NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed a trend on here that most of the people wishing to ban abortion and gay marriage hold christian values. However, I have noticed that almost all of the christians in here believe that there is free will(the almost is for insurance as I haven't talked to anybody who disagreed).

My question is:

How can you reconsile the fact that your God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect in every way, would allow people to make the choice whether it is a sin or not. Yet you are more than willing to allow government disallow you from making the decision.

How can it be that your vision of God be one that allows unlimited free will, yet your vision of government is of one that limits it?

Along with the ten commandments there were laws in the bible set down by God for people to live by. Now I'm not a biblical scholar so don't ask me where exactly it says that homosexuality is a sin but people believe that it does say that.

Also I wouldn't say that God allows for unlimited free will. You may be allowed to do something but there's always a price to pay.

I'm not christian but I know at least part of the Catholic Answer.

Free will from god is free will. you can do whatever you want whenever you want. But this free will also follows the laws of physics. I.E. for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Also known as Karma, what goes around comes around.

What this in a sense means is that even though you are free to make your own choices in life, you still have to face the consequences in the afterlife - judgement day. So doing something you thing is ok (sodomy for example, or abortion) you can do in life, but since God sees it as a sin, you will have to face punishment for that sin when you see god. People wishing to lead as sinless a life as possible want government t limit free will so they have as little tempation as possible. Hence the alchohol prohibition (and subsequent repeal), the illegality of certain choice drugs and just about every other law that is on the books today.

That's the answer as I see it. I personnaly have differing opinions, but they don;t pretain to the question.

I have noticed a trend on here that most of the people wishing to ban abortion and gay marriage hold christian values. However, I have noticed that almost all of the christians in here believe that there is free will(the almost is for insurance as I haven't talked to anybody who disagreed).

My question is:

How can you reconsile the fact that your God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect in every way, would allow people to make the choice whether it is a sin or not. Yet you are more than willing to allow government disallow you from making the decision.

How can it be that your vision of God be one that allows unlimited free will, yet your vision of government is of one that limits it?
It's the people's free will to vote for a government. It's the free will of government members to vote for laws. It's the free will of citizens to obey those laws or not. It's the free will of the police to arrest lawbreakers, the free will of jury members to determine their guilt or innocence.
It was also the free will of Osama bin Laden to send aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the free will of his followers to obey orders. The Nazi party was elected by people with free will. Everyone has free will.

The thing is, free will does NOT mean people get to choose whether an action is godly or sinful. God decides that, and, in most cases, lets us know through, at minimum, conscience, and more concretely, the Bible.

Free will is not a "right"; it's just a universal human condition. It doesn't imply that we have the "right" to total freedom of action. A belief in the existence of, and value of, free will does not imply a belief in anarchy as the highest form of government. As long as we are all inherently selfish, we need a legal system to prevent the worst excesses of human free will from taking place.

But if free will is a gift from God, would not any law that prohibits free will undermine God's creation? I understand the need for laws that protect people's free will, like laws protecting against murder, theft, vandalism, so on. But when you impose laws on actions that do not affect the free will of people, namely drug laws, prohibition, gay marriage bans, without protecting the free will of others, would that not supercede the will of God?

People wishing to lead as sinless a life as possible want government t limit free will so they have as little tempation as possible. Hence the alchohol prohibition (and subsequent repeal), the illegality of certain choice drugs and just about every other law that is on the books today.

They are cowards. They know they aren't strong enough to resist temptation. Real morality is being able to do whatever you want and choosing not to, anyway.

But if free will is a gift from God, would not any law that prohibits free will undermine God's creation? I understand the need for laws that protect people's free will, like laws protecting against murder, theft, vandalism, so on. But when you impose laws on actions that do not affect the free will of people, namely drug laws, prohibition, gay marriage bans, without protecting the free will of others, would that not supercede the will of God?
You can't prohibit free will. It's just not possible. You cannot stop someone from making decisions unless you kill that person. You can prohibit free ACTION, which is a completely different point.
You're contradicting yourself, Vittos. Laws against murder, theft, etc. inhibit peoples' actions in exactly the same way as laws against drug use and gay marriage. You appear to simply be saying that you like the first set of laws, but not the second. If you can come up with a category-based reason for this artificial separation (and if you go down the "It's O.K. to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" line, I've got some refutation just waiting for ya!), then I want to hear it.

You can't prohibit free will. It's just not possible. You cannot stop someone from making decisions unless you kill that person. You can prohibit free ACTION, which is a completely different point.
You're contradicting yourself, Vittos. Laws against murder, theft, etc. inhibit peoples' actions in exactly the same way as laws against drug use and gay marriage. You appear to simply be saying that you like the first set of laws, but not the second. If you can come up with a category-based reason for this artificial separation (and if you go down the "It's O.K. to do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" line, I've got some refutation just waiting for ya!), then I want to hear it.

Well, actually it is you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. All of the crime that I mentioned before (murder, theft, etc.) were actions that were seriously detrimental to the freedom and free will of the victim. Laws prohibiting those crimes are necessary to insure that everyone will be free to live how they want to live. While the second set of laws do exactly the opposite, they ban people from living the way they want to live.

It really comes down to, does government have the right in God's eyes to judge people morally? The bible says no in several places.

I'm Christian Republican and I believe abortion should only be used if a person was raped or medical reasons. It should be banned because it would force the mother to be not as much a 'slut' per say, and to make her give birth and teach her a lesson to atleast use some kind of birth control like a condom or pills. She could put her child up for adoption. Instead of the money going to abortion, we could use it for adoption homes, and put more government funds into it.

As for gay rights, I for one do not know any gay people, but my mother use to know one in her about 10 years ago and she said he was the nicest person you would ever know. Their still human.

I'm not against gay marrage, im against them making out in public and what not. I don't care what they do in their own home. I don't care if they hold hands in public though, others might though and they be ridiculed for it. It is in fact against human nature, they still deserve a choice.

I'm Christian Republican and I believe abortion should only be used if a person was raped or medical reasons. It should be banned because it would force the mother to be not as much a 'slut' per say, and to make her give birth and teach her a lesson to atleast use some kind of birth control like a condom or pills.
As for gay rights, I for one do not know any gay people, but my mother use to know one in her about 10 years ago and she said he was the nicest person you would ever know. Their still human.

I'm not against gay marrage, im against them making out in public and what not. I don't care what they do in their own home. I don't care if they hold hands in public though, others might though and they be ridiculed for it. It is in fact against human nature, they still deserve a choice.
you would make someone give birth in order to teach them about contraception? Have you no consideration for the baby? And, finally, would you ban everyone from making out in public, or just gay people because they are offensive to you? Maybe you offend them

Well, actually it is you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. All of the crime that I mentioned before (murder, theft, etc.) were actions that were seriously detrimental to the freedom and free will of the victim. Laws prohibiting those crimes are necessary to insure that everyone will be free to live how they want to live. While the second set of laws do exactly the opposite, they ban people from living the way they want to live.

It really comes down to, does government have the right in God's eyes to judge people morally? The bible says no in several places.
All right, Vittos, you asked for it.
The fundamental problem (note I am not saying "the fundamentalist problem") with the line, "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" is that people who use it never consider all the ramifications of actions.
I'll take drug use as an easy one.
If you choose to use a substance such as heroin or cocaine, you are inflicting emotional harm on everyone who cares about you, and doesn't want to see you damage your life. This goes the same for marijuana/cannabis, as it is addictive, and can cause long-term brain damage.
Therefore, by your own rule, because it causes me pain to know that people use drugs to escape reality while their minds and bodies pay the price, drug use must be banned. The pain I feel at this is real, it is harm being done to me by drug users, so by the "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" rule, everyone must stop using drugs.
I can set up a similar argument for any "unfair" law that you can bring up. It proves nothing except the ridiculousness of the philosophy ("You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else") under scrutiny.

you would make someone give birth in order to teach them about contraception? Have you no consideration for the baby? And, finally, would you ban everyone from making out in public, or just gay people because they are offended? Maybe you offend them

Yes I would make someone give birth. I'm not against sex before marrage, but you should know the consequence of not using a condom. The mother doesn't have to give up her baby if she does not want too. I am considering the baby last time I checked, letting it live is better than it dying isn't it?

As for gay rights, just them making out in public. It is against 'normal' human nature and they know it, as a man and a man cannot reproduce. If it offends them, they are offended by most of America. Look at the bright side, atleast I am letting them marry and do whatever they want privatly, letting them have more rights than they have now.

Yes I would make someone give birth. I'm not against sex before marrage, but you should know the consequence of not using a condom. The mother doesn't have to give up her baby if she does not want too. I am considering the baby last time I checked, letting it live is better than it dying isn't it?

As for gay rights, just them making out in public. It is against 'normal' human nature and they know it, as a man and a man cannot reproduce. If it offends them, they are offended by most of America. Look at the bright side, atleast I am letting them marry and do whatever they want privatly, letting them have more rights than they have now.
not if the mother isn't ready or can't deal with the child and so neglects it, letting it have an horrible life and possibly even killing it. If she were a so called 'slut' as you say, maybe she would have lots more children and neglect them all? You can't make snap judgements about how someone will cope.

not if the mother isn't ready or can't deal with the child and so neglects it, letting it have an horrible life and possibly even killing it. If she were a so called 'slut' as you say, maybe she would have lots more children and neglect them all? You can't make snap judgements about how someone will cope.

That's not a problem about my opinion. Child abuse is a problem among today with abortion. Theres plenty of mothers that give birth and abuse their children. It's kind of inevitable either way.

All right, Vittos, you asked for it.
The fundamental problem (note I am not saying "the fundamentalist problem") with the line, "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" is that people who use it never consider all the ramifications of actions.
I'll take drug use as an easy one.
If you choose to use a substance such as heroin or cocaine, you are inflicting emotional harm on everyone who cares about you, and doesn't want to see you damage your life. This goes the same for marijuana/cannabis, as it is addictive, and can cause long-term brain damage.
Therefore, by your own rule, because it causes me pain to know that people use drugs to escape reality while their minds and bodies pay the price, drug use must be banned. The pain I feel at this is real, it is harm being done to me by drug users, so by the "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" rule, everyone must stop using drugs.
I can set up a similar argument for any "unfair" law that you can bring up. It proves nothing except the ridiculousness of the philosophy ("You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else") under scrutiny.

That is an extremely weak argument. So you are saying that any action that creates adverse conditions is a crime. Your argument would continue on to say that it is illegal to fire somebody, divorce somebody, eat fatty foods, in fact it could lead to an infinite amount of actions. You may worry about my dependency on drugs to avoid reality, but in no way does it limit your freedoms or free will. I am not talking about hurting someone literally, I am talking about harming their liberty and freedoms.

If a friend of yours begins to use drugs you can either try to help him, end the friendship, or continue life as before. If he steals from you lose what you had, no choice about it. If he murders you, you have no freedoms left, period.

And I don't even know how your reasoning touches upon gay marriage.

That is an extremely weak argument. So you are saying that any action that creates adverse conditions is a crime. Your argument would continue on to say that it is illegal to fire somebody, divorce somebody, eat fatty foods, in fact it could lead to an infinite amount of actions. You may worry about my dependency on drugs to avoid reality, but in no way does it limit your freedoms or free will. I am not talking about hurting someone literally, I am talking about harming their liberty and freedoms.

If a friend of yours begins to use drugs you can either try to help him, end the friendship, or continue life as before. If he steals from you lose what you had, no choice about it. If he murders you, you have no freedoms left, period.

And I don't even know how your reasoning touches upon gay marriage.
I think I may have misunderstood you (or you're changing tack!).
You are (now) saying that every action is permissible that does not limit the freedoms of another.
Have I understood your basic point correctly?

I think I may have misunderstood you (or you're changing tack!).
You are (now) saying that every action is permissible that does not limit the freedoms of another.
Have I understood your basic point correctly?

My original question in the post was how Christians (and conservatives in general) justify government intervention and limitation on personal freedoms and actions when God allows free will?

We did manage to get a little off-track, as I have basically made liberties and freedoms amongst the citizens of a government and free will amongst people.

So my question is: Since God allows people to sin, so does any government measure that attempts to limit people from sinning, and not meant for the protection of its citizen, supercede the workings of God?

I personally don't believe in a Christian-style God, but I would like to see those who fit here justify their positions.

My original question in the post was how Christians (and conservatives in general) justify government intervention and limitation on personal freedoms and actions when God allows free will?

We did manage to get a little off-track, as I have basically made liberties and freedoms amongst the citizens of a government and free will amongst people.

So my question is: Since God allows people to sin, so does any government measure that attempts to limit people from sinning, and not meant for the protection of its citizen, supercede the workings of God?

I personally don't believe in a Christian-style God, but I would like to see those who fit here justify their positions.
God does indeed allow people to sin, but this is not the same as God wanting people to sin, or being happy about it.
Any measure that attempts to limit people from sinning has the effect of resulting in protection for said people, as well as all people. Sin anywhere damages people everywhere, and God decides what sin is, because the essence of sin is doing our own thing rather than doing things God's way.

I have noticed a trend on here that most of the people wishing to ban abortion and gay marriage hold christian values.
You are farly mistaken . . . most people hear are quite liberal

And in response to the rest of your post: yeah, I've been thinking the same thing sometimes

One of the interesting things I have found about the argument against gay people is that god "intended" for a man and woman to be together. Use of the word intended to me makes it sound like he meant to do something then screwed up (which is theoreticly not posible). The only other options I see are that God doesn't mind gays and is happy to have them roaming the planet or that there ....... is no god (dont hurt me).

They are cowards. They know they aren't strong enough to resist temptation. Real morality is being able to do whatever you want and choosing not to, anyway.

This is exactly right. Christians can't carry their own guilt.

As for gay rights, just them making out in public. It is against 'normal' human nature and they know it, as a man and a man cannot reproduce. If it offends them, they are offended by most of America.

What exactly is 'normal' human nature by the way? Last time I checked, there was no set terms that all humans had to live by to considered 'normal'. If there was a system of 'normality' that made the minority of people conform to a given standard, why didn't we just make all left handed people become right handed. Why didn't we force people to speak one language? The normal language.

My other point is that being gay is in fact natural. It occurs in the animal kingdom with a huge amount of frequency. After all, humans are just advanced animals.

All right, Vittos, you asked for it.
The fundamental problem (note I am not saying "the fundamentalist problem") with the line, "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" is that people who use it never consider all the ramifications of actions.
I'll take drug use as an easy one.
If you choose to use a substance such as heroin or cocaine, you are inflicting emotional harm on everyone who cares about you, and doesn't want to see you damage your life. This goes the same for marijuana/cannabis, as it is addictive, and can cause long-term brain damage.
Therefore, by your own rule, because it causes me pain to know that people use drugs to escape reality while their minds and bodies pay the price, drug use must be banned. The pain I feel at this is real, it is harm being done to me by drug users, so by the "You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" rule, everyone must stop using drugs.
I can set up a similar argument for any "unfair" law that you can bring up. It proves nothing except the ridiculousness of the philosophy ("You can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else") under scrutiny.

So.. what if I make you not care about me? I'm sure I could be enough of a bastard for that.

Thing is, I don't want to. I'll just say that you giving a shit is your problem, and what you think about me taking mushrooms has nothing to do with me, and me taking mushrooms has nothing to do with you. It does not harm you, and to repeat the phrase that is almost becoming a cliché, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Or I could argue the other way and say that your claim that all drugs should be banned "harms" me emotionally, and as such anyone even thinking about prohibiting drug use should be locked up.

Wonder if that'll work?

They are cowards. They know they aren't strong enough to resist temptation. Real morality is being able to do whatever you want and choosing not to, anyway.

Bravo!

it would force the mother to be not as much a 'slut' per say, and to make her give birth and teach her a lesson to atleast use some kind of birth control like a condom or pills.
And what of the father? What kind of lesson do you propose HE be forced to learn? Or did it slip your simple mind that for every woman who finds herself unwantedly pregnant there is a MAN who provided the sperm to fertilize the egg?
This goes the same for marijuana/cannabis, as it is addictive, and can cause long-term brain damage.
Can I get a source, hey!
Can I get some proof, yo!
That's not a problem about my opinion. Child abuse is a problem among today with abortion. Theres plenty of mothers that give birth and abuse their children. It's kind of inevitable either way.
Super. Thanks for acknowledging the obvious. How about this?
Instead of outright abortion, why don't why legalize the "asssisted suicide" of any woman who finds herself unwantedly pregnant? Instead of taxpayers having to bear the expense of her prenatal care and delivery of the child that she is bound to abuse and probably stuff into a dumpster or closet, let's just allow her to kill herself and the child to spare the rest of us from having to see her vile deeds on the evening news and become enraptured by the subsequent trial and inevitable incarceration? Is this insane? Of course it is! I'm just following others' hackneyed logic.