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

[Damocles]

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.

Right. Making something illegal indicates their intention, but not that they assume that it makes things suddenly disappear or takes away any free will. That is an extention and exaggeration of their intention, it assigns motivation that doesn't exist and assigns a "morality" to the action.

Your position is weak, you no longer even attempt to argue that it "removes free will" that because it "removes free will" it is against their ideology. However it doesn't do what you originally assert, therefore all fruit from this tree is simply fruit from the poisoned tree.

The original assertion doesn't work, all things built on that foundation fall.

The crappiest argument I have to date read from you, 100% built on the false premise of the "removal of freewill" fallacy shown to be wrong in less than one post.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

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.

If you make something illegal, you are trying to bring the force of law to eliminate that act. When they brought the smoking ban in the UK in, they did so with the intention of eliminating smoking in public areas, not to remove the 'sanction' the government had placed on smoking by not making it illegal before. They don't give you a choice, there are repercussions.

 

[Lao Tse]

Yes. Traffic laws take away the actual ability to drive too fast. It's really cool how it works like that.

 

[Damocles]

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.

If you make something illegal, you are trying to bring the force of law to eliminate that act. When they brought the smoking ban in the UK in, they did so with the intention of eliminating smoking in public areas, not to remove the 'sanction' the government had placed on smoking by not making it illegal before. They don't give you a choice, there are repercussions.

This is inane. Christians would say that murder is morally wrong, so they can't make a law against it, based on your premise, because people should choose against it without the force of law to back it up.

The beginning premise is a foundation built on water, it isn't even sand.

We couldn't make child labor laws...

We couldn't make laws based on any morality system whatsoever because Christianity teaches anarchy? Give me a break.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

Right. Making something illegal indicates their intention, but not that they assume that it makes things suddenly disappear or takes away any free will. That is an extention and exaggeration of their intention, it assigns motivation that doesn't exist and assigns a "morality" to the action.

Your position is weak, you no longer even attempt to argue that it "removes free will" that because it "removes free will" it is against their ideology. However it doesn't do what you originally assert, therefore all fruit from this tree is simply fruit from the poisoned tree.

No, I am not stating it removes 'free will'. At all. I'm stating that a consequence of their intentions is that it could remove or limit the freedom of others to chose alternatives, by making Xtian morality as universal as possible, and that this is contrary to Xtian ideology that an individual must freely chose 'god' and his morality.

The position appears weak because you are arguing against an argument I am not making.

 

[Damocles]

Right. Making something illegal indicates their intention, but not that they assume that it makes things suddenly disappear or takes away any free will. That is an extention and exaggeration of their intention, it assigns motivation that doesn't exist and assigns a "morality" to the action.

Your position is weak, you no longer even attempt to argue that it "removes free will" that because it "removes free will" it is against their ideology. However it doesn't do what you originally assert, therefore all fruit from this tree is simply fruit from the poisoned tree.

No, I am not stating it removes 'free will'. At all. I'm stating that a consequence of their intentions is that it could remove or limit the freedom of others to chose alternatives, by making Xtian morality as universal as possible, and that this is contrary to Xtian ideology that an individual must freely chose 'god' and his morality.

The position appears weak because you are arguing against an argument I am not making.

The fact is, it doesn't limit the choices. Your premise is false to begin with.

 

[uscitizen]

This is inane. Christians would say that murder is morally wrong, so they can't make a law against it, based on your premise, because people should choose against it without the force of law to back it up.

The beginning premise is a foundation built on water, it isn't even sand.

We couldn't make child labor laws...

We couldn't make laws based on any morality system whatsoever because Christianity teaches anarchy? Give me a break.

So Christianity is responsible for all common sense laws ?
I sort of thought we were talking about areas that Christians target, like porn and such.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

This is inane. Christians would say that murder is morally wrong, so they can't make a law against it, based on your premise, because people should choose against it without the force of law to back it up.

The beginning premise is a foundation built on water, it isn't even sand.

You are assuming that because some laws are based on Xtian values, that all laws are.

Secular law isn't bound by the precondition that individuals should freely chose 'god' and his morality.

Murder isn't illegal because it is contrary to Xtian morality, it is contrary to most secular morality.

 

[Damocles]

So Christianity is responsible for all common sense laws ?
I sort of thought we were talking about areas that Christians target, like porn and such.

No, but according to the argument being made, no Christian could argue for such a law because it is based in their morality. Considering more than 80% of this nation profess such a belief, and even more than that among those elected, such laws could never be enacted because it "limits the choices" of those who might break them and Christianity teaches that people must choose moral action totally without repurcussion on this planet.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

The fact is, it doesn't limit the choices. Your premise is false to begin with.

But the intention is to ban it, and thus to limit choice. Because those intentions aren't successful has no bearing on the intentions themselves.

I intend to leave the office at 5pm tonight, but that doesn't mean I will get to...

 

[Damocles]

This is inane. Christians would say that murder is morally wrong, so they can't make a law against it, based on your premise, because people should choose against it without the force of law to back it up.

The beginning premise is a foundation built on water, it isn't even sand.

You are assuming that because some laws are based on Xtian values, that all laws are.

Secular law isn't bound by the precondition that individuals should freely chose 'god' and his morality.

Murder isn't illegal because it is contrary to Xtian morality, it is contrary to most secular morality.

No, I am not. I am assuming that most of those who make those laws in this nation profess a belief in that Deity and thus could not enact those laws you seem to agree with.

 

[Damocles]

The fact is, it doesn't limit the choices. Your premise is false to begin with.

But the intention is to ban it, and thus to limit choice. Because those intentions aren't successful has no bearing on the intentions themselves.

I intend to leave the office at 5pm tonight, but that doesn't mean I will get to...

No, you assign a motive to the law that can't exist because it doesn't do what you suggest it does.

This is like arguing the 1/3 with Dix. It is simply false at its base.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

No, but according to the argument being made, no Christian could argue for such a law because it is based in their morality. Considering more than 80% of this nation profess such a belief, and even more than that among those elected, such laws could never be enacted because it "limits the choices" of those who might break them and Christianity teaches that people must choose moral action totally without repurcussion on this planet.

Then provided they produce a reasoned argument, and don't rely on it being moral because their religion states it is bad.

You aren't arguing against the point I am making. I am arguing that Xtians campaigning on Xtian moral grounds run contrary to Xtian ideology because by campaigning they limit the choices and affect the individual's ability to freely chose god and that morality.

 

[Lao Tse]

No, but according to the argument being made, no Christian could argue for such a law because it is based in their morality. Considering more than 80% of this nation profess such a belief, and even more than that among those elected, such laws could never be enacted because it "limits the choices" of those who might break them and Christianity teaches that people must choose moral action totally without repurcussion on this planet.

Then provided they produce a reasoned argument, and don't rely on it being moral because their religion states it is bad.

You aren't arguing against the point I am making. I am arguing that Xtians campaigning on Xtian moral grounds run contrary to Xtian ideology because by campaigning they limit the choices and affect the individual's ability to freely chose god and that morality.

What if the their religion states it is bad, but is also rationally bad, must it be permitted because the religion is rational on the matter?

 

[AnyOldIron II]

No, I am not. I am assuming that most of those who make those laws in this nation profess a belief in that Deity and thus could not enact those laws you seem to agree with.

You are assuming that because some laws are based on Xtian values, that all laws are.

Secular law isn't bound by the precondition that individuals should freely chose 'god' and his morality.

 

[Damocles]

No, but according to the argument being made, no Christian could argue for such a law because it is based in their morality. Considering more than 80% of this nation profess such a belief, and even more than that among those elected, such laws could never be enacted because it "limits the choices" of those who might break them and Christianity teaches that people must choose moral action totally without repurcussion on this planet.

Then provided they produce a reasoned argument, and don't rely on it being moral because their religion states it is bad.

You aren't arguing against the point I am making. I am arguing that Xtians campaigning on Xtian moral grounds run contrary to Xtian ideology because by campaigning they limit the choices and affect the individual's ability to freely chose god and that morality.

Except they don't limit any choices by making such laws, the basic premise is flawed and you keep ignoring that to assign motivation that is based on that flawed premise.

 

[Damocles]

No, I am not. I am assuming that most of those who make those laws in this nation profess a belief in that Deity and thus could not enact those laws you seem to agree with.

You are assuming that because some laws are based on Xtian values, that all laws are.

Secular law isn't bound by the precondition that individuals should freely chose 'god' and his morality.

I am not assuming anything of the sort. However, based on your premise, even "common sense" laws that could be based on a professed Christians morality could not be enacted because it runs "contrary" to their religion. By your own argument such a law would "limit their choices" to do evil and thus make it "impossible to choose freely" to follow morality and therefore no Christian could enact such a law contrary to their own belief system...

Because somehow it magically takes away the choice to take any such action.....

It is your argument, it is baseless, it is flawed at the conception, yet you continue to argue it like Dixie with his 1/3 inanity.

 

[Damocles]

What if the their religion states it is bad, but is also rationally bad, must it be permitted because the religion is rational on the matter?

No, it couldn't be permitted. Becauase if it is "bad" you must have the ability to make the "bad" choice otherwise it is "against" the Christian religion. No Christian could enact a law that could be based in morality, because it is "against" the teaching of Christianity.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

No, but according to the argument being made, no Christian could argue for such a law because it is based in their morality.

If it is based on their morality, no. That would be a contradiction with their ideology.

If it was based on rational argument, and not on their religious moral beliefs, they wouldn't have the contradiction.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

No, it couldn't be permitted. Becauase if it is "bad" you must have the ability to make the "bad" choice otherwise it is "against" the Christian religion. No Christian could enact a law that could be based in morality, because it is "against" the teaching of Christianity.

Come on Damo, all you've done is misrepresent my argument...and then declare it ridiculous. See my above....