NationStates Jolt Archive

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I hate to break it to you, but "others" include...others. Not just Christians. If you would not like a Muslim to send you to jail for worshipping your God in your way, you cannot reasonably send him to jail for worshipping his God in his way.



You have to be specific in that application, or else you could apply the same thing to criminals who get jailed. "Do not punish criminals as you would not have them punish you." What they are specifically doing is what matters.

I never said that yelling Allah Akbar without obvious intent to assault another should be penalized! That was Blu-Tac!

You jumped in the side of Blu-Tac to combat the analogy that was presented to Blu-Tac. Expect to be treated as equally unreasonable. You have made it clear that you believe that people should not have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion. Wow, I can see that message of love brought by Christ wasn't lost on you /sarcasm.

I wonder if Neo Rogalia is for throwing all rich people into jail? Jesus didn't seem to have a very high opinion of them...either that or he was used to very big needles and very small camels.


Blessed are the cheese makers.

You have to be specific in that application, or else you could apply the same thing to criminals who get jailed. "Do not punish criminals as you would not have them punish you." What they are specifically doing is what matters.

If I were guilty of the same crimes as I would place them in jail for, I would have them jail me, yes. I live by the golden rule. It was not meant to be used too specifically. Otherwise, I could say I can deny rights to black people just as they can deny rights to black people. It doesn't work that way. I can deny rights to others only if I accept that they may deny equivalent rights from me.

You're limiting their right to practice freedom of religion. Unless you think the Absolute Truth is found through you and not through Jesus Christ. I was under the impression that I was to follow Jesus. It seems like Jesus was all for religious freedom since without it, people would never have become Christians in the first place.

I displayed the context. I can post more of the context if you like. All judgement is hypocritical. That's exactly what it says. Because all people are sinners save Jesus Christ, the only person who may judge is Christ, himself. Keep trying to spin the Truth. Isn't there a commandment that says thou shalt not lie? I wonder if that applies to lying about the Bible.



1. Christ favored religious freedom for the One True Faith, not for pagan beliefs. He condemned them.

2. So, nobody is allowed to judge faults, even if they don't themselves posses said faults? Good, you just abolished our entire criminal justice system.

If I were guilty of the same crimes as I would place them in jail for, I would have them jail me, yes. I live by the golden rule. It was not meant to be used too specifically. Otherwise, I could say I can deny rights to black people just as they can deny rights to black people. It doesn't work that way. I can deny rights to others only if I accept that they may deny equivalent rights from me.



Then it would be a case of, if I deny the right to practice Islam to others, they would deny the right to practice Islam to me.

I wonder if Neo Rogalia is for throwing all rich people into jail? Jesus didn't seem to have a very high opinion of them...either that or he was used to very big needles and very small camels.


Blessed are the cheese makers.



Redistribute the wealth :D

Then it would be a case of, if I deny the right to practice Islam to others, they would deny the right to practice Islam to me.

More like, you deny others the right to practice their religion of choice, they deny you the right to practice your religion of choice.

Heretoforth let it be known that all who offend me in any manner, be it with malicious intent or sheer ignorance, shall be persecuted severely in any manner I see fit. Good law, eh?

Seriously? I would like to see people who use cell phones while driving or in theaters (or in any other place where they cause an severe annoyance or hazzard to others) be subject to an overnight stay in jail. At the very best, my desire is for it to be legal to zap miscreant cell phone users with a stun gun or any available missile object (i.e. rocks, beer bottles, etc.) :gundge:

Heretoforth let it be known that all who offend me in any manner, be it with malicious intent or sheer ignorance, shall be persecuted severely in any manner I see fit. Good law, eh?

Seriously? I would like to see people who use cell phones while driving or in theaters (or in any other place where they cause an severe annoyance or hazzard to others) be subject to an overnight stay in jail. At the very best, my desire is for it to be legal to zap miscreant cell phone users with a stun gun or any available missile object (i.e. rocks, beer bottles, etc.) :gundge:


Amen!

1. Christ favored religious freedom for the One True Faith, not for pagan beliefs. He condemned them.

2. So, nobody is allowed to judge faults, even if they don't themselves posses said faults? Good, you just abolished our entire criminal justice system.

This is exactly why law and religious beliefs should remain out of law. You either end up with a theocracy or anarchy.

See Neo Rogala, power corrupts, and when you give power to someone over both secular and religious power, it always ends very very badly. For that reason, even if Christianity is the one true faith, it is vitally important to keep religious power out of the hands of politicians, because of man's own weakness.

Can we agree on that much?

1. Christ favored religious freedom for the One True Faith, not for pagan beliefs. He condemned them.

He condemned them. He didn't suggest they be outlawed.

2. So, nobody is allowed to judge faults, even if they don't themselves posses said faults? Good, you just abolished our entire criminal justice system.

False. I suggested that you may not judge sin. Also, our system is not judging FAULTS. It's judging crimes against others. There is a huge difference. You are clearly being deceptive, as is your modus operundi. By your own laws, you would be placed in prison since you refuse to rebuke your own sin. Or does that not count as a plank?

More like, you deny others the right to practice their religion of choice, they deny you the right to practice your religion of choice.


You're not being specific, you're just applying it to all religions. Not all religions are the same, therefore it does not apply.

False. I suggested that you may not judge sin. Also, our system is not judging FAULTS. It's judging crimes against others. There is a huge difference. You are clearly being deceptive, as is your modus operundi. By your own laws, you would be placed in prison since you refuse to rebuke your own sin. Or does that not count as a plank?


My sin? Ok, I repent for all my sins and try to stop doing them. Unlike the people I am describing.

Then it would be a case of, if I deny the right to practice Islam to others, they would deny the right to practice Islam to me.

Yes, that's what Jesus meant. Again you are being deceptive and you know it. You cannot deny them the right to practice their religion unless they may deny you yours. You know this is the point. You try to argue that it isn't because it denies you the ability to make your silly claims. However, I wonder how God and Jesus views the efforts of those who miscontrue their message to use it as an excuse to mistreat others.

This is exactly why law and religious beliefs should remain out of law. You either end up with a theocracy or anarchy.

See Neo Rogala, power corrupts, and when you give power to someone over both secular and religious power, it always ends very very badly. For that reason, even if Christianity is the one true faith, it is vitally important to keep religious power out of the hands of politicians, because of man's own weakness.

Can we agree on that much?


Removing power from the hands of everyone for fear of corruption would result in anarchy too.

My sin? Ok, I repent for all my sins and try to stop doing them. Unlike the people I am describing.
So distorting the truth is not a sin? Don't pretend like you don't know that you are intentionally being deceptive.

You're not being specific, you're just applying it to all religions. Not all religions are the same, therefore it does not apply.

Is this what Jesus said? Did Jesus say this or are you just making it up and ascribing it to Jesus? Again, deceptive.

You're not being specific, you're just applying it to all religions. Not all religions are the same, therefore it does not apply.

Since you quote scripture so eloquently to prove your points, please show me where Jesus or the Bible says to interpret "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in the specific way that you are describing.

If you want your freedom to practice your religion limited, then limit others from practicing their religion.

You're not being specific, you're just applying it to all religions. Not all religions are the same, therefore it does not apply.

Of course all religions are different (including, incidentally, your interpretation of Christianity and lots of other people's interpretations of Christianity). However, they're not terribly different in importance to the person practicing them - or do you really think Islam isn't as important to Muslims as Christianity is to you?

Removing power from the hands of everyone for fear of corruption would result in anarchy too.

No one is removing power from everyone and no one has suggested it is so. The point is that keeping religion out of the hands of those in power keeps it from being corrupted. Do you not wish to keep religion pure? Or is it more important that you get to punish sinners? More importantly, do you not trust Jesus to handle it? Strange that God did. Again, I wonder who's right.

Removing power from the hands of everyone for fear of corruption would result in anarchy too.

True, that's why we give power, but keep it seperate, and we make sure that one person's power is always checked by another.

What laws do you think the new leaders of Iraq are tryign to pass right now as they ask themselves this same question?


If a woman speaks when not spoken too she shall be stoned to death.

The Americans who put us in power shall get to pick the percentage of our exported oil goes to them and it shall be cheaper than anyone else pays.

Yes, that's what Jesus meant. Again you are being deceptive and you know it. You cannot deny them the right to practice their religion unless they may deny you yours. You know this is the point. You try to argue that it isn't because it denies you the ability to make your silly claims. However, I wonder how God and Jesus views the efforts of those who miscontrue their message to use it as an excuse to mistreat others.



But my point has scriptural basis: 2 Peter 2:1-10 1 Corinthians 6:2 1 Corinthians 14:24 Hebrews 4:12 Revelation 3:19 Luke 17:3 1 Timothy 5:20 2 Timothy 4:2 Titus 1:13 Titus 2:15


Heresies, deviations, false religions and teachings, etc. are to be punished, lest they lead the weak-in-faith and babes-in-Christ astray. Many verses imply in the scriptures that the condemnation of judgement does not apply to judgement in general but to those guilty of the sins they accuse others of doing.

No one is removing power from everyone and no one has suggested it is so. The point is that keeping religion out of the hands of those in power keeps it from being corrupted. Do you not wish to keep religion pure? Or is it more important that you get to punish sinners? More importantly, do you not trust Jesus to handle it? Strange that God did. Again, I wonder who's right.



God also commanded us to use the Word to admonish and rebuke sinners, and a Christian government could do that quite well.

But my point has scriptural basis: 2 Peter 2:1-10 1 Corinthians 6:2 1 Corinthians 14:24 Hebrews 4:12 Revelation 3:19 Luke 17:3 1 Timothy 5:20 2 Timothy 4:2 Titus 1:13 Titus 2:15


Heresies, deviations, false religions and teachings, etc. are to be punished, lest they lead the weak-in-faith and babes-in-Christ astray. Many verses imply in the scriptures that the condemnation of judgement does not apply to judgement in general but to those guilty of the sins they accuse others of doing.

Man, for people following the One True Faith, the foundation of their faith seems awfully crumbly. If they are so easily seduced by a false faith, then they aren't going to heaven anyway.

Speaking of seduced...

Since you quote scripture so eloquently to prove your points, please show me where Jesus or the Bible says to interpret "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in the specific way that you are describing.

If you want your freedom to practice your religion limited, then limit others from practicing their religion.



If I was practicing a false religion, then, yes, it would be better if they stopped me.

God also commanded us to use the Word to admonish and rebuke sinners, and a Christian government could do that quite well.

But didn't Jesus say" "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

Sounds like seperation of Church and State to me.

ok, time out everyone.

I thought the thread was to create a law that would be passed and observed by all countries and nations.

now Neo Rogolia posted this (bolding mine)
I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts :pthe morals are not the religion. she's not asking every to give up their faith or to aquire faith, just to follow the Morals of Christian living.

and before you cry "ramming things down someone's throat, may I point out that this is INTERNATIONAL LAW and still people don't listen,

No person who actively seeks the office of the President of the United States, by themselves or by proxie, shall be allowed to hold said office.
(forcing the US to alter Internal laws and procedures by the dictation of the international Community.)

all government must be democraticaly elected.(forcing other nations to be Democratic, if you don't think that's bad, then replace Democratically elected with Therocacy)

What about a law that requires all future laws to be OKed by me. The Ultimate Vetoin in the hands of moi, think of the possibilities, think of the wonder, think of the . . . corruption.(forcing his ideals on others)

{snip}
If I had a second law, legalized personal freedoms (meaning drugs, prostitution, suicide, euthanasia, anything that involves consenting adults harming themselves in your eyes is still none of your damn business).(this can be abused in soo many different ways, as in the interpretations of the adult's wishes (terry schvao (SP?)) and the definition of Adult. age of concent varies from country to country.)


yet no one is arguing these points (or the laws that ban/executes Liberals, conservatives, extemists, fundies or anyone else who thinks differently) that also violate the points raised with the misread law that Neo Rogoila posted. so I suggest dropping this argument for this thread has been been Hijacked long enough.

Man, for people following the One True Faith, the foundation of their faith seems awfully crumbly. If they are so easily seduced by a false faith, then they aren't going to heaven anyway.

Speaking of seduced...



Yes, Christ talks about the varying degrees of faith in the parable of the sower. Someone who is weak in Christ should not be exposed to false doctrines, at least not until she has built up a strong foundation. Christ and the apostles recognized this, I'm suprised you don't.

If I was practicing a false religion, then, yes, it would be better if they stopped me.

Then you are okay with Muslims that wish to stop you from practicing your religion? If not then you shouldn't be such a hypocrite.

But didn't Jesus say" "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

Sounds like seperation of Church and State to me.



Umm...wow. That was just a justification for paying taxes, not a seperation of church and state....

Then you are okay with Muslims that wish to stop you from practicing your religion? If not then you shouldn't be such a hypocrite.



Christianity is not a false religion ;)

Neither is Islam... You guys better get cracking with some new material, they've got the last word (of god).

Christianity is not a false religion ;)

Is that true because you believe it or because you have proof?

Now if you will excuse me I must go home and wash my eyes out with soap for having read too many of your posts.

Neither is Islam... You guys better get cracking with some new material, they've got the last word (of god).


Any doctrines which came after the teachings of Christ and the apostles are to be considered heresies, as they are not the true word of God:


Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Yes, Christ talks about the varying degrees of faith in the parable of the sower. Someone who is weak in Christ should not be exposed to false doctrines, at least not until she has built up a strong foundation. Christ and the apostles recognized this, I'm suprised you don't.

And the parable of the sower teaches man to preach the word, but then leave it in God's hands. It says nothing about forcing the seed to sprout or to take the seed off the field to a place of safety.

Christianity is not a false religion ;)

If christianity is not a false religion, and false religions should not be practised, and there can only be one true religion - then your activly banning all other religions.

And the parable of the sower teaches man to preach the word, but then leave it in God's hands. It says nothing about forcing the seed to sprout or to take the seed off the field to a place of safety.



Actually, it does:



Hebrews 5:11-14 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

If christianity is not a false religion, and false religions should not be practised, and there can only be one true religion - then your activly banning all other religions.



Read page 3 of the thread.

Actually, it does:



Hebrews 5:11-14 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

I think it is the height of hubris to assume that you have graduated beyond milk. Besides, we were talking about the parable of the sower, which you claimed says something that it does not.

Dammit, I got to call my publisher.

I guess there are too many plot holes for me to write The Bible II: Thou Shalt Kick Ass...

But really, can you use proof that isn't from the Bible?

I think it is the height of hubris to assume that you have graduated beyond milk. Besides, we were talking about the parable of the sower, which you claimed says something that it does not.



What do we have here, ad hominem attacks coming from someone with little displayed biblical knowledge in the first place? The irony is astounding.


Edit: I never said the parable of the sower tells the disciples to protect those who are infants in Christ, rather it tells of what happens to those who aren't protected. We rely on the apostles for the directions regarding the protection of theological infants.

Dammit, I got to call my publisher.

I guess there are too many plot holes for me to write The Bible II: Thou Shalt Kick Ass...

But really, can you use proof that isn't from the Bible?



Considering the Bible is the sole source of our faith, our practices, our doctrines, and pretty much everything else we live our lives by, probably not :D (Unless you're Roman Catholic)

Well, I guess that makes every religion with a holy text correct in any religious debate, meaning you can't ban any false religions except ones without such texts (Which is highly unlikely in any case).

Plus, my god can beat up your god.

So now that that's settled, I think I'll be a Jew as we're exempt from interest rates, that and our hats are infinitely cooler than yours. Except for the pope's hat, which I find strangely arousing.

Here, let's see what Jefferson had to say on the subject"

SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

i think id unify all the governments of the world together.it might sound like a bit too much - but think about it - if everyone was under the one government the whole human race could move forward together.it would solve a lot of problems.no more territorial disputes.level playing field for people throughout the globe.no more "them and us" attitude.all humans would finally look on the whole human race as their countrymen,their brothers and sisters.As a single nation,action against any problem would be taken immediately,and progress would be much faster with all those taxes going to the one treasury.

This isn't to say the different peoples of the world would be fused into one,on the contrary every culture would be equal and able to grow along with all the others.
Many nations,the United States being the best example,are no longer synonomous with one race or culture,but include many all under one government.So what's to say this couldn't work for the whole world?

"So what's to say this couldn't work for the whole world?"

Human nature and the politics of greed. Also hundreds of sovereign nations and their militaries, and the Michigan Militia.

Here, let's see what Jefferson had to say on the subject"



Ok...and Jefferson has a say in scriptural matters? It's my law, so I can use it to override Jeffersonian precedents if I want :p

What do we have here, ad hominem attacks coming from someone with little displayed biblical knowledge in the first place? The irony is astounding.


Edit: I never said the parable of the sower tells the disciples to protect those who are infants in Christ, rather it tells of what happens to those who aren't protected. We rely on the apostles for the directions regarding the protection of theological infants.

What ad hominem attack? All I said was that it was an act of hubris to assume one is wise as to God's ways, especially at such a tender age. Also, since you have displayed a preference for a world that is not filled with things that could tempt you, it follows that you have not yet graduated to solid food.

Ok...and Jefferson has a say in scriptural matters? It's my law, so I can use it to override Jeffersonian precedents if I want :p

So, you fail to see the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson's words? Why do you hate America for it's freedoms?

But my point has scriptural basis: 2 Peter 2:1-10 1 Corinthians 6:2 1 Corinthians 14:24 Hebrews 4:12 Revelation 3:19 Luke 17:3 1 Timothy 5:20 2 Timothy 4:2 Titus 1:13 Titus 2:15


Heresies, deviations, false religions and teachings, etc. are to be punished, lest they lead the weak-in-faith and babes-in-Christ astray. Many verses imply in the scriptures that the condemnation of judgement does not apply to judgement in general but to those guilty of the sins they accuse others of doing.

I hold nothing to more important than the words of Jesus Christ. I read it and posted it in context. It was clear what he meant.

2 Peter 2 - Says what can happen when people like you teach, but it says nothing about outlawing it.

1 Corinthians 6 completely disputes your points. It says do not go before secular judges to decide issues of faith, but instead ask for help from other Christians. Seperation of Church and State.

1 Corinthians 14 says that you should speak plainly the truth. This says nothing about allowing others to hold their own beliefs. It certainly doesn't support your deception.

Hebrew 4 does not speak to your point.

Revelation 3 speaks of peers, not of denying rights to general populous or judging the general populous. I have a lot to say to my sister that I wouldn't dare say to a person on the street. Know the difference?

Luke 17 goes completely against enacting laws about such things. It suggests that if I repent every time I sin, I should be forgiven. How does this fit into your laws? It doesn't. You're not helping your case.

1 Timothy 5 refers to the handling of church elders. Specifically church elders. Are you even trying to support your point?

2 Timothy 4 directions to Timothy. A church elder. Again, they were held to different standards and were expected to behave differently. Given this display, I'd imagine Timothy had a better understanding of the scripture than you do. This is again regarding his flock.

Titus is also a direction to a church elder towards his flock.

None of these speak to punishment in a civil sense and the only specific expressions of punishment are geared toward members of the church by members of the church according to your own scriptural verses. One of the verses directly negates the idea of a civil proceeding regarding sin.

This is really sad. You just post crap references hoping that no one reads them. You're deceptive and intentionaly either remove or change the context of portions of the Bible. However, I would deny your right to make these claims. Jesus wouldn't. He would just logically smack you down and I will follow his lead.

What ad hominem attack? All I said was that it was an act of hubris to assume one is wise as to God's ways, especially at such a tender age. Also, since you have displayed a preference for a world that is not filled with things that could tempt you, it follows that you have not yet graduated to solid food.



The ad hominem attack was the implication of foolishness on my part.

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

i would like a law making me king over everyone and everything in the world.

my word would be law...i promise i will be nice,maybe even benovolent. :gundge:

What Is Everyone's Problem With Neo Rogolia's Suggested Law??? and don't just say "you should know" post it!

God also commanded us to use the Word to admonish and rebuke sinners, and a Christian government could do that quite well.

No, he didn't. Jesus commanded you not to. Your own verses suggests that Christians should rely on the Church and not the government to deal with sin. You choose to read selectively at best and deceptively at worst.

Christianity is not a false religion ;)

Prove it.

The ad hominem attack was the implication of foolishness on my part.

Are we not all fools when compared to God?

What Is Everyone's Problem With Neo Rogolia's Suggested Law??? and don't just say "you should know" post it!

Excercise patience. We're debating it as you speak (or yell. How rude.)

No, he didn't. Jesus commanded you not to. Your own verses suggests that Christians should rely on the Church and not the government to deal with sin. You choose to read selectively at best and deceptively at worst.

Rock on.

Excercise patience. We're debating it as you speak (or yell. How rude.)
you're also hijacking a thread. that too is also rude.

besides the debate can be finished, but if all you people wanna do is argue and not stick to the thread, then please take it elsewhere.

"So what's to say this couldn't work for the whole world?"

Human nature and the politics of greed. Also hundreds of sovereign nations and their militaries, and the Michigan Militia.

I mean if you could get past all that,wouldn't it work once in place?Maybe if we made contact with aliens or something like that,it would make :p us look at ourselves in a new light.Or if one power conquered the world with good intentions.Or if all the nations teamed up and gave me one law.Not likely then,but stil.

you're also hijacking a thread. that too is also rude.

besides the debate can be finished, but if all you people wanna do is argue and not stick to the thread, then please take it elsewhere.

It's hard to let go of the many laws he has proposed that would limit the rights of everyone who doesn't believe the same as she does.

It's hard to let go of the many laws he has proposed that would limit the rights of everyone who doesn't believe the same as she does.

Is it really a hijack to discuss the implications of the laws offered?

It's hard to let go of the many laws he has proposed that would limit the rights of everyone who doesn't believe the same as she does.
what limit? Neo's law was to follow the Christian Morals. not the faith, not to subscribe to the faith, not even their LAWS. Most of the christian Morals are ingrained in the US Laws as well as international Laws. Honestly, integrety, Generosity, the willingness to help...

and most (if not all) of those Morals overlap other religions as well.

at least she's not calling for the extermination of people who think differently,(read the other laws suggested.) a call to impose their wills on governments nor is it created for the soul purpose of countering another players law. (your second law.)

yet the arguments here are all as if she asked everyone to turn to Christianity.

Is it really a hijack to discuss the implications of the laws offered?

We are also questioning the basis.

However, I get the point. NR does not believe in the Golden Rule. She believes people should only be allowed to discuss what she thinks is important. Thus every thread she is involved in becomes a thread about her radical Christian views. She gets away with it because hardly anyone debates from the book she holds dear which is why she gets away with it. As you can see her citations are spurious can't in any way be construed to support her claims, yet you will see them in many more threads.

Is it really a hijack to discuss the implications of the laws offered?
you've stopped arguing about her law and started arguing about the religion a long time ago.

Does that mean you would arrest anyone who does not jump in front of a bus to push a child out of the way? Not everyone has that in them.
The particulars would have to be determined by case law as the courts decided cases. The intent of the law would be to encourage people to protect children, not necessarily at the risk of almost certain death.

We are also questioning the basis.

However, I get the point. NR does not believe in the Golden Rule. She believes people should only be allowed to discuss what she thinks is important. Thus every thread she is involved in becomes a thread about her radical Christian views. She gets away with it because hardly anyone debates from the book she holds dear which is why she gets away with it. As you can see her citations are spurious can't in any way be construed to support her claims, yet you will see them in many more threads.
and the fact that even she forgot that she mentioned the Morals, again, not to subscribe to the faith nor the Christian Laws.

Morals and Laws are two different things.

what limit? Neo's law was to follow the Christian Morals. not the faith, not to subscribe to the faith, not even their LAWS. Most of the christian Morals are ingrained in the US Laws as well as international Laws. Honestly, integrety, Generosity, the willingness to help...

No, she also proposed outlawing the practice of Islam. And the morals you list are not most or even the crux of the morals she is proposing as she has made clear. Not allowing same-sex marriage is a limitation of rights. Not allowing prostitution is a limitation of personal rights. Not allowing sodomy is a limiting of rights. Not allowing profanity is a limitation of rights. Outlawing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. is a limitation of rights and she has espoused all of these things and we are railing against it.

and most (if not all) of those Morals overlap other religions as well.

Again, she has said this would include outlawing sodomy, etc. Whether this is included in other religions or not, it is certainly a limitation of personal freedoms.

at least she's not calling for the extermination of people who think differently,(read the other laws suggested.) a call to impose their wills on governments nor is it created for the soul purpose of countering another players law. (your second law.)

No, she only suggested she agrees with those laws and posted smilies. (Sole not soul). My second law is one I would honestly like to see created in the US. I despise the laws against drugs and prostitution. These are personal actions that only hurt the people involved. I think the government has an obligation to stay out of personal affairs, whether I think those people should be involved in these practices or not. I don't do drugs and I think most drugs are terribly stupid, but I don't believe in throwing people in jail for being stupid. Your suggestion that I posted the second law simply to be contrary is spurious and not based on reality.

yet the arguments here are all as if she asked everyone to turn to Christianity.

No, she only asked that people not be able to have the freedom to practice their own beliefs.

and the fact that even she forgot that she mentioned the Morals, again, not to subscribe to the faith nor the Christian Laws.

Morals and Laws are two different things.

You have read the entire thread, yeah? And again, if included in those 'morals' is a limitation on personal freedoms then I would combat such things. People pretty much left NR alone until Blu-Tac started up and NR got involved with supporting slavery and denying people freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc.

you've stopped arguing about her law and started arguing about the religion a long time ago.

We're not arguing about the religion or her right to practice it. We are arguing about her right or duty to enact laws regarding it. That is directly on topic.

what limit? Neo's law was to follow the Christian Morals. not the faith, not to subscribe to the faith, not even their LAWS. Most of the christian Morals are ingrained in the US Laws as well as international Laws. Honestly, integrety, Generosity, the willingness to help...

The US is based on secularism, not christianity. Honesty, integrity, generousity, and the willingness to help is not a christian thing. That has been around since the Roman times (when "paganism" was the religion) and beyond.



yet the arguments here are all as if she asked everyone to turn to Christianity.

Wouldn't happen. In fact there would be civil wars and a global war if she tried to impose her laws. The christians would not win that.

No, she also proposed outlawing the practice of Islam. And the morals you list are not most or even the crux of the morals she is proposing as she has made clear. Not allowing same-sex marriage is a limitation of rights. Not allowing prostitution is a limitation of personal rights. Not allowing sodomy is a limiting of rights. Not allowing profanity is a limitation of rights. Outlawing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. is a limitation of rights and she has espoused all of these things and we are railing against it.


Again, she has said this would include outlawing sodomy, etc. Whether this is included in other religions or not, it is certainly a limitation of personal freedoms.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]No, she only asked that people not be able to have the freedom to practice their own beliefs.
that came after the attacks against the Religion came about.

No, she only suggested she agrees with those laws and posted smilies. (Sole not soul). My second law is one I would honestly like to see created in the US. I despise the laws against drugs and prostitution. These are personal actions that only hurt the people involved. I think the government has an obligation to stay out of personal affairs, whether I think those people should be involved in these practices or not. I don't do drugs and I think most drugs are terribly stupid, but I don't believe in throwing people in jail for being stupid. Your suggestion that I posted the second law simply to be contrary is spurious and not based on reality. I may have mistaken your post then, for it did seem that way. Apologies.


this is the law that Neo Rogolia posted.
I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory. Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion, but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts lets break it down.
I would pass a law making the observance of Christian morals mandatory.
now her mistake was the use of the word Morals. after that she argued about christian LAW.
Not forced-Christianity, since true salvation is only attainable through willing conversion
remember, she even mentioned NOT FORCED-CHRISTIANITY, so no prohibitation of other religions.

but at least they wouldn't be able to corrupt the rest of us by attempting to legalize sinful acts now this can be argued, for she is now thinking that morals are the same as LAWS. and they are not.

however instead of arguing this point, everyone hopped on the Christian bashing wagon and got thrown off course.

God forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge but the ultimate choice was theirs. Christian MORALS have nothing to do with passing of man's laws, but how one lives their life.

The US is based on secularism, not christianity. Honesty, integrity, generousity, and the willingness to help is not a christian thing. That has been around since the Roman times (when "paganism" was the religion) and beyond.



Wouldn't happen. In fact there would be civil wars and a global war if she tried to impose her laws. The christians would not win that.
read the first post. this is make believe laws that would be imposed and followed by all Nations.

I hold nothing to more important than the words of Jesus Christ. I read it and posted it in context. It was clear what he meant.

2 Peter 2 - Says what can happen when people like you teach, but it says nothing about outlawing it.

1 Corinthians 6 completely disputes your points. It says do not go before secular judges to decide issues of faith, but instead ask for help from other Christians. Seperation of Church and State.

1 Corinthians 14 says that you should speak plainly the truth. This says nothing about allowing others to hold their own beliefs. It certainly doesn't support your deception.

Hebrew 4 does not speak to your point.

Revelation 3 speaks of peers, not of denying rights to general populous or judging the general populous. I have a lot to say to my sister that I wouldn't dare say to a person on the street. Know the difference?

Luke 17 goes completely against enacting laws about such things. It suggests that if I repent every time I sin, I should be forgiven. How does this fit into your laws? It doesn't. You're not helping your case.

1 Timothy 5 refers to the handling of church elders. Specifically church elders. Are you even trying to support your point?

2 Timothy 4 directions to Timothy. A church elder. Again, they were held to different standards and were expected to behave differently. Given this display, I'd imagine Timothy had a better understanding of the scripture than you do. This is again regarding his flock.

Titus is also a direction to a church elder towards his flock.

None of these speak to punishment in a civil sense and the only specific expressions of punishment are geared toward members of the church by members of the church according to your own scriptural verses. One of the verses directly negates the idea of a civil proceeding regarding sin.

This is really sad. You just post crap references hoping that no one reads them. You're deceptive and intentionaly either remove or change the context of portions of the Bible. However, I would deny your right to make these claims. Jesus wouldn't. He would just logically smack you down and I will follow his lead.

1. 2 Peter 2 pretty much implies that false teachers are despicable and worthy of death. Doesn't seem like he would advocate their tolerance in this case.


2. Fair enough

3. It says state the truth, which implies that it doesn't want people to state deceptive things, like you're doing.

4. 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


The Word of God is to be used to reveal the truth and expose the heretics for who they really are. Are we to shirk from our duty of revealing the sinners and stopping them from fulfilling their nefarious aims?

5. Revelation 3 is applicable to everyone, Proverbs reinforces the notion of chastising those who go astray as well.

6. Not really, my law is only applicable to those who refuses to repent and seek forgiveness.

7. What if I were a man and an elder? Your point would collapse, and, once again, the Bible in many other places reinforces the notion of rebuke and admonishment.

8. See above.

I still await your "logical smack-down."

We're not arguing about the religion or her right to practice it. We are arguing about her right or duty to enact laws regarding it. That is directly on topic.
ahh. but according to the first post, they will be enacted so arguing on wether or not they should is against the thread.

but arguing the difference between the Christian Morals and Christian Laws is another thing entirely.

that is why I never really supported her arguments because she was arguing the wrong thing.

{snip}
I still await your "logical smack-down."
here it is. you are not arguing the law you submitted, infact you have infact broken your own law by forcing Christianity on others, being directly contrary to your law.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]No, she also proposed outlawing the practice of Islam. And the morals you list are not most or even the crux of the morals she is proposing as she has made clear. Not allowing same-sex marriage is a limitation of rights. Not allowing prostitution is a limitation of personal rights. Not allowing sodomy is a limiting of rights. Not allowing profanity is a limitation of rights. Outlawing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. is a limitation of rights and she has espoused all of these things and we are railing against it.


Again, she has said this would include outlawing sodomy, etc. Whether this is included in other religions or not, it is certainly a limitation of personal freedoms.


that came after the attacks against the Religion came about.

I may have mistaken your post then, for it did seem that way. Apologies.


this is the law that Neo Rogolia posted.
lets break it down.

now her mistake was the use of the word Morals. after that she argued about christian LAW.

remember, she even mentioned NOT FORCED-CHRISTIANITY, so no prohibitation of other religions.

now this can be argued, for she is now thinking that morals are the same as LAWS. and they are not.

however instead of arguing this point, everyone hopped on the Christian bashing wagon and got thrown off course.

God forbade Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge but the ultimate choice was theirs. Christian MORALS have nothing to do with passing of man's laws, but how one lives their life.

Are you seriously going to make me quote the whole thread. We did not immediately jump on Christians. I'm a Christian. We jumped on the idea of outlawing what she considers to be sin.

here it is. you are not arguing the law you submitted, infact you have infact broken your own law by forcing Christianity on others, being directly contrary to your law.



Well, they tricked me by making me go off into a tangent :mad:

You have read the entire thread, yeah? And again, if included in those 'morals' is a limitation on personal freedoms then I would combat such things. People pretty much left NR alone until Blu-Tac started up and NR got involved with supporting slavery and denying people freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc.
and most of what she argued are LAWS. not morals. but no one dinged her on that.

Well, they tricked me by making me go off into a tangent :mad:it was also your fault for getting off tangent.

and no Jocabia, I did not mean to say you all immediatly did so, but it did happen. I blame the heat of the arguments more than anything else. when a debate gets emotional (easy when it's something personal like faith, and ideals) it does tend to wander untill who know where it ends up.

that's why I left the thread for a while... to cool off.

1. 2 Peter 2 pretty much implies that false teachers are despicable and worthy of death. Doesn't seem like he would advocate their tolerance in this case.


2. Fair enough

3. It says state the truth, which implies that it doesn't want people to state deceptive things, like you're doing.

4. 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.


The Word of God is to be used to reveal the truth and expose the heretics for who they really are. Are we to shirk from our duty of revealing the sinners and stopping them from fulfilling their nefarious aims?

5. Revelation 3 is applicable to everyone, Proverbs reinforces the notion of chastising those who go astray as well.

6. Not really, my law is only applicable to those who refuses to repent and seek forgiveness.

7. What if I were a man and an elder? Your point would collapse, and, once again, the Bible in many other places reinforces the notion of rebuke and admonishment.

8. See above.

I still await your "logical smack-down."

1. It 'pretty much implies' no such thing. More deception. This clearly states the Lord with deal with these indescretions. You tried to take it out of context and got caught. Accept it.

2 Petere 2:4-6 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

3. I'm deceptive? Post one single one of these scriptures and show how I misrepresented them. I've clearly shown how you've misrepresented them. Much like this one. You claimed it supported your law and your judgement, but it does not. It speaks not of law or judgement in any way.

4. It says God sees all and knows all truth. It says we will all be judged. It says that Jesus knows us and understands us, but not in part you posted. You left part of the context out again. In context, this is about us and how we will be judged by Jesus. What's that? That's the sound of your credibility snapping.

14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,[e] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

5. That's completely false and you know it. In context it is specifically talking about how church elders should be treated DIFFERENTLY. It DOES NOT support your point.

6. So you're changing it now. Before you said it applies to those who don't agree to never do it again. According to your own verses, we are to continually forgive them no matter how many times they commit the sin.

7 & 8 You are not an elder and are, in fact, a babe in the faith. No 19-year-old would have been considered a church elder in any Christian church ever. I'll ignore the thing about being a man as I didn't bring it up, you did. Even if you were, these passages are talking about the interaction of people of the Church. No one here is a member of your church.

NEXT!

and most of what she argued are LAWS. not morals. but no one dinged her on that.

We dinged her on all of it. She suggested that Christianity supports her claims which has clearly been disputed. Moreso, we have addressed every individual law that has been suggested that would limit rights or freedoms. What posts in this thread have been ignored? I'd be happy to address them now.

The Zero Tolerance Law ban, that means for schools, the student who was under attack can be placed under justifiable assualt (meaning that the attack was non criminal.)

The Zero Tolerance Law ban, that means for schools, the student who was under attack can be placed under justifiable assualt (meaning that the attack was non criminal.)
??? clarification please...
you are infact calling for a retraction of the "Zero Tolerance Law" right?

Abolish War.

Abolish War.
Them's fightin' words!

Abolish War.
"And after this law was passed, no war was ever fought again."

However the increase in "Police Actions," "Skirmishes" and "External Conflicts" were noticable. :D
Edit: forgot my smiley to show I'm just poking fun... not starting a debate.

Abolish all income and medicare/socsec taxes in this country and replace it with a consumption tax.

I would pass a law making it obligatory that whoever plants the trees, plants, etc in the yard has to mow the grass.

??? clarification please...
you are infact calling for a retraction of the "Zero Tolerance Law" right?

Generally yes, and also to stop being so militant on violence terms and words.

I would pass a law making it obligatory that whoever plants the trees, plants, etc in the yard has to mow the grass.



Never! We, as women, have the right to plant trees while forcing you guys to mow the lawns for us :p

Let's say that all the governments of the world teamed up and allowed you to make one law that would be recognized and upholded globally. What would it be?

All students in schools, whether public or private, shall, in addition to existing graduation requirements, be required to take and pass rigorous instruction in philosophy as taught by qualified instructors.

Assuming people paid attention in that class, that would take care of most of the problems today. Plus it would provide some demand for philosophy majors.

Never! We, as women, have the right to plant trees while forcing you guys to mow the lawns for us :p
trees nuthing... bushes... thats what I wanna pl... <.< >.>



nevermind

The Law of Incorrectness: From henceforth, the Political Correctness of a matter will no longer be enforced by any means. It is not the federal government's job to determain how "correct" something is. Anything found offensive will be left for personal dispute between the opposing sides.

Example: A group of Native Americans find national athletic teams names pertaining to their tribes offensive. The Bureau of Incorrectness(BoI) will calmly and warmly say: "Your ancestors should have fought harder."

Example2: A young couple of catholic creed sit down and watch a comedy that pokes fun at priests. Now offended the couple demand that their church take action. The BOI will step in and point out that had their priests NOT slammed little boys on a regular basis then there would be nothing to laugh at. Aside from the many flaws in religion which will be left for the STFUAR (Shut the Fudge Up About Religion). An agency set up to keep church and state VERY seperate.

See how much fun being Politically INcorrect can be!

Once every year, , all registered voters must appear for nationwide Right-vs-Left rumble. Winner gets to set agenda for the year. Survival of the fittest!

Mandatory gun ownership

I'd just like to see what would happen.

That no victimless activities shall be criminalized, taxed, or otherwise discouraged by a governmental agency.

That no victimless activities shall be criminalized, taxed, or otherwise discouraged by a governmental agency.

You just abolished taxes.

That no victimless activities shall be criminalized, taxed, or otherwise discouraged by a governmental agency.


Beat me to it sort of. I'd edit a bit:
No acts between consenting adults shall be criminalized, prefferentially taxed, or otherwise discouraged.

As we know politicians love to find loopholes especially in rights. Someone who comes out on the losing side of a consentual transaction could claim to be a victim. And preferentially taxed still leaves a sourse of governmental revenue. Libertarian waco that I am I still don't think private companies will be any good at building roads or levvying troops....

Neo Rogolia, I'm just going to say it's a damned shame I don't know you in real life. Catholic school girl types such as yourself are among the most fun hunts in the world. In a world where its easy to get want you want from virtually any girl (even the "But I want to get to know you better!" types crumble in the face of my extreme manlyness ;)) without having to force a thing, the "incorruptable" and "untemptable" and perfectly "innocent" daughters of religious fundementalism present a whole new challenge.

Truth be told, I find reading your posts reminds me of this girl I went on and off with a few years ago, which further reminds me why I like the extreme religious type: from the moment you crack their shell of virginal purity (sexual puns aside), they've got a ragin hornball underneath.

I'll leave you with this thought:

Back when the Bible was written, there really weren't any forms of reliable birth control and STD prevention, thus it was actually quite intelligent to stay celibate until marriage, which fits with a lot of other Biblical laws (in that they tended to try and protect someone from natural dangers like disease). However, these days, a faith-fully followed schedule of the pill and a well-placed condom prevents both. Sex feels very, very good. Why miss out on it?

The Law of Incorrectness: From henceforth, the Political Correctness of a matter will no longer be enforced by any means. It is not the federal government's job to determain how "correct" something is. Anything found offensive will be left for personal dispute between the opposing sides.

Example: A group of Native Americans find national athletic teams names pertaining to their tribes offensive. The Bureau of Incorrectness(BoI) will calmly and warmly say: "Your ancestors should have fought harder."

Example2: A young couple of catholic creed sit down and watch a comedy that pokes fun at priests. Now offended the couple demand that their church take action. The BOI will step in and point out that had their priests NOT slammed little boys on a regular basis then there would be nothing to laugh at. Aside from the many flaws in religion which will be left for the STFUAR (Shut the Fudge Up About Religion). An agency set up to keep church and state VERY seperate.

See how much fun being Politically INcorrect can be!

I'm going to say this once and once only:

I fucking love you. This is an amazing idea for a law and would fully support you passing it.

As to my law:

Any woman who passes a visual hottness test, administered by either me or another judge approved by me, is required to be naked at all times in which it would not be greatly detrimental to her health. All women must take such a test at least once every five years.

Sir, I salute you.

If that is only one law, then it would be difficult to decide between selfish law (each country pays billion $ to me) and law that is beneficial for all humanity.

I think that at the end I would go for second choice and ban all religions, all religious practices. Details include:
- making appropriate references in history books about religion as it is gone.
- destroy all sacred texts (bibles, corans) in personal possession.
- destroy these stupid churches and build smth useful instead (office building or shopping mall).


Then I could die happily

My law would contain three provisions

1. The game/sport of Golf is hereby made illegal.

2. All dead bodies, both of those yet to die and those already dead, are to be thrown into the sea to be recycled by nature.

3. All golf courses and cemetaries are to be converted into other uses, including national parks, housing, shopping centers, hospitals/clinics, police stations, dining establishements, military bases...and anything else anyone can come up with except golf courses or cemetaries.

In case you can't tell, I think golf courses and cemetaries are giant fucking wastes of space!

EDIT: Oh...and where's my trained helper monkey? :p

That all these other laws would be outlawed. Ha!

i would bring back public floggings/executions