Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JohnMichaels]

I hope you don’t mind my interjecting here, but this particular post called out to me.

In your previous thread**, I suggested that you shouldn’t allow your feelings to get in the way of the search for truth**. But here that is exactly what you have done. ** You “feel” abstinence leads to higher divorce**. Unfortunately, the numbers prove you dead wrong. The fact is that there is a demonstrable increase in the likelihood for divorce with every premarital sexual partner one has, even if it’s only one and that one is the same person you married. Numerous studies have confirmed that fact:

More could be said and many other points could be made, but I’ll leave it at that for now. The point is that, as I said earlier, you should not assume you have all the same information as your opponent, and, if you’re interested in the truth, you should set aside your personal feelings and be open to data which may contradict your preconceptions. Again, truly understanding the moral teachings of the Church requires a great deal of study and reflection.

I thought about ways to go at this. I came up with 3. I’ve decided to double-down

Psalm 34:18
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

I prayed deeply for the Lord to send me an answer on this issue. Should I be chaste before marriage. He spoke to me, & told me I was of him, & there was no sin in his eyes.

Then I read
1 Peter 4:8
Most important of all, continue to show deep love for each other, for love covers a multitude of sins
&
1 Thessalonians 5:11
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing

And I knew I was right to trust in the Lord.

YOU keep ignoring this. You keep throwing statistics around. I read them.
Are you telling my prayer is not an acceptable form of seeking truth?

I dare ya…

 

[JohnMichaels]

0ff

 

[JohnMichaels]

You’re talking about legal benefits, which is a matter of the state, not religion. We can talk about God when you address the rest of my arguments.

But as long as you’re talking about equality, then we should ask: why don’t single people get the same tax benefits as married couples, too? Why can’t they have their best friend receive the visitation rights, administrative rights, etc. that a married person’s spouse has? That’s discrimination.

Of course, my proposal for resolving this issue for gay couples could equally apply to single people or anyone who wants to bestow those rights upon a loved one who is not their spouse.

This is all about finding the truth of God. You think Jesus would return and fight against tax benefits?
If I’m searching for a religion, this is the divisive way you want to present it to me?

I was raised catholic, I seen none of this. I would have strayed sooner

 

[ColdComfort]

In this thought exercise, I’ll be operating under the following assumptions

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

Why would you want to have a debate on these terms in the first place? On a Catholic website? In any event, of the answers I’ve read you do not follow your terms esp. the first three. If the true God has revealed himself then we follow what He says. Not just because we fear eternal punishment but because, by your hypothesis, He loves us and desires our eternal salvation. We do not know what is required to obtain salvation do we? Your answer that if it feels good it must meet with the approval o God is stark evidence of the irrationality of your ‘I decide’ position.

Secondly, if you accept the terms of your debate you must accept that God has created all things out of nothing including yourself. On the issue of homosexuality, He has designed our bodies for a specific reason. Given your terms, and His purpose of our eternal beatitude, I rather doubt that recreation and ‘it feels good’ was His only purpose. On other issues of sexual ethics we can turn either to revelation or the natural law.

God has revealed Himself through history and continues to guide us through the Church He himself established. Catholics have good reason to believe this. In fact the evidence is overwhelming. Why exclude them from your debate or consideration?

I suspect that the terms of this thread are designed to by-pass the ban on atheism. Despite your hypothetical, you reject any argument based on God’s existence or His will for us.

This is a thread that must wash out as conversation between the deaf.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I thought about ways to go at this. I came up with 3. I’ve decided to double-down

Psalm 34:18
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

I prayed deeply for the Lord to send me an answer on this issue. Should I be chaste before marriage. He spoke to me, & told me I was of him, & there was no sin in his eyes.

This is not even worth answering. You’re an atheist, so clearly this did not happen. Nor would it ever happen.

Then I read
1 Peter 4:8
Most important of all, continue to show deep love for each other, for love covers a multitude of sins
&
1 Thessalonians 5:11
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing

And I knew I was right to trust in the Lord.

For starters, the verses quoted lead in no way to the conclusion “And I knew I was right to trust in the Lord.” Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument that you did trust in the Lord, then you would trust in the numerous prohibitions on premarital sex found in the very Bible you are quoting:

*"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God “with your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is “better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” (Hebrews 13:4)

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

“fornicators, sodomites, slave-dealers, liars and false witnesses; and for whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching” (1 Timothy 1:10)

“Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be unpolluted; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)*

More could be cited.

YOU keep ignoring this. You keep throwing statistics around. I read them.
Are you telling my prayer is not an acceptable form of seeking truth?

I dare ya…

Prayer is an acceptable form of seeking the truth. But this is clearly a red herring. You’re making up some completely bogus (not to mention illogical) scenario to avoid the argument.

I’m giving you statistics because you are making factual claims that the facts, as they are, contradict. If you want to live in a fantasy world, that’s your business. The truth is the truth, and if I know that what you are saying is not true, then I’m going to say so. And I’m not just going to say so, I’m going to give you proof. I’m going to give you reasons to believe what I’m saying. So far all you’ve given me are your personal feelings. But why should I accept your feelings over, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? I’m interested in objective truth, not subjective opinions.

 

[JRKH]

1. You aren’t going to slide conditions into unconditional. No matter how many ways you try. You can’t change the definition to suit you, as you might say on another matter

This is not adding conditions…It is asking how you respond to the request of your lover.
God Loves you and you Love God…God makes requests of you for your own good (as any loving parent would). How do you - as one who claims to love God unconditionally respond to these requests?

I love God unconditionally means I don’t require him to aid in my everyday life. & as luck would have it, he does not. We understand each other this way

This is fine…but the other side of the relationship is how you respond to what he “requires” (your word here) of you in everyday life.

1. in this exercise those “truths” aren’t revealed. You cannot cheat

Sorry - but since you stated that God DID reveal himself (and Catholics certainly believe He has…it is reasonable to assume that He also revealed the truths that we need to know.
Apparently your idea of “reveal” is that He somehow stuck His head in the door and said, “Hi I’m God” and then immediately left.

1. I require they live up to my high standards of God. Sorry for the confusion

Exactly - the standards are yours…whether those are high standards or not may be something open to debate.

This exercise doesn’t imply NO church is right. I lived this path. Not MY Standards. My idea of God.

Now you say NOT your standards…but contradict this with by saying YOUR standard of God.

We’ve only begun talking about the ones I do not agree with. We don’t get to talk about the plenty of teachings I DO agree with. This is unfair judgement and stereotyping.

Perhaps…but then again - it might be very useful to us to know what you agree with. It would allow us to know you better and to perhaps even better explain areas of misunderstanding and disagreement.

I’m all love & equality in this. Case u missed it. You’re telling me love doesn’t have to make sense. It can be badly defined & changed when necessary.

Well - to the world Christian Love doesn’t make sense. The world rejects the golden rule, turn the other cheek, forgive and love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you and a whole host of other manifestations of Agape Love.
Agape - True Agape is not something defined…It’s something one becomes…is filled with and gives to others from that abundance.

As you mature spiritually you will begin to understand this more.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Kinda, yea. This government is broken. No plans to fix it either. Dishonest politicians in every corner. Bribes make laws, not right or wrong.
I’m not following where you’re going with this. You want to discuss politics?

No I don’t want to discuss politics. I want you to see that you are being inconsistent in how you approach things.

In the above, you describe a government that you would just as soon not have anything to do with…Is that correct?

Peace
James

 

[prodigalson2011]

This is all about finding the truth of God. You think Jesus would return and fight against tax benefits?

Are we going to have a real conversation or not? I’m not about to defend a straw man. You brought up the civil issue, so I responded.

We can’t make any progress if you’re going to continue to be evasive, condescending and irrational.

If I’m searching for a religion, this is the divisive way you want to present it to me?

• “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."* (Matthew 10:34)

The truth is divisive. We don’t always like the truth because, as the saying goes, the truth hurts.

But, again, we are not talking about religion at the moment. We are talking about marriage as a legal institution. You yourself opened this conversation up in your OP when you said:

It gets more complex in regards to gay marriage/civil unions

1. They shouldn’t be allowed to do either
2. They can have civil unions, but do not change the definition of marriage

It was my response to the second point that you have been harping on, and it has nothing to do with religion. You asked for an opinion on civil law regarding marriage, and I gave it to you. Now that I’ve given it to you, you seem to have no logical counterargument, so you are trying to change the subject with appeals to emotion (which is a fallacious form of argument) which you even more audaciously (and failingly) try to support with Scripture.

Now if you want to talk religion, then quit harping on what I said about civil marriage. Either present a logical counterargument or move on. I had plenty to say about marriage in regards to religion, and specifically Catholicism, so if you want to talk about it, then let’s talk about it.

I was raised catholic, I seen none of this. I would have strayed sooner

More appeals to emotion. Alot of people don’t like alot of things. That has nothing to do with whether they’re true or right. In Scripture itself, we see that the majority of Jesus’ initial followers left because they didn’t like the things he said.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60)

 

[JohnMichaels]

This is not even worth answering. You’re an atheist, so clearly this did not happen. Nor would it ever happen.
.

I didn’t read anything past this line. I’m going under the guidelines I set. If you want to debate me personally, send me a message on yahoo. I’ll win there easier
I’m trying to follow the rules. I am a deist in this exercise.

I just got home, so, I’ll read the rest of this and reply a lil later

turns out, I didn’t need to. Just more verse. I only quote verse cause you’d know it better than I. I don’t need the verse. In my exercise I am a deist. & btw, never? it did when I was young

 

[JohnMichaels]

This is not adding conditions…It is asking how you respond to the request of your lover.
God Loves you and you Love God…God makes requests of you for your own good (as any loving parent would). How do you - as one who claims to love God unconditionally respond to these requests?

If they are requests, I take the ones under advisement that seem logical to me and…do I need to say all this again? really? I like how you call them requests now. Like optional

This is fine…but the other side of the relationship is how you respond to what he “requires” (your word here) of you in everyday life.

If he requires, its not unconditional. Its unconditional based on prerequisite. which, is kinda silly in my head.

like a prenuptial agreement. But I thought only nuns were married to god?

Sorry - but since you stated that God DID reveal himself (and Catholics certainly believe He has…it is reasonable to assume that He also revealed the truths that we need to know.
Apparently your idea of “reveal” is that He somehow stuck His head in the door and said, “Hi I’m God” and then immediately left.

I said he is revealed. I also said he is your God. Yahweh. But he didn’t specify (per the exercise) if all of the teachings are correct. If he did, there would be no exercise. Go look back, I said as much when it came to me.
I don’t know how he did it, you can imagine I guess. i can’t, sorry

Exactly - the standards are yours…whether those are high standards or not may be something open to debate.

Absolutely they are mine. I think very highly of God. I’ll here nothing otherwise in my head (per this exercise it is open for debate yes, so far none convincing)

Now you say NOT your standards…but contradict this with by saying YOUR standard of God.

I think you’re telling me I cannot find the Lord within myself. He cannot reveal himself to me. What nerve sir!

Perhaps…but then again - it might be very useful to us to know what you agree with. It would allow us to know you better and to perhaps even better explain areas of misunderstanding and disagreement.

I could do a really…really…really long post about every spiritual turn I made to arrive here, but would that really help you?
Also, do you want to know the things I agree with regular, or controversial. For example, I was in favor of “DADT”

 

[Linux]

. So, to immediately dismiss a faith just because you don’t immediately understand an argument means that you could be dismissing truth. And claiming ignorance won’t work because you had the opportunity to look into it, because you didn’t understand it, but you chose not to look into for the purpose of remaining ignorant because you think you’ll be better off and can claim ignorance. There is way more culpability in willful ignorance than invincible ignorance. So, you would in fact be worse off.

Should an atheist therefore spend their lives studying and meditating on all religions for fear of the consequences that each of these religions hold for dismissing what one does not know to be true in the first place?

I believe in God and i am a willfully baptized Catholic. Sorry, i don’t believe that what you have said here is a true instance of willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is when you receive a reasonably evident truth and ignore it for the sake of some desire.

If a person , has received information that appears to contradict reality, such a person cannot be held morally responsible for rejecting that belief until sufficient reason is given for that person to believe otherwise. Threats of hell are not sufficient reasons, and such consequences are not self evident; they are just threats. Until sufficient reason is given that ones soul is in danger of going to hell a person has a right to be skeptical of such a claim as much as he has a right to be skeptical of the claim that if he does not kick Charley in the teeth a Romulun will abduct his parents. Otherwise you are basically saying that it is okay to emotionally blackmail people into Christianity; which is what you seem to be doing when you report that a person cannot say he was ignorant on the day of judgement if he does not dedicate himself to an in-depth study of Christianity.

Just because somebody says that something bad will happen if i don’t do a, b, and c, does not mean the threat is worthy of consideration or that a religion is worthy of study. If a moral imperative is not evident then people cannot be held responsible for acting contrary to that which happens to be a moral law.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Why would you want to have a debate on these terms in the first place? On a Catholic website?

two reasons

1. If I do not allow those terms, it’s an atheist debate. forbidden here
2. arrogance

In any event, of the answers I’ve read you do not follow your terms esp. the first three. If the true God has revealed himself then we follow what He says. Not just because we fear eternal punishment but because, by your hypothesis, He loves us and desires our eternal salvation. We do not know what is required to obtain salvation do we? Your answer that if it feels good it must meet with the approval o God is stark evidence of the irrationality of your ‘I decide’ position.

I definitely don’t remember saying “If it feels good do it” That would paint a very wide brush I would not be ready or able to defend. I only offered that sexual pleasure was a gift from God to be enjoyed, so long as you do not negatively affect another person.

Secondly, if you accept the terms of your debate you must accept that God has created all things out of nothing including yourself. On the issue of homosexuality, He has designed our bodies for a specific reason. Given your terms, and His purpose of our eternal beatitude, I rather doubt that recreation and ‘it feels good’ was His only purpose. On other issues of sexual ethics we can turn either to revelation or the natural law.

You aren’t proving anything. You’re likely reading your teachings. Now convince me you’re right.

God has revealed Himself through history and continues to guide us through the Church He himself established. Catholics have good reason to believe this. In fact the evidence is overwhelming. Why exclude them from your debate or consideration?

I suspect that the terms of this thread are designed to by-pass the ban on atheism. Despite your hypothetical, you reject any argument based on God’s existence or His will for us.

This is a thread that must wash out as conversation between the deaf.

Incorrect. & also a little correct. Bold is correct, but atheism is a disbelief. In the debate, I expressly acknowledge existence. So, no atheism in the thread. Just an atheist pretending to be a deist for debate purposes.

You mad bro?

 

[JohnMichaels]

No I don’t want to discuss politics. I want you to see that you are being inconsistent in how you approach things.

In the above, you describe a government that you would just as soon not have anything to do with…Is that correct?

Peace
James

I’d say it’s getting there. I’ve already looked into relocation to the Netherlands

However, I didn’t sign up for this country. Nobody ask me what I think. I was just kinda born here. It doesn’t have to be convincing to me, I haven’t another choice unless I do move. Whereas Church, I can drive down the street and see several denominations all of which will paint an ever-so-slight different story.

When I was young, I faced the prospect of this EXACT question. So when I answer you, you’re sorta speaking to me in my early to mid 20s. When this was actually me.

Hope that helps somewhat

 

[JohnMichaels]

But, again, we are not talking about religion at the moment. We are talking about marriage as a legal institution. You yourself opened this conversation up in your OP when you said:

It was my response to the second point that you have been harping on, and it has nothing to do with religion. You asked for an opinion on civil law regarding marriage, and I gave it to you. Now that I’ve given it to you, you seem to have no logical counterargument, so you are trying to change the subject with appeals to emotion (which is a fallacious form of argument) which you even more audaciously (and failingly) try to support with Scripture.

I brought it up as one of two stances I have heard from the church. Apologies if you thought I wanted to defend both. Basically it was listed for you to pick one, then defend it’s counter points to me

More appeals to emotion. Alot of people don’t like alot of things. That has nothing to do with whether they’re true or right. In Scripture itself, we see that the majority of Jesus’ initial followers left because they didn’t like the things he said.

We’re either gonna play by the rules of the exercise, or we can play off the site me & you

 

[JRKH]

do I need to say all this again? really?

No - you can just not reply to me. It’s really up to you.

If they are requests, I take the ones under advisement that seem logical to me and… I like how you call them requests now. Like optional

They ARE optional. You can choose to follow God or not…It’s entirely up to you.

If he requires, its not unconditional. Its unconditional based on prerequisite. which, is kinda silly in my head.

It’s not unconditional…
You get to choose whether you get to spend eternity with God or not…God will Love you either way…Whether you are with Him in Heaven or not…

I said he is revealed. I also said he is your God. Yahweh. But he didn’t specify (per the exercise) if all of the teachings are correct. If he did, there would be no exercise. Go look back, I said as much when it came to me.
I don’t know how he did it, you can imagine I guess. i can’t, sorry

If, as you say, He revealed Himself as our God, the Judeo-Christian God…then, per your own rules…We have His revelation in Scripture and through the Church.
You cannot say that He revealed Himself as the Judeo-Christian God and then try to say that He has not revealed what teachings are correct.

I could do a really…really…really long post about every spiritual turn I made to arrive here, but would that really help you?

Maybe -
I’m willing to bet that you would like to write such a post…

Also, do you want to know the things I agree with regular, or controversial. For example, I was in favor of “DADT”

Well - as I said - knowing what Church teachings you agree with CAN be helpful…

But to tell you the truth…I’m not really finding this exercise to be very useful overall…

Peace
James

 

[polytropos]

I have not read the majority of the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything. Do not respond to me if you do not wish to.

1. God is indeed real
2. You’ve picked the correct one
3. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind (How many of you smiled, be honest =P )
4. The true nature of hell, or even it’s existence or not goes un-confirmed in this event*
   *Because this hypothetical dies without that prerequisite. & that’s no fun at all

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”

Could you clarify a few things here? God is real and we know he’s real. Check. Does (2) imply that we know that the God of a particular theological system is real, ie. we know God is real in the way that Catholics conceive of him?

If so, then I don’t see how this is logical. If that were the case, then Catholic dogma would be objective truth, the denial of which could be nothing short of irrational (especially considering that any epistemic barrier is removed by your thought experiment). It would follow that, regardless of one’s particular taste on an issue like homosexuality, to continue to deny the Church by saying “This is what I thought was right” would be like saying 2+2 does not equal 4 even when you’ve been taught that it does and “there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind.”*

It would mean that, regardless of how you feel about it, you would be certain that you were wrong. It would mean that, objectively, truth and happiness lay with the Church, and you know that would be less happy to continue to reject the Church.

Perhaps I am interpreting this the wrong way. What exactly is known infallibly in this thought experiment? Just that God exists? This reminds me a lot of most formulations of the problem of evil, which consider for the sake of argument what it would be like if the proposition “God exists” were true, but neglect any metaphysical background that would necessarily accompany God’s existence.

*In the vein of Dostoevsky’s narrator of Notes from Underground, who petulantly refuses to believe the “2+2=4” systematization of the world. But existentialism is a reaction against a seemingly meaningless universe; why rebel against a definitively meaningful universe on the basis of principles which are objectively false?

 

[JRKH]

I’d say it’s getting there. I’ve already looked into relocation to the Netherlands

However, I didn’t sign up for this country. Nobody ask me what I think. I was just kinda born here. It doesn’t have to be convincing to me, I haven’t another choice unless I do move. Whereas Church, I can drive down the street and see several denominations all of which will paint an ever-so-slight different story.

When I was young, I faced the prospect of this EXACT question. So when I answer you, you’re sorta speaking to me in my early to mid 20s. When this was actually me.

Hope that helps somewhat

Yes it helps some…
But what I have been trying to get at - and I’m sure you will agree - is that no matter where you move, no matter what culture you live in or government you live under, there will be things about that culture and government that you don’t like…that you don’t agree with.
Yet - you can overlook these things…obey the laws, get along with neighbors, be part of the community if you see they system as a whole to be good.

However - when it comes to faith matters you take the opposite approach. You have stated that if there is one teaching just one that you disagree with, you chuck the entire belief system.
No looking at the system as a whole…no consideration that the accumulated wisdom of many thoughtful, sincere, pious, prayerful, loving men and women - gained over many centuries of time, might - just might - be superior to your own intelligence, ideas, thoughts and outlooks.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

But to tell you the truth…I’m not really finding this exercise to be very useful overall…

Peace
James

I can see why. Instead of defending your teachings, you’d rather invoke them. If that is the case, we’ll have to claim stalemate.

• Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.*
  (my fav verse btw)

If, as you say, He revealed Himself as our God, the Judeo-Christian God…then, per your own rules…We have His revelation in Scripture and through the Church.
You cannot say that He revealed Himself as the Judeo-Christian God and then try to say that He has not revealed what teachings are correct.

All you get is Yahweh. How many religions follow Yahweh?

 

[JohnMichaels]

Yes it helps some…
But what I have been trying to get at - and I’m sure you will agree - is that no matter where you move, no matter what culture you live in or government you live under, there will be things about that culture and government that you don’t like…that you don’t agree with.
Yet - you can overlook these things…obey the laws, get along with neighbors, be part of the community if you see they system as a whole to be good.

Community as a whole doesn’t make laws, not usually. Government does yes. When they stay fair to all involved, fine. I said no disadvantage. not advantage.
So I can’t go kill anyone, run red lights causing deaths. Rape anyone, steal anyone’s property… This isn’t a disadvantage to the way I see it. I’m sorry?
Disadvantage would be like…if I really needed to use a public restroom, and all public restrooms were made female only. Furthermore if I did use one, I’d be sent to jail. Yea, I’d throw out the whole thing. Would you live in that place?

Its only somewhat lucky for me, sadly, that this is not always the case. Sometimes yes, government does pass exclusive laws. Sometimes when, guess who, gets involved
(hint, look down)

However - when it comes to faith matters you take the opposite approach. You have stated that if there is one teaching just one that you disagree with, you chuck the entire belief system.
No looking at the system as a whole…no consideration that the accumulated wisdom of many thoughtful, sincere, pious, prayerful, loving men and women - gained over many centuries of time, might - just might - be superior to your own intelligence, ideas, thoughts and outlooks.

Are we counting Bernard Law in this, or?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
John

 

[JohnMichaels]

Community as a whole doesn’t make laws, not usually. Government does yes. When they stay fair to all involved, fine. I said no disadvantage. not advantage.
So I can’t go kill anyone, run red lights causing deaths. Rape anyone, steal anyone’s property… This isn’t a disadvantage to the way I see it. I’m sorry?
Disadvantage would be like…if I really needed to use a public restroom, and all public restrooms were made female only. Furthermore if I did use one, I’d be sent to jail. Yea, I’d throw out the whole thing. Would you live in that place?

Its only somewhat lucky for me, sadly, that this is not always the case. Sometimes yes, government does pass exclusive laws. Sometimes when, guess who, gets involved
(hint, look down)

Are we counting Bernard Law in this, or?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
John