Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[iam1me]

1: your attempt to classify mcdonalds workers and military personell as slaves is disingenuous. They are employees and are treated as such - personal development, promotion opportunities, pensions, benefits all come under working conditions. No reasonable person could ever classify an employee as a slave.

It isn't disingenuous to say that people forced to live on minimum wage, like McDonalds employees, are effectively slave labor. It is in complete agreement with the definition of a slave: "a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay"

A minimum wage employee who works full time cannot even afford to pay rent on a one bedroom apartment, they cannot subsist on those wages. Hence the government has to come along and give them food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. This isn't my invention, this is a well established critique going back to Roman times. It is referred to as Wage Slavery (Wage slavery - Wikipedia). Educate thyself.

The view that working for wages is akin to slavery dates back to the ancient world.[21] In ancient Rome, Cicero wrote that "whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves".[10]

In 1763, the French journalist Simon Linguet published an influential description of wage slavery:[12]

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him ... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market ... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live ... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him ... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune ... These men ... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. ... They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
​

Alternatively, and in more recent history, our low wages given to ~60% of the populace in the US are referred to as Starvation Wages.
(Bernie Sanders on Minimum Wage):

“It is a national disgrace that millions of full-time workers are living in poverty and millions more are forced to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills. In the year 2015, a job must lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised to a living wage.”​

As for those in the military, especially those conscripted into the military, it is equally obvious and well established that this too is a form of slavery. Refusing to obey orders in the military comes with harsh consequences, including death. Things have improved over the years in the US - but you still aren't free to do as you wish, there is a clear hierarchy that must be obeyed.

2: It is not moral. We're done. I will not dignify any more of your vile arguments with a response.

Work on presenting actual arguments instead of getting on your high horse and throwing platitudes around. Simply stating you don't like something is not an argument that something is fundamentally immoral. You have a serious lack of education on this topic.

 

[Dan Mellis]

It isn't disingenuous to say that people forced to live on minimum wage, like McDonalds employees, are effectively slave labor. It is in complete agreement with the definition of a slave: "a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay"

A minimum wage employee who works full time cannot even afford to pay rent on a one bedroom apartment, they cannot subsist on those wages. Hence the government has to come along and give them food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. This isn't my invention, this is a well established critique going back to Roman times. It is referred to as Wage Slavery (Wage slavery - Wikipedia). Educate thyself.

The view that working for wages is akin to slavery dates back to the ancient world.[21] In ancient Rome, Cicero wrote that "whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves".[10]

In 1763, the French journalist Simon Linguet published an influential description of wage slavery:[12]

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him ... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market ... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live ... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him ... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune ... These men ... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. ... They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
​

Alternatively, and in more recent history, our low wages given to ~60% of the populace in the US are referred to as Starvation Wages.
(Bernie Sanders on Minimum Wage):

“It is a national disgrace that millions of full-time workers are living in poverty and millions more are forced to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills. In the year 2015, a job must lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised to a living wage.”​

As for those in the military, especially those conscripted into the military, it is equally obvious and well established that this too is a form of slavery. Refusing to obey orders in the military comes with harsh consequences, including death. Things have improved over the years in the US - but you still aren't free to do as you wish, there is a clear hierarchy that must be obeyed.



Work on presenting actual arguments instead of getting on your high horse and throwing platitudes around. Simply stating you don't like something is not an argument that something is fundamentally immoral. You have a serious lack of education on this topic.

Yep, youre right. I'm entirely wrong, and I based my statement of you presenting something immoral as moral entirely based on my own personal feelings and not human rights and a current, modern definition of morality. Congrats! You won!

 

[Dan Mellis]

There is no 'hatred' in the book...only laws which are NOT based on human emotions and desires but on God's perfect laws. It is God who dictates his morality to us...not the other way around. There is nothing that says we have to like them, because in our imperfect state, our flesh may dictate something else, so if God's laws rob us of what we WANT to do, we may chafe. Poor us. No one ever died from not having sex....



What is sad is that humans demand that God change his moral standards to accommodate their unnatural fleshly desires. Human standards change as we see throughout history, and at the present all standards of decency seem to have disappeared altogether. God's laws apply in any age because he does not alter his standards because we alter ours. That doesn't make him a bad God.....it makes humans bad for demanding that he lower his standards. Its never going to happen.



Time for humans to grow up instead of wanting God to stoop to their level.

The greatest empire in history (Rome) was not overthrown by a greater power, but decayed from within due to its own decadence and abandonment of decent moral standards. The family unit disintegrated and with it the whole structure of society collapsed. We are almost there again...look around you.

Things will never change if humans do not learn from the lessons of the past....God will have to intervene to stop this rot from being perpetuated any further. We are witnessing the death of democracy right now....another failed human system.....and according to the Bible there is only one last form of rulership to try because all others have failed.

Watch for the introduction of a "one world government" that the Bible foretells.....it won't last long because it will plunge the world into chaos. Their promise of "peace and security" will be hollow. It will not turn out to be what they sign up for.

This is the issue with religion and personal belief. You're imposing your belief on someone who obviously has a different philosophy than you.

Fyi, we're not expecting god to "stoop" down to our level because we don't have any reason to believe in god. We're asking (some) religious people to come up to our level (meaning the majority of the human population), like our good friend iam1me; who clearly has some trouble with this.

 

[shmogie]

We don't base our moral values on what happens in nature, that would be fallacious reasoning.

Moreover, homosexuality is no dead end since we have plenty of methods of procreation. Also there more than enough orphans in the world, adopting them is also contributing to our species survival.

So do you think your genes are programmed to recognize these many methods of procreation or that there are orphans in the world ?

Is evolution, or the God of creation wrong, just because one wants to do what one says is wrong, and the other says has no purpose ?

Do you think either designed the rectum, the final spot in the elimination of bacteria laden waste for any purpose but what it fulfills or was designed for ?

So, what do you base your moral values on ?

 

[shmogie]

That would be fine, except it leaks outside of the church into society. If you truly believed this, then you would have no problem with others being gay and wouldn't think it immoral for an atheist to be homosexual.

The trouble is, what you believe influences what you do and your actions affect others. If I set up a church which excluded black people and said that it was immoral to be black, even though that belief would technically be confined to my congregation it would affect those in the community in which I operate and would be outlawed immediately.

What you're effectively saying is "yes, we're homophobic but it doesn't matter because we only think it amongst ourselves," which is not only patently untrue, but even if it were the case - preaching discriminatory views is harmful to others who are subjected to the effects of that.

It's why we all understand why white supremacist groups are frowned upon.

I think a statement from Paul will help here. Speaking of homosexuals he said, paraphrasing, I nor you have any business judging them who are outside the church. My only concern is those within the church.

So, the point is, we don´t care what those outside the church do, it is none of our business. They can marry tortoises if they choose, it is none of our business.

Our only business is those who want to be members of the church, and are homosexuals, and refuse to meet the standard, or those already in the church, who knew and agreed to the standard before the joined.

I am sorry that you live in a country that is fascist in nature, whereby they can force you to adhere to their view of what is right in your private life, your private church, this is nothing but attempted thought control.

In America, where we are still fairly free for now, we have a ¨church¨ that actually does what your hypothetical whites only church does. It does it several times weekly. It is called the nation of islam, or the black muslims.

Whites certainly would never be admitted, whites are called devils spawn, blue eyed devils, tools of satan, genetically inferior, blah blah blah. Jews are called even worse names, the congregation is told that Jews deserved the holocaust, but it never happened. All the Jewish dumb stereotypes are trotted out every week.

Yet, I as a white person am not harmed or hurt by their rhetoric, Jews ignore them.

It is protected by freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

If the government decides to deny them these two things because of how they exercise them, how long before they decide on a reason to take my religious right and freedom of speech away from me ?

 

[Deeje]

"God isnt a nasty dude, he just gives us illogical and immoral rules with no reason given, then uses his power to torture us eternally if we don't abide by them"

Do you abide by the laws of your country? If so, to what degree?

e.g. If you see something very valuable left unattended, would you take it, knowing that the person who left it would probably be back soon searching for it? A morally decent person would guard it, waiting for the owner to come back....and if they didn't, the finder would go to great lengths to see it returned to its rightful owner....but what of those who see it as "finders keepers"? These having no moral compass, would not see that as theft, but as a windfall. How does the law in your country treat the person in the second instance? Are they thieves? If it was advertised all over the media, but the finder ignored all pleas to return the item.....what would you call them? If in time they were caught, what would happen to them?

God has laws that affect those who want his approval....they have the same sense of decency that the person in the first instance displays. Knowing the law doesn't mean anything if there is no real sense of justice and empathy. "Do unto others" is a good rule of thumb. But that principle is not even entertained by the second person.

For Christians, God's law guides what they do, and it shapes their attitudes (or it should). For those who have no one to tell them what is morally decent and what is not, especially in matters of sexual activity, they see anything they want to do as 'up for grabs'. But, is it? The world might be persuaded to accept behavior that they once thought was morally degrading, but God is not persuaded at all. Only those who care about what God says, will not alter their position. Others can do whatever they like....for now. We are all making important decisions at this point in history, according to my beliefs.

Yeah, right. Could you define "to force someone" for me?

I would define it the same way as any law of the land does. The law does not physically prevent people from disobeying, but if they do break the law, they can expect to answer to the enforcers. Will protests that you had a right to break the law because you 'wanted to', make any difference to your penalty?

Because to say "well I'm not physically gonna force you to do it, but my mate is gonna beat you up if you don't" is pretty clearly forcing someone onto something to me

The Law of the land has enforcers....so does God. Should that be surprising? Our whole justice system in the west has always been based on the Bible. Just because you disagree with a law, doesn't invalidate it....so you are free to break it because we all have that freedom.....but if we do, we can expect the enforcers to do their job. It's not personal......but the law is the law whether we respect it or not.

Contrary to popular belief, the highest penalty that lawbreakers can expect from God, is death. There is no torture chamber.....just a forfeit of life......which, right from the beginning, was conditional...man's continued existence was dependant on obedience to God's law right from day one.

Human standards might change and swing from one extreme to the other as we see in history, but God's standards never change. You have the same choices that I do.

So that is why we believe that God does not prevent anyone from breaking his laws...he wants it to be willing obedience, not forced.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your question here is very interesting. First of all i think we must look at two things here.
First, the bible as far as i know do not say it is a sin to be homosexual in it self, it is the act of two people of same gender getting together to have sexual relationship that is seen as the sin. Why?

The nature intended it was needed a person of each gender Male and Female to make a baby, from the beginning (Adam and Eve) they was not supposed to enjoy the sexual part except for when giving new life. they was supposed to bring them self to a higher spiritual realm, using their life to cultiveate. But when Adam started to get attachments to the things around them (physical world and pleasure) already here the problem started with sin.
Sin can be seen in two ways, as something unwholesome or something evil. And doing wrong deeds does lead to suffering for one self or others. As spiritual beings humans was intended to do morally good deeds so they could enlighten to it. But since the temptations of the physical world has taken over the mind of humans they do not see their wrong doings anymore. And so too to the part where you qouted the bible. In my understanding the Christian teaching give example of how we should not live when it comes to attachments to the sexual. and not have sex with same gender as out self.
That is often the teaching in other religions too. because of the moral code religions do holds.

You give a good reply!
You know, the Bible warns against any sex outside of marriage. Self-control is necessary for everyone to have, unmarried heterosexuals, too.
Same with cleptomaniacs....really, anyone inclined to act in ways that God condemns.

 

[Deeje]

This is the issue with religion and personal belief. You're imposing your belief on someone who obviously has a different philosophy than you.

Your philosophy is your choice. You have the same freedom as I do to make your choices. Informing you of God's laws is my obligation. What you do about it is up to you. No one is standing over anyone with a big stick, forcing them to comply.

Fyi, we're not expecting god to "stoop" down to our level because we don't have any reason to believe in god. We're asking (some) religious people to come up to our level (meaning the majority of the human population), like our good friend iam1me; who clearly has some trouble with this.

All of us are free to choose our lifestyle. We are not to judge others because that is not our job. Our job is to provide information so that people can make informed choices about their chosen lifestyles.

If it's a "tell someone who cares" response, then so be it. We have still provided the basis for judgment by God. His opinion of our choices is the only one we need to be concerned about. No one will be able to plead innocence....will they?

According to the Bible, there are only two kinds of people who merit God's judgment......those who don't know God, because they don't want to...and those who know, but refuse to obey.

It states that at "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire"....."he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)

There it is for anyone who cares.....

 

[Dan Mellis]

I think a statement from Paul will help here. Speaking of homosexuals he said, paraphrasing, I nor you have any business judging them who are outside the church. My only concern is those within the church.

So, the point is, we don´t care what those outside the church do, it is none of our business. They can marry tortoises if they choose, it is none of our business.

Our only business is those who want to be members of the church, and are homosexuals, and refuse to meet the standard, or those already in the church, who knew and agreed to the standard before the joined.

I am sorry that you live in a country that is fascist in nature, whereby they can force you to adhere to their view of what is right in your private life, your private church, this is nothing but attempted thought control.

In America, where we are still fairly free for now, we have a ¨church¨ that actually does what your hypothetical whites only church does. It does it several times weekly. It is called the nation of islam, or the black muslims.

Whites certainly would never be admitted, whites are called devils spawn, blue eyed devils, tools of satan, genetically inferior, blah blah blah. Jews are called even worse names, the congregation is told that Jews deserved the holocaust, but it never happened. All the Jewish dumb stereotypes are trotted out every week.

Yet, I as a white person am not harmed or hurt by their rhetoric, Jews ignore them.

It is protected by freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

If the government decides to deny them these two things because of how they exercise them, how long before they decide on a reason to take my religious right and freedom of speech away from me ?

It's not a fascist country, in fact we're left of centre. Freedom of speech in this country only goes so far as not to impact on the rights of others - but that's not my point.

The government cannot, and must not, legislate on freedom of religion. It can however, limit the harmful impacts of it society. Or at least it could, if your entire government wasn't christian (especially the republicans).

It seems that freedom of religion (or lack thereof) only applies to christians in your country - legislation of christian values is constant and religious lobby groups canpaigning to impose discriminatory laws at state level are endemic.

Again, freedom of religion must, by its very definition, also allow for freedom from religion. Legislating to favour those of a christian persuasion is the exact opposite of this.

And as for your racist churches, they're wrong no matter what colour the congregation. I'm happy to live in a country where hate preaching is illegal; this is one of the main reasons I wouldn't ever consider emmigration to the US. You guys value freedom over human rights, to the detriment of freedom.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Do you abide by the laws of your country? If so, to what degree?

e.g. If you see something very valuable left unattended, would you take it, knowing that the person who left it would probably be back soon searching for it? A morally decent person would guard it, waiting for the owner to come back....and if they didn't, the finder would go to great lengths to see it returned to its rightful owner....but what of those who see it as "finders keepers"? These having no moral compass, would not see that as theft, but as a windfall. How does the law in your country treat the person in the second instance? Are they thieves? If it was advertised all over the media, but the finder ignored all pleas to return the item.....what would you call them? If in time they were caught, what would happen to them?

God has laws that affect those who want his approval....they have the same sense of decency that the person in the first instance displays. Knowing the law doesn't mean anything if there is no real sense of justice and empathy. "Do unto others" is a good rule of thumb. But that principle is not even entertained by the second person.

For Christians, God's law guides what they do, and it shapes their attitudes (or it should). For those who have no one to tell them what is morally decent and what is not, especially in matters of sexual activity, they see anything they want to do as 'up for grabs'. But, is it? The world might be persuaded to accept behavior that they once thought was morally degrading, but God is not persuaded at all. Only those who care about what God says, will not alter their position. Others can do whatever they like....for now. We are all making important decisions at this point in history, according to my beliefs.



I would define it the same way as any law of the land does. The law does not physically prevent people from disobeying, but if they do break the law, they can expect to answer to the enforcers. Will protests that you had a right to break the law because you 'wanted to', make any difference to your penalty?



The Law of the land has enforcers....so does God. Should that be surprising? Our whole justice system in the west has always been based on the Bible. Just because you disagree with a law, doesn't invalidate it....so you are free to break it because we all have that freedom.....but if we do, we can expect the enforcers to do their job. It's not personal......but the law is the law whether we respect it or not.

Contrary to popular belief, the highest penalty that lawbreakers can expect from God, is death. There is no torture chamber.....just a forfeit of life......which, right from the beginning, was conditional...man's continued existence was dependant on obedience to God's law right from day one.

Human standards might change and swing from one extreme to the other as we see in history, but God's standards never change. You have the same choices that I do.

So that is why we believe that God does not prevent anyone from breaking his laws...he wants it to be willing obedience, not forced.

Your argument seems to suggest that the laws of god only concern Christians. If this were so, you'd believe that only christians could go to hell. This isnt the case (I assume), so it's dishonest of you to claim that you believe these laws only apply to christians.

I assume you believe I'd go to hell for worshipping odin (I dont) - which is fine as long as you keep that view to yourself. The trouble is that personal religion doesn't tend to stay personal for long - as I talked about in an earlier post when I said that it leaks into society. The more religious a country, the more restrictive and divisive the laws.

Example: the more religious Trump administration takes power and abortion laws, religous lobbyists and other such occurrences take place immediately. Tell me, how does gods law only apply to christians when governing bodies attempt to legislate it for the entire nation?

 

[Dan Mellis]

Your philosophy is your choice. You have the same freedom as I do to make your choices. Informing you of God's laws is my obligation. What you do about it is up to you. No one is standing over anyone with a big stick, forcing them to comply.



All of us are free to choose our lifestyle. We are not to judge others because that is not our job. Our job is to provide information so that people can make informed choices about their chosen lifestyles.

If it's a "tell someone who cares" response, then so be it. We have still provided the basis for judgment by God. His opinion of our choices is the only one we need to be concerned about. No one will be able to plead innocence....will they?

According to the Bible, there are only two kinds of people who merit God's judgment......those who don't know God, because they don't want to...and those who know, but refuse to obey.

It states that at "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire"....."he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8)

There it is for anyone who cares.....

The threat you've just posted from 2 thessonians 1:7-8 is your stick. Personally, its more of an inflatible mallet to me but you're weilding it as a threat.

At the beginning of your post you said "nobody is forcing you" and ended it with a literal threat for anyone who is scared/illogical enough to be swayed by it. The very definition of forcing someone, if not physically.

 

[Deeje]

I see that is how you personally view the Bible. On the other hand there is ample reason to believe the Bible was written exactly as you say as a collection of emotional feelings and desires by bronze age men. There is no reason from my perspective to take it literally. And certainly not as an actual dictation from "God".

My personal view of the Bible is that God did not dictate every word, but he did inspire the Bible writers to add contributions that were collected into one library of history, laws, actions, consequences and prophesy. To live by it requires dedication to the one we believe inspired it. To live by its teachings should bring tangible benefits to those abide by God's laws. We see that it does.

If people do not want to abide by its teachings, then that is up to them.

Why would it be difficult for believers to accept that?

It isn't hard to accept that the Bible might be "a collection of emotional feelings and desires by bronze age men"....but if you do, you devalue everything written in it, including its moral laws, now viewed as draconian.
Has throwing those laws under the bus made the world a better place? How many people do you personally know who are truly happy these days?

What harm would there be in seeing it as a reflection of men's attitudes and emotional desires? Certainly it wouldn't preclude people from taking what could be considered productive or morally accepted advice and heaving the hate and junk science which cause problems for other members of humanity that arise from a strict literal interpretation.

The harm is in stripping God of his Universal Sovereignty.....thereby devaluing his laws and treating his penalties as unjust and unfair. Who are we as the "clay" to tell the great "Potter" what to do with creation?

I'm not going to list all of the hate written in the Bible. If you don't know what it is or can't find it yourself, it makes a clear example of the dangers of following doctrine from nothing more than faith and human emotions.

Please provide this 'list of hate' and let's examine them, rather than making sweeping statements about God's supposed hatred and the motive for them.

Btw, I am curious if JWs vaccinate their children against measles?

JW's leave medical decisions up to individual conscience. Why single out measles?

 

[Deeje]

The threat you've just posted from 2 thessonians 1:7-8 is your stick. Personally, its more of an inflatible mallet to me but you're weilding it as a threat.

At the beginning of your post you said "nobody is forcing you" and ended it with a literal threat for anyone who is scared/illogical enough to be swayed by it. The very definition of forcing someone, if not physically.

Then every law of man is also "not forcing" anyone to obey the law, but using "a threat" of punishment to dissuade them from breaking it? Would you like to protest about that too?

How you respond to the threat of punishment is up to you....but it doesn't invalidate the law.

 

[Deeje]

Your argument seems to suggest that the laws of god only concern Christians. If this were so, you'd believe that only christians could go to hell. This isnt the case (I assume), so it's dishonest of you to claim that you believe these laws only apply to christians.

No, the laws of God only affect the lives of those who care about what God thinks of them. But according to the Bible, all humans will ultimately answer to the Creator because this is his creation as are we...and he has the right to deal with his creation as he sees fit. He has a purpose to our existence and will carry out his purpose with us ot without us.

I assume you believe I'd go to hell for worshipping odin (I dont) - which is fine as long as you keep that view to yourself. The trouble is that personal religion doesn't tend to stay personal for long - as I talked about in an earlier post when I said that it leaks into society. The more religious a country, the more restrictive and divisive the laws.

We determine how much that "leakage" affects our worldview. JW's live in all nations, so they have freedom of worship in some nations but not all. In those nations where it is against the law to practice any religion not sanctioned by the government, there are challenges, but they are not insurmountable. Worship is something practiced in the mind and heart....nothing can touch that. No law of man can forbid it or take it away.
I will just reiterate.....we do not believe in hell. There is only life or death. We choose.

Example: the more religious Trump administration takes power and abortion laws, religous lobbyists and other such occurrences take place immediately. Tell me, how does gods law only apply to christians when governing bodies attempt to legislate it for the entire nation?

What has that got to do with an Aussie? JW's are no part of Christendom, not sharing their beliefs.....and they are no part of the world's political decisions. We don't even vote.

People who are fake Christians can be spotted a mile away. Everything they say and do is hypocritical.....the one thing Jesus said was despised by himself and his Father. (Matthew 23)

 

[shmogie]

It's not a fascist country, in fact we're left of centre. Freedom of speech in this country only goes so far as not to impact on the rights of others - but that's not my point.

The government cannot, and must not, legislate on freedom of religion. It can however, limit the harmful impacts of it society. Or at least it could, if your entire government wasn't christian (especially the republicans).

It seems that freedom of religion (or lack thereof) only applies to christians in your country - legislation of christian values is constant and religious lobby groups canpaigning to impose discriminatory laws at state level are endemic.

Again, freedom of religion must, by its very definition, also allow for freedom from religion. Legislating to favour those of a christian persuasion is the exact opposite of this.

And as for your racist churches, they're wrong no matter what colour the congregation. I'm happy to live in a country where hate preaching is illegal; this is one of the main reasons I wouldn't ever consider emmigration to the US. You guys value freedom over human rights, to the detriment of freedom.

Freedom is a human right. The same laws apply to any citizen practicing any religion, we just happen to be an overwhelming Christian country.

Legislation is based upon the will of the people, and must meet a test of constitutionality, we are not a true democracy, where the majority can do whatever they want.

As an example, in some states the will of the people was that homosexuals could not marry, the Supreme court struck those laws down as being unconstitutional.

What discriminatory legislation, or legislation for Christians do you know about ? Please tell me.

What is hate preaching ? Saying to go out and kill someone, or burn down someones house is incitement to violence, a crime, but what is hate preaching ?

Our human rights are defined by our Constitution, not by the UN or EU, or some socialist cabal.

Our Constitution lists 10 rights in the Bill of Rights that are unalienable, irrevocable except under certain complicated and countrywide things take place, like a new amendment to the Constitution, or a convention of the states, which has never happened.

The very first amendment provides the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech.

You are right, we take our freedoms very seriously, and if what I say hurts someones feelings, they best not listen.

In a free country, the haters can hate and express their hatred. I have been the target of this kind of speech, it broke no bones, pierced no tissue, I didn´t break down and cry, I laughed. I didn´t demand that the haters be shut up, they were exercising their freedom of speech.

There are some legal restraints, like disturbing the peace, or harassment, but bad words, nope

 

[Dan Mellis]

Then every law of man is also "not forcing" anyone to obey the law, but using "a threat" of punishment to dissuade them from breaking it? Would you like to protest about that too?

How you respond to the threat of punishment is up to you....but it doesn't invalidate the law.

Yes, I'd say we're pretty much forced to obey the law, although punishment for crimes is rarely eternal or final. Also, our system doesn't allow selling/buying people (because it's immoral, no matter how many times you try and justify it) or for yhe concept of "thought crime". Because thoughts are not equal to actions.

I could be thinking the most violent, heinous thoughts imaginable: and it could be argued that I'd be more moral than someone who doesn't have these thoughts if I show the self restraint so as to not act on them.

But then again, you can't judge thoughts, so I wouldn't accept that argument.

Unlike the laws imposed by your malevolent, infantile, petty god, our laws don't discriminate and certainly dont punish people for simply disagreeing with the powers that be.

I'm sure you value freedom, including freedom of speech. Your god doesn't even allow for freedom of thought.

 

[Dan Mellis]

No, the laws of God only affect the lives of those who care about what God thinks of them. But according to the Bible, all humans will ultimately answer to the Creator because this is his creation as are we...and he has the right to deal with his creation as he sees fit. He has a purpose to our existence and will carry out his purpose with us ot without us.



We determine how much that "leakage" affects our worldview. JW's live in all nations, so they have freedom of worship in some nations but not all. In those nations where it is against the law to practice any religion not sanctioned by the government, there are challenges, but they are not insurmountable. Worship is something practiced in the mind and heart....nothing can touch that. No law of man can forbid it or take it away.
I will just reiterate.....we do not believe in hell. There is only life or death. We choose.



What has that got to do with an Aussie? JW's are no part of Christendom, not sharing their beliefs.....and they are no part of the world's political decisions. We don't even vote.

People who are fake Christians can be spotted a mile away. Everything they say and do is hypocritical.....the one thing Jesus said was despised by himself and his Father. (Matthew 23)

Australia is part of the world, is it not? If it becomes acceptable in western society to legislate "gods law" then it affects all of us.

There you go again, asserting that gods law applies to everyone. You can't say "it only applies to believers" and follow it up with "but everyone will answer to it."

As for your point about fake christians... which denomination are you? Is that the only "true" christian church? What about fundamentalist christian churches? Technically, they're more true to scripture so aren't they better christians?

I'd love to get into a debate about what actually constitutes a fake christian, but I don't think you'd actually be able to defend a valid position. I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) you'll say something about peace and love, but that is entirely contradictory to most of the "good" book which is mostly about the persecution of whoever it tells you to and the furtherance of christian morality.

To make my point; are you more likely, or less likely to vote for a polititian who says they are a christian, and will make Australia into a good christian nation?

 

[Dan Mellis]

Freedom is a human right. The same laws apply to any citizen practicing any religion, we just happen to be an overwhelming Christian country.

Legislation is based upon the will of the people, and must meet a test of constitutionality, we are not a true democracy, where the majority can do whatever they want.

As an example, in some states the will of the people was that homosexuals could not marry, the Supreme court struck those laws down as being unconstitutional.

What discriminatory legislation, or legislation for Christians do you know about ? Please tell me.

What is hate preaching ? Saying to go out and kill someone, or burn down someones house is incitement to violence, a crime, but what is hate preaching ?

Our human rights are defined by our Constitution, not by the UN or EU, or some socialist cabal.

Our Constitution lists 10 rights in the Bill of Rights that are unalienable, irrevocable except under certain complicated and countrywide things take place, like a new amendment to the Constitution, or a convention of the states, which has never happened.

The very first amendment provides the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech.

You are right, we take our freedoms very seriously, and if what I say hurts someones feelings, they best not listen.

In a free country, the haters can hate and express their hatred. I have been the target of this kind of speech, it broke no bones, pierced no tissue, I didn´t break down and cry, I laughed. I didn´t demand that the haters be shut up, they were exercising their freedom of speech.

There are some legal restraints, like disturbing the peace, or harassment, but bad words, nope

How about anti-abortion laws for discriminatory legislation? What, its not ok for a woman to back out of a baby but it's fine for the guy to up and leave? But I guess you could claim that abortioj has nothing to do with religion (why is it mainly religious people who oppose it) so lets give another example.

In some states, if a man rapes an underage girl and gets her pregnant, he won't go to jail if he marries the girl because that's the good 'christian' thing to do. To be clear: older men marrying 12-15 year old girls who they raped and impregnated to escape jailtime.

Hows that for religious morality legislation?

The problem with "bad words" is they do hurt people. Maybe not directly, but do you think muslim extremists became radicalised through telepathy? It didn't start with "go blow yourself up". Even if the direct incitement isn't there (which it actually is in the bible), the sentiment can be enough for a lot of people to take it seriously.

Since Trump (religious, right wing) came to power, there has been a 17% increase in hate crime in the US. 20% of that was crimes committed because of the victim's religion, 16% because of sexual orientation. Do you think that every one of these crimes was incited by direct instruction from a preacher?

Bad words are in and of themselves indirect incitement. Freedom of speech is not a universal, undeniable right - theres a reason we have less hate crime over here. You could argue freedom of speech laws, or a more secular society.

 

[iam1me]

This is the issue with religion and personal belief. You're imposing your belief on someone who obviously has a different philosophy than you.

Fyi, we're not expecting god to "stoop" down to our level because we don't have any reason to believe in god. We're asking (some) religious people to come up to our level (meaning the majority of the human population), like our good friend iam1me; who clearly has some trouble with this.

Dan Mellis, rather than bad mouthing people because you can't put forth a logical position - start studying and discussing the issues instead of hiding behind platitudes. If you think that there is never any circumstance in which one person maybe morally owned by another, then put forth your arguments to that effect. Appealing to popular opinion is not an argument - it's a logical fallacy.

Additionally, as noted previously, I fully agree that equality is preferable and the ideal. However, we must accept the fact that reality isn't ideal. Hence some forms of slavery - even to you - are acceptable (as with people making starvation wages/minimum wage). You simply fail to recognize these as slavery.

 

[shmogie]

How about anti-abortion laws for discriminatory legislation? What, its not ok for a woman to back out of a baby but it's fine for the guy to up and leave? But I guess you could claim that abortioj has nothing to do with religion (why is it mainly religious people who oppose it) so lets give another example.

In some states, if a man rapes an underage girl and gets her pregnant, he won't go to jail if he marries the girl because that's the good 'christian' thing to do. To be clear: older men marrying 12-15 year old girls who they raped and impregnated to escape jailtime.

Hows that for religious morality legislation?

The problem with "bad words" is they do hurt people. Maybe not directly, but do you think muslim extremists became radicalised through telepathy? It didn't start with "go blow yourself up". Even if the direct incitement isn't there (which it actually is in the bible), the sentiment can be enough for a lot of people to take it seriously.

Since Trump (religious, right wing) came to power, there has been a 17% increase in hate crime in the US. 20% of that was crimes committed because of the victim's religion, 16% because of sexual orientation. Do you think that every one of these crimes was incited by direct instruction from a preacher?

Bad words are in and of themselves indirect incitement. Freedom of speech is not a universal, undeniable right - theres a reason we have less hate crime over here. You could argue freedom of speech laws, or a more secular society.

Sigh, some of your information is wrong, or misstated.

The alleged rise in hate crimes is an illusion. The increase is based upon the fact that many more police agencies have begun reporting these types of crimes to the FBI for itś uniform crime report. Before I retired I did this reporting for my Dept. There was no classification of this type of crime. We didn´t keep track of ¨hate crimes¨ we kept track of crimes, regardless of the suspects emotional state.

Statutory or child rape is a crime, a felony. In some states the age of consent is 16, in others it is 18. In my law enforcement career I never saw what you contend happens. Although I can see how it might. In crime prosecution, depending on the crime, a judge has discretionary power.

I can see a judge, in conference with the pregnant girl and her parents discussing the mater. IF the girl is close is close to the age of consent, and IF alone with the judge she expresses a desire to keep her child, and to marry and the parents agree to this, and if the father wants to marry the girl, I can see a judge dismissing the case. He cannot force them to marry.

Now to one of my favorite subjects, abortion.

I am a Christian, but I also have a degree in criminal justice, and another in criminology. For both I had a lot of exposure to the Constitution.

As a Christian, I believe all abortion is wrong. From a legal perspective I believe abortion after the first trimester is murder.

The roe v wade case that legalized abortion in the early 1970ś has been legally attacked as bad law from the start. I won´t go into why unless you are interested. Itbis about unenumerated rights and what constitutes a person.

The court at the time defined personhood for the purposes pf abortion as ot existing till after birth., The court also said at the time that more advanced science might change this determination, and it has.

We now know that at about the beginning of the second trimester the baby is fully formed, has a beating heart and can move about and can feel pain. It is a person, regardless of whether it is birthed, or not.

Almost 80% of Americans do not support late term abortions.

One state has now banned abortions, others have passed heartbeat laws, if a heartbeat of the baby can be heard, it cannot be aborted. All of these laws exist to go to the Supreme court, to revisit roe v wade and legally define personhood in the modern context.

I assume the UK allows these killings right up to birth, and maybe after. there is no personhood at all. A viable baby is considered an inconvenient lump of flesh and is killed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The mother has certain rights, but in America, if you read the Declaration of Independence, they are described as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all persons. The liberty and happiness of one cannot be expressed by taking another´s life.

An innocent person in America has the right to life, and no other persons rights can supercede this. There is no right to commit murder. a person cannot be killed just because another person wants it done.