Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Get the popcorn...

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    rc,

    you are absolutely correct in that law is morality being enforced by the state. Religion has traditionally played a prominent role in how morality was perceived, and thus in how laws were made - there's no problem there. Here's how G.K. Chesterton put it:
    Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908

    Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, "I will not hit you if you do not hit me"; there is no trace of such a transaction. There is a trace of both men having said, "We must not hit each other in the holy place." They gained their morality by guarding their religion. They did not cultivate courage. They fought for the shrine, and found they had become courageous. They did not cultivate cleanliness. They purified themselves for the alter, and found that they were clean.
    Religious thinkers have greatly influenced, through all times, the way we think about morality. Generally, the guidance was good, and society was able to benefit from their advice. The problems, though, start when those religious thinkers start speaking for a society, based on their particular doctrine, in stead of speaking to it.

    An argument you'll often hear is "because the Bible says so", or "because this is my religious belief", two arguments that render any discussion on morality useless. Challenging those "arguments" requires that you either have to challenge the Bible, or that you have to invade someone's very private domain - that of his religious beliefs.

    These arguments are flawed (on top of being counter-productive and childish): "because the Bible says so" suggests that there is only one interpretation of the Bible (and that one correct interpretation is, of course, the interpretation of that one person), which we should all know by now is ridiculous. The second "argument", "because this is my religious belief", suggests that no aspect of one's beliefs can ever be flawed, and, even more important, that there cannot be any room for growth or development

    There are very few scholars left, even religious ones, who believe that a moral system should (or even can) be based on religious belief alone.

  2. #42
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    There are very few scholars left, even religious ones, who believe that a moral system should (or even can) be based on religious belief alone.
    Not much danger of that, at least not in the west, but a lot of
    people who should know better, insist that the law should
    be created and maintained in a total absence of religion,
    even as they insist that their own opinions must
    prevail against all dissent. Their posture is as dogmatic
    as traditional religion, but they call themselves liberal, open-minded
    or agnostic. Authoritarianism is the same, no matter what
    you call it.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    855
    Religious thinkers have greatly influenced, through all times, the way we think about morality. Generally, the guidance was good, and society was able to benefit from their advice.
    This is all I'm wanting to do. My religious beliefs (actually, my relationship with God through Jesus Christ) influence and direct (if I weren't stubborn at times, totally direct) my life. I draw my personal moral convictions from the Bible and through God's leading. I don't deny that there are different interpretations of the Bible. But I do believe that under the US Constitution it is legal for me to influence and agitate to the greatest extent legally allowed for society and government to reflect what I see as good, right, and true. This is the same right all US citizens have under the US Constitution. I am not wanting to make the BIble the official law of the land (and technically speaking, it is not a law book). But I see no problem with letting the content of my relationship with God influence my participation in the society and culture I live in. If it did not I would be a hypocrite. Therefore, if the majority of the citizens of a state, influenced by their faith in God, believe that abortion is wrong, and wish to ban it, then I believe that is honored under the US Constitution, and I would fully support them.

    e was a true christian: forgiving, nice, and loving - just like Jesus
    Negative, you have given me your definition of loving:
    Love is, first and foremost, unconditional... There can't be such a thing as "I'll love you if you do this or that"...
    I would also be interested in hearing how you define: "nice" and "forgiving."
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    (Romans 6:23, WEB)

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    855
    Back OT, why do the religious right, feel it is nescessary to impose their will on another person (my earlier post must have made it sound like I was referring to God when I said imposing will on someone else which I wasn't),
    No, I knew what you meant. But since God is a Person, I included Him. I wanted to make the point that God has the right to impose His will on us. Furthermore, He has made that will known to us throught the Bible, and people who are legitimately exercising their rights as citizens of this country have every right to change laws as they see fit in accordance with how they interpet the BIble and God's will. Someone's will be imposed. Laws don't spring up out of thin air of course. In a democratic society, they come from the will of the people (or they should). If you are in the minority, our Constitution gives you a vote and the right of free speach.
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    (Romans 6:23, WEB)

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    322
    Meh, I personally am indifferent to this topic as a whole. If we consider ourselves proper in condemning those to death, I can't see why we arn't high enough to choose who lives. Visa versa as well.

    I'm not sure if I prefer state or federal decision of this one. In one case, it's everyone's right to do as they will to themselves--which would be a federal decree. However, I do support a culture's right to defend their beliefs and set their local government to cator to it--which would be more of a state choice. Until I have to make this decision of my own (hopfully not), then I'll just let others do as they will before joining a side if I ever do at all.
    \"Greatness only comes at great risk.\" ~ Personal/Generic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •