Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
| T O P I C R E V I E W | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 03 Aug 2007 : 17:25:07
Recently, I was listening to one of my favorite radio talk shows, "The Radio Factor", with Bill O'Reiley. Now Bill wasn't on, but there was a substitute host, Dom Geradano (I think that is how he spells it).
At any rate, one of the subjects (among many) that was being discussed on "The Factor" was this: There was a poll recently taken that revealed that many doctors and pharmacists are refusing, under religious grounds (and not all of these are Christian, by the way), to perform certain medical tasks and services.
One situation was a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for the RU86, so called "Abortion pill". Another situation was a pair of doctors that refused to artificially enseminate a lesbian woman, not because she was gay, but because she was single. Both situations were motivated by religious prohibition.
Now, I personally believe that any doctor that refuses to perform an immoral act,such as abortion, is fine by me. However, I am not so sure about, in the case of the pharmacist, the refusal to prescribe the RU86 pill, since, as I understand it, the pill does not actually abort a fetus. Also, where do we draw the line between justifiable moral conviction, and religious zealotry? I mean, the Pharisees of Jesus' day were full of religious convictions, but their morality was certainly suspect.
Bear in mind, I am, under no circumstances, trying to justify any kind of public lynching of those who are morally justified in their convictions. However, I am not so sure that the issue is without it's fogginess. I would like to, cautiously and rationally, see what many of you think about this.
I realize that this can be a rather touchy subject. Please leave the barbs, ad hominems, and religious rhetoric at home. And please, let's not attack anyone's Christian walk because we may not see eye to eye.
| | 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) | | Grime | Posted - 04 Nov 2007 : 19:31:29
This is true. However, our government is a government of the society. Our forefathers, who I believe never endorsed a separation of Church and State, did in fact create a division in the responsibilities carried out by the State apart from the Church. This society's government will pass laws according to it's own values and sense of morality. And, disgustingly, this society does not value an unborn life and sees no sin in terminating one.
So we the Church have to decide how best to fight this. We can push for legislation that can be stuck down later by the legislature or made impotent by the judiciary. Or we can educate the people, lead them into enlightenment, leading to no need for such legislation. | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 04 Nov 2007 : 09:49:18
True, but you can legislate penalties to protect other citizens. | | Grime | Posted - 04 Nov 2007 : 01:06:50
You can not legislate people into becoming moral, you have to mold them. | | AnonJr | Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 06:22:39
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Blasto
that's the problem with relativism... it's so clearly ambiguous...
I have got to remember this one.  | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 02 Nov 2007 : 00:06:15
quote:
I know plenty of heathens who are moral.
Ahhh... yes.... and I also know many liars who are relatively honest people......
that's the problem with relativism... it's so clearly ambiguous... | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 30 Oct 2007 : 15:41:55
However, morality is not necessarily the same thing as holiness. I know plenty of heathens who are moral. While man's ideal standard is morality, God's standard is holiness. Do not misunderstand me, many people refuse to even live up to the moral standard. But, as Christians, we have a much higher standard than just morality.
Look at the rich young ruler. He approached Jesus to ask what more could he do to enter the Kingdom. First, Jesus referred to the moral code. The RYR kindly, and maybe flippantly, informed Jesus that he had obeyed all of the moral code. Then Jesus said, "Okay, if you want to enter life, go sell all you have, give it to the poor, take up your cross, and follow Me." That is way beyond the moral code. That is the standard for holiness.
You see, while I believe we must reflect morality, a moral sensitivity, should remember justice, and serve it up within the bounds of law, I cannot see how holiness can be rendered that way. I am not saying we shouldn't have laws, we absolutely should. But even the moral code is not the panacea, and it will not produce righteousness in a man, which is kind of what I am seeing in this discussion. Only Jesus Christ can make a man righteous. | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 30 Oct 2007 : 02:53:52
Yet all laws DO have some basis in some form of morality... It becomes difficult to seperate the two... Laws founded on an unstable human standard and the societies that they regulate will eventually fail as evidenced over and over again throughout history... | | Grime | Posted - 28 Oct 2007 : 03:47:18
At the risk of resurrecting a dead conversation...
A final thought from me is that God gave us The Law to prove to us how sinful we were. There was no way Man could live by God's perfect Law, and it causes us to face our inadequacy. Through The Law we come to terms with the fact that we can not make it to Heaven without God's grace.
Man's laws are simply incapable of curbing our bad behaviors. If you begin to legislate morality, you begin to create more creative sinners. The Mosaic law outlawed walking more than a thousand steps from your home on the Sabbath, because walking was an exertion of energy and therefore work. The Jewish definition of your home was the place where you kept your household goods, so people began keeping their stuff in many places around their hometowns to overcome this limitation. Suddenly they had many people breaking the Sabbath, but not breaking the law.
Keep in mind, Judaism and Christianity have both found their greatest growth under societies that were at least pagan, if not completely anti-Judeo-Christian. We Americans can not continue to believe that we are a Christian nation anymore. More than 50% of our society do not go to church. We can not expect to change our society by using the society's tools. We will have to change it using the unconventional methods. Ministry and education are the tools we have, not legislation and judgment. | | AnonJr | Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 20:00:05
quote:
Originally posted by AXEMAN2415
Outside of the subject at hand, do ya'll think we'll make it to four pages? lol!
Only if you're not allowed to edit.  | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 17:00:38
quote:
I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this in our society but it seems that it is usually those who in irresponsibility recklessly abuse their freedom the most who are the first to complain when they feel they are being infringed because they live on the edge of it.
Just a drive by post, cause it's almost church time, but yes, I too have noticed this.
Outside of the subject at hand, do ya'll think we'll make it to four pages? lol!
| | Captain Blasto | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:11:16
? ...until it's too late ?
Maybe he who abuses freedom values it more because it enables...
and he who takes it for granted.... does not value it enough.... | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:06:32
Conversely... Those who do not push the limits of their freedom hardly notice changes in them... | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:02:38
I know that I am in need of mercy yet I understand mercy to only exist in response to required judgement as it relates to the law.
Mercy cannot manifest in the absence of judgement and judgement
cannot manifest in the absence of law.
I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this in our society but it seems that it is usually those who in irresponsibility recklessly abuse their freedom the most who are the first to complain when they feel they are being infringed because they live on the edge of it.
| | Shredhead | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 02:49:41
quote:
Neither am I willing to trample on the rights of those who choose to walk away from God
But where do you draw the line Will ? Without God , why are your rights of higher value than theirs ? Is it their right to come & take what is yours ? Certainly not , why ? Thou shalt not steal . Your country as well as mine , were founded on Christian beliefs . In other words , all that our country's could be , is because of Christian ethics .All that our country's are not , is because those ethics have been compromised . Why should either country make allowances for contrary beliefs ? Surely , that would be a country divided against itself .
In my , " 4 person kingdom " , I won't allow a non-believer to tell me how to govern it , as it was with Daniel . Realistically , we should've stopped this slow descent a long time ago , now , I believe all we can do is cling to whatever is left of our heritage .
While I agree that no man is able , nor should be able to judge the inner workings of anothers' heart , surely that is reserved for God . However , when those inner workings manifest themselves so that they seek to usurp the authority of Gods' standard , then we should be instigating laws to stop that happening . | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 23:53:51
quote:
quote:Even the alcoholic won't try to eat the scorpion.
Ummm... don't be too sure of that Axe... I see some pretty clueless alcoholics in my line of work....
Yeah, I had to think about that after I posted it. Maybe the alcoholic would try to put the scorpion in a blender, then drink it?
quote:
If we don't stand for something... we will fall
I do not disagree with that.
quote:
The government that governs the least is anarchy !
No, the government that doesn't govern at all is anarchy.Lawlessness is anarchy.I am not arguing the Libertarian view. No man is an island, I realize that. However, the best way that a government can provide a secure social fiber is to get out of the way. And I do not refer to an eradication of government or enforcement of law. Clearly, we need law to maintain an ordered society. But an ordered society is not necesarily a moral society, although the two are not mutually exclusive. Certainly they work together as both sides of a pair of scissors.
But what I am referring to is an all-intrusive government, that seeks to derive it's power through cradle-to-grave entitlements, confiscatory taxation, and laws that are unsupportive of the faith foundations of this nation. There is Scriptural precedent for what happens when the State seeks to replace God as the driver of men's destinies, and in doing so becomes a competitor for men's hearts and minds. We read this in Daniel, where the king, knowing full well that Daniel served Jehovah, instead allowed himself to be put into a dilemma that pitted the royal authority against God's. So he agreed to enact a law, while being deceived by members of his court (who were jealous of Daniel), that really played to the king's ego. Although the king knew Daniel was a wise man, productive to his kingdom, and openly served Jehovah, the king simply regarded Jehovah as any other "god" of Persia.Although the king probably recognized Daniel's devotion to his God, the king made no personal acknowledgement of Jehovah, and thus, had no regard for God to have a place in his kingdom plans. When the State wishes to bestow upon itself more power, God simply gets in the way. And the intrusion is usually incremental, yet far reaching. T.S. Eliot wrote;
quote:
If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God),you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.
To that list I would add Mao Tze-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez.
quote:
First... let us be clear that in the examples using Jesus' dealings with others... in neither case did He suggest that laws governing such behaviors should not exist...
And neither do I. However, I must point out that I was trying to illustrate how Jesus dealt with two dissimilar, yet clear immoral acts. However, allow me to illustrate it this way, with regard to comparing Jewish law and culture, and U.S. law and culture:
Jesus made it plain (in Matthew 7, I believe) that any man who even looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery. Clearly, for all of us involved in this lively discussion, this is Law, and there is no debate. However, because this is obviously a moral issue, should we,the United States, therefore enact some kind of "no leering" law, that is so broad brushed that any kind of looking or regard for a woman is now illegal? That sounds strikingly like Islamic Sharia law. Here we have a morality issue, but where actual legislation can actually create more harm than good. Am I oversimplifying? Probably overgeneralizing, to be more accurate.However, you see my point. There may be moral implications for the lustful, but you cannot criminalize that act. Precisely because you are likely to prosecute a man who innocently looked in the direction of a pretty woman. Maybe he even noticed her form (and any man who denies that his attention isn't caught by a woman's form is either gay or lying). Now we have an ethical dilemma.
You can allow the culture to marginalize that act (lust). You can allow the Church to be an influence for proper behavior. You can let families train up children to be self-controlled (a trait much lacking in our permissive society today) and responsible. But use the legislative process? Dangerous precedent, indeed.
What has begun to happen is the legislative process has been, and is being ,used to marginalize, erode, and redefine those pillars of society; the Family, the Culture, and the Church.
quote:
Without laws and penalties sinfulness becomes enboldened.
Even Scripture says so, as Paul says in Romans, "The Law was added to make sin utterly sinful."
I am not pleading for no laws. I am pleading for good laws. Perhaps a different tack is in order. There has been a trend to to try and ue legislation against obesity. Obesity is definitely bad for health. I do tend to think in certain cases, it is even a moral issue. However, I cannot see how you could make a law against obesity. How are we going to regulate how much a person eats, based on the immorality of gluttony? Immoral, sure. Criminal? I don't think so.
quote:
I believe people's hearts are growing cold because they are becoming numb in their collective consciences to the unrestrained ever-increasing unrighteousness that they witness daily.
I do too. Clearly, the Bible tells us that in the last days, men's hearts will wax cold and iniquity will abound. Despite that, we must still do the right thing. I am not for allowing an environment of immorality to fester. That would be injustice. Neither am I willing to trample on the rights of those who choose to walk away from God. That would be tyranny. | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:47:25
quote:
Even the alcoholic won't try to eat the scorpion.
Ummm... don't be too sure of that Axe... I see some pretty clueless alcoholics in my line of work.... | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:10:13
The government that governs the least is anarchy ! | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:08:24
If we don't stand for something... we will fall | | Captain Blasto | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:00:59
First... let us be clear that in the examples using Jesus' dealings with others... in neither case did He suggest that laws governing such behaviors should not exist... it had more to do with mercy/chastisement regarding His judgement about existing laws/policies... Jesus even defined the laws more stringently than they had been previously understood. He did not aquiesce righteousness in the harlot's case but forgave sin that had been made manifest by the light of the law. I mean, He even referenced the law when He said "Go and sin no more". In the case of the money changers he was addressing those religious who had allowed deterioration of public temple practices for their own gain. It really makes no difference to me at this point what anyone else thinks... although we probably should not defend preserving "a right to sin" using Jesus' mercy as our reasoning... sure we all sin... and.... yes we cannot make everyone/anyone righteous with a law... especially one that they don't respect in the first place. We can make sin unpopular/less attractive. Without laws and penalties sinfulness becomes enboldened. We must understand mercy in the context that it is applied: in loving response to judgements prescribed as defined by established law. Ultimately we will simply exist in the environment that we (as Christians, Americans and as co-habitants of the planet) allow to develop. I am not happy about this situation but it exists none-the-less. I believe people's hearts are growing cold because they are becoming numb in their collective consciences to the unrestrained ever-increasing unrighteousness that they witness daily.
In response to your physician question... neither is wrong... it would be the one seeking advice who takes that which goes against his own conscience toward God that would ultimately be in error.
When we see children as the blessing that scripture tells us that they are and not in terms of the nuclear family model it would seem that we should want our quivers filled to overflowing. If we believe it is true that the righteous will not be seen forsaken nor their seed begging bread. In that light the Catholic physician could be considered more "right". | | AXEMAN2415 | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 17:57:56
quote:
"The Government that governs least, governs best," as it has been said, and I agree.
Ooops, I didn't further explain my rationale.
There are Presidential candidates, right now, running for office, and many of them, in particular Democrats (I really want to steer clear from political partisanship, but I have to say this) who are running on the appearances of moral issues, i.e.; Helping the poor, providing education, providing healthcare for all, cleaning up the environment, protecting the safety of our troops in harm's way, immigrant rights, etc, etc.
Now, all of those things are good and who, in their right mind, would stand against helping the poor? Well, let me tell you, hiding behing morality is the work of people who crave power and control over others.
Take Universal Healthcare: I have been to Europe and have seen how dismal a failure U.H. is. But the reason why many liberal politicians are pushing for it is bacuase it increases the tax base, to the point of confiscatory rates. That is a consolidation of power, and when that is pointed out, all our vaunted politician has to throw in our faces is, "Whatabout those who can't afford health insurance?" And they will always finish off the logic by saying, "We can't leave this mess for our children!" And thus, hidden behind the moral facade is the real agenda.
Take homelessness. What a real issue that is, and it is sad. But, when a politician wants to help the homeless, usually it is with your tax dollars, not his/her personal finances.
What about education? In this country, more money is spent per student per annum than most countries have in their total GDP. Yet we have poor performances in our public schools, as a result of failed policies that indoctrinate children rather than educate them. And it all comes under the guise of "for the children." Who is going to argue against that? When fiscal responsibility is demanded, then all we hear is appeals to the morality of taking money away from children.
And there are many other examples of growing Federal Government that wants to restrict more and more of our personal freedoms. Governament never does with less, like you and I have to. And anytime the Beauracracy is challenged, they hide behind morality.
I found it utterly amusing and ironic that Hillary Clinton appeals to Scripture when it suits her politically, but then casts it aside when it doesn't. Many politicians use the Scripture to push forth an ageda, appealing to morality, and then when they're confronted with the judgements that appear in it, insist that personal faith is just that, personal. Well, personally, I find it a clear violation of Scripture to steal from people, regardles of how much money they have, and yet we still have a large portion of our population who think that it is okay to confiscate someone's belongings and earnings, just because they can afford it.
I am sure you are all aware that many churches supportted the awful practice of owning slaves. And many supported it by Scripture (they used extremely loose interpretations, but they did). Many believed it was moral to take other human beings as slaves, treat them harshly, discriminate against them, and all under the guise of religious conviction. And it was the law of the land.
Are we sure that we wish to allow more intrusion of the Federal Government into the personal lives of American citizens? I cannot speak for the Aussies, nor the Bits, but that sets a dangerous precedent. |
|
Media
