You are not logged in.
Any suggestion how you would like to prohibit same-sex marriages? A number of states have made them legal, and currently there is a suit from a couple, legally married in their state, but denied federal benefits of SS, pensions, health coverage for spouse, and inheritance rights. Is this the equality for which Americans have fought wars? Do we have inequality of marriage benefits? Should we deny citizens' benefits based on their personal choice of marriage partner?
As for buying stock in the companies who sell liquor, as there are so many conglomerates today, it is quite difficult to know all the products that may be produced under one corporate name; Sara Lee is an example--from food to underwear.
Offline
Old Abe, you keep asserting that alcohol is an unmitigated evil, but while I agree that alcoholISM is a huge problem, it's not the same thing.
Did Jesus do evil when he turned water into wine?
Many people in America are dangerously obese, and damage their health by overeating. It doesn't follow that food itself is a problem, or that buying and selling it is bad.
Do you believe that everything that is morally wrong should be illegal?
Offline
Yitzak
The only reason anything should be illegal is that it is morally wrong.Abuse of children should be illegal because it is morally wrong,drinking alcohol should be illegal because it is morally wrong.
I question whether Jesus actually turned water into wine.We have no idea whether this happened or not. The writers of the gospels wrote long after the event and the writings were subjected to revison and possibly inaccurate copying.As our example Jesus would have been out of character to contribute to public drunkedness.
Offline
I actually agree that ONLY things that are immoral should be illegal. But that's not the same as "EVERY thing that is immoral should be illegal," which seems to be your position. But i could be misunderstanding.
Should divorce be illegal? Should coveting be illegal? Should looking at a woman (or man) with lust in one's heart be illegal? what about calling someone a fool? Where in the bible does it say that public drunkenness, let alone public drinking, is immoral?
I guess, I think of a broad class of behaviors that are immoral. Some of them harm other people directly, but many don't- they are sins against the self, or private sins, or sins against God. I think there should be a high threshold for making laws, because as a rule, free will is important to God. So, laws should exist to protect freedom, and the only laws that should exist would be the ones that prevent me/you from infringing on other people's freedom. So- murder would be illegal because it impinges on the freedom of another, similarly theft, kidnapping, and the like. But acts that are private or unknowable- well, I don't think they should be, because people should be free to obey God or not obey God. That's what I believe. I sense that you disagree, which is fine, But I am trying to understand your position.
I would also be concerned about any human institution which would purport to perfectly understand and interpret the will of God. Do you have perfect knowledge of God's understanding of morality? Does Barack Obama? Stephen Harper? your local Adventist pastor? The Pope? Who would you trust to enforce God's will without allowing their own prejudices and tastes to intervene? what human has such perfect knowledge?
Last edited by Yitzak (11-09-10 11:04 pm)
Offline
Yitzak
I think were the problem lies is the concept that what is moral or not depends on whether some God/god says it is so.Or rather some human purporting to speak for God/god says it is so.
an act or idea is moral or immoral because it is inately so. Thus the alledged command for the Israelites to slaughter children is morally wrong no matter who commanded it.
Should divorce be illegal .If the situation is immoral quite so.Morality must also reflect time and place.
Freedom of choice is an illusion.None of us have freedom of choice in that we had no say in whether or not we had or have existance.Even A&E had no choice in whether or not they would have being.Their form ,shape size etc was arbitarily decided by other/s.
We as indivuals have no say in what our genetic makeup is even though it has a bearing on what we are and do or not do.
Offline
OldAbe, I have to admit that I am not much clearer on what you think.
I agree that an act is moral or immoral if it is de facto immoral and it doesn't depend on whether God says so or not. As a Christian, however, I believe that God KNOWS what is moral or not, and in general lets us know.
But this doesn't provide much guidance for what laws should be.
Divorce might or might not be immoral depending on the circumstances. So, with other behavior. Under what circumstances should it be illegal, or should the law just say "it depends"?
And, while its easy to say that laws should reflect this innate or de facto morality, in any society, the enforcement of any law is going to depend on the decisions of human beings.
I don't entirely agree with you about freedom of choice, but your position on that doesn't strike me as very supportive of your position that morality and legality should completely overlap. Why punish people for things that are not in their control?
That, combined with your view that the bible is inaccurate or mistranslated when it comes to (say) alcohol use is very similar to others' views that the bible is inaccurate when it comes to homosexual behavior. Or a a variety of other things.
I am still not clear on who should be the person who interprets/decides whcih morality gets codified into law and enforced.
Offline
Connotations of words change over time. Currently, "morals" can mean those private acts often affecting only one or two people. Ethics relates to our interaction with others.
Also, our personal morals may be acceptable only to ourselves and cannot be extended to others: I may think it immoral to drink alcohol, while I cannot consider others immoral for doing the same. Ethically, I also cannot impose my judgment of another's private moral behavior.
One may choose certain behavior for religious reasons as either moral or immoral, but those should not be made laws for others.
If we consider morality in terms of human and animal well-being, we will not do anything to cause pain or harm in any way possible. How do behaviors affect the well-being of conscious creatures like ourselves? Has anything superior to the Golden Rule been written? If we treat others as we wish to be treated, would we make rules or laws prohibiting others' private lives?
Would we condemn those who practice their religion differently (barring human and animal sacrifice which DO harm others).
While the Ten Commandments were given to a specific people at a specific time, they could not, nor were ever intended to apply to all peoples at all times, as they were given in a theocratic government. No one today would wish to be told by the government when and whom to worship. The civil laws were not only introduced in the Ten, but long predated them and all cultures considered murder, stealing and lying to be wrong.
There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits strong drink--only drunkenness--and while a limited few do use alcohol in excess, in the Hebrew Bible it is one use of the tithe that cannot be taken to the "storehouse" to be used in celebration. Beer and wine have been produced since before written history. Which is why public drunkeneness and DUI is a violation of civil law. It is not the drinking, but drunkenness that is against the law.
There is already a proliferation of laws, and with the new Congress we will undoubtedly see more. But please, hands off our private behavior.
Offline
Elaine
When we tolerate sin and immorality either by publicly voicing approval or keeping silent then we become partakers in that immoral act just as though we did it ourselves.
We need to stand for righteous behaviour both in ourselves and also in others.While depravity will likely increase anyway we should neither tolerate support nor approve such action whether or not it is between consenting adults.
The consenting act between the Israelite and the Moabite women lead to both their deaths .It was their executioner that the Bible commends not those who choose to ignore it.
Offline
But Old Abe, others with different ideas about what sin and immortality are will also make their decisions. Why would your ideas have precedence over theirs?
There are certain things in the bible that you don't believe reflect true morality. Others look at the bible and say 'the condemnation of homosexuality was added, it's not in the original" or what-have-you. Given that you don't believe that the bible is the ultimate arbiter of what is right or wrong, how do you know that your understanding of morality (alcohol and homosexuality are evil) is true and others' (both are okay) is incorrect?
Other than your own subjective feelings and impressions, what is your source for determining what is right or wrong? and how do you deal with others who have different subjective feelings and impressions?
Do you have any way of proving to someone else that your views are correct, unless they already agree with you?
Offline
Yitzak
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.One need only look at the end result of a given action or behaviour to see whether it is right or wrong.
Lets take alcohol.All around us we see wasted broken lives caused from drink.And all to often it is the innocent sober ones who pay the price. What little benefit or pleasure a moderate drinker might enjoy is offset entirely by the hurt and havoc of alcohol.
As far as homosexuality is concern it is not normal because the normal drive of all living creatures is to procreate.With homosexuality the sex act becomes the end not the means to an end.That attitude gradually premeates through society as a whole to its ultimate destruction.
Moral and immoral ,right and wrong are not abstract or subjective.They are innate natural and instinctive.
Offline
Old Abe, I agree that overdrinking has produced a great deal of misery.
As for the normal drive of all living creatures to procreate- well, what of those that don't marry or procreate, even if they are heterosexual? Are they equally depraved? Furthermore, given that overpopulation of the earth is a huge problem these days, perhaps homosexuality is simply God's way of limiting the damage to the earth caused by too many people producing too many people.
But you have made two different arguments. For alcohol, you focused on the outcomes. For homosexuality, there's not inherently bad outcome that you pointed to, so you went with your idea about the normal drive of all creatures to procreate. In fact, in many groups of animals, most of the animals don't procreate at all. Look at worker bees- they do not reproduce at all- they exist to allow someone else to reproduce and to take care of the next generation, not to produce it themselves. There are a variety of other eusocial creatures with similar arrangements- reproductive division of labor, with only certain members of the species reproducing and the rest being there to take care of the group.
It's not limited to insects- some mole rat species have similar arrangments.
So, I dont know that it's as instinctive and natural that procreation is the be-all and end-all. I'd argue that far more evil work goes into reproduction than into lack of reproduction, as the child welfare rolls of any state will easily demonstrate.
Offline
Any laws made in an attempt to curtail or criminalize human behaviors is doomed to failure.
Prostitution is rightfully called the world's "oldest profession" and the Bible documents that it was found during those times, and certainly long before then.
Drinking, and often drunkeness was very common. Remember Lot and Noah?
The prisons are now overflowing, and call for more funds regularly. If such acts were criminalized, what would the results be? Would it cure those problems?
Should sex between consenting adults, whether hetero, or homo be criminalized?
No one need be bothered with other's behavior unless and until it causes you specific harm that would be recognized by a court. Otherwise, it's playing Don Quixote.
Offline
So Elaine are you saying that God's attempt to proscribe certain personal human behaviour was doomed to failure.Because that is were it begins.
And no prostitution was not the oldest profession it was the second oldest . The oldest was religion or those pretending to speak for God or to get between God and man.
Then came prostitution and right behind them were the lawyers. Used car salesmen came along quite awhile later.
Wrong is wrong in and of itself as is right.It was so long before there were codified laws etc.
Offline
Old Abe, I don't think anyone disagrees that wrong is wrong in and of itself, and certain things are self-evidently wrong.
But the quesiton is whether every wrong act should be criminalized.
What should be the penalty for namecalling? For being verbally abusive to family members?
Elaine was saying that human laws designed to curtail behavior are doomed to failure if they attempt to curtail very common behaviors. God of course, operates by different rules than human beings do, in terms of capabiliies.
Every human attempt to perfectly recreate God's law in civil laws has been a real disaster. Including but not limited to the rule of the Roman Catholic church during the dark ages, the puritans in new england.
I guess I don't see what the harm is in having only the laws required to give people freedom to choose to find or reject God on their own.
Last edited by Yitzak (11-13-10 5:40 pm)
Offline
While you may be correct in saying not every sinful or wrong thing should be criminalized neither should laws enable wrong or sinful acts.
For example torture is morally wrong.Our laws should not enable or approve torture.Alcohol consumption is morally wrong ;laws should not enable alcohol production. The use of land mines is morally wrong especially where they may potentially harm children or non combatants laws should not enable their production. Divorce and homosexuality and abortion is morally wrong, our laws should not enable such behavoir.
The torture and killing of animals for sport is morally wrong our laws should not enable bull fighting cock fighting or hunting.
As I said elsewhere when one approves or endorses wrong or sinful behaviour one becomes a partaker in the sin itself.
Offline
There is a world of difference between causing harm to others, as in torture, animal or cock fighting and hunting. Those are, or should be illegal. Of course, land mines are harmful and it is a disgrace that the U.S. is almost alone in refusing to condemn their use--because they manufacture them?
Drinking alcohol IN ITSELF harms no one in moderation; in fact there is overwhelming scientific studies that show in moderate amounts (depending on body weight, etc.) is beneficial. Alcohol is also state controlled by licensing and refusing sale to minors. During prohibition, it became more widely used, and was a huge industry (JFK's father made his fortune on booze during prohibition).
Excess of even good things can be harmful: fat, sugar, salt, etc., but should not be made illegal. Even cigarettes which is undisputably harmful, should not be made illegal (except for minors) as it would only produce a huge blackmarket, plus the loss of sales taxes. Some have said, facetiously, that smokers die younger thus removing them from SS payments!
Offline
Elaine
By restricting alcohol and cigarettes to minors you are sending the wrong message and almost guarenteering that they use them.
Young people like to be seen as adults.If sex booze and smokes are adults only stuff then young folks will use them to prove they are grown up.
Wrong is wrong don't matter how old you are.
Offline
Old Abe, I never said that cigarettes and booze should be sold to minors. Do you seriously think that prohibiting sales would change their behavior?
There may be some truth in that because many Europeans regularly serve wine with meals and for the young people it is not seen as a right of passage into adulthood, but a regular part of meals.
"Wrong" is different than "illegal." It is considered wrong to have sex until marriage, but does anyone believe that making it illegal will change human behavior. The church takes the prerogative of defining sin, not the government. The laws in Iraq and Middle Eastern countries not only say it is wrong for a female to be seen or talk with a non-relative male, and it is breaking their laws. Should we have similar laws here? Would it be possible? I don't think so.
Offline