Subject:
|
Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:09:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1172 times
|
| |
|
|
Beaker wrote:
>
> Also sprach Matt Hanson:
> : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both
> : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about
> : marriage. (another abused institution)
>
> Yeek. What you are asking for has a name. It's called a theocracy.
> Thankfully that sort of thing is specifically forseen and forbidden by
> our constitution. I think we are just going to have to disagree on this
> point, Matt. If you think the above is a good idea, you don't truly
> believe in our system of government, or don't understand it if you think
> you do.
I have no faith in our system of government... It serves those who
serve themselves. I would much rather live under Hammurabi's code of
Laws.
>
> : That's one of the liberal spins that has been put on promises in other
> : cases... implied, or word of mouth contracts... so why not uphold them
> : all by law?
>
> This level of government has *never* existed .... anywhere. It's
> impractical for a start. The potential for human rights abuses is the
> most scary part, though.
It's not a level of government. It's one of the flaws of our
constitution. One that has been generated by the greedy. And what is
more of a human rights abuse than say, abortion? We already have those
issues.
I'm not suggesting honoring contracts like the pound of flesh in the
Merchant of Venice...
>
> : I dont' like to think of it as regulating morality. To me, trying to
> : regulate morality is telling someone how to think, not actually
> : punishing them for breaking promises.
>
> Freedom of thought is meaningless without reasonable freedom of action.
Freedom of thought is irrelevant. Actions are punishable, not
thoughts. Nobody can tell you what to think, but when you put it into
actions, then you become regulated. I don't even know what you are
thinking, so how can I regulate it?
>
> : It doesn't have to be a felony that carries the death sentence. (which
> : interestingly enough, it use to, in some cultures) But it should be at
> : least a minor criminal offense. It is considered bad enough to warrant
> : civil action, so I really don't see why it shouldn't be illegal... It
> : *is* a violation of a contract...
>
> The civil action relates, again, to a change-in-status under various tax
> and shared-asset laws. It is not, and should not, be a criminal
> proceeding.
I know what it is, but that's not the point. I've made the point, and I
stand by it.
>
> The point, Matt, is that just because a system of belief works for you,
> or even works for millions of people, does not mean it works for
> everyone. For every happy, fulfilled Christian you point to, I can
> point to four or five happy, fulfilled non-Christians. With such a
> diverse variety of belief systems, picking one and trying to enforce it
> is unrealistic, abusive and unworkable.
>
> Furthermore, morality must be voluntary or it's meaningless. We
> regulate a bare minimum of things we can all agree on; rape, murder,
> theft, etc, and leave additional moral choices to individual choice,
> where they belong.
>
> Your Bible counsels you to judge not, lest you be judged. It also says
> that laws of man are secondary to laws of God, and that after death the
> soul recieves a final reckoning. If you truly love that god, why can
> you not trust his wisdom and judgement, surely greater than your own,
> and follow the admonition not to judge?
First off, I wasn't working totally off my biblical values. True, my
personal values were somewhat inspired by the bible, but I am not
regarding religion here at all. Not once did you hear me make mention
of religion, so let's make sure we understand these are separate issues.
Even if I was the most agnostic person alive, I would still believe in
honoring vows, of any sort. Why? Because, I, like every human, have
broken some, and seen the damage I have caused. I know what suffering
is, from both sides of the fence. I sympathize with those who suffer.
Now, as far as your reference to judgment, let me just say this: God
also tells us that the government has the right to judge us, that is
it's purpose. Man does not get away from judging altogether, do not
misconstrue that passage. If that were the case, it would be unethical
for Christians to be in gov't, or serve as judges, lawyers, whatever.
Rather, it is the place of any Christian, as well as human, to try to
serve the best interest of the human race.
True, laws of God first, man second... but we can only enforce laws of
God in ourselves.
--
=======================================================================
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?"
- Dorothy (from The Wizard of OZ)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove "NO SPAM" when replying.
ICQ #11674715
=======================================================================
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| Also sprach Matt Hanson: : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about : marriage. (another abused institution) Yeek. What you are asking for has a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
