A discussion of politics and all things related

[lordofthesquishies]

well there's currently no law against trying to amend the constitution for moral reasons.

[Telcontar]

The question still remains then, should me make laws based on morals when those morals may have no basis other than blind faith? Is it more important to obey your morals than the laws of the country? If so, should you make your morals the law of the country? What if my morals aren't your morals?

[lordofthesquishies]

We should make laws based on morals. Without them there is no reason for laws. Blind faith is sometimes what we are called to have. God is beyond our comprehension and he created us so it's kind of foolish to think we should be able to understand him and his plan. "Oh the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God! How unsearchable his judgments and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God that God should repay him? For from him and to him and through him are all things. To him be the glory forever, amen." Hebrews 11:33-36

As for conflicting morals the only reason I can think of is that one set of them is wrong. In the case that those wrong morals prevail those who are right must stick with theirs. Fairness is not the greatest of the virtues.

[medowbrookgoer39]

I believe there are certain morals we need and certain morals we need personally but have no credibility to force on others. Where can we look to have the legal authority to stop people from doing things against our own morals by governmental force? The best example would be the constitution. It lists a universally accepted moral of the right to life, private property, and freedom. As far as other morals, you cannot look to a standard like the bible politically to create a list of enforcable laws. Today people are logical thinkers. They do not see the logic of believing a book written 2,000 years ago that may or may not have some good things to say. They can however find acceptance for a list of laws and rules that logically give them just the right amount of freedom and protection. The constitution allows for us to maintain our own morals and try to show our morals to the rest of the world, while at the same time not allowing someone with their own morals to stop us from having them. Which is why we should not be trying to enforce ours on to others.

[lordofthesquishies]

Is there really that much of a difference between a 200 year old document and a 2,000 year old one? I don't really thing so. I mean there have been enough changes since the original constitution. And many would argue that it gives the right amount of freedom. That's why we have so many debates like these even among non-Christians. And as far as the logic thing goes i think it's entirely contingent on whether or not u believe in God. If you do then it's completely illogical not to follow his word. If you don't then it's completely illogical to do so. One is going to win in the end, and I can't help but feeling that it's going to be a long war and today's issues are but one chapter.

[medowbrookgoer39]

So what good is it going to do to enforce all of our morals on people? Because we're going to win in the end is a good reason to make people hate christians more? Sure we live in a fallen world, but the most effective way for people to be able to reach others is for them to not have a negative opinion of Christians, as many people do today.

[lordofthesquishies]

What I'm saying is laws like this can start trends. If it ends up being a trend in the wrong direction... I dunno.

And it's not like when Jesus helped the adulteress that he was approving of her or thought that the law against it should be abolished. He just believed in 2nd chances and I don't think any of us here would treat those who violated laws based on morals any differently. But I still think there should be a law.

P.S. Sorry if this is confusing or poorly written.

[Telcontar]

Isn't this just moral relativism? What's right for you and what's right for me? There are no absolutes if you follow your logic. The only basis you have for your morals is conviction. What if I'm convicted to follow the Qur'an? If I think my set of morals are right and you think yours are right how do we enforce either one of them? You can't enforce both so why don't we enforce neither? No doubt morals are important and sometimes that means they find there way into the types of laws we create and sometimes they find their way into the laws that we don't create.

What makes your morals better than anyone elses?

[lordofthesquishies]

The difference is we know we're right. The Bible is the word of God. In the Bible it says something like (this at least a near quote, but I'm not sure of the reference. I'll look it up in a concordance sometime soon.) All scripture is God-breathed, useful for teaching, instructing, and rebuking. Basically that stakes all the authority of the word of God on being 100% accurate and holy. So either the Bible is 100% true and must be obeyed as best we can, or it's 100% worthless.

[medowbrookgoer39]

2 Timothy 3:14-17

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

How does that make a claim for all of the new testament? That is talking old testament, and the new testament hadn't even been a part of scripture yet as ben said.

[lordofthesquishies]

I find it hard to delineate between Old and New Testament when the Bible says Scripture. The Old Testament was divinely inspired as was the New. I don't believe that part of the Bible was written by patriarchs and the rest by irrational zealots. I think God would back everything in his word, not just the old parts.

[medowbrookgoer39]

So you're saying Paul was making a claim for the authority of the New Testament as well as the old, even though it had yet to be written?

[Telcontar]

Can you see what I'm saying tho squishies? It would be like me claiming that the next thing me(a)dowbrookgoer says is going to be divinely inspired before I've even seen it. If Peter wrote Timothy, which is in some doubt, he would have died before the gospels, Acts, Johns and Revelation would be written. There is not way this verse can refer to the NT as a whole.

Also, there seems to be no apparent reason to me why the Bible must be taken as either 100% true or 100% false. It's not like a mathematical equation where one mistake screws the whole thing up. It's more like a novel, even if a few sentences have typos or a few paragraphs go missing you can still understand the overall story. I know bible bowlers have a hard time dealing with this because we're taught to memorize everything word for word but if you think about it, we're not even memorizing Jesus' exact words (they're paraphrased by the original writers and then translated).

To tie back to your first statement about knowing that we're right. Muslims know they're right, athiests know they're right, Mormans know they're right, Christians know they're right. All these people have a deep belief that what they think about life is correct. That's the whole point of religion after all, believing in something wholeheartedly. However, conviction does not equal truth. We've all heard the phrase, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." How hard I believe something doesn't prove anything about whether what I believe is right or not. Can you see what I'm saying? Belief cannot always be a basis for law because there is not always commonly held beliefs. Sometimes when everyone believes the same thing, such as the right to free speech, property and press, laws can be and should be created to ensure the freedom of everyone. However, when the beliefs of a few want to restrict the freedom of the many, there is injustice.

[Princess180]

telcontar said:

If Peter wrote Timothy, which is in some doubt, he would have died before the gospels, Acts, Johns and Revelation would be written. There is not way this verse can refer to the NT as a whole.

Do you mean Paul?

[Telcontar]

yes, sorry