because they INTEND to eliminate such immoral actions.
Click to expand...
Their intentions are not to magically make the temptation disappear through law, but to cease sanctioning it through law. There is a difference.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
When seeking "evil" motivation people tend to ignore the parts that clearly indicate a different direction to solidify their own opinion.

This is moving off to a tangent and attacking an argument not being made...

I am not attributing 'evil motivation' to anybody, as above, I am not making a moral judgement.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you attribute motivation, regardless of whether is is moral, you find their position "wrong" because of "this" reason, however the reason attributed is simply incorrect.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
I am not saying the Christians attempts to take choices away WORKS. Just that they are stupid enough to think it will work and that they do try and remove choices.

Exactly, their intentions run contrary to their ideology....
Click to expand...
But they do not. Your assumed motive runs contrary, but the reality does not.
 
uscitizen said:
AnyOld has the correct view of the situation.
Click to expand...
You have a jaundiced view from being to close. I've already spoken of this, you are too early out. You are in the early stages still and that colors your particular view on this.
 
uscitizen said:
so anything that is not illegal is somehow being sanctioned ? Wow....
Click to expand...
Often to them, it is. Which was my point. The goal isn't to take the choice from you, but to take the official "sanction" of the action away. They fully understand that making it "illegal" doesn't make the stuff go away, it just takes away an "unofficial sanction" of the action by the government.
 
Damocles said:
Well, see... If they pass a law, like say against Murder, it makes Murder disappear because we are all 'bots and it takes our free will when they make a law.
Click to expand...


Of course damo. We ALL KNOW that once a law is passed that action becomes impossible and unthinkable. It's silly we even HAVE law enforcement, really.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Of course damo. We ALL KNOW that once a law is passed that action becomes impossible and unthinkable. It's silly we even HAVE law enforcement, really.
Click to expand...

Good point lets just fire all the cops.

everyone will just be doing the "sanctioned" stuff anyway ;)
 
uscitizen said:
Good point lets just fire all the cops.

everyone will just be doing the "sanctioned" stuff anyway ;)
Click to expand...

Better yet, let's pay them and then arrest them for doing their jobs! That's real republican style market value!


Ramos and Campion
http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2006/10/18/ignacio-ramos-and-jose-compean-illegal-immigration-heroes/
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean - Illegal Immigration Heroes
Oct 18th, 2006 by hecubus


Former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos embraced his wife, Monica Ramos, on Tuesday, two days before he is set to be sentenced. Ramos could receive up to 15 years in prison for shooting a drug smuggler who was entering the United States illegally. (Mark Lambie / El Paso Times)

———————————–

After the injustice perpetrated upon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who in their right mind would even consider pursuing a career as a United States border agent? Additionally, are there any current border agents familiar with this incredibly tragic story who will not pause to reflect, as they spy illegals entering the U.S. from Mexico, what performing their job might net them–serious jail time? I wouldn’t blame them. I will blame our president.

But this is what George Bush, and all those who agree with him, wants–open borders and free access to cheap labor. Because he is a short-sighted and unintelligent man, he desperately wishes to devalue American schools, shut down our emergency rooms, and generally spread the 3rd world throughout this country–this country that is doomed to die from the inside out as if we’re one giant rotten apple. The old adage states that “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” It also wasn’t destroyed in a day. It died under the overwhelming weight of immigrants it simply wasn’t able to adequately accommodate. It became rotten.

Bush has expressed his desire to grant amnesty to the already 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. If we’re truly at 20 million (everyone agrees no lower than 12 million), then the number of illegal aliens residing in this country is far more than “all of the Germans, Italians, Irish, and Jews who ever came to American in the 400 years of our history on this continent.“* In the same vein, according to research conducted by Time magazine, “…the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million–enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 aircraft, or 60 flights every day for a year.”
Click to expand...

Bush Is a real NoahideOlamHaBaPigFuckerSyndicalist
 
Their intentions are not to magically make the temptation disappear through law, but to cease sanctioning it through law. There is a difference.

Already answered this point...

It is only their interpretation that if something isn't banned it is sanctioned. Smoking isn't (completely) banned, does that mean that the government sanctions it? How about drinking?

What they attempt to do is to make it taboo, and modern taboo involves banning it...
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Their intentions are not to magically make the temptation disappear through law, but to cease sanctioning it through law. There is a difference.

Already answered this point...

It is only their interpretation that if something isn't banned it is sanctioned. Smoking isn't (completely) banned, does that mean that the government sanctions it? How about drinking?

What they attempt to do is to make it taboo, and modern taboo involves banning it...
Click to expand...
I answered this, read the thread before just forging ahead without regard to what others have posted.

However, changing the perception of the issue is not "removing free will" your own premise has been relegated to the back burner as you desperately backpedal and pretend you are still arguing the same point.

I see you have been taking lessons from GWB.

Seriously, one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen from you.
 
Sorry, but you attribute motivation, regardless of whether is is moral, you find their position "wrong" because of "this" reason, however the reason attributed is simply incorrect

I am not attributing motive, the fact that they attempt to make certain acts illegal indicates their intention.

I don't think right or wrong about the situation, I am simply refering to the contradiction between actions and ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top