Sure, non theocratic government can be as bad as theocracy, but theocracy is ALWAYS vile.
Do you want prostitution legalized?
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Freedom of and from religion are not possible in a theocracy. I guess that is of no concern unless it is the religious theocracy runs opposite of your own views and values. :think:
Ah, so that's what the tunnels were for.
lain:
ISIS is going to give it a run for its money. And a third of Europe died in the 30 Years War over Protestant/Catholic exegesis...so that was bad. But I'd agree that religion is still in the piker stage compared to what Stalin and Mao managed, numbers wise.
That's what I always say: find a woman, marry her and beat the hell out of her every day. :dizzy: 1 Pe 4:5
:yawn: Ga 5:9
Aren't we giving them that? Ge 16:12, Jer 7:6, GWT :CRASH: You kicked God out of the country. Try the left over pagan moon god/god of war for a while.
You get 72 virgins and you're still not happy? :sigh: We just want to make you happy.
It'll be back in fashion soon (Rev. 20:1–10). :straight:
:yawn: Mt 10:25
At least they put their murders (Lev 24:17) and Sodomites (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] homosexual [Lev. 20:13]) to death. :idunno:
Those who take the Bible literally would have to say Yes.
The text is filled with patriarchs and heroes that had a stable of wives, concubines and prostitutes.
For example, careful readers of the Bible will remember one example from Hosea when the prostitute Gomer became Hosea's significant other after God told him to pick a whore for a wife.
What the hell has gotten into folks?
Let's just let everything be legal so no one will feel any shame at all for their immorality.
I mean, you know, we certainly don't want to offend anyone by saying their actions are shameful.
Give everybody a blue ribbon and tell them they are all winners just the way they are.
That. Well said and that is the bottom line.
Would you support for example, a person killing another person if they both consent, why or why not?
Why should immorality be successful?
Quetzal
New member
Nope.
Quetzal
New member
What you see as immoral might not seem so to others.
Why not, it is consenting adults after all?
Quetzal
New member
I do not equate sex to being the same as ending a life. They are separate issues, as such, have separate circumstances.
Quetzal
New member
It only appears that way because you are trying to apply the same logic to two different situations.
No, its what 2 consenting adults choose to do themselves, your logic is faulty, you cannot both hold that its ok and their business to choose what they do in one situation but not another and then also declare that "what you see as immoral may not be to another person", that's a contradiction in terms and you know it.
'Consent' is a faulty argument altogether on something being ok or not.
Quetzal
New member
Sure I can, it just might not be logically consistent and that's okay. Let me present it another way.
Quetzal likes Hockey.
Quetzal does not like Curling.
Both are sports, but they are played under different circumstances.
Quetzal supports consensual sexual acts for money.
Quetzal does not support consensual homicide.
Both are moral arguments, but they are executed with different circumstances.
Still faulty when you also add in who are you to say what is immoral. You have faulty logic.
Quetzal
New member
I never claimed it was perfect and anyone is more than welcome to say that to me.
"Quetzal, who are YOU to say what is immoral?"
"Um... no one really. Just my opinion."
"Your opinion is dumb/faulty!"
"Okay."
Really, if that is the worst thing to happen, I think I will be alright.
Great, then you are clear that you hold an illogical contradictory opinion.