In a pluralistic society of different beliefs, does the Christian have the right to impose their religious beliefs on those who do not believe?

[Damian]

You were saying that you can derive things from it. So, I have asked you to do so.

Of course, you have offered no proof, just a hand-wave.

I don’t really know where you went here. Show me in the conversation where this happened and tell me why you think this is the result of that conversation. Human Well-Being is definitionally referenced to the human experience. I don’t see anyway around that. How do you see it differently other than just asserting it is not the case. Just stating you don’t agree with this and not illustrating clarification as to why is just wasting my time.

Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God.

Can you define what this means by god. There are countless definitions of deities. Also, can you demonstrate how to distinguish it from a comic book hero? Logically consistent back story but can not be demonstrated to actually exist in reality.

it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.

What truth is revealed?

Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person.

Okay, but so is faith in spiderman over Bill Nye.

The standard Communist propaganda tactic.

Secular governments do this. As I understand it, secular governments allow everyone to have a say in the way they are governed, not just the powerful groups. You may have an issue the commonality of communism that overlaps into other bodies of government types, but tough that happens some times. Some things that are in communism are found in other forms of government. The failure of communism that I find is that people look to the government to take over the governed responsibility of knowing how they are being governed and just allowing their government to run without being checked. But that is the current failure of our government as well. People are being distracted by talking heads in the media as they gin up issues while the government keeps passing legislation that the media doesn’t bother to actually research and present to us.

 

[Damian]

The Western democracy, where all interest groups can try to influence the government is not supposed to be good, as those pesky Catholics can try to get to pass the laws they like.

I think we missed each other here. “All interest groups” to me is all the people involved in their government. So we are in agreement here, but seem to be talking past each other. All I’ve ever stated is that everyone should be allowed to the discussion board about how they want to be governed and not removed due to an interest group. So that means all interests groups are allowed to the table to discuss how they want to be governed without a different interest group blocking anyone else.

And how much better, more democratic, more free, more neutral it is supposed to be, if only the CPSU (or, perhaps “Damian” himself) would be able to even try to pass the laws they like!

Yes I will try to pass the laws that I believe should be passed. So will you and everyone else. Where there is disagreement is where we have to go back to our reference point for our goal for our laws. Since Human Well-Being applies to everyone, this is where you can find it immoral to own slaves, because the slaves are there to point out that being a slave is immoral. The people to be enslaved are there to state that their disagreement about the process of law just as much as the slave owners are. So in that disagreement, can we come to understand that slavery is bad in reference to human well-being? If we can’t then we’re too ignorant to succeed and deserve our downfall.

 

[Bradskii]

No. You said that you want one in this world.

Do you want to confirm that?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Ask Moses what should be done to public blasphemers.

 

[MPat]

You can smiley-face all you want. You have lost any credibility which allows you to continue this debate in any meaningful way.

Thanks for playing.

You mean you thought I had some credibility?

Why, thank you, you shouldn’t have!

More seriously, I see you did not answer my question about seeing something wrong with us trying to influence the government. I guess that is also an answer…

I think you would have to change the very nature of the system when it comes to matters like abortion for the very simple reason that you have no evidence to support your faith based values.

I was addressing this question to “Bradski”, and not to you. Your position is pretty clear.

The question addressed to you was a different one: can you actually support your position by Church teaching?

And it looks like you gave no answer.

Surely you would not want the system to enforce sharia law, just because a Muslim minority has influenced the government?

It is one thing to influence, and a different thing to try to influence.

If Muslims want to make a petition calling for enforcement of Sharia law, why shouldn’t they try?

It is up to everyone else to stop them from succeeding.

Are you okay with going to prison just because of what somebody holds by faith alone?

I’m not enthusiastic about going to prison for any reason, good or bad. I’m pretty sure that so is just about everyone else.

I don’t really know where you went here. Show me in the conversation where this happened and tell me why you think this is the result of that conversation.

Sure. For example:

To have a moral legal system, by definition it must be grounded in a reference point that is universal to everyone, not just to interest groups. Then we have the messy process of trying to figure out the good life for everyone, not just the interest groups by referencing reality as our grounding foundations, not just appealing to an idea that is not found in reality.

You are claiming that with some work you can derive things from that “human well-being”. Yet the very first time I asked for such derivation, you offered a hand-wave instead.

“All interest groups” to me is all the people involved in their government.

An interest group is an organised group of people that want to get the government to make some decision.

Yes I will try to pass the laws that I believe should be passed. So will you and everyone else. Where there is disagreement is where we have to go back to our reference point for our goal for our laws.

So, if there is a disagreement, your opinion is to win, as you will give us the goal of all laws. And we are supposed to be grateful for that.

Nope.

Somehow, I happen to like “Who gets the law passed wins.” a bit more.

 

[IWantGod]

And i’m the one being accused of using evasive tactics lool.

 

[MPat]

And i’m the one being accused of using evasive tactics lool.

Would you like to explain in more detail?

One reason why I think you are being evasive is that, while you happily answered a question addressed to someone else, repeating your position again, you did not answer some questions addressed to you.

For example:

1. Can you support your views by Church teaching?
2. What other issues you want to be taken into account by the voters, if not abortion?

Another reason is that you claimed that I was attacking strawmen, but did not explain what exactly was inaccurate.

Third reason is that you tried to avoid defining your terms.

And I get an impression that if you actually would try to give straight answers, your position would soon start to look obviously indefensible.

 

[edwest211]

Please provide a list of ‘basic human rights.’ And how should they be imposed?

 

[edwest211]

The media in the United States is mostly the Ministry of Propaganda. Pravda but in English. Each citizen should find out what is going on. The media I observe. To find out what is going on means doing my own research.

 

[IWantGod]

You should have just refuted the argument that i actually made. I will ignore any attempt to confuse the issue.

 

[IWantGod]

It is one thing to influence, and a different thing to try to influence.

If Muslims want to make a petition calling for enforcement of Sharia law, why shouldn’t they try?

It is up to everyone else to stop them from succeeding.

And this really concludes the discussion, since you are so obliged to avoid the conclusion of my argument that you are prepared to think that in principle the American legal system allows for the possibility of enforcing sharia law on everyone… loool

If their is any implication that i don’t understand the American system you might be wrong., But from what you have written here proves that you really don’t understand at all. What you have said is a caricature and a straw-man of the American legal system.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope. I’m asking you to confirm that you want capital punishment for blasphemy.

To be honest, I don’t think that you knew that capital punishment meant death.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you telll us where you get your information?

 

[ChunkMonk]

I said what I said, why do you want me to repeat it? You can read my words.

I am well aware of what “capital crime” means.

 

[Bradskii]

I said what I said, why do you want me to repeat it? You can read my words.

I am well aware of what “capital crime” means.

Ye gods. You mean it.

You do know that there a lot of people now giving their lives to prevent such abominations happening?

Your comments are shamefull.

 

[anikins]

I should really NOT have to list basic human rights for you, but for starters here is a list for beginners such as yourself.

• Right to life.
• Freedom from torture.
• Freedom from slavery.
• Right to a fair trial.
• Freedom of speech.
• Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and freedom from religion.
• Freedom of movement.

 

[ATraveller]

This was from Billy Graham in 1959:

One of the pet words of this age is “tolerance.” It is a good word, but we have tried to stretch it over too great an area of life. We have applied it too often where it does not belong.

Tolerance, in one sense, implies the compromise of one’s convictions, a yielding of ground upon important issues. Hence, over-tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby and devoid of conviction.

We have become tolerant about divorce; we have become tolerant about the use of alcohol; we have become tolerant about delinquency; we have become tolerant about wickedness in high places; we have become tolerant about immorality; we have become tolerant about crime and we have become tolerant about godlessness.

Jesus was intolerant toward sin.

He was tolerant toward the sinner but intolerant toward the evil which enslaved him. To the adulteress he said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). He forgave her because he loved her; but he condemned sin because he loathed it with a holy hatred.

God has always been intolerant of sin! His Word says: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil” (Isa. 1:16). “Awake to righteousness, and sin not” (1 Cor. 15:34). “Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts …” (Isa. 55:7).

Remembering Billy Graham - April | Christianity Today | Theology, Church, Culture

 

[ChunkMonk]

Ye gods. You mean it.

More than you will ever know.

 

[Raxus]

Comes close to what?

Building a free and democratic society.

The number of homicides? The number of abortions? The gap between rich and poor? Education?

Please point me to a society NOT based on Judeo-Christian law and values that does better in ALL of these things.

 

[buffalo]

Lets say a country is 15th in the world regarding homicide rates. And fifth in the world re divorce. Let’s say that abortions are so common that only Khasakstan and Cuba have more. Let’s say that the vast majority of people claiming a religion (90%+) have no moral problem with contraception.

How would you say that place is going? Where might we be talking about? Maybe a third world country? Somewhere sub-Saharan? In the old communist block perhaps?

You haven’t just got your head in the sand. You are buried in it.

And please tell me that you have actually read that book and are not doing your usual cut and paste excercise for the day. How are those specific keys going on your keyboard by the way?

Since 6he 60’s people like you have tried to remove God from America’s public life. The stats bear out the ill effects. When we return to God things will improve.

I have read the book and is in my library.