| Author | Topic | AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts |  Posted - 08 Aug 2007 : 16:46:59  
| quote:
Apologies ; sorry if this is hard to follow , it's been a big week .
Will , sorry if I've strayed from your topic .
There is no need for apologies, Shred, my dear friend. Maybe for being an Aussie (lol), but never for stating your views or challenging ours. This is a forum for thought. And I expect the conversation to take a few rabbit trails, now and then. Even I , your humble correspondent (lol), take rabbit trails within my own posts, so hey, if we do, oh well. It is good to talk to you all, and learn something in the process.
quote:
I would say sometimes we use " religious conviction " to serve ourselves , not God
Yes, absolutely. And this is where I think we need to understand about the original thesis of my post. There is a real fine line between a self-centered morality, and a Christ centered morality. Morality for the sake of morality ultimately means nothing, as far as salvation is concerned. It has value, but even morality (and I am being very careful here) can become an idol. Another dear friend of mine gave me a quote, and I cannot remember who actually said it, but it goes, "When men abandon God, they tend to rely on their ethics." Now, I am not sure if I have that quote right, but that's the gist of it.
Blaise Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
I think there must be a responsible application,even for religious conviction. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
Edited by - AXEMAN2415 on 08 Aug 2007 16:50:42 |  |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 09 Aug 2007 : 02:56:41
| quote:
No... not at all Shred... I have just been enjoying the conversation...
Cool 
quote:
There is no need for apologies, Shred, my dear friend. Maybe for being an Aussie (lol),
No roo , for you lol . Thanks though , it's good to be among friends .
quote:
There is a real fine line between a self-centered morality, and a Christ centered morality. Morality for the sake of morality ultimately means nothing, as far as salvation is concerned. It has value, but even morality (and I am being very careful here) can become an idol.
Could not agree more .
quote:
Blaise Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
A broad brush , but yes . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 10 Aug 2007 : 08:30:12   
| | I'll wager Pascal didn't have much "religious conviction"!!! |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Grime
Starting Member
USA
26 Posts | Posted - 12 Aug 2007 : 17:37:02
| Here are my thoughts on this. God formed (knew) us before we were conceived, obviously in the spiritual sense as we didn't have bodies. Man can not destroy the spirit of another, our individual spirits are eternal. Therefore we are talking about the physical life of an unborn child and exactly when does that begin.
The Bible plainly states that life is in the blood. It is six to seven days after conception that the embryo begins to produce a circulatory system and blood. If indeed life is in the blood, then this is when the embryo is imbued with life.
Implantation upon the womb wall occurs seven to ten days after conception. Some women even claim to feel this event happen as a twinge in the uterus. RU86 prevents the implantation of an embryo.
My conclusion is that RU86 facilitates the destruction of a physically living being.
Were I a doctor or pharmacist, I could not prescribe or fill the prescription of RU86 when the termination of a pregnancy was for a matter of convenience, not safety. Nor could I make a recommendation of some one who could. This is my conviction.
However, If I actively seek to legislate my convictions and rob people of their free will, I become a fanatic. The line is crossed when I seek to force my convictions upon others who have the God given right to disagree. I must uphold another's right to freewill even while I choose to live out my faith.
The professionals involved in the cases cited didn't limit the choices of those who came to them. Their "customers" can go somewhere else to get the services they sought. I wouldn't categorize these professionals as fanatics until they strive to legislate their beliefs upon others
|
If your dream is not worth your life, then you are dreaming too small. | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 13 Aug 2007 : 06:59:01
| quote:
However, If I actively seek to legislate my convictions and rob people of their free will, I become a fanatic.
The problem I have with this is , my constitution , & I believe yours , were built on Christian foundations . To say those constitutions , or Christian beliefs have'nt directly influenced legislation , would be wrong .
quote:
The line is crossed when I seek to force my convictions upon others who have the God given right to disagree.
Unfortunately , it would appear so , just as people have a God given right to choose hell . However , as Christians we have a God given responsibility to point out the consequence of their choice , if for no other reason , than that their choice may be made easier .
If their choice is going to affect my life or the lives of my children , or even grand childern , then I have a God given right to terminate with extreme predjudice , sorry ,I meant to say , object strongly . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 13 Aug 2007 : 10:57:53
| quote:
he problem I have with this is , my constitution , & I believe yours , were built on Christian foundations . To say those constitutions , or Christian beliefs have'nt directly influenced legislation , would be wrong .
Absolutely, the U.S. Constitution (and all foundational principles)had it's foundation in Christian pricples. However, one of those principles is to allow someone the freedom to pursue there own destinies, even destinies that do not include God in them. However, I think this presents an interesting and frustrating conundrum.
While laws should be based on moral codes, we have to be careful that those laws are for the benefit of a free society. Sometimes, even though something is immoral, doesn't always mean that it should be illegal. Case in point: Prostitution and out-of-wedlock sex. Prostitution is illegal in the States (common, but illegal), and it should be. All that accompanies prostitution (drug use, pimping, spread of disease, poverty,human trafficking, etc.) is clearly a blight on any society, and should be illegal. However, premarital sex, however immoral from the point of view of Scripture, is not a crime, nor should it be regarded as such. And for Christians to try and legislate against that, irregardless of good intentions,in my opinion, is useless.
Now, I would agree that both are bad for a society. I would agree that both are sins. But I would not agree that both are crimes. Of course, this deviates from our initial discussion. We are not speaking about crime.
quote:
Unfortunately , it would appear so , just as people have a God given right to choose hell . However , as Christians we have a God given responsibility to point out the consequence of their choice , if for no other reason , than that their choice may be made easier .
Yes, we have a God given responsibility. However, if we do not point them to Jesus, any attempt to moralize falls on ears that cannot conceive of their sin condition. In order for change to take place, it must be by the Spirit of Christ, not by any moral code. Do not misunderstand me, you are correct that there must be clarity in the message of our ethics. But, we cannot expect the lost to act any way else but lost. And I think that we have to be careful thaat we are not trying to be God in people's lives. Let God be God, and we'll be His servants.
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 14 Aug 2007 : 06:19:27
| quote:
However, one of those principles is to allow someone the freedom to pursue there own destinies, even destinies that do not include God in them.
Oh , ok . Down here , we try to legislate for the stupid . If we see someone doing someone that's going to endanger themselves or others , we pass a law to stop them , whether it infringes upon their personal freedom or not .
As far as religious freedom is concerned , anyone is free to practice whatever they want , so long as it doesn't hurt themselves or others . But , in the words of our Prime Minister , " this is a Christian country , founded on Christian principles . If you don't like it , you're free to leave " . In other words , if you want to celebrate buddhas' birthday , go right ahead , knock yourself out . But don't tell us we can't set aside a day to celebrate the birth of our Saviour because it offends you .
quote:
While laws should be based on moral codes, we have to be careful that those laws are for the benefit of a free society.
Ideally , I think our civil laws should be based on Gods' moral code , not the Levitical law as that's been fulfilled , but Gods' absolute moral standard . Not determined by me , or anyone else , but God . Why ? because Father knows best .
If there are peole that don't know this , then we should have laws to inform them , & penalties if they break them . If we have people that don't agree with Gods' way , then they're free to leave .I think it incredibly unfair for a person to enjoy the freedom that a Christian culture brings , but denies the God that enables them . That's just an affront to God .
quote:
Now, I would agree that both are bad for a society.
For that reason alone , shouldn't it be illegal ? Otherwise , where will that society end up ? It would appear to me , that this "freedom" , can easily turn into an anchor .
quote:
Yes, we have a God given responsibility. However, if we do not point them to Jesus, any attempt to moralize falls on ears that cannot conceive of their sin condition. In order for change to take place, it must be by the Spirit of Christ, not by any moral code. Do not misunderstand me, you are correct that there must be clarity in the message of our ethics. But, we cannot expect the lost to act any way else but lost. And I think that we have to be careful thaat we are not trying to be God in people's lives. Let God be God, and we'll be His servants.
Excellent mate , & I could not agree more , but this is where I'm coming from . When I was about 10 yrs old , my best friends dad worked in a coal mine . One day , he & I , being bored , decided we'd make some of our own fireworks with some gunpowder of his dads' we'd "found" . We decided about half a kilo should give us the desired bang , so we bundled it up & stepped out into his backyard . The only thing we needed was a fuse , which we didn't have . So , boys being boys , we decided to soak some string in petrol , rap it around the parcel of powder ,leaving enough " free fuse " to give us a suffient safety barrier .
To cut a long & embarrasing story short , what we needed was someone to say " STOP !! " . Isn't it the same with us , as Christians ? Don't we need to tell people that , yes , the fuse will work , but you'll never outrun the explosion .
There's a better way , not my way , but Gods' way . A way that's infinitley more rewarding . I for one , wouldn't complain if civil laws reflected that .
|
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 14 Aug 2007 : 12:57:31
| quote:
Oh , ok . Down here , we try to legislate for the stupid .
LOL! That was worth the price of admission.
quote:
If we see someone doing someone that's going to endanger themselves or others , we pass a law to stop them , whether it infringes upon their personal freedom or not .
I am afraid that I am going to have to carefully, respectfully, and proportionately disagree with this. Smoking is obviously dangerous and stupid, but I do not think it should be outlawed. You might argue that it is sinful (I don't think it is sinful, per se...but I have a hard time with Christians who do smoke...but that's another thread....).
Picking your nose in public is disgusting and stupid. Not necessarily dsangerous, but not very nice. But I don't think we should make laws against it. I think we have to be careful when we try to legislate morality. There will come a time in world society when even religion (read: Christianity) will be viewed as dangerous to others and the practicioner, and laws will be passed for people's "protection." And it will follow on the logic that you have posted. I agree with you to a point, but I am not willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Jesus told a parable of those who wanted to cut the chaff out of the wheat field. The Master said, "Let the wheat and the chaff grow up together. For if you try to cut the chaff, some of the wheat will be cut off with it." Let's be careful we don't try to cut the wheat away with the chaff.
quote:
I think it incredibly unfair for a person to enjoy the freedom that a Christian culture brings , but denies the God that enables them . That's just an affront to God .
I do too. As my father once said to me, life isn't fair. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against such things, but we should realize the arena in which we are engaged.You are right, it is an affront to God. But even Jesus told us that anyone who chooses to follow Him would face troubles and unfairness. Of course, I know you know that. But in our efforts to be obedient to Christ and let the world know the Truth, we often mix in our desire to restore 'fairness' as we see it. We've got to be very careful with that.
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 15 Aug 2007 : 01:55:52
| quote:
I am afraid that I am going to have to carefully, respectfully, and proportionately disagree with this. Smoking is obviously dangerous and stupid, but I do not think it should be outlawed.
That's cool 
I think this may be our first genuine culture clash .
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/atods/tobaccolaws/existing_laws.asp
quote:
There will come a time in world society when even religion (read: Christianity) will be viewed as dangerous to others and the practicioner, and laws will be passed for people's "protection."
!! ??.... Oh , my mistake , I thought you said World Village lol .
I agree though , it'll happen , I just don't want to be seen as one that let it happen , as you said .
quote:
You are right, it is an affront to God. But even Jesus told us that anyone who chooses to follow Him would face troubles and unfairness.
I'm not concerned about me , as a follower , or any offence I suffer . But I'm sure the lack of gratitude upsets our Father , & that upsets me .
But again , I think our arguement lies within our cultural differences .
Could I also say , I believe the law exposes sin , I want to expose the sin so that Gods' grace can be revealed . I've said all along that people need to see Gods' way , not mine , come out of their sin , so they can have real freedom . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 15 Aug 2007 : 16:21:12
| quote:
Could I also say , I believe the law exposes sin , I want to expose the sin so that Gods' grace can be revealed . I've said all along that people need to see Gods' way , not mine , come out of their sin , so they can have real freedom .
Why, yes you can...lol! |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts | Posted - 15 Aug 2007 : 20:35:25
| quote:
Originally posted by Shredhead
quote:
I am afraid that I am going to have to carefully, respectfully, and proportionately disagree with this. Smoking is obviously dangerous and stupid, but I do not think it should be outlawed.
That's cool
I think this may be our first genuine culture clash .
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/atods/tobaccolaws/existing_laws.asp
That's only because y'all don't have any tobacco farms down under.  (sorry, that's my cynical side peeking out again) |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 01:27:48
| quote:
That's only because y'all don't have any tobacco farms down under. (sorry, that's my cynical side peeking out again)
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/stories/s838969.htm
You think that's rough ? You should read our policy on letting Americans in . None of that "ya'll" business , & any American attempting to say "g'day" is fined on the spot . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 05:46:53
| quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we see someone doing someone that's going to endanger themselves or others , we pass a law to stop them , whether it infringes upon their personal freedom or not .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am afraid that I am going to have to carefully, respectfully, and proportionately disagree with this. Smoking is obviously dangerous and stupid, but I do not think it should be outlawed.
Sooo.... ummm.... Axe... then I guess you think it 's okay to Yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or to incite pedophiles to action by posting "how to" manuals online?
There are certainly "in the very least" governing tools that allow ignorance to be controlled. Fear of "overlegislation" is no reason to surrender societal morality either. Since we know that the eventuality IS that we will face some form of persecution for our faith in the world then why should we "in fear" avoid it or prolong it's advent thus allowing sin to run rampant. Government is an apt term for ruling powers because they do not possess liberty they merely arbitrate it. Our liberties are secure in God and if we die for them because of another man's intentional misuse of the law to suppress them are we not "in essence" suffering for righteousness sake? The argument for allowing immorality in the name of freedom is a farce! |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 19:01:57
| quote:
Sooo.... ummm.... Axe... then I guess you think it 's okay to Yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or to incite pedophiles to action by posting "how to" manuals
No, sir, I do not, in either case. My problem is with legislating freedom's away under the guise of "morality". To put it simply, should we say that since pornography is immoral (and it is), and cameras are used to propogate such filth, we should, in the name of purity, outlaw cameras? Or, to use your analogy,(and I know where you got that from...yeah what an evil character that guy is), should we assume that since pedophiles take pictures of children naked, and distribute them, that all pictures of children naked is child pornography? Parents take pictures of their children naked all the time, and there isn't anything wrong or sinful in that, but would that put them in violation of the law? You bet it would!
quote:
Fear of "overlegislation" is no reason to surrender societal morality either.
Agreed. However, societal morality may not necessarily reflect Godly morality. Neitchze wrote "The more a man abandons God, the harder he clings to ethics." And as much as it pains me to agree with an atheist, he was right. Isn't it funny how we hear from people who have absolutely no moral high ground, trying to lecture us on morals? We hear people like Left-wing editorial coulumnist Frank Rich (who has no love for Christians) lecture people on the evils of war? It is wolves in sheep's clothing. It is like Hugo Chavez calling George Bush a dictator, meanwhile he is completely socializing every facet of human existence in Venezuela.I am all for a body of laws with which to govern moral standards. However, anyone can hide behind morality to impose dictatorial will.
quote:
Since we know that the eventuality IS that we will face some form of persecution for our faith in the world then why should we "in fear" avoid it or prolong it's advent thus allowing sin to run rampant.
Again, agreed, we will face persecution. But two problems arise: #1) While we shouldn't run "in fear" to avoid it, we shouldn't stand by and allow it to happen, nor run to embrace it. I know that eventually, my children will hear and see things that I am trying to protect them from. However, while that may very well be an eventuality, I am certainly not going just sit back and allow it to occur unchallenged.
Problem #2 is a little different: "We" don't "allow" or "disallow" sin. Sin is a choice, as well as a condition. While I agree we should not condone it, approve of it, nor participate in it,people are going to sin, whether we say anything about it or not. God is the one who makes those calls, not us. Should we have laws that challenge sinful behavior? In a word, yes. However, we had better be careful, because to you and me, there is nothing sinful or immoral about long hair. But what about other Christians who do not share that view?
I am going to quote from a great book that Shred sent me. It is by Ravi Zacharias. It is entitled "The Real Face of Atheism".
quote:
Boston college professor Peter Kreeft, in his book Three Philosophis of Life, stated very succinctly:
"Ancient ethics always dealt with three questions. Modern ethics deals with one, or at the most, two. The three questions are like the three things a fleet of ships is told by its sailing orders. [The metaphor is from C.S. Lewis.] First, the ships must know how to avoid bumping into each other. This is social ethics, and modern as well as ancient ethicists deal with it. Second, they must know how to stay shipshape and avoid sinking. This is individual ethics, virtues and vices, character building, and we hear very little about this from our modern ethical philosophies. Third, and the most improtant of all, they must know why the fleet is at sea in the first place...I think I know why modern philosophers dare not raise this greatest of questions: because they have no answer to it."
My point? While you and I know why we are at seas in the first place, the lost do not. We Christians tend to prescibe ethics and morals from the first two metaphors. That's fine, but without the third in place, the first two become dictatorial and amateur providences.
quote:
The argument for allowing immorality in the name of freedom is a farce!
Is it? Did not the Apostle Paul say that if you are a slave to sin, you are free from righteousness? Did Paul also not say that if you are a slave to righteousness, then you are free from sin?
It is not my intention to sound acerbic, and the good Captain has a legitimate point. I agree that freedom isn't free. It costs something. However, I am not for legislating every facet of ethical behavior. An environment of propriety is fine. Obviously, there are laws against running a Red Trafffic light. And they should be in place. However, we know that people still choose to run red lights. And if they are caught, they deserve just penalty (including those of us Christians who get caught doing the very same thing). But while I agree that is a violation, it is not necessarily an unethical act. It might lead to one. It might reflect a deeper one. But the act itself is not. I don't think we should confuse the three metaphors. Again, I think smoking is a stupid habit, and I do have problems with Christians who smoke. But I cannot call it sin. There might be sinful behaviors and attitudes attached to it, but the act itself...I am leery to draw that distinction.
We have to be careful that we recognize that even God allows people to make personal decisions regarding behavior. I think murder should be against the law. However, I don't think being homosexual, abominable sin though it is, should be against the law. I don't believe society has an obligation to give homosexuals special recognition, and I do think that it should be marginalized by society. However, making it illegal? I'm not sure that's a productive idea. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
Edited by - AXEMAN2415 on 16 Aug 2007 19:07:48 | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 03:37:32
| quote:
No, sir, I do not, in either case. My problem is with legislating freedom's away under the guise of "morality". To put it simply, should we say that since pornography is immoral (and it is), and cameras are used to propogate such filth, we should, in the name of purity, outlaw cameras? Or, to use your analogy,(and I know where you got that from...yeah what an evil character that guy is), should we assume that since pedophiles take pictures of children naked, and distribute them, that all pictures of children naked is child pornography? Parents take pictures of their children naked all the time, and there isn't anything wrong or sinful in that, but would that put them in violation of the law? You bet it would!
I know the point that you are attempting to make but you are using broad, sweeping generalizations and kind of oversimplifying... There is a huge difference between being specific and making a sweeping assumption... the theatre example is one illustration... some could argue that ANY restriction of speech is an eroding of their liberty but it is the responsibility of government to provide structure and safety to the degree that it is possible... If people start trying to make laws that are ambiguous about their reach then we should run for the hills but yet it would remain that it is the intentional misuse of those laws and therefore the underlying malevolence that is a threat. Which as you have pointed out we have no control over anyway. If we (as a society) continue to allow thievery, discourtesey, foul language and all manner of evil to go unchallenged then we will surely end up under the eventual wicked rule of those raised under such standards and the malevolence will manifest anyway. We have a responsibility to raise a standard. For the sake of our children we should do all that we can to nurture good values rather than to aquiesce for the sake of preserving freedom. Freedom exists in all circumstances it is merely the price that you pay for exercising it that changes.
quote:
I don't think being homosexual, abominable sin though it is, should be against the law. I don't believe society has an obligation to give homosexuals special recognition, and I do think that it should be marginalized by society. However, making it illegal? I'm not sure that's a productive idea.
You'd better talk to "Father" nature about those laws...
Though morality cannot be legislated should the Ten Commandments never have been given...? |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 13:09:48
| quote:
Which as you have pointed out we have no control over anyway.
Or do we... ? If we become a society that turn our backs when someone is being mugged or raped etc. then those who participate in such behaviors will be emboldened and the frequency of these crimes would increase. I mean if we allow an environment where socially maligning behaviors can thrive aren't we then complicit in the resulting malevolent society that it produces and that our children must then deal with? We, knowing that these things will occur, should do that which we know to be right and best for our children/society risking or "suffering" the chance that a wicked ruler may at some point in the future use these same principles against us. (For which they will be accountable). I mean look at the FEMA legislation that is already on the books which allows our leaders to suspend our liberties outlined in the Constitution during times of "National Emergency". The definition of and motivations for it's invokation being somewhat ambiguous and subject to the intents (good or evil) of the one(s) defining it. It seems a necessary and yet potentially dangerous law. This falls again in line with the thinking of permissive comfort zones in relation to surroundings and tyranny. |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 13:12:29
| | It seems that either scenario ultimately can produce the same result but one (permissiveness) nearly assures it... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 13:30:04
| If we breed malefactors we will one day be ruled by them.
Illegalizing Homosexuality not a productive idea?
LOL <<< ? Pun Intended ?
Homosexuality too is not a "productive" idea...
When it comes to breeding/enabling iniquitous behaviors maybe we would do well to be (...dare I say it?) Gay !
The conundrum is that we cannot "control" every man's unrighteous actions but we can affect the overall environment that breeds the conditions allowing malfeasance to thrive. |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 15:17:46
| quote:
The conundrum is that we cannot "control" every man's unrighteous actions but we can affect the overall environment that breeds the conditions allowing malfeasance to thrive.
Yes, indeed, this is the conundrum.
quote:
Illegalizing Homosexuality not a productive idea?
LOL <<< ? Pun Intended ?
LOL! No, unfortunately, I cannot take credit for that one. I didn't even realize the pun until you pointed it out. I will have to remember it, though...lol
quote:
I know the point that you are attempting to make but you are using broad, sweeping generalizations and kind of oversimplifying...
Yes, I am. However, the veritable "Elephant-in-the-room" of your example, though correct is that you're appealing to the legislative process of enforcing moral codes. Yes, there are laws that are necessary for a moral climate. Yet, "laws" are not the only way to challenge evil and raise a standard;
quote:
If we (as a society) continue to allow thievery, discourtesey, foul language and all manner of evil to go unchallenged then we will surely end up under the eventual wicked rule of those raised under such standards and the malevolence will manifest anyway. We have a responsibility to raise a standard.
You are absolutely correct in your assertion, but here you take a sweeping generalization. Legislation is not the only way with which to raise a standard. Let's take tattoos as an example. I, personally, have no problem with tatoos. However, I realize that it seems to reflect an increase in the tribe mentality, because it seems everybody has to have one (just to be individuals...now there's irony). Now, while I don't have a personal issue with tattoos, I realize that having an armful of them severely limits your employment opportunities. Like long hair, I sincerely doubt I have a potential career as a news anchorman.
My point? There are cultural and societal institutions in place (well, they are being eroded, too, but they are still there) that can challenge and even undermine sinful and immoral behaviors and practices. Now, while I don't believe that tattoos are immoral or sinful, they do make people into social pariahs, depending upon the arenas they wish to dwell.
There used to be a time, in our country, when girls who got pregnant out of wedlock, were "put away", or treated like pariahs. Was it always fair? No, and there were many girls and women who suffered severe persecution for an obvious case of poor judgement. However, it wasa way to marginalize immoral behavior, shout society's disapproval, make an indupidable imression upon the perpetrators and potential perpetrators, and all without the need for any kind of legislative parsing. This is how we can " affect the overall environment that breeds the conditions allowing malfeasance to thrive." To use your words (respectfully, of course!)
quote:
If we become a society that turn our backs when someone is being mugged or raped etc. then those who participate in such behaviors will be emboldened and the frequency of these crimes would increase. I mean if we allow an environment where socially maligning behaviors can thrive aren't we then complicit in the resulting malevolent society that it produces and that our children must then deal with?
Again, you are correct, but here, again, you indulge in overgeneralization, and to some extent some moral equivilence. I would be leery to compare a rape with having gay sex. Or comparing a [i[mugging to , say, cussing. All of the above are immoral and sinful. But I wouldn't put cussing or gay sex in the same categoriy as criminal acts (okay, okay, crime against nature, but we don't legislate that).
quote:
We, knowing that these things will occur, should do that which we know to be right and best for our children/society risking or "suffering" the chance that a wicked ruler may at some point in the future use these same principles against us. (For which they will be accountable).
Yes, we should do that which we know to be right. But we should also be careful of how doing right is manifested. It is like what Jesus told Peter, after Peter cut the ear off of the servant; "If a man lives by the sword, he shall die by the sword." I really doubt that was n admonishment against using weapons, but a statement of an established life principle: "By the measure that you operate your life, that is how your life will result." In other words, if you live life as a warrior, that is how your life will probably end...as a warrior. If you live your life as a lazy sot, then you will probably reap a sot's end.
If you operate as if the only answer to life's moral peril's is by legislation, that legislation may very well be your undoing. I think, just as in everything else in a Christian's life, we must use wisdom when applying legal policy, or we may find ourselves torn by the very sword with which we choose to operate. The legislative process is certainly one tool in a society's toolbox, but you shouldn't use a wrench when a hammer will would be more efficient and appropriate. Maybe the wrench will[/i] get the job done, but you may find that you have ruined the wrench, and cannot use it when you need it.
Believe me, I am just as outraged as anyone at how the pillars and institutions or our society have been denuded of proper morals. However, the contribution to that disrobing from those with good intentions, but bad judgement, with regard to religious conviction, cannot be overstated. I cannot help but wonder if instead of a scorpion, we gave our sons bread?
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
Edited by - AXEMAN2415 on 17 Aug 2007 15:25:39 | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 15:29:37
| And, for those who may be watching in the wings, allow me to state that neither Captain Blasto nor myself are mad at each other. We disagree (although I don't think too much), and we are both passionate conversationalists.But the good Captain is still my bandmate, and even more so, he is following the Lord his God. This is the arena for divergent views to be discussed. Both he and I are seeking truth. Agreement isn't always healthy. Only agree ment on the truth.
My hat's off to Blasto for speaking his mind. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| | Topic | |
|
Media
