Liberal & Conservative Political Spectrum Claims

[This Charming Manc]

Why dont you state what you actually believe on this issue so we can all point and laugh?

I've had one guy claiming private citizens should be able to buy military strike aircraft today.

Where would you draw the line ?

1. I suppose.
2. Never said there was a difference.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't really understand this distinction.

The violent/not-violent distinction is obvious. Murder is violent, drug use is not. Thus, murder should be illegal, and drug use should be legal (in a non-theocracy, that is.)

But "religious/nonreligious?" That distinction makes no sense. You are getting all of your arguments from scripture here. Which I am OK with, I agree that political arguments should be made using scripture. But, how is, say, homosexuality, a non-religious law, but blasphemy is religious? What if someone's religion requires them to be a homosexual? What if someone wants to blaspheme for a non-religious reason?

How can you blaspheme without it being religious?

As for a religion requiring one to be homosexual, I fail to see how that would work as for one to be homosexual they, by definition, must sexually desire their same gender.

Here's the bottom line. Here's what homosexuality and blasphemy have in common. Both actions lack any provable harm to a non-consenting party, but both actions are offensive to God. I don't even see how you can say one is more offensive to God than the other. Both were punished by death in the OT.

Only one of the two was called an abomination. The other issue is that one is solely about religion. However, offense to God is not the issue. It is about the detriment inherent in the act.

Can you explain why you think consent is so important when it comes to harmful acts?

Outside of the theocracy, Biblical principles are to be applied, and the specific penal commands God gave Israel are not to be applied. Proverbs 3:30 says not to strive with a man unless he does you harm. That verse applies to all of the followers of God, you cannot make an exception because one happens to work for the government. One can make an exception if God specifically says the principle should not be followed in a given situation, so this verse would not apply to a community who was stoning a homosexual in the OT Israeli theocracy, much like the principle "the ant stores up food for himself in the winter" wouldn't have applied to that rich guy who God commanded to sell all his goods.

You've just defeated your own argument since my argument is that God desires for us to practice His commands as the law of the land insofar as the civil/criminal code is concerned.

There's also Romans 12:18, which tells you to live at peace with all men as much as it depends on you. Are you able to live at peace with the homosexual? Yes, so you should, just like the blasphemer. Does this mean we agree with his actions? Of course not.

I am not able to live at peace with either of them.

I should hope not. Buying a bazooka should actually be legal.

Just out of curiosity, should it be legal, in your view, to buy a nuke? I'm not saying the two are comparable, and I'll give you my answer in a minute, but I'm curious what you think. Would a strict theonomist have to say nuke ownership should be legal since no OT law forbids it?

I see no reason why it should not, but what would be the point?

Why dont you state what you actually believe on this issue so we can all point and laugh?

On which issue?

I've had one guy claiming private citizens should be able to buy military strike aircraft today.

Where would you draw the line ?

Why should there be a line?

 

[Christian Liberty]

How can you blaspheme without it being religious?

My point is that the statement "homosexuality is wrong" (or any moral view for that matter) is religious. I understand that Christianity is not the only religion that teaches homosexuality is immoral, but its still fundamentally religious.

As for a religion requiring one to be homosexual, I fail to see how that would work as for one to be homosexual they, by definition, must sexually desire their same gender.

What if there was a religion that required men to sleep with other men at least once a year? What if there was a religion that required one to sleep with whatever gender they were attracted to?

Only one of the two was called an abomination. The other issue is that one is solely about religion. However, offense to God is not the issue. It is about the detriment inherent in the act.

I don't see the distinction made in the OT.

Can you explain why you think consent is so important when it comes to harmful acts?

If the only people harmed are consenting parties, its not my business, and for me to intervene would be to be a busybody.

You've just defeated your own argument since my argument is that God desires for us to practice His commands as the law of the land insofar as the civil/criminal code is concerned.

How?

I am not able to live at peace with either of them.

Why not?
I see no reason why it should not, but what would be the point?

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't think anyone would buy them. The only point would be to use them, and using them is inherently a murderous act (unlike a bazooka or a machine gun, which can potentially be used for a solely defensive purpose) so I don't believe anyone should have them, including governments.

 

[Lighthouse]

My point is that the statement "homosexuality is wrong" (or any moral view for that matter) is religious. I understand that Christianity is not the only religion that teaches homosexuality is immoral, but its still fundamentally religious.

How is such a statement religious? Is it religious if I say the same of murder?

You do know that religion is not about morality, don't you?

What if there was a religion that required men to sleep with other men at least once a year? What if there was a religion that required one to sleep with whatever gender they were attracted to?

Still not religious in relation to Judea-Christianity. That's the issue here.

I don't see the distinction made in the OT.

How is the distinction not clear?

If the only people harmed are consenting parties, its not my business, and for me to intervene would be to be a busybody.

So teenagers who consent to partying and getting wasted and then doing stupid stuff that lands someone who consented to the stupidity in the ICU shouldn't be punished?

How?

You stated that in cases wherein God desired for certain actions to be taken by governing authorities that the principle of your favorite verse did not apply.

Why not?

Because they both offend me by their actions.

Yeah, I don't think anyone would buy them. The only point would be to use them, and using them is inherently a murderous act (unlike a bazooka or a machine gun, which can potentially be used for a solely defensive purpose) so I don't believe anyone should have them, including governments.

The only real purpose is mutually assured destruction: they won't use theirs on us because we would use ours on them if they did...

 

[Christian Liberty]

How is such a statement religious? Is it religious if I say the same of murder?

Sure it is. There is no logical basis to declare murder to be immoral if you don't start with any central presuppositions.

You do know that religion is not about morality, don't you?

Everything we think and believe should come from scripture. Any presuppositions we come up with on our own are wrong.

Still not religious in relation to Judea-Christianity. That's the issue here.

Hey, Islam suggests executing heretics to.

How is the distinction not clear?

Either way you have an activity which some, but not all (if we stretch this is true for anything, but especially here) religions consider to be immoral and abominable.

So teenagers who consent to partying and getting wasted and then doing stupid stuff that lands someone who consented to the stupidity in the ICU shouldn't be punished?

Age of consent issues get tricky and I'm not sure exactly what the correct answers there are, so let's stick to adults. Give me a specific scenario.

You stated that in cases wherein God desired for certain actions to be taken by governing authorities that the principle of your favorite verse did not apply.

Where did I say anything about "governing authorities?" In Israel EVERYONE in the town was supposed to participate in the executions.

Because they both offend me by their actions.

Really? Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount? This is blatantly absurd. You are able to live at peace with someone until they attack you or someone else. Duh.

The only real purpose is mutually assured destruction: they won't use theirs on us because we would use ours on them if they did...

How is this not murder? This is one of the biggest issues I have with most modern day Christians, they go off on adultery and homosexuality and abortion (and they aren't wrong) but when it comes to government mandated murder... and this isn't even really debatable here, we're talking about civilians who are just as innocent as the unborn child in the womb, we're talking about blatant slaughter of defenseless people who shouldn't die without divine command, and most Christians are just OK with it because some other government did it to us.

How is this not blatantly immoral?

 

[Lighthouse]

Sure it is. There is no logical basis to declare murder to be immoral if you don't start with any central presuppositions.

Just because one relies on God for the definition of right and wrong doesn't make the notions religious.

Everything we think and believe should come from scripture. Any presuppositions we come up with on our own are wrong.

Do you know the difference between morality and righteousness?

Hey, Islam suggests executing heretics to.

And? How is that relevant?

Either way you have an activity which some, but not all (if we stretch this is true for anything, but especially here) religions consider to be immoral and abominable.

Irrelevant.

Age of consent issues get tricky and I'm not sure exactly what the correct answers there are, so let's stick to adults. Give me a specific scenario.

Then let's say adults, in the same circumstance. Should anyone be held liable and therefore punished in such a situation? And I've gotten as specific as I need to.

Where did I say anything about "governing authorities?" In Israel EVERYONE in the town was supposed to participate in the executions.

But it was the governing authority who dictated that such executions took place.

Really? Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount? This is blatantly absurd. You are able to live at peace with someone until they attack you or someone else. Duh.

Then I'm able to live at peace with a murderer if they've never attacked me. Should I then not support the death penalty for them?

How is this not murder? This is one of the biggest issues I have with most modern day Christians, they go off on adultery and homosexuality and abortion (and they aren't wrong) but when it comes to government mandated murder... and this isn't even really debatable here, we're talking about civilians who are just as innocent as the unborn child in the womb, we're talking about blatant slaughter of defenseless people who shouldn't die without divine command, and most Christians are just OK with it because some other government did it to us.

How is this not blatantly immoral?

:doh:

I never argued otherwise. I'm simply stating the reasoning behind having such weapons. Get over yourself.