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

[Damocles]

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.

It wouldn't matter if it was "based in rational argument", if it could be based in their belief system any law would be against their belief system, according to you.

Such laws would have to be removed, because it "limits their choices" to do wrong and supposedly Christianity teaches you must choose to do something without fear of consequences on this planet.

Of course, it doesn't. In fact it teaches that you are also to follow the laws of the land in which you reside. But that is beside the point. Your argument that laws "limit the choices" and thus are against "Christian Teaching" taken to its full extent would lead only to anarchy.

Even "rational laws" can be based in those moral systems that you hold in contempt and misrepresent. All the way up to basing a supposed hypocrisy on a false premise that "laws take away free choice".

 

[Damocles]

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....

I haven't. You continue to say that it "limits their choices" and thus it would be against "christian teaching" to make laws that could "limit their choices".

You keep repeating this mantra, yet cannot prove that laws "limit their choice" to take any such action that may be illegal. Thus the premise is false at its base. It isn't their goal to do something that cannot be done with the tool you say they use to do it.

Just as the carpenter doesn't select the screwdriver to saw a post, so too do christians not use the law to "take away free choice". It cannot be done with that tool.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

It wouldn't matter if it was "based in rational argument", if it could be based in their belief system any law would be against their belief system, according to you.


That isn't what I am saying.

Campaigning on THE GROUNDS THAT AN ACT IS CONTRARY TO THEIR RELIGIOUS MORAL BELIEFS runs contrary to their ideology.

If they campaign on grounds of rational argument, ie not simply because an act runs contrary to their religious beliefs, then it doesn't.

 

[Damocles]

It wouldn't matter if it was "based in rational argument", if it could be based in their belief system any law would be against their belief system, according to you.


That isn't what I am saying.

Campaigning on THE GROUNDS THAT AN ACT IS CONTRARY TO THEIR RELIGIOUS MORAL BELIEFS runs contrary to their ideology.

If they campaign on grounds of rational argument, ie not simply because an act runs contrary to their religious beliefs, then it doesn't.

No, I just take the premise to its logical conclusion. Any law that could be based in that morality would be against their belief system as it would remove "free will" to do wrong and Christianity "teaches" that any such removal is "bad". Just because they use "this" method to argue something it doesn't change the basic premise. Any law against a Christian moral system would be against the Christian belief system.

You just want your cake and to eat it too.

 

[uscitizen]

I told you Anyold, Damo is hung in a loop on this one

 

[AnyOldIron II]

You continue to say that it "limits their choices" and thus it would be against "christian teaching" to make laws that could "limit their choices".

If they are arguing for a ban on the basis of their religious faith, it does.

On the basis of their faith, if they ban killing, they limit the choice for that and that is contrary to their ideology.

If they ban killing on the basis of rational argument, and not on the basis that it runs contrary to their religious beliefs, then it isn't contrary, because they aren't doing so on the basis of their religious morality, but on rational argument.

 

[Damocles]

I told you Anyold, Damo is hung in a loop on this one

Any is hung in a loop.

"It's okay for them to have laws 'against' their religion so long as they argue it this way, but it isn't okay for them to have laws 'against' their religion if they state it this way..."

Come on, that isn't an argument. If it is wrong for Christians to have laws that can lead to "free will" being removed for people to do "wrong" and thus remove their "free will choice" to choose God would be against Christian belief.

If taken to the logical conclusion, we would end up removing most laws as Christians would believe it against their religion to enact them.

 

[Damocles]

You continue to say that it "limits their choices" and thus it would be against "christian teaching" to make laws that could "limit their choices".

If they are arguing for a ban on the basis of their religious faith, it does.

On the basis of their faith, if they ban killing, they limit the choice for that and that is contrary to their ideology.

If they ban killing on the basis of rational argument, and not on the basis that it runs contrary to their religious beliefs, then it isn't contrary, because they aren't doing so on the basis of their religious morality, but on rational argument.

It doesn't matter the basis of the argument. If the belief system says that it is wrong to murder, according to your own argument, they couldn't make a law against it as it would run contrary to their belief system to take away the "free will" of the person who would murder. That person must make a 'free will' choice to select the right action, we can't just take that choice away....

 

[AnyOldIron II]

Any law that could be based in that morality would be against their belief system as it would remove "free will" to do wrong and Christianity "teaches" that any such removal is "bad".

No, because we are discussing intentionality (not in the mind sense).

It is the intentions that matter in this argument.

 

[Damocles]

Any law that could be based in that morality would be against their belief system as it would remove "free will" to do wrong and Christianity "teaches" that any such removal is "bad".

No, because we are discussing intentionality (not in the mind sense).

It is the intentions that matter in this argument.

Then you ignore the "Faith" that people have in their religion. If Christians were truly taught that laws were "wrong" if based in morality because it removes "free will" it wouldn't matter the intention of the law, it would matter that it was taking the "free will" of these people away to do wrong and thus make it impossible for them to make the choice to follow the right action by its own merit.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

If the belief system says that it is wrong to murder, according to your own argument, they couldn't make a law against it as it would run contrary to their belief system to take away the "free will" of the person who would murder.

If they are arguing on the basis of their christian beliefs, then yes, it does run contrary to their ideology that an individual must be free to chose god.

But if that person puts on their secular hat, and argue for murder to be banned using reasoned ethics, then the notion that an individual must be free to chose god doesn't come into the consideration.

 

[Damocles]

If the belief system says that it is wrong to murder, according to your own argument, they couldn't make a law against it as it would run contrary to their belief system to take away the "free will" of the person who would murder.

If they are arguing on the basis of their christian beliefs, then yes, it does run contrary to their ideology that an individual must be free to chose god.

But if that person puts on their secular hat, and argue for murder to be banned using reasoned ethics, then the notion that an individual must be free to chose god doesn't come into the consideration.

There is no "secular" hat. If you are a believer you are always a Christian.

Plus, the basic premise is wrong. Laws do not remove any free will. We have already gone over this one, it is the part that makes your entire argument worthless.

If laws did as you say that they do, remove free will to make choices, then I would agree with you. But they do not, they cannot. It is not the goal of christians to make laws that will magically do what laws do not do.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

If Christians were truly taught that laws were "wrong" if based in morality because it removes "free will" it wouldn't matter the intention of the law, it would matter that it was taking the "free will" of these people away to do wrong and thus make it impossible for them to make the choice to follow the right action by its own merit.

That is a contradiction in Xtianity that I am pointing out.

They are taught that an individual must be free to choose god.

They also campaign on moral grounds with the intention of reducing the 'immoral' behaviour that goes on, and if successful in their intentions this has the effect of limiting the choices available to an individual. This is contrary to the above.

This fits for campaigning to criminalise murder, theft or homosexuality.

HOWEVER, if they aren't campaigning as a Xtian, they are campaigning on the basis of rational ethics, then the consideration that an individual must be free to choose god doesn't come into consideration and thus there is no contradiction.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

Laws do not remove any free will.

We've discussed this. It is the intention that matters, not if the intention is successful or not.

 

[uscitizen]

There is no "secular" hat. If you are a believer you are always a Christian.

Plus, the basic premise is wrong. Laws do not remove any free will. We have already gone over this one, it is the part that makes your entire argument worthless.

If laws did as you say that they do, remove free will to make choices, then I would agree with you. But they do not, they cannot. It is not the goal of christians to make laws that will magically do what laws do not do.

I was a beliver about 50 years ago. But then truth overrode fantasy.

 

[Damocles]

Laws do not remove any free will.

We've discussed this. It is the intention that matters, not if the intention is successful or not.

Yet you assign an intention that cannot be the goal because the tool being used will not provide the assumed desired result.

The premise has a huge flaw in it, laws do not remove free will, thus this supposed intention is rubbish. You pull it out of your ass.

 

[Damocles]

If Christians were truly taught that laws were "wrong" if based in morality because it removes "free will" it wouldn't matter the intention of the law, it would matter that it was taking the "free will" of these people away to do wrong and thus make it impossible for them to make the choice to follow the right action by its own merit.

That is a contradiction in Xtianity that I am pointing out.

They are taught that an individual must be free to choose god.

They also campaign on moral grounds with the intention of reducing the 'immoral' behaviour that goes on, and if successful in their intentions this has the effect of limiting the choices available to an individual. This is contrary to the above.

This fits for campaigning to criminalise murder, theft or homosexuality.

HOWEVER, if they aren't campaigning as a Xtian, they are campaigning on the basis of rational ethics, then the consideration that an individual must be free to choose god doesn't come into consideration and thus there is no contradiction.

One more time. If that contradiction actually existed, if your premise that they argue to create laws in order to take away free will even when they know that laws don't and can't do any such thing, if I pretended your flawed premise was correct....

Then it would pervade other laws, any law that could take the free will of a person away to do wrong would be "wrong" according to the "Xtian" faith.

You would then hear arguments against all laws that might take some of that "free will" away.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

if your premise that they argue to create laws in order to take away free will even when they know that laws don't and can't do any such thing, if I pretended your flawed premise was correct....

Does the law that bans murder not limit your ability to murder because it brings forth dire consequences?

Then it would pervade other laws, any law that could take the free will of a person away to do wrong would be "wrong" according to the "Xtian" faith.

If they believe that an individual must freely choose god and his morality, then it would be a contradiction. Whether it is wrong to have a contradiction is a judgement you seem to be making, not one I do.

I don't consider the contradiction to be good or bad. It is merely a contradiction.

 

[Damocles]

if your premise that they argue to create laws in order to take away free will even when they know that laws don't and can't do any such thing, if I pretended your flawed premise was correct....

Does the law that bans murder not limit your ability to murder because it brings forth dire consequences?

Then it would pervade other laws, any law that could take the free will of a person away to do wrong would be "wrong" according to the "Xtian" faith.

If they believe that an individual must freely choose god and his morality, then it would be a contradiction. Whether it is wrong to have a contradiction is a judgement you seem to be making, not one I do.

I don't consider the contradiction to be good or bad. It is merely a contradiction.

No, my ability to commit murder remains unimpaired. And the ability of another to view porn would also remain unimpaired regardless of the reason behind the argument.

If you argue that often women are made into victims by those purveying the porn, it doesn't change that it wouldn't take any of my free will away to view porn if you made it illegal, any more than it would if I argued that it was bad because the Bible tells me so...

When people make the laws they know that it won't stop people from doing the action. The very idea that it takes away your "free will" to make the right choice is ridiculous, even Christians know that people do things that are against the law. Your assumed "intent" of the Xtian is where we have a basic disconnect as it cannot be their intention to remove "free will" using that tool. Unless you believe that becoming a christian takes away all ability to see that laws don't do what they supposedly "intend" them to do.

 

[AnyOldIron II]

If you argue that often women are made into victims by those purveying the porn, it doesn't change that it wouldn't take any of my free will away to view porn if you made it illegal.

It does if the forces of law and order enforce that law, by closing down porno studies and distributors. It limits my access to porno and thus can affect my 'free will' to enjoy porno.

This idea originally came from a Simpsons episode where Springfield's holyrollers decided to close down the town's burlesque house on Xtian moral grounds.

By closing down that burlesque house, and banning burlesque from Springfield, are they not affecting an individual's free will to enjoy burlesque?