I'm Not Anti-Christian - I'm anti-theocracy

[I drank what?]

so then separation of church vs state...?

 

[john w]

Realize that i did dumb it down so you could understand

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.


Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).




I will wait.


You: Not a peep.

 

[TracerBullet]

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

what morality is imposed by the law stating that vehicles are to driven on the right hand side of the road?

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.


Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).




I will wait.


You: Not a peep.

Laws are a set of norms/rules for interpersonal relations with corresponding sanctions for not following the rules


Morality is the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.


You keep trying to claim that law is normative (dictating how people should behave) when in reality law is descriptive (based on how people actually behave.)

 

[john w]

what morality is imposed by the law stating that vehicles are to driven on the right hand side of the road?

Wow, Frank! You really asked that stumper? Try preventing death? You drive on the left side of the road? Why not?And you are in the ring with me? Stay down.


A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.


Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).




I will wait.


You: Not a peep.

Laws are a set of norms/rules for interpersonal relations with corresponding sanctions for not following the rules

Nope.

A law is an imposition of morality(right/wrong), restriction or prescription on what you cannot do't do. Agreement with it is irrelevant, as you , are compelled to obey it, i.e., to behave as if you believe the law is right, and good.

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.


Identify yours.Name your standard, by which you assess right/wrong(morals).




I will wait.


You: Not a peep.

Morality is the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.

So, having laws against murder, rape, theft, are merely "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.


Got it. OK if I rob you, or others rape/kill your loved ones? It's just, after all, "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.



And you are contending that you are "arguing?"


Sit down.

 

[Quetzal]

So, having laws against murder, rape, theft, are merely "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.

I think that's a fair definition.

Got it. OK if I rob you, or others rape/kill your loved ones? It's just, after all, "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.

Each of those actions have a set of consequences, like any other law.

 

[PureX]

Laws are mostly written for functional reasons in our society, not moral reasons. We write laws for the purpose of promoting peace and freedom among and within our citizenry, based on the goal of equality: equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all.

That means each of us has to give up some of our own personal freedom and possible good fortune to respect the equal freedom and opportunity of everyone else, as each of them do likewise. We may see this as a positive moral imperative, but that's not the reason we do it this way. The reason we do it this way is to maintain peace and relative freedom and prosperity among and within our citizenry, not to promote any particular moral imperative. We can deem peace, freedom and prosperity moral imperatives if we want, but in fact they are functional imperatives, first and foremost.

 

[TracerBullet]

Wow, Frank! You really asked that stumper? Try preventing death? You drive on the left side of the road? Why not?And you are in the ring with me? Stay down.

the law could easily be to drive on the left hand side of the road. Right and left are just arbitrary so again what morality is imposed by the law stating that vehicles are to driven on the right hand side of the road?

Nope.

witty comeback :third:

Your issue is not having a standard, but you don't dig our standard.

Repeating a pointless comment doesn't change the fact that it is pointless

So, having laws against murder, rape, theft, are merely "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.


Got it. OK if I rob you, or others rape/kill your loved ones? It's just, after all, "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.

Did you even read what was posted?

And you are contending that you are "arguing?"


Sit down.

To argue with you is to imply that you have some sort of point or insight, so no I'm not arguing.

 

[Nazaroo]

how to tell if your rights are being violated

There! Fixed that for ya!

 

[TrakeM]

So, you just don't like the standard, do you, punk?

That is the issue, despite your "smoke screen."

Tough. What is your standard?

Yeah, not a big fan of the psychotic mass murder of innocent men women and children. Not my thing. Legally speaking, my standard starts with the US constitution. Of course, you're no different than al-Qaida saying you need to fallow their religious standards. At least my standards are based on objective reality.

In any event, the US is becoming less christian, and thus likely more moral. The next generation is the least religious of all. Oh well, tough day for your dream of a theocracy.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Laws are mostly written for functional reasons in our society, not moral reasons. We write laws for the purpose of promoting peace and freedom among and within our citizenry, based on the goal of equality: equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all.

That means each of us has to give up some of our own personal freedom and possible good fortune to respect the equal freedom and opportunity of everyone else, as each of them do likewise. We may see this as a positive moral imperative, but that's not the reason we do it this way. The reason we do it this way is to maintain peace and relative freedom and prosperity among and within our citizenry, not to promote any particular moral imperative. We can deem peace, freedom and prosperity moral imperatives if we want, but in fact they are functional imperatives, first and foremost.

Yes, this is true now, but Psalms 2 says that kings are obligated to give Christ glory.

 

[TrakeM]

Where do you think they come from, these so-called "rights" you are claiming to have?
Why do you even think you have any of those so-called "rights"?

These rights come from the fact that men and women will fight to the death to preserve them. The only rights we have are those we will fight for against all comers. That's why we have a military. To stop anyone who would tear down the rights in the constitution.

 

[TrakeM]

Our theocracy is the kingdom of heaven...Jesus Christ is our King, it is just our hard lot that while we await our Master we have to dwell among His enemies.

Well, I suggest Uganda. They hate gay people. Maybe some other theocracy might be more your taste? Just find the most poverty stricken horrible place you can, chances are, if murder is more common than food the people there think a lot like you do. Of course, they'll probably murder you over some disagreement but that's what a theocracy is all about.

 

[TrakeM]

What a mess:

"It is illegal because it is prohibitive to the survival of the society."-you

So, you assert that the survival of the society is "good"/right, and the "un survival" of it is "bad"/wrong.

That's a moral judgment on your part, deceiver, despite any spin to the contrary.

Sit.

We do not bow to you. Your command to sit will not be headed. We have rights because people we fight and kill those who attempt to take them away.

You're standard is the bible which a few yahoos with rifles are willing to fight whoever won't abide by it. My standard is the US constitution, defended by the largest most powerful military in the world with scientists, soldiers, tanks, planes and so much more. You're outclassed.

Sit.

 

[musterion]

We do not bow to you. Your command to sit will not be headed. We have rights because people we fight and kill those who attempt to take them away.

You're a leftist. You don't fight people to the death, you have your government do it for you.

 

[TrakeM]

Then you aren't really looking, are you?


America was founded under Christian laws, you know.

Agreement of the Settlers at Exeter in New Hampshire, 1639

Whereas it hath pleased the Lord to move the Heart of our dread Sovereigns Charles by the Grace of God King &c. to grant Licence and Libertye to sundry of his subjects to plant themselves in the Westerlle parts of America. We his loyal Subjects Brethern of the Church in Exeter situate and lying upon the River Pascataqua with other Inhabitants there, considering with ourselves the holy Will of God and o'er own Necessity that we should not live without wholesomne Lawes and Civil Government among us of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the Will of God professing ourselves Subjects to our Sovereign Lord King Charles according to the Libertyes of our English Colony of Massachusetts, and binding of ourselves solemnly by the Grace and Help of Christ and in His Name and fear to submit ourselves to such Godly and Christian Lawes as are established in the realm of England to our best Knowledge, and to all other such Lawes which shall upon good grounds be made and enacted among us according to God that we may live quietly and peaceably together in all godliness and honesty. Mo. 8. D. 4. 1639 as attests our Hands.​

You have it backwards. It is the liberal anti-Christians that hate this country and want the only seat at the table.

Psst... Don't look now, doc, but I don't think the US is a property of England. In fact, I don't think our president works for the queen of England. Your document isn't the document that founded the US. Your document is what founded a property of England that doesn't exist anymore. The founding document of the US is the constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

 

[john w]

Laws are mostly written for functional reasons in our society, not moral reasons. We write laws for the purpose of promoting peace and freedom among and within our citizenry, based on the goal of equality: equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all.

That means each of us has to give up some of our own personal freedom and possible good fortune to respect the equal freedom and opportunity of everyone else, as each of them do likewise. We may see this as a positive moral imperative, but that's not the reason we do it this way. The reason we do it this way is to maintain peace and relative freedom and prosperity among and within our citizenry, not to promote any particular moral imperative. We can deem peace, freedom and prosperity moral imperatives if we want, but in fact they are functional imperatives, first and foremost.

"We write laws for the purpose of promoting peace and freedom .."

Translated: You made a judgment that "peace," "freedom," are good.

Why are you imposing your beliefs, on me/others?

See how that works?

Thanks for the concession speech.

 

[Granite]

Psst... Don't look now, doc, but I don't think the US is a property of England. In fact, I don't think our president works for the queen of England. Your document isn't the document that founded the US. Your document is what founded a property of England that doesn't exist anymore. The founding document of the US is the constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I wouldn't waste time troubling GO with the facts.

 

[TrakeM]

You're a leftist. You don't fight people to the death, you have your government do it for you.

That's what societies do. They form governments for the safety and security of the people against all those that would impose a theocracy on them. Get used to it.

 

[john w]

I think that's a fair definition.




Each of those actions have a set of consequences, like any other law.

"So, having laws against murder, rape, theft, are merely "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”."-saint John W


"I think that's a fair definition."-Quetzal


There you go, folks-laws against murder, rape, theft..............are merely "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.

Add that to:

"Yep, murder is wrong because I say so.."-Quetzal



"Got it. OK if I rob you, or others rape/kill your loved ones? It's just, after all, "the subjective categorization of human behaviors as either “good” and “bad”.-saint John W


"Each of those actions have a set of consequences, like any other law."-Quetzal

And? That says NADA. Why does it have consequences? Why impose the law?

Let me guess" Cuz. It is, what it is.


Sit, boo boo.


House John W

 

[musterion]

That's what societies do. They form governments for the safety and security of the people against all those that would impose a theocracy on them. Get used to it.

I'm all for that. You seemed to imply settling things yourself. You are not the type.